Vol 10.05 - Noach 2                    Spanish French Audio  Video

Page 24   Page25   Page26   Page27   Page28   Page29  

Synopsis:

I. When speaking about the animals that came to the ark, the Torah states:1 “from the pure species of animals and from the species of animals that are not pure.” Commenting on this choice of wording, in the Talmud, our Sages state:2 “A person should never utter an offensive word. For the Torah elaborates and uses eight extra letters so as not to state an offensive word, as it is written: ‘from the pure species of animals, and from the species of animals that are not pure.’”

Rashi explains that our Sages are offering a rationale for the use of the lengthy wording “from the species of animals that are not pure” (in Hebrew, three words with a total of thirteen letters), instead of stating in short, “the impure species” (one word, with five letters). “This teaches us to endeavor to use refined language.”

Just as our Torah reading contains this instruction with regard to refined speech, it also contains another instruction with regard to refined sight. It relates how Shem and Yefes took the utmost care not to look upon the nakedness of their father. When Noach became intoxicated and they went to cover his nakedness, “They walked backwards... with their faces backwards... and they did not see the nakedness of their father.”3 As a reward for taking this precaution, they were granted great and noteworthy blessings: “Blessed be G‑d, the L‑rd of Shem. May Canaan become a slave to them.4 May G‑d be gracious to Yefes and He will dwell in the tents of Shem.”5

II.

This story, however, raises a question. After the Torah tells us that they walked “with their faces backwards,” it is obvious that “they did not see the nakedness of their father”6 (for they were facing backwards). What does the phrase “they did not see the nakedness of their father” add? We must say that the verse is teaching us a new concept and a unique quality that can be learned from the conduct of Shem and Yefes which we would not know from the previous phrase, “with their faces backwards.”

III.

This difficulty can be resolved by first explaining the following teaching of the Baal Shem Tov:7 When a person sees an undesirable quality in a colleague, this indicates that there exists within his own self something similar to that undesirable quality.8 Like a person who looks in a mirror, “If his face is clean, when he looks in the mirror he does not see any flaw.”9 If, however, he sees filth or a blotch in the mirror, it is because “his own face is dirty.”

Clarification, however, is required: On the surface, why is it necessary to say that seeing evil in a colleague denotes a like quality and mirror of the evil in the onlooker? Why is it not possible that this evil be apparent only in one’s colleague and not exist within oneself at all?

To resolve the question, it can be explained10 that every event that happens in the world is controlled by Divine Providence. Even this event (i.e., that one sees an undesirable quality in a colleague) does not happen by chance, Heaven forbid, but was ordained from Above. Since G‑d did not create anything in this world without a purpose,11 it is impossible to say that a person would be led from Above to see an undesirable quality in a colleague without reason. Therefore, seeing the undesirable quality must surely serve as a lesson,12 informing him that he also possesses this undesirable quality and that it is necessary for him to correct it.

Why is it necessary for one to receive this lesson indirectly — to inform him about his own evil through seeing the corresponding evil in a colleague? Because “love covers all flaws.”13 (How much more so is this true with regard to self-love.) Thus “a person will see all blemishes except his own.”14 Therefore the way to bring a person to the realization of his own shortcomings is to give him the opportunity to see them as they are manifested in a colleague.15 When he sees the drawbacks of these shortcomings and undesirable qualities (in his colleague) and when he contemplates his own situation with a serious intent, he will come to the realization that the faults he sees are in truth his own. To reword the above statement: All the blemishes that a person sees outside of himself16 are (a result of) his own blemishes.

IV.

One may, however, ask: A Jew’s mission is not only to refine and elevate his own self, but also to affect his colleagues, as reflected by the command:17 “You shall surely admonish your colleague.” And further, our Sages state18 that one must repeat such an admonishment even 100 times.

If so, why say that the intent of his being shown from Above the undesirable qualities possessed by a colleague is for him to realize that he possesses those undesirable qualities and that he must eliminate them? Perhaps the true intent in showing him the undesirable qualities in his colleague is so that he will admonish his colleague and help him to correct and improve his conduct.

