Еврейская мысль к Ирмеяу 17:9

The four statements are therefore not to be understood as "sins," but rather as faults which made their sin possible. Outstanding individuals such as these two sons of Aaron, could not fall prey to a cardinal sin such as bringing "strange fire" into the sanctuary, unless there had previously been something wrong in their attitudes. Drunkenness disturbs the mind. Only when in a confused state of mind, could they have committed such a serious error. Not having washed their hands and feet is symbolic of not preparing one's body to perform a sacred task. Garments, especially outer garments, are meant as a shield against the temptation of the yetzer hara. Failing to wear such garments shows that one at least underestimates the power of temptation, while at the same time overestimating one's own character strength The purpose of all Torah study is execution of its teachings. Another way of expressing this, is "the producing of fruit." Having children is bearing fruit. Being able to bear fruit is a privilege. He who has something worthwhile to bequeath to posterity, leaves children behind who, perpetuate their parents, contribute to civilisation. He who studies Torah for ulterior motives, such as to achieve honour, a title etc has nothing to bequeath. These two sons of Aaron not having children, is not to be conceived as a cause for their being unfit. Rather, it is the result of their having been unfit. To sum up, one could accuse these two sons of three deficiencies. (1) intellectual; (2) emotional; (3) moral. It is also possible to view the fact that these sons did not marry as proof of a certain amount of arrogance. They did not marry because they did not consider anyone as good enough to become their respective wives. Again, the wearing of garments can be understood as representing acquired character traits. Not wearing outer garments would mean that they lacked certain character traits which are essential in a priest, without which he is not fit to represent the people before G'd.

(1+2) The survivors of the deluge and their descendants were chastened by the occurrence of the deluge, and it was impressed upon them for many generations that corruption in man does not go unpunished. Also, henceforth, man would no longer have a common origin, but would be descended from one of the three sons of Noach, thus making complete unanimity of purpose and lifestyle among the various tribes almost impossible. (3) When G-d refers to having smelled the fragrance of Noach's sacrifice, this very improvement in man's potential is what He means. Complete agreement amongst all of mankind to act against their Creator has become genetically and environmentally almost impossible. This in turn guarantees that there will never again be a need for a deluge, i.e. simultaneous destruction of the species. (2) The reason given "that the heart of man is evil, stems from its youthfulness" (Genesis 8,21) means that the nature of man prior to the deluge was different, could all be traced to a single cause, his common ancestor. This cause had been changed dramatically. From now on, only his personal immaturity could account for man's wickedness, but he would not be weighed down by the collective wickedness of earlier generations and its hereditary impact. In other words, the burden of "the original sin" had now been removed from the post Noachide generations. Inasmuch as the creation of man as a species was not really complete until this change had occurred, we understand that G-d felt "sad" before the deluge that He had to proceed in this manner to bring about the transformation of man. (7) It is not appropriate for the Creator to "voice" that sentiment to someone else, therefore He is described as having said it "in His heart." Moreover, since G-d had referred to the inner thoughts of man, i.e. "the images produced in the heart of man," His response also would not be revealed openly. The principle of midah keneged midah, measure for measure, is at work here. Creator and creature each do their own separate planning. In order that the promise not to destroy mankind (earth) again, would not be misinterpreted to mean that there would no longer be a destruction of man, the Torah continues by saying that the seasons, planetary orbits, etc. would continue to function regularly, i.e. the laws of nature would not be suspended as such, but local destructions such as the destruction of the wicked society of Sodom etc. will continue to be possible. G-d proceeds to tell Noach and his sons the positive aspects of the new world order, implying that the deluge had been worthwhile, in view of this new development. (Chapter 9,9-17) The fact G-d addressed all of them, supports our view that each one of them represented the source of the future of mankind. He includes in the covenant the animals to make it clear that they too will not again be subject to mass destruction as had been experienced during the deluge. (4+5) G-d re-interprets the meaning of the midat hadin, the attribute of justice, to mean that collective punishment from now on is applicable only when the wicked have acted collectively rather than individually, separately. Since such conduct from now on is practically impossible due to the diversity of man's ancestry, He can reassure man by a visible sign of this state of affairs. The reference "I have given My bow in the cloud," indicates that the rainbow is not a new phenomenon. The fact that it refracts light into different colors, is parallel to the fact that from now on man, though descended from Noach, refracts into different types through the simultaneous experiences of Noach's three sons during the deluge. Each one of them will bequeathe a slightly different outlook to his respective offspring. To explain the significance of the rainbow, we must appreciate three facts.

What is the essence of the story of the Song of Songs, if not the description of a paradoxical ‎and ‎tragic hesitation on the part of the love-intoxicated, anxiety stricken Lover, when the ‎opportunity, ‎couched in majestic awe, presented itself? What is it, if not the deferral of a great and ‎sublime ‎opportunity pregnant with a possibility of which she dreamed, for which she fought, which ‎she ‎sought, and for which she had searched with all the fervor of her soul? The delicate and ‎refined ‎Lover, passion-driven to her fair-eyed Beloved, who in days resplendent in brightness ‎wandered ‎the paths of the vineyards, the mountain ridges, through wheat fields and orchards, and ‎in ‎evenings bathed in the pale light of an enchanting moon or gloomy with darkness passed ‎between ‎the walls in search of her Lover — she returned one rain-stormy night to her tent, tired ‎and weary, ‎and fell asleep. The patter of quick-moving, light footsteps was heard in the stillness of ‎the tent. In ‎that mysterious and strange night, the Beloved for whom she had so hoped and kept ‎watch, ‎suddenly appeared out of the darkness and beckoned at the entrance of her tent. He ‎knocked and ‎pleaded that she open the door for Him. “Listen! My Beloved Is Knocking, saying, ‎‎‘Open to me, my ‎sister, my love, my dove, my undefiled: for my head is drenched with dew, and ‎my locks with the ‎damp of the night’” (Song of Songs 5:2). The great moment for which she had ‎been waiting with ‎such longing came at a time of inattentiveness. The elusive and secretive ‎Beloved, weary of ‎wandering and tribulations, appeared with His curly locks, black eyes, powerful ‎build, and shining ‎countenance. He stood in her doorway and thrust His hand through the hole in ‎the lock, seeking ‎shelter from the dampness of the night. He wanted to recount to her His mighty ‎love, His longing ‎and yearning for a life together filled with desire and joy, and of fulfillment of ‎expectations and ‎realization of dreams. A simple extension of the hand to turn the lock separated ‎the Lover and her ‎Beloved — the great dream from its complete fulfillment. With one leap the ‎Lover could have ‎attained all her life’s desires. “Draw me, we will run after you. … We will be glad ‎and rejoice in ‎you” (Song of Songs 1:4). Deceitful is the heart (Jeremiah 17:9), however, and who ‎can explain it? ‎That very night, sloth, the result of a strange inertia, took hold of the Lover. For one ‎small moment ‎the flame of yearning that burned within her was buried, the mighty desire ‎withered, and her ‎feelings and dreams were silenced. The Lover refused to leave her bed. She did ‎not open the door ‎of her tent to her handsome Beloved. A cruel confusion swept her into ‎forgetfulness and apathy. ‎The Lover became lazy and stubborn, she poured forth countless ‎excuses and pretexts to explain ‎her strange behavior. “I have removed my cloak, how shall I put it ‎on again? I have washed my ‎feet, how shall I soil them?” (Song of Songs 5:3). The Beloved ‎continued to beckon, and as His ‎beckoning became more persistent, so too did the insanity that ‎chilled and tainted the Lover.‎