| לב וַיְהִי-נֹחַ, בֶּן-חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ, אֶת-שֵׁם אֶת-חָם וְאֶת-יָפֶת. | 32 And Noah was five hundred years old; and Noah begot Shem, Ham, and Japheth. |
This is the close of a genealogical "stream" or voice. We see the Divine name of Elokim throughout this perek, in pasuk 1, 22, and 24. And as is regularly the case in these Elokim streams, the purpose is to show the macro-level, the flow of generations. (What they refer to in the Documentary Hypothesis as "P"; but multiple streams is different from multiple authors.) This perek starts at the creation of Adam and leaves off with Noach and his three sons.
וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ, אֶת-שֵׁם אֶת-חָם וְאֶת-יָפֶת -- Why mention these three sons, instead of leaving off at the birth of Noach? Because these three will be featured in the coming narrative.
Meanwhile, the birth of these sons are mentioned in the second pasuk of our narrative in parashat Noach, in perek 6:
| י וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ, שְׁלֹשָׁה בָנִים--אֶת-שֵׁם, אֶת-חָם וְאֶת-יָפֶת. | 10 And Noah begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. |
Why the repetition? Not because these are different authors who are unaware of one another. Rather, these sons are mentioned for different purposes. In the genealogical section (perek 5), it was to advance the generations up to this point. In the narrative section (perek 6), it was to introduce the cast of characters. Noach is relevant since he is to build the ark and save the world. His sons and their wives will be mentioned as entering the ark with him, and in the blessings and curse.
Now we start the sixth perek, and are not yet even officially up to parashat Noach. This section is one where YKVK is used. Perhaps because of Divine Mercy in pasuk 3, perhaps because of personal relating to mankind, as we see that a very particular sin was mentioned (rather than simply "corruption" as it appears later), and as we see that Noach in particular found favor in his eyes (pasuk 8); or perhaps so as not to cause confusion with the Bnei Elohim.
| א וַיְהִי כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה; וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם. | 1 And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them, |
וַיְהִי -- On a peshat level does not need to designate calamity. Indeed, even on a midrashic level, this word does not always designate calamity.
כִּי-הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה -- perhaps sins become more noticeable as mankind spreads across the earth; or perhaps these people and their daughters become more noticeable to the Bnei Elohim.
וּבָנוֹת, יֻלְּדוּ לָהֶם -- as the required setup for the next pasuk, where these daughters are featured. Also see previous pasuk, where there is not just a direct and limited progeny of generation to generation, but of וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת. This is required for there to be this spread of לָרֹב עַל-פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה.
Next pasuk:
| ב וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ לָהֶם נָשִׁים, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ. | 2 that the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives, whomsoever they chose. |
וַיִּרְאוּ בְנֵי-הָאֱלֹהִים -- Who were these Bnei HaElohim? These could be:
- Mighty men. We don't need to take it as sons of judges, in order to avoid attributing quasi-divine status to these fellows. Elohim is used to denote mighty, as in Bereshit 1:2, veruach elohim, 'and a mighty wind'.
- Sons of judges, though it is debatable whether Elohim indeed means judges. In either this option of the previous, we can see this as powerful people who thus abused their power over common man. See Rashi for two examples of authority described as Elohim.
- Literal sons of God, or sons of the deities, or angelic beings. We can relate them to the nefilim who appear in a few pesukim. Note also the definite article in haElohim, which might well refer to dieties with a lowercase d.
- Righteous men, who walked with God. וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ, אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים
- Those men who were created betzelem Elokim. בְּיוֹם, בְּרֹא אֱלֹהִים אָדָם, בִּדְמוּת אֱלֹהִים, עָשָׂה אֹתוֹ. The Kazari says that tzelem elokim from Adam until Avraham was son to selected son, not all encompassing. Humans breeding with Neanderthals, as current scientific evidence suggests.
- Those humans, parallel to Adam, who did not eat from the eitz hadaat, and thus were immortal humans created betzelem, unlike the daughters descended from Adam. See below.
In parashat Haazinu:
| ח בְּהַנְחֵל עֶלְיוֹן גּוֹיִם, {ס} בְּהַפְרִידוֹ בְּנֵי אָדָם; {ר} יַצֵּב גְּבֻלֹת עַמִּים, {ס} לְמִסְפַּר בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. {ר} | 8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel. |
The Dead Sea Scrolls (which don't reflect any particular recension, since they are random collections), and the Septuagint seem to have lemispar bnei El or bnei Elohim; and bnei Adam appears earlier in the verse.
