In the portion of Noah, it discusses the corruption of the generation of Noah and the contrast with Noah himself who was righteous. It states:[1] ‘Now the earth was corrupt before G-d, and the earth became full of robbery, And G-d said to Noah, “The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth has become full of robbery because of them, and behold I am destroying them from the earth.”’ Regarding Noah, however, it states:[2] ‘But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord. This is the line of Noah. Noah was a righteous man; he was perfect in his age; Noah walked with G-d.’ Further it states:[3] ‘And the Lord said to Noah, “Come into the ark, you and all your household, for it is you that I have seen as a righteous man before Me in this generation.”’ (Image: MS. Canon. Or. 81, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford)
Completely righteous
The plain reading of the text, as understood by Nachmanides,[4] is that Noah was completely righteous and meritorious, in contrast to being guilty of any wickedness. Similarly, Ibn Ezra[5] maintains that the Torah is saying that Noah was righteous in action and perfect in his heart, meaning he cleaved to G-d and did not follow idolatrous practices, or consult stargazers and soothsayers. Rabbi David Kimchi, known as Radak,[6] writes that Noah was flawless and all his ways were pleasing to G-d, demonstrating the preponderance of his intellect over his baser urges.[7] Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra and Radak maintain that the qualification ‘in his age’ is merely to say that he and his family were the only such righteous person in his generation.[8]
Criticism
Jewish teaching however clarifies that despite the generous praise for Noah in the text of the Torah, Noah in fact was not completely righteous. This criticism is found in all the classic works of the Talmud, Midrash Rabba, Midrash Tanchuma and the Zohar.
Talmud
The Talmud[9] brings two opinions about the righteousness of Noah: Rabbi Yochanan says: relative to other people of his generation he was righteous and wholehearted but not relative to those of other generations. Reish Lakish says: in his generation he was righteous and wholehearted despite being surrounded by bad influences and all the more so would he have been considered righteous and wholehearted in other generations.[10]
Midrash Rabba
In Midrash Rabba[11] the same dispute is mentioned in the name of Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemiah. Rabbi Yehudah says: In his generation he was righteous, but had he lived in the generation of Moses or Samuel, he would not have been considered righteous. Rabbi Nechemiah says: If he was considered righteous in his generation, how much more so would he have been considered righteous had he lived in the generation of Moses or Samuel.
Midrash Tanchuma
The Midrash Tanchuma[12] also brings the dispute that questions Noah’s righteousness:
In his generation: Do these words imply that Noah would not have been considered righteous if he had lived in another generation? R. Judah and R. Nehemiah differed concerning this question. One said he was righteous in comparison with the men who lived in the Generation of the Flood and the Generation of the separation, but if he had lived in Abraham’s generation he would have been lost among them. For example, if a barrel of balsam oil is placed in a filthy area, its scent permeates that area, but if it is placed in another locality (a clean area), its scent might not permeate that area. The other argued: If he was righteous in such a generation, how much more righteous would he have been had he lived in another generation. For example, if a vial of spikenard oil is set in a filthy place, it will give forth a pleasant fragrance, but how much more pleasant would its fragrance be were it placed in an attractive area.
Zohar
The Zohar[13] goes further to explain what the nature of the principal criticism against Noah was: his lack of care to pray for mercy for his generation, compared to other righteous people who did pray to save their generation from tragedy. The Zohar states: Rabbi Yochanan said: come and see the difference between Noah and the righteous of Israel after Noah. Noah did not protect his generation and did not pray for it as did Abraham, for as soon as G-d said to Abraham that the cries of Sodom and Amorah is great, Abraham immediately approached G-d and prayed. Similarly, Moses came and protected his generation, for as soon as G-d said to Moses: Israel has sinned, they have moved away from the path’ it says: ‘And Moses prayed,’ indicating that he prayed until he became sick from prayer. The sages say further he did not leave the presence of G-d until he was willing to forego his portion in this world and in the world to come.
