Parshas Noach
1. At the beginning of the sidrah, Rashi quotes the words "These are the generations of Noach; Noach was a righteous man," and explains: "Since [Scripture] mentions him, it tells his praise, as it is said,[1] 'The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing.' Another explanation: to teach you that the main offspring of the righteous are good deeds."[2]
What the difficulty is in the words of the verse, on account of which Rashi needs to explain them, is understood simply — to such an extent that Rashi need not spell out the difficulty at all and can begin immediately with his explanation: the word toldos everywhere means, according to the plain meaning, (not events,[3] but) children. Consequently it is not understood: how do the words "Noach was a righteous man" come as the continuation of "These are the generations of Noach"?
Rashi therefore says that the continuation of "These are the generations of Noach" indeed comes only in the second verse — "And Noach begot three sons etc." — but in between come the words "Noach was a righteous man" as a parenthetical statement, because when one mentions a tzaddik one must praise him.
However, since it does not sit so easily[4] with the intellect to say that the Torah would interrupt[5] in the middle (and especially at the beginning) of a matter with a parenthetical statement[6] (especially as this then makes it necessary, after the interruption, to add the words "And Noach begot three sons," which are repeated here for the second time)[7] —
Rashi therefore gives another explanation,[8] that good deeds too [since[9] they are produced and "born" through the person[10]] are called toldos; and on the contrary, they are the main toldos of the righteous. And for this reason not only does the verse say that the generations of Noach are his good deeds, but the verse places "Noach was a righteous man" before "And Noach begot three sons," to emphasize that the main part of "the generations of Noach" is "Noach was a righteous man."[11]
But this explanation too is not "smooth," because the plain meaning of toldos is children.[12] Therefore Rashi must resort to the first explanation, that the word toldos here too is to be understood literally.
And since in the explanation "Since it mentions him etc." the difficulty lies only in the sequence of the verses, whereas according to the explanation "to teach you etc." the word toldos itself is not smooth — Rashi therefore places the explanation "Since it mentions him etc." first, for that is the primary explanation.
2. After all the above, we still need to understand:
a) The difficulty in the verse mentioned above — what is the connection between "the generations of Noach" and "Noach was a righteous man" — would seemingly pertain only to the words "the generations of Noach; Noach was a righteous man," but not to the word "These." Why then does Rashi quote from the verse the word "These" as well?[13]
b) On account of the rule "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing," the Torah should have stated Noach's praise already in the previous sidrah,[14] where his name is mentioned for the first time.[15] Why do the words "Noach was a righteous man" come only in Parshas Noach?[16]
One can also ask, on the basis of this very rule, regarding the other tzaddikim whose names are mentioned in the previous sidrah: why does the Torah not tell the praise of Mesushelach when his name is mentioned in Parshas Bereishis? His righteousness was so great that in his honor G‑d held back the punishment of the Flood for seven days![17]
And so too one can ask regarding Chanoch in that same parshah: why does the verse praise him, "And Chanoch walked with G‑d,"[18] not immediately when it mentions him?
How, then, can one learn that "Noach was a righteous man" is meant to tell his praise on account of the rule "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing," when this same rule is not kept with the other tzaddikim, nor with Noach himself when he is mentioned several times before?
3. Similarly, one can ask regarding the second explanation as well, "to teach you that the main offspring of the righteous are good deeds": in the previous sidrah too[19] it says "And Noach begot etc." (and likewise regarding the other tzaddikim). Why, then, does the earlier verse not come "to teach you"; why does the verse there not tell of his righteousness — which is his main offspring?
This is indeed not a strong question. For although "good deeds" are called toldos (even to the point that they are "the main offspring of the righteous"), it is nevertheless understood simply that the term vayoled, "and he begot," does not apply to them.[20] Thus in our sidrah, where the verse says "These are the generations of Noach," it must say "Noach was a righteous man," since "the generations of Noach" include his good deeds as well; and on the contrary, they are his main offspring — so the verse cannot leave out the main thing and mention only the offspring that come afterward. Whereas in the previous sidrah, where it says "And Noach begot" (and such is the wording there regarding the other tzaddikim too), but not "the generations of Noach" — it is fitting there to say "Shem, Cham and Yefes," but not his "good deeds."
However, this itself requires explanation: since "the main offspring of the righteous" are good deeds, how indeed is it that in the previous sidrah it says only "And Noach begot Shem etc.," and his main offspring are not mentioned at all?
4. Seemingly, one could have raised a stronger question against Rashi's second explanation: regarding Yitzchak the wording is "And these are the generations of Yitzchak,"[21] and nevertheless only "Yaakov and Esav"[22] are enumerated there, and his good deeds are not mentioned at all.
