BUT GOD CAME DOWN

TO LOOK OVER THE CITY AND THE TOWER

THAT THE HUMANS WERE BUILDING.

(Bereishit

11:5)

One Language?

One Set of Words?

When

they expressed this intention ("and let us make ourselves a name")

God fully understood their intention and well knew that their end would be the

opposite of what they thought. On the contrary, there exists the possibility of

a unified nation. When? When a people is dispersed and scattered, with no one

having dealings with his fellow – then can it be one people. But should they

gather together in one place in order to escape from international conflicts,

they will then fall into an even greater war, one man's sword against his

fellow, because assembly of the wicked is bad for them, and because they said "Let

us make for ourselves a name", everyone will want to rule over his

fellow and be higher than him, for this is common among groups who do

everything for the sake self-aggrandizement, so therefore it is better to

disperse them and prevent them from this construction.

 (Kli Yakar on "Noach")

It

appears to me that this decree (to disperse the Generation of the Scattering)

was not a punishment, but rather a tremendous improvement on mankind's behalf.

The primary significance of the Tower of Babel narrative lies not in the

attempt to erect the tower, but in the preceding words: "All the earth"

– revived post Deluge mankind – "was of one language

and the same words." After the construction failure, many languages

evolved, and consequently, different 'words', different ideas. It seems to me

that the basis of the mistake, or sin, of the Generation of the Scattering, was

not in the building of the city and the tower, but in the movement to maintain,

via these artificial means, the situation of "one language and one set

of words" – of centralization, which we, in modern terms, call

totalitarianism.

 (From

"Remarks on the portion of the Week", Prof. Y. Leibowitz, pp.14-15)

Noah

– A Short Essay On Evil

Jonathan Shiftan

The portion of Noah is, at first

glance, one of the most familiar in the entire Bible. Practically every

children's book of Bible stories includes a colorful picture of the big boat

with two of every conceivable kind of animal bird and reptile waiting to board

the ship, or getting off it, with the rainbow in the background. Or, on a more

sophisticated level, there is scholarly discussion of the comparative origins

of the myth of the Great Flood in the Babylonian Epic of Gilgamesh; or, among

those who seek historical confirmation of the Flood story, there are

archeological remnants of a petrified ark somewhere in the Turkish mountains; or

even theories of cosmic catastrophes that upset the global climate, leading to

the great flood, such as those of Emanuel Welikovsky {Worlds

in Collision and other books). And indeed, the existence in a number of different

cultures of a legend of a cataclysmic flood strengthens the case for its

historicity.

But while all these may be

important, it seems to that they miss the point. To my mind, the focus here

lies in the perennial question of the Toldot Yaakov Yosef: what does

this teach us "for every person, in every place and every time"? In

other words, what message does this convey about the nature of the human being

and his situation in the world?

We are told that God was so angry with humankind that he

regretted creating them, and decided to destroy the entire race save one

isolated individual (and his family) – Noah, of whom we are told, rather

curiously, that he "found favor in the eyes of the Lord" (Gen 6:8). The

question that begs for an answer is: what was the nature of the evil for which

they were punished so?

One

finds a progression in the opening chapters of Genesis through four levels of

sin: Adam's avoidance of the Divine call "where are you?"(ayeka);

Cain's unwitting (?) manslaughter; the generation of the flood; and the hubris

of the tower of Babylon. What then was so uniquely terrible about the sin of

the generation of the flood to deserve total annihilation?

Martin Buber, in his classic

essay Good and Evil, speaks of two kinds of evil: the first is that bred

of confusion and misdirection, in which the individual, overwhelmed by the

myriad options and temptations offered by life, falls into a "whirlpool"

of non-focused actions and fulfillment of desires; an evil bred of failure to focus

his energies on the good. The second is a kind of radical evil, in which the

person "surrenders his soul to evil with his innermost being," basing

his entire life upon the attitude of the lie, upon malice and destruction of

other people. Evidently, the generation of the Flood belonged to this second

type.