The reason why Noah did not pray for mercy is a further expression of his lack of righteousness. The Zohar writes that Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua were once sitting in the city of Tiberius. Rabbi Yehoshua said: Rebbi, why did Noah not pray for mercy for his generation? He responded: Noah did not think that even he would be saved. This is compared to a cluster of unripe grapes among other unripe grapes. If it had been among ripe grapes the unripe grapes would be worthless. Despite Noah’s lack of merit for his prayers to be successful, Rabbi Eliezer concludes that he should nonetheless have prayed, because G-d takes pleasure in one who speaks well of his children. Rabbi Yehudah ben Pazi continues this strain of thought by asking: what was the punishment of Noah, to which he answers, Noah left the ark with a limp, fell asleep, became disgraced, and had his son scoff at him and castrate him.
Rashi
This critical view of Noah is mentioned also in the 12th century in the commentary of Rashi:
In his generations: Some of our Sages interpret it [the word בְּדֹרֹתָיו] favourably: How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous. Others interpret it derogatorily: In comparison with his generation he was righteous, but if he had been in Abraham’s generation, he would not have been considered of any importance.[14] (Image: MS. Michael 384, Bodleian Libraries, University of Oxford)
The view that Noah was not righteous is reflected also in the statement: ‘Noah walked with G-d.’ The Midrash quoted by Rashi contrasts Noah with Abraham:
In the case of Abraham Scripture says:[15] ‘G-d before whom I walked:’ Noah needed G-d’s support to uphold him (l’tamcho) in righteousness, Abraham drew his moral strength from himself and walked in his righteousness (b’tzidko) by his own effort.[16]
No dispute
Further emphasising the criticism of Noah, in the 16th century, Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi (1455-1525) and Rabbi Judah Loew (1520-1609) argued that despite the Talmud, Midrash and the commentary of Rashi presenting a favourable view of Noah as righteous, both views are in fact derogatory: Both opinions agree that Noah was righteous only relative to his generation and both agree that had Noah lived in Abraham’s generation and maintained only the level of righteousness that he had in his generation he would not have been considered righteous at all. The only praise of Noah then is that Noah had the potential to be more righteous had he lived in a more righteous generation, but in actuality, relative to Abraham’s righteousness, he was not considered righteous at all.
Dispute
Despite the above view that there is no praise for Noah compared to other righteous people, there are two further views supporting Noah’s righteousness. Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi offers the interpretation that the two views mentioned in the Talmud, Midrash and quoted by Rashi in fact represent a dispute and - they are not in agreement - about whether Noah was righteous in his generation compared to Abraham. The interpretation that Noah is to be praised is in this view a statement that he is righteous not only relative to his generation and in comparison to Abraham.[17]
Righteous
In 1912, Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn (1860-1920), ignoring the derogatory view of Noah completely, explains[18] that, as the name Noah literally means rest, it refers to the level of the supernal ‘wisdom’ (chachma) and the concept of the ark of Noah is the revelation of wisdom into the lower realm of ‘kingship’ (malchut) – the source for existence. The same interpretation is given to the statement:[19] ‘G-d (Elokim) before whom I walked.’ The Divine name Elokim refers to ‘kingship’ (malchut).[20] This interpretation is given also to the statement about Abraham:[21] ‘And the Lord said to Abram, "Go forth from your land and from your birthplace and from your father's house, to the land that I will show you.’ Rabbi Shalom Dovber[22] explains that Abram literally means father (av) which is a term used for supernal ‘wisdom’ (chachma) and ‘the land’ refers to its revelation into ‘kingship’ (malchut). The purpose of the righteous is to bring Divine revelation in to existence through kingship (malchut).
Rabbi Menachem M. Schneersohn, known as the Rebbe, in the 20th century further argues that the seemingly derogatory view of Noah in the Talmud and Midrash is in fact not derogatory at all, since, unlike Abraham and Moses, he was unable to save his generation through prayer, as there was no person who had merit.[23] The criticism is understood only as a lesson post-Noah whereby a generation without merit that cannot be saved through prayer no longer exists, as in the generation of Moses, and one should always pray for forgiveness on behalf of others when necessary.[24]
Summary
In summary, there are three views regarding the righteousness of Noah: 1. There is no dispute that Noah was only righteous relative to his generation, and he would have been more righteous in another generation. This reflects the view that Noah was merely not corrupt like his generation but not that he was in fact righteous compared to Abraham. 2. There is a dispute whether Noah was righteous and the opinion that says he was righteous maintains that this was so even compared to Abraham. 3. The opinion without dispute that he was righteous like Abraham.
