The Corruption of the Generation of the Flood - Parashat Noach

The Corruption of the Generation of the Flood

Rabbi Ari Kahn

Parashat Noach opens with a world divided: a corrupt society and one righteous, or perhaps innocent man, tasked with an impossible mission—survival. But before we can understand the divine judgment that followed, we must first ask: What was the nature of this corruption? And perhaps more unsettling: If we witnessed such moral collapse in our own time, would we even recognize it as it unfolds before our eyes?

This question is not academic. Some answer with confidence—yes, of course, we would see it. Others are less certain, wondering whether any generation possesses the clarity to perceive its own descent into darkness.

More often than not, we learn the story of the Flood in childhood, often in sanitized form. The full horrors—as we shall see—are often replaced by lessons easier to teach and easier for the audience, often children, to digest.

But the Torah's introduction of Noah at the beginning of the Flood narrative is not actually our first encounter with him. We met Noah earlier, at his birth, when his father Lemech made a startling prophecy:

בראשית פרק ה פסוק כט (פרשת בראשית)

וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֶת־שְׁמ֛וֹ נֹ֖חַ לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֠֞ה יְנַחֲמֵ֤נוּ מִֽמַּעֲשֵׂ֙נוּ֙ וּמֵעִצְּב֣וֹן יָדֵ֔ינוּ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵֽרְרָ֖הּ הֽ':

"And he called his name Noah, saying: This one will comfort us from our work and from the toil of our hands, from the ground which the Lord has cursed" [Bereishit 5:29].

A moment of hope—the promise of comfort in a world grown weary and painful. But the reader is left mystified: Why might this child's birth herald relief? What makes him different?

The Torah offers no immediate answer. Instead, it plunges us into the narrative of corruption:

בראשית פרק ו פסוק א - ב (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:

 

(1) And it came to pass, when mankind began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, (2) that the sons of the powerful men saw the daughters of man, that they were fair; and they took themselves wives from whomever they chose.[Bereishit 6:1,2].

Powerful men take women. Violence fills the earth. God sees the wickedness and regrets creating humanity. Only then—after this grim catalog—does Scripture finally tell us:

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ח (פרשת בראשית)

וְנֹ֕חַ מָ֥צָא חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֽ': 

"But Noah found favor in the eyes of the Lord" [Bereishit 6:8].

And now, at last, comes the formal introduction:

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ט (פרשת נח)

        נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ:

"Noah was a righteous man, perfect in his generations; Noah walked with God" [Bereishit 6:9].

This second introduction answers the mystery left hanging since his birth. Here was Lemech's hope realized: one man who found chen (favor), who walked with God while the world around him descended into chaos. But what does tzaddik mean here? Not what we might call the Hasidic sense—not mystical elevation or saintly perfection. Rather, it's a legal term, a forensic verdict: innocent. In biblical language, a tzaddik is someone declared not guilty. By pronouncing Noah innocent, Scripture implicitly declares everyone else guilty.

Consider Abraham pleading for Sodom, seeking "fifty tzaddikim." He wasn't looking for fifty rebbes or fifty mystics—he sought fifty innocent people, invoking the language of the courtroom:

בראשית פרק יח פסוק כה (פרשת וירא)

חָלִ֨לָה לְּךָ֜ מֵעֲשֹׂ֣ת׀ כַּדָּבָ֣ר הַזֶּ֗ה לְהָמִ֤ית צַדִּיק֙ עִם־רָשָׁ֔ע וְהָיָ֥ה כַצַּדִּ֖יק כָּרָשָׁ֑ע חָלִ֣לָה לָּ֔ךְ הֲשֹׁפֵט֙ כָּל־הָאָ֔רֶץ לֹ֥א יַעֲשֶׂ֖ה מִשְׁפָּֽט:

 

Far be it from You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous should be as the wicked; far be it from You! Shall not the Judge of all the earth do justice? [Bereishit 18:25].

Noah's righteousness, similarly, means he did what was right—or perhaps more precisely, he refrained from doing what was wrong. Of his sons, Scripture remains silent about their innocence or guilt.

Now the text confronts us with two words demanding interpretation: hashchata (corruption) and chamas (violence).

בראשית פרק ו פסוק יא - יב (פרשת נח)

(יא) וַתִּשָּׁחֵ֥ת הָאָ֖רֶץ לִפְנֵ֣י הָֽאֱלֹהִ֑ים וַתִּמָּלֵ֥א הָאָ֖רֶץ חָמָֽס: (יב) וַיַּ֧רְא אֱלֹהִ֛ים אֶת־הָאָ֖רֶץ וְהִנֵּ֣ה נִשְׁחָ֑תָה כִּֽי־הִשְׁחִ֧ית כָּל־בָּשָׂ֛ר אֶת־דַּרְכּ֖וֹ עַל־ הָאָֽרֶץ: ס

The earth became corrupt before God, and the earth was filled with chamas. All flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth. [Bereishit 6:11,12].

God declares to Noah:

בראשית פרק ו פסוק יג (פרשת נח)

(יג) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר אֱלֹהִ֜ים לְנֹ֗חַ קֵ֤ץ כָּל־בָּשָׂר֙ בָּ֣א לְפָנַ֔י כִּֽי־מָלְאָ֥ה הָאָ֛רֶץ חָמָ֖ס מִפְּנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהִנְנִ֥י מַשְׁחִיתָ֖ם אֶת־הָאָֽרֶץ:

And the Almighty said to Noah: The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence because of them, and behold, I am about to destroy them with the earth. [Bereishit 6:13].

At first glance, one might simply translate vatishachet as "became corrupt" and move on. But that would be insufficient—imprecise. These two words—hashchata and chamas—are the keys that unlock everything. They are the terms that will receive poetic justice, for God will later use this very same language to describe His response. To understand what happened, we must first define these terms precisely, then trace them backward to their origins.

Rashi explains:

רש"י בראשית פרק ו פסוק יא (פרשת נח)

 

(יא) וַתִּשָּׁחֵת - לְשׁוֹן עֶרְוָה וַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, כְּמוֹ (דְּבָרִים ד טז) פֶּן תַּשְׁחִיתוּן, כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר וְגוֹ': וַתִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ חָמָס - גֶּזֶל:

Rashi on Genesis Chapter 6 Verse 11 (Parashat Noach)

"And it was corrupted" - This refers to sexual immorality and idolatry, as in (Deuteronomy 4:16) "lest you become corrupt," for all flesh had corrupted, etc. "And the earth was filled with violence" - Robbery.

Rashi directs us to Devarim, where the meaning crystallizes:

דברים פרק ד פסוק טז (פרשת ואתחנן)

פֶּ֨ן־תַּשְׁחִת֔וּן וַעֲשִׂיתֶ֥ם לָכֶ֛ם פֶּ֖סֶל תְּמוּנַ֣ת כָּל־סָ֑מֶל תַּבְנִ֥ית זָכָ֖ר א֥וֹ נְקֵבָֽה: 

Lest you act corruptly and make for yourselves a graven image, the likeness of any figure, the form of male or female. [Devarim 4:16]

This establishes that hashchata encompasses idolatry. But Rashi goes further: "Vatishachet—the language of sexual immorality and idolatry, as it is written, 'Lest you become corrupt...' 'For all flesh had corrupted'—even animals, beasts, and birds mated with those not of their species" [Rashi, Bereishit 6:11-12].