The opening verses of the

chapter mention two reasons for the Flood: "the world was filled with

violence (hamas)" and "all flesh had corrupted their way upon

the earth" (hishhit… darko al ha-aretz) (6:11-12). Rashi

comments that the former phrase refers to rampant theft, while the latter

alludes to sexual licentiousness and to idolatry. Genesis 6:1-4 relates that,

just before the Flood, "the sons of God" or "the Nefilim"

took women "from whomever they choose," combining sexual greed and

lawlessness with violence. Whomever these may have been – more powerful groups

of men within human society, descendants of mythic giants, or "fallen

angels" – the nature of their sin is clear: the violent seizing of women

by the stronger men, leaving the weak –  their fathers or rightful husbands – standing

helplessly by. More broadly, their sin involved the

complete rejection of all natural morality: a combination of violence against

property with sexual hedonism. Perhaps

the Torah is telling us that, unlike today's

hedone as such is ultimately linked to violence as well.

A close reading of Rashi's comment here – that hashahat derekh is equated with sexual

licentiousness and paganism – implies that there is a derekh, a

well-known, proper way, in the areas of both sexuality and in that of the

worship of God. We may infer from this a notion of Natural Law: the idea that

man, from the Creation, is granted innate intuitive knowledge of right and

wrong in these two areas. Evidently, as we may learn from Parshat

Bereshit, The path of monogamy is seen as the native, natural condition of

the human race – primitive marriage consisting in a man and a woman making a

covenant between them. Likewise

seen as part of hashahat

of all kinds run riot.

Equally interesting is the

concept of a "path" in the worship and knowledge of God. Maimonides,

in the first chapter of Hilkhot Avodah Zarah, propounds the theory that

man is inherently monotheistic. Adam knew God. It was only after Enosh that men

began to stray. Interestingly, the "error" described by him has an

almost Hegelian dialectic: the good carrying within itself the seeds of its own

antithesis. Knowledge of God contains the seeds of its opposite: through their

wish to honor God, men accorded honor to his celestial creations; then built

idols to represent them; then began to worship them; and ultimately forgot why

they did it in the first place.

This idea is significant,

because contemporary rationalism, the heir of the Enlightenment culture that

has shaped the course of the "high culture" of the latter half of the

millenium now ending, assumes man to be naturally atheistic. Religion is seen

either as: the product of fears, a projection onto the cosmos of parental

figures (Freud); a tool of economic domination (Marx); a reification of society

(Durkheim); or primitive attempts at explaining an unknown, mysterious world,

long superceded by philosophy and science.

The above mentioned passage,

by contrast, suggests the idea of an innate, natural religious and ethical

sense within mankind. True, the relation of this idea to the concept of the

seven Noachide commandments is a knotty and difficult question in its own

right. Many invoke Rambam's remark in Hilkhot Melakhim 8:11, that a Noachide

must perform those commandments applicable to him because he believes them to

have been commanded by God in the Torah, via Moses, but if he performs them as

the result of reason – i.e., because he discovers them to be self-evident,

innate ethical principles – then he is "neither among the pious of the

nations, nor one of their sages." However, the late Rabbi Joseph Kapah,

noted Maimonidean scholar and translator, in his critical edition of the Yad,

cites an alternatuve reading of that passage, based upon early manuscripts. The

proper reading, he asserts, is not "and not of their sages" (ve-lo

mehakhmeihem) but rather "but one of their sages" (ela me-hakhmeihem).

A single letter changes the meaning entirely! (See on

this Eugene Korn, "Gentiles, The World to Come and Judaism: The Odyssey of

a Rabbinic Text," Modern Judaism (1994).)

Indeed, Rav J. B.

Soloveitchik, in his major essay on the nature of the religious experience, "Uvikashtem

misham" ("And You Shall Seek from There"), develops a

phenomenology of what he describes as the "natural experience" and

the "revelational experience." (Ha-Darom 47 (1978/79), pp. 1-83; reprinted

in Ish Hahalakha ba-galuy uva-Nistar.) The former is based upon a combination of innate

intuitions within the human soul and man's reaction to the grandeur and mystery

of nature. The latter manifests itself, most outstandingly, in the Jewish

encounter with God at Sinai, the revelation of the Torah, and the historical

experience of the covenantal community created as a result.

Admittedly, the Rav places

greater emphasis in this essay upon the latter, which he sees, if not as more

authentic, as leading man to a higher level of objective encounter with the

divine, as well as providing the basis for a stable, more lasting religious

commitment. However, he too, in speaking of "Adam the Second" (in Lonely

Man of Faith), likewise speaks of the ­religious quest, of the asking of

existential questions, as based upon an innate aspect of human nature. Indeed,

Medieval Jewish theology constantly speaks of Creation as a central theological

category. Thus, Ramban's Torah Commentary, Sefer ha-Hinukh, etc.,

speak of such mitzvot as Shabbat, Pesah, etc., as intended to inculcate the

doctrine of Creation; in other words, the truth that this is a created world is

one of the basic sources of religious knowledge.

Too often, there is a problem within the Orthodox

community of an overemphasis upon the aspect of "revelation" – the

call for a faith that transcends reason, the Jewish counterpart of "Credo

que absurdum est," emunat hakhamim, of almost rejoicing in the "oddball"

effect of certain halakhot – as if to accentuate the difference between oneself

and the non-observant, rather than seeing religious faith as first and foremost

a natural faculty of the human being as such.

Attachment

to the Soil Profanes

"Now

Noah was the first

man of the soil", because he became

attached to the soil, he became profane. (Ha-Darom 47 (1978/79), pp. 1-83; reprinted

in Ish Hahalakha ba-galuy uva-Nistar.) In the beginning, he was a

righteous, wholehearted man; now he is a man of the soil.

 (Tanchuma,

Bereishit 13)

The

Raven Also Has Rights

The

dog that used to protect Hevel's sheep, guarded over his corpse against all

beasts of the field, from all birds of the skies, and Adam and his helper sat

and wept and mourned over him, and they knew not what to do, for burial was not

customary. A raven,

whose

companion had died, said: I will teach this man what to do. What did he do? He

took his companion and dug in the earth, covered his eyes, and buried him. Said

man: I shall do as did this raven. He took Hevel's corpse, dug in the earth,

and buried it, and the Holy One, Blessed Be He, rewarded the ravens generously

in this world. What was their reward? They give birth to white offspring, and

they flee from them, thinking them to be offspring of serpents. Then The Holy

One, Blessed Be He, brings mosquitoes and provides their nourishment and they

eat: "Who provides food for the raven". Yet more, they

cry out for rain on the earth and The Holy One, Blessed Be He, hears their

voice and sends rain upon the face of the earth, as is written: "He

gives bread to the beasts, to the raven which cries out."

 (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer, Chap 21)

One

Must Behave Honestly Towards Gentiles Too

Rabbi

Shim'on ben Shatach purchased a donkey from an Ishmaelite. His disciples

discovered a precious stone hanging from its neck. Said the disciples to him:

Rebbi, "God's blessing makes one wealthy" (Proverbs

10:22). He replied: "I bought a donkey; I did not buy a

precious stone". He went and returned it to the Ishmaelite. The Ishmaelite

exclaimed: "Blessed be God, Lord of Shim'on ben Shatach."                                                                                                    

 (Devarim Rabba

3:3)

"In

the Image of God He Created the Human"

This

form [tselem] in which man was created contains all the fields of

knowledge, for with it all of them can be attained, and in this we, community

of Israel, were made partners with all the other nations.                                       

 (R' Yosef Yaavetz, quoted in Torah Shelema:

R' Menachem Kasher.)