Two ways to read the biblical text
The basis for the view that there is a dispute whether Noah was righteous can be explained in two ways: 1. There are two ways to read the biblical text: does one read the relative term ‘in his generation’ (b’dorotov) juxtaposed to ‘he was,’ (hay-ah) in which case it is a praise, suggesting that even in his corrupt generation he was righteous but would have been also righteous compared to other generations. Alternatively, ‘in his generation’ (b’dorotov) should be read juxtaposed to the earlier word ‘righteous’ (tzaddik) suggesting that he was ‘only’ righteous in his generation but would not have been considered righteous in another generation.[25]
A further approach to understanding the dispute is whether one may blame Noah for not praying for his generation. This is in fact a matter of dispute between Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yitzchak. If one follows that Noah was unable to pray for his generation due to their lack of merit, he was righteous. If he was able to pray but did not do so, he would not be considered righteous compared to Abraham who prayed for his generation.[26]
Manuscripts
I would like to argue that the three above ways of understanding the discussion about the righteousness of Noah in the Talmud, Midrash and the Rashi commentary are reflected in the variations of the two Rashi commentaries on the verse from which is derived the criticism of Noah as found in the manuscripts at Oxford’s Bodleian Library.
Three versions of Rashi no. 1
1. The commentary of Rashi as found in the published edition states:
In his generations: Some of our Sages interpret it [the word בְּדֹרֹתָיו] favourably: How much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous. Others interpret it derogatorily: In comparison with his generation he was righteous, but if he had been in Abraham’s generation, he would not have been considered of any importance.[27]
This is how it is found in: MS Oppenheim 14,[28] MS Oppenheim 34, MS. Oppenheim 35, MS. Canonici Or. 35, MS. Canonici Or. 62,
2. In MS. Michael 384, however, there are two variations: 1. There is an introduction before proceeding with the actual views: ‘Some of our Sages interpret it [the word בְּדֹרֹתָיו] favourably and there are others who interpret it derogatorily.’ 2. When presenting the view of those who interpret it favourably, it states: ‘Those who interpret it [the word בְּדֹרֹתָיו] favourably, say: if he was a righteous person in a generation of wicked people, how much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been even more righteous.
3. In MS. Canon. Or. 81, when presenting the view of those who interpret it favourably, it states: ‘Those who interpret it [the word בְּדֹרֹתָיו] favourably, say: how much more so if he had lived in a generation of righteous people, he would have been righteous.’ In the margin there is a correction that adds ‘more’ (yoter).
Based on the three ways in understanding the views about the righteousness of Noah, one can explain the variations in the manuscripts of Rashi’s commentary. The printed version, as found in most of the manuscripts, reflects the view that even the favourable view in truth maintains Noah was not righteous compared to Abraham. This follows the interpretation that the two views are not in dispute. For this reason it omits: ‘if he was a righteous person in a generation of wicked people,’ so as not to give the impression that Noah was truly righteous even in his generation, compared to Abraham.
The version of the manuscript, MS. Michael 384, which includes the introduction that there are two views before presenting what the views are, indicates that the two views are in dispute. The reason for presenting the introduction is to say that the two views are of equal weight in regard to the interpretation of the biblical text. This is found also in the Rashi commentary on the verse:[29] ‘Take this Torah scroll and place it alongside the ark of covenant of the Lord, your G-d, and it will be there as a witness.’ Rashi comments: ‘The Sages of Israel differ in the Talmud tractate Baba Batra 14b. Some say that a board projected outward from the ark, and there it was laid, while others maintain that it was laid alongside the tablets, inside the ark.’ The introduction to the presentation of the views: ‘The Sages of Israel differ in the Talmud tractate Baba Batra 14b’ is meant to indicate that both views are equally appropriate in the biblical text, as opposed to a prioritisation of one view over the other, as is the case most times when two interpretations are quoted in Rashi in sequence.[30] Accordingly, the introduction to the commentary regarding the righteousness of Noah indicates that the two views differ from each other and that both are equally appropriate to the plain meaning of the biblical text. In light of this understanding of the introduction to the presenting of the two views, the favourable opinion is that Noah was in fact righteous even in comparison with Abraham, whereas the derogatory view is that he was only righteous compared to his generation.
