Comentario sobre Génesis 7:29

ראיתי צדיק [THEE] HAVE I SEEN RIGHTEOUS — It does not say “righteous and wholehearted” (as it does at the beginning of the Sedrah); hence we may infer that only a part of a man’s good qualities should be enumerated in his presence (since here God is speaking to Noah and calls him only “righteous”), but that in his absence the whole of his good qualities may be told (since when the Torah speaks about him in the earlier passage it calls him “righteous and wholehearted”) (Eruvin 18b).

AND THE ETERNAL SAID TO NOAH. G-d informed Noah that with the attribute of mercy [as indicated by the use of the Tetragrammaton, “the Eternal,”] He will save him and his family and that He will give life to their seed for all generations. This is the meaning of the phrase, to keep seed alive upon the face of all the earth.⁷¹Verse 3. At first He said, to keep them alive with thee;⁷²Above, 6:19. but now with the attribute of mercy He hinted to him concerning the sacrifice to inform him that he will have regard for his offering and that by the merit of his offering, the world will exist, never again to be cut off by the waters of the flood.⁷³See further, 9:11. This is why the Tetragrammaton is mentioned here for in all matters concerning the sacrifices, Scripture does not mention Elokim (G-d), as I will elucidate when I reach there⁷⁴See Ramban, Leviticus 1:9. with the help of G-d.

ויאמד…בא אל התיבה. G'd said…."enter the ark!." Why did G'd have to repeat here that He had seen that Noach was a righteous man in his generation? G'd may have feared that Noach would misinterpret the command to enter the ark together with all his immediate family. He might have thought a) that every family member would be saved due to his or her individual merit; in that case the Torah should not have addressed the command to build the ark to Noach in the singular; b) he might have thought that his wife, children, and their respective wives were being saved because they had not yet reached the age of accountability. If Noach had thought this he might have been tempted to invite all those of his friends who were young enough to share the ark with him in order to survive. Even if he had not done so on his own initiative, he might have wondered why all these youngsters were doomed to perish.

ויאמר ה' לנח, He told him to enter the ark before the onset of the deluge.

כי אותך ראיתי צדיק, not your family, therefore, אתה וכל ביתך, I will let them escape only on account of your merit.

ויאמר ה' אל נח, “The Lord said to Noach, etc.” the use of the tetragram indicated to Noach that he was being saved as a manifestation of Gd’s attribute of Mercy, at work on his behalf and that of his offspring.

[We learn] from this that we tell... This raises a question: Now that the Torah taught us the proper conduct of telling only מקצת, i.e., part of a man’s good qualities, the man will understand on his own that his good qualities are double this, [thus defeating the purpose]! It seems the answer is: Telling מקצת does not necessarily mean half. It could be a small amount: a tenth or a hundredth. Thus, the man will not know the extent of his good qualities. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Bis dahin war alles im Namen אלקי׳ erzählt; erzählt, wie Gott, als Schöpfer, Gesetzgeber und Richter der Welt, mitten aus der entarteten Gesamtheit den einen Menschen und diejenigen Tiere zur Rettung aussonderte, die nicht an der allgemeinen Entartung teilgenommen hatten. Sie hatten die Erhaltung verdient und wurden erhalten. Das angestrebte erste Ziel heißt: להחיות, sie am Leben zu erhalten. Das folgende wird mit dem Namen ה׳ eingeleitet, jenem Namen, der dem, die Menschheit zu ihrem Ziele barmherzig erziehenden, jeden kommenden Moment mit Rücksicht auf dieses Ziel gestaltenden Gotteswerke angehört, und damit diese Rettung als Grundstein für die neue Menschenzukunft bezeichnet. Dieser fernere Zweck der Rettung wird daher Raw Hirsch on Genesis 7: 3 nicht להחיות, sondern להיות זרע genannt, Samen der Zukunft auf Erden zu beleben.

ויאמר ה׳, “The Lord said:” The previous time G-d had been reported as speaking to Noach, (6,13) it was His attribute of Justice speaking, whereas here it refers to His attribute of Mercy addressing him.

COME THOU AND ALL THY HOUSE INTO THE ARK. Noah constructed the ark many days before the flood, and when the time of the flood arrived on the tenth day of the second month, He again commanded him that he and all his household come into the ark. This is why He said to him at first: thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons’ wives with thee.⁷⁵Above, 6:18. He thereby informed him that on account of his merit alone they will be saved since He did not say, “Ye [in the plural] I have seen righteous before Me.” And He commanded that he take and bring of the clean beasts and clean fowl seven and seven, and then He informed him of the day of the flood, at which time he was to come into the ark. And Noah did so for in the selfsame day came Noah… into the ark.⁷⁶Verse 13. This refers to the day when the rains began, namely, the seventeenth day of the second month. This is the meaning of [the verse: And Noah came in… into the ark] because of the waters of the flood.⁷⁷Verse 7. But Rashi wrote: “Noah also was one of those who have little faith, and he did not enter the ark until the waters forced him to do so.” In the words of Bereshith Rabbah:⁷⁸32:9. “Noah was lacking in faith. Had the waters not reached his ankles he would not have entered the ark.” But if so, let him say that Noah did not enter there until the waters greatly increased and covered the whole face of the earth and he saw that he was drowning!

