14

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).


14

According to Rav Saadya Gaon (commentary to Genesis 9:13) the rainbow was not a new phenomenon. Rather it was imbued with new meaning as the sign of the covenant. Similarly, Ramban, writes (commentary to Genesis 9:12) that although the simple reading of the verses indicates it was a new phenomenon, we are forced to accept the conclusion of the Greeks that ...


12

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. For the purposes of this answer I will 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 ...


12

There is a Midrash (Megillah 14a) that Sarah was really the same as Yiskah (from Gen 11:28), which would make her Avraham's niece, which is pretty close to a sister. However, Ibn Ezra (Gen 20:12) writes that Avraham was just saying something to appease Avimelekh, and we shouldn't assume it is true. Indeed he addresses your question earlier (Gen 11:28) when ...


12

Rav Sa'adya Gaon writes in Emunot V'deot (Ma'amar 2 s.v. v'hinei ani) that in reference to God, remembrance refers to salvation: ובהצלת הברואים מענין שמצער אותם קוראים אותו זכירה, שאמרו (בראשית ח' א') ויזכר אלהים את נח. (שם ל' כ"ב) ויזכר אלהים את רחל והדומה לזה And saving creatures from something that afflicts them, this is called "remembrance". As ...


11

This is not an accurate presentation of the Rambam. While the Rambam does not accept a literal reading of the creation story (as cited here, and see here), nowhere does he extend this to "all of the early biblical stories until the advent of Abraham." For example, the Rambam was criticized for his view (Moreh Nevukhim 2:47) that only the people mentioned in ...


11

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 :-)


11

There are several reasons as pointed out by Rav Sorotzkin, Rav Hirsch and others. First of all, they could not have stored sufficient food to last for the entire flood. The flood lasted for an entire solar year. In fact, it was only by a miracle that Noach and the animals had sufficient food during the flood and while they were repopulating the Earth. As ...


11

Rav Hirsch writes on Noach 9:12 It is by no means necessary to assume that hitherto there had been no rainbow and to place it in connection with the atmospheric changes which occurred after the Flood. Just as Hashem showed Avraham the starry heavens and said, כה יהיה זרעך, as He showed Moshe and Aharon the new moon, and with the words החדש הזה לכם ...


10

According to Sefer Hayovelim the height was 13 parsa, 5433 amos and 2 zratot. (Source) This would come out to about 52.5 km. There are sources (such as) that take only the amos, because 50 km is unbelievable, and it doesn't really work out with the way the verse is built (חמשת אלפים וארבע מאות ושלושים ושלוש באמה עלה גבהו, ושתי זרתות ושלוש עשרה פרסה). That'...


10

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 ...


10

The Midrash Genesis Rabbah (ed. Albeck: B'reshit 23) quotes R. Abba bar Kahana stating that Na'amah, the sister of Tuval-Kayin (see Genesis 4:22), was the wife of Noah, and she was called Na'amah (lit. pleasant) due to her proper behaviour: ואחות תובל קין נעמה אמר ר' אבא בר כהנא נעמה אשת נח הייתה, ולמה נקראת נעמה שמעשיה נעימים Presumably her name is not ...


9

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 ...


8

This question apears in a handwritten manuscript of the unabridged version of Pirush Hatur on the Torah (printed in Feldheim edition of Tur Ha'aruch on Torah pg. 59) who provides a fascinating answer: If they would have searched for the highest place to build the tower, they would have built it at the site of the Beis Hamikdosh - the highest point in the ...


8

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 ...


8

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 ...


8

As far as I can tell from searching on Sefaria and AlHatorah, מבול appears 12 times in Tanach, and every instance refers to the Waters of Noach. The only appearance of the word outside Parashat Noach itself is in Psalms 29:10, and from the use of the definite article there as well as the context, it's pretty clearly referring to the one famous event by that ...


8

I think it is related to the fact that he was then allowed to eat the animals (after the mabul). If they don't owe man their lives, why would man be allowed to take their lives for his needs? Edit: I have found this opinion at Nachmanides on Genesis 1:29.


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. Also ...


7

Their own stubbornness. (As Monica said in a comment.) Note similarly in Exodus, Moses warns the Egyptians that anyone/anything left outside will be stricken by hailstones. Some Egyptians are willing to at least consider this possibility, and move their slaves and cattle inside. But a lot of the Egyptians are too proud to even openly acknowledge that they ...


7

The Yalkut Shimoni to Ester (1056) states the God preserved the ark (or at least part of it) as a remembrance of the deluge for future generations, and Haman's son sent him a 50 cubit beam from it which he used for the gallows intended for Mordekhai: יעשו עץ גבוה חמשים אמה והיה המן חוזר ומבקש קורה של חמשים אמה ולא מצאה, אלא קורה שהיתה בתוך ביתו לפי שהיה ...


7

It is a dispute in Bereishis Rabbah 33:6 whether Eretz Yisrael was flooded. According to R’ Beivai, who holds that it was flooded, the inhabitants obviously died. According to R’ Abba bar Kahana and R’ Levi, who hold that it was not flooded, there was still a massive amount of water coming in from neighboring lands; what the Midrash means is that it wasn’t ...


7

Copying from YEZ’s answer to the related question of whether Moshe was 120 or 121: The Da'as Zkeinim (and the Chizkuni) at the beginning of Parshas Noach addresses this issue in a different context - The posuk says תמים by Noach, and the Midrash says (Bereishis Rabba 30:8) that anyone described as such lived to an age the which is the multiple of 7 (...


7

10 righteous people (or 9, rounding up) were required to prevent the destruction of humanity. Noach and crew were only 8, therefore they could not save the world. Clearly, by the standard that G-d was using to judge righteousness, no one else in the world was considered righteous. This number can be found in Rashi, Bereishis 18:32: אולי ימצאון שם עשרה. ...


7

R Ari Wasserman explains the ark was a "chesed school" and that feeding animals became the mechanism to teach Noah and his family a value which would be fundamental to the new world being created. As Chazal tell us, feeding all these creatures was a full-time, round-the clock job, as some were nocturnal, some ate more often than others, etc. Noach and ...


7

Rashi to Genesis 7:4 explains that it's because of their sin of adultery: ארבעים יום. כְּנֶגֶד יְצִירַת הַוָּלָד, שֶׁקִּלְקְלוּ לְהַטְרִיחַ לְיוֹצְרָם לָצוּר צוּרַת מַמְזֵרִים "Forty days" – corresponding to the formation of the fetus, for their sins troubled their Creator to form the form of children of illicit relations. Rashi here refers to a ...


6

Ralbag suggests a fascinating approach to understanding the incident. He explains that these people did not sin in any way. They were not dispersed as a punishment. Instead, they were dispersed in order to assure the preservation of humanity. Concentration of the entire human race in a single location created the possibility of sudden extinction. A localized ...


6

Rashi to Bereishit 10:21 says that Yafet was two years older than Shem. ...When Scripture says (11:10): “Shem was a hundred years old, etc.” two years after the Flood, you must say that Japheth was the elder, because Noah was five hundred years old when he first had children, and the Flood came to pass in the six hundredth year. Consequently, the eldest ...


6

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 ...


6

The trick here is the cantillation on the previous word. If the cantillation is conjunctive (and the ultimate syllable is open), then the dagesh will drop. If the cantillation is disjunctive (ie pausal) then the dagesh will stay. In your cases, we have two Munachs (a conjunctive note) and one Tipcha (a disjunctive note).


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