Noah vs. Moshe: Isolationism or Involvement

Noach appears to undergo a drastic transformation of religious character over the course of the parasha that bears his name. The bulk of the parasha tells the story of the flood and Noach's escape from it on account of his exceptional piety and religious stature. According to one view cited by Rashi in his opening comments to the parasha, had Noach lived in a more spiritually conducive society, he would have attained even higher religious standards. Once, however, Noach leaves the ark after the flood, he appears to conduct himself far differently. He plants a vineyard, drinks from the wine, and becomes intoxicated, at which point he removes his clothes. Such behavior is far from what we would have expected from the man depicted throughout the parasha as the most righteous man in the world at his time.

Chazal (Bereishit Rabba 36:6) describe this regression as follows: "Noach, after having been called 'ish tzadik' [a righteous man] is called an 'ish ha-adama' [man of the earth]." The Midrash proceeds to contrast this process undergone by Noach to the reverse progression of Moshe Rabbenu: "Moshe, after having been called an 'ish Mitzri' [Egyptian man] is called 'ish Elokim' [a man of God]." What idea does the Midrash seek to convey by drawing this contrast?

At the simplest level, the Midrash may perhaps intend to teach us the critical importance of progress. It is interesting to note that "ish ha-adama," the phrase seen by the Midrash as indicating a lowering of Noach's stature, appears in the narrative at the introduction to the story of his intoxication. Thus, even before he partakes of wine and engages in inappropriate behavior, he is criticized for being an "ish ha-adama." What this shows is that in Chazal's view, what matters most is one's direction. Is the individual growing or regressing? Is he increasing his knowledge, observance and spiritual awareness, or is he moving backward? Moshe, the Midrash remarks, spent his life growing and developing, progressing from one achievement to the next. Noach, by contrast, moved in the opposite direction. Even though more severe crimes have been committed than becoming an "ish ha-adama," a man of the field, the fact that Noach did so after having first been an "ish tzadik" earned him the sharp criticism of Chazal.

The Meshekh Chokhma, however, suggests that the Midrash focuses on a different point of contrast between Moshe and Noach. All righteous people generally fall into one of two categories. First, there are those who withdraw from society, live in relative isolation and focus as exclusively as they can on their own growth and spiritual development. The other type is the tzadik who involves himself intensively in communal needs, who becomes active in public affairs in an attempt to lead and inspire others. Instinctively, we would expect that the first group of righteous people would enjoy far more success in their spiritual endeavors than their counterparts in the second category. After all, public life almost always exposes one to contrary ideas and poses significant challenges to one's religious devotion. What more, a person working in public service does not have the time to focus on his own religious development as does the one who withdraws from communal life. This Midrash comes to teach us that this does not necessarily have to be the case. Noach, who was generally withdrawn from his contemporaries – in fact, the Torah records not a word of conversation between Noach and anyone else until after the flood – regressed from his religious stature. Moshe, by contrast, who led an entire multitude through the wilderness, who was as public as a public figure could be, continuously grew and progressed. It is possible, therefore, for those who work in the field of public service to continue growing spiritually, and a compromise of religious standards is not a necessary byproduct of communal involvement.