BIODIVERSITY

The Story of Noah and the Flood:
Midrash Texts on the Preservation of Species and Human Responsibility
LEADERS GUIDE

By Rabbi David Seidenberg

Forward for Educators/Study Leaders

Why study rabbinic texts on the preservation of species? While the rabbis did not have ecological concepts to guide their thinking, they did think about the possibility of the extinction of species. When they thought about extinction, they generally thought about individual animal species, not about plant species or about the larger webs of species that could be destroyed by loss of habitat. While we could ignore these limitations and simply look for texts that agree with the positions we support, there is so much more to be gained by allowing the tradition to help us examine our own values by presenting ways of thinking that challenge our own.

This compilation invites you to see how the rabbis struggled with questions about human responsibility for other creatures in the world. By listening in on their discussions, we may begin to hear the deeper religious meaning in our own struggle to protect other creatures from destruction. One of the primary teachings we learn from these texts is to challenge the sense of human privilege, the idea that we have the right to use up the world. The rabbis wondered as we do about what makes humanity special, why we have power and what we should do with it. Throughout these texts, a deeper question is felt: How do we know what to do with our power? How do we take responsibility for the tremendous consequences of our choices?

*Note: The following midrashic texts focus on specific verses of the story of Noah and the flood. Page numbers are referenced to the following English editions: Midrash Rabbah, Genesis, vol. 1, translated by H. Freedman (London: Soncino, 1983); Midrash Tanhuma, translated by John T. Townsend (New York: KTAV, 1989); Tractate Sanhedrin, Babylonian Talmud (London: Soncino, 1983). Wherever possible the version found in Midrash Rabbah is given, since it is the most widely accessible collection in English. The texts are arranged by section according to the verse they comment on, and specific comments and reflections for each text are included below. Some minor changes in the cited translations have been made to facilitate reading.

CLICK HERE FOR A STUDY SHEET WITH THE TEXTS.

Noah's righteousness

A. "These are the generations of Noah: Noah was a righteous, whole-hearted man in his generations." Genesis 5:9

There are seeming contradictions in some of the midrashic explorations of Noah's righteousness. Of the four explanations for Noah's righteousness given here, Noah had only fulfilled one of them (the one of having children) at the point in the Torah where he is actually called "righteous." So Noah's chosenness was at least partly based on what he was capable of doing and not on what he had already done. Moreover, the only thing which Noah had done is hardly a mark of unique righteousness. We might conclude that Noah did not really merit God's favor at the time he was chosen.

In fact, the rabbis debated vigorously whether Noah's righteousness was only significant in comparison with the wickedness of his generation, or whether he would be counted as a righteous person in any generation. According to some midrashim, Noah failed to save the whole world by pleading with God when he could have. Yet we still say that Noah was righteous.

We might recognize ourselves in this debate. All of us are in some way responsible for the earth's destruction, even when we work to lessen that destruction. It seems almost impossible to do everything that is necessary to stop ecological destruction. Even were we to strive wholeheartedly to save each species, we might misunderstand what is needed. So our righteousness must always be incomplete. What would happen if we waited until we knew how to be wholly righteous before we changed the way we live? Conversely, what does it mean to act righteously even though we are not yet able to live blamelessly?

1. This midrash gives other examples of righteous people who fed others: Joseph (who fed everyone in Egypt during the famine), Moshe (who fed Israel in the desert), and Mordechai (who fed Esther). But Noah is the only one who truly fed the whole world, with all of its creatures, and the only one who saw a new world "three times: before the flood, after it was destroyed, and again when it was rebuilt." In what way was the world made new each time, i.e. how did taking responsibility for other creatures give Noah a chance to renew creation even before the flood had occurred?

2. One of the concerns we have today is the impact of an increasing human population on the world's ecosystems. However, the rabbis saw the generation of the flood as having the opposite problem: they tried to separate themselves from the rest of the natural world by not having children. Similarly, the generation after the flood (called the "generation of the dispersion" in midrash) built a tower so that they would not spread through the land like the other creatures. According to this passage, Noah (and, we must add to the midrash, his wife) alone embraced creatureliness and sought to bear children.

3. In this passage, Noah's righteousness is related to the fact that he drew out the building of the ark so that others would have a chance to understand and repent. His patience is also related to how he chose to build the ark: first he planted trees and waited for them to grow, then he cut them down to build. In the shadow of the flood, Noah found a kind of patience which allowed him to use things only as the natural order could provide them.

