באדיבות מכינת בני דוד
Noach: Stuck in the Present
"G-d said: I will obliterate humanity that I have created from the face of the earth; man, livestock, land animals and birds of the sky. I regret that I created them. But Noach found favour in G-d's eyes" (Breisheet 6:7-8).
What an amazing person Noach must have been. Surrounded by idolatry, corruption, and moral depravity, Noach remained righteous and pure. Single-handed, he managed to save humanity from oblivion. Only because of Noach’s merits, G-d decided to keep the human race alive. No wonder the next verse in the Torah tells us, "Noach was a righteous man, faultless in his generation. Noach walked with G-d" (Breisheet 6:9).
Such a glowing description, especially one from G-d Himself, is hard to find anywhere else. Yet, despite all that he did, Noach is not one of our "founding fathers." His legacy as far as Jews are concerned is quite minimal. We do not often look to him as a role model for our lives. Abraham and Sarah and their children are our exemplars, and poor Noach is a forgotten figure, save for the single week yearly that we read about him and his ark. In fact, some of our Talmudic Sages claim that Noach was only righteous relative to his generation; compared to Avraham Avinu, he really did not amount to much.
Why is it that Noach did not merit consideration as the first Jew? Why do so many Torah scholars downplay his accomplishments?
The Torah hints at a possible answer when it first introduces us to Noach at the end of parshat Breisheet, revealing that "when Noach was five hundred years old, Noach begot Shem, Cham and Japheth” (Breisheet 5:32). Noah's ancestors all had children much younger, ranging in age from 65 to 187. Noach, however, waited centuries before he had a child. And unlike his predecessors who all begot (many) "sons and daughters", Noach only had three children. Living in that time and place, Noach did not want to bring children into such a corrupt and depraved world. He may even have been afraid that his own children would follow the ways of the dominant culture. Similarly, Amram and Yocheved, the parents of Moshe Rabbeinu, separated from each other because they did not want to bring a child into the world when he was destined to be, at best, a slave.
While understandable, this is not and cannot be a Jewish attitude. It is not up to us to abandon our own duties due to possible fears about the future. Furthermore, our job is to change that corrupt and morally depraved world by having children to serve as living examples of righteousness and purity. While we must protect ourselves from the corrupting influences of the world at large, we must never give up the hope of changing it for the better. In times of despair, we must have additional children, not fewer. It is our children who are trees that we plant for the future, who will provide hope and help to the world long after we are gone. And Judaism, regardless of the present, teaches that the future can and must be a better one. Without this mindset, we could not have survived all these years in a world so often bent on our destruction.
Noach may have been "righteous and faultless". But he feared he could not instill these traits in his children. Such a person is not worthy to be the first Jew. That designation awaited the one who, despite living in the vicinity of Sedom, and despite knowing that his children could not marry anybody from his neighbourhood, prayed desperately for a child. Avraham never gave up on the world; he hoped that the people of Sedom could be saved not only physically, but morally. As descendants of Avraham, we must carry on his positive, optimistic attitude that enabled him to constantly strive to improve the moral climate of society.
Courtesy of Torah in Motion - www.torahinmotion.org
Codename: Adam
A legend tells of the mythical Sphinx that sat at the gates of Thebes. The Sphinx allowed people to pass through the gates only if they could solve her riddle: what is the creature who first walks on four legs, then on two, and finally on three? The one who answered the riddle correctly and saved the city was Oedipus, who established that the answer was “man.” In his early years, he crawls on all fours; as he develops, he walks on two legs, and in his old age, he leans on his walking-stick. Oedipus’s solution led to the death of the Sphinx. The downfall of the formidable Sphinx via the code-word “man” symbolizes the fall of the gods and the rise of man as ruler.
The words of the Sphinx present man’s life as a sine-wave, beginning his life close to the origin (of the axes), stands up on his feet, and then falters and collapses downward again. The metaphor of a wave reflects the idea that man’s life is ephemeral and fleeting. But it was the one who could recognize man’s transience who was ultimately able to vanquish the supernatural Sphinx. Out of this weakness comes man’s strength.