The marginal correction with the word ‘more’ (yoter) found in MS. Canon. Or. 81 indicates two stages in the understanding of the two views about Noah’s righteousness. The first version without the word ‘more’ says that Noah was righteous in his generation and how much more so would he have been righteous in another generation. The version with the word ‘more’ highlights the deficiency in Noah’s righteousness in his generation. The first suggests the two opinions are disputing, one is favourable – he was righteous - the other derogatory, while the second suggests both are in agreement that Noah was not in fact righteous compared to other generations.
Three versions of Rashi no. 2
The same analysis may be suggested pertaining to the variations found in the Rashi manuscripts of the second comment of Rashi:[31] ‘G-d before whom I walked: Noah needed G-d’s support to uphold him (l’tamcho), whereas Abraham drew his moral strength from himself and walked in his righteousness (b’tzidko) by his own effort.[32]
1. L’tamcho - Noah
In the published edition of Rashi, the word is ‘l’tamcho’ – ‘to uphold him’, pertaining to Noah who required support. This is also how it is found in three other manuscripts: MS Opp 34, MS. Canonici Or. 35,[33] MS. Canonici Or. 62 and MS. Canon. Or. 81.[34] In MS. Oppenheim 35, an almost identical word is found: ‘l’samcho.’
2. L’tumo - Noah
In MS. Michael 384 and MS. Canonici Or. 35, however, the text states: ‘l’tumo’ - ‘to his perfection.’ Similarly, in MS Opp. 14, the word is ‘l’tumato’ - ‘to his perfection.’[35]
As explained above, the variations in the manuscripts reflect the difference in opinion regarding how to view the righteousness of Noah. In the published version and most of the manuscripts it avoids the use of the word ‘perfection,’ reflecting the view that according to both opinions of the sages, Noah was only perfect in relation to the wicked people in his generation but compared to Abraham, he was not considered righteous or perfect. The manuscripts that have the word ‘l’tumo’- to his perfection - regarding Noah, reflect the interpretation of the favourable view that Noah was in fact righteous in his generation and would have been considered even more righteous in another generation.[36]
Conclusion
In conclusion, while the Torah states that Noah was righteous and perfect, the sages, with the words ‘in his generation,’ understand that the Torah is indicating the idea that perhaps Noah was not in fact righteous compared to Abraham. There are three views regarding this: firstly, there is no dispute: The Torah views Noah as only righteous compared to his wicked generation, which is not considered righteous at all compared to Abraham. Secondly, one opinion is that Noah was as righteous as Abraham, while the other disagrees. A third, as implied by the Rabbi Shalom Dovber Schneersohn and the Rebbe, indicate that Noah according to both opinions was righteous and brought Divine revelation into the darkness of the world in the same way that Abraham did in the generation that followed him.
[1] Genesis 6:12-13.
[2] Genesis 6:8-9.
[3] Genesis 7:1.
[4] Nachmanides on Genesis 6:9.
[5] Quoted also in Nachmanides on Genesis 6:9.
[6] Radak on Genesis 6:9.
[7] Midrash Tanchuma, quoted in Radak on Genesis 6:9, reflecting the flawlessness of Noah, writes that he was born already circumcised.
[8] Chizkuni (Genesis 6:9) quotes Bar Chataya in Midrash Rabba that whoever has the word ‘tamim’ mentioned by them their age is multiplied by the number seven. Noah lived 350 years after the flood, which is 50 times seven. Abraham lived 175 years, which is 24 times seven.
[9] Talmud Sanhedrin 118a.
