don't throw the raven overboard

The gemara (San 108b) relates that the raven had an iron clad argument to object to being sent out by Noach (parenthetically: the Brisker Rav asks what was the point of sending out the raven and the dove to check if there was dry land?  Even after he found that there was dry land and the ark made landfall, Noach did not leave the teivah until he had a tzivuy from Hashem to do so?):

וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הָעֹרֵב״, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ: תְּשׁוּבָה נִיצַּחַת הֱשִׁיבוֹ עוֹרֵב לְנֹחַ. אָמַר לוֹ: רַבְּךָ שׂוֹנְאֵנִי וְאַתָּה שְׂנֵאתָנִי. רַבְּךָ שׂוֹנְאֵנִי – מִן הַטְּהוֹרִין שִׁבְעָה, מִן הַטְּמֵאִים שְׁנַיִם, וְאַתָּה שְׂנֵאתָנִי – שֶׁאַתָּה מַנִּיחַ מִמִּין שִׁבְעָה וְשׁוֹלֵחַ מִמִּין שְׁנַיִם. אִם פּוֹגֵעַ בִּי שַׂר חַמָּה אוֹ שַׂר צִנָּה, לֹא נִמְצָא עוֹלָם חָסֵר בְּרִיָּה אַחַת? אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לְאִשְׁתִּי אַתָּה צָרִיךְ

אָמַר לוֹ: רָשָׁע! בַּמּוּתָּר לִי נֶאֱסַר לִי, בַּנֶּאֱסָר לִי לֹא כׇּל שֶׁכֵּן?

How does Noach's response address the complaint of the raven?  How did Noach justify sending it out when there was no other raven left for its mate?  Maharasha comments as follows:

מזה דרשו שראה נח תשובתו הנצחת ...ואמר ליה נח רשע וכו' קראו רשע על שעבר על מצות קונו לשמש בתיבה וז"ש במותר לי נאסר בתיבה בנאסר לי עם אשתך לא כל שכן שלא אעבור על מצות קוני והיה לו זה קצת תשובתו דלכך שלחתיך לפי שאתה רשע ושמשת בתיבה ואין לחוש עליך כמו על שאר העופות גם כי אשתך הרה ממך ונמצא שאין עולם חסר בריה ובבריות אחרות שלא שמשו יש לחוש על כך שיהיה חסר במינם

Simple pshat in Maharasha is that Noach was telling the ravan that since he is a rasha, he deserves to be gotten rid of and that's why he is kicking him overboard.

R' Mordechai Kukis (R"Y of Porat Yosef) quotes his son, R' Uriel, in a one line footnote here, who says a brilliant pshat that flips the gemara and Maharasha on its head.  The ravan at this point had nothing going for it. By rights, it had lost its "zechus ha'kiyum," it had forfeited whatever merit it had to be saved in the ark and be spared the plight of all the other creatures.  But Noach wasn't trying to get rid of him.  Aderaba, Noach was throwing the raven a life preserver!  Why did Noach send out the raven?  Because he was giving the raven something positive to do that would benefit everyone -- go out a see if there is dry land and food -- so that the raven could restore that "zechus ha'kiyum" and prove that it still has value, it still deserves a chance to live, despite the fact that it had sinned.  

Chazal are not telling us Dr Doolittle stories. Chazal are trying to teach us a lesson for our own behavior. When someone has done wrong, the solution is not necessarily to throw them overboard. Sometimes the solution is to give them an avenue to build themselves up again, find a way for them to restore their sense of self worth and their sense of brining value within the community.

l'chaim - to life!

The gemara (Sanhedrim 108) tells us that Noach found a certian bird sitting quietly in a room in the ark not bothering anyone or anything.  He asked the bird, "Don't you want food?" to which the bird replied, "I saw you were busy and didn't want to bother you."  In response to this act of kindness Noach blessed the bird that it should live forever.

Maharasha asks: this gemara seems to contradict a different Chazal.  The Midrash teaches that this bird lived forever because it was the only animal that did not listen to Chavah and eat from the Eitz ha'Daas:

מהכא משמע דמברכתו של נח זכה לכך אבל בב״ר אמרו ותקח מפריו ותאכל הכל שמעו לה ואכלו חוץ מעוף א׳ ושמו חול הה״ד וכחול ארבה ימים אלף שנה הוא חי ובסוף אלף שנים גופו כלה וכו׳ וחוזר ומגדל אבריו וחי ע״כ וק״ל

One possible simple answer is that not eating from the Eitz ha'Daas prevented natural death, but there was always the chance that the bird might be hunted and killed.  Noach's blessing prevented even that from occurring.

Rav Pincus in Tiferes Torah suggests a different answer.  We've in the past discussed the gemara (R"H 32) that teaches that on Rosh haShana that angels are perplexed as to why Bn"Y are not saying hallel -- R"H is still a yom tov after all?  Hashem answers that it is impossible to sing hallel and be joyous when the Book of Life and Book of Death stand open before us:

אָמַר רַבִּי אֲבָהוּ אָמְרוּ מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם מִפְּנֵי מָה אֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה לְפָנֶיךָ בְּרֹאשׁ הַשָּׁנָה וּבְיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים אָמַר לָהֶם אֶפְשָׁר מֶלֶךְ יוֹשֵׁב עַל כִּסֵּא דִין וְסִפְרֵי חַיִּים וְסִפְרֵי מֵתִים פְּתוּחִין לְפָנָיו וְיִשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים שִׁירָה.

B'shalama the Book of Death being open, asks Rav Pincus, neicha that we should be trembling in our boots.  But why does the gemara also mention the fact that the Book of Life is open?  Why is our trepidation on Yom haDin related to that book as well?  

We see from this Chazal a tremendous yesod: Life means more than the absence of death.  It's not enough to hope you are not inscribed in the Book of Death on Rosh HaShana and m'meila, if nothing bad happens, life will continue as-is ad infinitum with no need to do anything more.  A person needs to have a reason to live; a person needs to strive for fulfillment, for growth.  This is especially true on the Yom haDin, especially on Rosh haShana when the entire world has a chance to renew itself and be reborn.  If a person is not part of that, what is life for?  We are beyond the days of Rosh haShana, but this shabbos is also Rosh Chodesh, a time of hischadshus.  It's not enough to slide into the new month maintaining status quo.  We have to renew ourselves, renew our reason for being here, or what are we living for?  

That's why we are shaking in our boots when the Book of Life is open.  If you just skate by by avoiding the Book of Death without a Book of Life, you don't really have a life after all.  

Unless we also make it into that Book of Life, our existence will be a futile exercise and will inevitably draw to a close. 

Think for a moment about the two special trees in Gan Eden, the Eitz haDaas and the Eitz haChaim.  If being alive means no more than avoiding death, then why was there an Eitz haChaim?  Avoiding the Eitz haDaas alone would do the trick of guaranteeing eternal life?  Al korchacha life must be about more than cheating death.  We need an Eitz haChaim, we need a Sefer haChaim, meaning and reason for being here, or all the years in eternity don't really matter.

This the lesson Chazal are teaching us in this story about Noach's magical bird.  True, the bird did not eat from the Eitz ha'Daas and therefore had the potential to live forever, but what a sad, meaningless existence that would be. Such a life would come to nothing and ultimately fizzle out on its own. It was by doing an act of chessed that this bird demonstrated that its existence had positive meaning, and that is the secret to the bracha which Noach gave it of true eternal life. 

Rogatchover on building the teivah: is the mitzvah the maaseh or the totza'ah?

The Rogatchover asks what the geder of Hashem's mitzvah to make a teivah was.  Was it the עצם המעשׂה, the act of building the teivah, or was it the end result, the תוצאה, of having a teivah, which was crucial?

I would say mi'sevara that it depends on what the real reason for building the teivah was.  If the point was to have a place of refuge for Noach and family during the flood, then all that matters is the end result of having a safe haven.  If the point was to raise awareness of the impending flood and thereby arouse the people to do teshuvah, then process of building, which people would take note of, was crucial.  (Baruch she'kivanti, my son pointed out that the L. Rebbe makes this point in a sicha (vol 15).)