The Midrash Aggadah amplifies this, offering multiple readings:

מדרש אגדה (בובר) בראשית פרק ו פסוק יא (פרשת נח)

[יא] ותשחת הארץ לפני האלהים. שהיו עובדי ע"ז, כמו שנאמר פן תשחיתון ועשיתם [לכם] פסל (דברים ד טז): ותמלא הארץ חמס. שהיו גזלנים, שנאמר גבולות ישיגו עדר גזלו וירע (איוב כד ב): ד"א חמס. שהיו שופכים דמים, שנאמר מחמס בני יהודה אשר שפכו דם נקי (יואל ד יט): ד"א גילוי עריות, שנאמר ואשר אכלו שאר עמי ועורם מעליהם הפשיטו (מיכה ג ג): 

"They were idolaters, as it is stated, 'Lest you become corrupt and make for yourselves a graven image' [Devarim 4:16].Another word used in the narrative: chamas, leads us to identify more sins: They were thieves, as it is stated, 'They encroach upon boundaries, they steal flocks and pasture them' [Iyov 24:2].  Another interpretation: chamas means they were shedders of blood, as it is stated, 'מֵחֲמַס against the children of Judah, who shed innocent blood in their land' [Yoel 4:19]. Another interpretation: sexual immorality" [Midrash Aggadah, Bereishit 6:11].

The Talmud takes this exegesis and elevates it to legal principle: "As it is written, 'The earth was corrupt before God,' and it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: Wherever hashchata is stated, it refers only to sexual immorality and idolatry" [Sanhedrin 57a].

So now we see the full picture: idolatry, sexual transgression, theft, murder. The Netziv (commenting on the verse in Devarim 32:5) makes an astonishing connection, linking hashchata to the destruction of the First Temple: "He said concerning the destruction of the First Temple, 'shichet lo'—they corrupted 'to Him,' as it were, and wherever hashchata is stated, it refers to idolatry and sexual immorality" [Netziv, Devarim 32:5].

דברים פרק לב פסוק ה (פרשת האזינו)

שִׁחֵ֥ת ל֛וֹ לֹ֖א בָּנָ֣יו מוּמָ֑ם דּ֥וֹר עִקֵּ֖שׁ וּפְתַלְתֹּֽל:

העמק דבר דברים פרק לב פסוק ה (פרשת האזינו)

שחת לו וגו'. שני פסוקים הבאים מיוסדים על הקדמה אחת, שבשירה זו מבואר שני חורבנות והגאולות, היינו עד מקרא ל"ה לי נקם ושלם חרבן בית ראשון, וזה המקרא הוא הגאולה מגלות בבל כאשר יבואר שם, ואמר אי אלהימו הוא החורבן השני, ראו עתה וגו' היא הגאולה העתידה ב"ב. והנה ידוע דחרבן ראשון הי' בשביל ע"ז וג"ע וש"ד שהיה להכעיס להקב"ה, וחרבן בית שני חרב מפני שנאת חנם, וביארנו בס' במדבר ל"ה ל"ד שהיו עוסקים בתורה ועבודת ה', אך היה רוב שפיכות דמים לשם שמים, שהיו דנים את העובר על איזה דבר שהוא צדוקי ומסור ומורידין וכדומה, ובזה נעשה הנהגתם מקולקלת מאד והכל לש"ש. וכאן הקדים להצדיק את פעולת ה', ואמר על חרבן בית ראשון שחת לו. שהמה שחתו לו כביכול, וכ"מ שנאמר השחתה הוא ע"ז ג"ע, וביאר המקרא לא, לא יעלה על הדעת שהקב"ה יהא נפעל חלילה מעון הדור, [ומש"ה נקוד האי לא בדגוש, ללמד על הרשעה, כמש"כ על ויאמרו לא כי ברחוב נלין בראשית י"ט ב' ע"ש, וכן כאן הפי' לא בדגוש, לא תחשבו כך כי שחת לו, ח"ו כזאת], אלא בניו מומם. שבניו נעשו בעלי מומים שהם חלק אלוה ממעל, וכשהשחיתו נעשו בעלי מומים כלשון המקרא כי משחתם בהם מום בם, ובזה הרי הם כמו שחתו לו. ועל דור חרבן בית שני אמר דור עקש ופתלתול. שהוא הולך בעקשות ותועה מדרך השכל, ומפותל הרבה מעורב ומסובך מעשים טובים עם מעשים רעים, וקשה להפריד הטוב מן הרע באשר הרע נעשו לשם שמים:

Deuteronomy Chapter 32 Verse 5 (Parashat Ha'azinu)

Destruction is His? No, His children's blemish—a generation twisted and crooked.

Ha'amek Davar on Deuteronomy Chapter 32 Verse 5 (Parashat Ha'azinu)

"Destruction is His, etc." The following two verses are based on one premise: that in this song, two destructions and redemptions are explained. That is, up to verse 35, "Vengeance is Mine and recompense" refers to the First Temple destruction, and this verse is the redemption from the Babylonian exile, as will be explained there. And "Where is their god" refers to the Second destruction, and "See now, etc." is the future redemption. Now it is known that the First destruction was because of idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed that were done to anger the Holy One, blessed be He. And the Second Temple was destroyed because of baseless hatred. We explained in Numbers 35:34 that they were engaged in Torah and divine service, but there was much bloodshed for the sake of Heaven, as they would judge anyone who transgressed something as a heretic and informer to be executed and the like, and through this, their conduct became very corrupted, yet all was for the sake of Heaven. Here [the verse] prefaces to justify God's action, and it says regarding the First Temple destruction "shichet lo" (destruction is His). That they corrupted for Him, as it were. And everywhere that "hashchata" (corruption) is stated, it refers to idolatry and sexual immorality. The verse explains "lo" (no)—it should not enter one's mind that the Holy One, blessed be He, would be affected, Heaven forbid, by the sin of the generation. [Therefore, this "lo" is marked with a dagesh to teach about wickedness, as we wrote on "And they said, No, we will lodge in the street" (Genesis 19:2), see there. So too here the interpretation is "lo" with dagesh: do not think such a thing that "destruction is His," Heaven forbid]. Rather, "His children's blemish"—His children became blemished ones, for they are "a portion of God from above," and when they became corrupted, they became blemished, in the language of Scripture, "for their corruption is in them, there is a blemish in them." And through this, they "corrupted for Him," as it were. Regarding the generation of the Second Temple destruction, it says "a generation twisted and crooked"—that goes in crookedness and errs from the path of reason, and is very convoluted, mixed, and entangled—good deeds with evil deeds, and it is difficult to separate the good from the evil since the evil was done for the sake of Heaven.

 

This is illuminating. The First Temple fell because of three cardinal sins: avodah zarah (idolatry), gilui arayot (sexual immorality), and sh'fichut damim (murder). The scattered midrashic traditions suddenly coalesce into a pattern—the Flood generation committed the very same transgressions that would later destroy the Temple.

But Rashi offers another crucial piece: "Chamas—theft. Their sentence was sealed only because of theft" [Rashi, Bereishit 6:13]. Onkelos translates chamas as chatufin (robbery); Targum Yerushalmi renders it chomsein v'gozalin (violence and robbery).

The Jerusalem Talmud paints a vivid picture of their particular brand of theft: 

תלמוד ירושלמי מסכת בבא מציעא פרק ד הלכה ב

אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא כְּתִיב כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס מִפְּנֵיהֶם. וּמָה הָיָה חֲמָסָן הֲוָה בַּר נָשׁ נָפִיק טָעִין קוּפָּה מְלֵאָה תּוּרְמוּסִין וְהָיוּ מִתְכַּוְּנִין וְנוֹטְלִין פָּחוֹת מִשְּׁוֵה פְרוּטָה דָּבָר שֶׁאֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא בְּדַיָּנִין.

"Rabbi Acha said: It is written, 'For the earth is filled with chamas.' What was their chamas? A person would go out carrying a basket full of lupines, and they would scheme—each taking less than a perutah's worth, something for which one cannot seek redress in court" [Yerushalmi, Bava Metzia 4:2]. 

This was systematic theft, yet individually beneath the threshold where courts could intervene. A society that mastered collective criminality while evading technical culpability.

Now, this makes for an excellent pedagogical lesson—teaching children not to take even small items. And the contemporary application is effective: You might see someone at the shuk who refuses to taste even a single grape without permission, lest such an action contribute to bringing another flood! 

But with respect, this interpretation suffers from extreme disproportion. Can we really believe that civilization was destroyed over technical violations beneath judicial thresholds? This assumes a functioning justice system—judges, laws, decency, a sophisticated society operating within legal frameworks. That doesn't seem to reflect the actual situation at all. What appears to have transpired involves something far more raw: power and might, where the strong simply took whatever they desired.

