Daf Yomi, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Torah and Psychology, Marriage Counseling, Psychotherapy
Our Gemara on Amud Aleph describes how Noach knew which animals were kosher so he could bring additional ones to sacrifice, and also which animals did not become corrupted by interbreeding. The Teivah (ark) and the animals themselves would demonstrate this. The animals would come either as pairs or in groups of seven (see Rashi ibid, which indicates that they were to be made into sacrifices), and the teivah would only allow pure, non-corrupted animals to enter. (Presumably, somehow the physical walls or structure would accept or reject the animals.)
The verse (Bereishis 7:2) states God’s directions to Noach:
“Of every pure animal you shall take seven pairs, males and their mates, and of every animal that is not pure, two, a male and its mate.”
Rashi (ibid) comments:
“The Torah refers to pure animals in the sense of those that will one day be declared kosher after the giving of the Torah. How did Noach know which animals were kosher then? We see from here that Noach studied Torah.”
The Re’em raises a question from our Gemara. From our Gemara we see that there was a process whereby the teivah accepted or rejected the animal. Noach did not learn the laws of kosher; rather, he just followed the divine selection process facilitated by the teivah. Why did Rashi veer from the Gemara’s explanation of the verses?
Levush Haorah answers that Rashi’s method is to stay close to the simple reading of the verses. While it is not a contradiction, and it may very well be true that the teivah acted as a selector and rejected non-kosher or inappropriate animals, the particular verse that Rashi is commenting on speaks of a directive of God to Noach. God commands him to take seven pairs of the pure (kosher) animals. Quite correctly, at the time of the command, we might ask how Noach would know which ones were kosher in order to follow God’s command. Therefore, we see that somehow he already had an intuitive and/or divinely revealed knowledge of the Torah.
I will add an additional point. Perhaps the way in which Noach learned Torah was by watching how the teivah accepted or rejected the animals. Like other prophets who have visions and then extract particular meaning from those visions, the teivah did what it did, but Noach derived Torah from the actions.
In truth, every ben-Noach, that is every human being, was obligated to tune in spiritually, look at the world around them, and derive God’s will. Chizkuni (Bereishis 7:21) asks how Cain could be held liable for murder if there was no Torah or command given to him. How could the generation of the flood be held liable for theft when there were no commands given to them? The Chizkuni could have answered that the tradition of the Seven Noachide laws was not literally “Noachide,” but rather that there was a tradition starting from Adam of basic moral obligations. However, Chizkuni does not choose that answer, and instead answers that there are certain intrinsically moral behaviors that anybody could realize. No one needs to be told not to steal or not to murder (presumably because there seems to be something intrinsically violating about taking something away from somebody else), and therefore they were held morally liable.
From this Chizkuni we see that there is an obligation on every human being to look at the world around them and understand God’s will. It does not exclusively require a specific Torah. The fact that Chizkuni chooses this answer instead of simply stating that it was a tradition from Adam makes this statement of Chizkuni even more theologically significant. He clearly wants to make the point that there is a form of natural morality.
Another example of naturally derived Torah comes from Eiruvin (100b):
“Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥanan said: Even if the Torah had not been given, we would nonetheless have learned modesty from the cat, which covers its excrement, and that stealing is objectionable from the ant, which does not take grain from another ant, and forbidden relations from the dove, which is faithful to its partner, and proper relations from the rooster, which first appeases the hen and then mates with it.”
Returning back to Noach, Rashi, and the teivah: Noach was always learning “Torah” by discerning God’s will from everything around him in the world. And the actions of the teivah’s selection process were one source among many ways that he “knew the Torah.”
Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation
Free resource for couples/families:
Over 80 lectures on heathy communication, marriage and sexuality from a Torah perspective Click here
If you liked this, you might enjoy my Relationship Communications Guide. Click on the link above.
Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, Rabbi Simcha Feuerman, LCSW-R, LMFT, DHL is a psychotherapist who works with high conflict couples and families. He can be reached via email at simchafeuerman@gmail.com