4. This passage proposes one interpretation for what it means for us to be created "in God's image". While it is in our nature to have the power to destroy, it is not this which causes us to be "in God's image." Rather, it is our ability to see other creatures as God might see them, and to modify our actions in response, that makes us unique. Our ability to feed, i.e. to protect, other species, is one thing which makes us like our Creator.

Both for us and for God, righteousness is related to taking care of other creatures. What responsibilities does this place on how we use our power? How does a sense of responsibility affect our place as human beings among other species?

God's Compassion

B. "And God remembered Noah and all the beasts and all the animals which were with him in the ark..." Genesis 8:1

Even though the story of the flood is one of judgment and destruction, the midrash focuses on God's compassion and mercy in saving Noah and the other creatures on the ark. God has compassion for every creature and every species, even to the point of making a covenant with each one.

A question comes up every time we read about God's compassion: Are we required to act in the same way in order to be "in God's image"? In saving all the animals with Noah, God treats other creatures with the same compassion (and also with the same rigor) that God treats humanity. We might conclude that we should treat other creatures the same way we treat human beings. Yet God commands Noah and his family when they come out from the ark to be especially careful about human blood, "for the human is made in God's image

It seems that there are times when imitating God means treating other creatures' needs as equal to human needs, and times when we must let human needs override the needs of other creatures. How do we know which imperative to follow? How can we find the best way to act according to "God's image" while still remembering to take care of ourselves? These passages suggest some resolution of this tension.

5. "Rachamim", mercy or compassion, is frequently associated with God's feeding of all creatures and providing for all their needs. In this passage, God's mercy, connected with remembering the creatures and saving them from the flood, is something much deeper. According to Joshua b. Levi, mercy is a necessary extension and expression of God's role as creator. According to Joshua of Sakhnin, the most profound expression of God's mercy is that God gives creatures the capacity to show mercy to each other.

While the mercy Joshua b. Levi speaks of applies to all species equally, the capacity to show mercy is something apportioned differently to each creature and species. Is our humanity defined by our capacity to show mercy? What is it like to experience the capacity to show mercy to another creature? Is it a greater mercy to be shown compassion, or to be given the capacity for compassion?

6. We are not used to thinking about other animals as having souls, even though both humans and other animals are described as "nefesh chayah", "living being" or "living soul", in the Torah. The midrash, however, is very comfortable with this concept: just as God knows our souls, God knows every creature's soul.

What does it mean to know an animal's soul? What kind of knowledge about other creatures can inspire us to act with mercy? Finally, does seeing other creatures as objects of God's love make human beings less special, or does it make us more in God's image?

7. The struggle of every species to preserve itself is seen in this midrash as a form of righteousness. This echoes the comment above that Noah desired "to plant a vineyard." Every creature, no matter how small, achieves merit in God's eyes simply by fulfilling its nature and continuing its species.

On Feeding the Animals

C. "And you, take for you of all the food that is eaten, and gather it to you, it will be for you and for them for eating." (Genesis 7:21)

Noah's capacity to feed all the other creatures on the ark was one of the foundations of his being called "righteous". It took tremendous knowledge about the needs of each creature for Noah to be able fulfill this task. According to one midrash, Noah's knowledge was itself a sign and consequence of Noah's close relationship to God. According to others, it was because of his capacity to care for other creatures that he merited having a relationship with God. In either case, Noah had to understand a tremendous amount in order to undertake the task of feeding all the animals that were with him.

The following passages all relate to the question of the meaning and value of human knowledge. Knowledge is always something that creates relationships and leads to moral action.

8. Human knowledge of the needs of other creatures is seen in this passage as evidence of God's grace. At the point in the Torah where the verse is found, Noah has not yet been given the task of building the ark. Knowing about each animal was therefore a direct expression of his connection to God, rather than a set of instructions about how to administer the ark.

In what way is detailed knowledge of the needs of other creatures an experience of grace? Is ecological understanding worth acquiring for its own sake?

9. While it was God who brought the animals to Noah (i.e. they could come to the ark on their own), only Noah could gather all the food that was necessary, both for their time in the ark (as R. Abba holds), and for the time when they would leave the ark (as R. Levi holds). From an ecological perspective, it was necessary for both things to happen in order for Noah to succeed in his mission.