Even more: from the wording "And these are the generations of Yitzchak" — that only these, Yaakov and Esav, are "the generations of Yitzchak" — it actually follows that not only does the verse not count his good deeds, it altogether excludes them: they are not included in "the generations of Yitzchak." How does this accord with what Rashi says here — precisely the opposite — that good deeds are in fact the main offspring of the righteous?
5. In truth, however, this is no question at all:
Had the verse counted "Noach was a righteous man" among his toldos only because that is the reality — that his good deeds are his main offspring (but not because the verse intends to let us hear this), there would still be room to ask: why does the verse not count his good deeds in "the generations of Yitzchak" as well?
Since, however, the verse comes, as Rashi says, "to teach you that the main offspring of the righteous are good deeds" — it is a teaching regarding tzaddikim in general, regarding all tzaddikim[23] — it need not repeat it with each tzaddik separately; here, in our verse, it already speaks about all tzaddikim.
This, however, only answers why in "the generations of the righteous" after our verse their good deeds are not counted. But why does the verse not mention it in the previous sidrah?
6. The explanation of all the above will be understood by first noting what Rashi says on the verse "This is the book of the generations of Adam":[24] "This is the enumeration of the generations of Adam." That is to say, the narratives about all the people enumerated in that parshah ("This is the book") — about Shes, Enosh, etc., and also Noach and his sons — (come for the sake of, and) represent (no more than) the enumeration, the account of the generations of Adam:
In that sidrah the Torah speaks of the ten generations from Adam to Noach not as though they themselves were the purpose of the narrative, but inasmuch as they are the descendants, the offspring, of Adam the first man. The parshah there wishes to relate what happened to the descendants of Adam: that in the majority of his descendants "the evil of man was great on the earth"[25] [their evil having come about through their being the offspring of Adam, who, through the sin of the Tree of Knowledge, brought evil into the human species]; and how G‑d therefore said,[26] "I will blot out man etc."; and that upon a part of his "descendants" — Noach, who "found favor in the eyes of G‑d,"[27] and also his children[28] (who are mentioned there) — this decree did not fall.
But since all this happened only later, in the generation of the Flood, the Torah briefly enumerates all ten generations that existed until then. The intent, however, is not the enumeration — the narrative about them themselves — but "the enumeration of the generations of Adam."[29]
Therefore there is no question:[30] why in Parshas Bereishis does the Torah not tell the praise of the tzaddikim, and (according to the second explanation) not count their good deeds? Because there it is not speaking about them themselves; they are mentioned there only as "the generations of Adam."
7. But this answer is not entirely smooth. For regarding the "ten generations from Adam to Noach" too — although they are seemingly enumerated only for the sake of the outcome, the generation of the Flood, as above — we nevertheless see that regarding Chanoch it says [not only "And Chanoch lived… and begot etc.," but] also "And Chanoch walked with G‑d"; and likewise regarding Noach it says "This one will comfort us etc."[31] Now, since in Parshas Bereishis too a number of details are mentioned, why should their "praise" and their "main offspring" not be stated there as well?
And since both of Rashi's explanations share the same difficulty — why does the matter come only in Parshas Noach and not earlier — one should seemingly have learned another explanation, a third, which commentators bring (as will be discussed below), according to which the above difficulty does not arise —
Therefore Rashi quotes from the verse, in addition to "the generations of Noach; Noach was a righteous man," also the word "These," with which he explains why one cannot learn as those commentators do, as will be explained.
8. It has been discussed several times that where Rashi is not satisfied with two explanations and brings a third as well, this is — for the most part — not because of the different difficulties found in each of the first two explanations separately, but because of a certain difficulty, or at least lack of smoothness, which they have in common and which is found equally in both first explanations, i.e., when neither explanation is right for one and the same reason. Then Rashi brings a third explanation — although it is further from the plain meaning, which is why Rashi brings it last, after the first two explanations — because specifically in it the difficulties of the previous two explanations do not exist.
And regarding our verse: there are commentators[32] who learn that "Noach was a righteous man" continues (not "These are the generations of Noach," but) the preceding verse, "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d": that the reason he "found favor etc." is because "Noach was a righteous man etc."[33]
And one may say (according to these commentators) that the reason "These are the generations of Noach" stands between "And Noach found favor etc." and "Noach was a righteous man" is as follows: the verse "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d" is not a matter unto itself, but continues what came before — that although G‑d said regarding all people "I will blot out man," Noach nevertheless found favor in the eyes of G‑d, and He took him out of the general decree. And since "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d" pertains to his rescue from the Flood, the verse therefore continues immediately, "These are the generations of Noach" — that Noach's finding favor was so strong that his children too were saved; and after the verse completes the matter of finding favor, it explains the reason for "found favor etc." — because "Noach was a righteous man."
