Bad Planning

ר׳ אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר דְּבָרִים אֲחָדִים, דִּבּוּרִים אֲחָדִים, מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל נִתְפָּרֵשׁ מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ

The Torah introduces the story of the Dor Haflaga with by telling us about the linguistic tendencies of the worlds inhabitants at that time: וַיְהִי כׇל הָאָרֶץ שָׂפָה אֶחָת וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים. The words שָׂפָה אֶחָת indicate that everybody spoke the same language, but the phrase וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים seems extra: if they had a common language, it is understood that they used the same words. What then do these words add?

Rashi offers three explanations to these words, perhaps indicating the difficulty in understanding their true meaning. In the first explanation, the words דְבָרִים אֲחָדִים are understood as a common goal: בָּאוּ בְּעֵצָה אַחַת. The next Pshat, these words are understood in a slightly different form: וּדְבָרִים חַדִּים, meaning sharp words, indicating that the Dor Haflaga spoke sharply against HKBH. The final explanation uses the word אֲחָדִים in reference to the Cheshbon made by the people at that time: אָמְרוּ אַחַת לְאֶלֶף ותרנ״ו שָׁנָה הָרָקִיעַ מִתְמוֹטֵט. They realized that the same span of time between Brias HaOlam and the Mabul had had now passed since the Mabul, and assumed that another Mabul was therefore in the offing. The דְּבָרִים אֲחָדִים refer to the fact that they assumed that it was an event that took place אַחַת לְאֶלֶף ותרנ״ו שָׁנָה.

All of the Pshatim brought by Rashi appear in the Medrash here in one form or another, but there is another Pshat as well, that of R’ Elazar: דִּבּוּרִים אֲחָדִים, מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל נִתְפָּרֵשׁ מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ. R’ Elazar explains that the מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה is itself דִּבּוּרִים אֲחָדִים because it is not explained as clearly as the מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל. This Drasha is based on the meaning of the word אֲחָדִים in Lashon HaTargu, as we see in Parshas Vayera, where the Targum of the words וְאֶת הַדֶּלֶת סָגָרוּ is וְיָת דַּשָּׁא אֲחַדוּ.

This Medrash is difficult to understand from several perspectives.

First, what does it mean that מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ? The Torah tells us about their plot, הָבָה  נִבְנֶה־לָּנוּ עִיר וּמִגְדָּל וְרֹאשׁוֹ בַשָּׁמַיִם וְנַעֲשֶׂה־לָּנוּ שֵׁם פֶּן־נָפוּץ עַל־פְּנֵי כׇל־הָאָרֶץ, and makes it clear that HKBH was not pleased with their idea, and therefore scattered them: הָבָה נֵרְדָה וְנָבְלָה שָׁם שְׂפָתָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ אִישׁ שְׂפַת רֵעֵהוּ. If so, why does it matter that the exact nature of their Aveiros is not mentioned?

Even when it comes to the דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל, which the Medrash considered to have been נִתְפָּרֵשׁ, the Torah does not speak at length about the Aveiros that were done. At the end of Parshas Beraishis we are told כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וְכׇל יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ רַק רַע כׇּל הַיּוֹם, and that as a result, Hashem said אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה. The exact nature of the Aveiros are not spoken about, however. Even later, in Parshas Noach, the Passuk again speaks broadly using terms like תִּמָּלֵא הָאָרֶץ חָמָס and כִּי הִשְׁחִית כׇּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ, but again, we do not learn any specifics. Why, then, does the Medrash say that מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ whereas מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל נִתְפָּרֵשׁ?

We must also understand the concept of מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ on its own: is this a positive or negative indication? The Medrash only draws a distinction between the Dor HaMabul and the Dor Haflaga, but does not indicate whether the fact that מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ is an indication that they were better, or somehow worse, than the Dor HaMabul. How, then, are we to understand this comparative statement?

This question is perhaps bolstered by an interesting anomaly in the Medrash.

After bringing a number of Drashos about the meaning of the words וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים, the Medrash turns to a discussion based on the words of Rebbi: גָּדוֹל הַשָּׁלוֹם שֶׁאֲפִלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עוֹבְדִים עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים וְשָׁלוֹם בֵּינֵיהֶם, אָמַר הַמָּקוֹם כִּבְיָכוֹל אֵינִי יָכוֹל לִשְׁלֹט בָּהֶם. The implication of this Memra is that the Dor Haflaga was not punished as severely because there was Shalom between them and they acted B’Achdus. The Medrash then brings this Drasha once again: מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל נִתְפָּרֵשׁ מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ.

In this case, the connotation of the Medrash seems clear: because they acted in unity, because גָּדוֹל הַשָּׁלוֹם, the Aveiros of the Dor Haflaga are not spelled out, as a way of protecting them to an extent. The Medrash does not, however, include the words דִּבּוּרִים אֲחָדִים in this case, because this Drasha is not based on the way the Tragum uses the word אֲחָדִים, but on the unity of the Dor Haflaga..

If this is the case, however, what is the meaning of the earlier Drasha, brought in the name of R’ Elazar? In that case, the Drasha lacks the context of the discussion about גָּדוֹל הַשָּׁלוֹם, making it more difficult to discern the implication of the words מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ.

How, indeed, are we to understand the Medrash that is based on the words דִּבּוּרִים אֲחָדִים?

The truth is that although the Medrash tells us מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ, referring to their Aveiros, the Torah does add some additional facts to the story that beg explanation.

First, the Passuk tells us how these individuals arrived at the spot of their Migdal: וַיְהִי בְּנׇסְעָם מִקֶּדֶם וַיִּמְצְאוּ בִקְעָה בְּאֶרֶץ שִׁנְעָר וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם. They came from the east, reached a valley, and settled there. This series of events does not seem specifically tied to their later actions—why does it matter that these people came from elsewhere and settled in the valley?

The Medrash answers this question, with something of a cryptic Memra: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא יְשִׁיבָה הַשָּׂטָן קוֹפֵץ. Whenever we find “Yeshiva”, teaches the Medrash, the Satan enters the fray.

On one hand, the words וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם now take on a new meaning—they seem in some way to point to the eventual Aveira of the Dor Haflaga. That said, we must understand how this is the case: why is it that כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא יְשִׁיבָה הַשָּׂטָן קוֹפֵץ, and how did this rule apply in the times of the Dor Haflaga?

The next Passuk is perhaps even more difficult to understand, as it details the way the Anshei Dor Haflaga planned their construction: נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים וְנִשְׂרְפָה לִשְׂרֵפָה וַתְּהִי לָהֶם הַלְּבֵנָה לְאָבֶן וְהַחֵמָר הָיָה לָהֶם לַחֹמֶר. This, too, seems like extra detail: why is it important that they spoke to each other about the makeup of the bricks, and which materials were used for each part of the Migdal? Why is this conversation excluded from the general rule of מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ?

Perhaps we can answer these questions and come to a new understanding of not only the Medrash but the entire story of the Dor Haflaga based on another Medrash.

The Tanchuma, later in the story, tells us: אַנְשֵׁי מִגְדָּל בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְגָּאוּ בּוֹ נִפְרַע מֵהֶן, the Anshei Dor Hamabul were punished in the way that their Aveira came about.

The Medrash is based on a common word found in a few places in this story. The Passuk quotes the Anshei Dor Haflaga as saying הָבָה נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים וְנִשְׂרְפָה לִשְׂרֵפָה and then הָבָה  נִבְנֶה־לָּנוּ עִיר וּמִגְדָּל. Later, the Torah tells us that HKBH spoke about their punishment, saying הָבָה נֵרְדָה וְנָבְלָה שָׁם שְׂפָתָם. The appearance of the word הָבָה in both the words of the Anshei HaMigdal and Hashem is not incidental. Rather, says the Medrash, the same word that was used in their Aveira was used in their punishment: בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְגָּאוּ בּוֹ נִפְרַע מֵהֶן.

