Vol.

21 Issue #6

Parashas Noach

Learning and Speaking Hebrew

Rabbi Michael Taubes

(YUHSB 76, RIETS 82)
Rosh Yeshiva - YUHSB
Rabbi - Kehilas Zichron Mordechai
The Torah tells us that prior to the deeds perpetrated by
the people of the Dor Haflagah who tried to build a giant tower in
order to fight against Hashem, all the people on earth spoke one
language (Genesis 11:1).
Rashi, in his commentary on
this passuk (s.v. Safa), indicates that this one language was Lashon
haKodesh, which we call Hebrew. This opinion is found as well in
the Yerushalmi in Megillah (1:9) where this universally spoken
language is also identified as Lashon haKodesh and as the language
spoken by Hashem Himself. This latter point is a reference to the
fact that Hashem created the world by speaking in Hebrew, as
noted by the Pnei Moshe (s.v. vacharina) and mentioned as well by
Rashi earlier in the Torah (Genesis 2:23s.v. lizos), citing
the midrash in Bereishis Rabbah (parashah 18 Siman 6). It also refers
to the fact Hashem spoke to Bnei Yisrael in Hebrew when giving
them the Torah, as noted by the Korban HaEidah (s.v. bilashon),
and stated as well by the midrash and by the gemara in Berakhos 13a
and in Sanhedrin 21b. The gemara in Chagigah 16a adds that
Hebrew is the language spoken by the Malakhei Hashareis, the
ministering angels, in Heaven.
Given this unique significance and status of the Hebrew
language, is there any mitzvah to study and master or speak
Hebrew? The Yerushalmi in Shabbas (1:3) lists among the
attributes which describe one who is guaranteed to be worthy of
Olam Haba the fact that he speaks Lashon haKodesh; the Korban
HaEidah (s.v.Umidbar) notes that speaking this language leads to
spiritual purity. This does not, however, mean that there is
a mitzvah to speak Hebrew. It is also obvious that knowledge of
Hebrew and its grammatical and linguistic rules is sometimes
necessary for proper understanding of an expression in the Torah
which has halakhicramifications, as is made clear, for example, in
the gemara in Yevamos (13b. See Tosafos s.v. keivan) as well as in
the gemara in Rosh Hashanah 3a,
and as is elaborated upon by Rashi (s.v. kidiReish Lakish). This too,
however, does not necessarily mean that there is a
specific mitzvah to speak Hebrew or that the study of Hebrew is
even considered to be a fulfillment of the mitzvah of Talmud Torah.

4 Marcheshvan 5777

It would appear, however, that according to at least some

authorities, there is some kind of mitzvah associated with speaking
and learning Hebrew. The Sifrei in parashas Eikev (Piska 10,
Devarim Piska 46) states that when a child first begins to talk, his
father should speak to him in Hebrew and teach him Torah,
implying that this will guarantee the child a long life, and that failure
to do so will unfortunately assure the opposite. The same idea is
found in the tosefta in Chagigah (1:3), though with a slight variation;
this source states that when a child knows how to talk, his father
should teach him Hebrew. It could be argued that according to the
latter source, it is insufficient to simply speak to the child in
Hebrew, thereby familiarizing him with the language in a general
sense; rather, it is necessary to teach the child Hebrew so that he
becomes fluent in it. In either case, it is clear that Chazal
considered it important for children to be exposed to Hebrew at
some level starting at a very young age; apparently, there is value
in knowing the language and, presumably, in being able to use it as
an adult.
The clearest formulation which identifies learning
Hebrew as a mitzvah is found in the Peirush haMishnayos of the
Rambam, commenting on the mishnah in Pirkei Avos (2:1) which
says that one must be as scrupulous regarding a mitzvah kallah a
minor mitzvah as one is with a mitzvah chamurah a
major mitzvah. As an example of a mitzvah kallah, the Rambam cites
studying or teaching Hebrew, along with rejoicing on Yom Tov
(which is clearly a mitzvah from the Torah), adding, as
the mishnah itself seems to suggest, that these minor mitzvah are
in fact more important than people tend to think. The Rambam
here clearly considers studying Hebrew to be a mitzvah, one which
is perhaps more significant than one may think.
The difficulty is that although the Rambams view is clear
in the Peirush haMishnayos , he does not codify this mitzvah to learn
or teach Hebrew in his Mishneh Torah, nor does such a
requirement appear in the Shulchan Arukh. The Torah Temimah
in parashas Eikev (Deuteronomy 11:19 os 52) refers to a separate
essay which he wrote about the obligation and the importance of
learning Hebrew, and questions why the poskimomitted any
reference to the requirement to learn Hebrew. Although he
suggests a possible answer, he concludes that the difficulty
remains. It is worth noting, however, that among others, the
Chavos Yair (Siman 124) writes that it is important and indeed
necessary to study Hebrew grammar, and the Vilna Gaon as well
spoke of the need to be thoroughly familiar with grammar, as
reported by his sons in their introduction to his commentary on the
Shulchan Arukh (Hakdamas Bnei haGra 1: Shulchan Aryah Orach
Chaim). Moreover, Rav Moshe Feinstein (Shut Igras Moshe, Even

