The Ar(c)k in Time
The phrase אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה often translated as there is no chronological order in the Torah, is employed by commentators when faced with events that appear out of order. Most famously Rashi and Ibn Ezra have adopted this position whereas Ramban argues that the Torah’s order is in fact generally chronological. There are a plethora of examples of where this conundrum occurs perhaps the most notable relates to whether the directives to build a Tabernacle followed and was therefore motivated by the sinning through the golden calf, or whether the command to construct the Tabernacle was unrelated to that event and was independently inspired to strengthen the relationship and closeness to God.
The portion of Noah does not contain such a dilemma but yet the timing of some of the events does invite, more beg the speculation of the sequence of cause and effect. Noah and his family emerge from the ark, and in a spontaneous gesture of gratitude builds an altar to God and submits burnt offerings. The Torah then describes the response 5:21;
וַיָּ֣רַח יְהֹוָה֮ אֶת־רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹ֒חַ֒ וַיֹּ֨אמֶר יְהֹוָ֜ה אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ לֹֽא־אֹ֠סִ֠ף לְקַלֵּ֨ל ע֤וֹד אֶת־הָֽאֲדָמָה֙ בַּעֲב֣וּר הָֽאָדָ֔ם כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו וְלֹֽא־אֹסִ֥ף ע֛וֹד לְהַכּ֥וֹת אֶת־כׇּל־חַ֖י כַּֽאֲשֶׁ֥ר עָשִֽׂיתִי׃
God smelled the pleasing odor, and God resolved: “Never again will I doom the earth because of humankind, since the devisings of the human mind are evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done…
The pledge whilst bringing exceptional relief is unsettling. If the sacrifice brought such pleasure why could Noah not have performed it earlier, before the flood, perhaps God’s pleasure would have brought this compassion and commitment and the annihilation of the world could have been avoided. The language of the verse deepens the intrigue. The graphic depiction of God’s slow breathing in, in order to then breath out in an act of creation, of love. That after all was the way humanity was formed 2:7;
וַיִּ֩יצֶר֩ יְהֹוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֗ם עָפָר֙ מִן־הָ֣אֲדָמָ֔ה וַיִּפַּ֥ח בְּאַפָּ֖יו נִשְׁמַ֣ת חַיִּ֑ים וַיְהִ֥י הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְנֶ֥פֶשׁ חַיָּֽה׃
The Eternal God formed a Human from the soil’s humus, blowing into his nostrils the breath of life: the Human became a living being.
Imagine if that would have occurred מוקדם יותר, earlier!
The lengthy verse contains remarkable language and ambiguities. We recall how in an astonishing word play, in the closing verses of the portion of Bereishit, where God regrets having made humankind; וַיִּנָּ֣חֶם יְהֹוָ֔ה כִּֽי־עָשָׂ֥ה אֶת־הָֽאָדָ֖ם note the employ of the root Noah, and following the harrowing decision to destroy ‘humans together with animals, creeping things, and birds of the sky’ וְנֹ֕חַ מָ֥צָא חֵ֖ן בְּעֵינֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה׃ Noah found favor with God. Noah somehow succeeded in comforting God. Following the sacrifice causing a רֵ֣יחַ הַנִּיחֹ֒חַ֒ a pleasing odor. Once again, the sounds of Noah’s name reverberate through the text, as if the narrative is circling back upon itself. The intrigue further intensifies, God allegedly says to His heart, pledging to never again destroy the world. A remarkable expression אֶל־לִבּ֗וֹ. Why does God speak inwardly rather than directly to Noah?
The Ktav v’Hakabalah, a preeminent 19th century Torah commentator Rabbi Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg, offers that Libo, his heart actually refers to Noah’s. Noah, having witnessed the destruction of the world, would understandably be fearful of bringing children into it, lest they too face annihilation. On this reading, God’s promise is not merely a private divine resolution. It is reassurance addressed to Noah, a necessary consolation that preempts or perhaps follows (if the Torah and the narrative does not follow chronological order) the now familiar blessing to be fruitful and multiply. It enables him to contemplate and usher in the future.
The predominance and centrality of water in this astonishing (flood) narrative appears to also serve as a reflection of the other, almost repeating or mimicking their actions. God is comforted through the sacrifices, but also brings comfort to Noah, whose entry into this etiology was through comforting God.
Speaking from or to his heart is also reflected albeit in an ominous manner through the phrase כִּ֠י יֵ֣צֶר לֵ֧ב הָאָדָ֛ם רַ֖ע מִנְּעֻרָ֑יו the urges of the human heart are evil from youth. The events and time, travel in a circular nature causing confusion as to the sequence of events, the ar(c)k in time.
The same heart that receives consolation is described as the source of humanity’s troubling inclinations. The word לֵב, heart, holds both vulnerability and danger, the capacity to be moved and the potential to do harm.
Perhaps the narrative is inviting us to resist the temptation to impose a neat chronology upon events whose causes and consequences are far more difficult to disentangle. The principle אין מוקדם ומאוחר בתורה may be more than a device for resolving textual puzzles. It can also remind us how limited our perspective is when we try to make sense of the events of our own lives.
We naturally seek explanations, particularly when confronted by trauma and suffering. We search backwards for the initiating moment, the pebble that disturbed the water, the decision or omission that set the waves in motion. Yet ripples become currents, currents become storms, and the consequences of one event merge with those of countless others. By the time we encounter the storm, the original pebble may be impossible to find.
This is not to say that causes do not exist, that responsibility is irrelevant, or that we should abandon the search for understanding. It is to acknowledge that we see only a small portion of a much larger sequence of events. The explanations we construct may be necessary, even illuminating, without ever being complete.
Perhaps this, too, is a lesson of the Ark. It carries Noah and his family through a world they can no longer recognize, preserving life without offering an explanation for the catastrophe. It provides shelter, not certainty; the possibility of a future, not an answer to every question about the past. The Ark does not explain the Flood; it enables Noah to survive it.
