Parshas Noach
1. On the verse "And He blotted out all existence… and only Noach remained…"[1], Rashi comments on the words "ach Noach" and explains: "Noach alone (levad Noach)."
As one learns this Rashi at first glance, it appears that Rashi is troubled here by the superfluousness of the word "ach": even had it said only "and Noach remained…," the intent of the verse would have been clear. Why then does it say "ach Noach"? To this Rashi answers, introducing a new meaning of ach: that the meaning of "ach" here is (not "rak," "only," as everywhere else, but) levad (alone)[2].
We must understand, however:
a) How is the superfluousness of the word "ach" resolved by the interpretation that "ach" means "levad"?
b) Since Rashi is explaining the word ach, he should have commented on that word alone and explained it as levad. Why does he cite the words "ach Noach," and also in his explanation write "levad Noach"[3]?
2. Rashi then continues: "This is its plain meaning; and the Midrash Aggadah[4]: he was groaning and coughing[5] blood" — that is, the above interpretation is the "plain meaning," while according to the Midrash Aggadah the meaning of "ach Noach" is that Noach remained in a state of "ach," an expression of diminution: he was diminished[6].
Why does Rashi bring Midrash Aggadah here — the purpose of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is, after all, the plain meaning? One could say simply that it is on account of the above-mentioned difficulty — that the word ach is superfluous.
According to this, however (since the "plain meaning" does not at all resolve why the word "ach" needs to be written), Rashi should have placed the Midrashic interpretation before the plain interpretation — as we see at the beginning of his commentary on the Torah[7], that since "this verse says nothing but 'Expound me,'" Rashi first sets out the Midrashic interpretation and only afterwards explains the verse according to its plain meaning?
3. The explanation of this is as follows:
The difficulty that troubles Rashi in "ach Noach" — on account of which he introduces the novel interpretation that "ach" here means "levad" — is that according to the simple understanding, that "ach" here means "rak," as everywhere else, the word "ach" itself is problematic (and not merely superfluous):
According to the interpretation that "ach" means "rak," it follows that the word comes to limit, excluding "Noach and those with him in the ark" from the preceding general category of "all existence," about which it says "And He blotted out… and they were blotted out from the earth." Accordingly, the word "ach" relates to "remained": although "He blotted out all existence," nevertheless "Noach… remained."
This interpretation, however, is difficult, because the expression "ach," which comes to limit (indicating that what follows is not included in the preceding general category and is different from it), fits only where there is something novel in it relative to what came before [as, for example, "But (ach) flesh with its life, its blood, you shall not eat" and "But (ve'ach) your blood of your lives I will demand"[8] — where, on account of the preceding verse[9], "Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you… I have given you everything," one might think that also "flesh with its life, its blood" (a limb from a living creature and blood from a living creature[10]) and "your blood of your lives" (one who sheds his own blood and one who strangles himself[11]) are not forbidden, and the Torah introduces the novelty, "(flesh with its life, its blood) you shall not eat" and "(your blood of your lives) I will demand" — there the Torah says it with the expression ach].
And since in "and Noach remained" there is nothing novel [for the content of the entire parshah up to this point is that G‑d commanded Noach to make an ark and enter it together with all who were with him, in order to be saved from the Flood, from "to destroy all flesh," "and I will blot out all existence"[12]], it does not fit to use the expression "ach" regarding "and Noach remained"[13].
Rashi therefore learns that the meaning of "ach" here is "levad," which means (not "except" and the like, but) "alone" (as in "It is not good for man to be alone (levado)"[14]), and that it relates (not to "remained," but) to Noach: that Noach remained all alone[15].
This also explains why the word "ach" is not superfluous: when a person finds himself "alone," he is in an entirely different situation than when he is together with other people[16], for when a person is lonely it is a great distress for him[17]. The verse therefore emphasizes "and ach Noach remained" — that Noach remained alone[18].
Nevertheless, Rashi is not satisfied with the "plain meaning" (even though according to it too the word "ach" is not superfluous, as explained above), because to say that Noach remained alone, the verse should have written, as earlier regarding Adam, "and Noach remained alone (levado)." Why does it say "and ach Noach remained"? Rashi therefore learns that with the expression ach — an expression of diminution — the verse also alludes that Noach was diminished, impaired; and that this diminution and deficiency of his was (not only on account of external matters — that he lacked the people around him and the like — but) in himself: "he was groaning and coughing blood."
4. We must still understand, however: the word "ach" seemingly indicates only that Noach was lacking something (and that the deficiency was in himself), but it does not indicate in what his deficiency consisted. From where, then, does Rashi take it that he was "groaning and coughing blood"[19]?