Page 2

Ha'ezer vol. 3 Siman 35) actually states clearly that there is

a mitzvah to speak in Hebrew, although he asserts that there is
certainly and obviously no prohibition to speak in any other
language.
The Pardeis Yosef in parashas Ki Sisa (Exodus 30:13)
quotes an interesting suggestion as to the source of this mitzvah to
study and know Hebrew, linking it with the mitzvah of "Hak'heil,
a mitzvah which obligated every Jew to assemble in Yerushalayim
once every seven years (on the Sukkos following the shemittah year)
to hear the king publicly read certain sections of the Torah (see
Deuteronomy 31:10-13). The mishnah in Sotah (32a) says clearly
that these sections had to be read by the king in Hebrew, a ruling
codified by the Rambam (Hilkhos Chagiga 3:5). The gemara in
Chagigah (3a) implies that it was necessary for the people to
understand what the king was reading; there may therefore be
a mitzvah to learn Hebrew in order to properly fulfill the mitzvah of
Hak'heil. One could suggest by extension that since the Torah and
most other major Jewish works are written in Hebrew, there may
be a mitzvah to learn Hebrew in order to more thoroughly master
these works, especially in view of the fact that the Rambam
in parashas Ki Sisa writes that Hebrew is in fact called Lashon
haKodesh precisely because it is the language used in the Torah and
other holy works.
It is interesting to note that in the Shulchan Arukh, the
Rama (Orach Chaim 307:16) rules that whereas it is inappropriate
to read certain types of stories, books, and literature on Shabbas, if
they are written in Hebrew, they may be read on Shabbas. The
Magein Avraham (s.k. 24) explains that this is because the language
itself has kedushah and one can learn divrei Torah simply by reading
books and even letters written in Hebrew. The Taz (s.k. 13)
disagrees with this last point, citing the fact that the Shulchan Arukh
rules elsewhere (Orach Chaim 85:2) that one may speak in Hebrew
about ordinary topics even in a place like a bathroom where Torah
learning would be forbidden, but it should be noted that the Magein
Avraham (s.k. 2) quotes from the Seifer Chassidim (Siman 994) that
it is indeed a sign of piety to avoid speaking Hebrew in such
places. The above, of course, should not be understood as an allencompassing permit to read on Shabbas any kind of literature
which may happen to be written in Hebrew. Certain literature
ought to be avoided, both on Shabbas and during the week,
regardless of the language in which it is written, because the content
is inappropriate, both for Shabbas and in general. Moreover, it
must be stressed that there may be important distinctions which
have to be drawn between modern, spoken Hebrew and the Lashon
haKodesh referred to by the above sources.
Nevertheless, it is noteworthy that the midrash in Vayikra
Rabbah (parashah 32 Siman 5), among other places, states that one
of the meritorious deeds of our ancestors in Mitzrayim was that
they maintained their own language Hebrew. Although this may
not mean that they spoke exclusively in Hebrew, it is clear that they
considered it important to know Hebrew fluently, and this was one
of the things which made them worthy of redemption.

Vol. 21 Issue #6

What Makes a Tzaddik?

