Commentary for Genesis 6:6

וינחם ה' כי עשה AND THE LORD REPENTED THAT HE HAD MADE — (The first word is connected with that which means “comfort”) It was a consolation to Him that He had created man on earth, for had he been one of the heavenly beings he would have incited them also to rebel against God (Genesis Rabbah 27:4).

AND THE ETERNAL REPENTED… AND IT GRIEVED HIM AT HIS HEART. The Torah speaks in the language of men. The purport is that they rebelled, and grieved His holy spirit⁵¹⁴Isaiah 63:10. with their sins. The sense of the expression at His heart is that He did not tell this to a prophet, a messenger of G-d. This expression is also found with respect to thinking, just as: to speak to my heart,⁵¹⁵Genesis 24:45. and other similar expressions.
In Bereshith Rabbah⁵¹⁶27:6. there is a significant matter concerning this, expressed by a parable which the Rabbis bring of an agent and an architect.⁵¹⁷Rabbi Berachyah said: “It is like a king who had a palace built by an architect, and when he saw it, it displeased him. Against whom is he to complain? Surely against the architect.” Rabbi Assi said: “It is like one who traded through an agent and suffered a loss. Whom does he blame? The agent. Here too It grieved Him at His heart.” This constitutes a great secret which is not permitted to be written down. The one who knows it will understand why here the Tetragrammaton is written while in the whole of the rest of the chapter and the account of the flood, the name Elokim is used.

ויתעצב אל לבו, seeing that G’d does not want even the guilty to die instead of finding their way back. The opposite “emotion” of G’d to the one expressed here is found in Psalms 104,31 ישמח ה' במעשיו, “the Lord ‘enjoys’ the deeds of His creatures.”

That He had made man. Note that it does not say that He repented that He created man, but only that He made him — i.e. that He allowed him to become so numerous. Hashem knew from the start that a creature made of earth could only be brought to perfection after much tending and pruning.

'וינחם ה, the expression, וינחם, “He was sorry, He regretted,” has been chosen by the Torah in order for human beings to have at least an inkling of what G’d’s feelings were when He faced destroying His handiwork. Clearly, such emotions as “regret” are not part of G’d’s vocabulary. We have it on the authority Samuel I 15 29 that human feelings such as regret, frustration, are not feelings which can be attributed To Him.

וינחם ה' ויתעצב אל לבו, “G’d reconsidered and was saddened right to His heart.” The Torah employs the syntax used by human beings when they regret something they have done. Basically, the Torah writes that the conduct of the humans, their insurrection against the Creator’s basic rules, resulted in their causing G’d’s Holy Spirit to reconsider if they deserved to continue living.

He would have caused them to rebel. Man caused the animals and beasts to rebel, as they all became perverted [see Rashi on v. 7]. Had man been in heaven, he would have caused the heavenly beings to rebel as well!

וינחם. Die Bedeutung von נחם siehe oben 5, 29. Man hat an dieser von Gott ausgesprochenen Sinnesänderung Anstand genommen, insbesondere im Hinblick auf den Satz: לא איש אל ויכזב ובן אדם ויתנחם. Es scheint aber ein Unterschied zu sein, zwischen הִנָחם und הִתְנַחם. Ersteres ist die durch äußere Veranlassung hervorgerufene Sinnesänderung, so bei Saul: נחמתי. Gott hat freilich Saul zum König eingesetzt; allein als Saul sich der ferneren Herrschaft unwürdig machte, ward auch Gott durch Sauls Veränderung zu einer Änderung seiner Bestimmung veranlasst. Ebenso auch umgekehrt וינחם ד׳ על הרעה. Der Mensch aber ändert seinen Entschluss von Innen heraus, ohne äußere Veranlassung, also הִתְנַהם, darum heißt es von Gott לא איש וגו׳ ובן אדם ויתנהם. Nur einmal heißt es am Schlusse von ועל עבדיו :האזינו יתנהם (und so auch im Anklang an diese Stelle Ps. 135. 14) und da ist es bedeutsam: auch wenn sie nicht durch תשובה Gott zur Änderung seines Entschlusses veranlassen, wird Gott aus eigenem Antriebe die Änderung ihres bisherigen Geschickes beschließen, und die גאולה bringen; es ist dies die גאולה בעתה, wenn לא זכו.