This was systematic theft, yet individually beneath the threshold where courts could intervene—a society that mastered collective criminality while evading technical culpability.

This makes for an excellent pedagogical lesson, teaching children not to take even small items. The contemporary application is straightforward enough: meticulousness in avoiding even minor theft, understood as a response to the generation of the flood.

But with all due respect, this interpretation suffers from extreme disproportion. Can we really believe that civilization was destroyed over technical violations beneath judicial thresholds? This assumes a functioning justice system—judges, laws, decency, a sophisticated society operating within legal frameworks. That doesn't seem to reflect the actual situation at all. What appears to have transpired involves something far more raw and primal: power and might, where the strong simply took whatever they desired.

Ibn Ezra provides the crucial correction: "Chamas—robbery and oppression, and also taking women by force" [Ibn Ezra, Bereishit 6:11]. When Scripture says the world was filled with chamas and everything became corrupt, Ibn Ezra returns us to the chapter's opening—to powerful men seizing girls and women. This transcends the image of people entering stores to sample produce.

Chizkuni unifies all three cardinal sins under the single term chamas: "Chamas—sexual immorality, as it is stated, 'My kin and my flesh.' Chamas—idolatry, as it is stated, 'Violence, and they return to anger Me.' Chamas—for the sake of bloodshed, as it is stated, 'Because of the violence against the children of Judah, who shed innocent blood in their land'" [Chizkuni, Bereishit 6:11]. All three transgressions converge in this one word.

The linguistic thread connecting these catastrophes becomes increasingly clear. Drawing a correlation between the Golden Calf and the First Temple's destruction requires little effort. The chronology alone is suggestive: Moses ascended Mount Sinai around the sixth or seventh of Sivan; forty days later comes the seventeenth of Tammuz—the date of his descent and the fashioning of the calf. Centuries later, that same date would mark the breach of Jerusalem's walls before the Temple's destruction.

The First Temple fell because of three sins. Looking back at the Golden Calf, we find not merely idolatry. Murder occurred—Hur was killed trying to prevent the apostasy. Sexual outrage took place as well. The binding link? The term l'hashchit, hashchata.

Rabbi Israel Isserlein, best known for his seminal work Terumat HaDeshen—the authoritative compendium of halakhic rulings on Ashkenazic practice—offers crucial insight here. The idolatry is obvious: they made a pesel (graven image) [Beurei Maharai on Terumat HaDeshen, Shemot 32:6]. Hur's murder is well-established in tradition. But the third element—sexual transgression—requires excavation from the phrase:

שמות פרק לב פסוק ו (פרשת כי תשא)

וַיַּשְׁכִּ֙ימוּ֙ מִֽמָּחֳרָ֔ת וַיַּעֲל֣וּ עֹלֹ֔ת וַיַּגִּ֖שׁוּ שְׁלָמִ֑ים וַיֵּ֤שֶׁב הָעָם֙ לֶֽאֱכֹ֣ל וְשָׁת֔וֹ וַיָּקֻ֖מוּ לְצַחֵֽק:

"And they rose up to make merry" [Shemot 32:6].

The Terumat HaDeshen demonstrates that l'tzachek carries unmistakable sexual connotations. Even Rashi acknowledges multiple interpretations: "There is in this language bloodshed, as it is written, יָקוּמוּ נָא הַנְּעָרִים וִישַׂחֲקוּ לְפָנֵינוּ 'Let the young men arise and make sport before us' [Shmuel II 2:14], and here too Hur was killed".[1] But the commentary continues: "The plain meaning of the verse points more toward sexual immorality than bloodshed, for the language of metzachek we find in many places referring to intercourse—coming through laughter, as with Yitzchak [Bereishit 26:8].

Here's what matters: tzachok is ambiguous. It could mean this, could mean that—we need to bring proofs, examine other contexts. But hashchata  - -literally corruption? That word doesn't leave room for doubt. Scripture uses hashchata, and we know immediately: idolatry, sexual immorality, and bloodshed. The word itself establishes what happened.

We find similar language when describing something ominous about Yishmael:

בראשית פרק כא פסוק ט (פרשת וירא)

וַתֵּ֨רֶא שָׂרָ֜ה אֶֽת־בֶּן־הָגָ֧ר הַמִּצְרִ֛ית אֲשֶׁר־יָלְדָ֥ה לְאַבְרָהָ֖ם מְצַחֵֽק:

"Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, metzachek" [Bereishit 21:9].

Predictably, the midrashim offer multiple interpretations—that he sought to kill, that sexual sins occurred, that idolatry took place. They employ the same exegetical technique precisely because the word tzachok admits these possibilities. The question demonstrates not only memory of tradition but understanding of rabbinic hermeneutics itself. Chazal apply identical methodology across contexts. Why? Because tzachok carries these connotations wherever it appears. Yet the stronger indicator remains l'hashchit—that term provides more definitive evidence. While one must work through tzachok's ambiguity, hashchata offers clarity.

This reveals the remarkable consistency of rabbinic interpretation across biblical narratives. The same sins—idolatry, sexual immorality, violence—recur throughout history, identified through consistent linguistic markers. The Flood generation, the Golden Calf apostasy, the First Temple's destruction, even interpersonal conflicts like Sarah and Yishmael—all share identical moral taxonomy.

What have we gained? Recognition that hashchit, hashchata—employed multiple times to describe the circumstances precipitating the Flood—creates correlation and connection, linking what transpired at the Flood with the Temple's destruction and the Golden Calf incident. The term, to which we may not have been sufficiently attentive in casual reading, carries enormous exegetical weight. Reading the Flood narrative superficially, one might simply conclude: "Everything is bad, everyone is corrupt." But such superficiality evades the essential question: What does corruption actually mean?

Yet everything discussed thus far has ignored the most substantial piece of evidence. We must return to the chapter's beginning, where the narrative's true introduction lies. This introduction is often ignored because it is found at the end of last week's (extremely rich) parasha, and the temptation is to start the portion of Noach with "These are the generations of Noah" [Bereishit 6:9]. But the real story begins earlier:

בראשית פרק ו פסוק א (פרשת בראשית)

(א) וַֽיְהִי֙ כִּֽי־הֵחֵ֣ל הָֽאָדָ֔ם לָרֹ֖ב עַל־פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וּבָנ֖וֹת יֻלְּד֥וּ לָהֶֽם:

"When humanity began to multiply upon the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them" [Bereishit 6:1].

This verse appears utterly unremarkable. When people became numerous, daughters were born, approximately fifty percent of births, as expected. What in the world does this tell us? Why relate something so obvious unless conveying meaning beyond surface observation?

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ב (פרשת בראשית)

(ב) וַיִּרְא֤וּ בְנֵי־הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶת־בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֥י טֹבֹ֖ת הֵ֑נָּה…:

"The benei ha'Elohim saw the daughters of man, that they were good (ki tovot henah)" [Bereishit 6:2].

Understanding who constitutes the benei ha'Elohim presents a considerable challenge. First, crucial clarification: these are not benei Elokim in the theological sense—"sons of God"—which would create severe theological problems. When God is called Elokim, the best translation is "the Almighty," for El means power. But here the text uses Elohim (without the kaf), which refers to judges, powers, or authorities. Therefore, benei ha'Elohim means "sons of the powerful"—powerful men engaging in profoundly inappropriate behavior.

And if we imagined, as stated above, that there was a legal system—remember that the Torah at times calls judges "Elohim" because of their power, including power over life and death [see Shemot 21:6, 22:8]—this would suggest the sons of the judiciary felt they could do whatever they wished. With the power of their fathers, they had a get-out-of-jail card—or even better, a stay-out-of-jail card. The young women were victimized legally within that corrupt society.

"The benei ha'Elohim saw the daughters of man ki tovot henah"—how should tovot be translated? Not identical to when God observes creation and declares ki tov (good). Here, tovot henah suggests "attractive." The girls and women were "good" or "fine" in the eyes of the lecherous men, and they were taken.

