The Portion of Noah (5761)

With God's help, eve of the holy Sabbath, the portion of Noah, 5761

A Righteous Man 'in His Generations': Absolute and Relative Judgment

'Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his generations.' The Talmud in Sanhedrin 108a brings (see also Rashi

here): Rabbi Yohanan said: 'in his generations'—but not in other generations. Resh Lakish said: 'in his generations'—

and all the more so in other generations. Rabbi Hanina said: To what may Rabbi Yohanan's view be compared? To a barrel of

wine that was placed in a cellar of vinegar. In its place its fragrance spreads; not in its place, its fragrance does not spread.

Rabbi Oshaya said: To what may Resh Lakish's view be compared? To a flask of balsam that was placed

in a place of filth. In its place its fragrance spreads, and all the more so in a place of perfume.

At first glance, the Sages disagreed over whether Noah was absolutely righteous, or righteous relative to the wicked of his generation. This dispute

appears to be a dispute concerning Noah's character: whether he was like a 'flask of balsam'

(=choice perfume), or not. On the other hand, the opposite image, a 'barrel of wine,' is not a negative image

but a neutral one. That is, it seems that Rabbi Yohanan is making a claim about the mode of evaluating righteous people, and

people in general, rather than about Noah's specific character. If so, it is plausible that the term 'flask of

balsam' likewise does not serve here to define Noah's character as that of a truly righteous man; rather, this is an example

used by Rabbi Hanina in order to illustrate the mode of evaluation of people proposed by Resh Lakish. And perhaps

the mixed terminology indicates that we must adopt both modes of evaluation simultaneously.

If we were to understand the dispute as dealing with the question of Noah's character, then we would have to formulate it

thus: Noah was certainly righteous relative to the wicked people of his generation, but the question is whether he would

have persisted in this even had he lived among a generation of righteous people, or whether he would have remained at this level, which was

intrinsic to him.

By contrast, if we understand this as a dispute concerning the mode of evaluating people,

we should formulate it thus: it is known that Noah is righteous relative to his generation. It is not known what the situation would have been had he

lived in another generation, of righteous people. But this is only a theoretical question, for had he lived

in that generation, perhaps he would have had other traits and influences, and it would not at all have been the same Noah with whom we are

dealing. Therefore the only relevant question is how to evaluate him as he is now: is

he a 'relative' righteous man, whose absolute standing is not especially high, and only relative to the people of his generation is he

righteous? Or perhaps, since he exerts himself and even relative to such a generation he reached

a reasonable level, he should be valued more highly than one who succeeds in a better generation.

Put differently: is the measure of righteousness an objective state, or

a relative one? In other words: is the criterion the level itself, or the effort invested by the person in order to reach this level.

Questions like these trouble us in many situations: when a person behaves in a certain way, should

we judge him on the basis of his behavior, or on the basis of the society in which he lives and its influence upon him.

There are extreme situations in which Jewish law rules that even the wicked should be judged leniently, for example

when they were 'captured among the Gentiles,' and are altogether unfamiliar with or unaware of standards of morality and justice

as defined by the Torah.

When we examine human behavior in our own time as compared with earlier generations, less 'cultured' ones.

In the past, war was more brutal, and international law and public norms were

less enlightened. If someone behaved in those situations in a way that today arouses horror, should we

condemn him, or rather understand that he lived in a different atmosphere (here the issue is not righteousness, but

absolute wickedness and relative wickedness). People who live in another culture customarily slaughter their enemies and dip

their hands in their blood, even waving them before television cameras.

There are also those who kill on the grounds of 'family honor.'

Are these people less moral, or have the norms within which they live influenced them, so that they should be judged only against this background.

The Rosh and his court pronounced the sentence of an adulterous woman to be that her nose be cut off as an everlasting disgrace.

Today most of the public would regard this act as a brutal one,

perhaps even a barbaric one (whereas adultery is of course an 'elementary right,' and a person's private affair). Shall we say

that the Rosh was morally inferior to us? And what of those who handed down death sentences in contexts

religious and cultural different from our own?

Today there is a tendency to place moral judgment against the relative background of the society and culture in

which a person lives and acts. This is the approach of Resh Lakish. By contrast, Rabbi Yohanan, whose view is followed as law in disputes with Resh

Lakish (who was his colleague-disciple, and himself dramatically changed the society within which he acted. He had been

the leader of a band of robbers), maintains that the standards are absolute. A person is measured by his deeds, and they

and they alone, determine our judgment of him.

It seems that there is room for both absolute evaluation and relative evaluation. A person should be judged both against

the cultural background within which he acts, and against the background of his objective deeds.

It is important to clarify that I do not intend to argue that there are no absolute principles of good and evil. I am not

a postmodernist, and I do not intend here to argue in favor of such an approach. My remarks here deal

with the objective evaluation of the person. A person who measures up well to absolute criteria while he lives

and acts in a society in which these principles are treated with contempt is objectively worthy of esteem for that. There is here

an objective dimension of righteousness. The subjective evaluation, on the basis of the effort a person invests

and his relative level, is an objective criterion for the moral evaluation of him.

An interesting question that I shall leave to the reader's judgment: what of the principle of double judgment proposed

here. Is it not itself a result of the cultural-environmental influence of the society in which I myself

Have a peaceful Sabbath

May be given for sacred disposal in any synagogue or religious academy. Comments and responses will be welcomed.

Biton61.doc