Chassidic thought teaches that before the Flood, G-d sustained the world despite its low spiritual standing, due to His attribute of kindness. There was a limit, however, to how long G-d was willing to sustain a world without merit - hence the Flood.
The waters of the flood were not merely a punishment. They purified the world, making physicality in general more refined, and spiritually attuned. [see The Great Flood]
Consequently, in the post flood era, people were more predisposed to repentance. This ensured that G-d would always sustain the world - not despite of, but - because of its spiritual standing. For, even if man would become corrupt, people would inevitably repent, ensuring that the world itself would have sufficient merits for its continued existence.
With this in mind, we can explain the following details:
Noach was unaware of the above, so he was scared to repopulate the world, fearing it would be destroyed again. Therefore, G-d had to re-command him to ''be fruitful and multiply''. [Noach 9:1]
The inner reason why Noach's generation failed to repent was because, before the Flood, the world was spiritually insensitive.
Meat is an extremely coarse food that can lead a person to excessive physicality. Thus, it was only permitted to the spiritually-attuned post-Flood generation. [Noach 9:3]
Before the Flood, people had extremely long lifespans because the world was sustained by G-d's kindness which was bestowed disproportionately to people's merits.
Before the Flood, physicality was more coarse. This was true in a literal sense, to the extent that the clouds were too thick to refract light, so a rainbow never appeared. After the Flood, physicality become more refined, so the clouds began to refract light. Thus, the rainbow was not only a ''sign of G-d's promise not to destroy the world, it was also a physical consequence of the refinement of the world that ensured its permanent existence.
Source: Based on Sefer Hasichos 5751, Likutei Sichos vol. 15 - Lubavitcher Rebbe
Rainbow at Bondi Beach Sydney 31.10.2016 - Photo: Glick Photography
The Flood came to purify the earth... because the earth had become filled with robbery and corruption to the extreme and required purification.
It was for this reason that the flood waters came for forty days, like a mikveh [ritual bath] which must contain a minimum of 40 se'ah of rainwater if it is to purify the ritually unclean.
Thus, for the generation of the Flood, the waters were a punishment, but for the world itself, the waters were a blessing, since the world became blessed through them.
This sheds light on the Torah's statement that the waters were both mild ''rain'' [of blessing] [Noach 7:12] and at the same time torrential flood waters [Noach 7:17] for even though the floods destroyed all the inhabitants of the world, they still had the positive effect of cleansing and purifying physicality itself.
Source: Based on Likutei Sichos vol 25 pp 26-27 Lubavitcher Rebbe
A new video from Rabbi Yuval Ovadia: Emergency call for all Humanity. Why the world is out of control and how to cope with it. An important message for all nations of the world. ''The End of Days Is Here''.
"How is married life?" Greg asks his old buddy Mike.
"It's quite simple," Mike responds. "When we got engaged, I did most of the talking and she did most of the listening. Later, when we married, she began doing all of the talking and I began doing all of the listening. Now, ten years later, we both do all of the talking and the neighbors do all of the listening."
The biblical description of the woman's role
This week we begin the Torah afresh. The opening portion section of the Bible, Bereishis, captures the first 1,600 years of human history. It is filled with enrapturing tales that encapsulate the most profound mysteries and challenges of the human condition, including the enigma behind gender relationships.
It all begins with one 'innocent' verse, describing the raison d'etre of having two distinct genders in the world. "And G-d said, 'It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper against him (1).'" Until this point, Adam and Eve were fused into one body. Here they were divided into two distinct creatures, each one possessing his or her unique structure and personality (2).
Yet, the choice of words the Torah employs to describe the role of the feminine spouse — "a helper against him" — seems contradictory. If a wife is supposed to serve as a helper to her husband, she is obviously not "against him."
Much has been written to explain the meaning of this verse (3). One Jewish thinker, Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (4), interprets the sentence exactly the way it sounds (5): The woman becomes a "helper" for her husband by sometimes being against him. What this may mean is that for a husband to become the maximum he can be, he must profess the courage to welcome the ideas and feelings of his spouse that are "against" his own.
The hollering husband
Some men cannot tolerate their wives disagreeing with them. They grow angry and frustrated, at times even yelling at their wives for daring to challenge their "sacred" views. What often transpires as a result is that the woman, in order to maintain a peaceful atmosphere in the home, remains silent or even removed.
Who loses the most?
It is the husband who loses most, according to this verse in the Torah. Frankly, a man at times must be saved from himself, from his ego, his insecurities, blind spots, rashness and temptations. When a man learns to genuinely embrace his wife's contrasting personality and her otherness, he will travel to places he could never reach on his own.
