Dying Words

For the most part, we are familiar with the contents of Sefer Beraishis. We have heard the stories of our Avos HaKedoshim from the time that we were very young and learned the Pessukim numerous times throughout our schooling. It can sometimes therefore seem as though we are reviewing old material, so to speak, in these weeks. If, however, we think not only about what the Torah says, but how it is said, we may fine new meaning in the words of the Parsha itself.

When Hashem speaks to Noach prior to the Mabul, to instruct him to build the Teiva, the fate of the world is made very clear: “Ketz Kol Basar Ba Lifanai…V’Hinini Mashchisam Es HaAretz.” Mankind had become so depraved that the Borei Olam was left with no choice other than to destroy not only the world, but all its inhabitants. Later, Hashem tells Noach exactly how this will happen: “Hinini Mevi Mabul Mayim Al HaAretz L’Shaches Kol Basar Asher Bo Ruach Chayim Mitachas Hashamayim”. The waters of the Mabul would completely destroy any living, breathing, creature. What is interesting, however, is that there is one last phrase appended to this Passuk: “Kol Asher B’Aretz Yigva.”

At first glance, these words, which literally mean “all on the earth will perish”, seem somewhat extra: Hashem already told Noach, quite clearly, that all living creatures were to be destroyed, why add that they will perish? Though we may assume that the presence of the word “Aretz” may be the source for the teaching of Chazal that only creatures found on the dry land were subject to the Gezeirah of the Mabul, the Gemarah in Kedushin learns this from a different Passuk, later on, that says “Kol Asher BaCharava Mesu.” These words, it would therefore seem, are really extra.

Additionally, the use of the word “Yigva” is itself notable. The term literally means “perish”, but it is something of an uncommon usage. The other appearances of this word are generally related to Misas Tzadikim: it is the term used to describe the passing of each of the Avos. This being the case, it is somewhat surprising to find it here, in relation to those who perished in the Mabul. As if to reinforce the intent of this word, the Torah later confirms that in fact “Vayigva Kol Basar HaRomes Al HaAretz.” Certainly, the Torah means to tell us something by using this term in relation to the Meisei HaMabul, and it is up to us to discover what that may be.

The truth is that the notion of the word Yigva as it relates to Misas Tzadikim is not entirely clear. The Passuk in Parshas Chayei Sara describes the death of Yishmael with the words “Vayigva Vayamas V’Yeasef El Amov” and Rashi there says “Lo Nemra Geviah Ela B’Tzadikim.” It would then seem clear, from the words of Rashi, that this word always denotes the passing of a Tzaddik. The Rabman, however, points out that the words of Rashi are based on a Gemarah that does not seem as clear.

The Gemarah in Bava Basra, in discussing whether Yishmael did Teshuva before Avorohim Avinu left the world, mentions that Ravina asked R’ Chama bar Buzi whether it was true that he said that any time the term “Geviah” is used it refers to Misas Tzadikim. R’ Chama answered in the affirmative, at which point Ravina asked: “What about the Dor HaMabul?” The Gemarah concludes that R’ Chama replied that his statement only applies to instances when both the terms “Geviah” and “Asifa” are used, as is the case by the Avos and Yishmael.

Seemingly, notes the Ramban, the words of Rashi here are cut short: the statement “Lo Nemra Geviah Ela B’Tzadikim” is not entirely true, as the Gemarah concludes that this is the case only when the Lashon Asifa is included as well.

While it is a little difficult to understand why Rashi in Parshas Chayei Sara seems to refer to only part of the Gemarah, it does seem clear that the use of the term Yigva, with regard to the Dor Hamabul, does not indicate Misas Tzadikim—a notion which was quite difficult to believe in the first place. That said, one wonders why this term was chosen at all. Even if the implication of Misas Tzadikim applies only when used in conjunction with a Lashon Asifa, the term “Giviah” must have its own meaning, and if we understand what that is, the choice of this word may become clear.

Another use of the term “Geviah” appears in Parshas Chukas. There, after Miriam is Niftar and her Be’er ceases to be effective, Bnei Yisroel complain to Moshe about the lack of water saying: “V’Lu Gavanu B’Gva Achinu Lifnei Hashem.” These words literally mean “had we only died as our brethren did” but again we see the choice of the Lashon of Geviah. Rashi, there, explains that we see that dying of thirst is a painful death. In other words, Bnei Yisroel were complaining that they would have rather died like the other Meisei Hamidbar, whose deaths arrived in a less painful manner, than by thirst as would now occur.

