by Rabbi Yechezkel Fox

The View from the Ark

A light shall you make for the ark, and to a cubit finish it from above. The entrance of the ark you shall put in its side; make it with bottom,second and third decks. Ch.6/16

Rashi mentions two possible sources for this light:Some say it was a window, and some say it was a precious stone which provided light for them.

The Torah Temimah suggests a rationale for how to understand this difference of opinion of whether it was a window or a precious stone. Later on in Bereishis, at the destruction of Sodom, Lot was commanded not to look back at its destruction (see Ch.19/17). However Avraham was permitted to view the scene (see verse28 there). Whereas Lot was deemed unworthy to view the downfall of the wicked, because he really deserved to have been punished along with them; Avraham, who was completely righteous, could view this rare and miraculous event, and thereby increase his belief in Divine reward and punishment. With this in mind….

In the first verse of our parsha the Torah says that Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations. Rashi comments:There are those amongst our Rabbis who expound in praise of Noach as follows: All the more so if he had been in a generation of righteous people he would have been even more righteous. And there are those who expound it as deprecation of Noach as follows: According to the standards of his generation he was righteous, but if he had been in the generation of Avraham he would not have been considered anything of significance.

According to the first opinion, that Noach was completely righteous, it would follow that Noach was worthy to have a window from which to observe the destruction of the wicked. However, according to the second opinion, Noach would not have merited to see this destruction, therefore his light source had to be from a precious stone.

* * * * *

Noach’s Merit

And as for you, take yourself of every food that is eaten and gather it in to yourself, that it shall be as food for you and for them. Ch 6/21

The commentators raise an interesting point with regard to our verse. There is a Torah law that one is not allowed to eat until one has first fed one’s animals. This is learnt from a verse in Deuteronomy Ch11/15 I shall put grass in your field for your cattle and you shall eat and be satisfied—first grass for your cows, then you get to eat. If so, why did G-d say to Noach that the food should be for you, first, and then in second place the animals?

Let us go back to the normal situation where animals eat first. Why? Aren’t we humans superior? After all, the animals were created only for our benefit. The answer is that in order to eat, a person has to have merits. Sometimes, it is possible that a person’s only merit is that he keeps his animals alive. Those animals are needed by G-d to feed or cloth people who do have merits. In recognition of this possibility, we have to humble ourselves and feed our animals first. As if to say, we owe our food to you guys.

However, with Noach and his animals in the ark, the situation was different. G-d clearly said that it was in his merit that all the animals were being saved (see Ch6/18.) Since the animals were receiving their sustenance in the merit of Noach, he could eat first.

Sources:Be’er Yoseph

* * * * *

Shem and Yafes:What They Were Thinking

After Noach had been found drunk and naked, Shem and Yaphes took care of their father and covered him up. The verse says:-

And Shem and Yaphes took a garment, laid it upon their shoulders, and they walked backwards, and covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned backward, and they saw not the nakedness of their father. Ch.9/23

In the Hebrew we would expect the verb took to have a plural ending, Vayichu, since it was done by two people. However, it is written Vayikach, in the singular. Rashi explains this anomaly:

This teaches us about Shem that he exerted in the fulfillment of the mitzva (commandment) to honour his father more than Yaphes. This is why his children were privileged to be given the mitzva of tallis (prayer shawl). And Yaphes earned burial for his children. As it says: “I will give to Gog a place there for a tomb”.

But how much more can Shem have exerted himself than Yaphes? After all, they were only carrying a garment. The difference, though, was in their intentions. Shem intended to exert himself in the fulfillment of the mitzva of honouring his father. Whereas Yaphes (whose name is derived from yafe, meaning beauty) found his father’s condition ugly and wanted to cover it up for aesthetic reasons. This is why the verse emphasizes Shem, for his taking of the garment was more praiseworthy. And this also explains why their rewards differed (as mentioned in Rashi). Shem did a mitzva with a garment, so he got another garment—a tallis—to use as a mitzvah. Yaphes covered something ugly, so he merited the mitzvah of burial, to cover the repulsiveness of the rotting corpse.

Related posts:

1. Parshas Haazinu
2. Parshas Bereishis
3. Parshas Ki Savo
4. Parshas V’eschanan
5. Parshas Shoftim