A letter I wrote to a friend:
Divrei Torah of lasting value that require some thought. Established Ellul 5766/September 2006
Thursday, October 30, 2025
Questions for Noach
Friday, October 23, 2020
A Post I "Borrowed" From the Divrei Chaim Blog
This is being posted without permission. I couldn't help myself. It's so well written!
So here's the post, with only insignificant changes.
At the end I have the original from the Chasam Sofer, and the source of the idea, a Zohar. So at least I can add the credibility of the source.
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, "אלה תולדת נח נח איש צדיק תמים היה בדרתיו את־האלהים התהלך־נח," that Noach was "neicha l'elyonim v'neicha l'tachtonim,"
אלה תולדת נח נח, אתמהא, לא הוה צריך קרא למימר אלא אלה תולדות נח שם, אלא ניחא לו, ניחא לעולם, ניחא לאבות, ניחא לבנים, ניחא לעליונים, ניחא לתחתונים, ניחא בעולם הזה, ניחא לעולם הבא.
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 pleasantries 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.
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?
And here is the original that I found on Otzar, in one of the versions of the Toras Moshe.
Monday, November 4, 2019
Noach: Rainbows and Unicorns
(In the comments at Beisvaad, Menachem said, perhaps Middas Hadin is beautiful, despite how frightening it is, despite the rainbow's appearance to tell us we have failed and only survive because of the covenant. I wonder if it would be like "a terrible beauty," like a tornado, or a nuclear explosion. Since the rainbow represents something that is so elemental, so powerful and terrible and wonderful, it has to be beautiful.)
Speaking of rainbows, a common legend tells of the Unicorn, a one-horned animal. Over the last fifty years, it has become popular to imagine that Unicorn skin has all the colors of the rainbow. In a remarkable coincidence, the Torah tells us that the Mishkan was covered with the skins of the Tachash, and that this Tachash had indeed one horn and was rainbow colored. It is not unlikely that the beauty of the rainbow skins of the Tachash allude to the Bris of Ritzui and Kappara between the Ribono shel Olam and Klal Yisrael.
Additionally, the Unicorn is imagined as being proud of its brilliant hues. Indeed, Chazal do say exactly that: Onkelos translates Tachash as Sasgona. The Gemara explains that Sasgona is not the Aramaic word for the Tachash. As my father zatzal said, it can't be the Aramaic word for the Tachash, because the Gemara says it only existed for that moment when it was needed for the Mishkan, so there can't be an Aramaic word for the animal. It must be a description. That is why the Gemara says that Sasgona means Sas umispa'er be'gavnim shelo, it celebrates and prides itself in its beautiful colors.
I know that the Ramban at the end of Bo (13:17) says that
Below is a likut of sources and interesting discussions about the Tachash and the Unicorn.
Shabbos 28a:
The Gemara clarifies: What is the essence of his dilemma? Rav Adda bar Ahava said: The taḥash that existed in the time of Moses is at the crux of Rabbi Elazar’s dilemma. Was it non-kosher or was it kosher?
Rav Yosef said: What is his dilemma? Didn’t we learn explicitly: Only the hide of a kosher animal was deemed suitable for heavenly service? (Certainly, the taḥash was a kosher species)
Rabbi Abba raised an objection. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two coverings for the Tabernacle, one made of the reddened hides of rams and one of the hides of teḥashim. Rabbi Neḥemya says: There was only one covering for the Tabernacle, half of which was made of rams’ hides and half from the hides of teḥashim. And teḥashim were similar to the species of undomesticated animals called tela ilan. The Gemara asks: But isn’t a tela ilan a non-kosher creature?
(The Gemara emends this statement:) This is what Rabbi Neḥemya intended to say: It was like a tela ilan in that it was multicolored; however, it was not an actual tela ilan. There, the tela ilan is non-kosher, and here, the covering of the tent was made from kosher animals.
Rav Yosef said: If so, that is the reason that we translate the word taḥash as sasgona, which means that it rejoices [sas] in many colors [gevanim].
