Walking It Back
Brotherhood, Divine Restraint, and the Question That Defines Humanity
Rabbi Ari Kahn
Based on lectures for Parashat Noach, October 2025
After the Flood, in Bereishit 9, the Seven Noahide Laws are formally articulated.
בראשית פרק ט (פרשת נח)
(א) וַיְבָ֣רֶךְ אֱלֹהִ֔ים אֶת־נֹ֖חַ וְאֶת־בָּנָ֑יו וַיֹּ֧אמֶר לָהֶ֛ם פְּר֥וּ וּרְב֖וּ וּמִלְא֥וּ אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ: (ב) וּמוֹרַאֲכֶ֤ם וְחִתְּכֶם֙ יִֽהְיֶ֔ה עַ֚ל כָּל־חַיַּ֣ת הָאָ֔רֶץ וְעַ֖ל כָּל־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם בְּכֹל֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר תִּרְמֹ֧שׂ הָֽאֲדָמָ֛ה וּֽבְכָל־דְּגֵ֥י הַיָּ֖ם בְּיֶדְכֶ֥ם נִתָּֽנוּ: (ג) כָּל־רֶ֙מֶשׂ֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר הוּא־חַ֔י לָכֶ֥ם יִהְיֶ֖ה לְאָכְלָ֑ה כְּיֶ֣רֶק עֵ֔שֶׂב נָתַ֥תִּי לָכֶ֖ם אֶת־כֹּֽל: (ד) אַךְ־בָּשָׂ֕ר בְּנַפְשׁ֥וֹ דָמ֖וֹ לֹ֥א תֹאכֵֽלוּ: (ה) וְאַ֨ךְ אֶת־דִּמְכֶ֤ם לְנַפְשֹֽׁתֵיכֶם֙ אֶדְרֹ֔שׁ מִיַּ֥ד כָּל־חַיָּ֖ה אֶדְרְשֶׁ֑נּוּ וּמִיַּ֣ד הָֽאָדָ֗ם מִיַּד֙ אִ֣ישׁ אָחִ֔יו אֶדְרֹ֖שׁ אֶת־נֶ֥פֶשׁ הָֽאָדָֽם: (ו) שֹׁפֵךְ֙ דַּ֣ם הָֽאָדָ֔ם בָּֽאָדָ֖ם דָּמ֣וֹ יִשָּׁפֵ֑ךְ כִּ֚י בְּצֶ֣לֶם אֱלֹהִ֔ים עָשָׂ֖ה אֶת־הָאָדָֽם: (ז) וְאַתֶּ֖ם פְּר֣וּ וּרְב֑וּ שִׁרְצ֥וּ בָאָ֖רֶץ וּרְבוּ־בָֽהּ:
And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth. And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every bird of the sky; in everything that moves on the ground and in all the fish of the sea, into your hand they are given. Every moving thing that lives shall be food for you; like the green vegetation, I have given you everything. But flesh with its life-force—its blood—you shall not eat. And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it; and at the hand of man, at the hand of every man's brother, will I require the life of man. Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God He made man. And you, be fruitful and multiply; swarm upon the earth and multiply in it. Bereishit Chapter 9:1-7
These represent God's explicit covenant with post-Flood humanity: prohibitions against idolatry, blasphemy, murder, sexual immorality, theft, and eating flesh torn from a living animal, plus the commandment to establish courts of justice. This is the formal legal framework for civilization.[1]
But here's the problem that demands resolution: the generation of the Flood was destroyed for violating these very laws—before they were given. Bereishit 6:11-13 tells us the earth was filled with חָמָס—lawless violence—and God brought destruction. How can this be just? Further back still: Cain killed Abel and was punished, but murder hadn't yet been prohibited.
Any competent defense attorney could mount an argument: "Your Honor, my clients cannot be held culpable. The principle nullum crimen sine lege—no crime without law—applies. The prohibition against murder, theft, and sexual violence wasn't promulgated until after the Flood. No formal charges were announced. No prophetic warning was given. No due process was followed. They had no knowledge of wrongdoing. Motion to dismiss."
And honestly? It's a compelling argument. This strikes at the heart of divine justice. Either God punished without law—which appears arbitrary and unjust—or something fundamental about law, morality, and human accountability operates differently than we assume.
We will trace this question through Genesis—from the Flood generation back through Cain to Adam himself, then forward through the rabbinic tradition to Shem and Japheth—and discover that we've been asking the wrong question entirely. The issue isn't whether God can justly punish before formal legislation. The issue is whether human beings, created in God's image, possess the moral capacity to know right from wrong without a statute book—and what it means when that capacity is catastrophically betrayed.
The Torah describes the generation and its ills:
בראשית פרק ו פסוק א - ח (פרשת בראשית)
(א) וַֽיְהִי֙ כִּֽי־הֵחֵ֣ל הָֽאָדָ֔ם לָרֹ֖ב עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת יֻלְּד֥וּ לָהֶֽם: (ב) וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ: (ג) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ה֗' לֹֽא־יָד֨וֹן רוּחִ֤י בָֽאָדָם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ם בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם ה֣וּא בָשָׂ֑ר וְהָי֣וּ יָמָ֔יו מֵאָ֥ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה: (ד) הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָרֶץ֘ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־ בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם: פ (ה) וַיַּ֣רְא ה֔' כִּ֥י רַבָּ֛ה רָעַ֥ת הָאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְכָל־יֵ֙צֶר֙ מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבּ֔וֹ רַ֥ק רַ֖ע כָּל־הַיּֽוֹם: (ו) וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם ה֔' כִּֽי־עָשָׂ֥ה אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּ֖ב אֶל־לִבּֽוֹ: (ז) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ה֗' אֶמְחֶ֨ה אֶת־הָאָדָ֤ם אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָ֙אתִי֙ מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה מֵֽאָדָם֙ עַד־בְּהֵמָ֔ה עַד־רֶ֖מֶשׂ וְעַד־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם כִּ֥י נִחַ֖מְתִּי כִּ֥י עֲשִׂיתִֽם: (ח) וְנֹ֕חַ מָ֥צָא חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֽ': פ
"And it came to pass when mankind began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of the powerful saw the daughters of man, that they were good, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose. And Hashem said: My spirit shall not contend with man forever, since he is but flesh; his days shall be one hundred and twenty years. The Nephilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of the powerful would come to the daughters of man and they bore children to them; these were the mighty men of old, men of renown. And Hashem saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day. And Hashem reconsidered having made man on the earth, and He was pained to His heart. And Hashem said: I will erase the man whom I created from upon the face of the earth—from man to beast, to creeping thing, and to bird of the heavens—for I have reconsidered having made them. But Noah found favor in the eyes of Hashem." Bereishit 6:1-8
Bereishit 6:5 provides the devastating diagnosis:
בראשית פרק ו (פרשת בראשית)
(ה) וַיַּ֣רְא ה֔' כִּ֥י רַבָּ֛ה רָעַ֥ת הָאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְכָל־יֵ֙צֶר֙ מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבּ֔וֹ רַ֥ק רַ֖ע כָּל־הַיּֽוֹם:
"God saw that man's wickedness was great on earth, and every inclination of his heart's thoughts was only evil all day."
Every inclination. Only evil. All day. Complete moral collapse—not occasional wrongdoing, but total inability to conceive goodness. Bereishit 6:11-13 specifies: "The earth was corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with chamas." Chamas —theft through force, lawless violence, complete social breakdown.
Bereishit 6:2 provides specifics:
בראשית פרק ו (פרשת בראשית)
(ב) וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת הֵ֑נָּה וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ:
"The sons of the powerful saw that the daughters of man were good, and they took for themselves wives from whomever they chose."