Many myths attempt to capture man’s essence and the conflict surrounding him. According to the theory of evolution, man descended from various ancestors of multiple species. Humanity continues to become stronger and more varied. In a certain sense, man’s dominion is ensured not because of his transience, but because he develops an ability to survive as his intelligence increases through continuously developing communication, language, social interactions, cooperation, and ability to use different intelligences to interpret his surroundings. According to the theory of evolution, the secret to man’s success is his strength and superiority.
Primordial man is discussed in Tractate Sanhedrin, and is presented in different ways. Some sages described him in mythical dimensions, such as R. Yehuda in the name of Rav, who suggested that primordial man filled the entire expanse of space in the world, but after his sin was made to be much smaller. According to Rabbi Eliezer, primordial man was enormous and of such a great height that when he stood on the round, his head touched the sky. Here, too, it is clear that because of his sin his height was diminished to the height familiar to us today.
It seems that Rabbi Eliezer’s view presents man as having strengths that integrated the supernatural with an understanding of reality. His feet were placed firmly on the ground, but his head reached the heavens. His capabilities were impressive in his ability to look ahead, his linking of the spiritual and the physical, and the connection between high and low, the sublime and the mundane.
According to Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rav, primordial man filled all of space with his presence. This metaphorical representation reflects man’s centrality and importance in creation.
Whereas Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion emphasizes man’s centrality, Rabbi Eliezer emphasizes man’s impressive capabilities. Common to these two approaches is the sense that the ancient ancestor of creation is not identical to us in form, stature, or intelligence; rather, primordial man is closer to the image of God, more spiritual, and stands out much more in the context of life on earth. Man became diminished in spirit, dimensions, and abilities, and thus became what we have today. Man, therefore, is a product of the infinite potential hidden within him. It is not his transience and dynamic nature, nor his physical strength or evolutionary superiority which give him his power, but rather – the knowledge that he can aspire to more.
What was primordial man’s sin that caused him to be diminished? Three answers are offered by the sages. The first, from Rabbi Yehuda in the name of Rav, states that primordial man was a heretic. The second, that of Rabbi Yitzhak, is that primordial man “lengthened his foreskin.” The third, that of R. Nahman, said that he denied the existence of God. Each of the above answers are very strange. The first opinion accuses man of straying from God and of having foreign thoughts. The second explanation accuses him of trying to abrogate his covenant with God. The third suggestion suggests that he did not believe in God. These three suggestions are difficult to understand: Did he not feel comfortable identifying with God? Did he wish to run away from the connection with God? Did he see options in the world that would not require him to recognize God?
It appears that the sages wish to say that the challenges and difficulties of faith are not only tied to the presence of foreign worship or external influences. The roots of these challenges lie in the dichotomy of man being a physical creature, while also having the status of being formed in the image of God; he has elements of the divine but he is transient. The struggle between these two aspects create a lack of coherence and a blurred identity. Belonging to the heavens and the earth at the same time, and the ability to be everywhere at once, does not allow for the humanity’s distinct aspects to be manifest. The diminishing process of the midrash allows man to have faith. The fortitude with which man began is there so that he can appreciate God’s greatness. Neither man’s transience nor his natural and biological strength is the basis for his power. Rather, it is the struggle between these two parts – between the potential and the force of action, between “I am but dust and ashes” and “the world was created for me.”
Parashat Noah: Spiritual “Disguised Unemployment”
“Two are better than one” (Ecclesiastes 4:9). This insight is a basic concept for society, and various commentators, such as the Ran (Rabbeinu Nissim), expounds upon the benefits of cooperation for society. The Ran sees human cooperation and society as intrinsically beneficial (see Derashot HaRan, Treatise 1) As Kohelet suggests, and as the Ran emphasizes, every connection among a group of people who come together and help each other brings benefit to the world. The Ran would certainly agree with the idea that “the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.” This description of strength coming from cooperation and centralizing of resources holds true for the globalization that we experience today.
