לקוטי שיחות חלק ט״ו - נח א

Parshas Noach

1. Regarding the length of time that the building of the ark by Noach lasted, it states in the Midrash^[1] that "for one hundred and twenty years he toiled over it," and so too Rashi^[2] brings it down in his commentary on the Torah^[3].

This needs to be understood: how is it that Noach delayed so long with building the ark, and did not fulfill G‑d's command^[2] "Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood etc." with alacrity [especially since this was for the sake of (his own rescue and) the preservation of the entire world]?

And Rashi does not address this, not even by way of a hint!

One cannot say that in this particular Noach's conduct was not as it should have been — since the verse testifies, "he was a righteous man, perfect." Even according to the opinion^[4] that this was only "in his generations," nevertheless, regarding the building of the ark, the verse concludes and emphasizes, "And Noach did according to all that G‑d commanded him, so he did"^[5]; it is understood that he carried out this command perfectly, in all its details.

Nor can one say that since G‑d had already said^[6] that He would be patient for one hundred and twenty years, perhaps the people of the generation of the Flood would repent^[7], therefore Noach did not need to hurry to build the ark, and in the meantime he occupied himself with arousing the people of his generation to repentance [especially since, had they returned in repentance, no Flood would have come^[8], and the ark would not have been needed at all] —

Because: a) Since at the command "Make for yourself etc." no time was stated by which the ark was to be finished, it is understood that he had to carry it out as early as possible; and since Noach fulfilled the command perfectly (as above), it is not reasonable that he put off the fulfillment of the command "Make for yourself etc." (even for the sake of thereby arousing the people of his generation to repentance).

b) With this one can only explain why Noach could have put off the building of the ark until close to the end of the one hundred and twenty years (and in the meantime occupied himself with arousing the people of his generation to repentance) — but it still remains not understood: why did Noach need to occupy himself with the building of the ark for the entire span of one hundred and twenty years^[9]?

2. The explanation of this, simply, would seem to be as Rashi himself explains (and similarly in the Midrash^[10]), that the reason G‑d instructed Noach to build an ark — even though "there are many ways of relief and rescue before Him, so why did He trouble him with this construction?" — was "so that the people of the generation of the Flood would see him occupied with it for one hundred and twenty years and ask him, 'What is this for you?' and he would tell them, 'The Holy One, blessed be He, is going to bring a flood upon the world' — perhaps they would repent."

It emerges that the building of the ark and arousing the people of his generation to repentance are not two separate matters, but one and the same: the very activity of constructing the ark was a means of arousing them to repentance.

And since this was the reason for the command "Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood," it is understood that Noach's taking so long with the building of the ark was not conduct contrary to alacrity in fulfilling the command; on the contrary, precisely this was the true manner of fulfilling the command (since the purpose of making the ark was "so that they would see him etc. — perhaps they would repent").

However, this is still not smooth: in order to arouse in the people of his generation the question and wonder "What is this for you?" he did not need to draw out the work of construction — a fully built ark too would have provoked in them the question "What is this for you?"^[11] — so the difficulty returns to its place: why did Noach need to draw out the fulfillment of the command "Make for yourself etc." over a span of one hundred and twenty years (the utter opposite of alacrity), when he could have fulfilled G‑d's command and built the ark with great alacrity, and through the completed ark aroused in the generation of the Flood the wonder "What is this for you?"

We must therefore say that the matter of "Make for yourself an ark etc." itself demands that it last one hundred and twenty years; and as is also implied by the wording, "so why did He trouble him with this construction? So that the people of the generation of the Flood would see him occupied with it for one hundred and twenty years and ask him etc." — that G‑d from the outset troubled him with a construction that must take one hundred and twenty years^[12], so that the people of his generation would see, ask, and be aroused to repentance — and not that because of this ("so that they would see… and ask him etc.") he drew out the building to one hundred and twenty years.