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ב (פרשת בראשית)

(ב) … וַיִּקְח֤וּ לָהֶם֙ נָשִׁ֔ים מִכֹּ֖ל אֲשֶׁ֥ר בָּחָֽרוּ:

"They took for themselves wives, from all that they chose" [Bereishit 6:2].

What should one make of this verse? Some might consider it romantic—really nice. Taken on a date, taken for a walk or stroll in the park. Others—hopefully—recognize it as decidedly unromantic. The verb vayikchu (they took) signals not courtship but appropriation, not partnership but possession. God's response follows immediately:

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ג (פרשת בראשית)

(ג) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ה֗' לֹֽא־יָד֨וֹן רוּחִ֤י בָֽאָדָם֙ לְעֹלָ֔ם בְּשַׁגַּ֖ם ה֣וּא בָשָׂ֑ר וְהָי֣וּ יָמָ֔יו מֵאָ֥ה וְעֶשְׂרִ֖ים שָׁנָֽה:

"God said, 'My spirit shall not contend with man forever, since he too is flesh; his days shall be one hundred twenty years'" [Bereishit 6:3].

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ד (פרשת בראשית)

(ד) הַנְּפִלִ֞ים הָי֣וּ בָאָרֶץ֘ בַּיָּמִ֣ים הָהֵם֒ וְגַ֣ם אַֽחֲרֵי־כֵ֗ן אֲשֶׁ֨ר יָבֹ֜אוּ בְּנֵ֤י הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־ בְּנ֣וֹת הָֽאָדָ֔ם וְיָלְד֖וּ לָהֶ֑ם הֵ֧מָּה הַגִּבֹּרִ֛ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר מֵעוֹלָ֖ם אַנְשֵׁ֥י הַשֵּֽׁם: 

"The Nefilim were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the benei ha'Elohim would come to the daughters of man and they would bear to them; they are the mighty ones who were of old, men of renown" [Bereishit 6:4].

If benei ha'Elohim presented interpretive difficulties, Nefilim compounds them.

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ה (פרשת בראשית)

(ה) וַיַּ֣רְא ה֔' כִּ֥י רַבָּ֛ה רָעַ֥ת הָאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וְכָל־יֵ֙צֶר֙ מַחְשְׁבֹ֣ת לִבּ֔וֹ רַ֥ק רַ֖ע כָּל־הַיּֽוֹם:

"God 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" [Bereishit 6:5].

Man's heart perpetrates evil continuously.

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ו (פרשת בראשית)

(ו) וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם ה֔' כִּֽי־עָשָׂ֥ה אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם בָּאָ֑רֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּ֖ב אֶל־לִבּֽוֹ:

"God reconsidered (vayinachem) having made man on the earth, and He was pained to His heart (vayitatzev el libo)" [Bereishit 6:6].

How can God have second thoughts? This appears to be creator's regret, divine buyer's remorse. The phrase vayitatzev el libo presents interpretive challenges. Though the conventional reading suggests straightforwardness, closer examination reveals complexity. Who experiences the etzev? The question proves less simple than initially appears. Return to the preceding verse: Man's heart remains wholly obsessed with perpetrating evil. Then follows: vayitatzev el libo.

That's an interesting turn of phrase—not as simple as assumed. First observation: God experiences etzev because of libo—because of how man employs his heart. The connection between consecutive verses proves nearly impossible to ignore, staring directly from the page. God created humanity with free will, and now God expresses disappointment that humanity persistently makes wrong decisions.

The deployment of etzev itself proves interesting. We encountered this root already in Torah, multiple times. It features in the punishments of both Eve and Adam:

בראשית פרק ג פסוק טז (פרשת בראשית)

(טז) אֶֽל־הָאִשָּׁ֣ה אָמַ֗ר הַרְבָּ֤ה אַרְבֶּה֙ עִצְּבוֹנֵ֣ךְ וְהֵֽרֹנֵ֔ךְ בְּעֶ֖צֶב תֵּֽלְדִ֣י בָנִ֑ים …

"Be'etzev you shall bear children" [Bereishit 3:16]; 

Regarding working the ground, etzev appears as well [Bereishit 3:17]. The term is employed as a consequence of sin. Where did the entire story begin? In the Garden of Eden. Eden and etzev constitute opposites. What was designed as a place of pleasure (Eden) becomes a place of etzev (pain, toil).

Yet “He was pained to His/his heart” admits alternative readings. The Bekhor Shor interprets: "Vayitatzev el libo—to the heart of man, that it is evil" [Bekhor Shor, Bereishit 6:6]. The Chizkuni offers multiple possibilities: "Another interpretation: vayitatzev el libo—there is no etzivah except mourning, as it is stated, 'For the king was grieved (ne'etzav) for his son' [Shmuel II 19:3]—meaning he mourned for his world. Another interpretation: vayitatzev el libo—man was ne'etzav (grievous) to the heart of the Holy One, like something despised and repulsive in the eyes of the Holy One" [Chizkuni, Bereishit 6:6].

The Da'at Zekeinim elaborates: "Vayitatzev el libo—Rabbi Acha bar Rabbi Chanina said: When the Blessed One saw His world destroyed, He sat in mourning, as it were. Another interpretation: it refers to man, that He did not mourn except over man's heart, for He placed leaven in the dough. He said, 'I am the One who gave it, I am the One who made it, and I knew that the inclination of man's heart is evil'" [Da'at Zekeinim, Bereishit 6:6].

The poetic dimension emerges following the Flood. What changed? Not humanity—we remain the same flawed creatures. But something shifts in the divine response, captured in language that reads almost like verse

בראשית פרק ח פסוק כא (פרשת נח)

(כא) וַיָּ֣רַח ה֘' אֶת־רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר ה֜' אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ לֹֽא־אֹ֠סִף לְקַלֵּ֨ל ע֤וֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּעֲב֣וּר הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֛וֹד לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־כָּל־חַ֖י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִֽׂיתִי:

"God smelled the pleasing aroma (rei'ach hanicho'ach), and God said to His heart, 'I will not again curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again strike down every living thing as I have done'" [Bereishit 8:21].

Ki yetzer lev ha'adam ra mi'ne'urav—the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Nothing changed. Humanity remains exactly as corrupt. Yet God pledges: never again. Not reform—forbearance. Not improvement— middat erech apayim (slowness to anger) and Rachamim.

Yet equally striking is the other term: וַיִּנָּחֶם (vayinachem). Look closely at the letters: נֹחַ(Noah/Noach) lies hidden within וַיִּנָּחֶם (vayinachem)—the נ-ח letters of Noah concealed within the divine response. "וַיִּנָּחֶם ה'" (Vayinachem Hashem): embedded in God's reconsideration is נֹחַ (Noah), someone who does right—or at minimum, refrains from doing wrong.

This is no imaginative fancy. The pattern repeats:

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ז (פרשת בראשית)

(ז) וַיֹּ֣אמֶר ה֗' אֶמְחֶ֨ה אֶת־הָאָדָ֤ם אֲשֶׁר־בָּרָ֙אתִי֙ מֵעַל֙ פְּנֵ֣י הָֽאֲדָמָ֔ה מֵֽאָדָם֙ עַד־בְּהֵמָ֔ה עַד־רֶ֖מֶשׂ וְעַד־ע֣וֹף הַשָּׁמָ֑יִם כִּ֥י נִחַ֖מְתִּי כִּ֥י עֲשִׂיתִֽם

"God said, 'I will blot out (emcheh) man whom I created from upon the face of the earth—from man to beast, to creeping thing, to bird of the heavens—for I reconsidered (nichamti) that I made them'" [Bereishit 6:7].

בראשית פרק ו פסוק ח (פרשת בראשית)

 (ח) וְנֹ֕חַ מָ֥צָא חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֵ֥י הֽ': 

"But Noah found favor (chen) in the eyes of God" [Bereishit 6:8].

