Likkutei Sichos Vol. 15 – Bereishis 5
1. At the close of this week's Parshah, Rashi focuses on "for I have reconsidered (nichamti) that I made them," and explains: "I have considered what to do about them, because I made them."
This is not understood:
a) The word nichamti plainly means regret. The plain meaning of "nichamti that I made them" would seemingly be: I regret having made them — as the Targum translates it (not only Targum Yonasan, whose interpretation is sometimes in the manner of derush[1], but also Targum Onkelos, whose interpretation follows the plain meaning). Why, then, does Rashi — who explains the plain meaning of Scripture[2] — give a different interpretation here: I have considered what to do because I made them? Moreover:
b) One verse earlier[3], Rashi sets out a rule: "Every expression of nichum in Scripture — an expression of deliberating what to do, etc. — all of them are expressions of a change of mind." That is, the expression nichum in Tanach always means a thought that differs (with regret) from an earlier thought. According to this rule, nichamti too should have been an expression of regret — why does Rashi explain it differently here?
2. One might seemingly say that Rashi does not explain nichamti as an expression of regret because even a child understands that regret does not apply to G‑d [as it is written[4], "G‑d is not a man that He should lie, nor a son of man that He should reconsider"], and therefore he has to explain here "nichamti — I have considered, etc." But this is not understood at all: the earlier verse mentioned above also speaks of G‑d — "and G‑d reconsidered (vayinachem)" — and nevertheless[5] Rashi says there that vayinachem means "the thought of the Omnipresent turned."
Moreover: among the proofs that Rashi cites there is the very verse "[G‑d is not a man that He should lie,] nor a son of man that He should reconsider," and Rashi nevertheless explains it as an expression of regret[6]. We see, then, that (for whatever reason) Rashi is not troubled by the question[6*] of how regret can apply to G‑d; and so too in the other verses that Rashi cites there — "and He will reconsider regarding His servants"[7]; "and G‑d reconsidered the evil"[8]; "I regret that I made [Shaul] king"[9] — although they all speak of G‑d, nevertheless "all of them are expressions of a change of mind." Why, then, should he not explain "nichamti that I made them" too according to the same rule, as an expression of a change of mind?
c) According to Rashi's explanation that nichamti means "I have considered what to do," the continuation "for (ki) I made them" does not fit smoothly. According to this interpretation it must be read as giving the reason for nichamti[10] (nichamti — I have considered what to do; ki ("because") — since; "I made them"). Yet plainly, the reason and cause of "I have considered what to do" lies in "the evil of man was great"[11]: because they sinned, G‑d, as it were, considers what to do with them. How is "I made them" a reason for nichamti?
3. This will be understood from an earlier comment of Rashi on the same verse, which also seems not to follow the plain meaning. On "And G‑d said, I will wipe out (emcheh) man," Rashi says[12]: "He is dust; I will bring water upon him and dissolve him. That is why the expression mechuy is used."
The plain meaning of emcheh is to erase, as in "I will utterly erase (macho emcheh)"[13] or "you shall erase (timcheh)"[14], said about Amalek (where one certainly cannot interpret it as bringing water upon them[15]). It is so obvious that emcheh means to erase[15*] that Rashi does not explain it there[16], since it needs no explanation at all. Yet on "I will wipe out man," Rashi has to explain it, and in a novel way: "I will bring water upon him and dissolve him"[17]?!
The explanation: as the account continues (in the coming Parshah), G‑d told Noach to make an ark which Noach, his sons, his wife and his sons' wives would enter, together with every kind of living creature, in order to be saved from the Flood. Consequently, one cannot learn that emcheh here means, as plainly, erasing (that is, completely wiping out) from the world "from man to beast to creeping thing and to the bird of the heavens" — since not all were wiped out from the world.
[One need not even come to the next Parshah: in our own Parshah, one verse later, it says, "And Noach found favor in the eyes of G‑d." It cannot be said, then, that with "I will wipe out man whom I created" G‑d meant to erase the human race, since Noach is not included in it, as he "found favor in the eyes of G‑d."
In truth, one does not need proof even from the following verse. Learning this verse itself, when one pictures a world with people and all kinds of living creatures, it immediately becomes clear that with "I will wipe out … from man to beast …," G‑d did not mean to erase the human race and all living creatures.]
Rashi therefore explains that emcheh (here, unlike with Amalek) means as it were to make dissolve, to melt away in water. Consequently there is no contradiction in the fact that "Noach and those with him in the ark" remained whole: the decree was not erasure but "dissolving" — through water. Therefore the creatures that were placed in the water were dissolved[18]; but those in the ark, protected from the water, were not touched by the decree "I will dissolve," and remained whole.
In light of this we will also understand why Rashi explains that "nichamti that I made them" does not mean regret, but "I have considered what to do, etc.": from the fact that Noach and those with him in the ark were saved, it is clear that G‑d did not regret having "made them" (for if He had, He would have erased all the creatures)[19].
And this does not contradict the rule Rashi stated earlier, "Every expression of nichum in Scripture — an expression of deliberating what to do, etc. — an expression of a change of mind," since nichamti here too means "deliberating": it is indeed a different, regretful thought, but the regret here is not about having created them, as will be explained below.
