Noach’s Tzidkus. Ramban, Noach.

And we'll begin from the beginning of the daf, Parsha. Eileh toldos Noach. Eileh toldos Noach, toldos, chashuvei toldosov. toldos, chashuvei toldosov. כטעם מה יולד יום. The Ibn Ezra, hu v'domav, one school of thought says that toldos sometimes means the history of. So the translation of Eileh toldos Noach is, this is the history of Noah, of the times of Noah. How do you tie toldos in that way? Because we find the idiom of mah yeled yom, that we metaphorically describe what happens on any given day as the day giving birth to that. וירמוז על כל הפרשה. And therefore, Eileh toldos Noach is introducing the whole story to come, this is the history of Noah. Ramban disagrees, ואינו נכון בעיני כי אין קורות האדם תולדותיו. What happens to a person you can't attribute to him. The idiom of mah yeled yom notwithstanding, but to say that these are toldos Noach. If a person happens to be alive in 1776, so you can't describe the American Revolution, the Revolutionary War as his toldos. Maybe it's something that happened while he was alive, but here it's toldos Noach, as they're being attributed to, they're being misyaches to Noah. So that the idiom of the pasuk in Mishlei notwithstanding, it doesn't plug in. That's the Ramban's hasagah on this school of thought. And therefore, v'hanachon shehu k'mashmao, כמו ואלה תולדות בני נח. It means the children, it means the progeny. הוצאת תולדות פשוטו כמשמעו. The same difference of opinion occurs in the beginning of Parshas Vayeishev.

וישב יעקב בארץ מגורי אביו בארץ כנען אלה תולדות יעקב יוסף.

There too the Ramban quotes the Ibn Ezra. Here he doesn't mention the Ibn Ezra by name, but there in Parshas Vayeishev he mentions him by name.

אלה המאורעות שאירעו לו והקורות שבאו עליו. כטעם מה יולד יום.

And here too the Ramban attacks: אין אדם מוליד קורותיו. Can't again, toldah is... as his toldos, because you can't describe the history of a person's days, even what happens to him, as his toldos, even when you have that connection, but it's not just something that happens at the same time, but that it happened to him. The Ramban has that objection: you can't describe that as his, as his toldos. So the Ramban is of the opinion, which is also Rashi consistently, both in Noach and Vayeshev, also already goes that way, that the Torah says no, it has to mean the toldos, the offspring, the progeny. That's why Rashi, you see that that's Rashi's havanah, because Rashi says

אלה תולדות נח נח איש צדיק כל עיקר סיפורו צדקתו.

Rashi's explaining that נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו is really, as it were, interrupting the flow. It should have said אלה תולדות נח שם חם ויפת the next pasuk. But no, Zecher tzaddik livracha, he mentions the tzaddik, so then he needs to right away, he has to be mazkir shevacho. And Nachmanides on u-k'mashma'o, and Eleh toldos b'Noach, and ואלה תולדות ישמעאל יאמר, so the pasuk means אלה תולדות נח שם חם ויפת. Aval hechezir, so then according to the Ramban, according to this school of thought, Rashi and the Ramban, so then lichora the Vayoled Noach is repetitious, because that's what Eleh toldos Noach means.

אבל החזיר ויולד נח בעבור שהפסיק ואמר נח איש צדיק תמים היה.

Now that obviously then just begs the question: so why was the Torah mafsik, given that the Torah is introducing Eleh toldos Noach, why was the Torah mafsik? להודיע למה ציווהו בתיבה. The Torah again interrupts the flow of Eleh toldos Noach. The Ramban, again addressing the same question that Rashi did, more al derech ha'aggada, the Ramban more al derech peshat, is להודיע למה ציווהו בתיבה. But lichora the question that we're left with is: so wouldn't it have been a more logical construct, Torah should have said

נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו את האלקים התהלך נח אלה תולדות נח שם חם ויפת.