Again, the term appears: nichamti. The wordplay deepens: chen (favor) is Noah inverted. The entire section chronicles God lamenting the world's state, the world's corruption—corruption rooted in man created with choice-making capacity. God laments the choices man has made.

Rashi's comment proves foundational for understanding divine reconsideration: "Vayitatzev—man to the heart of the Omnipresent; it arose in the thought of the Omnipresent to cause Him pain. This is Targum Onkelos. Another interpretation: Vayinachem—the thought of the Omnipresent transformed from the attribute of mercy (middat harachamim) to the attribute of judgment (middat hadin). It arose in thought before Him what to do with man whom He made on earth. So too, every language of nichum (reconsideration) in Scripture is the language of taking counsel about what to do" [Rashi, Bereishit 6:6].

רש"י בראשית פרק ו פסוק ו (פרשת בראשית)  

דָּבָר אַחֵר וַיִּנָּחֶם, נֶהֶפְכָה מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ שֶׁל מָקוֹם מִמִּדַּת רַחֲמִים לְמִדַּת הַדִּין, עָלָה בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לְפָנָיו מַה לַּעֲשׂוֹת בָּאָדָם שֶׁעָשָׂה בָּאָרֶץ, וְכֵן כָּל לְשׁוֹן נִיחוּם שֶׁבַּמִּקְרָא לְשׁוֹן נִמְלָךְ מַה לַּעֲשׂוֹת (בְּמִדְבַּר כג יט) וּבֶן אָדָם וְיִתְנֶחָם, (דְּבָרִים לב לו) וְעַל עֲבָדָיו יִתְנֶחָם, (שְׁמוֹת לב יד) וַיִּנָּחֶם ה' עַל הָרָעָה, (שְׁמוּאֵל א' טו יא) נִחַמְתִּי כִּי הִמְלַכְתִּי, כֻּלָּם לְשׁוֹן מַחֲשָׁבָה אַחֶרֶת הֵם:

Another interpretation: "And He reconsidered"—the Omnipresent's thought shifted from the attribute of mercy to the attribute of judgment. It arose in thought before Him what to do with mankind that He had made on the earth. Similarly, every expression of "nicham" (reconsideration) in Scripture is an expression of deliberating what to do: (Numbers 23:19) "or a son of man that He should reconsider"; (Deuteronomy 32:36) "and concerning His servants He will reconsider"; (Exodus 32:14) "And God reconsidered concerning the evil"; (1 Samuel 15:11) "I have reconsidered that I made him king"—all of them are expressions of reconsidering/thinking another thought. Rashi on Bereishit Chapter 6 Verse 6 

Yet consider the paradox: Rashi notes in his commentary to the very first verse of the Torah, that God—employing His normative approach—created humanity merging compassion (Elokim) with the Tetragrammaton (mercy). 

רש"י בראשית פרק א פסוק א (פרשת בראשית)

בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים - וְלֹא אָמַר בָּרָא ה', שֶׁבַּתְּחִלָּה עָלָה בְּמַחֲשָׁבָה לִבְרָאתוֹ בְּמִדַּת הַדִּין, רָאָה שֶׁאֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּם, הִקְדִּים מִדַּת רַחֲמִים וְשִׁתְּפָהּ לְמִדַּת הַדִּין, הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב (לְהַלָּן ב ד) בְּיוֹם עֲשׂוֹת ה' אֱלֹהִים אֶרֶץ וְשָׁמָיִם:

"God created"—And it does not say "Hashem created," for initially it arose in thought to create it with the attribute of judgment. He saw that the world could not endure, so He preceded it with the attribute of mercy and joined it with the attribute of judgment. This is what is written (below 2:4): "On the day that Hashem God made earth and heaven." Rashi on Bereishit Chapter 1 Verse 1 

Now, when humanity has victimized one another, true compassion requires that judgment be deployed. Yes, that formulation was deliberate: compassion for the victims demands justice upon the perpetrators. Divine mercy and divine judgment converge and are constituted in a manner perceived by man as pure judgment.

This interpretation—that nichum signifies not emotional regret but deliberative reconsideration, a shift from mercy to judgment—transforms our understanding. God does not "regret" in human terms but rather engages in judicial reassessment, determining an appropriate response to human corruption.

This pattern of divine nichum—deliberative reconsideration balancing mercy and justice—appears from the very beginning. When Noah receives his name, the term reappears:

בראשית פרק ה פסוק כט (פרשת בראשית)

וַיִּקְרָ֧א אֶת־שְׁמ֛וֹ נֹ֖חַ לֵאמֹ֑ר זֶ֠֞ה יְנַחֲמֵ֤נוּ מִֽמַּעֲשֵׂ֙נוּ֙ וּמֵעִצְּב֣וֹן יָדֵ֔ינוּ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר אֵֽרְרָ֖הּ הֽ':

"He called his name Noah (נֹחַ), saying, 'This one will comfort us (יְנַחֲמֵנוּ - yenachamenu) from our work and from the toil (מֵעִצְּבוֹן - me'itzavon) of our hands, from the ground which the Lord has cursed'" [Bereishit 5:29].

The word manifests three times in rapid succession: at Noah's naming (יְנַחֲמֵנוּ - 5:29), at God's initial reconsideration (וַיִּנָּחֶם - 6:6), and at God's verdict (נִחַמְתִּי - 6:7) cannot be coincidental—Scripture's language converges with purpose

Similarly, with the word for destruction, the concept emerges clearly: Man performs hashchata; God will enact hashchata. Poetic justice whereby the world itself becomes mashchit. Consequences attach inexorably to behavior—these are "natural" consequences, though "natural" proves imprecise terminology. Not an autonomous nature but nature in divine service, executing judgment. At the narrative's conclusion, God declares cessation of such responses because "this is the way that man is"—a statement belonging to a larger reflection on what truly transformed between pre-Flood and post-Flood worlds.

Having established sufficient groundwork—now that we understand the linguistic keys—we must turn our attention back to Chapter Four, verse nineteen, long before the Flood story is introduced. This is the backstory, the world that would eventually provoke divine judgment. This passage follows the story of Kayin and Hevel at the chapter's opening. The Torah tells the genealogical line of Kayin because that is the only line at this point. Hevel is dead, and Shet (Seth) has not been born. The text proceeds with standard formulaic progression: so-and-so begat, begat, begat—years listed, descendants enumerated.

Then something shifts. An outlier emerges—an outlier specifically in providing excessive information. Until this point, the narrative maintained strict genealogical economy: this person begat, begat, begat, moving down the line. Whenever additional information suddenly appears, we must pause and ask: Why does Scripture relate this? Ramban addresses precisely this question, commenting that there must exist a compelling reason for such detail. Otherwise, the narrative makes no sense. Either something profoundly good is being conveyed—or something profoundly evil [Ramban, Bereishit 4:22].

בראשית פרק ד (פרשת בראשית)

(יט) וַיִּֽקַּֽח־ל֥וֹ לֶ֖מֶךְ שְׁתֵּ֣י נָשִׁ֑ים שֵׁ֤ם הָֽאַחַת֙ עָדָ֔ה וְשֵׁ֥ם הַשֵּׁנִ֖ית צִלָּֽה: 

"Lemech took two wives; the name of one was Adah, and the name of the second was Tzillah" [Bereishit 4:19].

The question confronting the reader is deceptively simple: Is this good or bad? The answer may depend on perspective—whether you identify with Lemech, Tzillah, or Adah. Different people hold different attitudes toward that question. Yet asking whether this is good or bad proves unavoidable.