Perhaps because of this, when someone from our generation studies the story of the Tower of Babel, it is difficult for him to understand why God was angered, and why God decided to destroy the extreme unity and disperse the people who had come together for one clear purpose: to “build a city, and a tower with its head in the heavens…” (Genesis 11:4). Why sow discord among people? The response of the Talmudic Sages is that the people were united for the purpose of idolatry or foreign worship (Sanhedrin 109a). This response is textually linked to the Biblical verses: The words “let us make a name for ourselves” hint to the idea that the people wanted to erase the memory of the Creator from the face of earth. They say “a name for ourselves” and not “let us make a name for Him” (Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch). The difficulty with the words of the Sages is that the description of the sin sounds too general, and it is not clear what is so significant about this specific form of idolatry that the Torah bothers to tell this story.
The unity which the Torah identifies as the root of the problem is seemingly good and beneficial, but also has negative aspects. Unity has the power to veto minority opinions, and to establish ideas that have no connection to reality or the truth. When many people think a certain way, there often comes the danger of groupthink, and the mindset of “would millions of people all be wrong?” Cooperation can also lead to communal downfall. The herd mentality helps individuals overcome their concerns that creep up, and ignore warning signs and doubts that come with decision-making. Society is a closed box, a source of a false sense of security.
“And now nothing will prevent them from all that they plan [Heb. yazmu] to do.” Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch interprets the Hebrew root y.z.m. in a way that relates to our words above. He explains that the root y.z.m. in our context is similar semantically to gazam, a type of locust: they gather together like a swarm of locusts. This root is also similar to the Aramic word guzma (hyperbole). Rabbi S. R. Hirsch suggests that the fervor of the collective has, on the one hand, the potential for success and strength, but also has the prospect of silencing and destroying, of falsehood and of the unbearable.
xWhen the whole world acts for one purpose, what results is spiritual “disguised unemployment.” Independent thought is given up, and creativity is lost. The idea that everyone speaks one language and says the same things carries the strength of cooperation, but also involves the silencing of the majority. This principle is correct for many different areas: a uniform promotes a sense of belonging, but undercuts personal expression. An army marching to one beat drums up the energy and motivation to go the extra mile, but also tramples on freedom and blurs the dilemmas of basic morality. Shared missions are often characterized as boldly climbing toward a higher goal. The technical application of these shared missions are often divide up into a list of orders and procedures that lead to the end goal. ““And now nothing will prevent them from all that they plan [Heb. yazmu] to do.” The ability to act and achieve enables success, but leaves behind the ability for depth and discussion. There is no room for pondering, and personal challenges or problems are skipped over. Man becomes a statistic - society does not recognize his needs or even his existence. A person labors over a task, but nobody sees what goes on inside within him, beyond the mission.
The question that comes up regarding God’s actions is how to enable people to find the point of balance between unity and individuality. This question is a bit of a paradox – akin to asking how to organize a mess, or how to initiate spontaneity. The decision to separate nations and cultures seems to be taking an average of the two sides – of the group and of the individual. Language appears in the parasha as a strong characteristic of this clear, yet balanced separation. Language can express this idea very well. But language can convey not only the nature of this idea, but also a worldview. Once the variety of languages increased, there arose the possibility of giving a new meaning as well as a new name for a concept. There are many examples that demonstrate the subjective points of view that are manifest in similar words in different languages that have different layers of meaning – sometimes due to different cultural heritages. In English, “sir” or “mister” have connotations of “ruler” or “leader”, but the equivalent word in Hebrew, “adon” is related to words meaning “base” (of a structure), or foundation, which is not the case in English. In English, “couple” also means being linked or fused together, but in Hebrew, “zug” has the connotation of the marriage of two individuals. In English, “head” has the connotation of “leading” (the leader is ahead) whereas in Hebrew, “rosh” means “first.”
