| יג וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹקִים לְנֹחַ, קֵץ כָּל-בָּשָׂר בָּא לְפָנַי--כִּי-מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס, מִפְּנֵיהֶם; וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם, אֶת-הָאָרֶץ. | 13 And God said unto Noah: 'The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. |
Elokim not only decides in this pasuk, but also at the same time informs Noach of this fact. And again, this appears a natural consequence. The ketz of all flesh has come up before Him, and so He will destroy them.
An interesting Rashi, and comment on that Rashi:
| The end of all flesh: Wherever you find promiscuity (and idolatry), a pestilence comes upon the world and kills both good and bad alike. — [from Gen. Rabbah 26:5] Note that parenthetic words do not appear in Gen. Rabbah , Lev. Rabbah, or in early mss. and printed editions of Rashi. We have translated אַנְדְרוֹלוּמוּסְיָה as pestilence, following Aruch. See below. | קץ כל בשר: כל מקום שאתה מוצא זנות ועבודה זרה, אנדרלמוסיא באה לעולם והורגת טובים ורעים: |
Thus, both in Rashi's sources and in the early manuscripts, idolatry is not mentioned. Why would it get inserted, then? To create a consistency with earlier comments. Thus, earlier, Rashi had written:
| was corrupt: Heb. וַתִּשָּׁחֵת is an expression of immorality and idolatry. (other editions add: immorality, “for all flesh had corrupted (הִשְׁחִית) its way,” and idolatry), as in (Deut. 4:16): “Lest you deal corruptly (תַּשְׁחִיתוּן).” - [Sanh. 56b, 57a] | ותשחת: לשון ערוה ועבודה זרה, כמו (דברים ד טז) פן תשחיתון, כי השחית כל בשר וגו': |
and so immorality went hand in hand with idolatry. But note that this is from a difference source, a gemara in Sanhedrin rather than a Midrash Rabba.
חָמָס -- again, mashed chickpeas. Seriously, on a peshat level, whatever was being described immediate previous. If you say it was idolatry and promiscuity for וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ, then the same is the chamas.
וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם -- poetic parallelism to וַתִּשָּׁחֵת הָאָרֶץ, middah kened middah.
אֶת-הָאָרֶץ -- two possibilities, as Rashi says. Either "with the earth", or the pasuk is now clarifying the direct object of תָם.
Next:
| יד עֲשֵׂה לְךָ תֵּבַת עֲצֵי-גֹפֶר, קִנִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת-הַתֵּבָה; וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ מִבַּיִת וּמִחוּץ, בַּכֹּפֶר. | 14 Make thee an ark of gopher wood; with rooms shalt thou make the ark, and shalt pitch it within and without with pitch. |
This Elokim section of the narrative describes the construction of the teiva, and the taking of pairs of each animals. The next, YKVK section seems to go over the same territory, with contradictions (a differentiation between pure and impure animals), but this is not the case. After all, the next, YKVK, section does not command the construction of the teiva but rather the entering of the teiva. And the seeming "contradiction" is simply going from the more general case to the particular, exceptional, case.
What is the point in giving us details of the construction? Why should we care, on an ethical, religious, or historical level, about the materials and dimensions of a particular ark? And what if Noach had deviated, and made it 350 cubits, instead of 300 cubits, in length? Would Hashem have not saved him? Would it not have withstood the waters. In other words, what is the purpose, the toeles, of such details.
- It is possible that this was more interesting to the ancient Israelite reader. Knowing the particulars of this all important ark, which saved humanity and indeed all species, would be exciting. And from the dimensions in plain text, one could draw a model of the ark.
- It is possible that the dimensions of the ark are supposed to be religiously significant, parallel to the dimensions of the Mishkan.
- Noach was not an architect, and was not able to plan something on so grand a scale. He had no idea how many total animals it would be in the end, and how much space would be required. Therefore, Hashem guided him and gave him precise dimensions.
תֵּבַת עֲצֵי-גֹפֶר -- what is a teiva? Is it a boat? Is it a box? Compare to Egyptian teb, meaning chest, box or coffin.