Tani Finkelstein (17)

The Torah tells us that Noach was an ish tzadik, tamim

haya bdorosav (6:9), often literally translated as a righteous man,
complete/wholehearted in his generation. R Yochanan and Reish
Lakish debate on Sanhedrin 108a whether or not Noachs
righteousness was merely a product of the bad generation in which
he lived. A similar Tannaic dispute is brought down in the Zohar,
as well, between R Yehuda and R Yose. How could they dispute
Noachs righteousness if the Torah clearly says that he was a
tzadik? It would appear that they base this dispute on the addition
of the seemingly unnecessary word, bdorosav, but in looking
through their words, I believe we will come to change our view on
the term tzadik and on righteousness in general.
The Alshich explains the opinion of R Yehuda and R
Yochanan, that Noach was only righteous relative to his generation,
in an intriguing fashion. He explains that Noachs level of tzadik
was only to the extent of shev val taaseh, that his righteousness
was manifested only in his abstention from sin. He brings a parable
(brought in Breishit Rabba) of a virgin woman strolling through a
marketplace of prostitutes and refraining from any illicit behavior.
Because of the sinful place with which she endured an encounter,
the Ashlich interestingly notes, her abstention from sin is equivalent
to a mitzvah.
An interesting comparison is struck by the Maharal between
Noachs rescue from the flood and the extrication of Lot from the
destruction of Sodom. Both characters were only saved because of
their righteousness relative to the terribly sinful people who
surrounded them. The Maharal brings a fascinating Rashi from
parshas Vayera which sheds great light on our topic. In the pesukim
(19:17-19), as Sodom is nearing its decimation, Hashem tells Lot
that he must flee to the mountain if he wishes to live. Lot replies
that he cannot flee to the mountain, pen tidbakeni haraah vamati,
lest the evil overtake me. Rashi explains what this cryptic phrase
means. He brings a midrash from Breishit Rabbah, that explains that
what Lot was saying was that when he was among the people of
Sodom, Hashem saw his deeds and the deeds of the people of
Sodom, and he appeared righteous and worthy of being saved. But
when he will flee and find himself alongside a righteous man, Lot
knew he would be considered a wicked man, and that is what he so
greatly feared in fleeing Sodom.
With all of this in mind, I would like to suggest that we
take a different perspective on the meaning of the word tzadik.
Colloquially and contemporarily, the term generally connotes
righteous, God-fearing, and God-loving people. But perhaps the
Torah has a different idea in mind when using the word. You see,
if you look carefully, you will notice that the Torah never once
refers to one of the Forefathers, Moshe, or all of our most revered
patriarchs as a tzadik.
You will also notice that the term tzadik is not a standalone word, and is one almost always juxtaposed with the term
rasha, a wicked person. You will find this juxtaposition many
times throughout Tehillim and the Gemara, and it can also be found
throughout Tanach as well. The passuk in Devarim (25:1) says that
if there will be a controversy between men, and they come unto

Page 3

judgment, and the judges judge them, by justifying the

tzadik, and condemning the rasha. Here, the tzadik referred
to is no righteous person at all! He is just not guilty in the particular
case. In fact, when translating the word tzadik in the Torah, the
aramaic commentators (Onkoles and Targum Yonason) always
translate it as zakai, a term often used in the Gemara to refer to
an innocent person. This once again highlights that the a tzadik is
only revered as opposed to the guilty and as opposed to the evil
around him.
Clearly, most commentators are not too effusive in their
praise for Noachs righteousness, and even those who are more
generous in their praise tend to laud his abstention from sin more
so than his good deeds and actual actions. After all, as R Yehuda in
the Zohar points out, he was only righteous enough to save himself
and his family, but not the wicked people around him. Many find
Noachs faith in Hashem very questionable, and his deterioration
post-flood does not bode well for his reputation either. There is
one fact that is undisputable, however, and that is that Noach was
not a bad person like the wicked people of his generation. Yet,
perhaps as we have explained, that was just enough to make him a
tzadik. Being surrounded by rishaim rendered, and refraining
from joining in their evil ways, rendered Noach a tzadik!
We have been translating tzadik throughout this article
as righteous, but based on the aforementioned points, perhaps a
better definition for the term would simply be not bad or
innocent. Now, it should be noted that a tzadiks level mustn't be
downplayed, as it is a significant level to reach in its own right and
is deserving of reward. Nonetheless, it should be recognized that
being a tzadik is not all that Hashem desires from you.
The highest level we can aspire for is the level of
chassidus. The Midrash Shmuel says that a tzadik is the average level
between a rasha and and a chassid. In fact, we say in Ashrei every
day, that not only tzadik Hashem bichol dirachav, but that He is
also chassid bchol maasav, distinguishing between the two levels.
The Sefat Emet elaborates on this idea, bringing the passuk from
Tehillim (97:11), ohr zarua latzadik ulyishrei lev simcha, light
unto the tzadik, and happiness unto the upright in heart. The Sefat
Emet explains the contrast in this passuk between the tzadik and the
yishrei lev, the upright in heart. He brings a Rashi in tractate
Taanis that says dsimcha adif morah, that happiness is better
than light. Based on this, the Sefat Emet proposes that tzadik is a
lower level in which one has a mixture of good and bad, but a
yishrei lev is a chassid, one completely free of sin and who goes
beyond the letter of the law. That is why Noach was a tzadik, says
the Sefat Emet, as he had some elements of good and bad in him,
but someone such as Avraham, who was purely righteous and went
way beyond his call of duty, is a chassid, a yishrei lev, one worthy
of simcha. We should all strive to reach this great level beyond
tzadik, and in that merit, we will hopefully be worthy of true
happiness.

