Tag Info

Hot answers tagged

11

At the core of your question is the assumption that the flood and its fallout was natural, and was subject merely to the laws of nature as we see them today. I do not accept that premise, however I think that one can still reconcile the evidence we see nowadays with the flood in a cogent way that draws upon the natural sciences we accept. I will attempt to ...


11

The "window" was in the top of the Ark. (Ibn Ezra says this explicitly on 6:16, but I think it is generally agreed upon.) Looking up would not have helped much. Sticking his head out of the top would not have been an option, since the opening was 1/6th of a cubit wide (Ibn Ezra there).


9

Great question! Apparently, 2 cockroaches were on the ark. Breishit (Gen.) 6:20 mentions "all that crawls on the land". I would include insects in that category. Apparently, they made it out of the ark alive, too as Breishit 8:17 implies. Miraculous that the elephants didn't squash them and the cats didn't eat them :-)


7

This can be found in Rashi, Onkelos, and Ibn Ezra. To cite a post about this on Balashon: The word tzohar (or tsohar) appears only here in the Tanach and there are a number of explanations for the meaning: window (Onkelos, Rashi, Ibn Ezra) - based on tsohorayim צהרים - noon. The light of noon is compared to the light entering the ark via the window. ...


7

The Ramban deals with this and points out that it must be a miracle. A WHOLE NEW WORLD and Ramban on the Torah: The Ark’s Size both show the explanation of this. God’s Instructions to Noah outline the ark’s dimensions: three hundred amot long, fifty amot wide and thirty amot high (Bereishit 6:15). Ramban (commentary on 6:19) notes that such a structure ...


6

He didn't endeavor to get the rest of his generation to do Teshuva. That is the main contrast between him and Avraham Avinu, who worked tirelessly to spread monotheism to the world. This is called a Tzaddik in Pelz - a Righteous person in a fur coat - he keeps warm by wearing a fur coat instead of lighting a fire, thus keeping himself warm but letting ...


5

As quoted here from the Lubavitcher Rebbe, the theological significance of tongs is that they are preparatory - they exist for the purpose of making something else - and the idea of G-d creating them is that even things which are preparatory to something holy and significant can itself be worthwhile and significant. As for the second question, creation of ...


5

As pointed out by many meforshim, the food in the teivah was provided miraculously. Rabbi Sorotzkin in Oznayim Latorah 6:21 (answer 3) says It is known that the Ark's provisions were insufficient to sustain its passengers for even a week, and only Hashem's blessing caused the food to last the entire year of the flood. Similarly, he says that after they ...


5

Rabbi Sorotzkin in Oznayim Latorah (Insights to the Torah) says that Noach continued to feed all the animals for the year after they left the teivah. In Noach 8:17, Hashem gives a bracha which includes the term שרצו which implies increasing like the "creeping things" (such as insects). Thus, Rabbi Sorotzkin says that immediately upon leaving the ark they ...


4

After I asked the question, an answer occurred to me when I remembered that Rashi on a later posuk makes a calculation to show that Noach's ark was submerged 11 amos (cubits) in the water. Why does Rashi tell us this bit of seemingly trivial information? To answer our question: Hashem allowed Noach and everything in the ark to escape the waters of ...


4

As we see farther on, the "clean" animals are the ones designated for the altar. While Noach and the others are allowed to eat any animal, the ones being given to Hashem as a sacrifice are restricted more. See the relevant pesukim and the meforshim on the sacrifice upon exiting the ark. Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch, for example, goes into a long analysis ...


4

For Ch. 6:17 the Torah Sheleimah Vol 2 page 408 note 198 brings the Medrash Raba that VaYigva here means to shrivel. For Ch. 7:21 the Torah Sheleimah Vol 2 page 429 note 79 brings the question and an answer based on the manuscript version of Bava Basra 16b: Only when the Torah uses the terms Geviya and Asifa does it refer to a righteous [painless] death.


3

The description of Hashem "making" is part of Ma'aseh Bereishis. That is the items that were not part of the normal "laws of nature" that had been created during the first six days of creation had to be created just before Shabbos, which put a stop to "creation". The actual use of the tongs for metal work had to wait until people had developed their ...