The difficulty is even stronger: in "groaning and coughing blood" there are three details, each of which renders a person deficient: when a person is only "groaning," moaning, he is diminished; also when a person is only "coughing" (even when he spits up something else, not blood), he is not healthy; and it goes without saying that when blood comes from a person (even when it is not connected with coughing, but it flows and the like), he is ill. Why, then, does Rashi cite the aggadah in its entirety — from which it is understood that also by way of the plain meaning there is some teaching that Noach's diminution was in all three things: groaning, coughing, and blood?
5. The explanation of this is as follows:
Since with the expression "ach" the verse wishes to allude to what happened to Noach — that he was diminished — it stands to reason that it also alludes to what his deficiency consisted of. Rashi therefore says "groaning and coughing," because these are two details that can be alluded to (by way of the plain meaning) in the word ach: the alef of ach alludes to groaning, for when a person (who speaks the Holy Tongue[20]) groans, he cries out "Oy"[21], which begins with an alef; and the kaf alludes to coughing (koheh), which begins with a kaf.
And it is nothing new that Rashi, in his commentary on the Torah, makes use of an allusion from initial letters — we already find this in the preceding Sidrah[22]: Rashi interprets the word "shamayim" (heaven) through various initial letters (and what is more, there he explains it so by way of the plain meaning, not as "Midrash Aggadah").
6. The "five-year-old beginning Scripture," however, asks a question: the words "and ach Noach remained" come in continuation of the beginning of the verse, "And He blotted out all existence…"; that is, Noach too — although he remained alive and was not wiped off the earth — was nevertheless a remnant of that "all existence" which was blotted out (his remaining had a connection with "and He blotted out"[23]) — he was at least somewhat deficient.
The five-year-old beginning Scripture therefore argues: Noach's deficiency must have some resemblance to "And He blotted out all existence." What connection do groaning and coughing (in Noach) have with "and He blotted out" (regarding all existence)?
Rashi therefore says that Noach was "groaning and coughing blood"; and when a person spits blood, G‑d forbid, his very existence is lacking ("for the blood is the life"[24]). And since this is so, the resemblance and the connection of "and ach Noach remained" with "And He blotted out all existence" is already understood.
7. It is still not understood, however: what connection did Noach's being "groaning and coughing blood" have with "And He blotted out… and remained…," and with the Flood altogether? Rashi therefore continues and explains that the groaning etc. came about through the Flood, and brings two interpretations — causes that brought it about[25]: (a) "the trouble of the domesticated and wild animals"[26]; (b) "And some say that he was late[27] in feeding the lion, and it bit him[28]; and concerning him it says[29], 'Behold, the righteous is recompensed in the earth'[30]."
This raises several questions:
a) Why does Rashi need both interpretations?
b) From where does Rashi know — also by way of the plain meaning — that it was the lion in particular that bit him?
c) In the Midrash it says "he delayed the food…" (shahah). Why does Rashi change it and write "that he was late" (she'icher)[31]?
d) Why does Rashi conclude, "and concerning him it says, 'Behold, the righteous is recompensed in the earth'"? Rashi needs to explain the words "ach Noach" of our verse (not to explain a verse in Proverbs). What explanation, then, does it add to "ach Noach" to say that "Behold, the righteous is recompensed in the earth" was said about Noach?
8. The explanation of this is as follows:
It is understood that a condition of "groaning etc." can come about through the work in the ark: the hard trouble of the domesticated and wild animals brought him to it — or that an animal suffered because he was late in feeding it[32].
It is not understood, however: Noach's sons were then already a good hundred years old — surely they too occupied themselves with the domesticated and wild animals, and especially Shem, "who was a tzaddik"[33]. And especially out of honor for their father[34], Noach's children (at least Shem and Yefes) must have helped their father in his work[35]. If so, it is difficult: why was only Noach "groaning and coughing blood"[36]?
Rashi therefore brings the detail of the aggadah, "that he was late in feeding the lion…": since the lion is the most important of the beasts — in the words of our Sages, "king of the beasts"[37] — Noach, the most important one in the ark, fed it. And therefore the lion bit only Noach, because it was he who had been late in giving it its food.
According to the reason "the trouble…" this resolution does not fit (for in feeding, a lion is no greater trouble than feeding other beasts); Rashi therefore has to come to the interpretation "that he was late… and it bit him."
9. Bringing the interpretation "that he was late in feeding the lion, and it bit him," Rashi brings the version and wording "that he was late" (she'icher) (not "that he delayed," shehahah), because according to this wording it emerges that the cause which brought about "groaning and coughing" is also alluded to in the letters of the word "ach"[38]: the alef points to icher (he was late) and ari (lion), and the kaf — to kishu (bit him)[39].