Notice the language: וַיִּרְאוּ—they saw. כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה—that they were good. This deliberately echoes creation's repeated refrain: וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים כִּי־טוֹב—"God saw that it was good." But here, seeing is corrupted. Beauty becomes pretext for exploitation. The same eyes that should recognize divine image in another person see only opportunity for gratification.
מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר בָּחָרוּ—"from whomever they chose"—suggests coercion, powerful men seizing women at will. "Am I my brother's keeper?" extends catastrophically: "Am I my sister's keeper?" The answer: No.
The Targum Yonatan describes something more insidious than individual crimes: a corrosive atmosphere where degradation became so pervasive that even the victims internalized it. The text suggests that in this environment, women—the primary victims of the generation's sexual violence—lost awareness of their right to dignity. This isn't victim-blaming; it's describing how systemic wickedness becomes atmospheric, corrupting everyone's self-perception.[2]
When chamas saturates a society, exploitation becomes normalized. Perpetrators seize without conscience. Victims accept without resistance, not from weakness but from the loss of any framework suggesting another way is possible. The entire social fabric doesn't just tear—it forgets it ever existed. This is degradation at its most complete: not merely doing wrong, but losing the capacity to recognize that wrong has been done.
This makes the generation's sin even more profound. They didn't just violate laws; they destroyed the conditions under which law could even be conceived. How do you legislate when the very concept of boundaries has dissolved?
The Bavli (Sanhedrin 108a) establishes their fate was sealed by גֶּזֶל—theft. But the Talmud Yerushalmi (Bava Metzia) adds a devastating detail: they stole amounts below the actionable threshold. Each individual act wasn't prosecutable, but collectively they destroyed society.
Think about what this proves: they knew there was a threshold. They had legal knowledge and deliberately calibrated their theft to evade prosecution. This isn't ignorance—it's sophisticated moral evasion. Everyone rationalized: "Not my responsibility. Not technically illegal." Cain's question—"Am I my brother's keeper?"—writ large across an entire generation.
Move back further.
בראשית פרק ד פסוק ה - יח (פרשת בראשית)
(ה) וְאֶל־קַ֥יִן וְאֶל־מִנְחָת֖וֹ לֹ֣א שָׁעָ֑ה וַיִּ֤חַר לְקַ֙יִן֙ מְאֹ֔ד וַֽיִּפְּל֖וּ פָּנָֽיו: (ו) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ה֖' אֶל־קָ֑יִן לָ֚מָּה חָ֣רָה לָ֔ךְ וְלָ֖מָּה נָפְל֥וּ פָנֶֽיךָ: (ז) הֲל֤וֹא אִם־תֵּיטִיב֙ שְׂאֵ֔ת וְאִם֙ לֹ֣א תֵיטִ֔יב לַפֶּ֖תַח חַטָּ֣את רֹבֵ֑ץ וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ: (ח) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יו וַֽיְהִי֙ בִּהְיוֹתָ֣ם בַּשָּׂדֶ֔ה וַיָּ֥קָם קַ֛יִן אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל אָחִ֖יו וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ: (ט) וַיֹּ֤אמֶר ה֙' אֶל־קַ֔יִן אֵ֖י הֶ֣בֶל אָחִ֑יךָ וַיֹּ֙אמֶר֙ לֹ֣א יָדַ֔עְתִּי הֲשֹׁמֵ֥ר אָחִ֖י אָנֹֽכִי: (י) וַיֹּ֖אמֶר מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָ ק֚וֹל דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ צֹעֲקִ֥ים אֵלַ֖י מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָֽה: (יא) וְעַתָּ֖ה אָר֣וּר אָ֑תָּה מִן־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר פָּצְתָ֣ה אֶת־פִּ֔יהָ לָקַ֛חַת אֶת־דְּמֵ֥י אָחִ֖יךָ מִיָּדֶֽךָ: (יב) כִּ֤י תַֽעֲבֹד֙ אֶת־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה לֹֽא־תֹסֵ֥ף תֵּת־כֹּחָ֖הּ לָ֑ךְ נָ֥ע וָנָ֖ד תִּֽהְיֶ֥ה בָאָֽרֶץ: (יג) וַיֹּ֥אמֶר קַ֖יִן אֶל־ה֑' גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֹנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא: (יד) הֵן֩ גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ אֹתִ֜י הַיּ֗וֹם מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה וּמִפָּנֶ֖יךָ אֶסָּתֵ֑ר וְהָיִ֜יתִי נָ֤ע וָנָד֙ בָּאָ֔רֶץ וְהָיָ֥ה כָל־מֹצְאִ֖י יַֽהַרְגֵֽנִי: (טו) וַיֹּ֧אמֶר ל֣וֹ ה֗' לָכֵן֙ כָּל־הֹרֵ֣ג קַ֔יִן שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקָּ֑ם וַיָּ֨שֶׂם ה֤' לְקַ֙יִן֙ א֔וֹת לְבִלְתִּ֥י הַכּוֹת־אֹת֖וֹ כָּל־מֹצְאֽוֹ:
But toward Cain and his offering He did not turn, and it greatly angered Cain and his face fell. And Hashem said to Cain: Why are you angry and why has your face fallen? Surely, if you do good, there is uplift; but if you do not do good, sin crouches at the door—its desire is toward you, but you can master it. And Cain spoke to Abel his brother, and when they were in the field, Cain rose against Abel his brother and killed him. And Hashem said to Cain: Where is Abel your brother? And he said: I do not know—am I my brother's keeper? And He said: What have you done? The voice of your brother's blood cries out to Me from the ground. And now, cursed are you from the ground which opened its mouth to take your brother's blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer give its strength to you; a wanderer and fugitive shall you be on the earth. And Cain said to Hashem: My punishment is too great to bear. Behold, You have driven me today from upon the face of the earth, and from Your presence I must hide; I will be a wanderer and fugitive on the earth, and whoever finds me will kill me. And Hashem said to him: Therefore, whoever kills Cain shall be avenged sevenfold. And Hashem placed a sign upon Cain so that whoever found him would not strike him. Bereishit 4:5-15
This is the founding question of human ethics: Where is your brother? Cain's response is rejection: "I deny responsibility for my brother's welfare." The rest of Torah is God's answer: Yes. Emphatically yes.
But before the murder, God intervened. Bereishit 4:6-7:
"God said to Cain: 'Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? Surely, if you do good, there is uplift. But if you do not do good, sin crouches at the door; its desire is toward you, but you can master it.'"
Notice:—"if you do good." The same word “good” that has echoed through creation. Cain has the capacity for good. But he will choose bad.
Focus on "And YOU shall master it." The “you” is emphatic. This isn't generic moral advice; it's a capacity assessment. Ramban explains: "For you have the power to suppress your inclination." Rashi:—"If you want, you can overpower it."
God tells Cain: "You—specifically you, son of Adam, born when your father still possessed God's image in fullness—you have the strength to master this impulse. Don't pretend weakness." The emphatic אַתָּה suggests superior capacity inherited from Adam. Sin desires him, but he is stronger. The contest is unequal in his favor—if he chooses to use his power.[3]
Cain's punishment is exile, not execution (Bereishit 4:12). This corresponds to manslaughter[4]rather than premeditated murder—Cain had no precedent for death. He didn't know that striking could kill. Diminished capacity regarding the act's finality. At least that would be the argument of his defense attorney. In reality, he had just seen his brother's offering be accepted by God—now he does the same to his brother. The parallel is unmistakable: Abel's offering was "taken" by God; Cain "takes" Abel from the world. If acceptance by fire is the model he witnessed, then murder becomes a grotesque imitation of divine acceptance.
But regarding the impulse itself—jealousy, hatred, violence—God had explicitly warned him. He had the capacity to choose differently. His sin isn't ignorance of consequences; it's refusal to use the power he possessed to prevent the impulse from becoming action.
Continue to the source. Genesis 1:27: "God created man in His image; in the image of God He created him."
"In God's image." This isn't metaphor. It denotes moral capacity: the ability to distinguish right from wrong, the power to choose. This is what Cain inherited from Adam. When God says "you can master it," He's affirming what Cain inherited from his father: the image of God that confers moral competence.
But there's more. Cain is the child of parents who ingested fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and bad—a tree that conferred capacity for both. He inherited a nature pulled in two directions. Which will he identify with? Sin drags him toward the bad, his inner demons pulling him down. But God assures him that he can just as easily turn to the good. The capacity exists for both. The choice is his.
Their story was recorded in the previous chapter:
בראשית פרק ג (פרשת בראשית)
(ו) וַתֵּ֣רֶא הָֽאִשָּׁ֡ה כִּ֣י טוֹב֩ הָעֵ֨ץ לְמַאֲכָ֜ל וְכִ֧י תַֽאֲוָה־ה֣וּא לָעֵינַ֗יִם וְנֶחְמָ֤ד הָעֵץ֙ לְהַשְׂכִּ֔יל וַתִּקַּ֥ח מִפִּרְי֖וֹ וַתֹּאכַ֑ל וַתִּתֵּ֧ן גַּם־לְאִישָׁ֛הּ עִמָּ֖הּ וַיֹּאכַֽל: (ז) וַתִּפָּקַ֙חְנָה֙ עֵינֵ֣י שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּ֣דְע֔וּ כִּ֥י עֵֽירֻמִּ֖ם הֵ֑ם וַֽיִּתְפְּרוּ֙ עֲלֵ֣ה תְאֵנָ֔ה וַיַּעֲשׂ֥וּ לָהֶ֖ם חֲגֹרֹֽת: (ח) וַֽיִּשְׁמְע֞וּ אֶת־ק֨וֹל ה֧' אֱלֹהִ֛ים מִתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ בַּגָּ֖ן לְר֣וּחַ הַיּ֑וֹם וַיִּתְחַבֵּ֨א הָֽאָדָ֜ם וְאִשְׁתּ֗וֹ מִפְּנֵי֙ ה֣' אֱלֹהִ֔ים בְּת֖וֹךְ עֵ֥ץ הַגָּֽן: (ט) וַיִּקְרָ֛א ה֥' אֱלֹהִ֖ים אֶל־הָֽאָדָ֑ם וַיֹּ֥אמֶר ל֖וֹ אַיֶּֽכָּה: (י) וַיֹּ֕אמֶר אֶת־קֹלְךָ֥ שָׁמַ֖עְתִּי בַּגָּ֑ן וָאִירָ֛א כִּֽי־עֵירֹ֥ם אָנֹ֖כִי וָאֵחָבֵֽא: (יא) וַיֹּ֕אמֶר מִ֚י הִגִּ֣יד לְךָ֔ כִּ֥י עֵירֹ֖ם אָ֑תָּה הֲמִן־הָעֵ֗ץ אֲשֶׁ֧ר צִוִּיתִ֛יךָ לְבִלְתִּ֥י אֲכָל־מִמֶּ֖נּוּ אָכָֽלְתָּ: (יב) וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הָֽאָדָ֑ם הָֽאִשָּׁה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר נָתַ֣תָּה עִמָּדִ֔י הִ֛וא נָֽתְנָה־לִּ֥י מִן־הָעֵ֖ץ וָאֹכֵֽל:...(כא) וַיַּעַשׂ֩ ה֨' אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְאָדָ֧ם וּלְאִשְׁתּ֛וֹ כָּתְנ֥וֹת ע֖וֹר וַיַּלְבִּשֵֽׁם:
"And the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was desirable to the eyes, and the tree was desirable for gaining wisdom; so she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave to her husband with her, and he ate. And the eyes of both of them were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves and made themselves loincloths. And they heard the voice of Hashem God walking in the garden in the breeze of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from before Hashem God among the trees of the garden. And Hashem God called to the man and said to him: Where are you? And he said: I heard Your voice in the garden, and I was afraid because I am naked, so I hid. And He said: Who told you that you are naked? Have you eaten from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat? And the man said: The woman whom You gave to be with me—she gave me from the tree, and I ate...And Hashem God made for the man and his wife garments of skin and clothed them." Bereishit Chapter 3:6-12, 21
Bereishit 3:9 records God's first question to humanity after the sin: "God called to the man and said to him, 'Where are you?'" God knows where Adam is physically. 'Where are you?'asks moral location: "Where do you stand? What have you become?" This is the birth of self-accountability. From Where are you? to Where is your brother?, we move from self-accountability to relational accountability.
Bereishit 2:9 establishes that two trees stood at Eden's center: "The tree of life...and the tree of knowledge of good and bad."
The prohibition concerned the second tree. Eating from it conferred something profound and dangerous: knowledge, capacity, moral awareness—but also mortality, the loss of Eden, the burden of choice. Bereishit 3:6 records Eve's fatal perception: "The woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was desirable to the eyes..."
She saw...that it was good. The divine seeing— “and God saw that it was good”—is now imitated by humans, but corrupted. She sees "good" in a limited, distorted way—"desirable to the eyes,"lust rather than wisdom, appetite rather than understanding.
The tree of knowledge of good and bad conferred capacity for both—good and bad. Yet the consistent pattern becomes choosing bad. From Adam through Eve through Cain through the Flood generation, humanity repeatedly chooses bad (or evil) despite possessing capacity for good. The question isn't whether they can choose good—God's warning to Cain proves they can. The question is whether they will.
The aftermath of the sin is a moment of divine tenderness. The frightened, humiliated sinners are clothed with compassion—and perhaps in this act lies a profound teaching for humans: even when wronged, we should still have the capacity for compassion. "God made for Adam and his wife garments of skin and clothed them." Bereishit 3:21:
God Himself covers their shame. The divine response to human vulnerability is mercy and covering, not exploitation and exposure. This is the model that will return when we reach Shem and Japheth. Remember this act: God sees nakedness and covers it. When humans face the same choice, how will they respond?
Before we return to the larger question of how supposedly uninformed people could be judged and punished, let us turn to another moment—not just sin, but an acceleration of the devolution. Bereishit 4:26:
"To Seth also a son was born, and he named him Enosh. Then began הוּחַל [to call] in the name of Hashem."
Notice that word: "began." הוּחַל This root ח-ל-ל will appear three times in early Bereishit, and each time marks descent. Rashi interprets: "language of profanation"—they began calling idols by God's name. This is when idolatry began, when humans started to profane the sacred by confusing creation with Creator.[5]
The Ramban, citing Bereishit Rabbah 24:6, explains this was the turning point: "Then idol worship began, and weakness and frailty began to come upon humanity." From this generation forward, humanity declined from the image of God, to something lesser. The capacity remained, but the will to use it deteriorated.
This creates a pattern we'll trace through early Bereishit. Each time the root ח-ל-ל appears, it marks a "beginning" that becomes "profanation":
Bereishit 4:26 (Enosh): הוּחַל—began to profane God's name through idolatry
Bereishit 6:1 (pre-Flood): הֵחֵל—began to multiply, leading to exploitation
Bereishit 9:20 (Noah): וַיָּחֶל—began to plant vineyard, leading to degradation
Each ח-ל-ל moment carries dual meaning: a new start that becomes a moral descent. What should be constructive "beginning" becomes destructive "profanation."
The problem that we initially raised is solved with remarkable ease by two comments that the Rambam makes when discussing the history of commandments.