Sometimes it is possible to protect a species by providing what is necessary for its immediate survival. In most cases, though, ecology teaches us that we must also work to preserve ecosystems and habitats intact in order for any species to have a future. How does this change the way we think about endangered species?

10. In this continuation of the previous passage, we learn that R. Abba and R. Levi also disagree about the nature of Noah's work. Does Noah gather food primarily for his own needs or primarily to feed the other creatures? At the heart of the discussion between R. Abba and R. Levi is the recognition that sometimes human needs are primary, and sometimes they must be treated as secondary.

From an ecological point of view, both interpretations are true: Just like Noah, we must act both for our own sakes, and for the sake of other creatures. What are some of the ways human beings benefit from helping other species? Is protecting biodiversity something we should do primarily for ourselves, or for the benefit of other creatures?

More Midrashim about Feeding the Animals

According to some midrashim, taking care of all the animals on the ark was a terrible burden, requiring an extraordinary amount of labor and knowledge. In our own experience, sometimes protecting other species can hurt people economically or require them to make other sacrifices.

Sometimes it is only by seeing a deeper value in the uniqueness of each species and each creature that we can find a justification for taking action to protect diversity. Being able to find this value is one of the things that the following midrashim assume of us.

11. In this parallel passage from a different midrash collection, R. Levi and R. Abba extend their discussion to exploring what it was like for Noah and his family in the ark. In order to do what was necessary for the sake of preserving each creature, Noah had to neglect his own needs, and even risk his own life.

We also face difficult choices when there are conflicts between human needs and the actions we need to take to protect other creatures. We may also ask: Is it possible to satisfy all our different needs and still do the work we need to do to protect diverse species and ecosystems?

12. Only by careful observation was Noah able to fulfill his task. Here we also begin to see some resolution of the conflict between human needs and the needs of other creatures: By attending diligently to the needs of every animal, Noah was able to make new discoveries and experience new blessings.

What role does attentiveness to the natural order play in our ability to protect species? What are the blessings inherent in gaining a deeper understanding of the lives and interactions of other creatures?

D. "And again he sent forth the dove out of the ark. And the dove came in at evening, and here, an olive leaf torn off in her mouth..." (Genesis 8:9)

Noah's role in feeding the animals on the ark brought him closer to them, but it also gave him a unique power over their lives. This is reflected in the connection made in some midrashim between Noah's feeding the animals and his being given permission to eat them when he leaves the ark. Other midrashim bring up this issue criticizing Noah for endangering the ravens by sending out the male. Here, the dove is seen as raising the question of whether this hierarchy is a good thing.

13. Though the gates of the Garden of Eden are closed to humanity, they are open to the dove. Some midrashim hold that the grapevine Noah planted was also descended from the one in the Garden of Eden. By planting the vine and sending out the dove, Noah maintains his connection to the Garden of Eden, even though he cannot go there. By caring for other species, we may also gain a connection to that part of ourselves which belongs "to the garden". However, this midrash suggests that by doing so we may also harm those creatures.

What does it mean to try to hear "prayer" or meaning in the actions or lives of other creatures? How can we respond to the loss of freedom, of wildness, in those creatures that we must now steward?

E. "And Elohim said to Noah and to his children with him: Behold, I establish My covenant with you and with your seed after you, and with every living creature that is with you, of the birds, of the cattle, and of every wild animal of the earth with you..." (Genesis 9:8-10)

In the flood story, God seems to regard both humans and other creatures with the same level of respect. Three prominent examples are:

1) God tells Noah that the animals will come to him paired "a man with his woman." (7:2) This language is otherwise used only in relation to human beings.

2) God "remembers" the animals and Noah together and so brings the flood to an end. (8:1 -- see section B)

3) God establishes a covenant with Noah "and with all living beings which are with you, with the bird and with the beast and with every wild animal with you." (9:9-10) This is the only case in the Torah where a covenant is explicitly made with other animals. [Note that the idea of a covenant with the earth itself, which is also found here, recurs in numerous places.]

What do these parallels teach us about the relationship between humans and other creatures? The story of the flood both affirms our uniqueness as protectors of the earth's species, and at the same time raises questions about whether we really are different from other creatures ("your fear will be upon every animal" -- Genesis 9:2). How do we understand our relationship with the rest of God's creatures? While God's covenant is made with all the inhabitants of the ark, ultimately it is we who are the bridge between the covenant and God's creatures.