Parshas Noach
1. It is known that our Sages[1] say regarding Noach that he did not pray for the people of his generation — “he did not ask for mercy for the world” — unlike Moshe Rabbeinu, who prayed for those who made the Golden Calf.
We find on this a dispute[2] between R. Yehudah and R. Yitzchak: R. Yehudah says that the fact that Noach did not pray as Moshe did was (not a matter of deficiency[3], but) because “Moshe did not make the matter depend on his own merit,” but on the merit of the Patriarchs, whereas Noach, understandably, could not make his prayer depend on the merit of the Patriarchs. R. Yitzchak, however, holds that despite this Noach should have prayed and aroused mercy for them[4].
My father explains the reason[5] why “R. Yehudah argues in Noach’s favor, and R. Yitzchak the opposite, arguing against him”: it is because “each of them speaks according to his own aspect and level.” R. Yehudah is the aspect of Chesed, and therefore he “argues in his favor according to his attribute, the attribute of Chesed”; and R. Yitzchak “is the aspect of Gevurah… therefore… he argues against him according to his attribute, the attribute of Gevurah.”
This, however, requires explanation. The Torah’s directive[6], “Judge every person favorably,” is, simply understood, a rule for every Jew, even for one whose “attribute is the attribute of Gevurah” — so how is it that R. Yitzchak argued against Noach[7] and did not judge him favorably (as the Mishnah commands)?
2. Similar to the two opinions of R. Yehudah and R. Yitzchak mentioned above, we also find a dispute[8] on the verse at the beginning of our Parshah[9], “Noach was a righteous man… in his generations”: “Some[10] of our Sages expound it in his praise: all the more so — had he been in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous; and some expound it to his discredit: relative to his generation he was righteous, but had he been in the generation of Avraham, he would not have been considered anything.”
Here too it is not understood (similar to the question above): since there is a choice — one can expound it in praise and one can expound it to his discredit — why should one say that the Torah’s intent is to bring out Noach’s discredit?
Moreover, there is a rule[11] that “Scripture did not speak disparagingly even of an impure animal” — the Torah does not use an “unseemly” expression even with regard to an animal[12], and all the more so the Torah would not speak disparagingly of Noach. How, then, can there be an opinion that the Torah adds the word “in his generations” solely in order to bring out something discreditable concerning Noach?!
This may be explained by first recalling what was once explained[13]: this rule — that the Torah does not use an unseemly expression — applies to the narratives of the Torah[14]. When the Torah states a halachah and law, however, there the Torah uses clear language, even when this requires using a less refined expression[15]. For a halachah must be stated clearly, as an unambiguous directive, so as to leave no room for error when carrying out the halachah in actual practice.
So too in our case, where the Torah adds the word “in his generations,” meaning (according to one interpretation) “to his discredit”: had the Torah not brought out this “discredit,” there would have been room for error regarding halachah — regarding actual conduct. We find matters in Noach’s conduct which show that he did not possess complete righteousness[16]; thus, had the Torah described Noach as a perfectly righteous man without cautioning that this is “in his generations” (only relative to his generation), one might think that such conduct is the conduct of a perfectly righteous man. Therefore the opposite of Noach’s praise must be emphasized here, so that one learns from it a clear directive as to how one should conduct oneself.
3. Accordingly, one can go further and say that the intent of “some expound it to his discredit” is not to relate that Noach actually had a deficiency; rather[17], “they expound it to discredit” — it is an exposition and lesson “to discredit” for someone else, to guard him from a deficiency and an error when learning about Noach.
For it may be said[18] that “some… expound it in his praise… and some expound it to his discredit” is not a dispute about Noach’s level of righteousness; rather, one says one thing and the other says another, and they do not disagree[19]. They do not disagree about the fact that Noach’s righteousness “in the generation of Avraham would not have been considered anything”; on the other hand, all agree that Noach was not to blame for not being as great a tzaddik as Avraham — this was due to the situation and the great lowliness of his generation[20], and “had he been in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous.”
The difference is in what the Torah is aiming at with the word “in his generations.” One opinion says: the “praise” — the Torah comes to praise Noach. The other opinion says that the Torah thereby wishes to caution that no stumbling should result in the Divine service of a Jew who learns about Noach.