If a coffin, here is what I have to say, in the context of baby Moshe, who was also put in a teiva:
In the epic of Gilgamesh, it seems to be a boat:
If a coffin, here is what I have to say, in the context of baby Moshe, who was also put in a teiva:
Meanwhile, in Egyptian, the cognate means coffin. This is indeed appropriate. We might cast it as fulfilling the literal aspects of the decree, while yet escaping. Thus, Noach, and UtanPishtim, are part of the entire world upon whom death has been decreed. They enter a coffin for the duration of the flood. And they exists through the decree of the flood. Moshe, too. Death has been decreed by Pharaoh on all Hebrew male born, by throwing them into the Nile. He is cast into the Nile, though in this tevah, coffin. And this fulfills the literal word of the decree. Indeed, a midrash stresses this by discussing how Pharaoh was told by his astrologers that a Hebrew child would overthrow him, which was the cause for his decree. When Moshe was cast in the Nile, his astrologers told him that they saw that the redeemer had been cast into the Nile, at which point Pharaoh ended his decree.
Since I mentioned Robert Alter in the previous post, I might as well mention his take again. Rather than noting the Egyptian cognate teva as coffin, he in fact contrasts aron, meaning coffin, with teva, meaning ark. He does this on the last perek of Bereishit, about Yosef's aron:
'Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall!
O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu:
Tear down the house and build a boat!
Abandon wealth and seek living beings!
Spurn possessions and keep alive living beings!
Make all living beings go up into the boat.
The boat which you are to build,
its dimensions must measure equal to each other:
its length must correspond to its width.
Roof it over like the Apsu.
Though if the dimension must measure equal to each other, and if that includes length, width and height, then it, too, would seem to be a cube.Ibn Ezra stresses that the teiva is not a ship:
ושם תיבה -ולא ספינה כי איננה על צורת אניה, ואין לה משוטים:
Since I mentioned epic of Gilgamesh, perhaps we can see a meaning and significance in the command to Utnapishtim. "Tear down the house" and build a boat sounds like a sukkah, to abandon permanent domain. "Abandon wealth and seek living things" seems like an ethical imperative. And just as there may be an ethical imperative behind the Gilgamesh myth, there might be ethical imperatives in the Noach narrative as well.
קִנִּים תַּעֲשֶׂה אֶת-הַתֵּבָה -- could we connect it to the reed house in Gilgamesh, from which the boat was constructed? Still, קִנִּים here means compartments, like Rashi. Think nests. Are these individual compartments for each and every animal, or is this a way of saying three levels, as in pasuk 16 below?
וְכָפַרְתָּ אֹתָהּ -- This is hishtadlus. Don't just build a boat, but make it watertight. What is Hashem's role in all this? Is it to simply instruct Noach how to save himself, his family, and animal-kind, or will Hashem take direct action to save them, but requires of Noach to perform the derech hateva steps? Or is it like the blood on the lintel in Egypt?
An interesting Ibn Ezra:
וכפרת אותה -יש אומרים:Interesting that nachon idea would be a chiddush. But yes, from kofer, not from covering.
שהיא מגזרת כפרת.
והטעם מכסה משיחה.
ויש אומרים:
שהכופר כדמות זפת.
ויש אומרים:
שיש טיט בארץ מהעפר והוא מדביק ועומד כזפת.
ויש אומרים:
שהוא הנקרא בלשון ישמעאל. בתמורת הכ"ף בקו"ף.
והנכון: שמלת וכפרת מגזרת בכופר.
וְכָפַרְתָּ -- is a verb coming from the noun of כֹּפֶר.
בַּכֹּפֶר - sounds like gofer. Indeed, Shadal links the two, noting that the letters kaf and gimel, from the same phonological group, switch off with one another. And that the wood is called gofer and the sap of that wood is called kofer.Further, he points to the genus Cupressus. Think the common name cypress, a type of evergreen tree. If so, there might be hidden meaning in the choice of wood.
Next pasuk:
| טו וְזֶה, אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ: שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה, אֹרֶךְ הַתֵּבָה, חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה רָחְבָּהּ, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה קוֹמָתָהּ. | 15 And this is how thou shalt make it: the length of the ark three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits. |
I don't know what a cubit is. I don't know why the dimensions are religiously significant, though again, it might help the reader picture the grandness of the scale of this project.
We should not be concerned with practical "scientific" questions, such as that all the species in the world could not have fit into an ark even of this grand size. If you want, say it was a local flood. If you want, say it was a global flood. If you want, say that they managed to all fit in miraculously. If you want, say that this demonstrates the narrative to be false, or allegorical, or mythical. Work that out on your own time. Our concern is figuring out simple peshat.
That said, I'll intrude a bit to explain why I think a local flood is workable, even as the Torah seems to describe or imply, in certain pesukim, a global flood. Some members of Chazal thought the mabul did not intrude on Eretz Yisrael, and Rav Yonasan Eibeshitz briefly considered the possibility of a non-global flood. At the end of the day, we might be able to answer based on Devarim 29:
| כח הַנִּסְתָּרֹת--לַה', אֱלֹהֵינוּ; וְהַנִּגְלֹת לָנוּ וּלְבָנֵינוּ, עַד-עוֹלָם--לַעֲשׂוֹת, אֶת-כָּל-דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת. {ס} | 28 The secret things belong unto the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law.{S} |
Noach was tasked with saving the world. And from his perspective, he did save the world. His world was perhaps fairly limited, but that was the world. Did he know about the kangaroos in Australia? Likely not, but then he did not know about Australia. Those were nistarot, which were to Hashem, whereas the revealed things were to Noach.
Compare parshas Vayera, according to one plausible interpretation in which Lot's daughters believed the world to be destroyed, and that it was up to them, and their father, to repopulate the earth.
See some problematic pesukim for making it a local flood here.
שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה, אֹרֶךְ הַתֵּבָה,
חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה רָחְבָּהּ,
וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה קוֹמָתָהּ -- at first glance, this reads like a box, rather than a ship. But perhaps other possibilities are available, where these are the widest dimensions, but it sloped in various ways.
As an exercise to the reader, compare these dimensions to the dimensions of other ancient ships.
Next pasuk:
צֹהַר -- I don't know what this means. Many speculate, on the basis of evidence within the Chumash, or via linguistic evidence. That it is a light (say, a stone which shines of its own accord) is based on a connection to tzaharayim, sahara (moon), zohar (shining). That it is a window can be surmised from the later mention of the window (chalon) which Noach opened. That it is a slanted roof, as Albertus Schultens suggests (as Shadal notes), is based on the continuation of the pasuk. That it is a lamp (Chizkuni) from yitzhar.
See Balashon's treatment.
וְאֶל-אַמָּה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מִלְמַעְלָה -- a slanted roof, which comes to a point in an amah.
תַּחְתִּיִּם שְׁנִיִּם וּשְׁלִשִׁים -- we don't know the function of each of these three. To house more animals, since we obviously do not need such a high roof.
Next pasuk:
וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-הַמַּבּוּל -- There is a critical and implicit word though here. And the thought in this pasuk continues into the next pasuk. "And though I am bringing the flood of waters upon the earth, such that all will perish, yet behold I will maintain my covenant with you, and you will bring two of each animal after their kind, to keep their species alive."
The purpose here is to reassure Noach that he, and humanity, and animal-kind, will survive, even amidst all this destruction. However, there was no command here to actually take in the animals. The only command was to construct the ark. He should know the function of the ark, when he constructs it.
This answers some of the "problems" of the Documentary Hypothesis (though that wasn't my motivation). Even though there is a command later to collect the animals, that is not a second command. The first is telling what will happen, in the context of constructing the ark. The second is the actual command to collect the animals, after the ark is constructed. That is also why in the first telling, the animals seem to come of their own accord, while in the second, it is Noach's role. This is not a contradiction, but two texts, at two different temporal points in the narrative, working towards separate, yet mutually compatible purposes.
So too the two vs. seven contradiction. Here, the purpose is to simply inform of the survival of the species, rather than practical instruction of how to collect. And so the general case, of two (or two sets of two) is sufficient.
וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אִתָּךְ -- On a peshat level, that he will continue to relate to humanity through Noach and his descendants. Or He will keep his promise and maintain him in the teiva. See in Bereishit Rabbati a midrash that this shows Noach had a bris milah. We could also see this as a foreshadowing or prediction of the eventual rainbow covenant.
וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַתֵּבָה -- and you will, during the time of the construction. This is still telling the purpose of the construction.
אַתָּה, וּבָנֶיךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּנְשֵׁי-בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ-- Don't worry about your family, and even somewhat extended family. Wives of sons are also useful for repopulating the earth, and in this sense, it is the zachar and nekeiva of all species.
The separation of sons from wives was not to forbid tashmish in the ark, but that Noach and his line (of three aforementioned sons) would continue, and to that end, there are these wives.
And the animals will also be able to survive, לְהַחֲיוֹת. Note the choice of יָבֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ, and earlier תָּבִיא. Not because Noach will be able to sit back, but because this is a more passive description of what will happen. In the next perek, when it is an actual command, we see תִּקַּח-לְךָ.
שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל -- here it does not say shnayim shnayim. I think Rashi is right, over other meforshim, and that the two are two, not two pairs of male and female, which would be four.
שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת אַמָּה, אֹרֶךְ הַתֵּבָה,
חֲמִשִּׁים אַמָּה רָחְבָּהּ,
וּשְׁלֹשִׁים אַמָּה קוֹמָתָהּ -- at first glance, this reads like a box, rather than a ship. But perhaps other possibilities are available, where these are the widest dimensions, but it sloped in various ways.
As an exercise to the reader, compare these dimensions to the dimensions of other ancient ships.
Next pasuk:
| טז צֹהַר תַּעֲשֶׂה לַתֵּבָה, וְאֶל-אַמָּה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מִלְמַעְלָה, וּפֶתַח הַתֵּבָה, בְּצִדָּהּ תָּשִׂים; תַּחְתִּיִּם שְׁנִיִּם וּשְׁלִשִׁים, תַּעֲשֶׂהָ. | 16 A light shalt thou make to the ark, and to a cubit shalt thou finish it upward; and the door of the ark shalt thou set in the side thereof; with lower, second, and third stories shalt thou make it. |
צֹהַר -- I don't know what this means. Many speculate, on the basis of evidence within the Chumash, or via linguistic evidence. That it is a light (say, a stone which shines of its own accord) is based on a connection to tzaharayim, sahara (moon), zohar (shining). That it is a window can be surmised from the later mention of the window (chalon) which Noach opened. That it is a slanted roof, as Albertus Schultens suggests (as Shadal notes), is based on the continuation of the pasuk. That it is a lamp (Chizkuni) from yitzhar.
See Balashon's treatment.
וְאֶל-אַמָּה תְּכַלֶּנָּה מִלְמַעְלָה -- a slanted roof, which comes to a point in an amah.
תַּחְתִּיִּם שְׁנִיִּם וּשְׁלִשִׁים -- we don't know the function of each of these three. To house more animals, since we obviously do not need such a high roof.
Next pasuk:
| יז וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-הַמַּבּוּל מַיִם עַל-הָאָרֶץ, לְשַׁחֵת כָּל-בָּשָׂר אֲשֶׁר-בּוֹ רוּחַ חַיִּים, מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם: כֹּל אֲשֶׁר-בָּאָרֶץ, יִגְוָע. | 17 And I, behold, I do bring the flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; every thing that is in the earth shall perish. |
וַאֲנִי, הִנְנִי מֵבִיא אֶת-הַמַּבּוּל -- There is a critical and implicit word though here. And the thought in this pasuk continues into the next pasuk. "And though I am bringing the flood of waters upon the earth, such that all will perish, yet behold I will maintain my covenant with you, and you will bring two of each animal after their kind, to keep their species alive."
The purpose here is to reassure Noach that he, and humanity, and animal-kind, will survive, even amidst all this destruction. However, there was no command here to actually take in the animals. The only command was to construct the ark. He should know the function of the ark, when he constructs it.
This answers some of the "problems" of the Documentary Hypothesis (though that wasn't my motivation). Even though there is a command later to collect the animals, that is not a second command. The first is telling what will happen, in the context of constructing the ark. The second is the actual command to collect the animals, after the ark is constructed. That is also why in the first telling, the animals seem to come of their own accord, while in the second, it is Noach's role. This is not a contradiction, but two texts, at two different temporal points in the narrative, working towards separate, yet mutually compatible purposes.
So too the two vs. seven contradiction. Here, the purpose is to simply inform of the survival of the species, rather than practical instruction of how to collect. And so the general case, of two (or two sets of two) is sufficient.
| יח וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אִתָּךְ; וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַתֵּבָה--אַתָּה, וּבָנֶיךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּנְשֵׁי-בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ. | 18 But I will establish My covenant with thee; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. |
וַהֲקִמֹתִי אֶת-בְּרִיתִי, אִתָּךְ -- On a peshat level, that he will continue to relate to humanity through Noach and his descendants. Or He will keep his promise and maintain him in the teiva. See in Bereishit Rabbati a midrash that this shows Noach had a bris milah. We could also see this as a foreshadowing or prediction of the eventual rainbow covenant.
וּבָאתָ, אֶל-הַתֵּבָה -- and you will, during the time of the construction. This is still telling the purpose of the construction.
אַתָּה, וּבָנֶיךָ וְאִשְׁתְּךָ וּנְשֵׁי-בָנֶיךָ אִתָּךְ-- Don't worry about your family, and even somewhat extended family. Wives of sons are also useful for repopulating the earth, and in this sense, it is the zachar and nekeiva of all species.
The separation of sons from wives was not to forbid tashmish in the ark, but that Noach and his line (of three aforementioned sons) would continue, and to that end, there are these wives.
And the animals will also be able to survive, לְהַחֲיוֹת. Note the choice of יָבֹאוּ אֵלֶיךָ, and earlier תָּבִיא. Not because Noach will be able to sit back, but because this is a more passive description of what will happen. In the next perek, when it is an actual command, we see תִּקַּח-לְךָ.
שְׁנַיִם מִכֹּל -- here it does not say shnayim shnayim. I think Rashi is right, over other meforshim, and that the two are two, not two pairs of male and female, which would be four.
זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה, יִהְיוּ -- those two will be male and female. The minimal requirement from propagation of the species.
Next pasuk:
| כא וְאַתָּה קַח-לְךָ, מִכָּל-מַאֲכָל אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל, וְאָסַפְתָּ, אֵלֶיךָ; וְהָיָה לְךָ וְלָהֶם, לְאָכְלָה. | 21 And take thou unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to thee; and it shall be for food for thee, and for them.' |
וְאַתָּה קַח-לְךָ -- is however, a tzivuy. The construction of the teivah and the stocking of its compartments with food is something that will take a lot of time. And he is not commanded later to collect food.
And the final pasuk of the perek:
| כב וַיַּעַשׂ, נֹחַ: כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֹתוֹ, אֱלֹהִים--כֵּן עָשָׂה. | 22 Thus did Noah; according to all that God commanded him, so did he. |
This can be parsed in two ways. (The alternative to the above is: And Noach did according to all God commanded him; so did he do.) But the trup puts the etnachta on the word Noach, and thus the parse as above. This parse makes sense.
Rashi cites a midrash which perhaps darshens the slight awkwardness:
| And Noah did: This refers to the building of the ark. — [Gen. Rabbah 31:14] | ויעש נח: זה בנין התיבה: |
(I would add also the food gathering.)
But the real purpose is to contrast the "doing" in this pasuk with the "doing" in the next perek:
| ה וַיַּעַשׂ, נֹחַ, כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר-צִוָּהוּ, ה. | 5 And Noah did according unto all that the LORD commanded him. |
Where Rashi writes:
| And Noah did: This refers to his entrance into the ark. | ויעש נח: זה ביאתו לתיבה: |
There is no petucha or setuma break, though here is a transition from Elokim to YKVK.
No comments:
Post a Comment