That should have been, then the Torah wouldn't have to be mafsik. So lichora what the Ramban means is, is like this. Parshas Noach is obviously coming to present the story of the mabul. But the point, the point that the Torah wants to underscore the most is that the mabul notwithstanding, the world continued. The mabul notwithstanding, so humanity continued. It wasn't totally destroyed. Now that is totally on highlighting the fact that there were toldos Noach. So the Torah wants, front and center, to mention toldos Noach, because But al pi pshuto, the the what the Torah wants front and center is that for for all the catastrophic magnitude of the mabul, but the world had a kiyum. And therefore, the first thing to say in the narrative of the mabul is Eleh toldos Noach. Okay, now now who is Noach that his toldos were the ones that the Ramban is about to say in a couple of lines, quote, מאלה נפצה כל הארץ? Who was Noach that his toldos were the ones who who bridged the world pre and post mabul? Who were his toldos and why did they serve as that bridge?

נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו את האלהים התהלך נח. ואף על פי שכבר אמר למעלה ויהי נח בן חמש מאות שנה ויולד נח את שם את חם ואת יפת חזר להזכירם פעם אחרת והגיד כי לא היה ככל האבות שיולידו בנים ובנות.

Zeh ta'am shlosha banim and that's it. Three and no more than that.

כי אליהם נסב הדיבור לומר ואלה שלשת בני נח היו תולדותיו ונצלו בזכותו ומאלה נפצה כל הארץ.

And that's exactly the point we were mentioning before that the story begins with Toldos Noach because it's Toldos Noach who are the the bridge between the pre and post mabul world. Here the Ramban says that that Noach's sons and daughters-in-law venitzlu bizchuso. Later in this on the same pasuk a little bit later, the Ramban writes

והנה אחר שהיה נח צדיק בעינינו ראוי ליענש גם בניו וביתו ראויים להנצל בזכותו כי היה עונש עליו אם יכרת זרעו או יאמר כי הוא צדיק שלם וגם בניו וביתו צדיקים כי הוא למדם כענין שכתוב כי ידעתיו למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו.

So at first glance, I mean, subsequently, the Ramban seems to have two two deios as to whether or not the Toldos Noach were saved only bizchuso because it would have been an onesh for him to see his children killed. Or no, he had been mashpiah on them that they too were tzaddikim. Superficially, in which case our Ramban is just, he doesn't want to be nichnas to that yet. So he's only saying like the first of those two leshonos that he'll present later. We'll if I forget, please remind me to come back to this. Let's let's continue here.

איש צדיק תמים היה. יזכיר הכתוב שהיה זכאי ושלם בצדקו והודיע שראוי להנצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל כי הוא תמים בצדק כי הצדק הוא הזכאי בדין הפך הרשע כמו שאמר והצדיקו את הצדיק והרשיעו את הרשע.

So the Ramban says that the the correct translation of tzadik is someone who's innocent in context of din. So the re'ayah, what does it mean: v'hitzdiku es hatzadik? If you translate tzadik the way we generally do, as someone who's righteous, so beis din doesn't make the righteous person righteous. He is righteous. But if tzadik means innocent in din, so v'hitzdiku es hatzadik means to find him innocent. The jury found him innocent. V'hitzdiku es hatzadik, meaning they ruled, they rendered a ruling which was, which corresponded to the reality. V'hitzdiku hatzadik. So tzadik, Ramban says here, means zakai badin. Innocent in din. The one who emerges zakai badin. Interesting, the Ramban in Sha'ar HaGemul in Toras HaAdam has the same understanding of the word tzadik, and with that he solves a very knotty problem. The Gemara in Rosh Hashanah says, in Machnisin on Rosh Hashanah, so everyone is nichnas ladin, that tzadikim נכתבין ונחתמין לאלתר לחיים, and resha'im are נכתבין ונחתמין לאלתר למיתה, and beinonim is t'luyim v'omdim. So the kasha that everyone struggles with is that we see many resha'im, Rosh Hashanah comes and goes, and they live out the year. So what does it mean that the resha'im are נכתבין ונחתמין לאלתר למיתה? And we see tzadikim who die over the course of the year. So how do you make sense of it? So the Ramban answers in Sha'ar HaGemul and says, it means צדיק ורשע בדין זה, which is exactly the same havana that he has here, that tzadik and rasha shouldn't translate as righteous and evil, but rather as zakai badin zeh or chayav badin zeh. You can have someone who's a rasha, but Hakadosh Baruch Hu says he still deserves a chance to do teshuvah, or Hakadosh Baruch Hu says ומידתי היא משלם אל פניו להאבידו, he's takka a rasha, but he has certain zechuyos for which he's going to get s'char olam hazeh and I haven't given it to him yet. So tzadik and rasha, so you can have someone who's a rasha in the sense of being wicked who's a tzadik badin zeh, and you can have the opposite. You can have someone who's a tzadik in the sense of righteous, but who's a rasha badin zeh, in the sense that he's chayav badin zeh. It's the same havana. The Ramban in Sha'ar HaGemul is the same havana as he has here, what the lashon tzadik means. Okay, that's one point in the Ramban. Another point is that the Ramban is taitching in contrast to the Ibn Ezra, whom he quotes in a few lines, that tamim is basically an adverb. It's not that Noach is a tzadik and he's a tamim. No, he's a tzadik tamim. He's a wholly tzadik. Wholly, wholly tzadik.

