There are many midrashim that focus on Noah and his personality. Given Noah’s role as father of all Mankind, it is easy to understand the great interest that there is in understanding who he was. Noah is also the first individual who received commandments that were incumbent on him and on his descendants – to this day the Seven Noahide Laws are known and carry his name. Perhaps this is why the Talmudic Sage, Rabbi Berechiya compares the personalities of Noah and of Moses. Both of these people brought the message of morality and ethics to the world, each in his own way:

Rabbi Berechiya says: Moses is more beloved than Noah,

Noah is first called “a righteous man” and then he is called “a man of the earth.”

Moses is first called “an Egyptian man” and then he is called “a man of God.”

(Bereishit Rabbah 58:3)

This midrash examines the titles given to Noah and notes a downward trajectory. We are first introduced to him as “a righteous man,” but after the flood he is merely “a man of the earth.” Rabbi Berechiya observes a process whereby Noah’s value is cheapened.

Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi (Italy, 15th Century) explains the midrash this way:

We see from this that the description “a man of the earth” denotes a lessening of his honor, as the Torah describes Noah as pursuing luxuries to the point of drunkenness.

Immediately after that story, we hear of Noah’s death, teaching that until he died he received no more communications from the Almighty, since he had become enamored with the physical world.       

(Ma’ase HaShem, Ma’ase Breishit 29).

Rabbi Ashkenazi understands that after the flood Noah becomes involved with the physicality of the world and its development, and he no longer devoted himself to spiritual matters. This left him further and further from the relationship with God that he once enjoyed. This approach seems to be supported by the lack of any conversation between God and Noah regarding the flood, which he had experienced. Noah was unable to retain his high standing – perhaps because of his experience in surviving the flood.

In contrast, one could suggest that Moses began his adventures at the bottommost rung of society. He finds himself in Midian, a foreign land, where the Torah itself attests to the fact that he was seen as an “Egyptian man.” He fights for justice and he finds himself fully immersed in the trials and travails of the physical world. Only later does God reveal Himself in the Burning Bush. From that moment and until his death, Moses is constantly in a prophetic mode, where he is raised to the level of “a man of God.” Throughout his life Moses is constantly rising in stature, higher and higher.

An almost diametrically opposed approach to this midrash is suggested by Rabbi Meir Simcha of Dvinsk. Rabbi Meir Simcha understands Rabbi Berechiya as presenting two archetypes of people who serve God, one of whom focuses inward on developing a personal relationship with God, while the other looks outward, and interacts with the community while trying to improve the world. Noah is the former model who looks inward, and Moses is the latter model, engaging the world. He writes:

There are two distinct pathways to serve God. One path is to devote oneself entirely to His service and remain alone. The other is to involve oneself with community needs, and devote oneself for the betterment of all, even at the expense of one’s own welfare.

                        (Meshekh Hokhma, Noah 20)

Noah’s lonely focus can be seen in his behavior prior to the flood. He made no attempt to change the ways of the world and improve them; he focused on his God-given task of completing the ark and saving himself, as he was commanded. In contrast, Moses was constantly working to improve the lot of the Israelites and save them from their oppressors. One would imagine that it is the one whose time is spent on community affairs who would forget his Torah learning. Rabbi Meir Simcha teaches otherwise – it was Noah who fell from his high stature, while Moses, who fought the Egyptian, rose up to a level of “a man of God.”

The first approach seen above views involvement with the mundane aspects of the world as being problematic, and identifies that with Noah’s life and reality, while the second approach sees Moses as being involved in earthly matters and Noah as being focused on his own spiritual world. It is reasonable to assume that each approach reflects its author’s worldview of the ideal role model, which is then inserted into the midrash.

We find support for this idea in Rabbi Meir Simcha’s community. In Dvinsk there were two well-known rabbinic figures – Rabbi Meir Simcha and Rabbi Joseph Rosen, known as the Rogatchover. Rabbi Meir Simcha was known as someone fully engaged with the community while the Rogatchover was so engrossed in his studies that he had no time for community activities. He is described as never being seen to walk, as he only ran, not wanting to waste any time from his learning. 

The source of disagreement between Rabbi Meir Simcha and Rabbi Eliezer Ashkenazi lies in their different perspectives on the role required of rabbinic community leaders and their priorities. Rabbi Meir Simcha believed that the main responsibility of the community rabbi was to serve his constituents. Apparently Rabbi Ashkenazi had a different set of priorities for his ideal rabbi. The foundation of their disagreement are the differing assumptions about what should be construed as the ideal service of God – for individuals and for the community.

The two approaches that we have seen both focus on leadership and role models, using the comparison between Noah and Moses as a means of clarifying how responsible Jewish leaders should behave. There is yet another way to view the midrash, however, as evidenced by the approach of Rabbi Isaiah Horowitz, the Holy Shelah.

The Shelah suggests that Moses should be seen as having the qualities of “a man” from the beginning He develops from “an Egyptian man” to “a man of God,” but he was and continues to be “a man” throughout. His potential was always there, it was a question of whether he would realize his potential and develop from “an Egyptian man” and become “a man of God.” Noah, on the other hand, was “a righteous man in his generation,” and it becomes clear after a time that he was not truly a righteous man – he was “a man of the earth” whose survival was not because of his righteousness, but because he could preserve mankind on the earth.

The approach of the Shelah suggests that there are no surprises in life. A person is born with a certain destiny and purpose. What was is what shall be. One person was born to be Noah while another was born to be Moses. Eventually we discover what becomes of a person and from that we can understand his beginnings, as well.

Both Rabbi Ashkenazi and Rabbi Meir Simcha saw this as a process – in either a positive or a negative direction. The Shelah sees specific limits and limitations of the possibility of change.

Comparing the figures of Noah and Moses naturally leads to the question of how we are to see a given man’s future. Examining them together makes us wonder about the beginnings of new life, and pondering them can serve as a kind of childbirth education class – preparing every person to give birth to themselves.