It seems, then, that the term Geviah relates to a type of death: one that is quick and relatively painless, as opposed to drawn out and painful. Bnei Yisroel were therefore longing for Geviah: “V’Lu Gavanu B’Gva Achinu”.

The use of this term, with regard to the Dor Hamabul, would then seem to indicate that they experienced this type of death as well: that they too died in a way that was relatively quick. If, however, this is the type of Misah reserved for Tzaddikim, one that doesn’t include drawn-out suffering, why would the most immoral and corrupt Reshaim, who cause the destruction of the very earth they inhabited, experience the same type of death?

Some suggest that perhaps this was to ensure that those who perished in the Mabul had no opportunity to have an thoughts of Teshuva, but the relatively painless manner of passing from this earth would seem more of a reward than punishment, especially as there are many ways to express death and here the Torah chooses one that otherwise applies only to Tzaddikim.

Perhaps we can explain the choice of this word based on a thought of the Sfas Emes.

Rashi, at the beginning of the Parsha, asks a question: there were innumerable ways for Hashem to save Noach and his family, as well as all the animals, as nothing is beyond the Borei Olam. Why, then, did Hashem require Noach to build the Teiva—a project which required much effort? He answers the question based on a Gemarah in Sanhedrin: it took Noach 120 years to build the Teivah, during which time members of the Dor Hamabul would ask him what he was doing, and be presented, based on his answer, with the opportunity to do Teshuva. Therefore, although Noach’s salvation could obviously have come about in a myriad of ways, the Teivah, which would be a more public display, was chosen.

The Sfas Emes explains that if this was Hashem’s intent in the construction of the Teiva, it is difficult to imagine that it did not come to fruition. We know, however, that no one else was saved, so it seems that they did not do Teshuva. Rather, he concludes, there were some who, because of their interactions with Noach during the construction of the Teiva, had Hirhurei Teshuva. Perhaps, even if just for a second, they paused and considered the error of their ways and the fate that awaited them. In addition, he explains that perhaps some did actual Teshuva and did not perish in the waters of the Mabul, but on the dry land beforehand, as the Passuk says: “Kol Asher B’Charava Mesu”.

Maybe, then, the Lashon Geviah relates to these individuals as well.

There is more than one Passuk that describes the deaths that took place during the Mabul, which would seem to indicate that not each one was the same. Some people did actual Teshuva, to a degree, and they experienced Misa on the Charava, as the Sfas Emes notes. Those who remained in their original state of Rishus were utterly decimated: Rabbeinu Bachya in Parshas Chayei Sarah explains that the words “VaYimach Es Kol HaYekum” refer to a painful Misa reserved for Reshaim. The third Passuk that metions death uses the term Geviah: “Vayigva Kol Basar HaRomes Al HaAretz.” Maybe these words refer to those in the middle: the ones who had mere Hirhurei Teshuva.

As we noted, the term Geviah denotes a death that was less painful, one that comes about more quickly, and is therefore generally reserved for Misas Tazadikim. Maybe, the Torah is telling us that those who had Hirhurei Teshuva, those who allowed themselves to be swayed by Noach in any way, received a less painful death as a result. They didn’t do Teshuva, but they thought of it, and so they were given a less harsh form of Misa.

Perhaps this is why Hashem added the words “Kol Asher B’Aretz Yigva” when speaking to Noach initially as well. He was instructing Noach to build the Teivah, a task that would be quite difficult. Perhaps at some point Noach would be discouraged as all his discussions would seem fruitless: where was the mass Teshuva movement? Hashem therefore told him that even if people didn’t do Teshuva, the Hirhurei Teshuva that Noach could engender would have a result, as they would be subject only to Misas Geviah.

In fact, the Sfas Emes notes that these Hirhurei Teshuva would have affects well beyond those whose minds they occupied: the future Gilgulim of those Neshamos would be effected, for the better, by those thoughts.

The use of the term Yigva thus teaches us an important lesson. One can never know the value of even the shortest positive thought. If we even consider Teshuva, or improving our spiritual standing in the slightest way, we are rewarded. Those who perished in the Mabul did not do Teshuva, they continued in their depraved ways, but they considered it and they were spared to an extent. How much more so if we follow through, if we allow our thoughts to reign and improve ourselves? Then we are certainly Zoche to rewards that affect us s