This does not mean, of course, that it is a biblical injunction upon every woman to disagree with her husband 100 percent of the time. (A man once asked me: If he stated an opinion alone in a forest away from his wife, would he still be wrong? I told him: Your mistake is that you think you need to state your opinion for her to know what you think.) For a relationship to work, wives and husbands need to learn the art of compromise. She must learn to see things from his perspective, and conversely, and they must both be flexible, kind, and reasonable.
What it does mean, though, is that it is unproductive and unhealthy when a man creates a climate in the home in which his wife must always agree with his opinions, answering "amen" to all his declarations and meshugasen.
Maintaining the balance
But how do couples guarantee that the proper proportions are preserved? How do we ensure that the "against him" component of a spouse does not overwhelm and subdue the "helper" dimension of a spouse?
The Talmud (6) states that in the beginning G-d planned to create man and woman as two distinct people. In the end, however, He created them as one (only afterward did He proceed to divide them into two, as stated above). Why did G-d "change His mind," so to speak?
Perhaps (7) He wished to teach us how a married couple ought to relate to one another. In marital relations, there ought to be both an "in the beginning" and an "in the end." In the beginning, husband and wife ought to be two; each party should express his or her opinion freely and uninhibitedly. Each of them ought to challenge his or her spouse to grow taller and deeper. Then, in the end, they ought to find a way to reconcile the different views into one unified pattern of behavior, making out of many -- one, E Pluribus Unum.
This may be one of the symbols behind an interesting distinction between the tefillin (phylacteries) that Jewish men wrap on their heads vs. the tefilin wraped on their arms. The tefillin we place upon our head is conspicuously divided into four sections or chambers. Each chamber contains another fragment of parchment inscribed with one portion of the Torah. The tefillin we place on our arm, however, is conspicuously made of one chamber and all of the four portions are inscribed on a single piece of parchment placed in one container.
Why?
On the "head" level — the analytical level — diversity between couples is desirable. Let each party argue his or her point. However, on the "arm" level — the level of implementation and action — there must be one path, one verdict, one pattern of behavior. If not, chaos might reign (7).
G-d's yearning not to be alone
G-d and His people are often compared in the Bible to a husband and wife (8). Thus, this verse — "It is not good for man to be alone; I will make him a helper against him" — may also be understood symbolically as a statement concerning the relationship between G-d and humanity.
Prior to the creation of the world, G-d, the ultimate "Man" was "alone." Even after creating the world, G-d could have revealed His presence in our lives so that we would still acknowledge that G-d is in truth alone, for the entire universe is essentially an extension of His light and energy.
Yet G-d chose otherwise. He chose to create a world that would eclipse His reality completely and even oppose Him. G-d chose to create a human being with the ability to deny Him, to ignore Him, to expel Him from his life. Why would G-d arrange such a situation?
The answer is, because "It is not good for Man to be alone; I will make Him a helper against Him." What this represents symbolically is that G-d's profoundest pleasure and help stems precisely from this opposition to Him. When a human being, who by his very nature feels himself absolutely detached from G-d, cracks the shell of his physicality to discover the light of G-d within; when a person challenges the coarseness of his nature to find the tiny flame of idealism etched in the recesses of his heart — this grants G-d a pleasure and joy that His being alone could never have achieved.
The purpose of our creation, in other words, was not to generate light, but to transform darkness into light (10).
So the next time your wife disagrees with you, or the next time you "disagree" with G-d emotionally or psychologically — don't get frustrated. On the contrary, this is an opportunity for you to experience the ultimate raison d'etre of your marriage.
2) This is clear from the biblical narrative. Cf. Talmud Berschos 61a; Eiruvin 18a; Midrash Rabah Bereishis 8:1; quoted in Rashi Genesis 1:27.
3) See Talmud Yevamos 63a; quoted in Rashi to this verse.
4) 1745-1812. Rabbi Schnuer Zalman, author of the Tanya and Shulchan Aruch HaRav, was the founder of the Chabad school of Chassidus.
5) Torah Or Bereshis pp. 4-5. A similar interpretation can be found in the commentary Haamek Davar and Harchev Davar by the Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin, 1816-1893. He was the dean of the Volozhin Yeshiva and one of the great rabbis of his day.)
6) Talmud Berachos and Eiruvun ibid.
7) This idea was suggested by Rabbi Moshe Avigdor Amiel (1883-1946), a rabbi in Lithuania, then in Antwerp and finally, from 1937 until his death, chief Rabbi of Tel Aviv, in his work Hegyonos El Ami, on Bereishis. (An English translation, entitled Jews, Judaism & Genesis was published in Jerusalem in the year 2000 by the Rabbi Amiel Library, under the auspices of the American Mizrachi movement).