כי אותך ראיתי צדיק לפני, you and your family are therefore entitled to escape the deluge in order to form the nucleus of a new world order afterwards.

בא אתה וכל ביתך אל התיבה, “enter the ark, you and your whole family.” Seeing that Noach had spent many years building the ark, now that the time for the deluge had drawn near, G’d instructed him to make his home forthwith inside the ark together with his family. Seeing that originally, G’d had described what would happen to him with the words: אתה ובניך ואשתך ונשי בניך אתך, “you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you,” it was made clear now by not listing his wife and children individually, that they were being saved due to Noach’s merit, not due to their own merit. The absence of the word אתך on this occasion makes plain that they were not considered on a moral par with their father/husband or father-in-law. Had they been, the Torah would have written אתכם ראיתי צדיקים, “I have viewed you (pl.) as righteous people, etc.” G’d continued to order him to take the extra “pure” domestic animals and birds, as well as telling him the date on which the deluge would commence.

G'd told Noach once more that He had found only him as a righteous person at that time in order to lay to rest any of the other ideas Noach might have had on the subject. He now understood that any youngster who did not have a righteous father was caught in the sins of his father who was punished to die without issue.

צדיק. Was oben in צדיק und תמים auseinander gelegt war, wird hier in צריק zusammengefasst. Denn im allgemeinen ist die gesamte Pflichttreue nichts als Gerechtwerden. Nicht bloß die Pflicht gegen den Nebenmenschen, auch die Sittlichkeit ists. Kein Fünkchen Geist und Leben, kein Splitter Kraft ist uns eigen. Alles ist uns anvertrautes Gut, dem wir gerecht werden sollen. Der Unsittliche, der Gott gehörende Kräfte vergeudet und von Gott gezogene Schranken durchbricht, ist ein Schelm vor Gott, wie der Dieb vor den Menschen. — לפני, vor mir; mancher kann vor den Menschen gerecht erscheinen und ist es nicht vor Gott, und umgekehrt. Es sind auch die Begriffe, die die Menschen mit den Worten verbinden, nicht immer die wahren und rechten, am allerwenigsten in Zeiten so allgemeiner Entartung. Die Worte Tugend, Gerechtigkeit usw. werden in jeder Zeit im Kours bleiben. Der Inhalt dieser Worte jedoch wird gestohlen, man stellt ihnen seine Zwecke und Meinungen unter. Selbst der Name, "Gott" kann von Munde zu Munde gehen und durch die Verirrung der Zeit seinen wahren Inhalt verloren haben. Darum sicherlich nicht überflüssig: צדיק לפני, gerecht vor mir, nach meinem Sinn. — בדור הזה. Wir haben schon bemerkt, wie den Wurzeln, ,טור דור ,תפר ,דבר ,תור der Begriff des Aneinanderreihens mehrerer Objekte an denselben Faden zu Grunde liege, sei der Faden die Zeit, oder etwas anderes. Keiner kann sich allen Einflüssen seiner Zeit entziehen; der Faden der Gleichzeitigkeit wirkt tief, und es ist wahrlich nichts leichtes, in einer pflichtvergessenen Zeit ein pflichttreuer Mensch vor Gott zu sein. Indem aber Gott dies als ׳ה zu Noa spricht, so dürfte darin zugleich der Ausspruch liegen, Gott habe ihn für die Zwecke seiner Menschenzukunft tauglich erfunden, er trage mit seiner in solcher Zeit erprobt gebliebenen Pflichttreue den rechten Kern für die von Gott beabsichtigte Zukunft in sich.

And your household. Noach was permitted to take with him his servants and animals, not to contribute to the repopulating of the earth but to help him in his labors. Note that until this point the name Elokim has been used, indicating strict judgment, whereas in this verse the four-letter Name indicating the attribute of mercy appears.

The statement of our sages that Jewish minors have a share in the world to come, whereas Gentile minors do not (Kohelet Rabbah 4,1 and Avot de Rabbi Nathan 36,1), may be based on our verse. In Noach's generation everyone was considered an idolator and it was reasonable to assume that the children would take after their fathers. Noach, on the other hand, took a more optimistic view of the possible development of the minors. G'd therefore had to tell him that he could not save any youngsters barrring his own.

הטהורה CLEAN—It means those cattle which will in future be permitted to Israel as clean; we thus learn that Noah studied the Torah.

הטהורה, at that time all of the pure animals [including free roaming ones] were acceptable as potential offerings to G’d.