The Rogatchover in his unmatched genius brought a proof from the following gemara (Sukkah 52b):

״וַיַּרְאֵנִי ה׳ אַרְבָּעָה חָרָשִׁים״, מַאן נִינְהוּ אַרְבָּעָה חָרָשִׁים? אָמַר רַב חָנָא בַּר בִּיזְנָא אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן חֲסִידָא: מָשִׁיחַ בֶּן דָּוִד, וּמָשִׁיחַ בֶּן יוֹסֵף, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ, וְכֹהֵן צֶדֶק.

Why are these 4 people called craftsmen?  Rashi explains that Mashiach ben David and ben Yosef will build Beis haMikdash; Eliyahu built a bamah on Mt Carmel; Kohen Tzedek is Shem ben Noach who helped his father build the teivah.

Had Noach been commanded in the עצם המעשׂה of building the teivah, then how could he have allowed his son to help?  He was given the mitzvah, not his son, and there is no din of shlichus for a ben Noach!  It must be, says the Rogatchover, that all that matters was the תוצאה, but who did the building or how it was done was not important.

in a different world

Rashi comments: קץ כל בשר בא לפני – כל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות, אנדרולמוסיא בא לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים.  Taz (in Divrei David) points out that Rashi seems to be a stira minei u'bei, self-contradictory. If the evils of the pre-flood world dictated a response of  אנדרולמוסיא that kills טובים ורעים, good and evil folks alike, then how is it that Noach himself was spared?  Doesn't the fact that he survived and was spared prove that in fact it was not an indiscriminate punishment, that  טובים were not killed alongside רעים?

Rashi writes in Braishis that the world was created with the letter 'hey' because  כה״י זה שסתום מכל צדדין ופתוח מלמטה לרדת דרך שם.  Last week I mentioned the question of Shem m'Shmuel: Why did Hashem not create the world with a letter that has a big opening on top so that the tzadikim could go up to shamayim?  The elevator goes in both directions, doesn't it?  

Shem m'Shmuel answers that olam ha'zeh can only bring a person down.  There is no upside.  The very word טבע, the laws of nature, is based on the same root as as used in the expression ספינה טובעת בּים, a boat sinking in the sea.  Olam ha'zeh is the quicksand that will sink you into places that are hard to get out of.  The way out is by rising above it, by choosing to live למעלה מין הטבע.

Taz uses a similar yesod to explain our Rashi.  He writes that if you read the pesukim carefully, you see that the command to build the ark, pesukim 14-16, precedes Hashem telling Noach that he is going to bring a flood, pasuk 17.  Why would Hashem tell Noach to make an ark before telling him that there is going to be a flood?  Taz answers that  אנדרולמוסיא בא לעולם effects everyone, טובים ורעים, in that עולם.  What the ark did is isolate Noach from the world.  Hashem showed Noach that even when the world of טבע warrants destruction, he has a place of refuge outside it.

Sefas Emes and others see "teivah" as an allusion to words of Torah and tefillah.  These are our places of refuge למעלה מין הטבע that can take us outside whatever is going on in the world.

This is not just a nice derasha, but it's lomdus that unlocks a Tosfos.  The gemara (San 59) has a principle that  ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור.  You cannot have a case where dinei Yisrael is more lenient than dinei bnei Noach.  Tosfos comments that even though a ben Noach who keeps shabbos is chayav misa but we obviously are not, that does not count because the Torah specifically gives us a mitzvah to observe shabbos.  בדבר שהוא מצוה לישראל לא אמרינן הכי העובד כוכבים ששבת חייב ולישראל מצוה  The more difficult question is with respect to other days of the week.  There is no mitzvah for us to keep shabbos on Monday, for example, but the halacha is that an aku"m that keeps a day of shabbos on Monday is chayav while we are not.  Why is that not an exception?  Tosfos cryptically writes מ"מ יש עליו מצות שביתת שבת.  

R' Yosef Engel (Ben Porat 4) explains as follows: you only say ליכא מידעם דלישראל שרי ולעובד כוכבים אסור when talking about the same cheftza, in this case the same day of the week.  You have to compare apples to apples.  The reason why an aku"m that keeps shabbos is chayav but we are not is because these are in effect apples and oranges.  For us, there is a day of shabbos.  For an aku"m, it's Saturday.  Those are totally different worlds, totally different units of time.  We live in a world where the seventh day of the week has kedusha, where we come in contact with olam ha'ba.  They have no access to such a thing.

R' Yosef Engel then goes on to say an even bigger chiddush: the same thing applies to Monday.  For us, it's "yom sheni b'shabbos."  Every day of the week connects either to the previous shabbos or the upcoming shabbos and draws from its kedusha.  For an aku"m, it's just another day of the week.  Again, apples and oranges.

We look like we are in same world, going through the same days of the week, leading the same life, as our neighbors, as everyone else.  In reality, it's not the same at all.  We are למעלה מין הטבע , למעלה מין הזמן as it exists for them.     

Rav Amiel on how the mavul was midah k'neged midah for the sin of חָמָֽס, means vs end in building the ark, and how even a whiff of Torah makes a difference

1) The dor ha'mabul was punished because  וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס.  What is  חָמָֽס?  The Midrash writes that the issur gezel is when you steal the amount worth a perutah; חָמָֽס is when you steal less than a perutah.  Technically, it's not theft.  The gemara (BK 62) gives a slightly different definition. Gezel is when you don't pay for what you've taken; חָמָֽס is where you paid, but twisted the seller's arm to force the sale and get what you want. The gemara itseld writes that people think that 'lo tahcmod' only applies if you force someone to sell and then never pay, but if you pay, then you did nothing wrong.  True, it's not gezel, it may or may not be lo tachmod, but it is חָמָֽס.  The common denominator of both definitions: obeying the technical details of the law but circumventing the intent and spirit of the law.

What's less than a perutah?  It's a nothing.  What can it hurt to steal it?  And in truth, that's what a person is not chayav for doing so.  But when everyone starts behaving that way, when תִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס, society goes down the drain. 

R' Moshe Avigdor Amiel writes in Hegyonot El Ami that the punishment of the mabul is midah k'neged midah.  What's a single drop of water?  Water can even be a positive thing -- nothing can grow or exist without rain.  But when you put together all those drops, and you keep it up non stop for days, the world is destroyed.

2) וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר

וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־הָאָֽרֶץ

The process seems out of order.  You would expect the Torah to tell us that the dor ha'palaga wanted to build a city, a migdal, and therefore they began making bricks to accomplish that task.  You first need a goal and then you devise the process to get there.  Instead, we are told that they made bricks first, and then they came up with a goal and decided to make their migdal.

R' Yosef Chaim Zonnenfeld (quoted in Binah u'Bracha by R' Baruch Sorotzkin) explained that it's not the desire to make a migdal and rebel against G-d which drove the creation of new technology of brick making, but rather the new technology of brick making, which may have been developed with no nefarious purpose in mind (see Seforno), inflated man's ego and drove him to rebellion.

This was R Y C Zonnenfeld's answer to Franz Joseph as to why the more civilization advances, the weaker religious committment seems to grow.

3) Speaking of pesukim out of order, in 6:14 Noach is given the command to build a teivah, עֲשֵׂ֤ה לְךָ֙ תֵּבַ֣ת עֲצֵי־גֹ֔פֶר קִנִּ֖ים תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה אֶת־הַתֵּבָ֑ה, which is followed by a few pesukim in which the dimensions of the ark and how it should be made are spelled out.  Only after completing that description, Hashem tells Noach that he is going to bring a flood, וַאֲנִ֗י הִנְנִי֩ מֵבִ֨יא אֶת־הַמַּבּ֥וּל מַ֙יִם֙ עַל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לְשַׁחֵ֣ת כׇּל־בָּשָׂ֗ר אֲשֶׁר־בּוֹ֙ ר֣וּחַ חַיִּ֔ים מִתַּ֖חַת הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם.  Shouldn't it have been presented in the reverse order, i.e. first tell Noach there is going to be a flood, and then tell him that he has to make an ark to be saved?

