T orah P ortion
Belief Never as Important as Action
BY RABBI SHLOMO RISKIN
Parshat Noach
EFRAT, ISRAEL — “And
Haran died before his father,
in the land of his birth, in Ur
Kasdim” (Gen. 11:28).

When it comes to questions
of belief, the agnostic is the
loneliest of all.

On one side of the fence
stands the atheist, confident in
his rejection of God and often
dedicated to the debunking of
religion, which he considers to
be “the opiate of the masses”
(per Karl Marx). On the other
side stands the believer, who
glories in his faith that the
universe is the handiwork
of God. The agnostic stands
in the middle, not knowing
(a-gnost) whether or not God
exists, usually despairing of
the possibility of acquiring
certitude about anything
transcending observable
material phenomena.

Our biblical portion makes
reference to two very different
agnostics, Haran and Noah.

The contrast between them
contains an important lesson
for agnostics, believers and
atheists alike.

The best
of the
Jewish Exponent
in your email inbox
once a week.

Sign up at the bottom left hand
side of our homepage.

jewishexponent.com 24
OCTOBER 15, 2020
The Bible states that Noah,
along with his sons, his wife,
and sons’ wives, went into the
ark “because of the waters of
the Flood” (Gen. 7:7). From this
verse, Rashi derives that “Noah
had little faith; he believed and
he didn’t believe that the Flood
would arrive.”
Noah didn’t enter the ark
until the water literally pushed
him in. Rashi’s phrase that
“he believed and he didn’t
believe” is really another way
of describing an agnostic who
remains in the state of his
uncertainty; he believes and
doesn’t believe. Noah is there-
fore described by Rashi as the
first agnostic.

The second biblical agnostic
appears in the guise of Haran.

“These are the generations of
Terah. Terah begat Abram,
Nahor, and Haran” (Gen. 11:27).

Why does the text specify
“and Haran died before his
father in the land of his birth, in
Ur Kasdim” (Ibid. v. 28)? What
is the significance of citing the
exact place of Haran’s death?
Rashi explains by citing a
fascinating midrashic tradi-
tion, and at the same time
extracts Haran from relative
anonymity, setting him up as
CAN DL E L IGHTIN G
Oct. 23
Oct. 30
5:51 p.m.

5:42 p.m.

a counterfoil agnostic to Noah.

This midrash details how
Terah, the father of the clan
and a famous idol manufac-
turer, brings charges in the
court of King Nimrod against
his own son. He accuses
Abram of being an iconoclast
who destroyed his father’s
idols while preaching heretical
monotheism. As punishment,
Abram is to be cast into the
fiery furnace.

Haran is present at the trial
and takes the position of having
no position. He remains on
the sidelines thinking that if
Nimrod’s furnace will prove
hotter than Abram’s flesh, he
will side with the king; but if
Abram survives the fire, then
it would be clear that Abram’s
God is more powerful than
Nimrod’s gods, and he will
throw in his lot with his brother.

Only after Abram emerges
unscathed, is Haran ready to
rally behind his brother. He
confidently enters the fiery
furnace (literally: Ur Kasdim),
but no miracles await him.

Haran burns to death.

Is it not strange that the fate
of the two agnostics should be
so different? We read how Noah
was a man of little faith, and
yet not only does he survive
the Flood, he turns into one of
the central figures of human
history. He is even termed
“righteous” in the Bible.

In contrast, Haran, father
of Lot, brother to Abraham,
hovers on the edge of obscurity,
and is even punished with death
for his lack of faith. Why is
Haran’s agnosticism considered
so much worse than Noah’s?
Rabbi Moshe Besdin, z”l,
explained that while Noah
and Haran shared uncertainty
about God, there was a vast
difference between them. Noah,
despite his doubts, nevertheless
builds the ark, pounding away
for 120 years, even suffering
abuse from a world ridiculing
his eccentric persistence. Noah
may not have entered the ark
until the rains began — but he
did not wait for the flood before
obeying the divine command
to build an ark!
Noah may think like an
agnostic, but he acts like a
believer. Haran, on the other
hand, dies because he waits for
someone else to test the fires. In
refusing to act for God during
Abram’s trial, he acted against
God. In effect, his indecision is
very much a decision. He is an
agnostic who acts like an atheist.

Indecision is also a decision.

A person who is indeci-
sive about protesting an evil
action or a malicious state-
ment is aiding and abetting
that malevolence by his very
indecisive silence. After all, our
sages teach that “silence is akin
to assent.”
Noah reached his spiritual
level because he acted, not so
much out of faith, but despite
his lack of it. Our sages under-
stood very well the difficulty
of faith and the phenomenon
of agnosticism. What they
attempt to teach the agnostic
is: If you are unsure, why do
you act as if you are an atheist?
Would it not be wiser to act as
if you were a believer?
We learn from Noah’s life
and Haran’s death that perfect
faith is not necessary in order
to conduct one’s life. Belief is
never as important as action.

In the world to come, there is
room for all kinds of agnostics.

It depends primarily on how
they acted on Earth. l
the Mediterranean to the
Caribbean. With her husband
of 60 years, Hilary Strauss, she
would continue this tradition
throughout her life; and that’s
not to mention their summers
in Margate, another practice
that went back to college
su m mers at her pa rents’
house there.

It was a European trip
tracing medieval Jewish history,
according to Ruderman, that
helped forge a long friend-
ship between the Strauss and
Ruderman families. Ruderman
said that the depth of Strauss’
intellect and passion for the
project of Jewish history
were obvious.

“She had a deep commit-
ment to the Jewish people in
her own way,” Ruderman said.

Strauss, he added, was always
quiet and never “flashy.”
Her daughter has a slightly
different characterization: not
quiet, but “reserved,” Strauss
said, likely a product of her
mother’s upbringing. She
worked hard to never offend,
and refrained from dominating
a conversation; consequently,
many felt able to confide in
her. Even regarding polit-
ical matters, an arena where
she had strong commitments
(voting for Democrats since
Adlai Stevenson’s presiden-
tial campaign), Strauss was
careful to take note of present
company. In conversation, in her
philanthropy, in family life:
“She cared about everybody’s
well-being,” her daughter said.

Strauss was predeceased by
her husband, Hilary Strauss,
and another daughter, Erika;
she is survived by Louise
Strauss. l
Rabbi Shlomo Riskin is the founding
rabbi of Efrat and the founder,
chancellor emeritus and rosh
hayeshiva of Ohr Torah Stone.

Strauss Continued from Page 5
school there, too.

Strauss commuted to Penn
from Coatesville as an under-
graduate, but it didn’t appear
to be a burden, academically
speaking; Strauss, a journalism
major, was a member of several
honor societies, including Phi
Beta Kappa, and wrote for the
women’s student newspaper;
she’d later work as a Main Line
Times reporter.

Following her gradua-
tion, she traveled with her
parents as she had done since
she was a child, spending
two years on a grand tour
that took the family from
JEWISH EXPONENT
jbernstein@jewishexponent.com; 215-832-0740
JEWISHEXPONENT.COM