מכל הבהמה הטהורה תקח לך שבעה. "Take with you for yourself seven (pairs) each of the pure mammals." The expression תקח לך has a dual meaning. 1) He should make the effort to secure these animals as his eventual "payment" [expression of his gratitude to G'd for being saved. Ed.]. The words "for your own self" are therefore justified. If not for this verse we might have asked who had given Noach permission to simply kill these animals? After all, Noach had been commanded to keep the species alive, not to slaughter them! Noach would have reasoned that inasmuch as these categories of beasts are urgently needed for man G'd had commanded to take 7 pairs instead of just a single pair. G'd therefore had to indicate to Noach that the greater number was for his own good, not for the general good. Had Noach simply wanted to slaughter these animals and to eat their meat this too would have been in order.

מכל בהמה הטהורה תקח לך, as they will arrive before the ark take them inside with you. Previously, G’d had told Noach only to take the animals in pairs, one pair per species. Only now was he instructed to take 6 additional pairs of each of the species of animal known as טהורה, ritually pure. It is not clear if of the ritually impure animals Noach was to take a single pair or two pairs. How did Noach know which animals were considered ritually pure? It is possible that G’d told him which peculiarities to watch for in order that he should know which to use as an offering after the deluge. Alternately, Noach would know when he saw that some of the animals came to him in lots of seven pairs. This explanation does not suffice for the birds, seeing that apparently all the birds arrived in lots of seven pairs. We must therefore fall back on the explanation that G’d provided Noach with information how to recognise which were the ritually pure animals. In that case, we would also have to conclude that the ritually impure birds did not come to the ark in pairs of seven. What then is the meaning of the words (verse 3) גם מעוף השמים שבעה שבעה?. “also from the birds in the sky seven pairs each?” Surely, this appears to apply only to the ritually pure birds, and the word גם refers back to the word הטהורה in verse 2. If the birds generally arrived in single pairs, and the ritually pure birds arrived in lots of seven pairs, the reason was not that they be used as offerings to G’d, seeing that Noach is on record as bringing only one offering, and he would be able to bring more such offerings from the next generation of such birds if he so desired. The reason may be that G’d intended for Noach and his family to use the excess number of ritually pure birds as food without endangering any of the species’ chances of survival. G’d had already planned to permit the consumption of meat to the survivors of the deluge, something which had been forbidden to Adam at the time. Even though G’d did not withhold any kind of living creature as food for man, as we know from Genesis 9,3 כל רמש אשר הוא חי לכם יהיה לאכלה, “any moving thing which is a live will be yours to eat,” this was amended for the Jewish people who were to be a nation of holy people. It is in the nature of things that the animals described as ritually pure, טהורות, are superior as food. In the majority, gentiles do not eat the meat of the other animals unless driven to do so by hunger. Keeping this in mind, G’d ordered Noach to take more of the ritually pure animals with him into the ark, to ensure that slaughtering some of them in due course would not deplete the available supply. The principal concern was to keep these species alive, i.e. לחיות זרע, to make sure man would always find a sufficient number of these animals available for his needs. G’d, in His wisdom knew that seven pairs of each would suffice, and that the ark would be unable to accommodate more than that number, and the amount of food needed to keep them alive for a whole year.

מכל הבהמה הטהורה, “of all the ‘pure domesticated beasts, etc.” Seeing that there had not been any legislation distinguishing between “pure” and “impure” beasts, Rashi understands the word as describing those beasts which would, -after the revelation at Mount Sinai- be characterised as “pure.” This would be a veiled hint that Noach studied the Torah already at his time. [otherwise how would he have known which animals were “pure”? Ed.] Nachmanides writes that G’d informed him about the specific characteristics of the animals which He had referred to as “pure.” The Torah simply condenses G’d’s instructions. Whereas when speaking of the mammals, i.e. בהמה, the Torah describes a pair as איש ואשתו, “man and his wife,” when speaking of the birds which are pure it describes them merely as זכר ונקבה, “male and female.” The reason for this different description is accounted for by the fact that when mammals cross breed or attempt to do so, this is forbidden, i.e. monogamy or its equivalent exists among mammals. Such indiscriminate mating between birds is not forbidden. The Torah refers indirectly to the more intimate relationship between male and female mammals by referring to them as איש ואשתו.

We learn that Noach studied Torah. For if not, how would Noach know [which ones were clean]? At that time, “clean” and “not clean” did not yet apply. (Re’m) Still, the Gemara needed to say that the ark took them in and they came on their own. For otherwise how could Noach check them? One of the signs of cleanness [for birds] is that the gizzard is peelable — and this can be known only after slaughter. (Kitzur Mizrachi) You might ask: How did Rashi know that Noach studied Torah? Perhaps Noach took seven pairs because the ark accepted exactly so many! The answer is: That explanation is unlikely because the statement [in Sanhedrin 108b] implies that the ark rejected only those animals that consorted with another species. And it cannot be that each unclean species had exactly one [properly behaved] pair, and each clean species had exactly seven [such] pairs. Rather, there were many pairs from each, and Noach took seven pairs from the clean and one pair from the unclean. How did he know? He must have studied Torah. In fact in the verse itself it is written, “Take to yourself,” implying that Noach did the taking, [not the ark]. (Gur Aryeh)

Von den Tieren im allgemeinen heißt es oben: sie werden zu dir kommen. Von den reinen Tieren hier: du sollst dir nehmen. בהמה טהורה kommt hier zuerst vor. Obgleich bis dahin Tiere noch gar nicht Gegenstand des Genusses waren, und der Unterschied zwischen reinen und unreinen Tieren erst durch das spätere sinaitische Gesetz hervortritt, bezeichnet gleichwohl Gott hier dem Noa bereits Tiere nach dem Charakter der Reinheit. Es muß also schon damals Gelegenheit zu dieser Unterscheidung gewesen sein, und diese Gelegenheit war das Opfer; denn auch die Noachiden durften und dürfen nur reine Tiere opfern (Sebachim 115, a). Also: Nur das, was allen Menschen zum Opfer tauglich ist, dürfen Juden essen. Der jüdische Tisch und der noachidische Altar stehen auf gleicher Stufe. Die Auswahl dieser Tiere muss daher für beide in dem gleichen Motive wurzeln. Was heißt טהר ?טהור, verwandt mit צהרים) צהר chaldäisch טיהרא), das Durchsichtige, dessen Teile homogen sind und dem Strahle Durchgang gewähren. טהור ist also: das Empfängliche, das dem göttlichen Strahle Durchgang Gewährende. Der ist der reine Mensch, der für das Göttliche empfänglich ist, dessen Geist, Gemüt und Leib von dem Göttlichen durchstrahlt werden. Sein Gegensatz ist טמא: das Verschlossene, somit für das Göttliche Unempfängliche. Das im sinaitischen Gesetze enthaltene Genussverbot gewisser Tiere hat keineswegs die leibliche Gesundheit im Auge, und beruht ebenso wenig auf klimatischer Eigentümlichkeit. Dasselbe Gesetz gebietet ja, sie in Palästina dem Fremdling zu geben, dem גר תושב, dessen wohltuende Unterstützung ja Liebespflicht sein soll (3. B. M. 25, 35. 5. B. M. 14, 21). Vielmehr bezeichnet das Gesetz ausdrücklich als die durch das Gebot zu vermeidenden Folgen: טומאה und שקוץ, und als das durch die Beachtung anzustrebende Ziel: קדושה, die Heiligung. Die verbotenen Speisen sind teils מטמא, negativ, machen für das Göttliche unempfänglich; teils משקץ, positiv, führen zum Ungöttlichen, Schlechten. Wenn also die Reinheit des Menschen im Verhältnis zu Gott darin besteht, dass er für das Gött- liehe empfänglich sei, und diese Empfänglichkeit mit dadurch bedingt ist, dass sein Leib, sein בשר, wirklich מבשר, "Bote" sei, im Dienst des Geistes stehe: so dürften nur diejenigen tierischen Speisen die "reinen" sein, die, indem sie vom Menschen in sich aufgenommen worden, keine Regungen abstumpfen und keine Triebe wecken, wodurch der Mensch unempfänglich für das Geistige und dem Sinnlichen zugeneigter würde. Es werden das diejenigen Tiere sein, die auch ihrerseits für menschliche Eindrücke empfänglich sind, sich ihrer Natur nach leicht, ohne erst der Zähmung zu bedürfen, dem Menschen unterordnen, auf seine Zwecke eingehen, in denen überhaupt das Animalische und Leidenschaftliche nicht mit überwiegender Entschiedenheit vorherrscht. — Welche Tiere werden sich nun andererseits am meisten für Opfer eignen? Wir erkennen ja nicht in dem Wilden das Prototyp der Menschheit, die ersten Menschen und noch die edleren unter den Noachiden standen ja Gott nahe, ein Adam, Hebel, Seth, Noa, ein Abraham, Jizchak, Jakob standen ja nicht vor einem Götzen, wenn sie opferten, wie man das jetzt nicht nur uns, sondern allen den größten Geistern der Vorzeit, einem David, einem Jesaias usw. allen denen imputieren möchte, die geopfert, im Opfer, in der Wiederherstellung der Opfer, Israels Gottesnähe und Gottesverherrlichung geschaut und gefeiert und mit Sehnsucht erhofft und erhoffen; allen diesen stand und steht ja nicht Gott als ein grausam blutiger Götze gegenüber, der am Zucken einer verendenden Tiermuskel seine Freude habe, oder der so dumm wäre, das Sterben eines Ochsen hinzunehmen als Sühne für das Sterben eines Menschen, der auf das röchelnde Tier alle die Qualen und Schmerzen und Todesängste übergehen ließe, die eigentlich den Menschen treffen sollten; sondern dem ersten wie dem letzten war und ist das Opfer: זבח תודה ein Ausdruck für die Selbsthingebung. Das hingegossene Blut war die Aufforderung und das Gelöbnis, sein Blut dem heiligen Gotteswillen hinzugeben; Kopf und Fuß, Brust und Leib, Fett und Nieren auf Gottes Altar gaben unsern Arm, unser Auge, unsere Brust, unsern Leib mit allen, auch den niedersten Reizen, hin, לחם אשה ד׳, "Nahrung des Göttlichen auf Erden" zu werden. Der Opfernde, auch der Noachide, wenn er opferte, lernte und gelobte sich Gott zu opfern — und so werden wiederum nur die Tiere als die zum Opfer geeignetsten erscheinen, die, indem sie der Menschennatur sich am meisten nähern, auch am besten als dessen Repräsentanten erscheinen dürften. Somit werden dieselben Tiere als die geeignetsten für Opfer dastehen, die später für den Genuß des Juden von dem göttlichen Gesetze gestattet blieben, und es wird dasselbe Motiv für beide Zwecke dieselbe Auswahl treffen lassen. Mag nun hier die Weisung, von den reinen Tieren, "sich sieben Paare zu nehmen" an Noa mit Hinblick auf sein künftiges Opfer oder auf den einstigen Bedarf für den Genuss nach dem Gottesgesetze, oder aus beiden Rücksichten zusammen ergangen sein: immer begreifen wir, weshalb dieser Befehl mit dem Namen ה׳ eingeleitet ist. Für die Erhaltung der Tierwelt im allgemeinen lag kein Motiv vor, von den reinen Tieren eine mehr als dreifach größere Anzahl zu nehmen. Die "Reinheit" der Tiere steht nur im Zusammenhange mit den Menschenerziehungszwecken Gottes, die der Name ה׳ repräsentiert.

מכל הבהמה הטהורה, “from all of the ritually pure domestic animals;” seeing that the Torah had not been given yet, and therefore there were no ritually impure domestic animals or creatures, Rashi understands the expression as referring to the domestic animals that would in the future be described as being ritually pure. We therefore learn that Noach had already studied Torah laws which had not yet been revealed publicly (B’reshit Rabbah, 40, based on Psalms 1,2) If so, why did the Talmud in tractate Zevachim folio 116 have to pose the question of how Noach knew, and to answer that the ritually pure animals came to the ark on their own, whereas Noach had to round up the others in order to bring them into the ark? According to the Talmud, Noach only recognised ritually pure animals after the event, not because he had learned the physical signs described in the Torah.
There is a third opinion according to which it became clear which animals had been ritually pure only after Noach offered some of these as offerings after having left the ark. This interpretation is also not logical as G–d had commanded him prior to entering the ark to take seven pairs each of the ritually pure animals into the ark, so that he must have known beforehand which animals to take. This is also what Rashi commented on chapter 8, verse 20. He had realised that the only reason he had been commanded to take seven pairs of the species concerned was in order to have these animals available after the deluge to serves as sacrifices. It would appear therefore that the statement that Noach had studied the Torah, must have referred to the instructions to take such ritually pure birds, (6,4) something which became clear to him when noting that these birds were monogamous, mating only with the same female. When he saw that the ark accepted more than one pair of certain animals, it became clear to him that the extra specimens must have been meant to serve as sacrifices as G–d considered them as ritually pure. “Studying Torah,” as mentioned by Rashi, must mean therefore that he learned Torah by keeping his eyes open and drawing the right conclusions. He had also noted that these animals had only kept company with members of their own species during the long months in the ark. This is most likely also the reason why, when the Torah wrote the details about the laws of chastity and forbidden sexual intercourse in Leviticus 18,23-24, it stated that Jews must not defile themselves through such animals.

מכל הבהמה הטהורה, “of all the pure mammals, etc;” according to Rash,i we can learn from this verse that Noach had studied the Torah. [from where else would he know which of the mammals are “pure” mammals. Ed.] If you were to counter that in the Talmud Zevachim 116, we find the question: “since when did there exist a difference between the pure and the impure mammals at that period,” and the answer given to this question is that indeed at that time there did not exist a difference,” [If so what does Rashi mean seeing that he was familiar with the section of the Talmud? Ed.] The answer given there is that all the animals which the ark accepted without delay were the species which had never been used as sacrifices for idols. The others were rejected by the ark. This still does not solve our question. On the contrary, it shows that seeing that Noach apparently had brought more than one pair of the impure animals to the ark he had been unaware that that species was going to be impure according to the Torah in the future!We therefore have to resort to a different answer; any category of mammal of which Noach knew that it mated only with members of its own species, was recognised by Noach as one that in the future would be categorised by the Torah as a “pure species,” fit as an offering to the Lord;”When the Talmud referred to some categories of mammals initially being rejected by the ark, this indicated to Noach that the “concept” of purity and impurity had to do with the manner in which these species conducted their mating practices. In the Torah, in the future, the concept of purity and impurity is repeatedly used in respect to incestuous relationships in the Book of Leviticus chapter 18,34 and 20,25. In those chapters the term “pure” and “impure,” refers to which of these animals may be used as food for members of the Jewish people. Seeing that Noach recognised which of these species were (to be) allowed as food, we can understand Rashi’s comment. [which incidentally is based also on a statement in Sanhedrin 118. Ed.] A different approach to the questions raised by our verse: the Talmud quoted in the tractate Zevachim did not deal with mammals, but with birds, so that the question raised referred only to how Noach could know which birds would qualify as the ones of which he was to take seven pairs each into the ark. Seeing that there are an innumerable number of “impure” birds, and even the written Torah had not revealed how to know which was which, the question of how Noach could know what even the written Torah did not reveal to us in Moses’ time was most appropriate. The Talmud’s answer that this was revealed to Noach when he watched what happened when the birds tried to enter the ark is therefore very reasonable. Noach had to rely on Divine guidance. The Talmud did not refer to the same problem concerning pure mammals, as there are only a small number of such, and Noach was familiar with the mating habits of these mammals. This led Rashi to conclude that Noach had foreknowledge of what the Torah would decree at some time in the future. Seeing that due to the fact that these species would be allowed as food, the dangers that unless there were multiple pairs of them in the ark, they might die out, make it plausible that the Torah ordered him to take seven pairs of each. [Eating of meat had been completely forbidden prior to the deluge. Ed.] Even though certain other non pure mammals serve as food for the gentiles, such as pigs, etc, the fact that these give birth to multiple young made it unlikely that they would die out even if only a single pair of them would be taken into the ark.ft npn, “take for yourself;” seven males and seven females each, so as to diminish the chances that they would die out. If any of the animals that were not considered as worth eating would die out this was a minor concern, as man would not miss that species. Seeing that the word שבעה, masculine for seven, was repeated by the Torah, led Noach to believe that he was meant to sacrifice some of these after surviving the flood.