And although the word hikishu begins with a hei, the essence of the word is kishu, which is alluded to in the kaf[40]. Similar to what Rashi says in Parshas Bereishis, that the shin of "shamayim" points to esh (fire) — although esh begins with an alef — because the essence of what is heard in "esh" is the shin.
10. The interpretation "that he was late… and it bit him," however, is difficult altogether: of all the living creatures that existed before the Flood, G‑d Himself left only the single lion (and its mate), so that precisely it, on account of its virtues, should be rescued from the Flood[41]. How then could it be that because Noach was late with its food a single time, such a chosen lion would bite him?! The entire rescue of the lion was through Noach; moreover, he fed it the entire time of the Flood; and even this one single time that he was late in giving it food, it was not because he was busy with his private affairs, but because of his preoccupation and work in the ark[42] — how then could it be that on account of this the lion should bite him?
Rashi resolves this with the verse "Behold, the righteous is recompensed in the earth": when a tzaddik does something not as it should be, even in the finest of fine matters, he is punished "in the earth," here in this world (so that he should lack nothing of his reward in the World to Come; consequently it emerges that the lion's biting him was for his — Noach's — good)[43].
This interpretation, however, is problematic: granted that Noach received his "recompense" — but how could the lion bite him, the very opposite of the explicit "and rule over… every living thing"[44]? Even when the five-year-old knows what Rashi brings later[45], that because the generation of the Flood sinned they were given over to the beasts etc., it is nevertheless very difficult to say this about Noach, "a perfectly righteous man," and on account of being late with food! Rashi therefore has to come to the interpretation "the trouble of the domesticated and wild animals."
And since the difficulty in the interpretation "that he was late…" is much greater than what is difficult in the interpretation "the trouble…" (why the trouble did not affect Noach's sons as well[46]), Rashi therefore writes the interpretation "the trouble…" first, which means that it is the principal interpretation.
11. In Rashi's commentary there is also "the wine of Torah"[47] — and this is the lesson from it in the service of G‑d:
When a Jew merits and is chosen to be an emissary of the Rebbe (who has, Heaven forbid, no personal interest in this, but only the spreading of Judaism; and our Sages said, "The righteous resemble their Creator"[48]) to nourish the world with spiritual food, and he bears great difficulties in his work, to the point that at times he lacks even the necessities for the sustenance of his body, such as food and drink and the like, which can harm his health, G‑d forbid, he can reason to himself:
From the very fact that I have been chosen to be the emissary, it is understood that I have extraordinary virtues. If so, precisely because I humble myself so greatly and occupy myself with feeding the world — even those who are, compared to me, in the category of "domesticated and wild animals" — they ought to have given me great honor. Let the honor go — I forgo it. But why should I, in addition, have difficulties in my work, and especially that I should go short of food and drink, which can bring about the opposite of bodily health, while "keeping the body healthy and whole is of the ways of (the service of?) G‑d"[49]? And since this is so, he argues: "what is it to me" etc.; I will abandon the missions and thereby spare myself much distress and suffering!
To this he is answered: "it already was in the worlds" — it has happened before:
About Noach the Torah testifies[50] that although he was in a generation of wicked people ("in his generations"), he was "a perfectly righteous man." Moreover, in his merit the entire world was rescued, and he was chosen by G‑d to be the emissary to feed it. And nonetheless he was "groaning and coughing blood"; and what brought him to it — "the trouble of the domesticated and wild animals": the very holy work of feeding the world brought him to become ill, to the point of spitting blood, Heaven forbid. And nevertheless he continued to engage in his work, and continued in a manner of "trouble."
And the Torah (from the word hora'ah, instruction[51]) relates this to us so that we should learn from it a lesson in our service: that the missions placed upon every Jew must be carried out by him under all circumstances. Whatever happens — the mission has nothing to do with it! And all the more so when his difficulties do not come, Heaven forbid, to groaning etc.
But here the question arises: if G‑d wants the missions to be carried out, why does He make it so that the emissary should have difficulties? The answer to this is that "free of charge" is an order of Egypt[52]. In holiness, however, there is nothing easy; matters of holiness come precisely through toil[53]. On the contrary: the more difficulties he meets in his work, the more evident it is that it is a truly holy matter (and that it concerns him all the more[54]).
12. When a Jew has already brought himself to continue fulfilling the missions (not looking at the difficulties he has along the way), he can still do it in a manner of "groaning," reasoning: since the Torah tells me that I must not abandon my work under any circumstances, I have no choice —
— about this Rashi says that the entire matter of "groaning etc." is only according to the second interpretation, which is the secondary interpretation. According to the first, principal interpretation, however, the whole reality of "groaning" does not exist; that is, even when, on account of the body, he suffers pain, Heaven forbid, on account of his soul — which is the essence of the person[55] — he does not groan at all[56]. On the contrary: he is in great joy that he merited to do such work[57], and of what account are the difficulties etc. compared with the matter of fulfilling the missions[58]!