ויתעצב אל לבו, “His heart was saddened.” According to Rabbi Acha bar Chanina in Breyshit Rabbah 27 when G–d watched as His earth appeared to head for destruction, He felt as if a mourner who has lost a dear relative. An alternate interpretation of this expression: the subject in this verse is man, who mourns only from the heart like a person who had placed leavening in his dough, and who says to himself when the dough did not rise: “it was I who made the recipe, therefore it is I who must accept the blame if the product is unsatisfactory, seeing that I was aware that it contained a potentially dangerous ingredient.” [The “leavening” is a metaphor for the evil urge within man, that G–d gave man when He made him. It was a calculated risk that G–d had been aware of from the outset. Ed.]

'וינחם ה, the expression: נחם, נחמה is used in three different contexts; 1) deliberate failure to fulfill a vow, such as when it could not be fulfilled as the person who had made it does not have the means to do so. 2) He has simply changed his mind. 3) It is used repeatedly in connection with G-d having second thoughts about something He had done. G-d’s having second thoughts works in two directions as we know from: רגע אדבר על גוי לנתוש ולנתוץ ושב הגוי מרעתו ונחמתי על הטובה,“at one moment I may decree that a nation or a kingdom shall be uprooted and pulled down and destroyed; but if that nation against which I had made the decree, turns back from its wickedness, I change My mind concerning the punishment I planned to bring on it. (Jeremiah 18,79) [I am sure all my readers are familiar with the story of Jonah and the whale, and how G-d changed His mind about the fate of Nineveh when He observed how they repented. Ed.] There is no need here to repeated how G-d “repented” the decree He had issued against the Jewish people after they had made the golden calf and had danced around it calling it a deity. G-d had “regretted” allowing Shaul to have been crowned king, and He ordered Samuel to anoint his successor. (Samuel I 15,11 and subsequent.)at one moment I may decree that a nation or a kingdom shall be uprooted and pulled down and destroyed; but if that nation against which I had made the decree, turns back from its wickedness, I change My mind concerning the punishment I planned to bring on it. (Jeremiah 18,79) [I am sure all my readers are familiar with the story of Jonah and the whale, and how G-d changed His mind about the fate of Nineveh when He observed how they repented. Ed.] There is no need here to repeated how G-d “repented” the decree He had issued against the Jewish people after they had made the golden calf and had danced around it calling it a deity. G-d had “regretted” allowing Shaul to have been crowned king, and He ordered Samuel to anoint his successor. (Samuel I 15,11 and subsequent.) As to the statement by Bileam in Numbers 23,21, that what distinguishes the Jewish G-d from other deities is that: ובן אדם כי יתנחם “neither is He like a human being who changes his mind,” there the word is used in the reflexive mode, i.e. the human being who initiates his own change of mind, whereas when changing G-d’s mind is the issue, this was always forced upon G-d from the outside. He does not allow Himself the luxury of changing His mind as an act of pique, completely unprovoked.

ויתעצב GRIEVED HIM — means, in the mind of God man became an object to be troubled (punished): it entered God’s heart to grieve him. This is how the Targum of Onkelos understands the verse. Another explanation of verse 6: וינחם AND [THE LORD] REPENTED — The thoughts of God turned from Divine mercy to Divine justice: He considered what to do with man whom He had made on the earth. Wherever this term is used in the Scripture it means “considering what to do”. Examples are: (Numbers 18:19) “nor the son of man that He should consider (ויתנחם)”; (Deuteronomy 32:36) “and reconsider (ויתנחם) regarding His servants”; (Exodus 32:14) “and the Lord reconsidered (וינחם) regarding the evil”; (1 Samuel 15:2) “I am reconsidering (נחמתי) that I have set up Saul to be king” — all these passages denote a change of mind.

ויתעצב אל לבו, this too, is a figure of speech, seeing that G’d does not know such emotional ups and downs as joy and sadness. While David in Psalms 104,31 speaks of ישמח ה' במעשיו, he too uses such “emotions” of G’d only as a figure of speech. It is his way of describing G’d’s reactions to seeing that His plans had worked out. Similarly, here, the Torah describes G’d’s reaction when His plans had not worked out. [G’d’s plans not working out can only happen due to the freedom of choice with which He endowed man. Ed.] In other words, the Torah, in telling us about G’d’s reactions, here and elsewhere, reflects the impressions gained by the teller of the story. אל לבו, we are told in Bereshit Rabbah 27,4 that a gentile asked Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korchah if it is not true that the Jews claim that their G’d knows all that is going to happen in advance. Rabbi Yehoshua answered in the affirmative. Thereupon the gentile quoted this verse as proof that if G’d had known all of this in advance, how could He have been saddened by it. Rabbi Yehoshua asked the gentile if he had ever have a son born to him. The gentile said that indeed he was the father of a son. He then asked him: “what did you do when he was born?” The gentile replied that he was very happy when he heard the news. Thereupon Rabbi Yehoshua asked the gentile: “did you not know that the son would die one day, and if so why were you happy that another mortal was born?” The gentile answered that there is a time to rejoice and a time to be sad. Rabbi Yehoshua told the gentile that G’d, in spite of His foreknowledge, reacts in a similar manner. G’d was in mourning for the destruction of His handiwork, as we know from 7,10. The reason the Torah makes mention of the words ויתעצב אל לבו and these seven days, is to teach us that the words אבל and עצב can be used interchangeably, i.e. they describe a state of mourning.