28b:
(The Gemara asks:) What is the halakhic conclusion reached about this matter of the taḥash that existed in the days of Moses?
Rabbi Ela'a said that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish said that Rabbi Meir used to say: The taḥash that existed in the days of Moses was a creature unto itself, and the Sages did not determine whether it was a type of undomesticated animal or a type of domesticated animal.
And it had a single horn on its forehead, and this taḥash was made available to Moses for the moment while the Tabernacle was being built, and he made the covering for the Tabernacle from it. And from then on the taḥash was hidden away.
The Gemara comments: From the fact that it is said that the taḥash had a single horn on its forehead, conclude from this that it was kosher, as Rav Yehuda said in a similar vein: The ox that Adam, the first man, sacrificed as a thanks-offering for his life being spared, had a single horn on its forehead, as it is stated: “And it shall please the Lord better than a horned [makrin] and hooved ox” (Psalms 69:32). The word makrin means one with a horn.
(The Gemara asks:) On the contrary, makrin indicates that it has two horns. Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Despite the fact that it is vocalized in the plural, it is written mikeren without the letter yod (to indicate that it had only a single horn.)
The Gemara asks: If so, let us resolve from the same baraita that just as it was derived from the ox of Adam, the first man, that an animal with one horn is kosher, derive that an animal with one horn is a type of domesticated animal. The Gemara answers: Since there is the keresh which is a type of undomesticated animal, and it has only a single horn, it is also possible to say that the taḥash is a type of undomesticated animal.
Chulin 59b:
Both were kosher.
The Tachash had a multi colored skin. The Gemara in Shabbos says that the reason Onkelos translates Tachash as Sasgona is because Sas b'Gavnin shelah, it rejoices in its multiple colors. As Rashi puts it,
So it may be that the Tachash was created only for the moment of the Mishkan and no longer exists, or it was just hidden before and after, or possibly it lacked simanei kashrus before and after, or there are two kinds of Tachash.
Monday, November 19, 2018
Vayishlach and Chanuka. A Guest Post from HaRav Avraham Bukspan
Many years ago I made a small observation which has panned out to something rather golden. The Shelah Hakadosh writes “there is certainly great symbolism and meaning behind the pachim ketanim of Yaakov, and with it we can understand the secret of the pach of Chanukah.”
I then suggested that the one untouched “pach” that was found -which served as the basis for the miracle of Chanukah, was from one of the “pachim ketanim” that Yaakov Avinu went back to retrieve. The basis for this would seem to be from the common use- in both the story of Chanukah and that night that Yaakov fought the angel-of the uncommon word פך - פכים.
If we take it as a given that those פכים קטנים, those small jars were ones that contained oil let’s speculate further on where that oil came from.
The dove returned to Noach with an olive leaf in its mouth;
The Gemorah (Sanhedrin 108) cites one opinion that this leaf came from Gan Eden. (See also Bereishis Rabbah 33:6)
We are suggesting that this leaf -whose provenance is from Gan Eden-, was subsequently planted by Noach and from the olives which grew he took oil which he then used in his offerings to Hashem. Noach after a time passed this oil on to his son Shem Ben Noach a.k.a Malkitzdek, the Kohein LiKeil Elyon.
{It is worth noting that the Shelah Hakodesh ( parshas vayeishev mikeitz vayigash, torah ohr ) attributes the seal of the Kohein Gadol on the small pach to none other than Malkitzedek, the Kohein LiKeil Elyon, i.e. a Kohein Gadol.}
Malkitzedek in turn gave it to Avraham Avinu who fittingly gave it to his son and spiritual heir, Yitzchok. And finally it was given to Yaakov where it was kept it in those “pachim ketanim”. And those are the jugs that Yakkov went back to retrieve.
With this we can now understand (albeit differently than the Gemorah) why Yaakov was willing to risk his life for those jugs. They were not mere kitchen utensils; they had Gan Eden oil in them! This was Meyuchasdika oil! “It`s belong to my forbearers, of course I`m going to risk my life for this.”