The Midrash unveils the scandal concealed within this genealogy: 

בראשית רבה (וילנא) פרשה כג סימן ב (פרשת בראשית)

שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֵׁם הָאַחַת עָדָה וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית צִלָּה, אָמַר רַבִּי עֲזַרְיָה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן כָּךְ הָיוּ אַנְשֵׁי דוֹר הַמַּבּוּל עוֹשִׂין הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן לוֹקֵחַ לוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, אַחַת לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה וְאַחַת לְתַשְׁמִישׁ, זוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לִפְרִיָּה וּרְבִיָּה הָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת כְּאִלּוּ אַלְמָנָה בְּחַיֶּיהָ (נ"א בְּחַיֵּי בַּעְלָהּ) וְזוֹ שֶׁהָיְתָה לְתַשְׁמִישׁ הָיָה מַשְׁקֶה כּוֹס שֶׁל עִקָּרִים שֶׁלֹּא תֵלֵד, וְהָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת אֶצְלוֹ מְקֻשֶּׁטֶת כְּזוֹנָה, הֲה"ד (אִיּוֹב כד) רוֹעֶה עֲקָרָה לֹא תֵלֵד וְאַלְמָנָה לֹא יֵיטִיב, תֵּדַע לְךָ שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁהֲרֵי הַבָּרוּר שֶׁבָּהֶן הָיָה לֶמֶךְ וְלָקַח שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים, הֲה"ד וַיִּקַּח לוֹ לֶמֶךְ שְׁתֵּי נָשִׁים שֵׁם הָאַחַת עָדָה דַּעֲדָה מִינֵּהּ, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִית צִלָּה, שֶׁהָיְתָה יוֹשֶׁבֶת בְּצִלּוֹ.

"Rabbi Azariah said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah bar Simon: Such was the practice of the generation of the Flood—one would take two wives, one for procreation and one for sexual relations. The one for procreation would sit like a widow in her husband's lifetime, and the one for sexual relations would be given a sterilizing potion so she would not bear children, and she would sit beside him, adorned like a prostitute. This is what is written, 'He oppresses the barren woman who does not bear, and does not do good to the widow' [Iyov 24:21]. Know that this was so, for the most distinguished among them was Lemech, and he took two wives" [Bereishit Rabbah 23:2].

This behavior constitutes the Flood generation's precursor. We should have known this from the beginning. The Midrash declares it outright.

Rashi adopts this interpretation:

רש"י בראשית פרק ד פסוק יט (פרשת בראשית)

שתי נשים - כך היה דרכן של דור המבול, אחת לפריה ורביה ואחת לתשמיש, זו שהיא לתשמיש משקה כוס של עקרין כדי שתעקר ומקושטת ככלה ומאכילה מעדנים, וחברתה נזופה ואבלה כאלמנה, וזהו שפירש איוב (איוב כד כא) רועה עקרה לא תלד ואלמנה לא ייטיב, כמו שמפורש באגדת חלק:

עדה - היא של פריה ורביה, ועל שם שמגונה עליו ומוסרת מאצלו. עדה תרגום של סורה:

צלה - היא של תשמיש על שם שיושבת תמיד בצלו, דברי אגדה הם בבראשית רבה (כג ב):

"Two wives—such was the practice of the generation of the Flood: one for procreation and one for sexual relations. The one for sexual relations would be given a sterilizing potion so she would become barren, and she would be adorned like a bride and fed delicacies, while her companion would be neglected and mournful like a widow. This is what Job explained, 'He oppresses the barren woman who does not bear, and does not do good to the widow.' Adah—she was for procreation, named because she was repulsive (ne'da'ah) to him and removed from him. Tzillah—she was for sexual relations, named because she always sat in his shadow (b'tzilo)" [Rashi, Bereishit 4:19].

This system reduced women to functional categories—instruments of utility rather than partners created as עֵזֶר כְּנֶגְדּוֹ (ezer kenegdo, helpmate). Contemporary society exhibits analogous patterns. The familiar dynamic: marry young, produce children, then marry someone younger. One wife serves reproductive function; another provides status and youth. Lemech's two-wife system finds its modern parallel in sequential monogamy—the practical wife followed by the trophy wife.

Lemech declines to wait. He implements both arrangements concurrently. He possesses his wife who bears children, and simultaneously maintains a second wife. Realize why this proves misogynistic: his wives exist solely for utility. They are not ezer k'negdo—not partners. The earlier question about romance finds its answer here. Where did non-romantic behavior begin? It starts with Lemech. He divides his needs, acquiring a wife for each. When later generations "took all kinds of women," of course, they required multiple wives—not for multiple needs, but because women existed to serve needs. The crucial element involves force. That's precisely Ibn Ezra's observation: kidnapping, seizing,and  powerful men doing whatever they wished.

Yes, if only powerful men ceased such behavior—behavior that traces directly back to Lemech.[2]

Radak offers yet another perspective, focusing on polygamy's introduction: "Lemech took two wives—it appears that earlier generations did not take two wives, and he began to take two wives. Therefore, they would quarrel and be rivals (tzarot) to one another, and he was compelled to rebuke them and frighten them that he would kill them if they did not keep quiet" [Radak, Bereishit 4:19]. The institution of polygamy introduced tzarot—rivalry—into the domestic sphere, fracturing the unity that marriage was designed to create. Even if one rejects the functional bifurcation interpretation, polygamy itself introduces structural conflict undermining partnership.

This seems a far cry from that declaration—made by either Adam or God:

בראשית פרק ב פסוק כד (פרשת בראשית)

עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד:

"Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and cling to his wife and be of one flesh" [Bereishit 2:24]. 

That beautiful description doesn't sound like an advocate for polygamy.

The Da'at Zekeinim raises a textual difficulty: "It is difficult, for it is written afterward, 'Tzillah also bore.' One can answer that this is why it says 'also'—meaning even Tzillah, who was chosen for sexual relations, bore, and the sterilizing potion did not help her" [Da'at Zekeinim, Bereishit 4:19].

Someone might ask: If two wives served different purposes, how did the second conceive? Well—explanations aside—first, birth control doesn't always work. Second, just because one decides to take a wife for pleasure doesn't mean the wife agrees with that arrangement. She retains her maternal instincts; she still desires children. If she was chosen for her beauty, every reason exists to believe Na'amah also possessed attractive genes. Remember, the powerful men "saw the daughters of man ki tovot henah"—they were attractive.

The narrative continues beyond the wives to enumerate their offspring with unusual specificity:

בראשית פרק ד (פרשת בראשית)

(כ) וַתֵּ֥לֶד עָדָ֖ה אֶת־יָבָ֑ל ה֣וּא הָיָ֔ה אֲבִ֕י יֹשֵׁ֥ב אֹ֖הֶל וּמִקְנֶֽה: 

"Adah bore Yaval; he was the father of those who dwell in tents and have livestock" [Bereishit 4:20].

Later, when Scripture describes Yakov as yoshev ohalim (a dweller in tents), commentaries will reference this verse, explaining what tent-dwelling signifies: shepherding—wandering with flocks wherever grazing leads, erecting temporary shelters along the way, unconstrained by boundaries.

Notice the detail demanding attention: this belongs to Kayin's line. Why? Because Hevel is dead. What this individual, Yaval, does is precisely live Hevel's life. Look at the Hebrew names: יָבָל (Yaval) and הֶבֶל (Hevel) differ by only one letter—both share the ב (bet) and ל (lamed). The linguistic echo reinforces the connection. Whatever you want to say, psychologically—fixing, tikkun—it's right there. He comes from Kayin's line yet lives Hevel's vocation. The very name suggests the attempt to restore what was destroyed.

בראשית פרק ד (פרשת בראשית)

(כא) וְשֵׁ֥ם אָחִ֖יו יוּבָ֑ל ה֣וּא הָיָ֔ה אֲבִ֕י כָּל־תֹּפֵ֥שׂ כִּנּ֖וֹר וְעוּגָֽב:

"His brother's name was Yuval; he was the father of all who grasp lyre and flute" [Bereishit 4:21].

The names must have created considerable confusion—Yaval and Yuval. He becomes the first musician. How does one surpass even a shepherd as a bohemian? One becomes a musician.

בראשית פרק ד (פרשת בראשית)

(כב) וְצִלָּ֣ה גַם־הִ֗וא יָֽלְדָה֙ אֶת־תּ֣וּבַל קַ֔יִן לֹטֵ֕שׁ כָּל־חֹרֵ֥שׁ נְחֹ֖שֶׁת …: 

 

"Tzillah also bore Tuval-Kayin, sharpener of every tool of copper and iron" [Bereishit 4:22].