The man. In His heart. Of Hashem. [Rashi explains as he does] because otherwise ויתעצב contradicts what is written before: וינחם, which means, “Hashem was comforted.” Rashi is saying that ויתעצב means [not “grieved” but] “loathsome”, i.e., man became loathsome in the heart of Hashem, [and He decided] to destroy him. Maharshal explains: Since it says that Hashem was comforted, ויתעצב must refer to man. Thus Rashi explains that man was ויתעצב to Hashem. But according to Rashi’s alternate explanation, that Hashem’s thought turned from Divine Mercy to Divine Justice, ויתעצב refers to Hashem [i.e., He mourned].

ויתעצב אל לבו, hier התפעל, nicht עצב .נפעל siehe oben 3, 16. התעצב: ein schmerzliches Gefühl der Entsagung empfinden. So von den Söhnen Jakobs; als die Familienreinheit durch die an der Schwester verübte Schandtat gemordet war, da war das erste Gefühl nicht Zorn über das geschehene Unrecht, sondern: ויתעצבו, sie fühlten schmerzlich, dass ihre bisherige Perle, die Reinheit und Unschuld der jüdischen Töchter, nun verloren sei; erst das zweite Gefühl war Zorn. Da dieser Schmerz aus der Art und Weise entsprang, wie sie den Vorgang auffassten, somit seine Quelle in ihrem Innern hatte, steht התפעל und nicht נפעל. Ebenso hier. — Hinsichtlich des אל־, (nicht: התעצב אֶל־ (ב־, haben wir eine Analogie bei Jonathan: נעצב אל דור (Sam. 1. 20. 34), es bezeichnet somit den Gegenstand, in Beziehung auf welchen man den Schmerz empfindet. Wörtlich würde es also hier heißen: "Er füllte sich mit schmerzlicher Entsagung in Beziehung auf sein Herz". לב ד׳ bezeichnet aber das Innigste, das von Gott in Beziehung zum Menschen gesagt werden kann. והיו עיני ולבי שם כל הימים, seine Liebe, seine Empfindung wird dort weilen, nicht bloß seine Vorsehung. Hier also לבו, — menschlich gesprochen — die Freude, die Gott an dem gegenseitigen Gedeihen des Menschen und der Erde haben wollte, — ישמח ד׳ במעשיו — und auf die er jetzt verzichten musste. Der Erdwelt wäre die Fortexistenz des Menschen Unheil gewesen, darum וינחם וגו׳; allein Gottes Herz — menschlich gesprochen — war dasselbe geblieben. "Es tat ihm wehe, dass er auf die von seinem Herzen gewünschte segensreiche Fortexistenz des Menschen auf Erden verzichten musste." —

ויתעצב אל לבו, “He was saddened to have listened to the advice to create man;”A different exegesis: the words: אל לבו refer to the heart of man; G-d felt saddened on account of man’s heart, i.e. the constantly evil thoughts that he entertained. We find a similar construction in Samuel I 20,34 כי נעצב אל דוד כי הכלמו אביו, “he was saddened on account that his father had humiliated him.” (Yonathan about his father the King, humiliating his bosom fried David) Still another exegesis of our verse: Whenever the root עצב occurs it refers to mourning or something akin to it. Example: כי נעצב המלך על בנו, “for the king mourned over the los of his son.” (Samuel II 19,3, about the death of Avshalom) In our verse the Torah describes G-d as mourning the world He had created and which He now had to completely restructure. If you were to ask how it is possible to mourn people who had not died yet, this rule applies only to mortal human beings who cannot be sure of any event in the future until it materializes; G-d Who foresees developments clearly, can be saddened and in a state of mourning even before the actual event has taken place. Still another interpretation of our verse; the human race had become something only worthy of sadness and distaste.

