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.