אֶת-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם -- it does seem to contrast benot ha'adam to benei haElohim, zachar to nekeiva and man to god. But perhaps this is powerful vs. non-powerful.
כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה; וַיִּקְחוּ -- Rashi gives an interesting midrash:
| when they were beautifying themselves: Heb., טֹבֹת. Said Rabbi Judan: It is written טבת [i.e., instead of טובות. Thus it can be read טָבַת, meaning to beautify.] When they would beautify her, adorned to enter the nuptial canopy, a noble would enter and have relations with her first (Gen. Rabbah 26:5). | כי טבת הנה: אמר רבי יודן טבת כתיב, כשהיו מטיבין אותה מקושטת ליכנס לחופה, היה גדול נכנס ובועלה תחלה: |
We know that Chazal had to contend with Droit du seigneur, and they read this terrible situation into the pasuk. It is not just a revocalization of tovat, as suggested in the brackets immediately above. Rather, ki meaning "when". When the would beautify her, then they took.
On a peshat level, it simply means "that". They saw that they were fair.
וַיִּקְחוּ -- Does this have to be a sin? This lends itself to different competing interpretations. The negative interpretation is that these bnei Elohim, in a position of power, took whomever they wished, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ, even against their will. Rashi expands the sin, based on the ambiguity and inclusiveness of mikol:
The more neutral interpretation is that they intermarried with the bnot haadam.
Next pasuk:
This seems like a punishment. If so, the implication is that what they were doing in the previous pasuk was negative. If it is not punishment, then it reads like a natural consequence.
לֹא-יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם -- either that Hashem will not be ever-patient with mankind's sinning; or that mankind cannot remain alive, retaining his soul, forever; or that the tzelem elokim (if man) or the bnei elohim (if angel) aspect cannot abide in mortal humans forever.
בְּשַׁגַּם, הוּא בָשָׂר -- and as a man, he sins, or has evil intentions. See the parallel in pasuk 5: וַיַּרְא ה, כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְכָל-יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ, רַק רַע כָּל-הַיּוֹם. The question is whether this is indeed repetition, or saying something entirely different.
The alternative is that, when the bnei haelohim intermarried with benot haadam, the offspring had some portion of human and some portion of deity. Since they were part bnei Elohim, they might be immortal. Yet, they were also human, descended from Adam. בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר. And so they had limited lifespans of 120 years, as in the classic ad meah ve'esrim shana. The difficulty with this interpretation is that, according to the genealogical sections, people in those days lived much longer. I have a theory of time dilation, in which reported years in genealogical sections are really multiples of months.
Besides limited lifespan, as either punishment or natural consequence of the inter-"species" mating between bnot haadam and bnei elohim, another possibility, which works out precisely in year calculations, is that Hashem was waiting 120 years before bringing the mabul. As Rashi explains, putting forth as peshat:
Well, it works out precisely, except that it does not, and is off by 20 years. So Rashi resolves it, by adding the 20 years and claiming ain mukdam. Indeed, I already explained (on the first pasuk in parashat Bereishit) that ain mukdam between different "streams", namely a genealalogical section and narrative section is much easier to say. Still, I am unconvinced that this is peshat in this pasuk.
Next:
הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ -- The Nefilim also appear in sefer Bemidbar, perek 13, in parashat Shelach. Thus:
These are the only two places in Tanach that the Nefilim are mentioned. I would argue that this pasuk at the end of parashat Bereishit, about Nefilim, is background information. It covers most of the same ground as the immediately preceding pasuk, but was inserted by Moshe Rabbenu in Bereshit to help identify the Nefilim who occur in sefer Bemidbar.
הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם -- This is when the race of Nefilim began.
וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן -- even unto the days of the Israelite conquest. Not because they live forever, and survived the mabul somehow, but rather these are descendants of descendants of this powerful race.
אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם -- And they were products of this interspecies mating. That is why they are so powerful.
הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם -- emphasizing their power, just as their power is emphasized in sefer Bemidbar.
{פ} -- At this point there is a petucha break, separating this section from what follows. Which argues against the preceding being a cause for the mabul.
Next pasuk, which starts a new section. This section, until the next petucha, is a stream typically labelled J. It gives a quick overview. Mankind was bad, Noach was good, and so Hashem saved him and his household. No specific details as to the construction of the teiva.
We are not told here of the specifics of mankind's sin. Mankind is capable of all sorts of evil, and at any rate, does not measure up to Divine moral perfection.
Next:
וַיִּנָּחֶם -- presents theological difficulties. See how Rashi renders it as "consolation". Can a Being with absolute knowledge and foreknowledge really have second thoughts, and regret? Dibra Torah kilshon bnei adam.
וַיִּתְעַצֵּב -- again with theological difficulties. This is, in part, why Rashi renders it as referring to man was grieved, in His heart.
אֶל-לִבּוֹ -- is this an indication of heart as the seat of emotion, given וַיִּתְעַצֵּב? Or is it the seat of the intellect?
As Rashi notes, one can be happy at the time of happiness, and only later aggrieved at the time of grieving, even though he knew from before the time for grieving would arrive.
וַיֹּאמֶר ה -- as an expression of Divine intent, not that Hashem needed to speak this out, or that anyone was the recipient of such a speech.
כִּי נִחַמְתִּי, כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם -- Hashem is the Creator, and Hashem can destroy.
מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה -- and not destroying the Earth itself. Only a reversal of creatures which dwell on the earth.
מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה -- this is a reversal of the order of creation. Adam on day 6, beast earlier on day 6.
עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם -- creeping creatures either on day 6 (but then admittedly out of order), or earlier, (of the sea) on day 5. Flying creatures on day 5.
Next:
But even as Hashem resolves to destroy the earth, for sinfulness, the same Hashem favors Noach as a non-sinner. Hashem wishes to preserve Noach, and indeed, recreate humanity from Noach.
The reason I stress that this is the same Hashem is that this is a different message than what we see in Tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh. There, it was a secret council (counsel) of the gods (HaElohim), led by Enlil, to destroy mankind; and special favor shown to Utanpishtim by Ea (with all vowels, perhaps a cognate of YKVK, and thus middat hachesed vs. middat harachamim?).
Thus:
But Hashem destroys the world and Hashem preserves Noach. Or Elokim destroys the world and Elokim preserves Noach.
{פ} --This ends this "J" section. There is an aspect of personal connection to Noach and his descendants, while at the same time, the restarting of humanity has an "E" or "P", macro-level, cosmic-level significance. And so each retells, thought with a different focus and perspective.
And with this, we can begin parashat Noach, with Elokim as the Divine name.
אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ -- There is a dispute whether toldot means incidents happening to person X or only means the genealogy of Noach. Many bring this pasuk as evidence for the former, forgetting that the very next pasuk lists his three sons. Intervening is indeed an interjection.
This is a sort of zoom-in after a genealogical section.
נֹחַ -- This is Utnapishtim, or rather, Utna-ish-tim (Noach, Ish Tam), of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I cite myself here:
A comment by Shilton Hasechel in a recent DovBear comment thread:
Yes, in Akkadian he is referred to as Utanapishtim ("He who saw life", appropriate as the Gilgamesh epic is all about attaining eternal life.) However, in Old Babylonian, this name is instead as Utna-ishtim, without the /p/.
Here is the first pasuk in parashat Noach, where I will mark off some of these letters in red:
On a peshat level, it simply means "that". They saw that they were fair.
וַיִּקְחוּ -- Does this have to be a sin? This lends itself to different competing interpretations. The negative interpretation is that these bnei Elohim, in a position of power, took whomever they wished, מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ, even against their will. Rashi expands the sin, based on the ambiguity and inclusiveness of mikol:
| from whomever they chose: Even a married woman, even males and animals (Gen. Rabbah ad loc.). | מכל אשר בחרו: אף בעולת בעל, אף הזכר והבהמה: |
The more neutral interpretation is that they intermarried with the bnot haadam.
Next pasuk:
| ג וַיֹּאמֶר ה, לֹא-יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם, בְּשַׁגַּם, הוּא בָשָׂר; וְהָיוּ יָמָיו, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה. | 3 And the LORD said: 'My spirit shall not abide in man for ever, for that he also is flesh; therefore shall his days be a hundred and twenty years.' |
This seems like a punishment. If so, the implication is that what they were doing in the previous pasuk was negative. If it is not punishment, then it reads like a natural consequence.
לֹא-יָדוֹן רוּחִי בָאָדָם לְעֹלָם -- either that Hashem will not be ever-patient with mankind's sinning; or that mankind cannot remain alive, retaining his soul, forever; or that the tzelem elokim (if man) or the bnei elohim (if angel) aspect cannot abide in mortal humans forever.
בְּשַׁגַּם, הוּא בָשָׂר -- and as a man, he sins, or has evil intentions. See the parallel in pasuk 5: וַיַּרְא ה, כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְכָל-יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ, רַק רַע כָּל-הַיּוֹם. The question is whether this is indeed repetition, or saying something entirely different.
The alternative is that, when the bnei haelohim intermarried with benot haadam, the offspring had some portion of human and some portion of deity. Since they were part bnei Elohim, they might be immortal. Yet, they were also human, descended from Adam. בְּשַׁגַּם הוּא בָשָׂר. And so they had limited lifespans of 120 years, as in the classic ad meah ve'esrim shana. The difficulty with this interpretation is that, according to the genealogical sections, people in those days lived much longer. I have a theory of time dilation, in which reported years in genealogical sections are really multiples of months.
Besides limited lifespan, as either punishment or natural consequence of the inter-"species" mating between bnot haadam and bnei elohim, another possibility, which works out precisely in year calculations, is that Hashem was waiting 120 years before bringing the mabul. As Rashi explains, putting forth as peshat:
| and his days shall be: Until a hundred and twenty years I will delay My wrath towards them, but if they do not repent, I will bring a flood upon them. Now if you ask: from the time that Japheth was born until the Flood are only a hundred years, [I will answer that] there is no [sequence of] earlier and later events in the Torah. This decree had already been issued twenty years before Noah begot children, and so we find in Seder Olam (ch. 28). There are many Aggadic midrashim on the words לֹא יָדוֹן, but this is its clear, simple explanation. | והיו ימיו וגו': עד מאה ועשרים שנה אאריך להם אפי ואם לא ישובו אביא עליהם מבול. ואם תאמר משנולד יפת עד המבול אינו אלא מאה שנה, אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה, כבר היתה הגזירה גזורה עשרים שנה קודם שהוליד נח תולדות, וכן מצינו בסדר עולם (פרק כח). יש מדרשי אגדה רבים בלא ידון, אבל זה הוא צחצוח פשוטו: |
Well, it works out precisely, except that it does not, and is off by 20 years. So Rashi resolves it, by adding the 20 years and claiming ain mukdam. Indeed, I already explained (on the first pasuk in parashat Bereishit) that ain mukdam between different "streams", namely a genealalogical section and narrative section is much easier to say. Still, I am unconvinced that this is peshat in this pasuk.
Next:
| ד הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ, בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם, וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם: הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם. {פ} | 4 The Nephilim were in the earth in those days, and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bore children to them; the same were the mighty men that were of old, the men of renown. {P} |
הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ -- The Nefilim also appear in sefer Bemidbar, perek 13, in parashat Shelach. Thus:
These are the only two places in Tanach that the Nefilim are mentioned. I would argue that this pasuk at the end of parashat Bereishit, about Nefilim, is background information. It covers most of the same ground as the immediately preceding pasuk, but was inserted by Moshe Rabbenu in Bereshit to help identify the Nefilim who occur in sefer Bemidbar.
הַנְּפִלִים הָיוּ בָאָרֶץ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם -- This is when the race of Nefilim began.
וְגַם אַחֲרֵי-כֵן -- even unto the days of the Israelite conquest. Not because they live forever, and survived the mabul somehow, but rather these are descendants of descendants of this powerful race.
אֲשֶׁר יָבֹאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים אֶל-בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם, וְיָלְדוּ לָהֶם -- And they were products of this interspecies mating. That is why they are so powerful.
הֵמָּה הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר מֵעוֹלָם, אַנְשֵׁי הַשֵּׁם -- emphasizing their power, just as their power is emphasized in sefer Bemidbar.
{פ} -- At this point there is a petucha break, separating this section from what follows. Which argues against the preceding being a cause for the mabul.
Next pasuk, which starts a new section. This section, until the next petucha, is a stream typically labelled J. It gives a quick overview. Mankind was bad, Noach was good, and so Hashem saved him and his household. No specific details as to the construction of the teiva.
| ה וַיַּרְא ה, כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, וְכָל-יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ, רַק רַע כָּל-הַיּוֹם. | 5 And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. |
We are not told here of the specifics of mankind's sin. Mankind is capable of all sorts of evil, and at any rate, does not measure up to Divine moral perfection.
Next:
| ו וַיִּנָּחֶם ה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ. | 6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. |
וַיִּנָּחֶם -- presents theological difficulties. See how Rashi renders it as "consolation". Can a Being with absolute knowledge and foreknowledge really have second thoughts, and regret? Dibra Torah kilshon bnei adam.
וַיִּתְעַצֵּב -- again with theological difficulties. This is, in part, why Rashi renders it as referring to man was grieved, in His heart.
אֶל-לִבּוֹ -- is this an indication of heart as the seat of emotion, given וַיִּתְעַצֵּב? Or is it the seat of the intellect?
As Rashi notes, one can be happy at the time of happiness, and only later aggrieved at the time of grieving, even though he knew from before the time for grieving would arrive.
| ז וַיֹּאמֶר ה, אֶמְחֶה אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה, עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם: כִּי נִחַמְתִּי, כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם. | 7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.' |
וַיֹּאמֶר ה -- as an expression of Divine intent, not that Hashem needed to speak this out, or that anyone was the recipient of such a speech.
כִּי נִחַמְתִּי, כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם -- Hashem is the Creator, and Hashem can destroy.
מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה -- and not destroying the Earth itself. Only a reversal of creatures which dwell on the earth.
מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה -- this is a reversal of the order of creation. Adam on day 6, beast earlier on day 6.
עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם -- creeping creatures either on day 6 (but then admittedly out of order), or earlier, (of the sea) on day 5. Flying creatures on day 5.
Next:
| ח וְנֹחַ, מָצָא חֵן בְּעֵינֵי ה. {פ} | 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD. {P} |
But even as Hashem resolves to destroy the earth, for sinfulness, the same Hashem favors Noach as a non-sinner. Hashem wishes to preserve Noach, and indeed, recreate humanity from Noach.
The reason I stress that this is the same Hashem is that this is a different message than what we see in Tablet 11 of the Epic of Gilgamesh. There, it was a secret council (counsel) of the gods (HaElohim), led by Enlil, to destroy mankind; and special favor shown to Utanpishtim by Ea (with all vowels, perhaps a cognate of YKVK, and thus middat hachesed vs. middat harachamim?).
Thus:
Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying:
"I will reveal to you, Gilgamesh, a thing that is hidden,
a secret of the gods I will tell you!
Shuruppak, a city that you surely know,
situated on the banks of the Euphrates,
that city was very old, and there were gods inside it.
The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood.
Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy),
Valiant Enlil was their Adviser,
Ninurta was their Chamberlain,
Ennugi was their Minister of Canals.
Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them
so he repeated their talk to the reed house:
'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
The gods had their plan, and Ea defied them while still staying true to his secret oath, by speaking to the reed house. Or, in a dream, as is stated by Ea later. Perhaps these are the various masters of natural forces.But Hashem destroys the world and Hashem preserves Noach. Or Elokim destroys the world and Elokim preserves Noach.
{פ} --This ends this "J" section. There is an aspect of personal connection to Noach and his descendants, while at the same time, the restarting of humanity has an "E" or "P", macro-level, cosmic-level significance. And so each retells, thought with a different focus and perspective.
And with this, we can begin parashat Noach, with Elokim as the Divine name.
| ט אֵלֶּה, תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ--נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה, בְּדֹרֹתָיו: אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, הִתְהַלֶּךְ-נֹחַ. | 9 These are the generations of Noah. Noah was in his generations a man righteous and whole-hearted; Noah walked with God. |
אֵלֶּה תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ -- There is a dispute whether toldot means incidents happening to person X or only means the genealogy of Noach. Many bring this pasuk as evidence for the former, forgetting that the very next pasuk lists his three sons. Intervening is indeed an interjection.
This is a sort of zoom-in after a genealogical section.
נֹחַ -- This is Utnapishtim, or rather, Utna-ish-tim (Noach, Ish Tam), of the Epic of Gilgamesh. I cite myself here:
A comment by Shilton Hasechel in a recent DovBear comment thread:
If Noach was a historical figure why can no one agree on his name (Utnapishtim, etc.)I have some good answers to this question, but I'm in the mood to have some fun.
Yes, in Akkadian he is referred to as Utanapishtim ("He who saw life", appropriate as the Gilgamesh epic is all about attaining eternal life.) However, in Old Babylonian, this name is instead as Utna-ishtim, without the /p/.
Here is the first pasuk in parashat Noach, where I will mark off some of these letters in red:
אֵלֶּה, תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ--נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה, בְּדֹרֹתָיו: אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, הִתְהַלֶּךְ-נֹחַ.
I give you Ut-nah-ish-tim.(If you ask why I use the roshei teivos of the first two words, I'll point out that Noach was captain, or the rosh, of his teivah, such that this is entirely appropriate.)
נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק -- how do we account for the interjection. Rashi says zecher tzadik livracha, that on a peshat level, one might relate the praises of a tzadik at his first mention. And this is indeed a first mention in this more detailed narrative stream.
אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה -- Is it that he was an ish tzadik plus that he was tamim in his generation? Or that he was an ish tzadik tamim.
The trup votes in one direction:
The tevir under tzadik splits a section ending at the tipcha on haya. Thus, the split is:
אֵלֶּה, תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ--נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה, בְּדֹרֹתָיו
splits at the zakef to become:
אֵלֶּה, תּוֹלְדֹת נֹחַ
נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה, בְּדֹרֹתָיו
The latter then splits off into:
נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה
בְּדֹרֹתָיו
This indicates to me that bedorotav modifies all that precedes it. It was not split into:
נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק
תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדֹרֹתָיו
Rather, we have a single unit, meant to be read together, of נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק תָּמִים הָיָה. In turn, this is finally (irregularly?) divided as:
נֹחַ אִישׁ צַדִּיק
תָּמִים הָיָה
But still, I think the trup is saying that he was a wholly righteous man, or at least that he was both righteous and in whole his generation.
I think the other parses can work out at well.
תָּמִים הָיָה בְּדֹרֹתָיו -- the purpose of this stress of "in his generation" is the same as the contrast in the earlier section, between the wickedness of mankind in general, and the special Divine favor shown to Noach.
בְּדֹרֹתָיו -- see Ibn Ezra about the plural form, about being righteous before and after the mabul. Perhaps this is just a peculiarity of language, and should not be overly interpreted on a peshat level. It means in his generation, or while he lived.
אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים -- here, et is used to mean "with", rather than as the direct object marker.
הִתְהַלֶּךְ-נֹחַ -- He walked in the ways of God. This is Biblical poetry at work, as poetic parallelism to earlier in the pasuk. But further, he walked in the way of his forefathers. From last perek, perek 5:
| כב וַיִּתְהַלֵּךְ חֲנוֹךְ אֶת-הָאֱלֹהִים, אַחֲרֵי הוֹלִידוֹ אֶת-מְתוּשֶׁלַח, שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת, שָׁנָה; וַיּוֹלֶד בָּנִים, וּבָנוֹת. | 22 And Enoch walked with God after he begot Methuselah three hundred years, and begot sons and daughters. |
and stated again a bit later, again about Chanoch.
Next pasuk:
| י וַיּוֹלֶד נֹחַ, שְׁלֹשָׁה בָנִים--אֶת-שֵׁם, אֶת-חָם וְאֶת-יָפֶת. | 10 And Noah begot three sons, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. |
This listing of sons is necessary foremost because the preceding pasuk referred to the Toledot of Noach, and this giving of the Toldot / children is standard form in the beginning of such sections. Secondarily, it is important because, while J-stream only refers to Noach and his household, this E-stream refers to the sons by name entering the teiva.
Presumably, these are given in age order. But see the later discussion.
Next pasuk:
| יא וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ, לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים; וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ, חָמָס. | 11 And the earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with violence. |
וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ -- corruption, unspecified. But it is a setup for the pun / fitting punishment, in two pesukim, of וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם.
לִפְנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים -- This is clearer evidence of Divine name of Elokim, more so than earlier, where Noach walked et-HaElokim, which might have been a more generic way of referring to a righteous individual.
וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ חָמָס -- It is unclear whether this is violence, robbery, or what. Meforshim would turn to other pesukim. I am a big fan of comparative Semitic philology. And so, we can turn to Arabic to discover its meaning:
Hummus (Arabic: حُمُّص) is a Middle Eastern and Arabic food dip or spread made from cooked, mashed chickpeas, blended with tahini, olive oil, lemon juice, salt...People were drowning in mashes chickpeas before they were drowning in water.
In seriousness, I don't know that we are supposed to identify a specific definition of חָמָס.
| יב וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת-הָאָרֶץ, וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה: כִּי-הִשְׁחִית כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֶת-דַּרְכּוֹ, עַל-הָאָרֶץ. {ס} | 12 And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. {S} |
This was ultimately God's decision, but it was by and large a natural consequence of mankind's actions, for they had corrupted their way.
{ס} -- a setuma gap is a gap in the middle of the line. It feels like it is less of a pause that a petucha, which leaves the gap until the end of the line and begins at the start of the next line.
To be continued...
No comments:
Post a Comment