Parashas Noach 5773

“And God remembered Noach and all of the animals that were with him in the ark.” (Beraishis 8:1) “What did He ‘remember’ regarding the animals? The merit of their not destroying their ways (by not mixing with other species) beforehand and that they did not cohabitate in the ark.” (Rashi, ibid.) Rashi seems to be telling us that G-d was rewarding the animals for doing the right thing (or for not doing the wrong thing). In fact, the Midrash upon which this Rashi is likely based (Tanchuma Yoshon, Noach 11) says, “Blessed is the name of the Holy One, blessed is He, who does not withhold (lit. smite) the reward of any creature. Therefore, He remembered them (the animals) with Noach.” However, the concept of reward and punishment only applies to those who have free will, something the animal kingdom doesn’t have (see Ramban). How could the animals have been remembered based on their “choices” if they really didn’t have a choice?

This isn’t the only time that Rashi tells us about G-d rewarding animals. When the Torah tells us to feed the meat of any dead animal found in a field to the dogs (Sh’mos 22:30), Rashi says that this teaches us that “the Holy One, blessed is He does not withhold the reward of any creature,” as this meat is reward for the dogs keeping still (not barking) during the night of the exodus from Egypt. Malbim explains that even though animals do not have the ability to choose between right and wrong, and therefore cannot be deserving of reward, this meat is given to dogs in order to teach humans that G-d always rewards those who do the right thing. The wording of the M’chilta upon which this Rashi is based (Mishpatim 20) seems to bear this out, as it adds, “if for an animal this is so, surely for a human He will not withhold his reward.” However, the wording of “not withholding reward” implies that the reward is deserved, and therefore not held back. If the “reward” for animals is not really deserved (but given for the benefit of the lesson we can take from it), the Midrashim should say that G-d rewards all good deeds, not that He doesn’t hold back the reward that was earned by any creature. Additionally, if the point of “remembering” the animals in their own merit (and not as a byproduct of remembering Noach) is to teach us this, Rashi should have used the same wording used in the M’chilta (and the Tanchuma), that this shows us that G-d doesn’t withhold reward from any creature. Instead, Rashi just tells us which actions (or inactions) made the animals deserving of reward. So the original question still stands— how can creatures that do not have the ability to choose right over wrong be “deserving” of reward?

There are two aspects to the reward received for doing a mitzvah. One is the simple concept of reward, getting “paid” for doing good (or punished for doing bad), as a motivational tool. The other is the inherent benefit of doing good, how it leaves a lasting impression on the person who does it. For example, if two people go to the same shiur (Torah lecture), but one of them has to travel further to get there, assuming the same intellectual capability and attentiveness, they will both get the same benefit for having attended. The fact that one had to do more in order to attend might be an added incentive to accomplish as much as possible once there (so as not to waste the effort already put in), but unless G-d rewards the person who put in the extra effort by helping him understand it more, the extra effort will have no impact on what is gained from the lecture itself. There will be a separate calculation made regarding the effort put in to get there, with every little bit of extra effort bringing extra reward, but this has no direct bearing on the benefit received from the lecture itself. Similarly, one who wanted to attend but was unable to may not be held accountable for not attending, but will not receive any of the benefit he would have gained had he been able to go. While the effort put into doing a mitzvah will directly impact spiritual growth, the benefit from the mitzvah itself, the additional level of holiness realized, if done as well, is not diminished by the ease of doing it. One of the advantages of constantly doing mitzvos is that they become easier to do, without losing their value. Even if it no longer becomes a struggle to do the good deed, the spiritual advantage is still attained.

When Rashi tells us that the animals “deserved” to be remembered along with Noach, it is not because they “chose” to avoid improper activities. After all, animals do not have free will. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that these animals did not mix with other species (and most of them did not cohabitate in the ark), and therefore received the benefit of not suffering the same consequence as the other animals. [The dogs not barking in Egypt is a bit more complex, especially since it was not the same dogs that didn’t bark (in Egypt) that are being “rewarded.” As I discussed last week (http://rabbidmk.posterous.com/parashas-berashis-5773), G-d doesn’t change nature after He set it up, but embedded within it the “natural” ability to do things that are not usually part of their nature. This would have to include dogs having the ability to not bark despite all the dying that occurred when G-d smote the Egyptian firstborn. It can be suggested that just as G-d “put into the system” that dogs will bark when people are dying yet not bark in Egypt, He “put into the system” (read: the Torah) that dogs get meat they wouldn’t have otherwise been given. This “reward” is really for the species, for following G-d’s stipulation, made during the six days of creation, that they won’t always bark, not for the individual dogs that didn’t bark. We will therefore focus on the animals in the ark, which were the ones that did the right thing/didn’t do the wrong thing, and were the same animals that were “remembered.”]

Although not being corrupted (as the rest of the animals were) allowed the animals in the ark to escape the flood, this “benefit” was really achieved when they first entered the ark; being “remembered” after they were already on it and had been saved from the flood implies that they merited something beyond not being wiped out with everything else. Noach was worthy of not only being spared, but of having the world rebuilt through him and his family. I would suggest that because these animals had not been adversely affected by the corrupt civilization, they were worthy of having the animal kingdom in the post-flood world rebuilt through them.

After everything was destroyed by the flood, the next step was beginning anew. Would things be any different this time? Would mankind stay the course, or veer off again? By attempting to build the Tower of Bavel, mankind had failed again, and G-d had to scatter them and start a third time, this time through Avraham. It was worth saving Noach and his family not because mankind had learned its lesson, but because this beginning would produce an individual who would start a family which would become a nation that could fulfill G-d’s purpose for creation (“[the world was created] because of Israel, which is referred to as a “beginning;” see Rashi on B’raishis 1:1). If the mistakes mankind would continue to make would affect the world around them just as it had before the flood, things wouldn’t be much different this time either, and there would be no reason to try again after the flood. It was only because an Avraham would descend from Noach and Shem, and the world wouldn’t be as adversely affected by the rest of mankind sinning, that there was a reason to try again. “And G-d remembered the animals that were with him in the ark,” the animals that didn’t become corrupt when mankind did, and were affected positively (for the most part) by what was left of mankind when they (for the most part) followed G-d’s instructions not to cohabitate in the ark. These animals could replenish the animal kingdom in a way that made a new start worthwhile, and they were therefore remembered along with Noach (see B’raishis Rabbah, end of 33:1, which may be the Midrash that Rashi is based on). G-d “remembered” the actions/inactions of the animals too, and determined that they could leave the ark and try to build the world again.