3. The explanation of this — simply:

"Make for yourself" means (in the plain meaning of Scripture) "you shall make"^[13] (and as the Abarbanel says: "'Make for yourself' — that is to say, that Noach himself should make the ark and not command others to make it") — the command was that Noach himself should build the ark^[14]; and furthermore, according to what the Rogatchover^[15] explains (in the manner of halachah), that wherever a command is phrased with the word "make," the mitzvah consists in the act of making itself (and similarly with a transgression: where the prohibition is phrased in terms of making, one transgresses through actual physical making, but for what is brought about indirectly, through a grama, there is no liability).

And similarly in our case, with the making of the ark^[16]: since the command to make the ark states "Make for yourself," the mitzvah is the making itself; consequently Noach himself had to do all the work^[17] of building^[18] the ark

[and according to halachah he could not do it through an agent — for even if one were to say that commands phrased with "make" can also be fulfilled through an agent (and his action is counted exactly as if the one who sent him had done it)^[19], Noach nevertheless could not appoint an agent for building the ark, since for a Noahide the legal category of agency^[20] does not exist (in the manner mentioned above, that "a person's agent is like himself")],

And consequently it is no novelty that, although Noach fulfilled G‑d's command to build the ark with great alacrity, it nevertheless lasted a span of one hundred and twenty years; on the contrary: doing it all alone, it is a wonder that the immense construction work took him no more than one hundred and twenty years!

4. In the Rogatchover^[15] one finds two lines of reasoning in our case — whether in the making of the ark the mitzvah was the act of building, or "the mitzvah is the existence, not the building" (that there should be a (built) ark).

One may say that this depends on the reason for the command to make the ark:

If the purpose of the ark was only rescue from the waters of the Flood, then the act of building the ark has no content of its own, and the whole point is the existence of the ark;

But if one says that the occupation with building the ark was with the intent "so that they would see him etc. and ask him etc. — perhaps they would repent," then the building itself is a mitzvah (because it brings to repentance^[21]).

Accordingly, one can explain that this is the intent of Rashi in his commentary, "(there are many ways of relief and rescue before Him,) so why did He trouble him with this construction? So that they would see him etc.": with the lengthy wording "so why did He trouble him with this construction," Rashi means to explain that the question is not only why G‑d chose specifically this manner of rescue and not another manner of "relief and rescue" —

— for according to the plain meaning this is not a (great) question: in the natural order an ark is the means to be saved from a flood of water [which is indeed why Rashi does not bring the wording of the Midrash^[22], "Could not the Holy One, blessed be He, have saved Noach by His word and His speech, or raised him up to heaven?"] —

But mainly, "so why did He trouble him with this construction": why did Noach himself need to trouble himself with building the ark^[23]; that is to say, what is the intent in the building itself being a mitzvah, so that Noach himself therefore had to occupy himself with it?

To this Rashi answers, "so that they would see him etc." — that the toil of the construction was for the sake of arousing them to repentance, and consequently it is understood why the mitzvah consists in the very building of the ark^[24].

5. But one must still understand: Rashi in his commentary on the Torah explains the plain meaning of Scripture — what compels, according to the plain meaning, that "Make for yourself an ark etc." means "He troubled him etc.," that Noach must build the ark himself? Especially since it is hard to imagine how one person could build an ark "three hundred cubits etc."

It would seem difficult to say, as above, that this is because of the expression "Make for yourself" — for this expression (and the like) is found in a number of places where it means (according to the plain meaning of Scripture) "for yourself, for your own benefit"^[25], or "for yourself, from your own"^[26].

One may say that Rashi's compelling reason comes from the order and sequence of the verses^[27]: the command to make the ark appears in the verse immediately after the account of the action concerning the generation of the Flood, "The end of all flesh has come before Me etc., and behold, I will destroy them with the earth"^[28] — and before the verse "And I, behold, I am bringing the Flood of water etc."^[29], where He details in what manner this will take place^[30]. From this Rashi learns that the command "Make for yourself an ark etc." is not (only) for the sake of the existence of the ark, the finished product, so that he should have an ark to save himself from the "Flood of water," but that the action, the very work of construction, is (also) a mitzvah and a matter in its own right — a warning to the generation of the Flood.

