In Parshat Noach,
the Torah says, "Ve'ata Kach Lecha Mikol Maachal
Asher Ye'acheil Ve'asafta Eilecha Vehaya Lecha Velahem
Liochla," "And you, take for yourself from all food
that will be eaten and gather it to yourself, and it
will be for you and for [the animals] to eat" (6:21).
The Kli Yakar on this Pasuk wonders why the Torah uses
the terminology "Lecha," "for yourself." What
does this seemingly extra word add? He answers that this
word implies that the food had to come exclusively from
Noach's own belongings. Just as the word Lecha regarding
the Arbaah Minim is interpreted to mean that that the
Minim must be "yours," i.e. not stolen or borrowed from
others' property, so too Hashem required that the food
on the Teivah be Noach's own. This was to prevent Noach
from reasoning that it should be permitted to take from
others' belongings, as the rest of the world would soon
die anyway, and all their money and belongings would
then be washed away and ownerless. Therefore, Hakodesh
Baruch Hu had to tell Noach to take only of his own
property, and not of others'. The Kli Yakar also asks
how it was possible for the Teivah to hold enough food
for a full year; how could Noach supply enough for every
single living creature (sometimes even sevenfold) and
for his own family for such a length of time? This
question is strengthened by the Kli Yakar's explanation
of "Lecha" - if all the food had to come out of Noach's
own pocket, it is even less likely that he could have
provided such a vast quantity of food! The Kli Yakar
answers that even though naturally the food supply
should not have been enough for Noach and the animals,
Hakadosh Baruch Hu caused a miracle to accommodate their
needs. He sent a Berachah when Noach fulfilled
"Ve'asafta Eilecha," "gather it to yourself,"
so that the food Noach collected would be enough that
"Vehaya Lecha Velahem Leochla," "it will be
[enough] for you and for them to eat." This same idea
holds true for the Teivah, as well. The commandment that
Hashem gave to Noach was "Assei Lecha Teivah,"
"make for yourself an ark." Hashem was telling Noach
even though the Teivah would not be big enough for all
the animals, He would perform a miracle so that all the
animals would have sufficient room. The Vilna Gaon
also deals with this problem, but he simultaneously
deals with another question. Like the Kli Yakar, he
wonders how Noach could have had enough food for all of
the animals; it would certainly be impossible to store
that much in the Ark! In addition, he observes that the
words "Asher Ye'acheil," "that will be eaten,"
are superfluous. The Gaon explains both problems based
on a Gemara in Masechet Chullin that discusses a similar
phraseology in Vayikra. The Pasuk there (11:34),
discussing food that becomes Tamei, says, "Mikol
Haochel Asher Ye'acheil," "from all food that will
be eaten," which the Gemara understands as referring to
food that can be eaten in one gulp. The Gemara in Yoma
states that the maximum amount the throat can gulp down
in one swallow is the size of an egg, a Kebeitzah.
"Ye'achel," "[that which] will (or can) be
eaten," implies this quantity of the largest possible
single gulp. This is also the meaning of the Pasuk here
when it says, "Asher Ye'acheil" - an egg's
volume for everyone. However, "Vehaya Lecha Velahem
Leochla" - even though it will
only be the minimal amount, it will be enough for everyone
to eat to satisfaction. Surely, if Hashem provided for Noach
and the animals, He can and will provide enough
for each member of His chosen nation, if we merit such
a blessing.
It's Not That
Important by
Avi Levinson
In Bereshit 6:11,
the Torah records the great sin of the Dor Hamabul. It
says, "Vatishacheitt Haaretz Lifnei Haelokim, Vatimalei
Haaretz Chamas," "The land became corrupt before Hashem,
and the land became filled with robbery." The Talmud
Yerushalmi (Bava Metzia 4:12) quotes a Beraita which
asks, "What did they steal?" The Beraita answers that
they stole less than a Shaveh Perutah, the minimum
amount that is given Halachic significance, so no one
could take them to court and prosecute them for robbery.
The question that this brings up is obvious: what was so
wrong with what they did, if they were stealing in such
petty amounts? An answer lies in the Gemara in Eiruvin
62, which says that a Nochri is Chayav even for stealing
less then a Shaveh Perutah, even though a Jew is not.
Why is a Nochri Chayav when a Jew is Patur? Rashi
answers that a Jew will forgive someone for stealing
such a small amount, whereas we assume that a Nochri
will not. It is part of a Jew's character to be
forgiving, especially regarding small matters. This
point is amplified by Taanit 25a, where the Gemara
records the story of a particular drought in Eretz
Yisrael. Rabi Eliezer prayed to Hashem on behalf of the
people, but to no avail. Rabi Akiva then stepped up to
pray, but unlike Rabi Eliezer, he was answered.
Naturally, people started saying that Rabi Akiva was
greater than Rabi Eliezer. In response, Hashem sent Bat
Kol that announced, "Lo Shezeh Gadol Mizeh, Elah Shezeh
Maavir Al Midotav, Vezeh Eino Maavir Al Midotav," "It is
not because one is greater than the other, but rather
because this one (Rabi Akiva) was able to 'look away,'
whereas this one (Rabi Eliezer) could not 'look away.'"
This Gemara means that Rabi Akiva was able to forgive
minor inconveniences that other people caused to him,
while Rabi Eliezer was not. Clearly, we must learn from
Rabi Akiva. It is not so horrible, for example, if
someone accidentally bumps into you; you do not have to
make a big deal over it. Being forgiving is one thing
that distinguishes a Jew from a Nochri. At least
regarding our interactions with other people, the
Gemarot in Eiruvin and Taanit both clearly support the
well-known saying, "Don't sweat the small stuff!"
Halacha of
the Week The Chayei Adam
(67:3) writes that one should respect his parents
in thought as well as action. He asserts that one
should regard his parents as prominent individuals
that are worthy of great honor. This, in turn,
will facilitate one giving proper Kavod to one's
parents, since one's thoughts profoundly impact
one's actions. Indeed, one might interpret Cham's
sin against his father (Bereshit 9:22) as first
denigrating his father in thought, then in words
and, according to Chazal, then in deed. Although
harboring positive thoughts about one's parents
might be inaccurate, it seems to be a healthy
illusion in many cases. In fact, a cousin
described to me her doctoral thesis in psychology,
which explores the positive therapeutic impact of
partial denial in certain circumstances. Indeed,
one could possibly interpret the actions of Shem
and Yafet (Bereshit 9:23) as "covering up" their
father's sin both in deed and in thought in order
to preserve their positive image of their
father.
Staff at
time of publication:
Editors-in-Chief: Ely
Winkler, Willie Roth Executive Editor:
Jerry M. Karp Publication
Editors: Jesse Dunietz, Ariel
Caplan Publishing Manager: Andy
Feuerstein-Rudin Publication Managers: Orin
Ben-Jacob, Moshe Zharnest Business Manager:
Etan Bluman Webmaster: Avi Wollman Staff:
Duvie Barth, Mitch Levine,
Josh Markovic, Moshe Schaffer, Chaim
Strauss Faculty Advisor: Rabbi Chaim
Jachter