ויתעצב אל לבו AND IT GRIEVED HIM AT HIS HEART— He mourned at the failure of His handiwork. Similarly (2 Samuel 19:3) ‘The king grieved (נעצב) for his son”. (Similarly here: God grieved for his (man’s) heart: that it had changed from good to bad). The following extract from the Midrash Rabbah I am writing in order that you may know how to refute the arguments of certain heretics: A gentile once asked Rabbi Joshua, the son of Korcha, saying to him, “Do you not admit that the Holy One, blessed be He, knows what is to happen in the future?” He replied, “Yes.” The gentile retorted, “But is it not written ‘and He was grieved in His heart’?” He answered: “Have you ever had a son born to you?” The reply was “Yes.” He asked (the gentile): “And what did you do?” He replied: “I rejoiced and I made others rejoice also.” The Rabbi asked him: “But did you not know that he must die?” The heathen replied: “At the time of joy, let there be joy, at the time of mourning let there be mourning”. The Rabbi then said: “Such, too, is the way of the Holy One, blessed be He: although it was clear to Him that in the end men would sin and would be destroyed, He did not refrain from creating them for the sake of the righteous men who were to issue from them” (Genesis Rabbah 27:4).

בארץ, the reason the Torah writes this word, which does not appear to tell us something we did not know, is to remind us that the root of the problem of man becoming so corrupt in spite of his having been equipped with a divine soul, is that he was constructed from and anchored in the earth, in the “lower” universe. This is unlike the אדם העליוני, superior man. This is why G’d did not need consolation for people of Noach’s calibre.

What to do with man. Rashi is saying that originally, Hashem did not intend to do anything with man. But now He intended to investigate what do to with him. Rashi does not mean that He now decided to do evil, and decreed the Flood. This cannot be, because only afterwards it is written (v. 7), “Adonoy said, ‘I will obliterate mankind,’” and that is His first utterance [on this matter]. “I will obliterate mankind” does not come to explain the turning of Hashem’s thought, i.e., that it turned from Mercy to Justice. For if so, v. 7 should say: “And He said, ‘I will obliterate mankind.’” Why does it say, “Adonoy said, ‘I will obliterate...’”? Clearly, it is the beginning of His utterance. Since it is the beginning, this implies that [in this verse,] He had not yet passed judgment on man. Rather, He was investigating what to do with man. (Re’m)

Hinsichtlich dieser und ähnlicher anthropomorphistischen Ausdrücke von Gott gestatten wir uns eine allgemeine Bemerkung. Man hat so lange an diesen Ausdrücken herum philosophiert, um jeden Gedanken an eine Körperlichkeit zu entfernen, bis man zuletzt der Gefahr nahe kam, selbst die Persönlichkeit Gottes zu verflüchtigen. Wenn das die Absicht der תורה wäre, hätte sie derartige Ausdrücke leicht vermeiden können. Allein diese letztere Gefahr ist größer als die erstere. Diese zwei Ausdrücke retten die zwei wesentlichsten Begriffe: die Freiheit Gottes und die Freiheit des Menschen. Nicht umsonst heißt es: Als Gott sah usw. Es war die Schlechtigkeit des Menschen nicht notwendig. Es musste ein Schauen Gottes vorangehen, ehe Gott es wusste: dieser Ausdruck gewährleistet uns also das Bewusstsein der menschlichen Freiheit. Und das Geschick, das den Menschen trifft, tritt nicht in Folge einer physischen Kausalität ein; es geht ein prüfender Rathschluss Gottes voran, der Ratschluss selbst schmerzt den Beschließenden. Alles dies setzt die Persönlichkeit und Freiheit Gottes voraus und hält diese dem Bewusstsein rein. Schon ראב"ד, einer unserer jüdischsten Denker, ist der Ansicht, dass dieses Bewusstsein von der Persönlichkeit Gottes viel wichtiger sei, als die Spekulation darüber, ob man dies oder jenes von Gott prädizieren könne.

I rejoiced and made everyone joyful. Meaning, I rejoiced myself and also made others joyful.

So it is with acts of Hashem. Question: How could the Rabbi compare the acts of Hashem to the acts of flesh and blood? The answer is: This was only to deflect the heretic’s challenge. But in truth, Hashem’s reason was “For the sake of the righteous...” (Maharshal)

For the sake of the righteous. This [is an alternative explanation, and] means to say: “Furthermore, for the sake of the righteous...” Otherwise the parable does not fit the message. For no benefit came from the son; it was a case of, “At the time of joy let there be joy.” But benefit does come from the wicked, since the righteous descend from them. Perforce, Rashi means to say, “Furthermore...” (Re’m)