The Rambam (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:1) teaches that Adam received six of the seven Noahide laws:
רמב"ם הלכות מלכים פרק ט הלכה א
עַל שִׁשָּׁה דְּבָרִים נִצְטַוָּה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן: עַל ע"ז, וְעַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם, וְעַל שְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, וְעַל גִּלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וְעַל הַגֶּזֶל, וְעַלהַדִּינִים, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁכֻּלָּן הֵן קַבָּלָה בְּיָדֵינוּ מִמֹּשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, וְהַדַּעַת נוֹטָה לָהֶן, מִכְלָל דִּבְרֵי תּוֹרָה יִרְאֶה שֶׁעַל אֵלּוּ נִצְטַוָּה, הוֹסִיף לְנֹחַ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אַךְ בָּשָׂר בְּנַפְשׁוֹ דָמוֹ לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ, נִמְצְאוּ שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת, וְכֵן הָיָה הַדָּבָר בְּכָל הָעוֹלָם עַד אַבְרָהָם, בָּא אַבְרָהָם וְנִצְטַוָּה יָתֵר עַל אֵלּוּ בַּמִּילָה, וְהוּא הִתְפַּלֵּל שַׁחֲרִית, וְיִצְחָק הִפְרִישׁ מַעֲשֵׂר וְהוֹסִיף תְּפִלָּה אַחֶרֶת לִפְנוֹת הַיּוֹם, וְיַעֲקֹב הוֹסִיף גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה וְהִתְפַּלֵּל עַרְבִית, וּבְמִצְרַיִם נִצְטַוָּה עַמְרָם בְּמִצְוֹת יְתֵרוֹת, עַד שֶׁבָּא מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ וְנִשְׁלְמָה תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ:
"Adam was commanded concerning six matters: idolatry, blasphemy, bloodshed, sexual immorality, theft, and establishing courts of justice. Although we have received all of them as tradition from Moses our teacher,[6] and reason inclines toward them, from the general pattern of the Torah it appears he was commanded concerning these."
Notice the Rambam's formulation: three sources of knowledge work together. Tradition from Moses provides the explicit teaching. But even without that tradition, reason itself inclines toward these laws. They are accessible through human intellect, embedded in the structure of reality itself. Finally, the Torah's general pattern confirms what reason suggests.
The Flood generation had access to all three: tradition from Adam (ten generations, living memory), reason (the self-evident destructiveness of חָמָס), and observable pattern (the correlation between moral decline and suffering). Their failure was willful, not ignorant.
The Midrash confirms and amplifies this teaching.
בראשית רבה כ"ד:ו'
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן רָאוּי הָיָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁתִּנָתֵן תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ, מַה טַּעַם זֶה סֵפֶר תּוֹלְדֹת אָדָם, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יְצִיר כַּפַּי וְאֵינִי נוֹתְנָהּ לוֹ. חָזַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְאָמַר לוֹ וּמַה עַכְשָׁו שֵׁשׁ מִצְווֹת נָתַתִּי לוֹ וְלֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לַעֲמֹד בָּהֶן וְהֵיאַךְ אֲנִי נוֹתֵן לוֹ תרי"ג מִצְווֹת, רמ"ח מִצְווֹת עֲשֵׂה וְשס"ה מִצְווֹת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה
Rabbi Yehudah son of Rabbi Simon taught: "Adam the First was worthy that the Torah should have been given through him"—רָאוּי הָיָה אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁתִּנָּתֵן תּוֹרָה עַל יָדוֹ. God said: "The work of My hands (יְצִיר כַּפַּי), and I should not give it to him?!" But God reconsidered: "Now, I gave him six commandments and he could not stand in them—how can I give him 613 commandments?" Bereishit Rabbah 24:6
The teaching is devastating in its implications. Adam possessed the capacity for all 613 mitzvot. God considered him worthy to receive the entire Torah. As "the work of [God's] hands"—Adam bore the image of God in its fullness. He had the intellectual, moral, and spiritual equipment for the complete Torah.
Yet capacity doesn't guarantee performance. Even with only six commandments "he could not stand in them." The failure wasn't inadequate capacity but inadequate will. He had the power but not the resolve.
This makes the Flood generation's violation even more inexcusable. If Adam—who stood in Eden, who walked with God—couldn't maintain even six laws, how much more should his descendants have learned from his failure? They had his cautionary tale, his transmitted tradition, living examples of what adherence and violation produce. Their failure compounded his.
The Ramban solves our paradox. This becomes clear when one pieces together a few comments he makes while explaining the moral decline in the antediluvian world and God's response to that decline.
Commentening on the section we saw above, the Ramban elegently explains what could have been percived as a devestating theological question. The verse states: "God reconsidered having made man...and He was pained to His heart" (Bereishit 6:6).
The Ramban explains:
רמב"ן בראשית פרק ו (פרשת בראשית)
(ו) וִינַחֵם ה'. וְיִתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ - דִּבְּרָה תּוֹרָה כִּלְשׁוֹן בְּנֵי אָדָם. וְהָעִנְיָן, כִּי מָרוּ וְעִצְּבוּ אֶת רוּחַ קָדְשׁוֹ בְּפִשְׁעֵיהֶם. וְעִנְיַן "אֶל לִבּוֹ", כִּי לֹא הִגִּיד זֶה לַנָּבִיא שָׁלוּחַ אֲלֵיהֶם, וְכֵן הַלָּשׁוֹן בַּמְּחֻשָּׁב, כְּדֶרֶךְ לְדַבֵּר אֶל לִבִּי (לְהַלָּן כַּד מָה), וְזוּלָתוֹ:
(יג) חָמָס - הוּא הַגֶּזֶל וְהָעֹשֶׁק. וְנָתַן לְנֹחַ הַטַּעַם בְּחָמָס וְלֹא הִזְכִּיר הַשְׁחָתַת הַדֶּרֶךְ, כִּי הֶחָמָס הוּא הַחֵטְא הַיָּדוּעַ וְהַמְּפֻרְסָם. וְרַבּוֹתֵינוּ אָמְרוּ (סַנְהֶדְרִין קַח א) שֶׁעָלָיו נִתְחַתֵּם גְּזַר דִּינָם. וְהַטַּעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה מֻשְׂכֶּלֶת אֵין לָהֶם בָּהּ צֹרֶךְ לְנָבִיא מַזְהִיר, וְעוֹד שֶׁהוּא רַע לַשָּׁמַיִם וְלַבְּרִיּוֹת. וְהִנֵּה הוֹדִיעַ לְנֹחַ הַחֵטְא שֶׁעָלָיו בָּא הַקֵּץ הִגִּיעַ הַצְּפִירָה:
וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ - כְּמוֹ מִן הָאָרֶץ, וְכֵן כְּצֵאתִי אֶת הָעִיר (שְׁמוֹת ט כט), חָלָה אֶת רַגְלָיו (מ"א טוּ כג). דָּבָר אַחֵר, אֶת הָאָרֶץ, עַם הָאָרֶץ, שֶׁאַף שְׁלֹשָׁה טְפָחִים שֶׁל מַחֲרִישָׁה נִמּוֹחוּ, לְשׁוֹן רָשִׁ"י מִבְּרֵאשִׁית רַבָּה (לֹא ז). וְרַבִּי אַבְרָהָם אָמַר שִׂמְלַת "מַשְׁחִיתָם" מוֹשֶׁכֶת עַצְמָהּ וְאַחֶרֶת עִמָּהּ, וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם וּמַשְׁחִית אֶת הָאָרֶץ:
"The Torah speaks in human language. The meaning is that they rebelled and pained His holy spirit through their transgressions. The phrase 'to His heart' means that He did not communicate this to any prophet sent to them."
Focus on: לֹא הִגִּיד זֶה לְנָבִיא שָׁלוּחַ אֲלֵיהֶם—"He did not communicate this to any prophet sent to them." God's deliberation was internal. No prophets warned the generation, no formal charges were announced, no opportunity for defense was provided.
If this were a legal proceeding—"You violated laws X, Y, Z"—we would expect prophetic warning, articulated charges, due process. None of that happened. God's wrestling was private. The question is: Why?