As long as the emphasis is only on manpower and the “battalions” in relation to their output for the workforce, there is no room for the unique human factor. This idea also finds expression in the people of Babel speaking in “one language” – with only one focus. Of course, the power of language inevitably deteriorates and becomes a mere a communication tool.
The multiplication of languages is a tikkun (repair) that demands deep thought about speech as an expression of the zeitgeist. Language gaps also allow for conversation that is not only functional, but which sparks inspiration, understanding, and bridging gaps and differences.
God created the universe through speech. His “word” was the essence, unity, certainty, and possibly the attribute of justice. Language is human creativity. Man’s mission is not to play God and to try to see God’s unified perspective of the world. Rather, man’s task is to separate the world into its smallest constituent parts. He must thus intensify the impact of creation, increase acts of lovingkindness, and to complete the works of God.
שחין
בתחילת ספר איוב, מסופר על הצרות הרבות שהביא השטן על איוב כדי לגרום לו לסור מאמונתו. בעוד איוב יושב ומתאבל על מות בניו, היכה אותו השטן במכת השחין:
"וַיֵּצֵא הַשָּׂטָן מֵאֵת פְּנֵי ה',
וַיַּךְ אֶת אִיּוֹב בִּשְׁחִין רָע,
מִכַּף רַגְלוֹ וְעַד קָדְקֳדוֹ.
וַיִּקַּח לוֹ חֶרֶשׂ לְהִתְגָּרֵד בּוֹ,
וְהוּא יֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ הָאֵפֶר" (ז-ח)
נראה כאילו פסוקים אלו נכתבו כנגד השחין שמוזכר בתורה. אחת הקללות בפרשת כי-תבוא היא קללת השחין. מכה זו הוזכרה פעמיים בין הקללות.
בפעם הראשונה נאמר:
"…בִּשְׁחִין מִצְרַיִם, ובעפלים [וּבַטְּחֹרִים], וּבַגָּרָב, וּבֶחָרֶס,
אֲשֶׁר לֹא תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא" (דברים כ"ח, כז)
בפעם השנייה נאמר:
"… בִּשְׁחִין רָע,
עַל הַבִּרְכַּיִם וְעַל הַשֹּׁקַיִם,
אֲשֶׁר לֹא תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא,
מִכַּף רַגְלְךָ וְעַד קָדְקֳדֶךָ" (שם, לה)
השחין השני יתר על הראשון בכך שהוא במקומות גלויים, בעוד הראשון הוא נסתר (אפשר ללמוד זאת מסמיכותו למכת הטחורים). השחין "עַל הַבִּרְכַּיִם וְעַל הַשֹּׁקַיִם" עשוי למנוע מהאדם מלעמוד וללכת, כפי שנאמר בשחין מצרים: "וְלֹא יָכְלוּ הַחַרְטֻמִּים לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי מֹשֶׁה מִפְּנֵי הַשְּׁחִין" (שמות ט', יא).
אם כן, הביטוי 'שְׁחִין רָע' המופיע באיוב מופיע גם בתורה. הביטוי 'מִכַּף רַגְלוֹ וְעַד קָדְקֳדוֹ' אף הוא מופיע בשניהם. החרס (חרשׂ) שלקח איוב כדי להתגרד מזכיר את מכת החרס שהוזכרה בתורה בפסוקים לעיל יחד עם השחין.
בדברי חז"ל אנו רואים שהשחין הוא מחלת עור חשוכת מרפא, והאדם שחולה בה מורחק מהחברה.
אולם, בתנ"ך ובדברי חז"ל הוזכרו רפואות בדרך נס מהשחין:
♦ חזקיה מלך יהודה חלה בשחין, וישעיה ציווה למרוח דבלת תאנים על השחין, וכך הוא נרפא (מלכים ב כ', ז).