3

Yehoshua Meir Grainitz mentioned in Da'as Mikra says that Lesha is Leshem which is mentioned in Yehoshua 19:47. He says that it is also known as Layish as mentioned in Shoftim 18:27 & 18:28. Thanks to אראל סגל הלוי for this answer. This would lead me to conclude that Lesha is not the same place as Tzoar/Bela. However this still leaves open the ...


3

Rabbi Shimshon Refael Hirsch on Noach 10:1 (translation is from the 6 volume Hirsch Chumash) And these are the "toldos" of the sons of Noach, Shem Cham, and Yafes, Unto them children were born after the deprivation of life. says They themselves had lived before the Flood, but their children were already born under the influence of the new ...


3

I see no reason for not assuming that parshas Noach is a mashal. Natan Slifkin has already shown that many commentators (most notably Rav Hirsch in collected writings) view Bereishis as a mashal. The Meiri in the beginning of his hakdamah to Avos assumes that the Dor Haflagah was a mashal. Why not just say that the first two parshiyos were parables. The ...


3

Ohr Hachayim Noach 6,10 and 7,1 discusses this. It appears that minors can pass on due to parental sins. it was only because of Noach's righteousness that they were saved in his merit (as minors). It is unclear if this is the case only with bnai-Noach or also with Yisroel. Later, he indicates that Noach's children were saved because in Noach's merit they ...


3

See Rabbi Hirsch chapter 6 vs 17. Seems Hashem only used this term to ease Noach's mind while being left to imagine the impending death of millions.


3

There is a disagreement in the commentaries whether Cham was the youngest or middle son. If he was the middle son then it is easy to understand why Rashi explained that קטן means worthless and despised since he was not the youngest. In fact, Rashi himself in Avodah Zorah 9a says clearly that Cham was the middle son. The Gur Aryeh however is amongst those ...


2

Alshich - last piece on Parshas Noach says that Terach never made it to Eretz Yisrael since he did not leave Ur Kasdim for the love of Eretz Yisrael, he left it as he was on the run. However Avraham who left Ur Kasdim as he had a love for Eretz Yisrael was rewarded that he arrived there.


1

Fascinating question! I'm piecing together excerpts from several Wikipedia pages, as each links to another: Lasha was a place east of the Dead Sea, known for its hot springs. It was eventually named Callirhoe. (Not essentially trusting Wikipedia's say on this, I did confirm that the name is, apparently correct if you view Targum Yonatan's ...


1

The Medresh related that Cham and his wife were the only couple, human or animal, to cohabit while on the Tayvah. All of the other "survivors" remained celibate until emerging from the Ark one year from the start of the Mabul. http://www.torah.org/learning/rabbis-notebook/5762/noach.html so it seems, not significantly. he cannot control his passions and ...


1

You can see a series of commentaries on Bereshit 6:16 here. Some of the more relevant ones include Ibn Ezra צהר. מקום שיכנס ממנו האור והוא מגזרת צהרים. Bereshit Rabba "צֹהַר תַּעֲשֶׂה לַתֵּבָה" ר' חוניה ור' פנחס ר' חנין ור' הושעיא לא מפרשין ר' אבא בר כהנא ורבי לוי מפרשין ר' אבא בר כהנא אמר חלון Rashi (quoting the above midrash) "צהר" ...


1

I'd like to argue that your assumption is not quite correct, namely, that Chazal were not aware of the vast number of animals in the world. Start by observing that animals whose habitat is outside of the near east were not known to Chazal as is evidenced by the known statements regarding the uniqueness of the non-kosher animals: שליט בעולמו יודע שאין לך ...


1

I don't expect to have this marked as the correct answer, because my ability to recall and quote sources is abysmal. How many other people accept what I write as theologically sound is going to depend on the assumptions you are working with. We are always too happy to call other strains of thought as being heretical. I think the main problem that you are ...


1

This is a great synopsis of opinions of 5 Rishonim and early Acharonim answering what was different about the seemingly natural phenomenon of rainbow before the flood. Start reading here for the discussion at more length.


1

From various meforshim (from memory as I do not have the sources available) such as Nechama Leibowitz, Rabbi J. H. Hertz, Rabbi Wein, Rabbi Hirch. Given that the first mention of watering the garden was from the mist, it could have been that the heavy moisture in the atmosphere before the flood did not allow for a rainbow. During the flood, all the water ...



Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible