Friday, October 08, 2010

wild animals vs. wild people: what did Noach have to fear more?

Rashi (6:18) writes that Hashem made a special covenant with Noach to ensure that the animal fodder on the ark did not spoil and to ensure that Noach came to no harm from the wicked people around him. The Brisker Rav notes that no special protection from the wild animals aboard the ark was afforded to Noach – indeed, the Midrash tells us that a lion took a nip at Noach when he delayed his food. The implication is that Noach had more to fear from the wild people around him than from the wild animals he faced in the ark.

I would like to suggest a different way to make sense of the diyuk that avoids the Brisker Rav’s conclusion. In Parshas VaYeishev we read that instead of killing Yosef outright, the brothers decided to drop him into a pit. The Torah writes that the pit was empty of water, from which Chazal deduce that it was filled with other things – snakes and scorpions. Why was lowering Yosef into a snake filled pit better than killing him directly? The Ohr haChaim (which we discussed here) famously explains that snakes and scorpions have no free will – their behavior is mechanistic, controlled by Hashem alone. If Yosef was truly innocent and deserved Hashem’s grace, the snakes and scorpions would not harm him. If he was guilty, he would die. There could be no surer test of Yosef’s standing in G-d’s eyes. Ahuman being, however, has free choice that Hashem does not interfere with. The fact that the brothers or anyone else might be able to harm Yosef would not establish his guilt or innocence.

Based on this I think it makes perfect sense for Noach to need special protection from the people who surrounded him but not from the wild animals. The lions, tigers, and bears would only harm Noach if Hashem allowed; wild people have no such constraints on what they could do and the damage they could cause.

My son argued that if anything, Rashi proves the exact opposite of the case I am trying to make. If humans have free choice, how could Hashem promise to protect Noach? My counter-argument is that the pasuk is speaking of a bris, a special covenant that goes above and beyond the normal bounds of hashgacha. Even the Ohr haChaim would admit that Hashem has the power to interfere with free will. Hashem normally does not do so because the relative cost of abrogating such a fundamental principle overrides any benefit gained by doing so. However, in exceptional circumstances, all bets are off.

Two final notes: 1) I have heard that the Brisker Rav did not hold like this Ohr haChaim; 2) If someone has time it would pay to dig around and see if there are other Rashi’s that either agree or disagree with the Ohr haChaim.

9 comments:

  1. > If humans have free choice, how could Hashem promise to protect Noach?

    The Midrash tells us that HaShem surrounded the ark with wild animals specifically to protect it and Noach from attacks. It would seem from this midrash that there was no interference with free will, just a good guard effort to prevent the consequences of its expression.

    Of course, there's another midrash that says that wild animals also came when the rain started falling and attacked the ark so protection from those was also necessary.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Only the Brisker Rov didn't like the Ohr Hachaim??? I remember Reb Dovid Kronglass in NIRC saying that it's not true, and even if it were true, he shouldn't have said it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous1:56 PM

    there is a rashi on this matter. in alu treifos in regard to fish.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Your son is right lechora.

    ReplyDelete
  5. >>> It would seem from this midrash that there was no interference with free will,

    Good point, except you are begging the question of what interference w/ free will means. Let's say Reuvain wants to kill Shimon - he pulls out his gun, pulls the trigger, and the gun misfires. Is that interference w/ free will? What if he tries to hang him and the rope breaks? etc. The fact that a group of wild animals should suddenly appear around the ark to discourage interference seems like it counts as interference to me.

    B - The O.C. is really based on a Zohar and may have echoes in other Rishonim. You need some proof to say it isn't true. The Brisker Rav cited a pasuk, but I can't seem to recall it for some reason.

    I found on the shelves of the Beis Medrash a sefer called called "B'Nesivos Raboseinu' which collects all the Brisker torah on chumash from various places. The editor has a discussion in the footnotes of the Brisker Rav I quotef and he brings in exactly the same Ohr haChaim as I did. At least somebody out there in Brisker land agrees with me that this point plays into the discussion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I saw a pshat that after the cheit of Adam HaRishon the animals had no fear of man.After the mabul, HKBH made a bris with Noach that the aniamls will now have a fear of man. According to this Moach should have feared the animals on the teiva.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Tal Benschar3:09 PM

    You are confusing interference with free will and interference with a person's actions. A person may decide to do an aveirah (e.g. kill someone, bomb a builing), that does not mean that in the physical world his plans will (necessarily) be succesful.

    IIRC, R. Chaim Volozhiner stated based on a possuk in Hallel that there are always those plotting to destroy the Jewish people, and most times we do not even realize that the hasgacha has worked to save us. Only the goyim who were so plotting realize that. (I think it is the possuk hallelu es Hashem kol goyim, shabchuhu kol ha umim, ki gavar aleinue chasdo, ve'emes Hashem)

    Interference with free will is when Hashem changes a persons psycology -- like hardening Pharaoh's heart (acc. to some understandings).

    Otherwise, every yeshuah, whether natural or miraculous, becomes an "interference with free will." Was kriyas yam suf such an intereference? (Under the natural rules of war, the Jews should have been slaughtered, r"l)

    ReplyDelete
  8. >>>Was kriyas yam suf such an intereference?

    Yes, it was, as is every yeshuah. See Koveitz He'Oros of R' Elchanan, Agados al Derech haPshat 7:4 regarding whether a person's ability to kill himself or others (action) must necessarily be sanctioned by Hashem decreeing that the party in question should die. In other words, the issue is whether it is possible to act in such a way that is not determined or sanctioned by G-d. Absolutely nothing to do with psychology.

    >>>After the mabul, HKBH made a bris with Noach that the aniamls will now have a fear of man. According to this Moach should have feared the animals on the teiva.

    Such a bris preceded Noach. As for why it had to be repeated to Noach, see the Yismach Moshe for a fascinating approach.

    ReplyDelete
  9. >> Such a bris preceded Noach. As for why it had to be repeated to Noach, see the Yismach Moshe for a fascinating approach

    The way R' Yaakov Kamenetzky understands it, the bris was taken away after Adam's cheit and only brought back after the mabul

    ReplyDelete