The Ramban first explains who בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים were—a question crucial to understanding the generation's capacity:
רמב"ן בראשית פרק ו (פרשת בראשית)
וְהַנָּכוֹן בְּעֵינַי, כִּי אָדָם וְאִשְׁתּוֹ יִקָּרְאוּ בְּנֵי הָאֱלֹהִים בַּעֲבוּר שֶׁהָיוּ מַעֲשֵׂה יָדָיו וְהוּא אֲבִיהֶם...וְהָיוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה הַנּוֹלָדִים רִאשׁוֹנִים מֵאָב וְאֵם בְּשִׁלְמוּת גְּדוֹלָה מִן הַגֹּבַהּ וְהַחֹזֶק, כִּי נוֹלְדוּ בִּדְמוּת אֲבִיהֶם
"In my opinion, Adam and his wife are called Bnie Elohim -'sons of God' because they were the work of His hands and He is their father...And these first-born men from father and mother were in great perfection of height and strength, for they were born in their father's image."
Bnie Elohim weren't angels or mythological beings—they were Adam, Seth, Enosh, and their immediate descendants. Born in the image of God, possessing full moral and physical capacity, they were the generation closest to the source.
The Ramban continues, citing Bereishit Rabbah 24:6:
עַד כָּאן בְּצֶלֶם וּבִדְמוּת, מִכָּאן וָאֵילָךְ קִינִין קַנְטְרָנִין
"Until here, [they were] in image and likeness; from here onward, troublemakers."[7]
This inverts our assumptions entirely. We thought: earlier generations had less knowledge, less moral development, less culpability—they were primitive humans just emerging from the evolutionary mist. The Ramban shows the opposite: earlier generations were closer to Adam's perfection. They weren't primitive; they were degraded. They fell from image of God to—contentious troublemakers who squandered the capacity they possessed.
By the time of the Flood, humanity had severely declined. But they lived during this decline, which means they had what later generations lost: tradition from those who knew Adam directly, living examples of Bnie Elohim still among them, observable correlation between moral decline and suffering, and memory of what humanity once was.
And according to the Ramban, these very Bnie Elohim —the ones with the most capacity—were the chief exploiters:
וְסִפֵּר בַּתְּחִלָּה כִּי יִקְחוּ אוֹתָם לְנָשִׁים דֶּרֶךְ חָמָס
"It first relates that they took them as wives through חָמָס"
The people with most capacity used it to exploit rather than protect. Brothers didn't just fail to protect sisters—they were the ones seizing them. The strongest became the most dangerous.
Now the Ramban explains why chamas specifically sealed their fate:
חָמָס - הוּא הַגֶּזֶל וְהָעֹשֶׁק...כִּי הַחָמָס הוּא הַחֵטְא הַיָּדוּעַ וְהַמְפֻרְסָם...וְהַטַּעַם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא מִצְוָה מֻשְׂכֶּלֶת אֵין לָהֶם בָּהּ צֹרֶךְ לְנָבִיא מַזְהִיר
chamas is theft and oppression...for chamas is the known and obvious sin...The reason is because it is a rational commandment (מִצְוָה מֻשְׂכֶּלֶת) for which they had no need of a warning prophet."Ramban on Bereishit 6:13:
Read this phrase slowly:—"A rational commandment for which they had no need of a warning prophet."
The Ramban explicitly states: They didn't need prophetic warning because chamas is rationally knowable. Its destructiveness is self-evident. It's—"the known and obvious sin." Even if you don't acknowledge Heaven, even if you reject revelation, you must recognize that a society built on theft and violence destroys itself. This isn't theology; it's observable reality.
Now connect verses 6 and 13: God sent no prophet (6:6) because they needed no prophet (6:13). The absence of prophetic warning isn't an oversight or a procedural failure—it's proof of their culpability. When someone violates what reason itself teaches, you don't need a prophet to tell them they've done wrong. They already know.
Read the Ramban's three comments together—on 6:4, 6:6, and 6:13—and a unified theory emerges:
From 6:4: Humanity declined from perfection, but the Flood generation lived during the decline and had living memory and examples of what humans should be. They weren't ignorant primitives but degraded descendants who knew better.
From 6:6: God's response was grief, not merely anger. His deliberation was internal because this isn't a legal trial requiring due process—it's an assessment of whether humanity has become terminally broken, whether the צֶimage of God has been so corrupted that repair is impossible.
From 6:13: They needed no warning because chamas is—rationally accessible to any functioning moral agent. They had tradition, reason, observable consequences, and living examples. They had everything needed to know better.
The legal defense collapses. "We didn't know it was wrong" rings hollow when everyone deliberately calibrated their theft to stay below the prosecutable threshold. That proves knowledge of law. "No one told us" fails when the Ramban establishes that rational commandments don't require prophetic announcement. "We didn't have capacity" crumbles when we understand they were closer to Adam's perfection, not further from it.
After the covenant, we immediately get a test of whether post-Flood humanity has learned anything. Bereishit 9:20:
וַיָּחֶל נֹחַ אִישׁ הָאֲדָמָה וַיִּטַּע כָּרֶם
"Noah, a man of the earth, began and planted a vineyard."
Notice that word: וַיָּחֶל—"he began."
This is the third appearance of the root ח-ל-ל in early Genesis:
Bereishit 4:26 (Enosh): הוּחַל—began profaning God's name through idolatry
Bereishit 6:1 (pre-Flood): הֵחֵל—began multiplying, leading to exploitation
Bereishit 9:20 (Noah): וַיָּחֶל—began planting, leading to degradation
Rashi comments on 9:20:—"He began—he made himself profane (חֻלִּין), for he should have engaged first in different plantings." Noah had just received a divine covenant, the formal articulation of law, the mandate to rebuild civilization. He should have planted wheat for bread, olives for oil—sustenance for society. Instead: vineyard for wine, intoxication, exposure.
Each ח-ל-ל moment marks descent dressed as progress. What looks like "beginning" becomes "profanation."
וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי־אֶחָיו בַּחוּץ
"Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father's nakedness and told his two brothers outside." Bereishit 9:22:
Ham saw. Once again, the corrupted seeing that began with Eve continues. According to rabbinic interpretations, Ham either castrated Noah (violating the Noahide prohibition against emasculation) or sexually violated him (violating the prohibition against sexual immorality). Either act proves the laws were known and operative even immediately after their formal articulation. Ham knew what he did was wrong. He chose to do it anyway.
Ham sees vulnerability and doesn't cover it. He broadcasts instead of protecting. "Am I my father's keeper?" The question returns in a new generation. The Flood destroyed the world but didn't destroy the pathology. Cain's question, the Flood generation's answer—they persist in Ham.
Bereishit 9:25-27 records Noah's response—but notice whom he curses:
אָרוּר כְּנָעַן עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו
"Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers."
Not Ham, but Canaan. Why does the son bear the consequence of the father's sin? This question connects directly to our larger inquiry about capacity and culpability. What is inherited? Capacity? Guilt? Both? Neither?
The text doesn't curse Ham directly but acknowledges that consequences flow generationally—not as punishment for what you didn't do, but as the condition into which you're born. Canaan inherits not guilt but circumstance. Just as the Flood generation inherited capacity from Adam but chose degradation, Canaan inherits his father's legacy but must choose what to do with it. The curse describes outcome, not predetermination. Canaan becomes what his father began.