…

This is to say that the intelligence, or – in modern philosophical style –  the understanding, is the lot of all the human

race, and in this tselem all members of the human race are equal, Israel

having no advantage in this respect over the other nations. The image of God in

man does not define the individual with respect to his essence and his

attributes; it tells us about man's significance as a creature of

understanding, and about the responsibility imposed upon him and which he

cannot avoid, and about man's decision to act according to his will – whether

positively or negatively, as Tzaddik, wicked man, Jew, or gentiles, all

created in the image of God.

From

the sidrot of "Bereishit" and "Noach"

we learn that man – created in the image of God – can be Cain, murderer of

his brother, Enosh who worshiped idolatrously, a man of the Generation of the

Deluge living on corruption and destruction, or one of those builders of the

city and the tower; but in those very same early generations, the image of God

could also be realized in the persons of Noach, the blameless tzaddik, of

Shem and Yafet who had the sense to cover their father's nakedness while

looking away, and – in the twentieth generation – in the person of our father

Avraham, the Hebrew who struggled with Nimrod.

 (Y. Leibowitz, Seven Years of Discussion of

the Weekly Portion, p.38)

Editorial Board: Pinchas Leiser

(Editor), Miriam

Fine (Coordinator), Itzhak

Frankenthal and Dr. Menachem Klein

Translation: Kadish Goldberg

This weekly publication was made possible by

private donors

If you enjoy Shabbat Shalom, please consider

contributing towards its publication and distribution.

• Hebrew

  edition distributed in Israel $1000

• English

  edition distributed via email $ 100

Issues may be dedicated in honor of an event,

person, simcha, etc. Requests must be made 3-4 weeks in advance to appear in the

Hebrew, 10 days in advance to appear in the English email.

Tax exempt contributions to Oz VeShalom may be made

through the New Israel Fund or PEF.

Contributions should be marked as donor-advised to

OzVeShalom/Netivot Shalom, Shabbat Shalom project.

PLEASE NOTE THAT THE NEW ISRAEL FUND IS NO LONGER

ACCEPTING DONATIONS UNDER $50. FOR DONATIONS BETWEEN $50 AND $999 THEY ARE

CHARGING A $50 SERVICE CHARGE. DONATIONS ABOVE $1000 ARE CHARGED A 5% FEE.

New Israel Fund, POB 91588, Washington, DC

20090-1588, USA

New Israel Fund of Great Britain, 26 Enford Street,

London W1H 2DD, Great Britain

PEF will also channel donations and provide a

tax-exemptions. Donations should be sent to P.E.F. Israel Endowment

Funds, Inc., 317 Madison Ave., Suite 607, New York, New York 10017 USA

About us:

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom is a movement dedicated

to the advancement of a civil society in Israel. It is committed to promoting

the ideals of tolerance, pluralism, and justice, concepts which have always

been central to Jewish tradition and law.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom shares a deep attachment

to the land of Israel and it no less views peace as a central religious value.

It believes that Jews have both the religious and the national obligation to

support the pursuit of peace. It maintains that Jewish law clearly requires us

to create a fair and just society, and that co-existence between Jews and Arabs

is not an option but an imperative.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's programs include both

educational and protest activities. Seminars, lectures, workshops, conferences

and weekend programs are held for students, educators and families, as well as

joint seminars for Jews, Israeli Arabs and Palestinians. Protest activities

focus on issues of human rights, co-existence between Jews and Arabs, and

responses to issues of particular religious relevance.

9,000 copies of a 4 page peace oriented commentary

on the weekly Torah reading are written and published by Oz VeShalom/Netivot

Shalom and they are distributed to over 350 synagogues in Israel and are sent

overseas via email. Our web site is www.netivot-shalom.org.il

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom's educational forums

draw people of different backgrounds, secular and religious, who are keen to

deepen their Jewish knowledge and to hear an alternative religious standpoint

on the subjects of peace and social issues.

Oz Veshalom-Netivot Shalom fills an ideological

vacuum in Israel's society. Committed both to Jewish tradition and observance,

and to the furthering of peace and coexistence, the movement is in a unique

position to engage in dialogue with the secular left and the religious right,

with Israeli Arabs and with Palestinians.