Moreover, as mentioned many times,19 the Jewish people never serve merely as an intermediary through which G‑d’s intent concerning another matter can be achieved. We cannot say that His ultimate intent is directed toward a matter that is peripheral in relation to them. (In contrast, all other created beings, even the sublime spiritual worlds,20 are not themselves the purpose of their existence but rather exist “for the sake of the Jewish people and for the sake of the Torah.”21 ) The Jewish people, however, are themselves G‑d’s ultimate purpose.

Just as this concept applies with regard to the Jewish people as a whole, so, too, it applies to every individual Jew. It cannot be said that one Jew must serve as a mere intermediary for a colleague. Instead, G‑d’s ultimate intent is focused on each Jew individually.22

Accordingly, it is understood (that with regard to the individual Divine service of every person), it cannot be said that the reason a person is shown the faults of a colleague from Above is solely for the benefit of the onlooker without any benefit accruingto the person who possesses the faults.23 Instead, the intent is to benefit the person who possesses the faults through the observer’s admonishment and efforts to correct and eliminate the evil the person possesses.

As such, since we must say that the purpose of being shown the evil in another person is to aid that person in correcting it, why must we say that when a person sees evil in a colleague he is looking in a mirror; that he is being shown his own evil in the guise of his colleague?

V.

This question can be resolved by first explaining another problematic concept in the passage from the Talmud cited above (sec. I): “A person should never utter an offensive word... as it is written: ‘...and from the species of animals that are not pure.’”

The Talmud continues, mentioning another similar principle: “A person should always speak with refined words, for when relating the laws pertinent to a zav,24 the Torah uses the expression ‘saddle,’25 while with regard to a zavah,26 it uses the expression ‘seat.’”27 (The reason the Torah uses a different expression is that it is not fitting to mention a woman riding in the ordinary manner.28 )

The Talmud questions this principle, stating three instances where the Torah does speak of women riding. After the resolution of the third verse, the Talmud asks: “In the Torah, is not the term ‘impure’ mentioned?”

The order of the Talmud’s questions is difficult to understand. The word “impure” appears in the Torah more than 100 times. Seemingly, it would have been more logical for the Talmud to first question the use of the term “impure,” which appears frequently, and then to inquire about the use of the expression “riding” with regard to women. Why are the questions mentioned in the opposite order?

Also, clarification is necessary: What is the Talmud’s intent when asking in a tone of wonderment: “In the Torah, is not the term ‘impure’ mentioned?” It is as if the statement that “impure” is mentioned in the Torah is a new and previously unknown concept that will enable us to resolve doubts. Since the use of the term is so prevalent, seemingly, it would have been more appropriate to use a less radical expression, for example: “Behold, the term ‘impure’ is used by the Torah.”

VI.

In resolution, it can be explained that when the subject is a halachic decision, the decision must be rendered using the clearest wording possible — even if such wording is offensive — so that the halachah will be utterly decisive and unambiguous. For this reason it is understandable why in most places in the Torah, the term “impure”is used despite the fact that using concise wording does not have an advantage (according to the Maharsha’s perspective) over refined wording. It is only with regard to the Torah’s stories that terms like “impure” will be stated using indirect and lengthierwording.29 For with regard to the Torah’s stories, the use of lengthy but refined wording is found as often as concise but offensive wording, because the advantages of the two are equally balanced.

In the (majority) of places where the Torah uses the word “impure”, it communicates halachic rulings. Hence it is necessary for the Torah to use the expression “impure.” This is not because there is an advantage to using concise wording, but because halachic rulings must be stated clearly and unambiguously.

On this basis, we can understand the initial supposition of the Talmud that even if many words will be required, the Torah uses refined language even though the term “impure” is found in many places in the Torah. For, as explained above, in most places the term “impure” is used in a halachic context. Therefore, its use does not run contrary to the general principle that “A person should never utter an offensive word,” even according to the initial supposition of the Talmud that this principle applies even when it is necessary to use many words.

The intent of the Talmud’s question: “In the Torah, is not the term ‘impure’ mentioned?” is that we find the term “impure” used by the Torah even when it is possible to use indirect language in the midst of a story. And since we find it used at times in such a context, that would imply a contradiction to the teaching never to use offensive wording. Nevertheless, since the term “impure” is mentioned only several times in the Torah’s stories, the Talmud does not consider the use of the term “impure” as a stronger question than the use of the term “riding” in connection with women. Hence, it does not give this question precedence.

