Question: I have some questions about the Flood. In Genesis 6:12 we read “God saw the earth…it had gone to ruin, for all flesh had ruined its way…” The usual interpretation is that humankind was to be punished for its iniquities. But a few lines later (6:19) we read “from all living things, from all flesh, you are to bring two from all into the Ark…”

The key word is “flesh.” If the word means “humankind,” then why does God want to punish the animals at all? What did they do wrong? If the word means all creatures (humankind as well as animals), then why is the usual interpretation that God wishes to punish only humankind for its iniquity?

Why have a flood at all, if all creatures including man will start anew from Noah’s selection? The theory is that Noah, who was more righteous than others, would be best suited to select the new generation. But what is Noah’s special dispensation that would enable him to select the most worthy of the animals for the new generation? Or is it merely a symbolic act? I hope you can give me some guidance on these questions. Many thanks.

Answer: Hi! Thank you for your interesting question. You are quite right that the word “flesh” is mentioned far too often in this section for it to be happenstance – far more than anywhere else in the Torah that I can think of. Our sages understood that the Torah is stressing that the animals were included in the punishment of the Flood. Not just “collateral damage”, so to speak: the Midrash says that the animals partook of some of the same immorality that was overtaking mankind.

I expect you noticed that the word “flesh” is also used repeatedly in the later section about the new covenant between G-d and mankind, and the rainbow. Somehow this covenant too includes more of the world than just mankind.

Probably we can agree that since animals do not have “Bechira”, free choice, the Midrash’s point must be understood in a subtle way. Man was placed by G-d at the pinnacle of Creation; he rules over it, both physically and spiritually. When Man lowers himself, the whole world is affected in various ways. The Midrash is saying that (so to speak) even the animal kingdom was somehow corrupted by what was happening.

I would guess that Noah’s being the one to bring the animals on the Ark is another example of this theme: Man’s mastery of the world. He was responsible for its destruction, and had to take responsibility for saving part of it as well. The Midrash does say that G-d guided those animals to the Ark, and that they were the ones who had not participated in the corruption.

Best wishes,
Michoel Reach

Question: Thanks for your reply. I am unfortunately not familiar with the Midrash. Nevertheless, if “the Midrash says that the animals partook of some of the same immorality that was overtaking mankind,” how could this occur if they do not have free choice? If the point is to be understood in a subtle way, what exactly is this subtle way? Please clarify, and I appreciate your taking the time to respond. Best wishes​

Answer: Hi! I’m not sure I can help too much with your very good questions; I have some suggestions, but perhaps it’s better to let you use your own understanding. I was always taught that the way to study these kinds of Midrashim is to let them “speak to you”.

Anyhow, here goes, a little: It seems to me that the world is a complex, interconnected web, with connections on both physical and spiritual levels. If mankind has the right relationship with G-d, that brings blessing and positivity – G-dliness – into all aspects of the world. The world “runs properly”, things “go well”, in all sorts of obvious and less obvious ways.

On the other hand, if man turns away from G-d, then G-d’s presence is distanced from the world, and all kinds of things go wrong. The world itself becomes stunted and twisted. That’s how I understood the idea of the animals misbehaving; it has nothing to do with their free will and everything to do with man’s “polluting the spiritual environment”. [I’m needing too many quotation marks, but you see how it is.] Of course, since human beings share a certain commonality with animals, we can see their misbehavior as “evil deeds” in a way that would seem less reasonable for a twisted tree or rock. There might even be an idea that the animals that have “misbehaved” are ruined on some level and need to be removed, leaving the ones that somehow avoided that pollution.

I think it’s interesting to note that in the “covenant” that G-d made with Noah and with all “flesh” after the Flood, a major part was a new separation between mankind and the animals. Rashi’s commentary brings a Midrash that the dove told Noah, so to speak, that from now on he wanted to receive his food from G-d (the “olive leaves”) and no longer be fed by man. Till then, man and animals were part of a team. Man did not eat the animals; they were servants, not food. In the new covenant, animals become part of the environment of man’s pageant, and no longer players. They will no longer be included in man’s punishments (there won’t be any more punishments of “all flesh”), and in return they join the earth and the trees as part of the backdrop of man’s existence: man is allowed to eat them.

Anyhow, those are some of my thoughts; perhaps you’ll have more of your own. There is a lot in Midrash, but it can be hard to find clear evidence.

Best wishes,
Michoel Reach