parsha bit: Noach

[cellio]

When Noach wanted to see if the flood waters had receeded enough, he sent out a raven that went "to and fro". The rabbis say this means the raven argued with Noach, asking "why me?". Noach replied, "What need does the world have for you? You are fit neither for food nor for an offering." The raven replied, "your lord hates me and you hate me. Your lord hates me because he ordered you to take seven pairs of some creatures but only one pair of us. You hate me because you could have sent one from the other species instead. Should I perish, the world will be deprived of my species." Nonetheless Noach sent the raven, and it found a corpse to eat and did not return. (Genesis Rabbah 33:6)

Comments

[miz-hatbox.livejournal.com]

Interesting.

I know people with an attitude like that, who don't appreciate being given the chance to do take on a special role. Plus, he was able to start doing his job (eating carrion--important to the ecosystem) early, so you'd think he'd feel pleased that the Lord provided for him. (because, from a raven's point of view, a big ol' corpse would probably be a sign that God loves him and wants to be happy and well fed.)

Of course, Noach's retort didn't help...unless Noach was just saying it to get him going, or to goad him because of his attitude (as in the classic retort to the Wicked Son on Pesach).

(Speaking of the Wicked Son on Pesach, am I the only one who ever had trouble with the family dynamics there? I picture a family where the wise son and the baby of the family gets all the attention, the simple son gets barely a sentence, and the rebellious son may be feeling left out...and after the father basically says that God would have rejected him all because he misphrases a question, I can't imagine that the family dynamics would be very nice after that. You just know they're dealing with an endless bitter feud.)

[cellio]

Noach's retort definitely didn't help. It reminds me that the rabbis don't have all that high an opinion of Noach -- righteous in his generation is usually interpreted as "by the local standards, which you will recall were bad enough to warrant the destruction of the world".

The raven had a reasonable argument, but by presenting it the way he did he lost credibility. What you say is important, but how you say it is also important. By jumping to the position that he was being picked on, hated, persecuted, or whatever, instead of saying "look, this is risky -- would you consider sending one of the birds with built-in redundancy?", he lost his case. I don't view the raven in this story with sympathy, but I could have if he'd phrased it differently.

This thought brought to you by the "election day is in 12 days and maybe watching TV ads is a bad idea" committee, but it's also something we all need to keep in mind on a personal level. I've made plenty of diplomatic errors, and it's frustrating that they would have been so easy to prevent.