And it is with this oil that the miracle of Chanukah occurs. So of course it will burn 8 days, it`s from Gan Eden! {We`ll see about the question regarding Shemen Nes}
As I stated above this was all speculation on my part, which I then shared with Harav Nachum Lansky of Ner Yisroel. He took me over to a shelf of Seforim, removed and opened a Tikunei Zohar and showed me where the Zohar states that the first stirrings of the miracle of Chanukah began at the very moment the dove had the olive leaf in its mouth.
“And it is in relation to hod that there are eight days of Chanuka after 24 days [of the month of Kislev]. These 24 days are equivalent to the 24 letters in the verse "Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom forever". Immediately thereafter: "And behold in her mouth was an olive leaf plucked off." (Gen. 8:11) Chaf -Hei [the numerical value of 25] dwells on Israel on the 25th of Kislev... And this is Chanukah.” (Tikunei Zohar 13)
While not proof positive that the oil is actually from the olive leaf the dots are there for a connection to be made.
Friday, October 20, 2017
Noach, Breishis 6:7. Chein
Rambam Teshuva 3:2
The Rambam proves that the world is judged as a whole from the passuk regarding the Mabul, where Hashem condemned the entire world because רבה רעת האדם, because mankind as a whole, האדם, was guilty.
Reb Chaim, among others, asks that the passuk used to illustrate the rule seems to contradict rather than support. The Rambam's point is that you go after the rov: the application of that rule would be the destruction of the entire world. In the case of the passuk cited, regarding the Dor HaMabul, one family was saved, which seems to contradict the rule.
(The raya from Sdom is not shver. That Avraham's tefilla would have saved any tzadikim would have been an exception in response to tefilla. Lot, too, was saved in the zechus of Avraham, who wasn't part of the gzeira. But the raya from the Dor HaMabul is shver.)
Reb Chaim answers that yes, ordinarily, individuals are subsumed in the collective, and if the world is condemned, individuals who who might personally deserve mercy will die. Noach was saved despite the rule, because he was a Tzadik Gamur, a Tzadik Tamim. In his zechus, his family was saved as well.
The Rov explains Reb Chaim: If Noach had even one sin, that sin would be added to the world's tally of aveiros, and because that sin would tie him to them, he would die along with them despite his personal tzidkus. But Noach did not even have one sin. Therefore, he had no shaichus to the world's aveiros, and the din rov did not apply to him. (He was a cheftza bifnei atzmo, there was no ta'aruvos.) (See Addendum, where I bring a similar svara from the Sfas Emes.)
That's Reb Chaim. I personally like the Or HaChaim's approach. The Or HaChaim doesn't mention the Rambam, but what he says answers Reb Chaim's question.
The last passuk in Parshas Breishis,
The Or HaChaim there:
The point is, ein hochi nami, mitzad hadin Noach would not have been saved. He was saved because of his Chein. Chein has its own rules. (Reb Chaim points out that the Or HaChaim shtims with the Midrash Rabbah (29:1), and the Gemara in San 108a:
We don't know what brings about Chein. The Or HaChaim says that this information is intentionally hidden from us. But some mitzvos, some ma'asim tovim, generate Chein, and Noach had it.
What an interesting idea! Certain specific mitzvos bring Chein....but which mitzvos they are? Not your business. Still, it's thought provoking - in fact, the mystery makes it even more interesting! Considering the mistake of the Eitz HaDaas we probably should resist the temptation of hidden knowledge..... but, come on, what can possibly go wrong?
1 through 4 are from R Asher Weiss.
1.
4.
5.The Chovas HaLevavos (Avodas Elokim 5):
This Chovas HaLevavos really echoes two pesukim in Yirmiahu.
Yirmiah 31:1
This type of Chein we find by a Chasan and Kallah as well - every Chassan and Kallah are taking a chance - לכתך אחרי במדבר בארץ לא זרועה. And every Kallah has chein -
לא כחל ולא שרק ולא פירכוס ויעלת חן.
ADDENDA
1.
