The Earth, the Flood and the Causes
INTRODUCTION TO
PARASHAT HASHAVUA
PARASHAT
NOACH
The Earth, the Flood,
and the Causes
By Rabbi Yaakov
Beasley
The events of our
parasha are almost universally known. Disappointed with the prevalent,
overwhelming sinful behavior of the earths inhabitants, Hashem decides to send a flood to
wipe them out. However, He wishes to leave one survivor, one family worthy of
becoming the building blocks of a new and better future. Unlike previous
generations, which did not communicate with Hashem until after they sinned, Hashem pre-emptively attempts to
involve Noach in the planning for the flood and the aftermath. Here is the
moment where Hashem describes
to Noach for the first time what He intends to do:
And God said to
Noach, "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth has become full
of robbery [chamas] because of them, and behold I am destroying them from
the earth [et ha-aretz]. Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood
(6:13)
Two difficulties
arise from this verse, one grammatical and one thematic. The grammatical
difficulty comes from the last four words, Ve-hineni mashchitam et
ha-aretz, literally, and behold I will destroy them the
land.
Several explanations
have been offered for this peculiar construction. Rashi offers the following
two:
Et
ha-aretz:
[This] is similar to min ha-aretz, from the earth. Similar
to this is, When I go the city (Shemot 9:26), [meaning]
from the city; He was stricken his feet (I Melakhim 15:23), [meaning]
from his feet [he suffered from a foot ailment]. [See also Bereishit 44:4; Devarim
14:22.]
Another explanation:
Et ha-aretz
means together with
the earth, for even the three handbreadths of the depth of the plowshare were
blotted out and obliterated.
Although Rashi
attempts to solve the problem by referring to other texts, we see that the
comparisons are tenuous at best. If et
ha-aretz means "from the
earth, like ke-tzeti et ha-ir (Shemot 9:29), "from the city,
the meaning would be, "I am destroying them off the face of the earth." But the
example of ke-tzeti et does not apply, because the preposition
et in Shemot refers to the verb, not the object, as in our case.
Additionally, we do not find that the Tanakh uses a combination of the
words le-hashkhit min ha-aretz ("to wipe out from the earth"). The
second explanation for et
ha-aretz, that the
land was wiped out and destroyed together with its inhabitants, does not fit the
context of the events.
A third approach that
others suggest is what the medieval Hebrew grammarians refer to as "drags
himself and another with him." This rule means that we must read the verse as if
the word mashchitam were doubled: "I am about to destroy them and to
destroy the land. (The words that are understood to be doubled are bolded).
Even though this circumvents the grammatical issue, there is still a difficulty
comparing "to destroy the earth" with "to destroy them." Who does "them" refer
to?
One modern approach
suggests that by drawing upon rules of grammar from ancient Hebrews cousin
language, Ugaritic, we can come to a clear interpretation.[1] In Ugaritic, the
ending letter mem is a suffix that is occasionally added for
reinforcement. If we consider the final mem of mashchitam as an
enclitic mem (added for emphasis) rather than as an accusative suffix
(i.e., destroy them), our verse becomes:
Ketz kol basar ba
lefanai, ki mal'a ha-aretz chamas mipnehem, ve-hineni mashhit [am] et
ha-aretz ...God said to Noach, I have decided to put an end to all flesh,
for the earth is filled with lawlessness because of them: I am about to
destroy the earth.
