rosends
Well-Known Member
The first pasuk of Noach has always intrigued me: (I'm lifting from sefaria and the JPS translation which I don't much like)
אֵ֚לֶּה תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ׃
This is the line of Noah.—Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.—
one famous set of commentaries on the first verse has to do with Noach's status as "tzaddik" -- whether he was a righteous man EVEN in his generation or ONLY in his generation.
But the way i see the verse, it isn't even a question because the verse says something different.
If you look at the trop, the phrases are "ish tzaddik" (a righteous man) and then "tamim haya b'dorotav" (he was tamim in his generation). The difficult word to me is "tamim" -- see here for possible meanings.
It seems to me that the commentaries should be opining on whether he was Tamim only or even in his generation, but the "ish tzaddik" stands apart as an objective and known quality. Why does the gemara (as cited by rashi, Sanhedrin 108a) connect the "in his generation" with the tzaddik aspect, not the tamim aspect?
The most straightforward answer (and therefore, one I don't like) is that the quality of tamim is an explanation of what it is to be a tzaddik. I just don't see that to be so. The fact that the gemara in Zevachim can argue
that it might refer to a physical blemish indicates that the word is not inextricably tied to being a tzaddik! The word is often used to discuss the lack of a physical blemish on an animal destined for sacrifice. The moment we try to understand tamim, we realize that to be called tamim has nothing to do with being an ish tzaddik, so the question of relative judgement about generations is connected to a judgment of tamim, not tzaddik.
And yet Rashi and the gemara make it all about tzaddik and ignore the tamim aspect, even as commentaries wrestle with what tamim is talking about.
Any ideas?
אֵ֚לֶּה תּוֹלְדֹ֣ת נֹ֔חַ נֹ֗חַ אִ֥ישׁ צַדִּ֛יק תָּמִ֥ים הָיָ֖ה בְּדֹֽרֹתָ֑יו אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹהִ֖ים הִֽתְהַלֶּךְ־נֹֽחַ׃
This is the line of Noah.—Noah was a righteous man; he was blameless in his age; Noah walked with God.—
one famous set of commentaries on the first verse has to do with Noach's status as "tzaddik" -- whether he was a righteous man EVEN in his generation or ONLY in his generation.
But the way i see the verse, it isn't even a question because the verse says something different.
If you look at the trop, the phrases are "ish tzaddik" (a righteous man) and then "tamim haya b'dorotav" (he was tamim in his generation). The difficult word to me is "tamim" -- see here for possible meanings.
It seems to me that the commentaries should be opining on whether he was Tamim only or even in his generation, but the "ish tzaddik" stands apart as an objective and known quality. Why does the gemara (as cited by rashi, Sanhedrin 108a) connect the "in his generation" with the tzaddik aspect, not the tamim aspect?
The most straightforward answer (and therefore, one I don't like) is that the quality of tamim is an explanation of what it is to be a tzaddik. I just don't see that to be so. The fact that the gemara in Zevachim can argue
that it might refer to a physical blemish indicates that the word is not inextricably tied to being a tzaddik! The word is often used to discuss the lack of a physical blemish on an animal destined for sacrifice. The moment we try to understand tamim, we realize that to be called tamim has nothing to do with being an ish tzaddik, so the question of relative judgement about generations is connected to a judgment of tamim, not tzaddik.
And yet Rashi and the gemara make it all about tzaddik and ignore the tamim aspect, even as commentaries wrestle with what tamim is talking about.
Any ideas?