And although this explanation is, understandably, much harder to fit into the plain meaning of Scripture than Rashi's two explanations, nevertheless, since both of Rashi's explanations share the same difficulty (as above, section 7), there would seemingly be room to bring the above explanation as well. Why then does Rashi indeed not bring it?
The reason Rashi rejects this interpretation entirely, to the point of not bringing it even as a third explanation, he indicates by quoting before his explanation the word "These" as well:
It is a rule in Torah, understood in the plain meaning too,[34] that wherever it says eileh, "these," without a vav (the connective), it is not a continuation of what came before; a new matter begins. And since here it says "These are the generations of Noach," one must say that with this a new matter begins, which does not continue the preceding verse.
And for this reason Rashi must learn that "Noach was a righteous man" is not the conclusion of "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d"; rather, it is stated on account of "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing," or in order "to teach you that the main offspring of the righteous are good deeds."
9. But there is a point to examine in our Rashi — regarding the explanation "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing":
Further on, in Parshas Vayeira, on the verse "And Avraham shall surely become etc.,"[35] Rashi says: "A Midrash Aggadah: the mention of a righteous man is for a blessing — since He mentioned him, He blessed him." Seemingly, why does Rashi state this there in the name of a Midrash Aggadah — unlike in our verse, where he accepts according to the plain meaning that "Noach was a righteous man" is stated on account of "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing"?[36]
The explanation of this is quite simple: in the verse, after the words "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing," it says "but the name of the wicked shall rot." This means not that when mentioning a wicked person one must, G‑d forbid, curse him,[37] but that the name of the wicked "rots" and is forgotten, because people do not want to mention their name.[38] And since the two matters — "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing" and "but the name of the wicked shall rot" — stand in the same verse and in one continuum, it is understandable that the meaning of "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing" is similar to the manner in which "but the name of the wicked shall rot" is interpreted.
From this it is understood that the plain meaning of "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing" is not that one must bless a tzaddik when mentioning him (for according to that there is no similarity between the first half of the verse and its continuation, the words "but the name of the wicked shall rot"), but that one must praise a tzaddik when mentioning him — which parallels the manner of "but the name of the wicked shall rot," since not mentioning a person's name is a matter of disgrace, the opposite of praise.
And therefore in our verse, which speaks of "it tells his praise," Rashi says "as it is said, 'The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing'" — because the plain meaning of that verse is that when one mentions a tzaddik one must praise him. Whereas in Parshas Vayeira, where "And Avraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation etc." is [not praise but] a blessing — and, as Rashi emphasizes, "since He mentioned him, He blessed him" — Rashi cannot bring a proof from the verse, "as it is said etc.," and he must resort to a Midrash Aggadah.[39]
10. On the basis of the above, the Gemara in Tractate Yoma[40] will also be understood. In its words: "Ravina said to a certain scholar… From where is this matter that the Rabbis said, 'the mention of a righteous man is for a blessing'? He said to him: For it is written, 'The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing.' From the Torah, from where do we derive it? For it is written,[41] 'And G‑d said: Shall I conceal from Avraham that which I am doing,' and it is written, 'And Avraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation.'"
Seemingly it is not understood: "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing" is an explicit verse — so what is Ravina asking with "From where is this matter that the Rabbis said etc."?
At first glance one would learn that with the question "From where is this matter etc." Ravina originally meant to ask where it is alluded to in the Torah,[42] but "that scholar" did not understand his question and thought he was asking what the source for it is in general, so he answered "For it is written etc." And therefore Ravina then clarified his question: "From the Torah, from where do we derive it?"
One cannot learn it this way, however, for the wording is "From where is this matter that the Rabbis said etc.," which implies that in Ravina's view[43] the verse "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing" does not say it (for plainly it speaks there of a different matter). We must then understand: it is the very same wording — so presumably it is the same content and matter?
It is also not understood: why does the Gemara need to bring a proof from the verse "And Avraham shall surely become etc.," which appears only in Parshas Vayeira, when there is a proof for this from an earlier verse — at the beginning of Parshas Noach?[44]
According to the above, both questions are answered simply: the plain meaning of "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing" in Mishlei is that one must praise the tzaddik (as above). And this is what Ravina asked: where is the source for what "the Rabbis said" (and in the language of the Sages berachah means only blessing) — that one must bless a tzaddik when mentioning him? To this "that scholar" answered him that it is derived from the verse "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing": since in most places the term berachah denotes blessing, it is understandable that here too it can mean — at least by way of derash — blessing in its plain sense.
Upon this Ravina asked him a further question: "From the Torah, from where do we derive it?" — where do we find from the Torah that one must bless a tzaddik when mentioning him? To this came the answer: "For it is written, 'And G‑d said… And Avraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation,'" for there is the first source for it, since in Parshas Noach the verse speaks not of blessing but of praise, as above, section 9.[45]
11. Of the matters of the "wine of Torah" in our Rashi:
What indeed is the reason for, and the benefit of, having to praise a tzaddik — to the point that (as above, there) this is even more plain than that one must bless him? This will be understood by first noting what the Gemara says:[46] "The third tongue kills three" — that lashon hara harms not only the one who speaks and the one who listens, but also the one about whom it is spoken. For the one about whom lashon hara was spoken will take revenge on the speaker, and the speaker's blood-avenger will take revenge on him.[47]
Now, "no iniquity shall befall the righteous," and only "from the wicked comes forth wickedness," as Rashi explains on the verse[48] "and G‑d caused it to happen to his hand." And since our Sages say (and connect it with this) that "the third tongue (lashon hara) kills three," it is understood that all three whom "it kills" have a connection with the sin of the third tongue.
Seemingly: the one who speaks and the one who listens both took part in the sin — and such a grave sin, of which the Gemara says that it is equal in gravity to idolatry, immorality and bloodshed together[49] — so it is understandable why the lashon hara harms them. But what is the guilt of the one spoken about? He took no part in the sin — why should he too suffer?
The explanation is: the quality of speech is to bring a thing out from concealment (thought) into revelation. Therefore, by speaking about another's evil and thereby bringing it out from concealment into revelation in speech — one can harm him.[50] Had one not spoken about it, the other's evil would have remained hidden and would not have come to actual expression.
Now, "the measure of good is greater than the measure of retribution."[51] If, then, speaking about another's disgrace has a harmful effect, how much more so is this true, and even more, regarding the measure of good: when one speaks about another's goodness and praise, it certainly has a good effect on the one being praised, and consequently it gives him strength and assistance in his service — one brings his good and his virtues out into revealed and effective expression.
This is so even regarding praise that people give. And how much more so with praises from G‑d, especially as they are stated explicitly in the Torah.[52]
And this is the reason for "The mention of a righteous man is for a blessing": through the very act of praising the tzaddik, one helps him in his service.
12. Accordingly, we will also understand the reason (in the inner dimension of the matters) why the matter of "since it mentions him, it tells his praise" comes only in Parshas Noach — although the verse already mentions Noach in Parshas Bereishis:
At the conclusion of Parshas Bereishis it says, "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d."
The matter of chen, favor, is bound up not only with the person who carries favor [unlike "beauty," which pertains only to the "form" and "appearance"[53] of the person who is "beautiful"], but also (primarily?) with the one in whose eyes he finds favor [as in "the favor of a woman in the eyes of her husband"[54] — "even if she is unattractive"[55]].
And especially as here it says "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d": although this is bound up (also) with his conduct, it nevertheless came primarily not on account of his service, but by way of a "find"[56] and an arousal from Above.[57]
And in this lies the difference between the account of Noach in Parshas Bereishis and the account of him in Parshas Noach: in Parshas Bereishis it speaks of the matters that Noach had by way of a "find," through an arousal from Above — "he found favor in the eyes of G‑d"; but in Parshas Noach it speaks of "Noach was a righteous man," of his good deeds, of (the levels he attained through) his service.[58]
And therefore the account of Noach's praise comes only in Parshas Noach: the benefit of "telling his praise" is (as above, sections 11–12) to assist the person being praised in his service, and Noach's service begins only in Parshas Noach, as above.
13. The lesson from this in one's service is: a Jew must endeavor to see the good in another Jew and to speak of his virtues and praises,[59] for by this very act one brings about that the other's good emerges more openly, with good results in his service.
And in addition to the good effect this has on service, praising a Jew is at the same time also a vessel for calling forth the bestowal of good from Above. As is known the saying of the Alter Rebbe,[60] that when a father looks and sees how his children are among themselves "in love, brotherhood, peace and friendship, each fulfilling the wish of his fellow, and each one concerned for the welfare of his fellow as for his own welfare, and among them even those who set aside their own concerns for the sake of providing for the needs of their fellows — then the father is filled with delight and gratification from the conduct of his children, and does wonders to fulfill their requests."
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Noach, 5727)
Key Lesson
Rashi explains that "Noach was a righteous man" is stated because one must praise a tzaddik when mentioning him, and the Rebbe shows that in the plain sense of the verse in Mishlei "blessing" here means praise. The reason is that speech brings what is hidden into the open: just as speaking of another's faults gives them strength, speaking of his good draws that good out and helps him in his service. That is why Noach's praise waits until Parshas Noach, where his own service begins. The lesson is to look for the good in every Jew and speak of it, which strengthens him and also calls forth G‑d's blessing, as a father who sees his children caring for one another delights in fulfilling their requests.