Today, let's dive into a fascinating passage from Bereshit Rabbah 37, a rabbinic commentary on the Book of Genesis, that explores just that. We're going to look at the story of the cities of Babel and Nineveh and what their fates reveal.
Our journey starts with Genesis 10:10: “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erekh, and Akad, and Kalne, in the land of Shinar.” Now, Shinar… that's a place with a story. The text says, "The beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erekh, and Akad, and Kalne" – Ḥeren, Nesibin, and Katosfin. "In the land of Shinar" – this is Babylon. But why Shinar?
Reish Lakish offers a rather grim explanation: "It is because all the dead of the Flood were deposited [ninaru] there." Can you imagine? A land literally saturated with the remnants of destruction. Heavy stuff.
But it doesn't stop there. Another interpretation suggests Shinar is called that "because it is empty [meno’eret] of mitzvot," good deeds. No terumah (offering), no tithes, no Sabbatical year – a spiritual wasteland. As we find in Midrash Rabbah, Babylon lacked fundamental aspects of Jewish practice.
The commentary continues, painting a bleak picture: "because they [its inhabitants] would die in discomfort [tashnik], without a lamp and without a bath." Oil for lamps and wood for heating water were in short supply in Babylon. Imagine the harshness of daily life.
And it gets even more pointed: "because its princes die as youths [ne’arim]." Or, in a twist, "because its princes look into the Torah while they are still youths [ne’arim]." Is this praise or condemnation? Perhaps it suggests a fleeting, youthful engagement with wisdom that doesn't mature into lasting righteousness?
The most damning reason of all? Shinar, we are told, is "because it produced an enemy [soneh] and a foe [ar] of the Holy One blessed be He." And who is this enemy? Nebuchadnezzar. That’s a pretty serious accusation.
Okay, so Shinar/Babylon is getting a bad rap. But what about the alternative?
The text moves on to Ashur (Asshur): “Ashur left that land, and he built Nineveh, and Rehovot Ir, and Kalah” (Genesis 10:11). Why did Ashur leave? "Ashur left that conspiracy [of Babel]." The conspiracy that led to the building of the Tower of Babel. According to the text, Ashur saw everyone uniting to challenge God and decided to bail. Smart move?
The Holy One, blessed be He, seems to think so. "You left four [cities], by your life, I will repay you by giving you four [cities]." And so Ashur builds Nineveh, Rehovot Ir, Kalah, and Resen. Seems like a reward for righteousness, right?
But hold on. There's a twist. "But he [Ashur] did not do so [indefinitely]; rather, because it [the nation of Ashur] came and participated with them [the Babylonians] in the destruction of the Temple..." As it is stated: “Also Ashur has joined them” (Psalms 83:9).
Uh oh. Ashur, despite its initial good deed, eventually joins the bad guys. The Holy One, blessed be He, isn't pleased: "Yesterday you were a chick [efroaḥ] and now an egg?" Instead of progressing, as an egg progresses into a chick, you regressed. Ouch. The commentary suggests Ashur had the potential to soar with mitzvot but instead became trapped, like an egg.
The passage concludes by pondering the greatness of Nineveh, citing Jonah 3:3: “Nineveh was an exceptionally great city, a journey of three days.” But even greatness, it seems, is no guarantee of lasting favor.
So, what’s the takeaway? This passage from Bereshit Rabbah isn't just about geography. It’s about choices. It's about the consequences of aligning oneself with either good or, well, less good. It suggests that even a promising start can be undone by later actions. And it leaves us pondering: what kind of legacy are we building, and what side of history will we ultimately be on? A lot to think about, isn't it?