While the rubric of בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְגָּאוּ בּוֹ נִפְרַע מֵהֶן it is perhaps understandable through the lens of Middah K’Negged Middah, we must understand the way it is applied here. The word הָבָה is itself unremarkable and would not seem to indicate any Aveira on its own. if so, why is this word the example of בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְגָּאוּ that was subject to an eventuality of בּוֹ נִפְרַע מֵהֶן? What is the Medrash telling us?

R’ Shlomo Kluger, in Chochmas HaTorah to this Passuk, explains that the Medrash is teaching us an important lesson: an Aveirah that is done calmly and with Yishuv HaDa’as is much worse than one does in the heat of the moment. This idea, he notes, is found in the Akeda who quotes the Gemara in Yom that says הִרְהוּרֵי עֲבֵירָה קָשׁוּ מֵעֲבֵירָה and explains: הַחֵטְא הַבָּא בַּדֶּרֶךְ הָעֵצָה וְעֹמֶק הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה הוּא יוֹתֵר עָצוּם.

The word הָבָה , explains R’ Shlomo, indicates that the Dor Haflaga engaged in detailed planning—their Aveira was done with Yishuv HaDa’as and not due to an overwhelming urge or Taiva—and so they were punished using this word specifically. This is the meaning of the Tanchuma that uses the word הָבָה to establish the rule of אַנְשֵׁי מִגְדָּל בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְגָּאוּ בּוֹ נִפְרַע מֵהֶן.

This idea can help us understand the words of the Medrash Rabba as well: כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא יְשִׁיבָה הַשָּׂטָן קוֹפֵץ.

The Torah tells us that the Anshei HaMigdal reached a new area, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם. The Aveira did not happen immediately—they settled, there was Yishuv HaDaas, and then they decided to act in this way. Because הִרְהוּרֵי עֲבֵירָה קָשׁוּ מֵעֲבֵירָה, an Aveira done with Yeshiva must indeed be the work of the Satan who takes advantage of the Yishuv HaDaas to wreak havoc in his way. The words וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם, and their message of כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁאַתָּה מוֹצֵא יְשִׁיבָה הַשָּׂטָן קוֹפֵץ are therefore central to understanding this story.

This approach also helps us understand the Passuk that discusses the construction planning. The Anshei HaMigdal did not just throw up a structure with the materials they had on hand. Instead, they spent time planning exactly how the bricks should be made, הָבָה נִלְבְּנָה לְבֵנִים וְנִשְׂרְפָה לִשְׂרֵפָה, and what substances sould be used in the laying and bonding them: וַתְּהִי לָהֶם הַלְּבֵנָה לְאָבֶן וְהַחֵמָר הָיָה לָהֶם לַחֹמֶר. This, again, shows that the Avira of the Dor Haflaga was done with Yishuv HaDaas, was the result of הִרְהוּרֵי עֲבֵירָה which are קָשׁוּ מֵעֲבֵירָה, and was therefore יוֹתֵר עָצוּם, as the Akeida writes.

Based on this idea, we can perhaps offer a new insight into the Medrash on the words שָׂפָה אֶחָת וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים.

The Aviera of the Dor Haflaga was not so much what they did, but how it was done. They did not have a momentary lapse in judgment or some overwhelming, insuppressible urge—their revolt was carried out with meticulous planning. Therefore, the Torah does not need to speak about the Aviera itself, it focuses on the planning that was carried out, as we have seen.

The Avieros of the Dor HaMabul, on the other hand, were wholly different. Gezel, Chamas, and even Aveiros related to Hashchasa are done in the heat of the moment; they are crimes of passion, so to speak, and often occur without planning or Yishuv HaDaas. The Torah therefore speaks about their Avieros, because it was not the planning or conception that defined them, but the actions themselves.

The Medrash tells us מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַמַּבּוּל נִתְפָּרֵשׁ מַעֲשֶׂה דּוֹר הַפְלָגָה לֹא נִתְפָּרֵשׁ to highlight the destructive nature of הִרְהוּרֵי עֲבֵירָה. The actions of the Dor Haflaga were not as pernicious as those of their Dor Hamabul, but the way they approached the Aveira—with meticulous planning and Yishuv HaDa’as—led to their punishment, בְּמַה שֶּׁנִּתְגָּאוּ בּוֹ נִפְרַע מֵהֶן.