4. Seemingly one could ask: how can it be said that because Noach and those with him in the ark remained whole, Rashi is compelled to explain that "nichamti that I made them" does not mean regret over their creation? Rashi himself explains on "and G‑d reconsidered that He made" that G‑d regretted, and "His thought turned … to the attribute of judgment." And on the other hand, the same question could be asked on that verse: if G‑d regretted the creation of man[20], how did the human race continue to exist? That is, what is the difference between the verse nichamti and the earlier verse "and G‑d reconsidered," that there Rashi can explain it as regret, while in this verse he must explain "I have considered what to do, etc."?
The explanation: in the earlier verse it says, "and He was grieved in His heart." This teaches us that there the verse is not speaking of a decree of G‑d that came down in speech, but of His thought — what He thought, as it were, within Himself. Rashi indeed stresses the expression "thought" there several times: "His thought turned"; "it arose in thought before Him"; "they are a change of mind."
Since that reconsideration was only in thought[21], there is no question why it was not carried out in actual fact: that reconsideration remained, as it were, in thought, and did not come down into any decree in speech. In our verse, however, it says "And G‑d said …," which means a decree[22] by way of speech[23] — and G‑d's decree must be fulfilled. Therefore one cannot say that the statement ("I will wipe out") meant erasing the created beings, and consequently nichamti is not regret over the creation, as explained above.
5. It follows from the above that G‑d's statement "I will wipe out man …" brought about a lightening relative to the earlier thought. Earlier, in His thought, there was regret over the creation (which means the opposite of continued existence) of the entire human race and all living creatures; but afterwards G‑d said "I will wipe out man" — dissolving through water — by which the decree would not take effect on Noach and his whole household, etc.
What brought about the turn toward leniency in "I will wipe out," since earlier it had arisen in His thought regarding the entire human race? This is understood from the end of the verse: "for (ki, because) nichamti that I made them" — I have considered what to do with them because I created them. That is, since I created them — they are the work of the Holy One, blessed be He's, hands — I must find a way to maintain their existence. For this reason it is only "I will wipe out man …" (by water).
Accordingly, it is also understood that Rashi's explanation "nichamti — I have considered what to do" does not contradict the rule that every expression of nichum means a change of mind. Here too it carries the meaning of regret, but the regret is not over having "made them"; it is over the earlier thought, which encompassed all created beings without exception.
6. Rashi's explanation of "for nichamti" is [like everything in Torah, a word derived from horaah, instruction] also a lesson in our service of G‑d:
As said earlier, Rashi cannot explain nichamti in our verse as regret over the making of the created beings — as he explains earlier on "and G‑d reconsidered that He had made man on the earth" — because here it says "And G‑d said," and it is already a decree that must be carried out in practice.
This teaches how careful one must be with one's speech. Since the righteous [and this means all Jews, as it is written[24], "And your people are all righteous"] resemble their Creator[25], a Jew's speech has an effect. One must therefore be very careful not to utter any unfavorable word about another, for a Jew's speech can cause harm.
When one thinks about another person's wrongdoing, one transgresses a severe prohibition[26]; but this cannot harm the other person (to such an extent?). When one says it out loud, however, the other person can suffer from it.
This explains the saying of our Sages[27], "Evil speech kills three," that lashon hara brings misfortune on all three: not only on the one who tells it and the one who hears it, but also on the one spoken about[28]. Seemingly one could ask: the two — the one who speaks lashon hara and the one who listens to it — have committed a transgression; but what is the third one guilty of, that he should suffer?
The explanation: the nature (and "effect") of speech is that it brings something out from concealment into revelation. Therefore, as long as one does not speak about another person's wrongdoing, even if it is true, it remains concealed. G‑d is slow to anger and waits until the Jew does teshuvah. But when one speaks about it and it comes out into revelation in the realm of speech, an accusation against him can already arise from it[28*], which is liable to bring harm[29].
7. Another lesson from the above words of Rashi:
The reason the regret over creation did not come out in speech is that "I have considered what to do about them, because I made them." That is, not only did the decree not come in speech, but even in thought there was no decision to destroy man. From the outset it was only a thought of reconsideration and regret, but without any decision "what to do"[30]. And since "I made them" — they are the work of the Holy One, blessed be He's, hands — the thought was changed for the good, so that Noach and those with him in the ark would remain alive.
This is a lesson for everyone. Even when one sees, G‑d forbid, that another Jew's wickedness is great and "every inclination of the thoughts of his heart is only evil all day," yet knowing that every Jew is "the branch of My planting, the work of My hands" of the Holy One, blessed be He, one must not pass any verdict on him, G‑d forbid — not even in thought — but one must judge him favorably.
If G‑d, who searches the innermost heart and with whom no error is possible, G‑d forbid, and who, when He saw that "the evil of man was great," was certainly right — nevertheless refrained from passing an absolute verdict accordingly; how much more so a human being, who is liable to make mistakes, may certainly not establish and voice a bad opinion about another person, since it is entirely possible that things are not at all as they appear to him[31]. As the Mishnah rules[32]: "Judge every person favorably."
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, 5726)