From: Netvort@aol.com
Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 1:51
AM
To: JoshHoff@aol.com
Subject: Netvort : parshas Noach,
5765
Storm
Warning
By
Rabbi Joshua (precipitously known as The Hoffer) Hoffman
In honor of
my niece,Yonina Hefter, and her choson, Nissan Heifetz, on the occasion of their
marriage, which took place this Wednesday evening, the 29th of Tishrei, in
Yerusholayim.
We have noted in the past (see Netvort, parshas Noach,
5759) that there are conflicting midrashim in regard to Noach's approach to the
sinful people of his generation. According to some midrashim, he did not reprove
these people and call on them to end their evil ways. However, the Midrash
Rabbah to Noach (31:3), says that he did rebuke them, and sharply criticized
them for worshipping idols. Rabbi Shaul of Amsterdam, in his Binyan Ariel,
mentions these different midrashim, and tries to reconcile them by saying that
Noach should have reproved them for stealing, which was the sin which finally
brought about the flood. Although we explained, in that edition of Netvort, the
logic behind the Binyan Ariel's explanation, the Talmud tells us 'ein beis
hamidrash beli chidush,' meaning, loosely, that when one learns he finds new
explanations to old questions. Therefore, I would like to present a somewhat
different way of reconciling the different, seemingly disputing sources.
The Torah tells us that Noach and the various members
of his family entered the ark "because of the waters if the flood" (Bereishis
7:7). Rashi explains this wording as an indication that Noach was among those
who are small of faith, that he ' believed and didn't believe,' and
therefore he didn't enter the ark until the waters of the flood reached his feet
and almost forced him to enter. The super-commentators on Rashi are perplexed by
this statement. How could it be, they ask, that Noach, who was described by the
Torah as a complete tzadik - a completely righteous person - be described, now,
as someone who 'believed and did not believe?' Rabbi Ya'akov Yisroel Kanievsky,
known as the Steipler Gaon, explained, in his Birchas Peretz, that Noach
believed, intellectually, that the flood would come, but not emotionally.
Therefore, when it came to acting on his belief, he did not do so until he
actually saw the beginnings of the flood with his own eyes. While this
explanation explains the phrase, 'he believed and did not believe' used by
Rashi, it does not seem to provide us with a precise explanation of how Noach
was of those 'small of faith,' as Rashi puts it. I would like to suggest a
somewhat different explanation.
My teacher, Rav Aharon
Soloveichik, pointed out that the Hebrew word for "to believe,' leha'amin, is in
the causative. The idea being expressed here, he said, is that if someone has a
strong belief in something, he will be able to convince others of that belief,
as well. If he cannot convince others, that is an indication that his conviction
is not very strong. The rabbis tell us that during the one hundred and twenty
years that Noach was involved in building the ark in preparation for the flood,
people would ask him what he was doing. Noach would tell them that God was going
to bring a flood to punish them for their wicked deeds, and, therefore, they
should repent. However, even though he warned them of the coming storm for such
a long time, they did not repent, and the flood did come. Apparently, his appeal
to them was lacking sufficient conviction, and, therefore, he was not able to
move them to change. Perhaps, then, this is the meaning of Rashi's wording, that
Noach was 'small of faith,' namely, that his faith was not sufficiently strong
to convince others of the reality of the coming flood. The proof of this, as
Rashi discerns from the wording of the verse, is that Noach hadn't even
convinced himself that the flood was really going to come until he actually saw
it. Although he did believe to the extent that he built the ark, in accordance
with God's command, something was still missing in his conviction, so that, in
effect, he both 'believed and didn't believe.' We can thus reconcile the
different midrashim by saying that Noach did rebuke the people, but did not do
so with sufficient conviction to convince anyone, not even himself, of the
reality of situation.
In Netvort to parhsas Noach, 5759, we also noted
that Rav Kook read Rashi's comment a little differently from the way it is
usually read. Instead of reading it as saying that Noach was of the 'ketanei
emunah,' those small of faith,' he read the word as 'amanah,' meaning, 'those
lacking in continuation'. His approach to serving God, explained Rav Kook, was
not of the kind that could pass on that service to the next generation.
Following our explanation of Rashi, perhaps we can accept both readings. Noach's
deficiency of conviction was reflected in the fact that he was not able to
convince anyone in his generation, outside of his family, to improve his ways
and be saved from divine punishment. It was thus left to Avrohom, who the rabbis
describe as 'rosh hama'aminim,' or the chief believer, to become the person who
would spread belief in God among humanity in the generation after the flood, as
the Torah teaches us in next week's parsha.
Please address all correspondence to the
author (Rabbi Hoffman) with the following address - JoshHoff @ AOL.com.
To subscribe to Netvort, send a message with subject line
subscribe, to Netvort@aol.com. To unsubscribe, send message with
subject line unsubscribe, to the same address.