♦ במדרש (ויקרא רבה) מסופר על חולה שחין שירד לטבול בכנרת, ונרפא בזכות 'בארה של מרים' שהייתה שם.
♦ יחזקאל התנבא על הנחל היוצא מן המקדש וזורם אל ים המלח. על העצים שצומחים על שפת הנחל הוא אמר: "וְהָיָה פִרְיוֹ לְמַאֲכָל, וְעָלֵהוּ לִתְרוּפָה" (יחזקאל מ"ז, יב). אמרו חז"ל במדרש: "וכל אדם שהוא חולה או מוכה שחין, רוחץ מן המים ומתרפא".
נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך
לקריאת המאמר המלא מתוך אתר "בלוג התנ"ך"
מיהי אשת החיל?
נראה שלעיני החכם רחפה דמות אשה מסויימת ומפורסמת "בשערים" ונראה שיש לזהותה עם דמותה של רות, האשה היחידה במקרא שזכתה במפורש בכנוי "אשת חיל"... ואפשר שנאמר שיר זה תחילה בשעת הספד לאשה דגולה זו...
עם זאת, אין כל ספק שיש גם בשיר הזה פשט וסוד, כעדות שם הספר ("משלי")... ומצאנו שהחכמה דמויה בחלק הראשון של הספר (פרקים א'-ט') לאשת חיל, בעלת בית מפואר, ולרשותה נערות רבות, והיא שולחת אותן לקרוא לסעוד על שולחנה, והיא גם שומרת על בניה מפיתוייה של אשת הכסלות...
ומאחר שזיהו חז"ל את החכמה, הדמויה בספרנו לאשה, עם התורה, דרשו אף את השיר 'אשת חיל' על התורה, דרכי לימודה ולומדיה...
ואילו הרמב"ם כתב בעקבות הפילוסופים וחכמי האומות אשר מעולם, שהיו מדמים את החומר לנקבה ואת הצורה לזכר: "ודימה החכם את החומר, שהוא סיבת כל התאוות הגופניות הללו באשה זונה, ועל משל זה בנה את כל ספרו... ונבאר איך סיים ספרו בשבח האשה, אם לא היתה זונה, אלא מצטמצמת בתיקון ביתה ומצב בעלה... לפי שאם נזדמן לאדם מבויים חומר טוב ונשמע, אינו מתגבר עליו ואינו מפסיד תקינותו, הרי זה מתת אלוקים..." (מורה נבוכים). ובעקבותיו של הרמב"ם הלכו רלב"ג והגר"א והמלבי"ם ועוד, שנזקקו ביחוד לסודו.
אבל רבים אחרים, ובהם הפרוש המיוחס לאבן-עזרא, נזקקו רק לפשטו...
דרך מיוחדת בפרוש השיר לר"מ המאירי, שאף על פי שיצא בעקבות הרמב"ם, חש צורך להקדים כמה דברים בפרוש השיר לפי פשוטו: "וידוע לפי הנגלה, היות קיום הבית והעמדתו בסבת אשת חיל... וכן שלמה האריך הנה בסיפור זריזותה למלאכתה והעמדתה את ביתה..."
שיטה אחרת לרש"י, שפרש תחילה את השיר כפשוטו, ורק לאחר מכן חזר ונזקק לסודו (על התורה ולומדיה)...
לפירוש מדרש תנחומא על דמותה של ה"אשת חיל"
נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך, מתוך תנ"ך עם פירוש דעת מקרא, הוצאת מוסד הרב קוק ירושלים, ספר משלי, עמ' רפ-רפב
אשת חיל
אֵשֶׁת חַיִל מִי יִמְצָא וְרָחֹק מִפְּנִינִים מִכְרָהּ
בָּטַח בָּהּ לֵב בַּעְלָהּ וְשָׁלָל לֹא יֶחְסָר....