VII.

As mentioned, when it is necessary to give a halachic ruling concerning (an object or even) a person, we are obligated to render the ruling using clear wording, saying “impure” or the like. Nevertheless, when referring to impurity outside the context of direct halachic rulings, one must refrain from referring to it directly; for that is considered using offensive wording since one is speaking within the narrative aspect of the realm of halachah.

Proof of this concept can be brought from the command:30 “When there will be a man among you who will not be pure... he shall go outside the camp.” The verse is coming to inform us of the laws governing that person, i.e., a halachic ruling. Nevertheless, since it is not dealing with the laws that define whether or not he is pure, but rather with the command for him to leave the camp (for it is already known that he is impure), the Torah uses indirect wording and states “who will not be pure” instead of “will be impure.”

Just as the above concepts apply with regard to refined speech, so, too, similar concepts apply with regard to sight. When one hears that a Jew performed an improper act, he is obligated to see the resulting halachic imperative: i.e., he should look only to what he realizes that he must do to correct the situation. He should admonish his colleague (obviously, in a pleasant and agreeable manner31 ) and endeavor to influence him to adopt a positive course of conduct. This should be the primary dimension of what he sees.

When, however, he hears about his colleague’s unfavorable conduct and does not see the halachic imperative relevant to him but instead sees the wickedness of his colleague, that is a sign that “his own face is dirty.” Since he focuses (not on the obligation he has to correct the situation, but) on the fact that his colleague possesses evil, that is a sign that the evil his colleague possesses is a reflection of his own.

Since (as stated above) “G‑d did not create anything in His world without a purpose,” there is a directive in everything that a person sees. In this instance, the directive is twofold:

a) The fact that he has been shown (from Above) a quality (in his colleague) that must be corrected serves as a directive for him to become involved with that colleague to improve him.

b) The fact that he has been shown something that appears evil is a directive that this evil exists within himself and he must correct himself. For if he were on the level of a righteous man (at least with regard to this particular32 ), he would not see or focus on this evil.

VIII.

On this basis, we can explain why the Torah adds the phrase: “They did not see the nakedness of their father,” although it is seemingly obvious from the previous phrase, “with their faces backwards.” The intent is to emphasize that not only did Shem and Yefes not see their father’s nakedness in a physical sense (because “their faces were backward”), but that they did not see or feel any dimension of “nakedness” or fault in their father. Their feelings focused entirely on what they had to do; i.e., to cover their father’s (nakedness). They did not see their father’s nakedness as an independent matter.

This approach distinguishes Shem and Yefes from their third brother, Cham. Shem and Yefes did not see, while with regard to Cham, it is written:33 “And Cham... saw.”

This came as a result of differences in their inner personal characteristics and spiritual levels. “Cham was the father of Canaan.” Since he himself possessed evil (albeit on a less extreme plane34 ) — for Cham is associated with chammimus (“warmth” or “excitability” in Hebrew),35 an expression of the left vector36 — he saw37 the evil of Noach’s drinking and intoxication.38 For the latter is also a manifestation of excitability. (Although Cham’s excitability was on a less extreme plane than the excitability he saw and that was manifest by Noach, he was still affected by it because this quality existed, albeit in a less extreme manner, within himself.)

Shem and Yefes — who represent the right and central vectors — were above this type of evil, even on more refined levels. And since they themselves were above this evil, they did not see this evil in others. They saw and knew only the task incumbent on them to fulfill.

IX.

The above provides every one of us with a lesson. When one hears or sees an undesirable quality possessed by another Jew, he certainly should not speak about it and tell others of it as Cham did. Cham did not content himself with the fact that he saw — and was affected by — the evil; he informed others about it: “And he told his two brothers outside.”39 Moreover, one should not even think unfavorably about a colleague.40 Instead, he should contemplate only what he should do, how he should admonish him (so that it will be in an appropriate way, as stated above) and correct his fault. At the same time, he should endeavor not to see the evil in his colleague even while he is working with him.