שבעה שבעה SEVEN AND SEVEN — so many, in order that he might offer some of them as a sacrifice when leaving the Ark (Genesis Rabbah 34:9).

איש ואשתו, male and female The words are not to be understood literally as “man and wife,” i.e. exclusive mates, but are a figure of speech. The best example and proof that the expression is not meant literally, is found in Exodus 26,3 אשה אל אחותה, describing certain boards of the Tabernacle being close matches. No one in their right mind would translate these words as “woman and her sister.” When the Torah here speaks in cumbersome language of מן הבהמה אשר איננו טהורה, meaning the ritually impure animals, instead of simply writing מן הבהמה הטמאה, this is not an unusual stylistic expression. We find similar cumbersome language in similar contexts in Deuteronomy 23,11אשר לא יהיה טהור or in Samuel I 20,24 כי לא טהור הוא. There are numerous more examples. Our sages in Pessachim 3 say that the Torah meant to demonstrate that it is worthwhile to write a few extra words in order to avoid the use of coarse or unseemly language.

מכל הבהמה הטהורה....שבעה, שבעה, “from all the domesticated pure beasts seven, seven.” This instruction alerted Noach to G’d’s desire that he use them as offerings when he would leave the ark. Had they been required to preserve their respective species, there would not have been any need for seven males and seven females of each category.

So that he might use some as sacrifices. When it says שבעה שבעה it means a total of seven, that is, three couples and one single. Just as שנים שנים means one male and one female, so too שבעה שבעה means seven birds, male and female. This leaves one without a mate. Rashi is thus answering the question: Why was one bird left single? The answer is: “So that he might use some as sacrifices.” And the single one was male. (source unknown) I was taught [differently,] that the reason [for seven full pairs] is as follows: Upon leaving the ark, Noach needed to offer four [males as] burnt offerings. This was for the four couples saved in the ark — Noach and wife, plus his three sons and their wives — as they might have sinned in thought, [for which a burnt offering atones]. And four females were thanksgiving offerings for the four couples, because it says (Berachos 54b), “Four people need to offer thanks: seafarers...” Also, Cham and his wife sinned by having marital relations in the ark. Thus Noach offered a [female] sin offering for each. This accounts for six pairs. And one pair was to sustain the species, just like the unclean species. Moreinu HaRav Nosson and the Gur Aryeh wrote different explanations; the reader may choose. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

שבעה שבעה איש ואשתו, “seven pairs each.” Seeing that among the mammals the males and the females of the animal kingdom are similar to that of human beings, the Torah describes the males and females as איש and אשתו. When speaking of the birds, which are not sexually recognisable by similar means, the Torah does not use this expression, but contents itself with writing: שבעה שבעה.

‘גס מעוף השמים וגו OF FOWLS ALSO OF THE AIR — Scripture here means “clean” birds just as the animals in verse 2 are stated to be clean, for what is not explicitly stated may be learned by analogy from what is explicitly stated.

גם מעוף השמים, we have explained this already on the previous verse. The meaning of the words: על פני כל הארץ, is similar to what we explained in connection with this expression in Genesis 1,25, where it meant that the animals concerned were distributed across all different parts of the globe.

What is not explicit... from that which is explicit. We need not ask: Earlier, the birds were mentioned before the animals, as it says, “From the birds of their kind, from the animals of their kind” (6:20). If so, why does it not mention here [the birds first, and say] “clean” for the birds rather than for the animals, and then learn the animals from the birds? The answer is: Clean animals were mentioned first, to say about them שבעה שבעה — thus hinting to Noach that seven were needed to offer sacrifices, [which come only from clean species]. Had it mentioned birds first, Noach would not know that seven was because of offerings. He would think that the animals are like the birds, about which it says, “To keep seed alive upon the face of the earth,” and the seven animals were to keep seed alive. That is why it mentioned the animals first. However, Mahara’i answered differently; see there.

