BS"D
בראשית ה׳:כ״א-כ״ד
(כא) וַֽיְחִ֣י חֲנ֔וֹךְ חָמֵ֥שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁ֖ים שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֖וֹלֶד אֶת־מְתוּשָֽׁלַח׃ (כב) וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֨ךְ חֲנ֜וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹקִ֗ים אַֽחֲרֵי֙ הוֹלִיד֣וֹ אֶת־מְתוּשֶׁ֔לַח שְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָ֑ה וַיּ֥וֹלֶד בָּנִ֖ים וּבָנֽוֹת׃ (כג) וַיְהִ֖י כׇּל־יְמֵ֣י חֲנ֑וֹךְ חָמֵ֤שׁ וְשִׁשִּׁים֙ שָׁנָ֔ה וּשְׁלֹ֥שׁ מֵא֖וֹת שָׁנָֽה׃ (כד) וַיִּתְהַלֵּ֥ךְ חֲנ֖וֹךְ אֶת־הָֽאֱלֹקִ֑ים וְאֵינֶ֕נּוּ כִּֽי־לָקַ֥ח אֹת֖וֹ אֱלֹקִֽים׃ {ס}
Genesis 5:21-24
"(21) When Enoch had lived 65 years, he begot Methuselah. (22) After the birth of Methuselah, Enoch walked with G-d 300 years; and he begot sons and daughters. (23) All the days of Enoch came to 365 years. (24) Enoch walked with G-d; then he was no more, for G-d took him."
Chapter 5 of Bereshit traces Adam's descendants through his third son Seth, for the ten generations from Adam himself to Noach. Most of the chapter follows a set format - in English: 'when A had lived for X years, he begot B. After the birth of B, A lived for Y years and begot sons and daughters. All the days of A came to Z years, then he died.' Rinse and repeat for B, C, D and so on.
With one glaring exception*. Enoch/Chanoch.
Enoch's life is captured in a mere four verses, but these break the established rhythm in two key places. After his first son is born, Enoch didn't just live for Y years - he 'walked with G-d' . And at the end of his mere 365 years he didn't just 'die' - he 'walked with G-d; then he was no more, for G-d took him'.
What's happening here? What does it mean to 'walk with G-d'? What is so different about Enoch's death? And why - given our tradition that a reward for being righteous is a long life - does it happen at such a relatively young age compared to everyone else in this chapter?
The traditional 'go-to' commentary on this is Rashi. Here, Rashi comments:
רש"י על בראשית ה׳:כ״ד:א׳
ויתהלך חנוך. צַדִּיק הָיָה וְקַל בְּדַעְתּוֹ לָשׁוּב לְהַרְשִׁיעַ, לְפִיכָךְ מִהֵר הַקָּבָּ"ה וְסִלְּקוֹ וֶהֱמִיתוֹ קֹדֶם זְמַנּוֹ, וְזֶהוּ שֶׁשִּׁנָּה הַכָּתוּב בְּמִיתָתוֹ לִכְתֹּב וְאֵינֶנּוּ בָּעוֹלָם – לְמַלְּאוֹת שְׁנוֹתָיו (בראשית רבה):
Rashi on Genesis 5:24:1
"ויתהלך חנוך AND ENOCH WALKED [WITH G-D] — He was a righteous man, but his mind was easily induced to turn from his righteous ways and to become wicked. The Holy One, blessed be He, therefore took him away quickly and made him die before his full time. This is why Scripture uses a different expression when referring to his death by writing ואיננו “and he was not”, meaning, he was not in the world to complete the number of his years."
In short - according to Rashi, Enoch died young because, despite being a tzadik, he was too weak-minded to avoid 'falling off the derech'. Personally, I'd call this damning with faint praise.
However, this doesn't feel like the whole story. Enoch's unique trait here seems to be that he 'walked with G-d', a phrase which the Torah sees fit to repeat within the space of three verses. This feels like overkill for someone who is simply a 'good man who is prone to go astray'. And indeed, when we dig into other commentaries and midrashim, a fuller picture of Enoch emerges.
Enoch was an expert in calculating the calendar - intercalation - a tradition received from Adam and passed on to Noah (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 8:2). The number of years he lived - 365 - closely matches the number of days in a solar year. Enoch's appreciation of the solar cycle and astronomy is closely tied to his tzadik status and his relationship with G-d (Rabbeinu Bahya here and here).