שֶׁקֶר הַחֵן וְהֶבֶל הַיֹּפִי אִשָּׁה יִרְאַת-ה' הִיא תִתְהַלָּל
לחן: יצחק ולדנר ביצוע: יעקב שוואקי
בין אגור לאיתיאל ואוכל
"דִּבְרֵי אָגוּר בִּן יָקֶה הַמַּשָּׂא: נְאֻם הַגֶּבֶר לְאִיתִיאֵל, לְאִיתִיאֵל וְאֻכָל" (א)
מיהו אגור בן יקה?
ישנן כמה דעות בין המפרשים:
א. אגור בן יקה הוא שמו של החכם שחיבר את הקטע הזה (הגר"א, מלבי"ם)
ב. כינוי לשלמה: כמו ששלמה נקרא קהלת, כך הוא גם נקרא אגור, על שם שאגר (אסף) קהל (רש"י בשם חז"ל)
השם "אגור בן יקה" יכול להתפרש גם במשמעות סמלית:
א. יקה מלשון הקאה, אגור הוא אדם "שאגר את הבינה והקיאה" (רש"י ומצודות)
ב. יקה מלשון יקהה, משמעת וציות, כמו בפס' יז: "עַיִן תִּלְעַג לְאָב וְתָבוּז לִיקֲּהַת אֵם...". גם באכדית ישנו שורש דומה, שמשמעו הקשבה ותשומת-לב (שמעתי מפרופ' יעקב קליין)
מיהם איתיאל ואוכל?
אפשרות ראשונה היא שאיתיאל ואוכל הם שמותיהם של החכמים שעבורם נכתב הקטע הזה (מלבי"ם והגר"א) וייתכן שהם בניו של אגור (ראו בפס' ז)
ויש אומרים שגם אלה כינויים של שלמה (רש"י)
גם שמות אלה יכולים להתפרש כסמליים: "אמר: אִתִּי אֵל, ואוּכָל לעשות, ולא אכשל" (רש"י)
אם אכן השמות הם סמליים, ניתן להבין שפסוק זה איננו רק כותרת אלא מלמד מוסר:
- איתיאל הוא אדם החושב שהאל נמצא איתו, כלומר באותה רמה שלו; אוכל הוא אדם החושב שיוכל לעשות כל דבר. שניהם מסמלים את הגאווה האנושית, ובפרט את הגאווה של המדענים, החושבים שיוכלו בחכמתם להבין את הסודות שלפיהם ה' ברא את העולם, ולהשתמש בסודות אלה כדי להשיג כל מטרה.
- מצד שני, אגור בן יקה הוא אדם שאגר, צבר ידע רב ואז הקיא אותו. הוא מסמל את האכזבה האנושית הבאה לאחר הגאווה - כשהאדם מגלה, שלמרות כל חכמתו וידיעותיו, ישנם סודות שלעולם לא יידע ודברים שלעולם לא יוכל לעשות.
אגור בן יקה מוכיח את איתיאל ואוכל על גאוותם; הוא אומר להם: אתם חושבים שאתם יודעים הכל, אבל אני כבר יודע שאינני יודע. אני מכיר בכך שהחכמה והתבונה האנושיות הן מוגבלות.
עוד על מגבלות התבונה האנושית ניתן לקרוא בפוסט מאת פרופ' יהודה איזנברג
נערך ע"י צוות אתר התנ"ך
לקריאת המאמר המלא מתוך אתר הניווט בתנ"ך
רגע של עברית במשלי ל'
"תַּחַת עֶבֶד כִּי יִמְלוֹךְ וְנָבָל כִּי יִשְׂבַּע-לָחֶם" (כב)
פסוקים כא-כג מתארים ארבעה מקרים של אנשים שהגיעו לשלטון למרות שאינם ראויים לכך, וגורמים לעוולות. הראשון מביניהם הוא "עבד כי ימלוך" - עבד שמרד באדוניו ומולך תחתיו (דעת מקרא).
פסוק זה הפך לפתגם המתאר אדם מושפל שהגיע לעמדה של כוח, ואינו ראוי למעמדו.