When one conducts himself in this manner, emulating Shem and Yefes, he merits the promise of the blessings: “Blessed be G‑d, the L‑rd of Shem. May Canaan become....” And “May G‑d be gracious to Yefes, (but) He will dwell in the tents of Shem.” And he merits to be a medium for the Torah,41 for the vessel for the Torah is peace.42 And furthermore, he merits that the Divine Presence will rest in “the tents of Shem,” (in the building of the Third Beis HaMikdash)43 which will come about through unity and through the love of our fellow Jews.44 May this take place in the immediate future.

(From https://www.chabad.org/therebbe/article_cdo/aid/2295017/jewish/A-Knowing-Heart-Parshas-Noach.htm)

Fotnotes:
1.    Bereishis 7:8.
2.    Pesachim 3a; see also Bereishis Rabbah on the verse.
3.    Bereishis 9:23.
4.    In the text of the sichah itself, the Rebbe does not conclude the quote, as an extension of the principle explained in the sichah that one should not make undesirable statements.
5.    Ibid. 26-27. (See Bereishis Rabbah 36:8 which explains that “Blessed be G‑d, the L‑rd of Shem” is also a blessing for Shem himself.)
6.    Seemingly, the phrase “with their faces backwards” is also unnecessary, for the verse previously states “they walked backwards.” This question, however, is already answered by Rashi in his commentary to Bereishis 9:23. There Rashi explains that when they approached Noach to cover him, they had to turn in the direction of Noach and they executed this turn while facing backwards.
7.    Meor Einayim, Parshas Chukas. See also Toldos Yaakov Yosef, Parshas Terumah and other sources. See also Sefer HaSichos Kayitz 5700, p. 83.
8.   See similar statements in Likkutei Torah, Bamidbar, p. 33a.
9.  And therefore, “An entirely righteous man who has no evil within him does not see any evil in any other man” (Meor Einayim, loc. cit.).
10.  See also Sefer HaSichos Kayitz 5700, loc. cit.
11.  Shabbos 77b.
12.  As the Baal Shem Tov taught: “Everything that a person sees or hears is a lesson for him in his Divine service” (HaYom Yom, p. 52).
13.  Mishlei 10:12.
14.  Negaim 2:5. Here the intent is not the halachic context of that teaching, but rather its ethical parallel, as the Meiri explains in his commentary to Avos 1:7 (quoted also by Midrash Shmuel to that mishnah and in the maamar entitled Ish Al Diglo, 5700, sec. 3, and the maamar entitled VeAhavta, 5701, sec. 15). The intent is that one does not see his own spiritual blemishes as blemishes and shortcomings at all.
15.  To cite a parallel (see Likkutei Sichos, Vol. IV, p. 1207, and sources there): When it is desired from Above that a person deliver a judgment concerning his own conduct, a ploy is used and he is brought to deliver a judgment concerning a colleague.
16.  The Hebrew word חוץ translated as “except” in the quote from Negaim, also serves as the root for the term בחוץ meaning “outside.”
17.  Vayikra 19:17.
18.  Bava Metzia 31a.
19.  See the lengthy explanations in Likkutei Sichos, Vol. V, p. 246 and Vol. VI, pp. 235-236.
20.  Indeed, even G‑d’s light which is “the revelation of His essence and not a revelation from His essence” is revealed for the intent of the souls of the Jewish people (see the maamar entitled HaOseh Sukaso, 5699, sec. 2).
21.  Rashi, Bereishis 1:1; see also Bereishis Rabbah 1:1, Vayikra Rabbah 36:4.
22.  See the Mishnah, Sanhedrin 37a: “Each and every individual is obligated to say: ‘The world was created for me.’”

Our Sages’ statement (Chulin 92a): “The leaves, these are the common people.... Were it not for the leaves, the clusters of grapes could not be maintained,” {should not be interpreted as implying that the purpose of the common people, the leaves, is solely for the Torah scholars, the grape clusters, and not for themselves (like the gentile nations, להבדיל, who are subordinate to the Jewish people). Instead,} through the common people’s activity to maintain the Torah scholars, they themselves are elevated and are included together with the Torah scholars.

(To cite a parallel, Likkutei Sichos, Vol. VI, loc. cit., speaks of the various stages of progress in a Jew’s Divine service, explaining that the lower level is not merely a preparation and an intermediary to reach the higher level. Instead, by leading to the higher level, it too is elevated.)

