Unfortunately, this last week has been defined by the heinous ideological war against Jewry taking place in Israel. While there can be no silver lining when Jews are being killed, we have witnessed throughout this period of time tremendous acts of valor and courage. Jews, when faced with the threat of danger and death, have stepped forward and fought back, overpowering fear.
This concept of being a gibor, a person imbued with the trait of courage and might, is mentioned in this week’s Torah portion of Noach. When used properly, such as in the sanctification of the Name of God, it is a trait that defines the greatness of man. However, when directed towards man’s thirst for dominance, it is truly destructive.
The man identified as being a gibor is Nimrod, whose brief cameo is an interruption in the genealogy presented towards the end of Parshat Noach (10:8-9):
“And Cush begot Nimrod; he began to be a mighty (gibor) man in the land. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty (gibor) hunter before the Lord”
One must ask, what is the importance of telling us about Nimrod? How is he a significant figure in the chronicles of the history of mankind?
Within these two verses, we also see the emphasis of gibor. The Sages viewed Nimrod as a pretty bad guy, and his supposed courage as being the root of his evil. Yet this trait is considered to be a defining feature of greatness. It is used to describe the greatest fighters and warriors. As well, it is considered the hallmark of perfection, as noted in Pirkei Avot (4:1): “Who is mighty (gibor)? One who overpowers his inclinations.” This trait of gevura, then, presents quite the conundrum, as it is both the driving force behind whatever malevolence was concocted by Nimrod, yet appears to be the vehicle towards perfection.
The commentaries offer different interpretations concerning Nimrod, greatly expanding the Torah’s cryptic and brief description. The Midrash explains that Nimrod was the first to begin eating meat. He was known for his ability to capture animals and then kill them; his might, then, was being expressed in his hunting expertise. The Midrash adds one other thought. The idea of Nimrod being mighty before God (as noted above) refers to the fact that he knew God, yet chose to rebel against Him. What is odd here is the incredible leap from describing Nimrod as a successful hunter to this notion of him rebelling against God.
The Ramban offers a different approach, focusing on Nimrod’s rule over man. He was the first king, and his dominion over other men was the expression of his power. This led to the building of many cities, and eventually to the Tower of Babel.
Rashi, though, takes a much different approach. He writes:
“He ensnared people’s minds with his speech and misled them to rebel against the Omnipresent”
We see another mention of rebellion, keeping in line with the theme of the Midrash. However, what are we to make of this “ensnaring”? What is Rashi teaching us?
What is unique about gevura? Often, this quality is associated with a soldier or warrior, heading to battle. In this context, the value of a gibor is clear. Overcoming a fear is a challenge anyone faces, and we face fears head on all the time. However, when it comes to war, a person comes face to face with the survival instinct, and must dominate this drive in order to succeed in battle. The “might” being expressed here is the complete and absolute control over one’s emotions.
We see this same basic idea in Pirkei Avot. The idea of might in that context as well concerns the relationship between the mind and one’s emotions, expressed in the arena of perfection. The highest level of perfection comes from removal of conflict between mind and instinctual drive; the mind, then, is in total control. When gevura is expressed in these frameworks, man is exhibiting an amazing feature of his existence. However, as we will see with Nimrod, this trait can be destructive when motivated by the wrong reasons.
What type of control was Nimrod seeking? How was he a gibor? The one theme all the commentaries have in common is Nimrod being the paradigm of the megalomaniac, the individual who seeks out complete dominion over others. The emergence of this personality type signaled the end of the effect of the Flood, as the tolerance (and even welcome) of this personality type meant that man had begun to return to his old ways.
The Midrash describes Nimrod’s expression of control in its most basic individualistic form. Nimrod sees man as the dominant species on the planet, and chooses to exercise that dominance. It is critical to note the emphasis on his capture and killing the animals, rather than just killing.
Nimrod needed to demonstrate man could outsmart the animal world. He was searching for the simplest expression of dominion, the superior species controlling the weaker. Yet his desire for superiority was in reality a challenge to God, a refusal to accept man’s subservience to the Creator. The Ramban, though, sees his expression of control as it pertains to his fellow man. He is highlighting a different facet of the incorrect gevura.
On an objective level, ruling over man is always an incomplete expression of control; after all, no matter how harsh and dominating the ruler is, ultimately those being ruled will always have some degree of independence. Therefore, being a king would be an inferior expression of control when compared to hunting animals. However, one could argue that the ego satisfaction achieved by the king is far greater in relation to the hunter. The might expressed by the king has a much more powerful effect on his being than the hunter. In these two explanations, we are witness to the desire of dominance exemplified by Nimrod.
Rashi, as noted above, presents an alternate explanation, focusing on Nimrod’s convincing others to join in his “crusade”. One can assume that if people required convincing, there was some resistance in going along with Nimrod. Hearing of someone wanting to plant the flag of man’s dominance over the world would naturally bring up some degree of concern.
Yes, the Flood and annihilation of mankind was in the past. Yet the Flood was the direct result of man existing in an unchecked state, living a limitless existence. To follow Nimrod would be asking for a return to pre-Flood man. Nimrod could point out that the facts had changed. God had promised there would never again be a complete destruction of mankind. There were checks and balances in the world to ensure such a low state in man’s existence would never emerge.
If so, what need is there for God in the world? Man could claim his rightful place in the world, demonstrate his complete control, and fear no final consequence. In uniting society under this banner, Nimrod led mankind down this dangerous road, culminating with the Tower of Babel. In truth, this philosophical outlook exemplified by Nimrod is one of the primary sources for idolatry. As man dreams of dominion, the natural tendency to deification of the self emerges, and God becomes anathema to his very outlook. For this reason, then, the Torah emphasizes this gibor, to demonstrate to us the underpinnings of idolatry.
We see now how powerful the trait of gevura is. The Torah isolates Nimrod, introducing to us the drive of man to remove God from the world and exercise complete dominance. When the desire for control is expressed externally, man lives a doomed existence. However, when push for control exists within the internal, where man allows the mind to be the guiding force, greatness ensues.
Over the last few days, so many Jews have stepped forward and acted with tremendous might and courage, living in line with the correct idea of being a gibor. We turn to them as the prime examples of this most important trait.