R' Yichiel Michel Feinstein quotes the Rashi on 6:14:  הרבה ריוח והצלה לפניו בשבילם.א ולמה הטריחו בבניין זה? כדי שיראוהוב דור המבול עסוק בבניין זהג מאה ועשרים שנה, ושואלים אותו: מה הוא זאת לך, והוא אומר להם: עתיד הקב״ה להביא מבול לעולם, אולי ישובו  It was not the flood which was the cause pushing Noach to build an ark to save himself.  Aderaba, it was the building of the ark, the warning flag Hashem put up and which was ignored by the dor ha'mabul, which sealed their fate caused the flood.

4) See here and here for posts on the Midrash's comment on "Vayarach Hashem es rei'ach ha'nicho'ach" that Hashem was smelling not just the fragrant odor of Noach's korban, but was also smelling Avraham in the furnace of Nimrod, he was smelling Chananya, Mishael, v'Azarya in their oven, he was smelling the sweet scent of all those who sacrifice their lives al kiddush Hashem.  I don't want to repeat everything I wrote before, but b'kitzur, smell is a special sense, the one sense that was uncorrupted by the cheit of Adam haRishon, and therefore is the key to man rehabilitation, his return to Eden, it is the promise of a better future when all seems lost and corrupted.  I was thinking about this topic again this week because my SIL was talking about whether odor can be transmitted electronically.  Ain beit medrash b'li chiddush, so I want to add just one point to those older posts.  The gemara (Zevachim 113) asks how the giant animal called the re'em was saved from the flood.  It was so big, says the gemara, that even its head alone could not fit in the teivah.  Answers the gemara, it stuck just it's nose in and was able to survive.  Rav Ben Tzion Kook writes that even if a person is outside the beis medrash, so long as they are connected to the "reiach haTorah," there is hope.  Even if the rest of a creature is underwater, so long as the nose, the kli for the sense of smell, is still in the teivah, there is hope for survival.  

evolution in reverse

Sanhedrin 108b writes that there were 3 different factions involved in building the tower of Bavel.  One group wanted to go upstairs and fight G-d, one group wanted to live in the heavens, and one group was idol worshippers:

א"ר ירמיה בר אלעזר נחלקו לג' כיתות אחת אומרת נעלה ונשב שם ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים ואחת אומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה זו שאומרת נעלה ונשב שם הפיצם ה' וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעשה מלחמה נעשו קופים ורוחות ושידים  ולילין וזו שאומרת נעלה ונעבוד עבודת כוכבים (בראשית יא, ט) כי שם בלל ה' שפת כל הארץ

"And that faction that said: Let us ascend to the top of the tower and wage war, became apes, and spirits, and demons, and female demons." (Sefaria)

The Sheivet Musar ch 48 writes that the reason apes look so much like people and try to imitate the behavior of people is because they in fact were once people before this punishment transformed them into apes.  The theory of evolution in reverse -- apes descend from people!

issur of limud torah for an aku"m -- issur gavra or issur cheftza

Noach was told to take 7 (or according to some, 7 pairs of ) kosher animals.  Rashi explains that we see from the fact that Noach knew which animals were kosher that למדנו שלמד נח תורה, Noach much have learned Torah.

Maharal in Gur Aryeh asks: והא דאמר בפרק ד׳ מיתות (סנהדרין נט.) גוי שלמד תורה חייב מיתה.  An aku"m is not allowed to learn Torah?

I was wondering the same thing and thought the simplest answer, which is the answer Maharal gives, is that this issur only kicked in after mattan Torah.  The source for the issur is ואמר ר׳ יוחנן נכרי שעוסק בתורה חייב מיתה שנאמר  תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה לנו מורשה ולא להם.  The Torah is like a an arusah which is betrothed to us.  Mattan Torah was that betrothal.  

The Levush Orah, however, does not buy it. According to L"O, the only different mattan Torah made is viz a viz what is permitted to a yisrael or what became prohibited.  It can't be that mattan Torah is mechadseh a new issur for a ben noach -- viz a viz them, nothing changed.

His solution to the Maharal's question is that noach was mahul, and a ger who is mahul is allowed to learn Torah.  What about Avraham who learned Torah even before his milah?  L"O answers that this is b'geder sod.  

It could be Maharal does not disagree with L"O's premis that mattan Torah is not mechadesh issurim for a ben Noach.  The issur was there all along.  What was not there was a cheftza shel Torah for the issur to be chal on.  There may have been a collection of laws, an understanding of what the ratzon Hashem is, but that is not the same as a cheftza shel Torah. 

when crazy becomes the norm

 R' Bachyei 8:14 writes:

 ואעפ״כ לא יצא עד שהורשה לצאת ואמר לו הקב״ה צא מן התיבה כי מפני שבא לתוכה מפני מצות ה׳ יתעלה לא רצה לצאת משם כי אם במצותו.

ואמרו במדרש כי מכאן למדו חנניה מישאל ועזריה שלא רצו לצאת מתוך כבשן האש עד שצוה להם המלך,

Noach did not leave the teivah until he was ordered to by G-d.  Chananya Mishael and Azarya did not leave the burning furnace they were throw in until ordered by G-d.

You would think someone trapped in a boat for a year, or someone tossed in a burning furnace would leave as soon as the opportunity presented itself.  But no -- Noach waited, Ch"M"v'Az waited until they were ordered out before leaving.

No matter how difficult the condition, people become acclimated to it and will refuse to deviate, even to return to what once the status quo.

Look what has happened to our own society in less than 2 years.  Will we ever return to normal?  Do people even remember what normal is anymore?

gezel on less than a perutah

The gemara (Sanhedrin 59) writes that there is never a case where something is assur for a ben noach but permitted for a yisrael.  Mitzvos raise the bar on what we can or cannot do, they don't lower it.  Asks the gemara: what about stealing less than a perutah, which a ben noach is chayav for but not a yisrael?  Answers the gemara: התם משום דלאו בני מחילה נינהו.  

Rashi explains:  שאף ישראל נצטוו על הגזל אלא שפחות משוה פרוטה אינו נחשב גזל בעיניהם שעוברין על מדתן שרחמנין הן ומוחלין על דבר קל אבל בני נח אכזרים הם  A yisrael in theory is also chayav on gezel of less than a perutah, but we are nice guys and are mochel on such a trivial amount.  The beni noach are sticklers and they are makpid, so they are chayav.

When the Rambam in the beginning of hil geneiva quotes the issur of stealing even less than a perutah, the Magid Mishne explains: דין שוה פחות מפרוטה בממון כדין חצי שיעור באיסורין.  The shiur of the issue gezel is a perutah; less than that is an issur of chatzi shiur.  (Agav, there are shitos that hold that chatzi shiur only applies by issurei achila.  This M"M clearly disagrees).  If so, the reason why a ben noach is chayav has nothing to do with mechila or no mechila.  The reason why a ben noach is chayav is because, as the Rambam writes in hil melachim (9:10) שלא ניתנו השיעורין אלא לישראל בלבד, the concept of shiurim was given only to yisrael and not bnei noach.  A yisrael is exempt from the mitzvah of hashava, returning the stolen goods, because the amount is less than the shiur (this assumes there is no din of chatzi shiur on a mitzvas aseh); the same is not true for a ben noach for whom there is no threshold of a shiur.

The Minchas Chinuch (130:4) has a few nafka minos between these explanations:

1) gezel from a katan - according to Rashi, a yisrael should be chayav to return the money because a katan cannot be mochel.  The same would be true if the nigzal openly declares that he is not mochel.  However, according to the M"M, the ganav would not have to give the $ back because it is less than the shiur for the mitzvah of hashavah.

2) tziruf - according to Rashi, even if you steal multiple times, so long as each act of theft was on less than a perutah, the owner is mochel on each theft independently.  According to M"M, the owner is never mochel, so if the sum total of all the thefts adds up to more than a perutah, it must be returned.

