The Torah begins by stating that it will list the “generations” of Noach. Instead, it proceeds to relate that Noach was a righteous man. Are we discussing his offspring or his good deeds? Rashi cites the Midrash that infers from this pasuk that the primary generation, the principle legacy of a righteous person, is his good deeds. This is what he bequeaths to the next generation. Horav Moshe Feinstein, zl, remarks that offspring and good deeds should be analogous. No good deed should be viewed as inconsequential. The same love that one manifests toward his offspring should, likewise, be demonstrated…
Back to Home -> Noach ->
The Torah emphasizes “his generations.” This word stimulates various interpretations of Noach’s true level of virtue. Was he virtuous only because he lived in a generation that was synonymous with evil? Or would he have been considered much more righteous had he lived in a truly virtuous society? Regardless of the outcome of this dispute, we have to wonder. What is the basis for these two opinions? What aspect of Noach’s virtue provokes question? Horav Eliyahu Schlesinger, Shlita, applies a thought from Horav Meier Shapiro, zl, to respond to this question. The quest for peace is most compelling. Every single…
The image of the dove returning with an olive branch in its bill has become the symbol of peace. Chazal tell us that the dove does not eat the bitter olive leaf. He was sending a message using this gesture. “Better that my food be bitter, but from Hashem’s hand, than sweet as honey but dependent upon mortal man.” Horav S.R. Hirsch, zl, understands this message to mean that freedom overrides bitterness. The sweetest food eaten under duress, beholden to others, is no longer sweet, while the most bitter food eaten in freedom suddenly becomes sweet. In his commentary to…
Describing Avraham Avinu’s relationship with Hashem, the Torah states, “Walk before me and be wholehearted” (Bereishis 17:1) While Noach walked with Hashem, Avraham walked before Him. Noach needed the support of Hashem to maintain his moral strength, while Avraham , who was morally independent, functioned on a higher level. Noach was not successful in turning back the tide of destruction decreed for the people of his generation. This is enigmatic. Noach spent one hundred and twenty years building an ark. During that time he chastised the people. Indeed, throughout the Midrashim we learn that Noach constantly rebuked the people in…
The text seems to imply that these people were corrupt only in the eyes of Hashem. In the eyes of society, however, they apparently did no wrong. What type of people were they that they were paragons of virtue according to the rules of society, while they were iniquitous before Hashem? Horav David Feinstein, Shlita, cites Chazal in the Talmud Sanhedrin 57A who define “,ja,u”, corrupt, as referring to immorality and idolatry. These are sins that do not really hurt anybody. Does anyone suffer if a person chooses to bow down to idols? Who is hurt by the immoral activities…
In the Midrash, Chazal teach that “corruption” refers to idolatry. We may wonder why idolatry stands out as the primary sin of that generation. What is there about “chamas,” corruption, that infers idolatry? Horav Yaakov Kaminetzky, zl, responds by first defining the essence of idolatry. We are taught that if a certain city has decided to reject one ritual of the taryag, 613 mitzvos, regardless of the type of mitzvah, that city is declared an “Ir Hanidachas,” a city that went astray and is to be totally destroyed. Accordingly, asks Rav Yaakov, why should the fate of the generation of…
The Torah recounts the construction of two “structures” the Ark and the Mishkan. In a lecture to a group of students, Horav Yitzchak Hutner, zl, commented that these two structures can serve as metaphors to describe the disparity between Jewish education during pre-World War II Europe and its parallel in contemporary society. The Mishkan was an edifice dedicated to spiritual ascendancy. All the people who resided in proximity of the Mishkan were “spiritually correct.” They were not exposed to harmful environmental influences which were antithetical to their faith in Hashem and His Torah. Their commitment to the Almighty was not…
We have here before us a distinction between the two reactions among Noach’s sons, the reaction of Cham as opposed to that of his brothers, Shem and Yafes. Cham observes an indiscretion on the part of his father, and he immediately exploits it. Not only does Cham jest about his father’s failing, but he also goes out of his way to publicize it. He shows no filial respect whatsoever. His two brothers, on the other hand, throw the mantle of love over their father’s weakness; they turn their heads away, so even they would not view their father’s shame. We…
Regarding Avraham Avinu, the Torah states, “Walk before me.” Rashi distinguishes between Noach’s and Avraham’s spiritual plateaus. Avraham was strong enough to walk alone, whereas Noach needed the support of the Almighty. The Midrash presents a parable from which we can gain a better insight into understanding Noach’s spiritual essence. A father who walks with his little child, while the youngster is still unsteady and learning to walk, must lend his total support to prevent his son from falling. As the child grows older, he is weaned from his father’s support. Noach, ostensibly, did not have the spiritual stamina to…
The Torah begins the narrative discussing the sin of the Dor Haflagah, generation of the dispersion. Everyone assembled under the leadership of the evil Nimrod, self-proclaimed king of the world, to build a tower ascending to Heaven. From this vantage point they planned to wage war against the Almighty. It seems, therefore, superfluous to mention their comments of, “Let us make bricks.” Do the technicalities of the development of the tower carry any significance with regard to the sin? It is clear that Bavel/Iraq is — as Rashi notes — situated on a plain, where there are no stones available…