6. It has already been discussed many times that the approach of Rashi's commentary on the Torah is not entirely the same as the approach of his commentary on the Talmud. Although in both his purpose is to explain according to the plain meaning^[31], the "plain meaning" of the Talmud — study in the manner of halachah etc. — is not the same as the "plain meaning" of Scripture — study of the simple sense of the verses; they are two distinct modes of study. Therefore one cannot pose a contradiction between Rashi's commentary on the Torah and his commentary on the Talmud.

And this is also emphasized in our matter: in Tractate Sukkah^[32] Rashi says that Shem built the ark together with Noach, and the Rogatchover^[33] deduces from this comment of Rashi the necessary conclusion that "the mitzvah is the existence, not the building" — the opposite of what emerges from Rashi's commentary on the Torah (as above, section 4).

The explanation of this: according to the plain meaning of Scripture there is no hint in the wording of the verses that Shem helped him; on the contrary: from the fact that the verse concludes^[5], "And Noach did according to all that G‑d commanded him, so he did," it is implied, as Rashi learns in his commentary on the Torah, that Noach himself built the ark.

And this also accords with what is implied by the sequence of the verses there: from the placement of the command "Make for yourself an ark of gopher wood" it is evident that the mitzvah is the action, as above, section 5 [and therefore one also finds in the Midrashim on the Torah^[34] that the occupation with building the ark was in order to arouse to repentance (and consequently — that the building itself is the mitzvah)].

Whereas in his commentary on the Talmud^[35], Rashi takes the view that emerges from the approach of the Gemara (the halachah) — in the Talmud^[36] (a) it is only said that "Noach the righteous would rebuke them and say to them, 'Repent etc.,'" without connecting this matter (the rebuke and arousal to repentance) with the building of the ark; and even from the continuation of the Gemara ("They said to him: Old man, what is this ark for? He said to them: The Holy One, blessed be He, etc.") it is implied that their question concerned "this ark," the existence of the ark^[37]. (b) The Gemara does not mention that the making of the ark took one hundred and twenty years.

And from this Rashi derives that according to the approach of the Talmud the building of the ark was only for the sake of rescue, and the matter of arousing the people of the generation of the Flood to repentance is a matter in its own right (not bound up with the making of the ark); that is, the mitzvah is the existence of the ark, the finished product, and consequently there was no obligation that Noach himself build the ark, and he could build it together with others (Shem and the like).

7. One may further say: Rashi in his commentary on the Talmud also holds that the mitzvah is the building of the ark (and not only the existence of the ark) — but he holds (in accordance with the opinion of the halachic authorities^[38]) that a Noahide can become an agent for a Noahide like himself^[39], and therefore Shem's participation in building the ark can be counted exactly as though Noach himself had built the ark, since Shem did so as Noach's agent.

Whereas in his commentary on the Torah, Rashi takes the view according to the plain meaning of Scripture, that when there is a command upon a person to perform an action, he cannot fulfill the command through an agent (as explained elsewhere^[40]).

And consequently it is understood that Noach had to build the ark himself.

8. It has already been discussed many times that all the interpretations of one verse are connected with one another. And similarly in our case: regarding "Make for yourself," the Rogatchover^[41] says: "'for yourself' — from your own," that Noach had to build the ark from his own property. One must say that this interpretation of "Make for yourself" is bound up with the interpretation mentioned above — that he had to do it himself, because the very building of the ark is the mitzvah.

This will be understood by first noting that an expression similar to the above (regarding the ark) is also found regarding the sukkah

[the two matters being connected with one another, as Chassidus^[41*] explains, that the sukkah is akin to Noach's ark, since both are a matter of peace^[42]: in Noach's ark there were all kinds of animals together, and nevertheless a state of peace prevailed there, a foretaste of "they shall not harm nor destroy"^[43]; and similarly the sukkah is in essence peace — "and spread over us the sukkah of Your peace" — to the point that our Sages^[44] say, "All of Israel are fit to dwell in one sukkah"]

— "The festival of Sukkos you shall make for yourself"^[45].

We see that the counterparts of the above matters regarding the ark [(a) that the very building of the ark is a mitzvah, (b) that it must be "make for yourself — from your own," (c) and that the ark, the finished product, was for the sake of rescue] are present also with the sukkah:

a) The very making of a sukkah is a mitzvah^[46], to the point that according to the Yerushalmi^[47] one must recite a blessing over it — "to make a sukkah." b) The sukkah must be "for yourself^[48] — from your own"^[49]. c) The intent of dwelling in the sukkah is "so that^[50] your generations may know that I made the children of Israel dwell in sukkos when I brought them out of the land of Egypt"^[51] — "these were His clouds of glory with which He surrounded them for shade, so that heat and sun should not strike them, and as a semblance of this He commanded us to make sukkos made for shade"^[52].

Nevertheless, one finds a difference between them: a) With the ark, Noach himself specifically had to build the ark, whereas with the sukkah, although it is a mitzvah, another person can also build^[53] the sukkah for him^[54]. b) The ark had to be "for yourself, from your own" — Noach's ark, whereas with the sukkah, "a person fulfills his obligation with his fellow's sukkah (a borrowed sukkah)"^[55], because "it is as though it were his own"^[56].

9. One may say that this is connected with the general theme of Noach's service in relation to the Flood, prefaced by what the Zohar^[57] explains regarding the difference between the conduct of Noach and that of the tzaddikim who came after him: that Noach did not pray for his generation — "he did not ask for mercy for the world" — and therefore the waters of the Flood are called^[58] "the waters of Noach," "for they depended on him, since he did not ask for mercy for the world"; whereas the tzaddikim who came after him gave themselves over with self-sacrifice for the people of their generation — as we find with Moshe Rabbeinu, who said^[59], "And if not, erase me, please, from Your book which You have written."

On which, seemingly, one could ask: our Sages say, as mentioned above^[60], that Noach rebuked the people of his generation and aroused them to repentance. We see, then, that the state of the people of his generation did concern him — so why did he not pray for them and arouse mercy?

The explanation of this: Noach's rebuke was mainly not out of his self-sacrifice for the people of the generation of the Flood, but in order to fulfill G‑d's command.

Which is why it states in Chassidus^[61] that Noach "did not devote himself to this, that his rebuke and warnings should have an effect upon them to arouse them to repentance," because with his rebuke he was mainly intent on fulfilling G‑d's command that he had been commanded,

And therefore "he did not ask (with self-sacrifice, like Moshe) for mercy for the world."

Whereas Moshe Rabbeinu, who was concerned with the state of the Jewish people, to the point that they concerned him exactly as he himself did — he gave himself over with self-sacrifice for them; he prayed and aroused mercy, to the point of saying, "And if not, erase me, please, from Your book which You have written"^[61*].

10. And this is also the difference between Noach's ark and the sukkah (which Moshe received from Sinai and handed down etc.):

The above matter, that he did not ask for mercy for the people of his generation, expressed itself in the building of the ark: the matter of rescue (in the literal sense, from the waters of the Flood) — the building of the ark — was (it could take in) only Noach and his family, not the people of his generation; and for this very reason the actual building, too, was done only by him, and from his own property — "for yourself, from your own."

Whereas after the Giving of the Torah, when the Jewish people became the entity of a single community^[62], and especially after they entered the Land, when they became obligated in mutual responsibility^[63] — they became "one eternal entity"^[64], in which each Jew is concerned with the existence of the other Jew —

And especially with those mitzvos in which the matter of unity stands revealed — such as the mitzvah of sukkah, whose essence is peace (as above, section 8) — the act of the mitzvah performed by another Jew can also be counted as though he had done it: a fellow's sukkah too is in the category of "truly his own," and he fulfills his obligation, since they are "as one body"^[65].

(From a talk of the first day of Rosh Chodesh MarCheshvan, 5736)

Key Lesson

Noach was commanded "Make for yourself an ark," and the mitzvah lay in the building itself — he had to toil at it alone, from his own means, for one hundred and twenty years, so that the long labor would itself be a call to repentance. Yet because his rebuke came from obeying a command rather than from self-sacrifice for others, his ark saved only his own family. After Sinai the Jewish people became one body, so that another Jew's sukkah is truly "one's own." Our service of G‑d should not stop at discharging our own duty; it should carry the self-sacrificing concern of Moshe for every other Jew.