3) change in value - according to Rashi, once there is mechila, the stolen goods belong to the thief even if the value later goes up.  According to M"M, there is never mechila, so if the value of the stolen goods becomes greater than a perutah, it must be returned.

4) kiddushin - if you put together the stolen amount with more $ and use it to be mekadesh a woman, according to Rashi the kiddushin is chal since there was mechila and the thief owns what was stolen.  According to the M"M, not.   

5) lachem - the MG"A (637:3) quotes the Yeraim that even if gezel aku"m is mutar, it is not lachem, so you should not steal an esrog from a nochri.  This fits well according to M"M that there is never mechila.  But according to Rashi, if gezel aku"m is mutar, then the aku"m probably gives up hope of getting his esrog back since he has no legal recourse, and so would be mochel.  

the month of smell

 בספר יצירה המליך אות נ' בריח

I make no pretense to understanding anything the Sefer Yetzira is talking about, but maybe here we can get a me'eyn of the idea based on what we've learned in the past.

The Midrash in Parshas Noach comments on the pasuk "Vayarach Hashem es rei'ach ha'nicho'ach" that Hashem was smelling not just the fragrant odor of Noach's korban, but was also smelling Avraham in the furnace of Nimrod, he was smelling Chananya, Mishael, v'Azarya in their oven, he was smelling the sweet scent of all those who sacrifice their lives al kiddush Hashem. 

When you walk through the front door of your home on Friday afternoon, you know what is cooking and your mouth begins to water even before you see get to the kitchen.  The aroma of the Shabbos food causes us to anticipate Shabbos, to anticipate the meal ahead, and our mouth starts watering.  Similarly, even though Avraham hadn't come on the scene yet, Chananya, Mishael and Azarya were in the distant future, as was the sacrifice of so many others, Hashem already "smelled" and anticipated what was coming.  That whiff the future proved that there was hope for mankind.

The Bnei Yisaschar writes in many places that in describing the sin of eitz hadaas (Braishis 3:5)  וַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ הָעֵ֨ץ לְמַאֲכָ֜ל וְכִ֧י תַֽאֲוָה־ה֣וּא לָעֵינַ֗יִם וְנֶחְמָ֤ד הָעֵץ֙ לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל וַתִּקַּ֥ח מִפִּרְי֖וֹ וַתֹּאכַ֑ל every sense of the body is mentioned -- Chavah saw the tree, she listened to the nachash, she touched the tree, she ate of its fruit -- except the sense of smell.  That one aspect of man remains untainted perhaps because it is a link to the future, to a time when man will once again achieve a full tikun.

Rosh Chodesh too is a holiday of smell, of anticipation.  The Shem m'Shmuel (Noach 5675) writes that the letters of the word for moon, "yareiach" = yud, reish, cheis, are the same letters as "rei'ach"=reish, yud, cheis.  Rosh Chodesh comes when the moon is just a sliver, but we look forward to the day when we sill see "ohr ha'levanah k'ohr hachamah."  We say in Kiddush hachodesh, "David melech yisrael chai v'kayam," in anticipation of the restoration of malchus beis David.  

Chazal tell us that the letter nun was left out of ashrei because it portends nefila, downfall.  Cheshvan is a month bereft of holidays, the month when Yeravam setup his avoda zarah that split the kingdom in two.  

What Sefer Yetzira is telling us (see Shem m'Shmuel Noach 5675) is that the letter nun of nefilah, the letter of Marcheshvan, is tied together with the sense of smell because downfall is not permanent.  Every setback goes hand in hand with anticipation of something better coming in the future, of greater aliya. 

mei Noach

 You have in this week's haftarah

 כִּֽי־מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙ זֹ֣את לִ֔י אֲשֶׁ֣ר נִשְׁבַּ֗עְתִּי מֵעֲבֹ֥ר מֵי־נֹ֛חַ ע֖וֹד עַל־הָאָ֑רֶץ כֵּ֥ן נִשְׁבַּ֛עְתִּי מִקְּצֹ֥ף עָלַ֖יִךְ וּמִגְּעׇר־בָּֽךְ׃

Hashem tells us that the churban ha'bayis was like the Noach's flood.  Hashem promises that He will never again bring upon Bnei Yisrael such an act of destruction.

1) What's the comparison?  The flood destroyed the entire world.  The churban and ensuing galus is our problem, not the whole world's problem?  

When you lose someone dear to you and close to you, it's like your whole world is gone.  Hashem is telling us that when he has to give such a big punishment to us, for whom He created the whole world, it's like that whole world is gone.

2) Everybody knows the derasha that it's called מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙ because Noach is held responsible for the flood.  He could have davened and done something to avert the disaster, and is assigned blame for not having done so.  

If Chazal want to teach us who is to blame for the flood, why here?  Why stick this in a pasuk in the middle of Yeshayahu and not somewhere in parshas Noach or elsewhere?

R' Tzadok haKohen (Pri Tzadik 12) quotes the gemara (Yoma 86) תניא היה ר"מ אומר גדולה תשובה שבשביל יחיד שעשה תשובה מוחלין לכל העולם כולו שנא' ארפא משובתם אוהבם נדבה כי שב אפי ממנו מהם לא נאמר אלא ממנו .  All it takes is one person doing teshuvah and the whole world can be uplifted and be granted mechila and kapara. 

Chazal are telling us about the flood because it's a lesson for us.  We had a churban ha'bayis and we are sitting in galus for 2000 years already and Hashem comes and tells us that it's like מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙ because all it takes is one person to do teshuvah, all it takes is one Noach willing to beg Hashem to forgive Klal Yisrael, and the whole world changes, everything can be different.

3) There is a machlokes whether מֵ֥י נֹ֙חַ֙  is one word or two (see Radak).  If you read it as two words, it means "the waters of Noach," like I explained above.  If it is one word, then it means "like the days of Noach," k=like+ y'mei=days.  

Abarbanel explains:

שכמו מה שקרה לישראל בחטאתיהם וגאולתם ותשועתם כן קרה לדור המבול שנתרבו על פני כל הארץ והשחית כל בשר את דרכו ונתן השם להם זמן לשוב בתשובה ולא שבו ונתחייבו כליה ונשארו מהם מעט מהרבה נח ובניו והם נעשו לגוי גדול ומאלה נפצה כל הארץ ונשבע ה׳ בזרוע קדשו שלא להביא עוד מבול לשחת כל בשר כן ישראל פרו ורבו ותמלא הארץ אותם ומלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם ונתן השם להם מקום לשוב בתשובה ולא שבו עדין, ומפני זה שבלת מים שטפתם זרם מים רבים שהוא הגלות האמנם ישארו מהם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה כאותם שניצולו בתיבה והם יהיו לראש פנה וירבו ויעצמו בארץ וישבע השם שלא להביא עוד עליהם גלות 

Just like in the days of the flood there was a long window of opportunity of teshuvah that no one took advantage of, and then Hashem finally brought the flood to wipe out the world and only Noach and his small family was spared, so too, before the churban Hashem sent warnings, there was a window of opportunity for teshuvah, but once that passed Hashem brought us into galus, which, like the flood, wiped out everyone except for small pockets here and there.  

If you live in the 5T like I do, or some other frum neighborhood, you live in a little bubble and you think the Jewish world is booming.  The latest census data shows that the fastest growing neighborhoods in NY/NJ are those areas where Orthodox Jews live -- we have lots of kids and so the population grows.  In my area we have kosher restaurants aplenty, we have multiple yeshivos to choose from, plenty of minyanim to choose where you want to daven and where you won't step foot.  But all this is an illusion.  Your little island may have gotten a little bigger in the last census count, it may have better restaurants and more schools than the next little island, but sach ha'kol, it's still just a little island surrounded by the vast ocean of the flood, and those waters and closing in more rapidly than you think.  The vast majority of American Jews are underwater already or barely holding their head above water Jewishly, as intermarriage, assimilation, ignorance, and apathy take their toll.  These is מים רבים שהוא הגלות that the Abarbanel is referring to.  We can only hope that we are among the אמנם ישארו מהם אחד מעיר ושנים ממשפחה כאותם שניצולו בתיבה those who can make it to the finish line and witness Hashem's promise that days like those of Noach, whether the flood of rain or the flood of galus, never repeat themselves again.

who is the assumed reader?