And this is the meaning of “some expound it to his discredit”: with regard to Noach himself this is no matter of discredit or deficiency — being in such a generation, it was not possible for him to have Avraham’s level of righteousness. Rather, the Torah must bring out that this level of righteousness is not true perfection; on the contrary, it is a level of “discredit” relative to Avraham (“he would not have been considered anything”), so that the lesson of the story of Noach should be clear.
4. In the same way one can explain the two opinions of R. Yehudah and R. Yitzchak concerning Noach’s not praying for his generation:
One says one thing and the other says another, and they do not disagree[21]. R. Yitzchak, too, concedes that Noach did not pray for the people of his generation because (in that situation) he could not pray for them, since “he did not have anyone on whose merit to rely, as Moshe did” — it is not a deficiency in Noach.
R. Yitzchak only comes to caution that no stumbling, G‑d forbid, should result in a later generation, through thinking that it is not a deficiency if one does not pray for the people of the generation. Therefore R. Yitzchak says that one must expound (bring out) that the thing in itself is a matter of discredit (although for Noach himself it could not have been otherwise[22]), because one must strive in every possible way to pray and ask for mercy for another Jew.
Therefore R. Yitzchak’s opinion does not contradict the rule “Judge every person favorably” — for according to R. Yitzchak, too, there was no “fault” in Noach, G‑d forbid; he only cautions that the thing is a matter of “fault” in others.
On the contrary: if one did not caution that such conduct (in general), of not asking for mercy for the people of the generation, is undesirable — this itself could constitute a matter of fault on Noach’s part, in that his conduct could cause another Jew to stumble.
Therefore this itself is (also) “in Noach’s favor”: he himself wants it emphasized that one must indeed pray for the people of one’s generation, even to the point of saying it as though it were a deficiency in Noach himself (as in the plain wording of R. Yitzchak: “And with all this… he [Noach] should have asked for mercy for them”) — in order to make sure that no deficiency should result in someone else[23].
And by cautioning that Noach’s conduct is a matter of fault (not true perfection), so that in other generations people conduct themselves in such a way that they do pray for the people of the generation — this itself “rectifies” what Noach did not actually do. Although in his generation he could not accomplish it, since through him (i.e., through bringing out that such conduct is not a virtue) there is the lesson for all generations that one must indeed pray for the people of one’s generation, this brings completeness in this matter to Noach himself as well.
5. And this is also the practical lesson in our own times:
It sometimes happens that a person does all he can to influence his surroundings, “the people of his generation,” but for reasons that are (seemingly) not dependent on him he is not successful. He may then reckon to himself, “I have saved my own soul”: not only with regard to his own personal service, but also with regard to working with others, he has done his part fully. If he has not accomplished anything — that is not his deficiency.
R. Yitzchak teaches a lesson: it may indeed be that he truly did as much as he could — it is not merely his imagination; according to the Shulchan Aruch (the Torah of truth) he did his part fully — nevertheless one must know that one may not remain at that. One may not be satisfied with the situation; one must constantly “proclaim,” “And with all this… he should have asked for mercy for them!” Not asking for mercy for one’s generation is a state of “fault.”
And this itself brings about a state of “merit” — G‑d removes the causes of the undesirable situation and gives a Jew the opportunity to ask for mercy for the people of his generation, to the point of bringing them to do teshuvah,
especially in our time, the “heels of Moshiach,” regarding which the Rambam rules in his book of halachos[24] that “the Torah has promised that Israel will ultimately do teshuvah at the end of their exile, and they will immediately be redeemed”[25].
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Noach, 5743)
Key Lesson
R. Yitzchak’s criticism of Noach is not a verdict against Noach, who in his generation could not have done otherwise; it is a warning to later generations that failing to plead for others is never acceptable. In the same way, a person who has truly done all he can to influence those around him may not rest on “I have saved my own soul”: he must keep feeling that the work is unfinished and keep asking for mercy for others. That refusal to be content is itself what opens new opportunities from Above, until the whole generation returns in teshuvah and is redeemed.