The meaning of et
ha-aretz is not "the earth" but rather "mankind, exactly as in the first
section of the verse: ki mal'a ha-aretz hamas and as in verses 11-12:
Va-tishachet ha-aretz lifnei ha-Elokim...va-yar Elokim et ha-aretz ve-hinei
nishchata. Ha-aretz is a metonym for kol basar, "all
flesh." Now our verse becomes much clearer. Hashems behavior is perfectly
midda ke-neged midda, "measure for measure." Since the land was
destroyed, nishchata in the ethical sense, by its inhabitants ("all
flesh"), the Lord will therefore destroy, yashchit in the physical sense,
the land, i.e. its inhabitants ("the end of all flesh"). According to R. Shimson
Rafael Hirsch, Hashems
decision only formalized a process that began with the corrupt behavior of the
people. Their immoral behavior was destroying the earth anyway. Hashem simply provided its formal
end:
The end
[keitz] means, If I do not intervene, it will already go completely to
ruin by itself; its end is already before me
The thriving of the species is
connected to the purity of the mating... Accordingly, when God said earlier,
Va-yar Elokim et ha-aretz ve-hinei nishchata, God saw that the land
that was destroyed, corrupted, automatically from their behavior. Had God not
intervened [when he did], even the spark of purity that could be saved with
Noach would have been irrevocably lost.
A close reading of
what Hashem told Noach,
however, notes that Hashem was
not entirely open regarding why the earth deserved destruction. Here is how the
beginning of the parasha describes what Hashem
saw:
Now the earth was
corrupt before God, and the earth became full of robbery.
(6:10)
Rashi (in verse 10)
notes that Hashem noted two
sins that were prevalent in the time of the flood sexual immorality and
robbery:
Was
corrupt: The
Hebrew va-tishachet is an expression of
immorality and idolatry. [Other editions add: immorality, for all flesh had
corrupted its way, and idolatry], as in Devarim (4:16): Lest you deal
corruptly. [Sanhedrin 56b, 57a]
And the earth became
full of robbery: The
Hebrew chamas
(forced) [implies] robbery. [Other editions add: as it is said (Yona 3:
8), And of the dishonest gain (ha-chamas) which is in their
hands.)
However, Rashi in
verse 13 notes that though the sin of sexual immorality determined the type of
punishment that Hashem would
send upon the world, it was only the sin of chamas that Hashem informs Noach about because it
was the sin that sealed the decree:
The end of all
flesh: Wherever you find
promiscuity (and idolatry), a pestilence comes upon the world and kills both
good and bad alike. [From Bereishit Rabba
26:5]
For the earth has
become full of robbery: Their verdict was
sealed only because of chamas (robbery). [From Sanhedrin
108a]
This emphasis on the
effects of chamas (robbery) in the
story led to a fruitful discussion among the commentators as to why this sin was
more destructive than others. The Seforno suggests that society had deteriorated
to such a degree that everyone was aware that the system was unjust and corrupt,
and this forced everyone to offer bribes and steal just to survive. By default,
everyone become corrupt and accepting of the corruption. The Maharal, in his
super-commentary on Rashi, Gur Aryeh, emphasized the corrosive effects of
chamas. If people who work hard and honestly are punished and those who
steal and live of the efforts of others remain above the law, then people will
lose all incentive to work and productivity will grind to a halt.
We will conclude by
focusing on the words of the Ramban:
Hashem only gave Noach the
reason of chamas (robbery), and not sexual corruption, because this sin
was known to all [as opposed to sexual immorality, which, although prevalent and
destructive, remained behind closed doors, and Noach was ostensibly unaware of
it]
Another reason why
chamas (robbery) was the reason for the bringing of the Flood was that it
is a mitzva muskelet a logical commandment that needs no prophet to
announce or describes its evil effects, as the results of robbery damage both
Heaven and our fellow men.
The Ramban suggests
that everyone agrees that robbery is inherently evil (by implication, unlike
sexual immorality whose damaging effects are not necessarily
apparent[2]). The Ramban used a
similar argument to indict Kayin after he murdered Hevel, even though Hashem did not proscribe murder
beforehand. As such, the failure of society to put an end to the problem was
enough to indict them for destruction.
[1] By Professor M. Zippor
of Bar Ilan. Further examples of the uses of the enclitic mem are available online at
http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/eng/noah/zip.html.
[2] For a full discussion of
whether or not sexual immortality is listed among the chukim
(commandments without logical reasons behind them) or mishpatim
(commandments whose logical reasons are apparent to all), see E. Samets article
at http://www.vbm-torah.org/parsha.60/29aharei.htm.