Parshas Noach concludes with the death of Terach even though in fact he lived on for many years.  Rashi explains that the Torah records Terach's death at this early point to try to disguise the fact that Avraham abandoned his father and the mitzvah of kibud av:

וימת תרח בחרן – לאחר שיצא אברם מחרן ובא לארץ כנען, חיה תרח יותר מששים שנה, שהרי כתוב: ואברם בן ע״ה שנה בצאתו מחרן (בראשית י״ב:ד׳), ותרח היה בן ע׳ שנה כשנולד אברם (בראשית י״א:כ״ו), הרי קמ״ה לתרח כשיצא אברם ממנו, נשארו משנותיו הרבה. ולמה הקדים הכתוב מיתתו של תרח ליציאתו של אברם, שלא יהא הדבר מפורסם לכל, ויאמרו: לא קיים אברהם כיבוד אביו שהניחו זקן והלך לו. לפיכך קראו הכתוב: מת, שהרשעים אף בחייהם קרוים מתים, והצדיקים במיתתן קרוים חיים.

Mizrachi asks: who is this "ruse" being address to?

 לא הבינותי בעד איזה זמן הוא חושש אם בזמן אברם מהו זה שאמר לפיכך קראו הכתוב מת והלא בזמן אברם עדיין לא נכתבה התורה ואם בזמן שאחר כתיבת התורה מאי ויאמרו לא קיים אברם את כבוד אביו דקאמר והלא כתוב בצדו ויאמר ה׳ אל אברם לך לך ולא היה יכול לעמוד עם אביו לבטל גזרת השם:

M'mah nafshach: people who were contemporaneous to the event of Avraham leaving his father would know the facts on the ground and not be reading them in the Torah, so the pasuk would not be fooling them; people reading the account in the Torah would know Avraham was commanded by G-d "lech lecha" and was not voluntarily abandoning Terach.  

The Midrash Rabbah in this week's parsha of Lech Lecha is the source for Rashi's comment, but the Midrash has a slightly different spin:

לפי שהיה אברהם אבינו מפחד ואומר: אצא ויהיו מחללין בי שם שמים ואומרים: הניח אביו והלך לו לעת זקנתו.

אמר ליה הקב"ה: לך! אני פוטרך מכיבוד אב ואם, ואין אני פוטר לאחר מכיבוד אב ואם.

According to the Midrash, the focus is not protecting Avraham's reputation, ויאמרו: לא קיים אברהם כיבוד אביו שהניחו זקן והלך לו, but rather protecting kavyachol G-d's reputation, so that there not be a chilul Hashem, אצא ויהיו מחללין בי שם שמים.

R' Chaim Elazari, in his Mesilos Chaim, points out that the concern here must be for an assumed reader who approaches the text on a superficial level, someone bothered by the apparent injustice of Avraham leaving his father as revealed in the text, but someone who will not probe more deeply to try to understand why that separation might have been necessary given that Terach was an oveid avodah zarah.  The Torah therefore writes the pasuk in a way so that even on the superficial level, things appear kosher.

A few pesukim earlier the parsha tells us:

וַיִּקַּ֨ח אַבְרָ֧ם וְנָח֛וֹר לָהֶ֖ם נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־אַבְרָם֙ שָׂרָ֔י וְשֵׁ֤ם אֵֽשֶׁת־נָחוֹר֙ מִלְכָּ֔ה בַּת־הָרָ֥ן אֲבִֽי־מִלְכָּ֖ה וַֽאֲבִ֥י יִסְכָּֽה׃

Chazal, quoted by Rashi, identify Yiskah as Sarah.  However, the simple reading of the text certainly does not give that impression -- why would the same person be referred to by two different names in the same sentence?  Gur Aryeh further asks why davka here would the Torah highlight Sarah's ruach ha'kodesh when it has nothing to do with the context.  Why not call her Yiskah later, when Avraham is told to listen to Sarah and sent away Hagar because of her superior prophetic insight?  He writes:

 וקשיא דלמה קרא כאן על שם הנביאות, יותר היה לכתוב זה בפרשת וירא, דשם לא מצי למטעי לומר דהיא אשה אחרת, ולכתוב ׳כל אשר תאמר יסכה שמע בקולה׳, ומיהא אין זה קשיא, שהתורה נכתבת כך למי שאינו יודע להבין - יודע קצת כפי שכלו, ומי שיבין יותר - יהיה יודע יותר, דלכל אחד ואחד כפי כחו התורה מדברת עמו, ומפני כך אם אינו כחו להבין כי ״יסכה״ על שם שסכה ברוח הקדש - יבין הוא שהיא אשה אחרת, אבל למי שכחו להשיג יפה, והוקשה לו דאחר שלא נזכר יסכה בקרא מאי בא לומר דהוא ״אבי יסכה״, יכול לפרש שהיא שרה, ונקראת ״יסכה״ על שם רוח הקודש שהיתה סוכה בו, אבל לקמן (כא, יב) אין לומר שהיא אחרת:

The text, according to Gur Aryeh, is written in such a way so that it makes sense to superficial reader who will take Yiskah to be the name of a new person.  Chazal/ Rashi come to help the reader who probes more deeply, the person who will wonder who this Yiskah is and why she is mentioned.  To make sense of Yiskah being mentioned, Rashi identifies her as Sarah.

Later, when Avraham is told to listen to Sarah, both the superficial reader and the reader who probes more deeply will understand the pasuk as speaking about Sarah, and so no commentary is needed.

I highlighted these examples because the question is interesting: al pi peshuto shel mikra who is the assumed reader and how much knowledge does he/she have?  

where's the passion?

I am hesitant to quote this Chasam Sofer because I only saw it quoted second hand and have not been able to find it inside, so buyer beware.  It's a nice pshat anyway : )  The Midrash comments on the doubling of the name Noach in the first pasuk in the parsha, "Eileh toldos Noach, Noach ish tzadik, tamim haya b'dorosav," that Noach was "neicha l'elyonim v'neicha l'tachtonim," he was viewed pleasantly both by Heaven and by his fellow man (see Baal haTurim).  B'pashtus, you can't ask for a bigger compliment than that.  Chasam Sofer, however, says exactly the opposite.  Avraham did not care about pleasanties when he demanded of G-d, "Chalila l'cha, ha'shofet kol ha'aretz lo yaaseh mishpat?!"  Moshe Rabeinu did not care about pleasantries when he went to bat on behalf of Klal Yisrael and argued with Hashem to not punish them.  David haMelech did not care about pleasantries when he said, "Anochi chatasi... v'eileh ha'tzon meh asu?" (Shmuel II 24:17).  Being a tzadik sometimes means arguing with G-d, not going along passively with the program.  And the same, kal v'chomer, holds true when dealing with other people.  Avraham smashed idols, Moshe Rabeinu called out the people when they did wrong, Eliyahu haNavi gave mussar.  Being a tzadik will not necessarily win you a popularity contest, and that's as it should be.  Noach was "ish tzadik b'dorosav," he wanted to get along with everybody, and "es ha'Elokim hishalech Noach," he didn't want to challenge G-d either.  The result is that those around him took no heed of his example and continued to do wrong, and G-d was not assuaged and brought a flood to destroy the world.  Noach, Noach -- both are strikes against him.

These days the message everybody preaches is that the job of our Rabbis and leaders is to make sure everybody feels welcome, happy, warm and fuzzy.  We have so much noach going around it's incredible.  G-d forbid anyone should actually try to tell someone that what they are doing is wrong and needs to change -- oh no, that could only be done in past generations, not today.  If you are a rebbe or a Rav and see a group of teenagers dressed in sweatpants and T shirts on Shabbos on the way to play ball, the response is not to speak to them about Shabbos (then or at some other time), but aderaba, you are supposed to join the game, to show them that you are one of the boys, because only then will you be able to influence them.  And then you wonder why after 4 years of high school and over 100k in tuition these same boys probably wont keep Shabbos much better or know how to read a piece of gemara.  Am I wrong?