Into the Lions Den

Akiva Cooper (18)

Its probably the most popular midrash regarding Noach

on the teivah. It goes as follows: You could imagine Noach, barely

Vol. 21 Issue #6

able to get around, throwing up blood, sick, from taking care of the
animals. Hes been working days and days to make sure food was
rationed appropriately. Hes been working hard, but one day shows
up late to the lions den where his situation suddenly went from
bad to worse as hes attacked.
It would seem appropriate, however. Noach, who was deemed
worthy of Gods nevuah, chosen by God out of his whole generation
as the most righteous person, was clearly on a very high spiritual
level and should have made it his business to show up on time. But
why would the lion ever have the audacity to attack a person like
Noach?
In perek 7 passuk 13 of Genesis, Rashi records an
interaction between Hashem and the Dor haMabul. When the
reshaim of Noachs generation saw him going up to the teivah they
said, If we see him going into the teivah, we will destroy it [the
teivah] and kill him. Hashem responded by saying, I will bring him
into it [the teivah] in front of everyone, and We will see whose
words will be fulfilled. Hashem threatened and promised that
Noach will be protected and will, on no uncertain terms, enter the
teivah safely. Rashi proceeded to describe, in passuk 16, the miracles
God performed for Noach to ensure his safety. Hashem positioned
the lions and the bears outside of the teivah encircling and protecting
Noach, his family and the ship he worked on for so long.
The very lions, that would have killed anyone who came
near the teivah with malicious thoughts, were now the very animals
that viciously and horrifyingly attacked Noach for showing up only
a few minutes late for a meal. What message was Hashem sending
Noach? What changed, and why were the very lions that were used
to protect Noach, used to attack him later?
As explained in the first siman of Orach Chaim of the
Shulchan Arukh, it's an obligation upon everyone to arise in the
morning in the same way that a lion wakes up. To have the same
fervor, excitement to start the day and perform Gods will. To have
the same zerizus that the lion has as it gets up, for the lion is the
prime example of zerizus. What better messenger to use in sending
Noach a message? When Noach started to falter in his requirement
to care for the animals, he is attacked by the very animal that
represents the midah he was lacking.
But then again, what differed from our first interaction with the
lions to the second interaction? Why did they go from ferociously
protecting to ferociously harming him?
It had a lot to do with Noachs outlook on zerizus.
In Genesis 7:7, the Midrash Tanchumah explains that
Noach waited until the last second to enter the teivah. He wasnt
fully convinced, the midrash explains, that the world was actually
going to flood. Only when the rain started to pour down, only
when he realized that the generation he was designated to help in it
repentance had failed, did he finally force himself to enter the
teivah. He spent centuries laboring on the teivah for one sole
purpose for the people of his generation to ask him what he was
doing. The midrash understands that God is infinite and most
certainly had the ability of saving Noach without making him labor
for years on a ship. But nonetheless, God told Noach that his job
wasnt only to build a ship, but through the building of the teivah,
his job was to facilitate repentance. By building a ship for hundreds
of years, it would offer many opportunities for the people of Noach
s generation to inquire of Noach. He would constantly have to

Page 4

warn the bystanders of the impending doom and through this

constant effort, trying to scare his neighbors into doing the right
thing. He would slowly become emotionally invested in his
mission, and long for the survival of his generation. So when the
time came to destroy the world, , after years invested in a process
meant to help the people of his generation, he couldnt believe he
failed God. Although he might not have achieved what he wanted,
he approached this mitzvah with zerizus, so when it came time to
enter the teivah, he was protected by the very animals represented
him the most.