יספר הכתוב שיזכה וישלם בצדקו להודיע שראוי להנצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל כי הוא תמים בצדק.

So the Ramban here is addressing another very, very basic question here. We'll read it from the Rambam, but it's not the Rambam, it's Chazal. We'll read it here. The Rambam has in here in the beginning of Perek Gimmel of Hilchos Teshuvah that

וכן כל העולם כולו אם היו עונותיהם מרובים מיד הן נשחתין שנאמר וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם.

Rambam explains that din, judgment, is not only personal and individual, but it's collective also. That we're nidanim not only as bnei Maron, not only as yechidim, but we're also nidanim as a klal. We're nidanim as a klal of a medinah, as in the case of Sdom, where clearly it's a din on Sdom collectively, and we're nidanim as a klal. As a klal in terms of the world, that the din is collectively on the world. So now, lichora what that mida means is that if the klal is yotzei chayav, so then the klal as a whole incurs that mida hadin. So the question is, how does Noah survive the mabul? The world as a whole is yotzei chayav, so what that Noah is a tzadik? No, וכן כל עולם כולו. The world is nidon collectively. וכן כל עולם כולו, the world is nidon collectively. And אם היו עונותיהם מרובין, which is obviously the case here in Parshas Noach, אם היו עונותיהם מרובין מיד הן נשחתין. So how does Noach survive? So that's the unstated question that our Ramban is addressing. Nachmanides:

איש צדיק תמים היה יחיה הכתוב שהיה זכאי ושלם בצדקו להודיע שראוי להנצל מן המבול שאין לו עונש כלל כי הוא תמים בצדקו.

So the Ramban says that had Noach—that's why the Torah has to underscore that Noach was not only tzadik but tzadik tamim. Again, tamim as an adverb, wholly so, because only as such was he ra'uy l'hinatzel. Had Noach—let's say been a tzadik in our use of the word. A big tzadik, but not a tzadik tamim. He was 99.9% tzadik but whatever, though there was a .1% of whatever. So then he wouldn't have been nitzal. Even though he would have been such a heilege tzadik, he wouldn't have been nitzal. Why? Because that's the mida of וכן כל עולם כולו, that the klal is nidon. And Noach would not have been saved, he would not have been—or at least he wouldn't have been ra'uy to be saved. But hayos that he was zakai v'shalem b'tzidko, so because of that, he was ראוי להנצל מן המבול and again the Ramban underscores one more time, שאין לו עונש כלל. So what's pshat? So the Ramban tells us as follows. Had Noach been a 99.9% tzadik, he would not have been ra'uy to be saved from the mabul because of the din of the klal. But hayos that Noach was a 100% tzadik, so then he's ra'uy, he's ra'uy l'hinatzel. What's the pshat? Well, for argument's sake, let's assume—I'm not assuming either way l'maiseh. Let's assume for purposes of the illustration that it's assur to jaywalk, that it really is a dina d'malchusa. Let's assume that for purposes of illustration. So let's say you have someone who jaywalks all the time. All the time. And you have someone else who, no, if it's a 'don't walk', so he doesn't go. 99.9% of the time he's very nizhar. But l'maiseh, if he's very late for a very important meeting, so then he breaks. So on the one hand, the difference between these two individuals is k'rachok mizrach mima'arav, but mi'idach gisa, they're on the same spectrum. Because l'maiseh, if there were an absolute commitment not to do it, it wouldn't happen even... When he's very late for a very important meeting. So on another level, the difference, the very real and significant difference notwithstanding, but lema'aseh, he's on the same spectrum. Because for him as well, it's not an absolute. If it can happen once, lav lav is not an absolute. There's a Gemara at the end of Berachos that says that if a person is korei krias shema twice a day every day of his life, and one time doesn't lein krias shema, it's כמי שלא קרא קריאת שמע מימיו. So what does that mean? He lives to be 120. Every year since his Bar Mitzva he leins krias shema twice a day, quick, quick, no, no, okay, okay, quick, quick, no, no, okay, okay, so he's said krias shema a lot of times. Once in his life, once in his life he misses krias shema, so he's the same as someone who never leined krias shema? So obviously on one level, chas v'shalom, of course he isn't. And Chazal certainly recognize and acknowledge that level as well. But on another level, if the קבלת עול מלכות שמים is a permanent absolute fixture, so absoluteness is contradicted by one exception the same way equally the way it's contradicted by 10,000 exceptions. If you want to disprove something, all you have to do is give one counterexample. There's a midda that the klal is nidun. There's a midda that the klal is nidun. The only way a person is excused, is excepted from that, is if he's not on the same spectrum as the klal. If Noach has any iyota of onesh, so yes, as a yachid, he's so, so different ke'rachok mizrach mima'arav from the others, yes, but lema'aseh, he's part of the klal. He's on the same spectrum. When given that there is a midda of din for klal, the only way the yachid is excused from that is when if he's a צדיק תמים שאין לו עונש כלל, so then he stands apart from the klal. The Ramban continues

וכן ואתה צדיק על כל הבא עלינו כי אמת עשית.

So we would expect if the proof is emes asisa, so we would expect the description to be something which says that you're emes'dik, right? He's a truthful person because every din, every verdict that he rendered was a truthful verdict. So why does the pasuk identify Hakadosh Baruch Hu as tzaddik because everything He did is emes? The Ramban says no, because again tzaddik has the connotation of in din. The ba'al davar is described as a... when the judgment, when the verdict is honest and truthful.

וכן בצדק תשפוט עמיתך. אבל באברהם שאמר לעשות צדקה ומשפט.

So clearly mishpat already has this idea of, again, the fairness, the truthfulness of din. שבחו בצדק שהוא המשפט וברחמים שהיא הצדקה. So either the Ramban is distinguishing between tzedek and tzedakah, or he's distinguishing between when the word, maybe we're not distinguishing between tzedek and tzedakah as much as when the word appears alongside mishpat or whether it appears alone. Either way, there seem to be two not just different but even opposite meanings of the same basic shoresh. One tzedek meaning zakai badin, which is a reflection of emess and the other rachamim. Again, whether that's a difference between tzedek and tzedakah, whether or not that's two different meanings, whether tzedek and tzedakah is the same meaning, is basically the same, but they have two tzedek-dash-hyphen-tzedakah have two meanings. But either way, it's strange again, it's not only two separate but even I mean we contrast rachamim and din. I don't know, the Ramban doesn't tell us what he has in mind. But maybe Ramchal has in Mesilas Yesharim, he's very openly and explicitly coming to counteract a mistake which he says we often make. Hakadosh Baruch Hu's midas harachamim doesn't mean that Hakadosh Baruch Hu is a vatran. Chazal are very explicit on that. כל האומר הקדוש ברוך הוא וותרן. Why? Says Ramchal, כי הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט. A midas harachamim which ignores, which overlooks, which tolerates unredeemed cheit contradicts mishpat. And

כי הצור תמים פעלו כי כל דרכיו משפט קל אמונה ואין עול.