R' Yehudah Deri puts together the Midrash which blames Noach for the flood because he did not give tochacha and the Rashi (7:) that says אף נח מקטני אמנה היה, מאמין ואינו מאמין שיבא מבול, ולא נכנס לתיבה עד שדחקוהו המים.  If you truly believe something, then you are passionate about it and can't help but speak out and share your views.  Noach was "mi'ktanei emunah," and when you need convincing yourself, you don't stand much chance of convincing others.  

(Parenthetically, everybody asks and I've posted about it before: how can Rashi describe someone who the Torah calls a "tzadik tamim" as "mi'ktanei emunah"?  R' Yitzhok of Vorke reads the Rashi like this: אף נח מקטני אמנה היה מאמין Noach believed in those of small faith, meaning the people of his generation, ואינו מאמין שיבא מבול and therefore he did not accept that G-d would destroy the world.)

A certain person was all over the Jewish news last week, some people in favor of his actions, some opposed to his actions.  I was at a wedding this week and this guy was there and he was like a rock star, the way some people gathered around him for pictures, to talk to him to shake his hand.  

What is this guy's secret?  Why do people respond to him?

I think the answer is one word: passion.  You may disagree with what he did, with how he expressed it, but you can't take away the fact that he showed passion.  Everyone else was busy being Noach, neicha to this politician, neicha to that entity, etc. sending the usual mealy mouthed letters that say nothing and mean nothing.  Is that all you can do when your yeshivos and shuls are having locks put on the doors???  In case it's not clear, that does not mean rioting in the street is necessarily the best idea, but if that's not the answer, then find some other way to at least show some passion for what you believe in!  Mordechai did not send a mealy mouthed letter to Achashveirosh -- it was "sak v'eifer yutzah la'rabim."  When you read those words in the nigun of Eicheh you get the message: this is a tragedy that's unfolding.  Do we even think anymore that putting a lock on a beish medrash is a tragedy, or have we lost our feelings completely?  If closing down our shuls and yeshivos is not enough to spur the community to grave action -- whether it is civic action or religious action in considering why Hashem is allowing this to happen -- what will???

"Va'ya'as Noach k'chol asher tzivahu Hashem."  Ksav Sofer explains that Noach did whatever he was commanded: he did the 7 mitzvos given to Adam, and he built the ark just as he was commanded.  But that gufa is the problem with Noach!  A command like "Build an ark because the world is going to be destroyed" is not a command like any other command.  Those words should have sent a jolt through Noach's system. 

There are tents in people's backyards not too far from where I live that are even bigger I think than the shul I daven in.  A person can say who cares if they close the shul -- I've got where to go.  I'm still doing what I have to do.  The problem is not that we are not doing what we are supposed to do -- "Vayaas Noach k'chol asher tzivahu Hashem."  The problem is where's the jolt, where are the tears, where's the feeling that our chiyus is being taken from us?  

Where's the passion?

ben noach's obligation to keep dinim derabbanan

Rambam in Hil Melachim (10:9) quotes the din that an aku"m is not allowed to learn Torah and the din that an aku"m is not allowed to keep a day of shabbos, both of which the gemara learns from pesukim:

עכו"ם שעסק בתורה חייב מיתה. לא יעסוק אלא בשבע מצות שלהן בלבד. וכן עכו"ם ששבת אפילו ביום מימות החול. אם עשאהו לעצמו כמו שבת חייב מיתה. ואין צריך לומר אם עשה מועד לעצמו. כללו של דבר אין מניחין אותן לחדש דת ולעשות מצות לעצמן מדעתן. אלא או יהיה גר צדק ויקבל כל המצות. או יעמוד בתורתו ולא יוסיף ולא יגרע. ואם עסק בתורה. או שבת. או חדש דבר. מכין אותו ועונשין אותו. ומודיעין אותו שהוא חייב מיתה על זה אבל אינו נהרג:

The Rambam, however, writes that there is no chiyuv misa on either one of these issurim.  

The penalty for violating one of the mitzvos ben noach is misa -- why are these cases different?

Kesef Mishneh answers that a chiyuv misa only applies to the 7 specific mitzvos that we know as the mitzvos ben noach.  There are other things the Torah prohibits a ben noach to do, but the punishment is not the same.

Lechem Mishneh says a bigger chiddush and writes that these halachos are only derabbanan:

מפרש רבינו דהאי חיוב מיתה מדרבנן הוא וקרא אסמכתא בעלמא דלא הוי אזהרה גמורה דאזהרה מן התורה ליכא בדבר שלישראל שרי וכמו שאמרו ליכא מידי דלישראל שרי ולעכו"ם אסור כלומר אזהרה מן התורה ו

We've discussed in the past what makes dinim derabbanan binding on us to follow.  Rambam sees the obligation as rooted in lo tasur; Rambam says the source is elsewhere (see here).  Rav Yehudah Kook in his Kuntres Gevuros Shmonim asks a fantastic question: what obligates a ben noach to keep a din derabbanan?  According to Ramban, we can probably come up with an answer, but what do you do according to Rambam who sees everything as rooted in lo tasur?  A ben noach certainly has no mitzvah of lo tasur! Furthermore, the Rambam himself writes (Hil Nachalos 6:10):

והגר אינו יורש את אביו העכו"ם אלא מדבריהם תקנו לו שיירש כשהיה שמא יחזור למרדו. ויראה לי שתנאי מועיל בירושה זו הואיל ואין העכו"ם מחוייב לעמוד בתקנת חכמים. ואין העכו"ם יורש את אביו הגר ולא גר יורש את גר לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים:

what can be accomplished in a week

This idea is relevant to aseres ymei teshuvah, but what can I do -- the idea only came up here in parshas Noach.
     
Subtract Rosh haShana and Yom Kippur and aseres ymei teshuvah amounts to one week.  One week to correct a year, a lifetime's work of mistakes!  How is that possible?
     
Rashi observes that at the beginning of the parsha Noach is called a "tzadik tamim," yet when Hashem appears to Noach to tell him to enter the ark he tells him that "oscha ra'isi tzadik lifanei," he is a tzadik -- Hashem leaves out the word "tamim."
     
Ksav Sofer offers an original explanation (see Rashi for a different explanation) for the discrepancy: Rashi writes that Hashem delayed the command to enter the ark until the after the seven days of mourning for Mesushelach were completed.  Mesushelach was a tzadik, so long as he was alive, the flood was held off.  Ksav Sofer adds that so long as Mesushelach was alive, Noach was also not held accountable for failing to rebuke the people or for failing to daven on their behalf.  Why should he have that responsibility when there was a tzadik like Mesushelach around?  However, once Mesushelach died, the world rested on Noach's shoulders.  Since Noach at that point still remained passive and did nothing, some of the shine of his tzidkus was lost.  He was no longer a "tzadik tamim," but merely a "tzadik."
     
Mesushelach lived 969 years -- he literally had hundreds of years to try to make an impression on the people around him, to arouse them to teshuvah.  When he died, Noach had one week to step in and fill his shoes before the flood hit.  Imagine a shul where the Rabbi has held the pulpit for decades and has not made a dent in raising the religious observance of the community, not for lack of effort, but for lack of a receptive audience.  The Rabbi passes away, and the assistant Rabbi must now step in.  Are you going to hold the assistant accountable for failing to reach the community mamesh during the week of shiva of his predecessor when his predecessor couldn't reach them in the decades he served?!  Here too, what kind of knock it is on Noach's tzidkus when he couldn't do anything in only a week when Mesushelach was no more successful in centuries?!
     