8) The entire book of Song of Songs is based on this analogy. Cf. Rambam Laws of Teshuvah ch. 10
9) See Ezekiel 1:26; Torah Or ibid. p. 5a.
10) See Tanya chapter 26.
11) This essay is based on a discourse by Rabbi Schneur Zalman of Liadi (Torah Or referenced in footnote #5), and on the commentary of Netziv (Rabbi Naftali Zvi Yehuda Berlin) on this verse in Genesis, see Haamak Davar and Harchav Davar.
Below is a new video from Rabbi Alon Anava: How do we maintain achdut in marriage?
God made a covenant with Noah that He will not destroy the entire world again with a Flood. The symbol of this covenant is the rainbow.
When observing a rainbow, we recite a blessing: "Blessed is God, Who remembers the covenant (of Noah)."
However, the rabbis discourage one from staring at a rainbow, since it has a negative message: It is telling us that the world deserves (another) flood but because of God's covenant, it will not happen.
The Talmud relates that during the lifetimes of certain great sages, a rainbow was never seen, because they were capable of saving the world from a flood, in their own merit.
Rav Kookwrites:
Were there not rainbows before the Flood? How did the rainbow suddenly become a symbol of protection from Divine punishment?
In truth, the rainbow was created immediately before the Sabbath of creation (Avot 5:6). Before the Flood, however, the rainbow could not be seen. It was a "Keshet Be'Anan," a rainbow in the clouds. The thickness and opacity of the clouds, a metaphor for the world's dense physicality — obscured the rainbow. Only after the Flood, in a world of diluted physical strength, did the rainbow finally become visible.
The rainbow is a symbol of weakness. Physical weakness, that the cloud no longer conceals it. And also spiritual weakness, that only a Divine promise prevents destruction of the world as punishment for its sins. The Sages taught in Ketubot 77b that rare were the generations that merited tzaddikim so holy that no rainbow could be seen in their days.
The Flood restored balance to the world in two ways. In addition to weakening the material universe, the aftermath of the Flood resulted in a bolstering of the spiritual and moral side, through the Noahide Code. The Flood annulled all previous obligations, and initiated a new era of repairing the world via the seven mitzvot of Bnei-Noah.
Why was the rainbow chosen as a symbol of peace between Hashem and mankind?
Hashem said: "When I brought the mabul (flood), My bow was drawn against man. The rainbow resembles a reversed bow, signifying that there shall be no more "arrows from Heaven" sent to destroy humanity".
In the Torah portion that relates the establishment of the covenant between God and Noah (and all generations to come) by means of the rainbow, the word "covenant" (בְּרִית) is repeated seven times. These seven appearances of the word "covenant" allude to the seven colors of the rainbow studied and documented by Isaac Newton, and to the seven Noahide commandments.
The seven colors of the rainbow and the seven Noahide commandments correspond to the seven lower sefirot as follows:
RED - Gevurah (might) - The prohibition against murder
BLUE - Chessed (loving-kindness) - The prohibition against adultery
YELLOW -Tiferet (beauty) - The prohibition against theft
ORANGE - Hod (thanksgiving) - The prohibition against blasphemy
VIOLET -Netzach (victory) - The prohibition against idolatry
GREEN -Yesod (foundation) - The prohibition against eating the flesh of a live animal
INDIGO -Malchut (kingdom) - The injunction to establish a just legal system
It is written “Hashem made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and He clothed them” [Bereishit 3:21]
Why did G-d choose garments of skin to clothe Adam and his wife?
The author of Tzafnat Pa’aneach offers us a subtle explanation: When Adam discovered that he was naked and needed to be clothed, he was in a situation that required him to recite the Shecheyanu blessing, for he would be wearing a new garment. However the Halachah forbids a person from reciting a blessing if he is naked.
Adam was therefore faced with a dilemma: Should he recite a blessing for his first garment, and if so, how should he say it?
Hence the verse states, “Hashem G-d made for Adam and his wife garments of skin, and He clothed them.” It specifically mentions garments of skin because Shecheyanu is not recited over leather garments, since “His mercy extends to all His creatures” [Tehillim 145:9]. By fashioning garments of skin for Adam while he was still naked, Hashem exempted him from having to recite Shecheyanu.
And we know that the name of Donald Trump has the same gematria as ''Moshiach ben David'' and we know that the name Hillary Rodham Clintonhas an extremely unique gematria equalling the phrase ''a time of terrible distress'' which may well hint to her time as leader of America.
And we also have the widespread conspiracy theory that there will be no elections at all.
Anyway, here is the video of the latest Trump Codes.
The drones were chasing the orbs. Many drone owners reported that when they aimed their drones at an orb, the drone battery immediately d...
.
This site may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked. "Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad." "How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice. "You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."
