I have mentioned that I am marking 40 years since I began to learn about Judaism with any degree of seriousness. One of the first sort of introductory classes I had came from a teacher who wanted to make sure that the reading of the Chumash was done without the biases one might have picked up outside of Yeshiva. He spoke about the notion that the Chumash combines several distinct traditions and that they are associated with different names of Hashem. I was a student of that approach. I took a course on the Bible my freshman year in college, taught by an Episcapalian minister who had gone to Stanford, that presented the Chumash as exactly that.
The rabbi giving this talk pointed out that children from a young age are taught about the different names of Hashem and they are taught that each name carries a different connotation about Hashem’s various attributes, like Hashem is associated with mercy and Elokim with justice. That was Names 101.
But let’s go a little deeper. The further truth is that the Tetragrammaton is as close as we can come to Hashem’s name in the sense that we would refer to a personal name. Elokim is more of a title or position, like CEO. In fact, it is true that the name Elokim is often associated with justice but it is also helpful to see it as associated with executive function, with carrying out the rules of the world.
First I want to outline how the use of names plays out in the story and then I want to put it in a bigger context.
Shem Hashem does not appear often in this Parasha, making it all the more significant when it does. It is the title Elokim which dominates. That is because the overall goal of the Flood story is an executive function called preservation -- it is about preserving the cosmos, the Creation, and each species. The vast majority of species were saved two-by-two, which is just about preservation. So the announcement is made with the name Elokim and the process of saving each species two-by-two is also described as Elokim.
When the Flood subsides, we encounter for the first time the verb VeDabair. All through Creation, and into this Parasha, the verb for Hashem’s speaking has been Vayomeir. The difference between the two verbs is that Dibur is a harsher speech, a speech that is meant to bend one’s will. This is why it eventually becomes the normal verb used in delivering the Mitzvot. Its first use in the Chumash comes in ordering Noach and his family out of the Ark. They must be ordered because they are hesitant to emerge. But the re-building of civilization is at stake, so they must. In this section as well the name that is used is Elokim.
After the Flood, the Bris too is only about preservation. The promise is not to destroy the world again but to preserve it and the time cycles forever. Even the sign of the Bris, the rainbow, is nothing new. The Ramban points out that a rainbow is just a function of weather conditions, as the Greeks have taught. And the name that is used here is also Elokim.
All of this is in contrast to the few instances in which Shem Hashem is used, the name that denotes more of a relationship with Hashem. When Noach is told to preserve seven, instead of two, animals of certain species, the four-letter name of Hashem is used. These are the animals which will be used in the offerings that come after the Flood. In the book of Vayikra, the only name that is ever used for the offerings is the four-letter name. So too here, when Noach offers Korbonot -- a word that denotes closeness -- the only name that is used is Shem Hashem.
The meaning of the interplay of these two names is announced toward the beginning of the Torah. All of Creation uses the name Elokim, and only after that process ends do we see the addition of Shem Hashem. Rashi says that the world could not stand in the face of pure judgment; there will always have to be a modifying aspect of mercy. The two names appear together over and over in order to underscore this point.
But he names are separated at the end of last week’s Parasha. When Hashem declares his intention to dissolve the world, the strange thing is that the name that is used is Shem Hashem. The final verdict on mankind leading up to the Flood comes through mercy.
In this week’s Parasha, it moves to the opposite side. After the rain has fallen, and the world is ready for its reboot, Hashem remembers Noach and everyone and everything on the Ark. He passes a wind over the land and the water subsides. But that act of remembering is said in the name of Elokim.
Rashi notices this switch and says that the Flood shows the power of evil to turn mercy into justice and the second instance shows the power of Tefilla to turn judgment into mercy. What we are seeing is that the Flood could not happen unless Hashem’s mercy also consented to the decree. On the other hand, Noach could not be saved unless Hashem’s judgment could be convinced that it was time. That’s what the verses are telling us. If the two sides were not a blend, the world would look very different. The point of judgment is not to destroy but to reform; the point of mercy is not to ignore boundaries but to give second chances within boundaries. The two names work as a blend. That is how mercy brought on the flood and how judgment remembered everyone and created the possibility for a second chance. The combining of Hashem’s names shows that there is a requirement of balance. How do we imitate this? The modern era is announced with the French Revolution in the name of brotherhood, liberty and equality. The philosopher Isaiah Berlin showed that these are usually in conflict. Complete freedom, for example, will result in huge inequalities; an emphasis on equality, on the other hand, will mean some curtailment of liberty. One has to balance the two in a way that avoids too much of either. Otherwise, one will obliterate the other. The easy thing, the lazy thing, is to fixate on one or the other and our politics show the effects of lack of balance. Imitating Hashem mandates a more balanced approach.
Congregation Emek Beracha 4102 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306