Yet the Torah doesn't see things that way.  Who knows what you can accomplish is a week of dedicated effort?  Remember, Hashem would have saved Sdom had there only been a minyan of tzadikim there.  Noach didn't have to reach the entire world -- he could have focused on one, on a handful, of people and that might have tilted the balance to prevent the flood. 

babbling Babel

 וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ אִ֣ישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵ֗הוּ הָ֚בָה נִלְבְּנָ֣ה לְבֵנִ֔ים וְנִשְׂרְפָ֖ה לִשְׂרֵפָ֑ה וַתְּהִ֨י לָהֶ֤ם הַלְּבֵנָה֙ לְאָ֔בֶן וְהַ֣חֵמָ֔ר הָיָ֥ה לָהֶ֖ם לַחֹֽמֶר׃
    
     וַיֹּאמְר֞וּ הָ֣בָה׀ נִבְנֶה־לָּ֣נוּ עִ֗יר וּמִגְדָּל֙ וְרֹאשׁ֣וֹ בַשָּׁמַ֔יִם וְנַֽעֲשֶׂה־לָּ֖נוּ שֵׁ֑ם פֶּן־נָפ֖וּץ עַל־פְּנֵ֥י כׇל־הָאָֽרֶץ׃
     
The Netziv points out that the first pasuk here seems entirely redundant.  Who cares about the process involved in building the migdal Bavel?  Who cares if is was made of bricks or sticks and stones? 
    
Netziv suggests that the Torah mentions the brick furnace because that furnace has significance -- according to the Midrash that is where Nimrod threw Avraham as punishment for Avraham's rejection of idolatry.  The problem with this approach is ikar chaseir min ha'sefer -- the Torah mentions the furnace, but leaves out the entire back story (see Netziv who addresses this issue).
    
Malbim and Seforno see the two pesukim as reflection two groups of people or two stages in a progression.  At first, people simply wanted something better than tents or straw huts to live in, so they said to each other, "How about we try this new thing called a 'brick?'"  Folks were then able to build houses, to build cities.  But then along came another group of people, or people reached another stage of working with this new technology called the "brick," and they said why should we stop at houses?  Let's build a great tower, let's set up a centralized administration of big government. The rest is history.  Technology, whether it is bricks or the interweb, needs to be carefully managed.  What starts out as a good thing that can fill a need can quickly become misused.
    
Looking a little closer at the pesukim here, what is striking is the amount of dialogue that is going on.  "Va'yomru ish el reyeihu..."  "Va'yomru ahav niveh lanu ir..."  Why not just tell us that the people made bricks, the people made a tower, etc.  Why introduce each stage by telling us that there was a conversation that took place?
    
Furthermore, when Hashem punishes the people, he says, "Hein am echad **v'safah achas** l'kulam v'zeh hachilam la'asos..."  Again, the focus is on language -- having one language is the cause of wrongdoing.  Why not ban hammers since they used hammers to build, or ban bricks, since it was the use of bricks that started this whole process?  Why is it language that is identified as the source of the problem?
    
Man was created as a "ruach m'malela," with the exceptional capability of speech.  I know someone who is constantly talking about their job: the work, the frustrations, future plans, etc.  The entire "ruach" that gives this person chiyus is invested in their job.  Instead of just a means to make a living, their job is their life.  What a person talks about is who they are.  (Hashem gave us Torah sheba'al peh to do with our mouths for a good reason.)  The dor ha'palagah was not just interested in using technology -- they were interested in talking about technology, in investing their chiyus and ruach into technology.  You can just picture one of the people there saying to the other, "Did you get the latest brick 2.0?  I mean, how can you live without it?"  It's the "va'yomru lo," not the bricks or buildings, not the ipad or the interweb which is the problem.  Therefore, Hashem's punishment was addressed at language, not at bricks or ipads.
    
Sefas Emes (5632 and a few other places) quotes a play on words: the teivah of Noach = words of Torah.  What the Sefas Emes does NOT mean is that a person should withdraw from the secular world into an ivory tower of holy books/words.  Aderaba, what he means (look it up!) is that everything in the world, even that which appears as secular, is really a teivah that contains within it a spark of G-dliness.  But you have to look inside -- outside is just a bilbul, a mabul, a flood that drowns out the true meaning of things.  This is what the dor ha'palaga missed.  They were focused on the outside -- they settled in Shinar=Bavel because their words were just a bilbul, just noise, just an endless parade of tweets and posts, but lacking any true meaning and content.  The Torah says to go into the teivah, go find depth in everything.  Do you think you can find depth in a 200 character dashed off comment? 

hespeidan shel tzadikim m'akeves as ha'puranus

Hashem tells Noach (7:4) to come into the ark because in seven days the flood will start.  Rashi quotes Chazal (Sanhedrin 108) that these seven "bonus" days (on top of the 120 years it took Noach to build the ark, which put people on notice) were the 7 days of mourning for the tzadik Mesushelach.  (The gemara quotes this limud on the pasuk 7:10, "Va'yehi l'shivas ha'yamim..."  The meforshim discuss why the gemara quotes the derash only on the later pasuk but not on the earlier pasuk used by Rashi.) From here Chazal learn that "hespeidan shel tzadikim m'akeves as ha'puranus," the days of hesped and mourning for the tzadik have he power to delay an evil decree.

What is it about the hesped of the tzadik that gives it that power?  Maharasha explains that hearing about the tzadik should inspire people to do teshuvah.  They should realize that the righteous person whose presence perhaps protected them from harm is no more, and now it is up to them to repent or face the consequences.  (The Rambam writes that aveilus is meant as a time of teshuvah, not just a time to mourn.)

Similarly, Maharal in Ch Aggados writes that it is the pain people feel at the loss of the tzadik that serves as the protection.  Hashem does not rub salt into people's wounds to pile tzarah on top of tzarah.  The loss of the tzadik, if taken to heart, is suffering enough and additional "puranus" is rendered unnecessary.

The Iyun Ya'akov (see also R' Povarski's sefer Bad Kodesh) explains it a little differently. The gemara (Shabbos 153) writes that a person's soul is present when people are maspid them.  During the week of hesped for Mesushelach, it was like he was still there!  Just like the presence of the tzadik protected people from harm during his lifetime, so too, through hesped it is like the tzadik is still present even after death, still offering his protection.

During a week of shiva, when people speak about their loss, when people still connect so strongly with the departed, it is like they are still there.  It is a final opportunity for hiskashrus.  Their presence, in turn, can serve as an inspiration to teshuvah, to closeness with family, to deeper connection.

Noach = neicha, even amidst a flood of sorrow

Over the past few weeks I have been adding to each post to please have in mind that the learning should be a zechus for a refuah sheleimah for my mother-in-law, Mrs Schulamith Bechhofer.  Sadly, the limud in this post is l'zecher nishmasa, as she past away last Sunday and my wife and her sister, brothers, aunts and uncles are in the middle of shiva.

My MIL was among the "pleitas sofreihem" of a different time and place.  Her father was a talmid muvhak of R' Yosef Bloch in Telz; her mother came from a prominent family (Mussensohn) in Lita.  She was born in Switzerland, where her father served as Rav in Basel for 17 years before the family moved to Holland and then eventually to Canada.  She was the oldest of her siblings, and, as I heard during the shiva week from relatives, she was always there, often behind the scenes, to lend a helping hand to them.  Those who live in Far Rockaway may remember her from the many years she served with distinction as a morah in Torah Academy for Girls (TAG), the school my wife and all my daughters attended.  My MIL always projected a sense of dignity and formality, traits that have been almost completely lost in our age where everyone is so casual and lets everything hang out.  She had high expectations and set high standards for her children and grandchildren; she could be tough and demanding, but it was meant l'tovah because she wanted us to grow and accomplish.  There are two people who would always read, print, and share with others whatever I manage to write here every week -- one was my father a"h, who would print out what I wrote and show it to people in his shul, and one my MIL a"h, who told me more than once how much she enjoyed reading what I and my wife wrote.  She took pride in the fact that her children could write and transmit words of Torah, and therefore it's only fitting to share some divrei Torah in her memory.

The family was close to the Lubavitcher Rebbe, so one idea from a sicha: Noach is a very strange name for our parsha.  Noach the person was given that name because "zeh yinachameinu m'ma'aseinu umei'itzvon yadeinu," he brought comfort -- Noach=neicha, see Rashi -- and eased the burden of toiling the earth for all mankind.  Noach the parsha is about anything but comfort and peace.  It tells the story of the devastation flood that destroyed everything on earth.  How does the name fit?