Things get stranger the deeper we move into mystical territory. Targum Jonathan explains the odd wording around Enoch's 'death' as meaning that he didn't actually die - instead, he was 'withdrawn', ascended to Heaven, and renamed Metatron (who pops up elsewhere in aggada as an angel). The Sefer HaYashar gives us a potted history of Enoch - after an initial period of separation from human society, he 'returns to the world' at G-d's command to become a religious leader over many kings and nations. Following Adam's death, Enoch starts gradually withdrawing from society again. Eventually, an angel summons him to Heaven to rule over 'b'nei haElokim' (the 'sons of G-d'). Enoch rides for six days on a heavenly horse, with some followers insisting on accompanying him, then ascends into Heaven on the seventh day in a fiery chariot leaving behind a trail of snow and ice blocks (were these what was left of the followers? I'm not sure). Methusaleh continues his father Enoch's reign until people start turning away from G-d again, resulting in the Flood.
Set against Rashi, this seems
odd. How could a saintly religious leader who merits ruling over heavenly
beings be too weak to resist sin on Earth? On the other hand, the whole idea of
a human who goes up to Heaven alive and becomes some sort of angel or divine
being sounds, well, not very Jewish.**
Can we reconcile both traditions?
Let's try.
To me, there are a couple of ways of reading Rashi. The first - and simplest - is to take his comment that Enoch was 'kal beda’ato lashuv l'harshia' at face value. Enoch didn't necessarily start out as a tzadik (as implied by lashuv, to return) - even if he did, he was fickle, volatile, and at risk of falling into evil. In other words, he was in danger of burnout.
We all know people like this. The classic stereotype is of BTs - ba'alei teshuva - who embrace their newfound religiosity with zeal, only to crash and give up when faced with a crisis or on discovering that they cannot maintain their high level of devotion amidst the banality of everyday life. But the same personality type can be found across our community, whether as BTs, converts or 'frum from birth' Jews.
The second reading takes into account the mystical traditions surrounding Enoch. The Sefer HaYashar describes Enoch withdrawing from human society for prayer and contemplation twice during his life. The first time, he only returns at G-d's command. The second time ends with his 'ascent to Heaven'. Either way, despite fathering children and his role as a religious leader and teacher, Enoch is clearly drawn to solitude and separation from his fellow man.
This character trait also ties with the traditions making Enoch an expert in astronomy. While our understanding of space changes over time, the actual behaviour of the Sun, stars and planets is fixed, determined by forces beyond our control. Crucially, it is also predictable once you have the right knowledge (hence calendars). By contrast, humans and human behaviour are messy, illogical, at times deceptive, and not always predictable.
This points to Enoch's problem. 'No man is an island' - therefore, it is not enough for us to be an exemplary person in isolation. From childhood, we also need to learn how to behave around others and how to avoid, not just mistreating others, but also mistakenly doing wrong under the influence of others.
Enoch, the hermit stargazer, might therefore have risked falling into wickedness - not because he knew it was wrong but was too weak to resist, but because he was so disconnected from humanity that he could no longer recognise being in danger of doing wrong. Others could have taken advantage of him through deception - equally, he could have sinned by simply failing to understand other people's behaviour.
So, should we be taking Enoch as a role model? The mystical traditions treat Enoch's 'disconnection' from the human world as a sign of holiness, which may even have led to him morphing into an angel. Rashi, and the other commentators noted below, seem more ambivalent.
In any case, we can draw our own conclusions from the Torah itself. Despite the midrashic accounts of Enoch drawing many nations to worshipping G-d, it's clear that this religious movement didn't survive. At most, it only lasted until the death of Enoch's own long-lived son Methusaleh. By that point, things were so bad that the only 'solution' was the Flood – and a fresh start with Enoch's great-grandson and fellow ‘walker with G-d’, Noach.
RPT
*OK, it's not the only exception
- but the only other times this format is broken is for Adam and Noach, i.e.
the start and the end of the chain. From a literary perspective, this is easily
explained as Adam and Noach are clearly important figures in the narrative.
There is no obvious reason why Enoch should have the same treatment - so the
Torah must have a reason for drawing our attention to him.
**There is an apocryphal Book of Enoch which was apparently associated with non-Rabbinic groups such as the Essenes, and included concepts which later made their way into Christianity. Given this, I wouldn't be surprised if Rashi's comment is an attempt to push back against this legacy. Several other commentators (Ibn Ezra; Chizkuni; possibly Radak) also try to downplay the mystical 'ascending to Heaven alive' tradition by emphasising that Enoch simply died young. But I really don't know enough about this to comment further...