As much as one speaks about Kayin and Hevel's continuation, look at Lemech's three sons: יָבָל(Yaval), יוּבָל (Yuval), and תּוּבַל קַיִן (Tuval-Kayin). All three names echo the names of the first two sons born to Adam. הֶבֶל (Hevel)—sharing the ב (bet) and ל (lamed). And Tuval-Kayin literally carries Kayin's name.

These children were clearly named to memorialize both the murdered and the murderer. יָבָל(Yaval) becomes the father of shepherds—living Hevel's vocation. יוּבָל (Yuval), fathers of musicians—the contemplative life Hevel might have led. Then stands תּוּבַל קַיִן (Tuval-Kayin). Guess which industry he entered? Arms manufacturing.

One brother lives Hevel's life; another perfects Kayin's trajectory in a far more sophisticated fashion. He doesn't even engage with what Kayin did. Kayin was a farmer. The land lies cursed—why bother working it? But Kayin became a murderer. Here emerges someone manufacturing weapons—not killing directly, but enabling killing systematically.

בראשית פרק ד (פרשת בראשית)

(כב) … וַֽאֲח֥וֹת תּֽוּבַל־קַ֖יִן נַֽעֲמָֽה: 

"And the sister of Tuval-Kayin was Na'amah" [Bereishit 4:22].

Another element warrants noting: not many women have been named to this point, yet three appear in rapid succession.

בראשית פרק ד פסוק כג - כד (פרשת בראשית)

(כג) וַיֹּ֨אמֶר לֶ֜מֶךְ לְנָשָׁ֗יו עָדָ֤ה וְצִלָּה֙ שְׁמַ֣עַן קוֹלִ֔י נְשֵׁ֣י לֶ֔מֶךְ הַאְזֵ֖נָּה אִמְרָתִ֑י כִּ֣י אִ֤ישׁ הָרַ֙גְתִּי֙ לְפִצְעִ֔י וְיֶ֖לֶד לְחַבֻּרָתִ֖י: (כד) כִּ֥י שִׁבְעָתַ֖יִם יֻקַּם־קָ֑יִן וְלֶ֖מֶךְ שִׁבְעִ֥ים וְשִׁבְעָֽה:

"Lemech said to his wives, Adah and Tzillah, hear my voice; wives of Lemech, give ear to my speech: For I have slain a man for my wound, and a child for my bruise. If Kayin is avenged sevenfold, then Lemech seventy-sevenfold" [Bereishit 4:23-24].

Regardless of individual word meanings, this constitutes the first example of poetry—something clearly poetic.

Chizkuni explains why Scripture enumerates Kayin's descendants' crafts: "Because the earth was already cursed on account of their ancestor, and they caused further cursing. They abandoned his craft, which was working the earth, and took up other crafts" [Chizkuni, Bereishit 4:22]. Yet these technologies themselves became instruments of corruption.

Rashi notes that Tuval-Kayin "sharpened all the tools of murder for killers"—literally, "Tuval—he sharpened Kayin's craft; Tuval—the language of tavlin (spicing/improving); he refined and perfected Kayin's craft to make weapons for murderers" [Rashi, Bereishit 4:22]. He became Kayin 2.0. If you're going to commit murder, avoid primitive methods. Manufacture weapons. Execute properly. When the Flood generation exhibits murder—part of hashchata's definition, alongside Temple destruction and the Golden Calf (gilui arayot, avodah zarah, sh'fichut damim)—it originates here, in this narrative.

The Midrash records that Yuval's musical instruments served idolatrous purposes [Bereishit Rabbah 23:3]. Technology—metallurgy, music—divorced from a moral framework, becomes an instrument for evil.

Considering Lemech and his offspring reveals complex dynamics. One son chooses to live Hevel's life—profoundly interesting given the lessons and messages he must have absorbed. Another brother bears a strangely familiar name, becomes a musician. Yet observing the musician emerging from Lemech—who himself composes poetry—the content proves telling.

Lemech is a character demanding attention. He speaks of murder. He composes poetry about killing—arguably the first to compose poetry about violence. Misogyny completes the portrait—just to round things out.

The reality? Music and hedonism both originate with Lemech. Lemech embodies the pleasure seeker—that's what he is. He desires not partnership but satisfaction of various needs. That's why he requires multiple women, each satisfying different needs. This pleasure-seeking Lemech spawns a hedonistic society. That's what they perceive as life's epitome.

Those manufacturing weapons can force their will, controlling others through armaments. Those in music production—music itself is wonderful, but the question becomes its application. Here we find music—drums pounded, employed for idolatry, not for divine service.

Extracting from this section all the negative behavior culminating in the Flood requires minimal effort. The patterns prove unmistakable. When asked where all this originated, the answer emerges: with Lemech and his wives. 

But the naming of Tuval-Kayin’s sister Na'amah demands explanation, for her inclusion in the genealogical record proves highly unusual. Rashi identifies her immediately: "Na'amah—she was Noah's wife" [Rashi, Bereishit 4:22]. If so, Kayin's line continues through her into all humanity—Noah may descend from Shet, but his wife comes from Kayin's side.

Yet the Midrash offers competing readings: some see her as righteous, her name reflecting pleasant deeds; others view her darkly—playing drums for idolatry, seducing even angels. "She was exceedingly beautiful, to the point that the ministering angels erred concerning her" [Midrash HaGadol, Bereishit 4:22]. The benei ha'Elohim who saw women as ki tovot henah—Na'amah may have been among them. 

Tradition preserves contradictory memories of Na'amah—either as Noah's righteous wife emerging from Kayin's corrupted line, or as embodying that corruption itself. Perhaps the ambiguity reflects a deeper truth: redemption comes not from genealogical purity but from individual righteousness, tzaddik amid corruption.[3]

Whether Noah's wife or another woman entirely, Na'amah represents the world's profound corruption. And this brings us to Noah himself.

The Alshich provides devastating critique: "Noah walked with God—meaning all his righteousness was only from himself to God in his house and within his walls, and he did not go out to help his people or teach them knowledge of God like Abraham" [Alshich, Parashat Noach]. 

Noah's righteousness, however genuine, remained insular—focused on personal piety rather than communal transformation. Abraham would later demonstrate the alternative: interceding for Sodom, arguing with God, attempting to save even the wicked. Noah built an ark; Abraham built moral arguments. Noah saved his family; Abraham saved strangers.

Yet within the Flood narrative itself lies a counterpoint to the corruption that preceded it. Against the backdrop of Lemech's two-wife system—reducing women to functional categories, fracturing the unity of ezer kenegdo—God issues a divine corrective through architectural instruction.

וּמִכָּל הָחַי מִכָּל בָּשָׂר שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל תָּבִיא אֶל הַתֵּבָה לְהַחֲיֹת אִתָּךְ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה יִהְיוּ

"From all living things, from all flesh, two of each you shall bring into the ark to keep alive with you; male and female they shall be" [Bereishit 6:19].

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch penetrates the theological depth: "It states, 'male and female they shall be,' not 'male and female you shall bring'—the character of male and female shall be pure, not corrupted. The purity of species is emphasized through 'ish v'ishto'—the rescued pairs were clean from all corruption, their relations judged as those of human beings" [Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, Bereishit 6:19].

What proves fascinating? The insistence when Noah and his children board the ark. God doesn't say what Lemech would have required. Lemech, had he been allowed to board, would have faced an impossible choice—he would have needed to choose which wife to bring. The term employed—ish v'ishto (man and his wife)—applies even to animals. Yes, later Scripture mentions seven of certain species—this is acknowledged—but the emphasis here demands attention.

We commenced with the Flood, retreated to the chapter's beginning, and posed one question: Where did all this come from? We encountered a narrative unusually developed—more detail than Scripture typically provides—suggesting deliberate purpose. Lemech's household receives extraordinary attention. And if Rashi is correct, his daughter Na'amah becomes Noah's wife, merging Kayin's line with Shet's in all post-Flood humanity.

Examining that narrative revealed profoundly disturbing behavior. We explored how that behavior caused devolution, corroded morality, created a society of pleasure-seekers employing force, weapons, music, idolatrous practices—whatever satisfied powerful individuals fulfilling particular needs. All kinds of terrible things emerge from this behavior.

When framed thus—when the question becomes "where did this originate?"—the answer emerges clearly: with Lemech and his couple of wives. Reading the verse again, God's words resound loud and clear: "No, no, no. Two by two. Two by two. That alone interests Me here."

Any questions about exceptions or objections—none of that matters. God's words emerge with unmistakable clarity. This concerns creating a just society, following the divine word, not abusing others, not exploiting, returning even to the Yerushalmi, not even taking a grape without payment. A just society functions solely thus. Otherwise, society itself becomes completely corrupt.

The Flood generation's corruption emerges not as a sudden catastrophe but as a systematic moral architecture constructed over generations. Lemech laid the foundation: instrumentalizing women, reducing ezer kenegdo—the partner created in divine image—to a service provider. His descendants industrialized the structure: Yaval perhaps attempting tikkun yet perpetuating displacement. Yuval weaponized beauty through music, serving idolatry. Tuval-Kayin perfected murder through metallurgical innovation.

The linguistic thread binding these narratives—hashchata—identifies systematic corruption: the three cardinal transgressions (idolatry, sexual immorality, bloodshed) that destroyed the Flood generation, catalyzed the Golden Calf, and precipitated the First Temple's destruction. The same word unites these catastrophes across centuries.

Chamas—initially understood through the pedagogical lens of petty theft—reveals itself through Ibn Ezra's insight as violent appropriation, particularly of women, by powerful men. The benei ha'Elohim "taking" women mikol asher bacharu—whomever they chose—constitutes chamas in its rawest form.

God's response—demanding ish v'ishto, two by two, even for animals—reconstitutes the foundational covenant. Relationships require integrity, boundaries demand respect, and species maintain purity. The rescued pairs must be "male and female, they shall be"—their essential character must remain uncorrupted.

The ark preserves not merely biological diversity but moral architecture: partnership over utility, covenant over appropriation, justice over power, two-by-two over Lemech's bifurcated arrangement.

The question persists: Would we recognize our own devolution? Society's treatment of its women—whether as partners or utilities—serves as a reliable indicator of overall moral health. When women become categories rather than persons, when power determines access rather than covenant, when technology serves domination rather than flourishing—these symptoms indicate advanced corruption. The patterns prove disturbingly recognizable: technology divorced from morality, pleasure-seeking divorced from partnership, power determining access rather than covenant.

Yet the Flood narrative concludes not with destruction but with covenant's reestablishment.

בראשית פרק ח פסוק כא (פרשת נח)

(כא) וַיָּ֣רַח ה֘' אֶת־רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר ה֜' אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ לֹֽא־אֹ֠סִף לְקַלֵּ֨ל ע֤וֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּעֲב֣וּר הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֛וֹד לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־כָּל־חַ֖י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִֽׂיתִי:

"God smelled the pleasing aroma, and God said to His heart, 'I will not again curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from his youth'" [Bereishit 8:21].

What changed? Not human nature—explicitly acknowledged as persistently evil. Rather, divine response evolved, accepting human limitation while maintaining moral expectation.

Noah—barely righteous, walking with God only within his walls rather than bringing merit to others—becomes the foundation precisely through that inadequacy. His limited righteousness proves sufficient because integrity, however imperfect, combined with divine grace, enables survival and restoration.

The Flood generation's corruption emerges not as a sudden catastrophe but as a systematic moral architecture constructed over generations. The ark endures as a perpetual reminder: justice alone sustains society; corruption invites inevitable judgment; yet divine mercy offers restoration through covenant. Two by two—male and female, ish v'ishto, partners not utilities, covenant not appropriation, boundaries respected. In this formula resides the architecture not of collapse but of sustainable civilization under divine covenant.

---

[1]  Commentary of the Maharai (Rabbi Israel Isserlein) on Exodus 32:6 (Parashat Ki Tisa):"(6) [לצחק, to revel]. Rashi notes that this expression also includes bloodshed, as it is written (2 Samuel 2:14) 'Let the young men arise and compete...'—and here, too, Hur was killed. It requires explanation: why did Rashi elaborate, bringing the proof from Hur, and not rely on the language of 'to revel' as he does concerning sexual immorality, where there is no explicit verse stating a sin of sexual immorality elsewhere? The answer is that the plain meaning of the verse hints more strongly at sexual immorality than at bloodshed. The word 'מצחק' is found in several places referring to intercourse, since it comes through jesting, as in 'Isaac was sporting with Rebekah his wife' (Genesis 26:8). And as it is translated—'kumaz' (Numbers 31:50) which is a type of women's ornament, meaning an item that brings about laughter (Shabbat 64a). Yet we do not know if it refers to permitted or forbidden sexual intercourse, and therefore a proof is brought from 'to mock me' (Genesis 39:17). But bloodshed is not implied by the term itself, for, on the contrary, people do not 'revel' in bloodshed, so a proof is necessary that Hur was killed. Alternatively, the proof of sexual immorality here comes from another verse (verse 7), 'your nation has become corrupt,' as we hold (Sanhedrin 57a) that wherever 'corruption' is mentioned, it refers only to sexual immorality and idolatry. Nevertheless, if not for 'to revel,' the verse would refer specifically to idolatry, as the context pertains to worshiping idols."

 

באורי מהרא"י שמות פרק לב פסוק ו (פרשת כי תשא)

(ו) [לצחק]. רש"י ויש בלשון הזה שפיכת דמים כדכתיב (שמואל ב ב יד) יקומו נא הנערים וגו' ואף כאן נהרג חור. צריך ליישב קצת אמאי האריך רש"י להביא ראיה מחור ולא סמך על לשון לצחק כדסמיך עליו לעניין גלוי עריות דלא אשכחן מפורש במקום אחר שחטאו בגילוי עריות.

ויש לומר דפשטיה דקרא משמע טפי אגילוי עריות מאשפיכת דמים. דלשון מצחק אשכחן בכמה דוכתי דקאי אתשמיש, לפי שהוא בא על ידי צחוק כמו ביצחק (בראשית כו ח) מצחק את רבקה אשתו. וכדמתרגמינן וכומז (הלן לה כב) ומחוך, דבר המביא לידי גיחוך (שבת סד א) אבל לא ידעינן אי בהיתר אי באיסור ערוה, וקא מייתי ראיה מלצחק בי (בראשית לט יז). אבל שפיכת דמים מן הלשון עצמו לא משתמע, דאדרבה אין מצחקין לשפיכות דם, וצריך להביא ראיה דנהרג חור.

אי נמי גילוי עריות מוכח הכא מקרא אחרינא (פסוק ז) כי שחת עמך, וכדקיימא לן (סנהדרין נז א) בכל מקום שנאמר השחתה אינו אלא דבר ערוה ועבודה זרה, ומכל מקום אי לאו לצחק, לא הוי מוקמינן קרא אלא אעניינא גופיה דבעבודה זרה קראי קיימי.

[2] Yet fairness requires acknowledging alternative traditions. The Vilna Gaon offers a radically different reading: "He took both for procreation and bearing many children—not like the wicked of his generation, for whom the wife was rejected and desolate. The name of one was Adah—she was first in stature with him because she was for procreation, not like the wicked of his generation, for whom she was rejected and alone. The name of the second was Tzillah, who sat always in his shadow, and he brought the first one closer because her soul was aggrieved, and therefore she merited and gave birth before Tzillah" [Aderet Eliyahu, Bereishit 4:19]. According to the Gaon, Lemech represents a positive exception—treating both wives well, unlike his wicked contemporaries. This interpretation, while preserving Lemech's righteousness, implicitly confirms that the broader generation practiced the reprehensible bifurcation.

[3] For more on Na’amah, see my book, Echoes of Eden on Bereishit, where an entire chapter is devoted to her.