The Rebbe answers that al korchacha what we learn from the name of the parsha is that even amidst calamity and sorrow, behind the scenes is the potential for "neicha."  Hashem's plan is always to our benefit, even if the path is sometimes painful.  The haftarah calls the waters of the flood "mei Noach" -- not a mabul.  The navi, with his prophetic insight, is telling us that "neicha" can emerge even from the waters of destruction.  "Va'yarach Hashem es rei'ach ha'nichoach" -- the world that emerged after the flood was a better one, one that was immune from further destruction, one where man can bring nachas ruach to Hashem.   

And so it is when we face our own tragedies and sorrow.  We don't have the benefit of the insight of a navi, but we hope and trust that whatever pain Hashem brings ultimately is for the sake of "neicha," to bring us comfort and make us stronger.

People always say that the departed should be a "meilitz yosher."  Some people even go so far as to say the departed should intercede upstairs and help with specific things that we need down here.  My wife thought this is the wrong way to look at things.  To paraphrase President Kennedy, we should not ask what the departed can do for us -- we should be asking ourselves what we can do for the departed.  What can we do to serve as a zechus and credit to their memory?  What can we do to better exemplify the midos, Torah, yiras shamayim that they wanted us to have and tried to instill in us?  How can their memory inspire us?  This is the message to take away from aveilus. 

the one word diffence between ya'aleh v'yavo in tefilah vs bentching

Over Yom Tov I reminded my family of a halacha that will come up once again on Rosh Chodesh when we have the addition of ya'aleh v'yavo in our davening and bentching.  If you look in your bentcher, you will see one little difference in the way ya'aleh v'yavo appears there from the way it appears in the siddur: the word melech in ki K-l melech chanun v'rachum atah is in parenthesis.  This is based din in O.C. 188:3  The Shulchan Aruch says that when you mention malchus beis David (rachem... al malchus beis David m'shichecha) in the third bracha of bentching you should not mention the malchus of Hashem along side it, e.g. a person should not say malchuscha u'malchus beis David, as if one were to do so it would give the impression that one is equating the malchus of Hashem with another malchus.  Adds the Rama, that the same principle holds true at the end of the bracha as well and the word melech should be left out of ya'aleh v'yavo.  That being said, the Rama continues and says that he has noticed that the minhag does not follow this recommendation.  Achronim (see Taz) try to justify the common practice, but the Aruch haShulchan writes that has noticed that where he lived people do in fact follow the Rama and leave the word melech out.  Now that I've made you aware of the issue, you can start leaving it out too : )

One other interesting note on the parsha: Chazal (Sanhedrin 58) darshen from the words "yom v'layla lo yisbosu" that an aku"m who observes a day of shabbos is chayav misa.  Achronim say pilpulim to explain how it is that the Avos were able to keep Shabbos (the gemara in Kiddushim tells us that Avraham kept even dinim derabbanan) when technically they might still have had the status of bnei Noach and not been allowed to set aside a day of rest. 

Shu"T Binyan Tzion (126) suggests that the key word is "yishbosu."  Resting means avoiding hard labor.  That is very different that our definition of Shabbos, which is based on the word "melacha," referring specifically to the 39 actions done in the construction of the mishkan.  An aku"m who moves a heavy couch between rooms in his house has broken his "shabbos" because he has done hard work, not kept it as a day of "shevisa", but a Jew who does the same action on our Shabbos is not liable because it does not fall into the category of melacha. 

dor ha'mabul -- dor she'kulo chayav

The end of last week's parsha sets the stage for the story of the mabul.  "Va'yinachem Hashem ki asah es ha'adam ba'aretz."  Netziv notes that it doesn't say "ki bara es ha'adam," like "braishis bara..."  G-d did not "regret" kavyachol the creation of man.  What G-d wanted to change is "ki asah es ha'adam."  Asiya is a more complete stage of creation.  Man needs to struggle, to work.  There has to be a void for us aspire to fill.  When things are done for us and we don't have enough to do, it's not good.  "Ha'batalah m'vi'ah l'ydei shi'amum," Chazal tell us.  Indolence breeds sloth and bad behavior. 

The Kozhnitzer Magid similarly writes that if a human artisan sets out to make a vessel and it does not meet expectations, he tosses it out and starts again, but it is impossible to say the same thing about G-d.  To think that G-d would destroy the world and start again because it did not work out the way he "anticipated" is an impossibility.  (What about the Midrash that G-d created many worlds and destroyed them before creating ours?  He does not address it.  My hunch is that the difference is that only our world was created based on the blueprint of Torah, and Torah is eternal).

With this background we can understand a Rashi a little more deeply.  The Midrash writes (quoted in Rashi) that the dor ha'mabul threatened that if Noach entered the ark they would to destroy it and kill him.  "Va'yisgor Hashem ba'ado" means Hashem protected Noach and ensured he could enter the ark without harm.  R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar asks what it is the dor ha'mabul were hoping to gain by this.  Did they want to prevent Noach from saving himself out of sheer vindictiveness?  What did Noach do to them that would warrant such a reaction?  After all, he had been trying to convince them to repent and save themselves for years.  Why were they out to get him?

The Kozhnitzer Magid answers that had Noach not entered the ark, the result would not have been his perishing with everyone else.  Once G-d created the world, there is no undoing the act of creation -- again, G-d is not like a human artisan who tosses side a failed product to start over.  There had to be a shei'ris ha'pleita of the old world; there had to be continuity.  Therefore, the only possible result of Noach not entering the ark would be no one perishing. If the choice was total destruction or no destruction, the only possible outcome would have been no destruction. 

Chazal (Sanhedrin 98) tell us that there are two ways Moshiach can come: he can come in a generation that proves itself completely righteous, but more amazingly, he can also come in a generation that is completely wicked.   If the historical struggle between good and evil comes to the point where evil completely vanquishes good, then game over, but it does not mean the world is destroyed.  It means that there is no longer any purpose to the game, and G-d will reveal himself fully (see Michtav m'Eliyahu vol1 p 28).  The end of the game is the same no matter how it plays out.  This was the plan of the dor ha'mabul.  So long as there was a Noach, a spark of righteousness, of hope, then the status quo of schar v'onesh and the struggle between good and evil would continue.  If Noach however was killed, the struggle would end in complete redemption of dor she'kulo chayav.

In his Mayan Chaim, R' Chaim Charlap (son of R' Y"M Charlap) suggests that this is what Rashi means when he writes that Noach vacillated, "ma'amin v'aino ma'amin," when it came time to enter the ark.  Surely Noach, the tzadik tamim, did not harbor doubts in emunah.  Yet, what Noach realized is that his very lack of doubt, his tzidkus, his belief, would destroy the world.  What he realized is that he was the one thing that stood between the complete redemption of dor she'kulo chayav and a flood that would destroy most of mankind.  The flood is called "mei Noach," says the Kozhnitzer Magid, because Noach's righteousness effectively doomed the world.  Would it not be better under those circumstances to maybe doubt a little bit, maybe as an aveira lishma, to spare the world and bring it to redemption? 

Yet paradoxically, the very thought of doing an aveira lishma to spare the world itself only enhances and proves Noach's tzidkus.  Who else other than a tzadik would do an aveira for the sake of sparing a generation of such evildoers?  And so G-d protected Noach as he entered the ark and the flood came. 


"Va'ya'as Noach k'chol asher tzivah oso Elokim..."  A perplexing diyuk: why the name Elokim, which connotes midas ha'din, when we are speaking about the means of rescue?  Should the pasuk use the shem Hashem that connotes rachamim?

Based on this approach, the pasuk hits the nail right on the head.  Davka because Noach had a path to rescue himself, the rest of the world was doomed and was subject to din.

(As for R' Shteimnan's second question on the Rashi, maybe you can use Sefas Emes 5641 d"h b'Rashi from "af she'lo matzinu she'pa'al bahem" to answer it.)