After the Flood strong leadership could have brought blessing to the world: defending the helpless standing up for justice rescuing people in danger. But once Nimrod made that power an end in itself he became a danger to everyone in his orbit and paved the way for future self-serving totalitarian regimes

 

T

his week the Torah tells how the “take two” of the human race — the new world population that arose from Noach’s offspring after the Flood — initially thrived in a system of equal rights. People lived as nomadic shepherds gradually developing technologies that improved their material existence. Tribal leaders the patriarchs of each extended family guided them in their wanderings. The prevailing spirit in this early society was one of freedom; no man was subjugated to another.

This held true until Nimrod stepped onstage and introduced new concepts that irrevocably changed their simple egalitarian lives. And the world still feels the effects of that revolution today. In the Torah we read “And Cush fathered Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man in the land; he was a mighty hunter before Hashem” (Bereishis 10:8-9).

There were “mighty men in the land” before Nimrod strong leaders whose authority over their tribes was uncontested. But Nimrod is the first person to be mentioned in the Torah as “beginning to be a mighty man.” He was the first to make a supreme and exclusive value of his might viewing it as the be-all and end-all of his existence. And through him the meaning of strength underwent a mutation imbuing it with foreign elements. As long as strong leadership served as a means to an end it could bring blessing to the world: defending the helpless standing up for justice rescuing people in danger. But when one who holds power makes it an end in itself he becomes a danger to everyone in his orbit.

Nimrod was the first to be aware of how much power he could wield and to turn it in the words of Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch into “his character and his destiny the meaning of his existence and the essence of his life.” To Nimrod personal power and the meaning of life were one and the same. Strength to him meant stepping out of the egalitarian system and subjugating others exploiting them for his own interests.

In addition to being a “mighty man” the Torah says Nimrod was “a mighty hunter.” Hunting usually implies chasing down wild animals but the Hebrew root tzud denoting hunting is also applied to the hunting of men as in “The wicked desire the prey of evil men” (Mishlei 12:12).

In both cases the hunt involves cunning plotting strategy and various sorts of bait. The hunter shamelessly takes advantage of human weaknesses personal quirks desires both open and hidden and any other character trait that serves his purposes.

This was Nimrod’s great “contribution” to civilization: By “hunting” his way to the top he established the first totalitarian regime ruling over the bodies souls thoughts and deeds of his subjects. “Big Brother” was born in his first incarnation.

Rashi following the Midrash’s interpretation of the next pasuk teaches us how far this total subjugation went: “He began to be a mighty hunter before Hashem — he trapped people’s minds with his speech and misled them to rebel against G-d intending to mock Him to His face.”

Nimrod’s philosophy is encapsulated in those words. A dictator tolerates no other authority. And history shows us that wherever totalitarianism has taken over a government it extends its iron hand also over the local religious establishment controlling the houses of worship and the beliefs of the people. Any thought that deviates from the thoughts of the regime is viewed as a threat. The despot knows that as long as the people’s spirits are free his control over them is limited. He requires their undivided allegiance even manipulating their worship and therefore at the center of every such regime we find a war on belief in G-d. From Nimrod to Hitler from the Valley of Shinar to Soviet Russia every dictator has pitched a battle against Hashem for the fealty of his subjects.

Another trait of totalitarianism is that it disguises its goals as the goals of “the people.” Although the ruler may come to power by brute force he knows that in order to retain that power he must secure the people’s loyalty and to that end he sets up a well-oiled propaganda machine and makes sure that the subjects are brainwashed into identifying his personal power-hunger with the national interest. Through propaganda he fills their hearts with pride in their nation and their leader convincing them that they share a glorious national destiny and stirring up their desire to sacrifice themselves totally for its sake. Every dictatorial dream has hinged on this same principle from the great Tower of Bavel Project to the Communist societies of modern times in which billions of people — often by force — were subjugated to the wills of a few oppressors who tried to place the whole world under their command.

Indeed there is nothing new under the sun. See how our generation behaves just like the people of ancient times: “They said ‘Come let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens and make a name for ourselves’ ” (Bereishis 11:4).

Who said this? Who put such an idea into the heads of these nomadic tribes? At first glance it appears that it arose from general sentiment as we see in the previous pasuk: “And they said to one another…” But in the Gemara (Chullin 89a) Chazal expose the deeper levels of this public discussion and they inform us that the prime mover behind this seemingly spontaneous initiative was none other than Nimrod. His ambition (along with his other aims in building the tower) was to make a name for himself to go down in history. He was too clever though to speak in the first person singular. He spoke in the plural enticing the people with his smooth tongue to believe that they would win honor and glory through this great endeavor and that it was worth their while to give their all to the project — everything they had both material goods and resources of the spirit.

It is there in that last point that the tragedy lies. In the Torah’s view every human being is a unique creation. “Whoever destroys one soul… it is as if he destroyed an entire world ” says the Gemara (Sanhedrin 37a). And this uniqueness is what makes man so beloved to G?d: “Beloved is man for he was created in [Hashem’s] image” (Pirkei Avos 3:4). The social structure the state and the regime were conceived for the sake of the individual. They are supposed to support him to assist him in realizing himself and his destiny. Society in essence is meant to be the great liberator of the individual.

In Nimrod’s society it doesn’t work that way. In Nimrod-land the citizen exists to serve the nation. His duty is to give up everything for the “public good.” Personally he is worth no more than a speck of dust and the only way he can realize his destiny is by sacrificing himself to the Great Goal which in reality is nothing more than the personal ambition of the ruler — in this case the building of “a tower with its top in the heavens.”

In Bavel this principle reached grotesque proportions. In Pirkei d’Rabi Eliezer we learn “If someone fell [while building the tower] and died they would pay no attention to him but if a brick fell they would sit and cry ‘How awful when will another one be sent up to replace it?’”

Man had become merely a means and the brick on the tower the end.

Former US president Dwight D. Eisenhower in his memoirs expressed shock at the behavior of his Soviet counterpart General Zhukov the conqueror of Berlin who sent battalions of infantrymen over minefields killing many of them. But they didn’t count. The important thing was to clear the fields so that the armored corps could pass unharmed.

This is but one of the sins of the builders of Nimrod’s tower and the builders of all the other “towers” in every generation.

It was only fitting that they be “scattered upon the face of all the earth” and rendered unable to communicate with one another. And in fact this was the most beneficial outcome. In this way they could no longer pledge universal allegiance to a single philosophy and thus freedom still has a chance of prevailing in some corner of the world.

For in the words of Rav David Tzvi Hoffman on the parshah “As long as humanity keeps distant from G-d its division into separate peoples occupying different lands into nations that are hostile and jealous of one another is beneficial to the human race as a whole…. Only when all nations unite under the true G-d to do His will and serve Him only then will their unity be a blessing to them and that unity will be everlasting.”