One might think that such elevated service — to do G‑d's missions with joy at a time when this is bound up with suffering and the like — belongs only to unique, select individuals. Rashi therefore placed the lesson that there is no matter of groaning etc. at all (not in the interpretation taken from Midrash Aggadah, but) in the "plain meaning"; and the plain meaning of Scripture applies even to those who are still (spiritually) children.
13. But a Jew asks a question: granted, he must carry out the missions with the greatest exertion, even to the point of groaning etc. — this he can bring himself to: a Jew is, after all, one who accepts the yoke[59], so he will do it out of acceptance of the yoke. But joy — that he must feel; he must therefore have an explanation that will settle in his mind why he should be joyful.
Were he a person of elevated stature, there would be a very simple explanation: since the body has no significance in relation to the soul, the sufferings of the coarse body cannot interfere with the joy of the soul in fulfilling the Supreme Will[60]. Since he is, however, a simple man (and, as mentioned, Rashi placed the lesson in the "plain meaning"), in whose view the body occupies a real place, then in order to be joyful he must have an explanation that will be grasped by the body as well. And so he argues: since on account of the body he is broken, he is "groaning" — how can he be joyful?
To this he is told that from the whole matter of "groaning etc." we also learn from the fact that "ach Noach" comes in continuation of "And He blotted out all existence" (as explained in section 6), and from the expression "ach Noach" (as explained in sections 3 and 5).
14. When he reflects upon the "And He blotted out…" of our generation — how a whole third of the world was wiped out through a "flood" (of our generation) — wiped out physically (which surely concerns the body); and when he further contemplates "and ach Noach remained," where the expression "ach" (alone) expresses a matter of novelty, as explained above — that his being rescued from the Flood is a novelty, for everyone knows in his own soul how many greater and better than he were not saved — then, when he reflects on this, it will become clear to him, also on account of the body, that he has nothing to groan about[61]. On the contrary: he must be in the greatest joy that G‑d rescued him from the "flood" — when many greater and better than he were drowned — and that he has moreover been granted such an exalted mission.
15. One might think: since a Jew must be joyful even when he is groaning, it follows that his conduct towards another will also be in this manner —
— regarding this comes the lesson in the further interpretation of Rashi, "that he was late in feeding the lion — and it bit him": to another, one must provide everything on time, and if not, one receives, Heaven forbid, a punishment.
From yourself alone may one demand that you forgo even your necessities — "iskafya," self-restraint; and as the Alter Rebbe brings in Tanya[62], Torah scholars would fast for periods of time — although it is understood that Torah scholars did not eat any luxuries. To another, however, one must provide everything he needs (without entering into calculations whether these are necessities or luxuries[63]), and in its proper time and season.
And if you argue that you are a "perfectly righteous man" while the other is, in comparison with you, in the category of "domesticated and wild animals" — why then should you exert yourself for the other more than for yourself? — there are two answers to this:
First, you cannot assess the other's level. It may well be that he is a "lion," a "king"[64].
And second, even granting that you are the "tzaddik" — on the contrary: "Behold, the righteous is recompensed in the earth." A tzaddik, in order that he should attain the World to Come (and moreover elevated levels in this world, akin to "you will see your world in your lifetime"[65]), must be punished in this world. As regards the other, however, who, as you say, is not a tzaddik, all physical good comes to him.
16. In Torah every detail is precise. That the two lessons mentioned above — (a) that one must devote oneself to carrying out G‑d's missions even when one is groaning, and even then to do it with joy; (b) to provide another everything he needs, in its proper time and season — are found in the words "ach Noach" indicates that through fulfilling these lessons one will be like Noach, as at the beginning and head of the entire Sidrah: "Noach, Noach," twice — "satisfaction Above" and "satisfaction below"[66] — until we come to the true rest, on the day which is "entirely Shabbos and rest for life everlasting"[67].
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Noach, 5728)
Key Lesson
Rashi reads the single word "ach" as both "Noach alone" and "Noach diminished," and the details of the aggadah — groaning, coughing, being late in feeding the lion — as hints contained in its two letters. The lesson for every emissary is that hardship in a holy mission is no reason to step back, since in holiness nothing comes without toil; and the plain meaning teaches that one should carry the mission with joy, remembering how many greater than oneself were not saved. Yet the self-denial one asks of oneself must never be asked of others: what another person needs must be provided fully and on time.