It's an avlah to punish a tzadik, but it's the same avlah according to midas hadin to reward a rasha, to reward a maaseh rasha, to overlook a maaseh rasha. So that's not what midas harachamim means. So what does midas harachamim mean? ה' ה' קל רחום וחנון. So Ramchal says it's a rachamim which is consistent with din, not a rachamim which stands in contradistinction to din, but it's a rachamim which mitigates din but is consistent with din. When Hakadosh Baruch Hu is m'nakeh l'shavim, but rachmana litzlan. That's a middas harachamim which mitigates din, it ameliorates din, but doesn't contradict din. And as such, it's consistent with din. When the person, Ramchal says, substitutes the the anguish he has over cheit for whatever hana’ah he had initially in doing the cheit, so that's a rachamim which is consistent with din, not a rachamim which is in contrast and and contradicts din. It's a middas harachamim which is consistent with din. And that's why Ramchal says rav chesed ve’emes, emes is included in the middas harachamim because all the middos harachamim are consistent with emes. They're not alternatives to emes, they're consistent to emes. Maybe, maybe that's the pshat in the Ramban as well, that that how is it that that tzedek and tzedakah, again whether it's the difference between the two words or whether it's contextually, whether or not it's standing alone or or whether it's standing alongside mishpat, how is it that it connotes mishpat, how is it that it connotes rachamim? No, that's exactly to convey Ramchal's idea that in in the Torah's system, rachamim and din are not polar opposites. Rachamim is is something again which is itself informed by din, and that's why it it it mitigates, it mitigates din.

ואחר שאמר שהוא איש צדיק, נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדורותיו,

which means ki einenu, among other things it means

כי איננו איש חמס ומשחית דרכו כבני דורו החייבים, אמר שהיה מתהלך את השם הנכבד וליראה אותו לבדו. איננו נפנה אחרי חוזי שמים ומנחשים ומעוננים וכל שכן אחרי עבודה זרה ואינו שומע להם כלל, רק בשם לבדו הוא דבק תמיד והולך בדרך אשר בחר השם או אשר יורה אותו.

So this is unbelievable. There's four words in the Chumash, את האלהים התהלך נח. That's what what the Torah says, right? את האלהים התהלך נח. And from those four words the Ramban deciphers that איננו נפנה אחרי חוזי שמים, that he was איננו נפנה אחרי חוזי שמים, מנחשים ומעוננים. We need to go to the next fingernail or not?

וכל שכן אחרי עבודה זרה ואיננו שומע להם כלל, רק בשם לבדו הוא דבק תמיד, והולך בדרך אשר בחר השם. את האלהים התהלך נח.

He didn't he didn't read the he didn't read the horoscope. He certainly wasn't an oveid avodah zarah. He was daveik baShem and he was הולך בדרך אשר בחר השם. Wow. So how does all that come from the how did the Ramban elicit all that from from four words of את האלהים התהלך נח? So be’eizer, first of all, the Ramban is teitshing es elokim. We know that this is one of the meanings of es. It means im. Noach was with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. He was with Hakadosh Baruch Hu. את יעקב איש וביתו באו. Right?

ואלה שמות בני ישראל הבאים מצרימה את יעקב איש וביתו באו.

They came with Yaakov. eis Yaakov means they came with Yaakov. Es, eis, one of the meanings is with. Noach was es ha’elokim. He was daveik baShem. He was daveik baShem. Now, obviously on on... On one level, a person can't be an oved avodah zarah and be davuk b'Hashem, but okay, but you can't do lots of things and be davuk b'Hashem and the Ramban doesn't list them all. And so, but where does the איננו נפנה אחרי חוזי שמים ומנחשים ומעוננים come from? So it goes like this: what and כל שכן אחרי עבודה זרה, what all those have in common, what all those have in common, a person is me'onen so ona zu yafa this horoscope. And a person is menahesh so he's superstitious, a black cat. Hovei shamayim certainly astrology, however whatever the arrangement, the configuration of the stars is when the person was born, when this, when that, so that determines what's going to happen. For the Ramban, we've discussed this in other context, for the Ramban, unlike the Rambam, avodah zarah always meant that there be it malachim, be it shemesh yarei'ach, be it whatever, means that there are things, devarim hanivraim in the world which have discretionary power over what happens to us. So what each of these has in common, the tzad hashavah of hovei shamayim, menahesh, me'onen, כל שכן אחרי עבודה זרה is that there's some kind of determinism not from Hakadosh Baruch Hu as to what's going to happen to a person. Maybe it's the ona, it's the time, it's the black cat, it's the it's the malachim, it's the shemesh, it's it's whatever. There's something, there's some force or forces, rachmana litzlan, other than Hakadosh Baruch Hu that control a person's destiny. That's the antithesis of dveikus because it means that by definition the world is designed and constructed in a way that there's a separation between a person and Hakadosh Baruch Hu. If the mazalos determine what happens to a person, so that's davka vehipucha. Dveikus means that there's no davar hachotzetz, there's no davar hamafsik between between a person and the Ribono Shel Olam. If the world, if the way the world functions is the way the hovei shamayim, the menahashim, the me'onenim, the ovdei avodah zarah think, so then there is no such thing as dveikus. There's no such thing as dveikus. Because a person, Ribono Shel Olam again metaphorically is there and a person is here and in between, in between are the kochavim, in between etc. If the pasuk tells you that Noach was im Elokim, so what that means first and foremost is that he didn't subscribe to this cosmogony, cosmology really, of the hovei shamayim, the menahashim, me'onenim, כל שכן אחרי עבודה זרה. There had to be a complete absolute rejection,