23.    See Likkutei Sichos, Vol. II, p. 531, which states an even greater concept. Even within one person, the reason one is allowed to fast in repentance or to purge his soul is that the pain he suffers is to his benefit. It is to the benefit not only of the soul, but also the body. Were it only for the benefit of the soul, it is possible to say that it is forbidden to cause the body pain for the benefit of the soul.
24.    A man who possesses a condition that resembles somewhat a gonorrheal infection. This condition makes him and those with whom he comes in contact ritually impure.
25.    See Vayikra 15:9.
26.    A woman who suffers vaginal bleeding at times other than her menstrual period. This condition makes her and those with whom she comes in contact ritually impure.
27.    Ibid. 23.
28.    Rashi, Pesachim, loc. cit.
29.    Although the Torah’s stories are directives, it is not necessary to state “impure” explicitly. For here, the entire process of instruction is indirect. Even the general thrust and the essence of the directives communicated by the stories are not explicitly stated in the Torah.
30.    Devarim 23:11; see Pesachim, loc. cit.
31.    See the lengthy explanations in the maamar entitled Im Ruach HaMoshel, 5695 (Kuntreis 30); the letter of my revered father-in-law, the Rebbe, that is printed in HaTamim, Vol. VIII, p. 46ff.
32.    The statement of Meor Einayim, loc. cit., quoted in fn. 9: “An entirely righteous man who has no evil withinhim (at all) does not see any evil in any other man,” does not preclude the possibility that if a person has perfected a particular quality (even though he has other faults), he will not judge another person with this fault as evil. For Meor Einayim is speaking about a completely righteous man who “does not see any evil” at all.
33.    Bereishis 9:22.
34.    The sichah speaks about Cham according to the perspective of Radak who interprets Bereishis 9:24: “what his youngest son had done to him” as meaning “that he went and told his brothers.” (Rashi — in his commentary to 9:22, based on Sanhedrin 70a — interprets Cham’s conduct in a far more pejorative manner.)
35.    Or HaTorah, Parshas Vayeishev, p. 252a; See also Torah Or, p. 27a.
36.    Zohar I, 73a; see also Torah Or, p. 26c and Or HaTorah, loc. cit.

The term “left vector” refers to the alignment of the Sefiros in three columns: right, center, and left. Those of the left column or vector are connected with the element of fire.

Or HaTorah, Bereishis (Vol. III), p. 595a, states that for this reason, the Torah mentions Noach’s sons in the order: Shem, Cham, and Yefes although that is not the order in which they were born. For this corresponds to the proper order of the Sefiros they parallel: Chessed, Gevurah, and Tiferes.
37.    See the commentary of Radak to 9:23: “In this, he was the father of Canaan, for he did not cover the nakedness of his father. He was evil, the father of evil.” According to the explanation above, the connection to his being “the father of Canaan” is reflected even in the phrase “And Cham saw,” i.e., his seeing Noach as evil is a sign of the evil within him that was later manifest in Cham’s descendants.
38.    See Bereishis 9:21.
39.    Ibid. 9:22.
40.    See Tanya, Iggeres HaKodesh, Epistle 22, which states that thoughts of lashon hara, unfavorable gossip, are worse than speaking lashon hara.
41.    See the Targum of Yonason ben Uziel which interprets the latter phrase as: “He will dwell in the study halls of Shem.”
42.    See Midrash Tanchuma (Buber edition), Parshas Yisro, sec. 9, Yalkut Shimoni, Mishlei, sec. 934: “The Holy One, blessed be He, said: ‘The entire Torah is peace. To whom will I give it? To a nation that loves peace.’”
43.    See Rashi’s quote of “the Midrash of our Sages” (Yoma 9b ff.; Bereishis Rabbah 36:8) with regard to the First Beis HaMikdash. Obviously (and indeed, to a greater extent), this applies with regard to the Third Beis HaMikdash. See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchos Melachim 11:4, which states that the Third Beis HaMikdash will be built by Mashiach (who will be a descendant of David and Shlomoh, the builders of the First Beis HaMikdash).

44.    See Tanya, ch. 32.

Translation:

Links:
https://www.torahrecordings.com/likutei-sichos/010/002_002