וַיִּקַּח שֵׁם וָיֶפֶת אֶת־הַשִּׂמְלָה וַיָּשִׂימוּ עַל־שְׁכֶם שְׁנֵיהֶם וַיֵּלְכוּ אֲחֹרַנִּית וַיְכַסּוּ אֵת עֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם וּפְנֵיהֶם אֲחֹרַנִּית וְעֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם לֹא רָאוּ
"Shem and Japheth took a garment and placed it on both their shoulders, and walked backward and covered their father's nakedness; their faces were turned away, and they did not see their father's nakedness." Bereishit 9:23:
This is the turning point in early Bereishit. Up until now, every fraternal relationship has been marked by failure. Cain kills Abel—fraternal murder, explicit rejection of brotherhood. The Flood generation—brothers fail to protect sisters, answering "No" to אֵי אָחִיךָ with their actions if not their words. Ham sees his father's vulnerability and broadcasts it, choosing ridicule over protection.
Shem and Japheth are different. For the first time in Bereishit, brothers actually function as brothers should. The question “where is your brother”? receives its first right answer—not articulated in words, but embodied in coordinated action.
Notice every detail of the verse. Nothing is wasted:
וַיִּקַּח שֵׁם וָיֶפֶת—they took, Shem and Japheth—they act together, immediate coordination
עַל־שְׁכֶם שְׁנֵיהֶם—on the shoulder of both of them—burden shared on both their shoulders, equal partnership
וַיֵּלְכוּ אֲחֹרַנִּית—and they walked backward—they walk backward, deliberate difficulty
וּפְנֵיהֶם אֲחֹרַנִּית—and their faces backward—faces turned away, refusal to see
וְעֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם לֹא רָאוּ—and their father's nakedness they did not see—they did not see, redemptive non-seeing
This is the culmination of the seeing-motif that has run through Bereishit from creation:
Creation: God sees (וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, and God saw) and declares good—seeing that generates blessing
Eve: Sees "good" (וַתֵּרֶא...כִּי טוֹב, and she saw...that it was good) in the forbidden—corrupted perception that sees appetite as wisdom
Flood generation: Sees "good" (וַיִּרְאוּ...כִּי טֹבֹת הֵנָּה, and they saw...that they were good) in beauty—exploitative seeing that turns person into object
Ham: Sees nakedness (וַיַּרְא חָם, and Ham saw)—violating seeing that broadcasts rather than protects
Shem/Japheth: Refuse to see (לֹא רָאוּ, they did not see)—redemptive non-seeing that honors dignity
They don't just cover their father. They refuse to look at what shouldn't be seen. This is moral sophistication, not prudishness. They understand that seeing itself can be violation when the other person is vulnerable. So they coordinate their retreat—walking backward, deliberately accepting difficulty, achieving together what neither could alone—to restore dignity without compromising it further.
Their backward walk embodies everything the essay has traced: reversal of exploitation's forward march, refusal to see what shouldn't be seen, difficulty accepted to protect another, temporal repair (moving into the past to fix what can be fixed), and rear guard action defending the vulnerable.
They learned from the beginning of the story. God covered Adam and Eve with leather garments (Bereishit 3:21) when He saw their shame. Now Shem and Japheth cover Noah when they encounter his. They imitate divine mercy rather than human exploitation. What God did for vulnerable humanity at the beginning, they do for their vulnerable father now. The pattern is restored: seeing vulnerability should produce covering, not broadcasting; protection, not exploitation; mercy, not mockery.
Parashat Kedoshim (Leviticus 19) articulates the Torah's ethical core. But centuries before it was written, Shem and Japheth fulfilled its principles through action. There seems to be a cluster of laws in Kedoshim which mirror the behavior—or misbehavior—in those early chapters of Bereishit.
Noah planted a vineyard. Kedoshim's laws include intricate vineyard ethics: don't harvest completely, leave—gleanings for the poor, establish social safety nets built into the economic system itself. Noah's vineyard becomes the testing ground: when vulnerability emerges in this setting, will his sons exploit it or protect it?
"Do not stand idly by your neighbor's blood" (Leviticus 19:16). Shem and Japheth act immediately when they hear their father is compromised. No hesitation, no debate about whose responsibility it is, no calculation of personal cost.
"Do not hate your brother in your heart" (Leviticus 19:17). They work in perfect coordination with no hint of rivalry, no jockeying for moral superiority. This stands in stark contrast to every prior fraternal relationship in Genesis.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" (Leviticus 19:18). They treat their father's dignity exactly as they would want their own treated in similar circumstances. This is the practical embodiment of Torah's central ethical principle, demonstrated before it was articulated.
"Before the aged you shall rise" (Leviticus 19:32). They honor their father's dignity even—especially—in his compromised state, when he has temporarily forfeited his own honor through drunkenness.
But there's a deeper principle at work here, one that connects to a later narrative and unlocks the mystery of a seemingly unrelated prohibition. Leviticus 19:19 forbids shatnez—mixing wool and linen in a garment. Why? What does fabric blend have to do with ethical living?
The Midrash provides the key. Cain brought an offering of flax. Abel brought sheep, whose wool would be used. Their offerings couldn't be harmonized—one was accepted, the other rejected, and the result was history's first murder. The mixture of their offerings was forbidden because it was violent. When brothers cannot rejoice in each other's success, when rivalry rather than partnership defines the relationship, mixing their contributions produces combustion rather than synthesis.
But the Kohen Gadol, Aaron, wears shatnez in his priestly garments. His special vestments deliberately combine wool and linen. Why is Aaron permitted—commanded, even—to wear what is elsewhere forbidden?
Because of Exodus 4:14. When God tells Moses he will lead Israel out of Egypt, Moses hesitates, protests, claims inadequacy. God's anger burns against him—but then Moses learns his brother Aaron will join him. The text says: “and he will rejoice in his heart." Aaron, the older brother passed over for leadership, rejoices when his younger brother is chosen. No resentment, no rivalry, no bitterness. Pure joy.
This is the transformation that makes shatnez sacred rather than forbidden. When brothers work together without rivalry, when each rejoices in the other's gifts and role, the mixture that killed Cain and Abel becomes the garment that enables Aaron to serve. Partnership-in-difference, not uniformity, creates holiness.
Shem and Japheth embody this before Aaron demonstrates it. The blessing in Bereishit 9:26-27 makes this explicit:
בָּרוּךְ ה' אֱלֹהֵי שֵׁם...יַפְתְּ אֱלֹהִים לְיֶפֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּן בְּאָהֳלֵי־שֵׁם
"Blessed is Hashem, God of Shem...May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in Shem's tents."
Notice the structure. Shem has spiritual legacy—God is identified with him specifically. Japheth has expansion—may God enlarge his territory, his influence, his reach. But they dwell together—Japheth in Shem's tents. Different gifts. Different roles. Different callings. Yet working together beautifully, burden shared on both of their shoulders, each contributing what the other cannot.
This is shatnez redeemed—difference harmonized in service of the sacred rather than erupting into violence. This is what makes Aaron's priesthood possible generations later. This is what Korach will reject when he demands uniformity: "The entire congregation is holy, all of them, and God is in their midst—why do you elevate yourselves?" (Numbers 16:3). Korach cannot accept that different roles and different gifts can coexist without rivalry. He sees hierarchy where there is partnership, competition where there is collaboration. His rebellion against Aaron is fundamentally a rejection of the Shem-Japheth model and a return to the Cain-Abel paradigm.
Shem and Japheth prove that brothers can be different, can have distinct roles and gifts, and still work together in perfect coordination for shared purpose. This is the tzitzit principle before tzitzitexists—the blue thread and white thread, distinct but woven together, creating something neither could achieve alone.
The very next narrative in Bereishit 11 provides the contrast that clarifies what Shem and Japheth achieved. The Tower generation pursues unity of a very different kind:
וַיְהִי כָל־הָאָרֶץ שָׂפָה אֶחָת וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים
"The whole earth had one language and uniform words" (Bereishit 11:1).
They achieve unity through conformity. One language, uniform words—everyone thinks alike, speaks alike, acts alike. This is false unity, enforced uniformity masquerading as cooperation. The Tower generation can work together only because difference has been eliminated. They have language but not conversation, cooperation but not relationship, collective action but not community.
Shem and Japheth represent the opposite. They are different—culturally, linguistically, in their gifts and callings. The blessing acknowledges and celebrates this difference. Yet they work together beautifully, respecting difference while achieving shared purpose. They don't need uniform language to coordinate their backward walk. They need only shared commitment to protecting their father's dignity.
This is true partnership: unity-in-diversity, not unity-through-conformity. The Tower generation's unity was sterile and threatening—so threatening that God Himself intervenes to disrupt it. Shem and Japheth's partnership was generative and blessed—so blessed that it becomes the model for how civilization should function. Brotherhood doesn't require sameness. It requires recognition that the other person's dignity matters as much as your own.
We began with a legal paradox: How can God justly punish the Flood generation for violating laws that hadn't yet been formally promulgated? The defense seemed compelling—nullum crimen sine lege, no crime without law. Due process demands explicit legislation, prophetic warning, formal charges. None were provided. Motion to dismiss.
But we traced the question through Bereishit and discovered we were asking the wrong question. The issue isn't "How can God punish without law?" The issue is "Are human beings morally competent?"
The progression revealed the answer:
Adam was created in the image of God—in God's image—conferring moral capacity, the power to distinguish right from wrong, the ability to choose. The tree of knowledge of good and bad gave him capacity for both good and bad/evil. Capacity for both. Yet the consistent pattern became choosing evil.
Cain inherited this capacity. God's warning was explicit: “YOU shall master it.” The emphatic you meant: "You specifically have the power. Don't pretend weakness." Cain knew. He had capacity. He refused to use it.
Enosh's generation marked when degradation accelerated—הוּחַל, the first "beginning" that became "profanation." From there humanity declined from the image of God to conentious people—from image-bearers to troublemakers who squandered what they inherited.
The Flood generation lived during this decline, which meant they had what later generations lost: tradition from those who knew Adam directly, living examples of bnie Eliohim still among them, observable correlation between moral decline and suffering, and memory of what humanity once was. The Targum Yonatan adds that the corrosive atmosphere became so pervasive that even victims internalized the degradation, losing sense of agency and dignity. Yet even this doesn't excuse—it compounds. They destroyed not just morality but the very conditions under which morality could be conceived.
The tradition explained how they knew:
The Rambam taught that Adam received six of the seven Noahide laws, and crucially,—"reason inclines toward them." These aren't arbitrary divine decrees requiring revelation; they're rational commandments accessible through human intellect. Tradition, reason, and Torah's general pattern all converge.
The Ramban revealed why no prophet was sent: because they needed no prophet. חָמָס is מִצְוָה מֻשְׂכֶּלֶת—a rational commandment, הַחֵטְא הַיָּדוּעַ וְהַמְפֻרְסָם—the known and obvious sin. They knew theft below the prosecutable threshold was wrong precisely because they knew there was a threshold. Their evasion proved their knowledge.
The legal defense collapsed. They knew. They had capacity. They chose deliberately otherwise.
But the narrative doesn't end with judgment. It ends with hope.
Shem and Japheth proved that humans can choose decency. They demonstrated that the question Where is your brother? can be answered rightly through coordinated action. They walked backward when forward march meant violation. They refused to see what shouldn't be seen. They shared burden on both their shoulders. They imitated God's original covering of Adam and Eve rather than Ham's exploitation of Noah.
They fulfilled Parashat Kedoshim before it was written. They embodied the Moses-Aaron dynamic before it was demonstrated—working without rivalry, rejoicing in each other's distinct gifts. They wore shatnez metaphorically—harmonizing difference in service of the sacred—centuries before Aaron would wear it literally as Kohen Gadol. They proved that partnership-in-diversity surpasses the Tower's unity-through-conformity.
For the first time in Bereishit, brotherhood functioned as it should. After Cain's murder of Abel, after the Flood generation's failure to protect their sisters, after Ham's mockery of his father—finally, brothers acted as brothers.
This is what we inherit. Both legacies.
From Adam through the Flood generation: the capacity (צֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים), the cautionary tale of its betrayal, the warning that having power doesn't guarantee using it rightly. We can choose evil despite capacity for good.
From Adam through Shem and Japheth: the proof that capacity can become achievement, that the question where is you brother can be answered with action, that degradation isn't destiny. We can choose good because we were created with that capacity.
But here's the uncomfortable truth: unfortunately, common courtesy is not always common. Common decency is not always common. God judged early humanity based on their capacity—and what they should have known. What is distasteful to you, don't do to others. That should be simple. Hillel taught it as the whole Torah; everything else is commentary.
And maybe this isn't an act of "judgment" at all. Perhaps this entire question needs to be reframed. The Judge—God, the true Judge—knows that the laws have not been formally taught. Yet the people should know, and if they don't, they are either legally guilty of malpractice as a species created in the image of God and should be punished—or they are not guilty for technical reasons but still need to be incarcerated, much like the murderer who is found not guilty by reason of insanity yet still poses mortal threat to others. They must be taken off the streets as well.
God needed to empty the streets and start again.
Nonetheless, even that needed to be taught and legislated. Because common expectations so often disappoint, and people fall short. They exaggerate their capacity for bad and ignore their ability to withstand temptation and do good. They claim they didn't know what reason itself teaches. They pretend they can't master what God explicitly said they could control. They calibrate their violations to stay just below the threshold while insisting they don't know where the threshold is.
We as a species have been doing that at least since Cain—and maybe even before.
Ham and Canaan behave like the people who were replaced. The same pathology, the same exploitation of vulnerability, the same refusal to protect rather than abuse. Yet Shem and Japheth give us hope for humanity. Simply by showing common decency to their father, simply by helping to cover his embarrassment, they prove that the capacity God invested in Adam hasn't been irretrievably lost. They walk backward not just to avoid seeing their father's embarrassment but with those steps they walked back to what God had in mind from the very beginning when He created us in His image.
[1] Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 56b:
The school of Menashe taught: The children of Noah were commanded concerning seven mitzvot: idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed, theft, eating a limb from a living animal, castration/emasculation, and prohibited mixtures. Rabbi Yehudah says: Adam the First was commanded only concerning idolatry alone, as it says 'And Hashem God commanded concerning the man.' Rabbi Yehudah ben Beteira says: Also concerning blasphemy. And some say: Also concerning establishing courts of justice (dinim).
תלמוד בבלי מסכת סנהדרין דף נו עמוד ב
דָּתָנָא דְּבֵי מְנַשֶּׁה: שֶׁבַע מִצְוֹת נִצְטַוּוּ בְּנֵי נֹחַ: עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְגִלּוּי עֲרָיוֹת, וּשְׁפִיכוּת דָּמִים, גֶּזֶל, וְאֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, סֵרוּס, וּכְלֵאִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר: אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן לֹא נִצְטַוָּה אֶלָּא עַל עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה בִּלְבַד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר וַיְצַו ה' אֱלֹהִים עַל הָאָדָם. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶּן בְּתִירָה אוֹמֵר: אַף עַל בִּרְכַּת הַשֵּׁם, וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים: אַף עַל הַדִּינִים.
[2] Targum Yonatan - Bereishit 6:1-3
כתר יונתן בראשית פרק ו פסוק א - ג (פרשת בראשית)
(א) וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵלּוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם לְהִתְרַבּוֹת עַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה וּבָנוֹת יָפוֹת נוֹלְדוּ לָהֶם:(ב) וְיִרְאוּ בְּנֵי הַגְּדוֹלִים אֶת בְּנוֹת הָאָדָם כִּי יָפוֹת הֵן וּמִתְאַפְּרוֹת וּמִיָּפוֹת שַׂעֲרוֹתֵיהֶן וּמְהַלְּכוֹת בְּגִילּוּי בָּשָׂר והִרהרו לִזְנוּת וְיִקְחוּ לָהֶן נָשִׁים מִכָּל שֶׁחָשְׁקוּ:(ג) וַיֹּאמֶר יְיָ בְּמַאֲמָרוֹ לֹא יָדוּנוּ כָּל דּוֹרוֹת רֵעִים שֶׁעֲתִידִים לָקוּם בְּסֵדֶר דִּינִים שֶׁל דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל לְאַבְּדוֹ וּלְהַכְרִיתוֹ מִתּוֹךְ הָעוֹלָם הֲלֹא נָתַתִּי רוּחַ קָדְשֵׁי בָּהֶם מִן בִּגְלַל אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּ מַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים וְהִנֵּה הֵרֵעוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם. הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לָהֶם אַרְכָּה מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים שָׁנִים מִן בִּגְלַל שֶׁיַּעֲשׂוּ תְּשׁוּבָה וְלֹא עָשׂוּ:
"And it came to pass when the sons of man began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and beautiful daughters were born to them. And the sons of the great ones saw the daughters of man that they were beautiful, and they adorned themselves and beautified their hair and walked with uncovered flesh, and they contemplated lewdness, and they took for themselves wives from all whom they desired. And Hashem said in His word: All the wicked generations that are destined to arise will not be judged according to the order of judgment of the generation of the Flood, to destroy them and to cut them off from the world. Did I not place My holy spirit within them so that they would do good deeds? And behold, they have corrupted their deeds. Behold, I have given them a reprieve of one hundred and twenty years so that they might repent, but they have not done so."
[3] This reading is based on the Ramban in chapter 6 cited below.
[4] See Rambam, Mishneh Torah, Hilchot Rotzeach U'Shmirat Nefesh (Laws of Murder and Preservation of Life), Chapter 7.
[5] It is worth noting that although this comment of Rashi is found in many printed editions, it was not found in early manuscripts of Rashi. See the textual comments online at AlHaTorah. However, the Midrash does include this verse (as well) to make this association—perhaps that is why it crept into the commentary of Rashi.
רש"י בראשית פרק ד פסוק כו (פרשת בראשית)
אז הוחל - א לקרא את שמות האדם ואת שמות העצבים בשמו של הקדוש ברוך הוא לעשותן עבודה זרה ולקרותן אלהות:
(לשון חולין) [א. כן בכ״י לייפציג 1, אוקספורד 165, מינכן 5, ליידן 1, אוקספורד 34, לונדון 26917, דפוסי רומא, שונצינו, סביונטה, והשוו שד״ל. בדפוסים מאוחרים נוסף כאן: ״לשון חולין״]
English Translation:
"Then began—to call the names of man and the names of idols by the name of the Holy One, Blessed be He, to make them objects of idolatry and to call them deities."
Textual Note:
[So in Leipzig MS 1, Oxford MS 165, Munich MS 5, Leiden MS 1, Oxford MS 34, London MS 26917, and the early printed editions of Rome, Soncino, and Sabbioneta. Compare Shadal. In later printed editions, the phrase "language of profanation" (leshon chulin) was added at the beginning.]
בראשית רבה כ"ג:ז
(ז) אָז הוּחַל (בראשית ד':כ"ו), אָמַר רַבִּי סִימוֹן בִּשְׁלשָׁה מְקוֹמוֹת נֶאֱמַר בַּלָּשׁוֹן הַזֶּה לְשׁוֹן מֶרֶד, אָז הוּחַל לִקְרֹא בְּשֵׁם ה', (בראשית ו':א'): וַיְהִי כִּי הֵחֵל הָאָדָם, (בראשית י':ח'): הוּא הֵחֵל לִהְיוֹת גִּבֹּר בָּאָרֶץ. אֲתִיבוּן וְהָכְתִיב (בראשית י"א:ו'): וְזֶה הַחִלָּם לַעֲשׂוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם קִיפַּח עַל רֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל נִמְרוֹד וְאָמַר זֶה הַמּוֹרְדָן עָלַי.
'Then began' (Bereishit 4:26). Rabbi Simon said: In three places this language is used as language of rebellion: 'Then began to call in the name of Hashem' (Bereishit 4:26); 'And it came to pass when mankind began' (Bereishit 6:1); and 'He began to be mighty in the earth' (Bereishit 10:8). They challenged him: But it is written (Bereishit 11:6), 'And this is their beginning to do'—[so the word doesn't always mean rebellion]! He said to them: This too refers to Nimrod, and God said, 'This one rebels against Me.'
[6] In his commentary to the Mishna Hullin 7:6, the Rambam taught that we follow law—including those found in the book of Bereishit—not due to the biblical text, but due to Moshe having received the command at Sinai.
פירוש המשנה לרמב"ם מסכת חולין פרק ז משנה ו
וְשִׂים לִבְּךָ לַכְּלָל הַגָּדוֹל הַזֶּה הַמּוּבָא בַּמִּשְׁנָה זוֹ וְהוּא אֲמָרָם מִסִּינַי נֶאֱסַר, וְהוּא, שֶׁאַתָּה צָרִיךְ לָדַעַת שֶׁכָּל מָה שֶׁאָנוּ נִזְהָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ אוֹ עוֹשִׂים אוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם אֵין אָנוּ עוֹשִׂים זֹאת אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי צַוֵּי ה' עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה, לֹא מִפְּנֵי שֶׂה' צִוָּה בְּכָךְ לַנְּבִיאִים שֶׁקְּדָמוּהוּ, דֻּגְמָא לְכָךְ, אֵין אָנוּ אוֹכְלִים אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי לָא מִפְּנֵי שֶׂה' אָסַר עַל בְּנֵי נֹחַ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׁמֹּשֶׁה אָסַר עָלֵינוּ אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי בְּמָה שֶׁנִּצְטַוָּה בְּסִינַי שֶׁיִּשָּׁאֵר אֵבֶר מִן הַחַי אָסוּר. וְכֵן אֵין אָנוּ מִלִּים בִּגְלַל שֶׁאַבְרָהָם מַל אֶת עַצְמוֹ וְאַנְשֵׁי בֵּיתוֹ, אֶלָּא מִפְּנֵי שֶׂה' צַוֵּנוּ עַל יְדֵי מֹשֶׁה לְהִמּוֹל כְּמוֹ שֶׁמָּל אַבְרָהָם עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְכֵן גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֵין אָנוּ נִמְשָׁכִים בּוֹ אַחֲרֵי אָסוּר יַעֲקֹב אָבִינוּ אֶלָּא צַוֵּי מֹשֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ, הֲלֹא תִּרְאֶה אֲמָרָם שֵׁשׁ מֵאוֹת וּשְׁלֹשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מִצְוֹת נֶאֶמְרוּ לוֹ לְמֹשֶׁה בְּסִינַי, וְכָל אֵלֶּה מִכְּלַל הַמִּצְוֹת.
Pay attention to this great principle that appears in this Mishna, namely their statement 'from Sinai it was forbidden.' This means that you must know that everything we refrain from or do today, we do not do it except because of God's command through Moshe—not because God commanded earlier prophets to do so. For example: We do not eat a limb from a living animal, not because God forbade the children of Noah from eating a limb from a living animal, but rather because Moshe forbade us a limb from a living animal in what he was commanded at Sinai, that a limb from a living animal should remain forbidden. Similarly, we do not circumcise because Avraham circumcised himself and the men of his household, but rather because God commanded us through Moshe to circumcise as Avraham, peace be upon him, circumcised. And likewise with the sciatic nerve—we do not follow the prohibition of our forefather Yaakov, but rather the command of Moshe our teacher. See how they said that 613 commandments were told to Moshe at Sinai, and all of these are included among the commandments."
[7] I did not find this phrase in the Midrash Rabbah we currently have.
No comments:
Post a Comment