[10] The Talmud continues with a parable to demonstrate these opinions: ‘Rabbi Chanina said there is a parable to the statement of Rabbi Yochanan. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a barrel of wine that was placed in a cellar where vinegar is stored: in its place, its fragrance diffuses, i.e. is noticeable, relative to the odor of the vinegar. When it is not in it place, surrounded by vinegar, its fragrance does not diffuse, and its pleasant odor is not sensed. Rabbi Oshaya says: there is a parable to the statement of Reish Lakish. To what is this matter comparable? It is comparable to a flask of perfume that was placed in a location of filth. In its place, its fragrance diffuses, despite the ambient odor, and all the more so is its fragrance noticeable if it is placed in a location where there is perfume.’
[11] Genesis Rabba 30:9.
[12] Tanchuma, Noah 5:4.
[13] Zohar Chadash, Noah: 112-126.
[14] Talmud Sanhedrin 108a, Genesis Rabba 30:9, Tanchuma Noach 5.
[15] Genesis 24:40.
[16] Genesis Rabbah 30:10.
[17] Mizrachi on Genesis 6:9: i’ nami.
[18] Sefer Hamamarim 5612, vol. 2, p. 711.
[19] Genesis 24:40.
[20] And also in its source, Binah (understanding).
[21] Genesis 12:1.
[22] Sefer Hamamarim 5612, vol. 2, p. 720. See also Torah Ohr p. 11a.
[23] Likkutei Sichot 25, p. 21.
[24] Likkutei Sichot 25, p. 20.
[25] Mizrachi on Genesis 6:9.
[26] Zohar, Noah p. 68a, brought in Likkutei Sichot 25, p. 19.
[27] Talmud Sanhedrin 108a, Genesis Rabba 30:9, Tanchuma Noach 5.
[28] In MS Opp 14, it seems to state ‘l’shana’ instead of ‘l’sh’vach.’
[29] Deuteronomy 31:26.
[30] Likkutei Sichot 9, Vayelech 1.
[31] Genesis 24:40.
[32] Genesis Rabbah 30:10. Rabbi Elijah Mizrachi writes that a difference between Noah and Abraham was their influence: ‘Noah feared to connect with the people of his generation, so as not to learn from their behaviour, because he was not sufficiently strong in his faith, and would isolate himself in seclusion, called places of G-d, as if he as with G-d. Abraham, however, was strong in his faith and did not fear he would be influenced from the conduct of the people in his generation and would connect with them, rebuke them to bring them into his faith.’
[33] It first states: ‘l’tumo’ and is corrected to ‘l’tomcho.’
[34] The word ‘l’tamcho’ regarding Noah in the main text is incomplete and there appears to be a correction. In the margin, however, there is the word ‘ltamcho,’ as in the published edition. The word regarding Abraham is ‘b’tzidko’ - ‘in his righteousness,’ as in the published edition.
[35] Similar differences can be found regarding the statements about Abraham. In the published edition it states: ‘walked in his righteousness (b’tzidko) by his own effort.’ This is how it is found in MS Opp. 34, MS. Oppenheim 35, MS. Canon. Or. 81, MS. Michael 384 and MS. Canonici Or. 62. In MS Opp. 14, however, the word is ‘b’tumato’ (in his perfection). Similarly, in MS. Canonici Or. 35, the word is ‘b’tumo’ (in his perfection). A difference between perfection and righteousness is, according to ibn Ezra, righteous (tzadik) relates to action, while perfection (tamim) relates to the heart. Nachmanides explains tamim and tzaddik in relation to Noah are the same: completely righteous; not wicked, like the people of his generation. tzaddik regarding Abraham (Genesis 18:19) means compassion and charity. Rabeinu Bahya explains ‘tamim’ perfect, also in the same context of tzaddik, that a person’s external appearances is required to mirror one’s internal; what one says reflects what one truly feels. Alternatively, he suggests, they are two separate virtues, similar to Ibn Ezra. Rabbi David Kimchi explains tzaddik means fair in his dealings with other people. In contrast to the people of his generation who were unfair and evil towards their fellow.
[36] A further variation in the Rashi manuscripts is that in the printed edition it states: ‘but Abraham strengthened himself and walked (mehalech) in his righteousness by himself. In all the manuscripts the word ‘walked’ (mehalech) is omitted.