2

Are there commentaries that suggest that the flood during the time of Noach was localised to one geographic area, as opposed to the whole Earth. In Bereishit 8:9 when the dove was sent out it says:

וְלֹא-מָצְאָה הַיּוֹנָה מָנוֹחַ לְכַף-רַגְלָהּ, וַתָּשָׁב אֵלָיו אֶל-הַתֵּבָה--כִּי-מַיִם, עַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיִּשְׁלַח יָדוֹ וַיִּקָּחֶהָ, וַיָּבֵא אֹתָהּ אֵלָיו אֶל-הַתֵּבָה. ‏

Furthermore, the following passuk says that everything 'under all of shamayim' was covered (7:19):

וְהַמַּיִם, גָּבְרוּ מְאֹד מְאֹד--עַל-הָאָרֶץ; וַיְכֻסּוּ, כָּל-הֶהָרִים הַגְּבֹהִים, אֲשֶׁר-תַּחַת, כָּל-הַשָּׁמָיִם

However, throughout the flood story this is the only time the phrase "אֲשֶׁר-תַּחַת, כָּל-הַשָּׁמָיִם" is used. The only instance that the more all encompassing term of "עַל-פְּנֵי כָל-הָאָרֶץ" is used is when the the dove is sent out, otherwise its not used.

It seems, from the pesukim, that its not clear as to whether the whole earth was indeed covered. Since the plain meaning of the pesukim does not make it abundantly clear that the whole earth was covered do any commentaries address this issue by saying that only specific localities were affected by the flood?

  • 3
    It doesn't say that the dove saw the whole earth, only that it couldn't land anywhere because water was over the whole earth. – Yishai Nov 1 '16 at 11:18
  • Point taken. Thanks. Still interested if commentaries insist on whole earth being covered – bondonk Nov 1 '16 at 11:41
  • I think i've seen people bring opinions like that here, but can't find it right now. – Scimonster Nov 1 '16 at 12:27
  • 2
    @MonicaCellio I think you may be referring to the Gemara Zevachim 113a where there is a disagreement if the flood extended to E.Y. However, whether that implies the entire rest of the world was affected seems debatable to me. – Jay Nov 1 '16 at 14:39
  • 1
    @DanF that would negate the entire proof – user6591 Nov 1 '16 at 15:05
4

Rabbi Meiselman's book "Torah, Chazal and Science" addresses the concept of a local flood (p.556 heading 'A local deluge'):

In the early 20th century the observant community of Germany was an integral part of the surrounding intellectual world. Consequently, the challenges posed by modern thought and research were grequent subjects of discussion. One issue that was hotly debated was the lack of geological evidence for the Mabul. A theory was advanced at that time that the Mabul was actually a local flood, which is why it left no mark in features far from the Middle East [50]. This theory came to be widely accepted among observant German Jews wishing to preserve their connections to the academic world.

Of course, the concept of a 'local flood' is open to many interpretation. It can mean anything from the coastal effects of a Black Sea squall to a major deluge encompassing large portions of the globe. The size of the Teivah, however, was far beyond what would have been necessary for even a major squall on the Black Sea...

[50] To the best of my knowledge, Rav Dov Tzvi Hoffman (1843-1921) was the first rabbinic authority to adopt this view.

In chapter 66, section 4 Rabbi Meiselman brings the opinion of Rabbi J B Soloveitchik (whom he calls Mori veRebbi):

Some of his students once asked Mori veRebbi, ztz"l, his view of the theory that the Mabul was a local flood. He answered that he did not believe that it was, but in any case one must believe minimally that it covered the entire part of the world inhabited by humans and most probably animal life as well. Both the pesukim and Chazal record that all life was destroyed and that Noach was the progenitor of all subsequent human life; consequently this much cannot be deined.

Rabbi Meiselman's approach and understanding of other Rabbi's is contested here.

  • worth noting, I think Rabbi Meiselman also holds to the idea that the 6 days weren't eras i.e. that the earth is ~6000 years old. dovidgottlieb.com/thoughts This link is interesting and has further debate jeremy-wieder-lectures.blogspot.co.uk – barlop Nov 7 '16 at 9:20
  • 1
    From the quote it doesn't seem like Rabbi Meiselman is arguing on the approach. The Slifkin article also doesn't imply that. Also, why don't you actually quote some of the opinons in Slifkin's article? – user6591 Nov 7 '16 at 13:38
  • Rav Dovid Tzvi Hoffman wrote that the Mabul did not cover the entire planet, but only the “world” of the Torah. This was also the view of Rav Gedalyah Nadel (a leading disciple of the Chazon Ish), who brought some excellent proofs from the Gemara that “olam” does not always refer to the entire planet. My own mentor in these matters, Rav Aryeh Carmell, z’l, told me explicitly (based upon conversations that he had with his own mentors) that, just as Rambam stated regarding Creation, the account of the Deluge need not be literally true in all of its parts. – user6591 Nov 7 '16 at 13:39
  • ^^^ from Slifkin – user6591 Nov 7 '16 at 13:39
  • 2
    Rav Yaakov Weinberg zt"l said that the flood only occurred in Mesopotamia. He brings a diyyuk in the Pesukim to support his assertion. I will attempt to locate and provide the recording. – Chaim Nov 7 '16 at 20:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .