I have meditated a lot on the story of Noah. I remember recently writing to my friend Ruth about Noah, that sometimes genius comes late in life, not early: Noah had children who were married, he was not young when the flood came.
I remember writing about Malamud's The Natural - starring Robert Redford, if you recall -about the same thing: lives that took a fork in the road early on, only to come back later and perform their miracles.
So I have been meditating on Noah. I remember this from Reb Brenner, and I do not agree.
Excerpt from:
http://rabbidanielbrenner.blogspot.com/2006/11/judea-pearl.html
The Zohar says: "When God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh is come before Me,' Noah said: 'What will You do with me?'
But he did not pray for mercy for the world, as Abraham would pray for the city of Sodom.
This is why the Flood is called 'the waters of Noah' (Isaiah 54:9) — he is culpable for them, because he did not appeal for mercy on the world's behalf."
How can we understand this mystical teaching? In a world bloodied by terrorists — those who purposely kill the innocent to send a signal of their ruthlessness, we may have a tendency to be like Noah and simply worry about our own hides. Abraham calls us to ask, "What does this mean for humanity?" Abraham is not from Sodom. For him, the Sodomites are foreigners, strangers, other. Yet, he prays that they will be understood.
I disagree with this mishnah.
Before the Flood, the Law did not exist. There were individual instances of commands and directives, and obedience or disobedience, but no thing corresponding to the Law.
The covenant with Noah was the beginning of the Law: God had made a promise to do such and such, and mankind was to reciprocate.
An agreement, and if either side does not fulfill, then both sides may seek arbitration.
Abraham could argue against the destruction of Sodom, for there was a Law and there was a space within the soul of man where one could argue forensically with God, derived from the covenant of Noah with God.
The Law moved away from bloodletting by God - who would no more destroy mankind - and bloodletting for God - the Lord was moved by Noah's sacrifice of every clean animal and fowl to meditate on man's innate evil. The covenant with Noah established that hecatombs and holocausts would be done by man, not the Lord, henceforward.
Thus could barrister Abraham argue for Sodom, and secure its safety if but one good man be found therein.
The subsequent destruction of Sodom would seem to be anomalous in this view, indicating the Lord was never serious in giving up the right to slaughter. This is only apparent, and shows that our understanding of the Noahide covenant is incomplete, and we must study more; when one go to argue the Law, it is never as clear-cut as we think: if you read the story of the Cities on the Plain right up to the end, you get a lot more information about Lot and his family than you ever would have wanted.
I remember writing about Malamud's The Natural - starring Robert Redford, if you recall -about the same thing: lives that took a fork in the road early on, only to come back later and perform their miracles.
So I have been meditating on Noah. I remember this from Reb Brenner, and I do not agree.
Excerpt from:
http://rabbidanielbrenner.blogspot.com/2006/11/judea-pearl.html
The Zohar says: "When God said to Noah, 'The end of all flesh is come before Me,' Noah said: 'What will You do with me?'
But he did not pray for mercy for the world, as Abraham would pray for the city of Sodom.
This is why the Flood is called 'the waters of Noah' (Isaiah 54:9) — he is culpable for them, because he did not appeal for mercy on the world's behalf."
How can we understand this mystical teaching? In a world bloodied by terrorists — those who purposely kill the innocent to send a signal of their ruthlessness, we may have a tendency to be like Noah and simply worry about our own hides. Abraham calls us to ask, "What does this mean for humanity?" Abraham is not from Sodom. For him, the Sodomites are foreigners, strangers, other. Yet, he prays that they will be understood.
I disagree with this mishnah.
Before the Flood, the Law did not exist. There were individual instances of commands and directives, and obedience or disobedience, but no thing corresponding to the Law.
The covenant with Noah was the beginning of the Law: God had made a promise to do such and such, and mankind was to reciprocate.
An agreement, and if either side does not fulfill, then both sides may seek arbitration.
Abraham could argue against the destruction of Sodom, for there was a Law and there was a space within the soul of man where one could argue forensically with God, derived from the covenant of Noah with God.
The Law moved away from bloodletting by God - who would no more destroy mankind - and bloodletting for God - the Lord was moved by Noah's sacrifice of every clean animal and fowl to meditate on man's innate evil. The covenant with Noah established that hecatombs and holocausts would be done by man, not the Lord, henceforward.
Thus could barrister Abraham argue for Sodom, and secure its safety if but one good man be found therein.
The subsequent destruction of Sodom would seem to be anomalous in this view, indicating the Lord was never serious in giving up the right to slaughter. This is only apparent, and shows that our understanding of the Noahide covenant is incomplete, and we must study more; when one go to argue the Law, it is never as clear-cut as we think: if you read the story of the Cities on the Plain right up to the end, you get a lot more information about Lot and his family than you ever would have wanted.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment