Shabbat Noach Babel
Written by Student Rabbi Janet Darley Monday, 15 October 2007
עַל-כֵּן קָרָא שְׁמָהּ, בָּבֶל, כִּי-שָׁם בָּלַל יְהוָה, שְׂפַת כָּל-הָאָרֶץ; וּמִשָּׁם הֱפִיצָם יְהוָה, עַל-פְּנֵי כָּל-הָאָרֶץ.
Therefore the name of it was called Babel, because there the Eternal confused the language of all the earth and from there the Eternal scattered them over the face of the earth.
This midrash, poking fun at Babel, concludes the strange story of the inhabitants of this city and their abortive attempt to build a tower in order to reach God. This story, seemingly out of place, concludes the parasha which concentrates on the story of Noah and the flood. The story of the Tower of Babel seems to provide an explanation to the situation presented in Chapter 10 where the descendents of Noah’s sons are described as having their own languages and lands.
This story raises a number of issues and questions which have puzzled commentators over the years. They puzzle me as well.
Perhaps Noah could be seen as a continuation of the story of creation, but this time creation is not ex-nihlo, but rather a creation from Noah and the other ark passengers. God, seemingly once distressed by the growing diversity of humanity before the flood, now seems distressed by its unity afterwards. In verse 6 we read God’s statement: “If, as one people with one language for all, this is how they have begun to act, then nothing they propose to do will be out of their reach.” Each generation incurs a punishment, but a very different one.
This brings the first question. The generation of the flood were completely destroyed—why were the inhabitants of Babel simply separated by their language and dispersed?
It could be argued that the generation of the flood did not seek to rebel against God, instead they robbed and attacked each other and lived in sexual excess. Because their sins were rooted in their bodies, their punishment was to have their bodies destroyed. In contrast, the generation of the Tower of Babel did not sin against other humans; rather they treated each other with the greatest respect. However, they were planning a rebellion against God. This act involved words and so, since they sinned with their language, their punishment was to have their language confounded so they could no longer speak easily to one another.
This explanation does not satisfy Rashi. He notes the seeming mismatch between the “sins” of the generations and their punishments and this troubles him. He points out that dispersion is very light punishment for rebelling against God when compared to the total destruction meted out to the generation of the flood whose sins were arguably not so great since they did not reject God, but rather pursued their desires to the detriment of their fellow humans. Surely the generation who rebelled against God deserved the more sever punishment.
Rashi’s answer is an interesting one. He notes that the generation of the flood lacked brotherly love and concern. They fought and quarrelled and took advantage of each other. But in the generation of the Tower of Babel, each person treated the next with the utmost concern. Together they worked in a spirit of harmony and unity. This he explains is the reason for the light punishment. Unity and harmony is such an important principle to God that it even mitigates an act of rebellion.
"One language with conforming words." You may learn [from this] that strife is detested and that peace is great.
So if peace and unity is a good thing, what were they doing that was so wrong? How was this action a rebellion? It could certainly be argued that the construction of the tower was a display of excess human pride. Perhaps there was something about constructing the tower with bricks. We note that this construction method is mentioned in great detail and that there is a point made about using brick for stone. Again this could demonstrate an over reliance on human strength. Perhaps the story is there to caution those who place too much faith in human rather than divine power.
In verse 4 one of the stated purposes in constructing the tower is to make a name for themselves וְנַעֲשֶׂה-לָּנוּ, שֵׁם They wanted to set themselves apart, which could imply that those who were different from them were regarded as inferior. Perhaps what we have here is an attempt to centralise power and create conformity.
One of the hallmarks of Jewish tradition is the repeated debating and questioning of points of law. There are often disputes and diverse ideas. In fact we even have the old joke that if you put two Jews in a room you will have three opinions. We have learned over the years that truth is often found in the process of debate.
This was recognized by the sixteenth century commentator Eliezer Ashkenazi who points out regarding Abraham, whose story follows that of the Tower of Babel:
“…it would be farfetched for a person to rise up and defy a convention accepted by all the members of society. That is why God frustrated their plans. Because when one person takes this view, and one person takes another, the truth will result from the dispute, as even Abraham knew his creator because there were sun worshippers and moon worshippers and idol worshippers, and he came to disagree with each of them until he was ultimately dissatisfied with all, and he found his creator.”
Perhaps then the reason for the destruction of the Tower of Babel was to prevent intellectual stagnation and dogmatism taking root among the people. Only by having debates and disagreements can God be found—without the freedom to debate who searches?
There seems to be a distinction to be drawn between unity which brings together those who have differences and uniformity which seeks to stamp them out. In unity we can accomplish great things, but uniformity saps our creative energy. May we learn to appreciate the differences among us and use these for an honest striving towards truth. From this may come a unity of purpose which leads us to use our power for good so that the words of verse 6 "then nothing that they may propose to do will be out of their reach" may then become a blessing. .