The Vine: Lakol Zeman Vaes?

Zeve Kornwasser (18)

In parashas Noach, a sedrah filled with warnings to the

sinners, God ultimately decides to start from scratch. In possibly
the greatest display of Hashems rule over the world, He floods the
world by allowing the gates of heaven to pour water and the
underground springs to gush hot water until nothing was left in this
world, save one thing. The only reason that the world was saved
was for Noach and everyone else in the teivah. Noach, who is
described as a tzaddik bedorosav, a righteous man in his generation,
observed this great display of Gods might, and after nearly a full
year left the shelter of the teivah and re-emerged into the dry world.
One would imagine that the reaction to such an event
would be to show a great sense of gratitude for what had transpired.
Yet Noach, the tzaddik, had a different reaction. The passuk says
vayyachel Noach ish haadamah, vayitta karem, And Noah began to be
a master of the soil, and he planted a vineyard. (Genesis 9:20)
Noachs reaction to this literally world changing event was to plant
a vineyard. While that reaction might not be ideal, on the surface,
it doesn't seem like Noachs reaction was so out of place. The
reality is that they needed to sustain themselves. But upon further
examination, the Rishonim explain that Noachs act was in fact a
grave sin. The Seforno is medayeik in the phrase vayyachel, and says
that this means that Noachs original intentions were not proper
and led him to become intoxicated. The Seforno goes as far as to
compare this sin to that of the immorality of the Jews with Benos
Moav. (Numbers 25:1)
Rashi explains the phrase vayyachel differently. He says
that it stems from the word chullin (profaned), meaning that by
virtue of the fact that Noachs first action after leaving the teivah
was to plant a vineyard; he profaned himself. The Radak takes a
similar approach to that of Rashi, and says that Noachs sin was that
he not only profaned himself but he profaned the whole world by
introducing vineyards to the world. He also says that this serves as
a lesson to teach us of the dangers of alcohol. The Radak also derives
his opinion from the word vayyachel.
The gemara in Sanhedrin 70a discusses a derashah made by
the Amoraim. In the section of Noachs sin there are thirteen
phrases which begin with the letter vav. Rashi there comments
that these vavs which are pronounced vay", teach us that one who
involves himself in wine will eventually cry out vay vay. It is clear
form all of these sources that wine has the potential to bring about
evil. This further strengthens the following question: how could a

Vol. 21 Issue #6

man of Noachs great stature commit such a grave sin immediately

after experiencing a blatant portrayal of the might of God?
Interestingly, that same
gemara continues to recount a story of
Shlomo Hamelekh. In this incident,
Shlomo as a child made a few poor
decisions and drank an inappropriate
amount of alcohol causing his mother
to scold him. She said to Shlomo,
You, my son, have no place amongst
the kings who drink excessively and
shirk the burden of God. Shlomos
mother realized that his mother was
right as is evident in his work of
Koheles. He says lakol zeman, veeis
lekhol cheifetz, which translates to
everything has a proper season, and a
time to every purpose. (Ecclesiastes
3:1) Shlomo learned from his mother
that it was inappropriate to do certain
things at the wrong time.
By quoting the above
incident with Shlomo, the gemara
seems to be telling us that this was the
fault that Noach had. He did not
realize that it was inappropriate for him to immediately go plant a
vineyard after being saved by the Creator of the world. He didn't
recognize that immediatly after observing the strength of God he
should have had a greater sense of trust in his ability to provide for
himself and his family. And lastly, Noach lacked the vision and
understanding to realize that there are times and places to
appropriately drink wine, but immediately after experiencing a
salvation is not that time. Sadly, this issue is one that plagues our
society now as well. The Mishna Berurah cites that due to excessive
consumption of alcohol, nesias kapayim shouldn't be done on
Simchas Torah as one cannot duchin drunk. What would seem to be
a day of great holiness and celebration of the truth of Torah
revelation has become an occasion for inappropriate frivolity. Let
us fulfill the words of the Radak by adhering to the lessons this
parashah has to offer.

JOIN US ON

NOVEMBER 13, 2016

FOR OUR
OPEN HOUSE
PROGRAM BEGINS 9:30AM

REGISTER AT

WWW.YUHSB.ORG/OPENHOUSE