ואיננו שומע להם כלל רק בשם לבדו הוא דבק תמיד.

How does Ramban know ומהולך בדרך אשר בחר השם? Again, so on one level obviously a person can't be a ba'al aveirah and be davuk b'Hashem. But but again the Ramban means more than that. Ramban means that the pasuk is describing that, the pasuk is expressing it, and it's all miksha achas. So again on one level it's eth Ha'elohim is one thing. Noach was with Hakadosh Baruch Hu, comma, and hismayech Noach and he was הולך בדרך אשר בחר השם. On a deeper level lich'orah what it means is as follows, let's say a slightly deeper level, משל למה הדבר דומה. Let's say you're invited to a big dinner with open seating. You're not assigned a seat. And so you can choose which table to sit at. But there's one chashuva person you want to anticipate where he's going to sit so you can go sit at that table. You want to try to get the seat right next to him. So you're trying to anticipate where he's going to sit. So how can you figure out where he's going to sit? But you know that in past years at this dinner sort of the way the tables break down is that some tables what the people have in common is their profession. People who belong to the same profession so some of them they gravitate to the same table and they sit together. Others depends which sports team they support, which sports team they follow. So that's another sort of something which makes them cohere and they gravitate to a table together. And then let's say there's one table of people who are osek betzorkei tzibbur. Again they also have a profession. Could be they also have a team that they follow. Bemaiseh it doesn't that's sort of not what that doesn't define them. That's not how they choose their choose their their company. No. What defines them is their their devotion and dedication to tzorkei tzibbur. So if this chashuva person that that our individual wants to be able to sit next to, so he knows that he's machshiv tzorkei tzibbur, he's a big osek betzorkei tzibbur. So if he wants to be with this guy, if he wants to sit next to this guy at the dinner, so he's going to find out which table that is and do whatever he has to do to gain entree to be able to sit at that table. Because he's not going to find him if he's machshiv the tzorkei tzibbur. He's not going to find him at the other tables. He's not going to find him at the table that's defined by profession, that's defined by by sports allegiance or other other factors. A person can only be davuk bashem it's not it's not an emotional state. It's an objective state. A person can only be davuk bashem if he goes to the table where hakadosh baruch hu is sitting. A person has to figure out person wants to be davuk bashem so kavyachol he has to figure out where is hakadosh baruch hu found? You want to if you want to find someone you have to figure out so where is that person to be found? Lehavdil lehavdil lehavdil in terms of the nimshal to be davuk bashem hakadosh baruch hu is with the oskei betzorkei tzibbur, he's with the baalei middos, he's with the baalei chessed, he's with the השכמת בית המדרש שחרית וערבית. That's where hakadosh baruch hu is. That's the company in which one if one is there so one can be kavyachol in the company of hakadosh baruch hu. Okay we'll stop here. Second possibility. The second possibility is omer כי הוא צדיק שלם וגם בניו וביתו צדיקים dehaynu even according to the second possibility the two leshonos are only were they a thousand percent on Noach's coattails and Cham that we know from after the mabbul the emes is he was the same Cham before the before the mabbul as well? Or no, they were takeh big tzadikkim. But even according to the lashon that they were big tzadikkim, Ramban doesn't equate them even according to the second lashon Ramban doesn't equate them with Noach tzaddik shalem. So therefore lechora when Ramban said initially that nitzlu bizchuso, that's true according to both leshonos that he's going to present present later.