“And G-d said to Noach, ‘the end of all flesh has come before Me, for the land has become full of thievery because of them” (B’resihis 6:13). What is being added by the word “because of them”?
Rashi’s commentary on this verse has led to much discussion, mostly because of two issues. For one thing, Rashi first tells us it was the end of “all flesh” because wherever there is rampant adultery both good and bad people are killed, implying that the sin of promiscuity was the cause of the flood, then he tells us that their decree was “sealed” because of thievery, implying that this was the cause of the flood. The second issue discussed is why, with that generation having committed so many sins, it was specifically thievery that sealed the deal.
As far as the dual causes, most commentators resolve the issue by saying that it was only because of adultery that the initial decree included everyone (not just those guilty of that particular sin), whereas the decree to wipe everyone out wouldn’t have been enacted yet if not for the thievery. [Having the initial decree include everyone is not necessary to address this issue, as the decree could have been made (regardless of who it would have been directed at) because of the adultery, but enacted sooner than it otherwise would have been because of the thievery. Nevertheless, the verse does say “the end of all flesh” had arrived, and there is a tradition that wherever adultery is involved, all are impacted by the punishment. The very fact that Rashi quotes the Midrash (B’reishis Rabbah 26:5) which is explaining a different verse (6:2) for our verse (6:13) indicates that his point was to explain why it was “all flesh“ and not just the sinners.] Which leads to the second issue of why thievery is considered so much worse than all the other sins they committed, to the extent that G-d didn’t postpone the decree any longer.
Ramban says that theft is worse because we don’t need G-d to command us not to steal to know that it’s wrong. However, as Tzaidah La’derech points out, the Talmud (Sanhedrin 108a, Rashi’s source; see also Vayikra Rabbah 33:3) says that it was the sin of thievery that sealed their fate despite their having committed every other sin too. “Every sin” would include other sins that we would have figured out on our own (e.g. murder), yet those sins didn’t seal their fate.
L’vush is among those who say theft is worse because it causes its victims to cry out to G-d for help, and He won’t postpone helping those who cry out to Him (as opposed to sinning only against G-d, such as worshiping idols, or sins like murder, where the victim can’t cry out to Him, which He will tolerate for a while in order to give the sinner a chance to repent). However, as pointed out in Sefer Yosef Hallel, Yechezkel (22:3-13) lists the sins that were being committed then, and among those listed (22:7) is oppressing converts, orphans and widows (who also cry out to G-d), and yet the fate of that generation was only sealed because of their thievery (see Rashi and Radak on 22:13). Besides, G-d told Noach that the land was “full of thievery” before commanding him to build an ark, and the ark took 120 years to build (see Rashi on 6:14); obviously He didn’t answer their cries (from thievery) immediately (see B’er Ba’sadeh).
M’lo Ha’omer suggests a cute answer, based on the well-known Midrash (Tosefta Nega’im 6:6, Vayikra Rabbah 17:4, Tanchuma Tazriya 10/14 & Metzora 4/12, Midrash HaGadol Vayikra 14:32; see also Rambam’s Hilchos Tumas Tzora’as 16:10) that when a person sins, G-d first punishes his possessions, hoping he will repent, before punishing the sinner directly (on his body). Since thievery was so rampant, it wasn’t really their possessions (but what had been stolen from others), so G-d had to punish them directly. This, he says, is what is meant by the decree being sealed because of the thievery, as it prevented the punishment from being inflicted first on their possessions. However, this suggestion is quite problematic. First of all, even if all of their possessions were stolen (and therefore not really theirs), or if it would have been problematic if the possessions they really owned were affected while those they stole were left alone, there are plenty of ways G-d could have punished them directly (pain, suffering, disease, et al) without killing them. Secondly, this wouldn’t impact when the decree was sealed, only what the decree was (on their possessions or on their bodies). Third, the point of the Talmudic statement is that the sin of stealing is worse than other sins, as evidenced by the fact that it was only because of this sin that their fate was sealed; if the decree was only sealed because of thievery for practical reasons (because punishing them via their possessions wasn’t an option), how it impacted the decree has little bearing on how severe the actual sin is.
Gur Aryeh suggests two answers (and dismisses a third), with the first being similar to the answer given by B’er Yitzhok and Malbim (and the answer that resonates most with me); when thievery is rampant, society cannot function, as no one can trust anyone for anything. Therefore, the world had to be destroyed in order to start from scratch. Similarly, Tzaidah La’derech characterizes this state of society as one that has none of the three “pillars” necessary for the world to survive (laws, truth and peace, see Avos 1:18), so it could no longer be sustained.
Another issue discussed by the commentators is why/how “good people” could be killed along with those who were steeped in promiscuity. One of the more common answers given (see Gur Aryeh) is that once the “destroyer” is let loose, it does not differentiate between the righteous and the wicked. (Although this concept itself needs an explanation, suffice it to say, for now, that the “righteous” who are impacted were not worthy of divine protection, so if within danger’s path suffer the same consequences.) However, the wording here is “those who are good and those who are bad,” not “the righteous and the wicked,” indicating that something else is at work here. L’vush suggests that none are really innocent; rather, some have sinned so often that they must be punished, while others committed the same sin, just not as often, and wouldn’t have been punished yet, but are punished now too. Here too, referring to them as “good” doesn’t seem appropriate either, as they also sinned. Others (e.g. Bartenura) suggest that “the good ones” refers to children, who are not old enough to have sinned, but calling them “good” wouldn’t be precise since sinning wasn’t an option for them. [The same is true of Nachalas Yaakov’s suggestion that “good” refers to those animals who did not crossbreed.] I will therefore suggest a different approach to explain how the “good ones” could be punished with the “bad ones,” one that puts a slightly different perspective on the decree being sealed specifically because of the thievery.
As previously mentioned, when the Midrash (B’reishis Rabbah 26:5) says that rampant adultery causes both good and bad people to be killed, it is explaining the consequences of the very first mention of promiscuity (6:2), not the state of things closer to the time of the flood. The actual wording is “wherever you find promiscuity (or adultery), androlmosia (likely a Greek or Latin word) enters the world, which kills the good and the bad.” Although the “standard” way of defining “androlmosia” is “plague” since plagues have the same effect, there was no literal plague here (by the flood). The term seems to be borrowed precisely because it has the same effect, but the bottom line is that it refers to the eventual outcome being severe, not the mechanism through which it occurs. As a matter of fact, Rabbi Chaim Paltiel translates “androlmosia” as “an evil spirit,” meaning that rampant promiscuity impacts society in a way that eventually even those who were not sinning will be adversely affected as well. [It may refer to the “stink” that emitted from Roman vomitoria.] Despite the fact that some did not sin initially, and were, at the time, “good,” moral depravity (on a societal level) eventually impacts everyone, which will lead to even those who had been “good” to also sin.
Rashi first tells us that the “end of all flesh” became inevitable because of the moral depravity, then adds that when its impact had caused rampant thievery, the decree was sealed. Even those who had not engaged in adultery were guilty of stealing (see Rebbe Yaakov ben Shabsi, a Tosafist referred as “Chizkuni,” even though the name “Chizkuni” usually refers to Rabbi Chizkiyah ben R’ Manoach), as a result of the moral depravity brought about by the adultery (of others). And when the thievery became so widespread that society could no longer be sustained, G-d told Noach that He was going to bring a flood to wipe them out and start again.
The verse now reads quite nicely: “The end of all flesh,” both those who brought about the moral depravity and those who were eventually impacted by it, “has come before Me, for the land has become full of thievery,” and the world cannot survive under such conditions. How did the world get to such a state? “Because of them,” i.e. because of those who were promiscuous and created an atmosphere of moral depravity.