I used this at a Sheva Brachos. I said that the kallah's family is famous for their chein, and it stems from these middos. The bracha was that Chassan and Kallah join the natural gift of Chein they have with her mesora of middos tovos and perpetuate that chein. After I spoke, someone came over and pointed out that except for one, they are middos tovos, not mitzvos. He suggested that maybe pshat is that it is the one mitzva that brings chein - but only if it is done in the context of the other middos. There are plenty of ameilim batorah that don't have any chein in people's eyes, at least as far as I can tell. And that's certainly true of yerei'ei shamayim. But when they occur together, when an ameil batorah is also an Anav, Yarei Shamayim, Tamim, and Zariz b'mitzvos, then his ameilus batorah will bring him chein, both before Hashem and to people.
I don't know if this is like the Or Hachaim or not, but it's an excellent hosafa.
2. Thank you to my cousin, Harav Moshe Kaufman, editor of the Masores Moshe series, who showed me the Sfas Emes Taanis 21b, who says a svara that is similar to Reb Chaim. The Gemara says that Sura once suffered from Dever, plague, but there were no infections in Rav's neighborhood. People thought it was in Rav's zechus, but the Gemara says no, Rav's zechus was greater than that; the yeshua was because of some other guy there that was a baal chesed. Obviously, that doesn't track. What does "too great" mean? So the Sfas Emes brings from his grandfather, the Chidushei HaRi"m, that the zechus of a tzadik only works for others where the punishment would involve him as well. To save him, the punishment doesn't come at all. But Rav would not have been endangered even if everyone around him died, so his zechus didn't operate on their behalf.
Sunday, November 13, 2016
Vayeira: The Akeida. Changing Middas Hadin to Middas Harachamim. היפוך מדת הדין למדת הרחמים
And God remembered: Heb. אֱלֹהִים. This name represents the Divine Standard of Justice, which was converted to the Divine Standard of Mercy through the prayer of the righteous. But the wickedness of the wicked converts the Divine Standard of Mercy to the Divine Standard of Justice, as it is said: (above 6:5ff.): “And the Lord (י-ה-ו-ה) saw that the evil of man was great, etc. And the Lord (י-ה-ו-ה) said, ‘I will blot out, etc.’” although that name is the name of the Divine Standard of Mercy. — [Gen. Rabbah 33:3, Succah 14a. That Noah prayed in the ark appears in Tan. Noach 11, Aggadath Bereishith 7:3, Sefer Hayashar].
"Just as Avraham Avinu repressed and overcame his quality of mercy to do Your will at the Akeida, so too, Hashem, may Your Mercy vanquish Your anger."From the usual perspective of our behavior being mirrored with an echo of resonant actions from heaven, how can Avraham Avinu's vanquishing of his mercy elicit the opposite from Hashem, that Hashem should vanquish His Middas haDin in favor of Rachamim?
This is what Eli said in the comments:
I understood Rav Kook not like #3 at all. He doesn't say just that we don't know what is din and what is rachamim. Rather he says that the mida of din, which by itself leads to destruction, becomes bearable, tolerable and constructive when intermixed with rachamim:
יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו, שיתעלה כח קדוש זה (that is, ka'as of hashem) למקור תפארתו (which is rachamim, as he said before), שיביא בכנפיו מרפא וגבורת חיים וברכת עולמים.
This he compares to rachamim of Avraham that become superior and more pure, by being subordinated to retzon hashem:
ובזה הרחמים בעצמם קנו להם את המקום היותר עליון, את מקומם במציאות העליונה, ברצונו של מקום
So in both cases, an important power is being refined and improved by being qualified by a higher, more basic, principle. So it goes with the theme of כבישת רצון מפני דבר נעלה יותר but goes on to say that in both cases this actually puts the רצון הנכבש on a higher level (which by itself, I don't understand at all, but that's what he says)
I responded:
As for Rav Kook, I was referring to his
הכעס האלהי..... איננה משחיתה, אינה מהרסת וגם איננה זועמת, כ"א מלאה היא גבורה מפוארה לרומם את המעשים, להדרם לשכללם ולפארם. וכאשר לא הוכנו הנפשות לאותה הקליטה הרוממה, של כוון מהותם לעומת השרש העליון של הגבורה, ששם רחמי הקודש הם הם ההומים ומתגברים, אז נפגשות הן ונכשלות בהזעם החצוני ההורס ומכלה.
which I understood to mean that what we perceive as destructive only appears that way because of our limited perspective, but is actually a means of access to rachamim.
Eli responded:
EliOctober 28, 2011 at 3:10 AM
I have little experience in R. Kook's writings, but I think he not talking about perspectives, and does not deny the real possibility of זעם החצוני ההורס ומכלה. Rather he says that it needs to be connected to its rachamim Shoresh to be limited and controlled, and that's what we ask hashem for.
Sometimes, the ideas that occur to me have some element of truth, although it takes time to divine what that truth is. But working on a post facto rationalization motivated by a presumption of infallibility is repugnant, so I'm putting this on the side. From what I've seen, this repugnance diminishes with increasing age, so maybe I'll come back to it.
As it turns out, this might be what Rabbeinu Bachay means in Breishis 18:33, where he says
NOTES:
1. See also Rav Kook's Ein Ayah, where he says
הפלא הנצחי של נסיון העקדה, והשפעתו על העולם בכלל, הוא, מפני שהארת החיים באה שמה בכל מלואה. לא היה אצל האב שום רגש טבעי של המית אב שנכחד, להיפך, הכל היה פורח והכל חי. אבל בידיעה הברורה, שכל החי, וכל המתעלה, הכל נכון הוא ומוכרח הוא להבטל, ולהקשר קשר עליון, ברצונו ודברו של אל עליון קונה שמים וארץ, השופט כל הארץ, אבי כל המעשים, בהבנה קדושה, שכל מעשה וכל מצוי כלא הוא נחשב מצד עצמו, וכל שיווי ערכו וגדלות מציאותו איננו כ"א מצד מציאותו באלהי עולם קונה הכל, בשביל כך גם הרחמים כלפי הבן היחיד, שיש להם כ"כ ערך עדין מוסרי ומפואר, עם כל חזקת מציאותם, הם מוכרחים היו להכבש כדי למלא את דבר ד' ולעשות רצונו בלבב שלם. ובזה הרחמים בעצמם קנו להם את המקום היותר עליון, את מקומם במציאות העליונה, ברצונו של מקום, ששום דבר משם לא יכחד ולא יעדר. ועשית רצונו של מקום, בהחלט, או לפי הנוסחאות האחרות בלבב שלם, זוהי התכונה המקימת את הכל, את כל החיים ואת כל הרגשות. וגם את הרחמים הנכבשים עצמם, בהעלותם אל רום מעלתם.
כן יכבשו רחמיך את כעסך מעלינו
הכעס האלהי הלא הוא צדק העולמים, מקיים ומבסס את המציאות בגבורתו הקדושה. אבל זאת התכונה בעצמה, במקורה האלהי, איננה משחיתה, אינה מהרסת וגם איננה זועמת, כ"א מלאה היא גבורה מפוארה לרומם את המעשים, להדרם לשכללם ולפארם. וכאשר לא הוכנו הנפשות לאותה הקליטה הרוממה, של כוון מהותם לעומת השרש העליון של הגבורה, ששם רחמי הקודש הם הם ההומים ומתגברים, אז נפגשות הן ונכשלות בהזעם החצוני ההורס ומכלה. אבל ההכנה הקדושה של העלאת הרצון האנושי למרום גובה קדשו, בשרש הצור של האומה, היא היא אשר פעלה, ופועלת בנו, את ההתכוונות כלפי שרש הקודש העליון של מדת הגבורה והצדק האלהי, המתגלה בחצוניותו בתור כעס. והננו בזה נושאים עין להתקדש במרום הקודש, באחיזת מדותיו של האב הקדוש, ע"פ האפשריות שלנו, והכנת יניקת קדשו. וכן יכבשו רחמיך, במרום עזם, את כעסך מעלינו, שיתעלה כח קדוש זה למקור תפארתו, שיביא בכנפיו מרפא וגבורת חיים וברכת עולמים.