כי לימים עוד שבעה FOR YET SEVEN DAYS — These are the seven days of mourning for the righteous man Methuselah for whose honour the Holy One, blessed be He, had regard, and therefore postponed punishment. Go and calculate the years of Methuselah and you will find that they came to an end (i. e. he died) in the six hundredth year of Noah’s life (which coincided with the date of the Flood) (Sanhedrin 108b).

כי לימים עוד שבעה, G’d commanded both Noach and the animals to enter the ark already seven days prior to the onset of the deluge in order to assign to them their various accommodations and in order to get them used to their change in diet, especially the flesh eating beasts which had to adjust to a vegetarian diet. According to the Midrash (Sanhedrin 108) Metushelach had died during these days and G’d suspended the decree until after the days of mourning for him had expired. He had been a righteous man and it was no more than appropriate that his passing should be noted with appropriate eulogies and mourning rites. We know that these eulogies were spread over a period of seven days from Genesis 50,10 where, even though Yaakov had already been mourned for 70 days in Egypt prior to the transfer of his remains to the cave of Machpelah in the land of Canaan, he was eulogized again. We had already demonstrated that according to the data provided by the Torah Metushelach must have died at the time the deluge commenced.

כי לימים עוד שבעה, “for in another seven days.” In addition to the 120 years which G-d had given mankind to repent and to mend its ways, He now gave them another seven days. Our sages in Sanhedrin 108 say that these seven days were the days of mourning for Metushelach (who had died at 969 years of age). He had lived the life of a righteous man (Noach’s grandfather) and G-d had held back with bringing on the deluge on his account. This is why the Torah (7,10) wrote the apparently superfluous words ויהי לשבעת הימים ומי המבול היו על הארץ, “it was after these seven days that the waters of the deluge were upon the earth.”

This refers to the seven days of mourning... For if not, why were these “seven days” expressly mentioned? (Kitzur Mizrachi) Question: Mesushelach and Chanoch were righteous as well, [so why was Noach singled out as “righteous in his generations”]? It seems the answer is: [Scripture mentioned] only someone whose married sons and their spouses were worthy of being saved with him. And this was true only of Noach. (Divrei Dovid)

אנכי ממטין, Wer aufmerksam תנ"ך liest, findet den Gebrauch des Pronomen אנכי von Gott in Unterscheidung von אני höchst charakteristisch. אנכי erscheint immer nur in einer Weise, wo das "Ich" sich den Wesen nicht schroff gegenüber stellt, wo es bielmehr ein Walten bezeichnet, in welchem sich Liebe und Gnade offenbart; (siehe פסיקתא zur Stelle: אנכי אנכי הוא מנחמכם Jes. 50); während אני, von אנה, senden, verhängen über etwas, (אַנֵה), die Persönlichkeit bezeichnet, von der eine Bewegung ausgeht, die etwas מְאַנֶה ist, an einen anderen etwas aussendet, (vergl. אניה, Schiff), die Persönlichkeit bleibt fern. Damit hängt auch wohl הֵאָנַח ,אנח seufzen, zusammen, das demgemäß: sich von einem göttlichen Verhängnis, von einer "Schickung" getroffen fühlen, hieße. — אנכי von אנך, verwandt mit חנק ,ענק ,ענג ,חנך. Einmal kommt אנך als selbständiges Substantiv vor: Amos 7, 7, 8 הנני שם אֳנָך בקרב עמי. Dort heißt es wahrscheinlich der Onyx, nach Aruch der Edelstein שוהם, der, wie wir wissen, zur Eingravierung, somit zum Träger von Inschriften diente. So wird Aboda Sara 7, b. die Edelsteine übertreffende Vorzüglichkeit der תורה daran demonstriert, dass אינך נעשה בסיס לס"ת, dass man den Onyx zur Unterlage der תורה gebrauchen würde, und daraus wieder der Wert Israels, welches die תורה, und der Wert des Volkes, welches mit Israel zugleich die תורה in seiner Mitte berge. Der Sinn der Stelle in Amos wäre demnach: Siehe, ich mache mein Volk Israel zur Fassung eines (mein Wort tragenden) Edelsteins, mein Volk soll durchaus nichts Selbständiges sein, soll nichts sein als "Fassung meines Onyx", — (dem geschauten Bilde nach: חומת אנך, die Mauer um einen Onyx) — als Träger des Heiligtums meines Wortes, darum mache ich seinem, dieser Hingebung völlig fremd gewordenen Reiche ein Ende. — חנך ist die Einsetzung, Einübung, Eingewöhnung in seine Bestimmung. ענג: das behagliche Umfasstsein von sich anschmiegenden äußeren Verhältnissen. ענק: Halsumgebung. אנק: Halsbeengung und חנק völlige Er- drosselung. Alle diese Bedeutungen lassen als Grundbegriff das Umfassen und Tragen erkennen, und אנכי entspräche einer solchen Tätigkeit, in welcher von dem "Ich" die zweite Person getragen, umfasst, gehalten und gepflegt wird, wo das "Ich" in enge Verbindung mit dem "Du" tritt. (Zwei אנכי, heißt es in der פסיקתא, haben die Väter am Sinai vernommen, אנכי וגו׳ אשר הוצאתיך und אנכי וגוי אל קנא; derselbe יכנא, hcielguz hcua tsi eblesred ,neboheg mijarziM sua dnu tssafmu hcid hci red אנק לא und will nicht, dass du dich von einem andern getragen halten sollst).

ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה, “forty days and forty nights, consecutively.” The number of days, i.e. forty, corresponds to the number of lashes administered to people who have deliberately violated G-d’s negative commandments. (Deut. 25,3) Alternately, the number is reminiscent of the 40 days during which Moses received the Torah from G-d while he was on Mount Sinai.

כי לימים עוד FOR YET [SEVEN] DAYS — What is meant by עוד "yet", "more"? A further period of time: this period (seven days) additional to the 120 years of respite that was promised (Sanhedrin 108b).

אנכי ממטיר, G’d did not make mention of the fountains of the earth bursting forth as it is a well known fact that this usually happens as a corollary to unusual amounts of rain falling on earth. The fact that the rainwater softens the earth’s crust, enables these subterranean wells held in check by the earth’s crust to burst forth without restraint. These additional waters then flood the surface of the globe. After all, as we explained already during the report of the creation, it is the natural tendency of water to inundate the dry areas of the globe. From a scientific perspective, all we have to remember is that the specific weight of water is lighter than that of earth, so that if allowed free reign, earth would always sink to the bottom of the water. The deluge therefore was not an unnatural event but it was a return to what had been natural until G’d had given a directive at the beginning of the third day that the waters concentrate in a single area to enable the earth to become visible. G’d had imposed unnatural restraints on the waters at that time, something that our sages have called an agreement made by Him with the waters, to comply with G’d’s commands when the need would arise.

Ist dies alles richtig, so ist hier das אנכי unendlich bezeichnend. Wenn du mich jetzt Tod und Vernichtung über die Menschen- und Tierwelt bringen siehst, — so stehe ich doch da in meiner Barmherzigkeit und Liebe, bin selbst jetzt noch derselbe "אנכי", der alles Umfassende, alles Tragende und Haltende, und auch dieses härteste Verhängnis hat nur das Heil des Ganzen zum Zwecke. Es ist dies derselbe Begriff, der in den Büchern der Propheten durch den als אלקים ausgesprochenen Namen ׳ה ausgedrückt wird, die Liebe, die sich als Richter äußert, der prägnanteste Ausdruck der Gotteseinheit und die nachdrucksvollste Negation eines jeden Dualismus.

ארבעים יום FORTY DAYS — corresponding to the period of a child’s formation, for by their sinning they had troubled their Creator to form embryos of illegitimate children (Genesis Rabbah 32:5).

היקום, an expression which covers all living phenomena on the face of the globe. The root of the word is קום, the letter י being an addition, just as the root of the word יריבי in Psalms 35,1 is really ריב, quarrel. The expression כל היקום refers to all that remained on the surface of the dray land, excluding fish and the living creatures inside the ark.

Vierzig Tage. Die Weisen erinnern an die gleiche Periode der Menschenfötusgestaltung; es dürfte somit schon diese Dauer der Katastrophe sie im tieferen Grunde als eine neugestaltende bezeichnen.

מחה ,ומחיתי, iauslöschen, wegwischen, setzt die vorgängige Auflösung voraus. Sein Gegensatz ist: יקום, das nur noch einmal, und zwar auch beim Untergange, bei Korach vorkommt, und das Selbständige, sich selbständig Erhebende, bedeutet, das also dem Falle widerstrebt. Bedeutsam ist das אשר עשיתי, ich habe sie ja selbst gestaltet, Leben und Selbständigkeit meiner Geschöpfe ist ja meine Freude, meine Absicht, und nur dem Missbrauch trete ich entgegen. — כאשר צוהו ד׳, wieder ד׳; denn der wesentliche Inhalt dieses Auftrages gehört der künftigen Gestaltung an לחיות זרע, auf der neuen Erde wieder neues Leben zu säen, und auch die Siebenfaltigkeit der "reinen" Tiere, wie schon bemerkt, vielleicht mit im Hinblick auf jenes Volk des göttlichen Gesetzes, das eben das große Werkzeug in Gottes Händen werden sollte, die Menschheit ohne neues מבול, zu ihrem Heile zu erziehen. —

ויעש נח AND NOAH DID — This refers to his coming to the Ark.

ויעש נח ככל אשר צוהו השם. Noach did in accordance with all that G'd commanded him. Rashi comments that this refers to his entering the ark. If that were the meaning there was no need for the Torah's comment as the Torah spells this out in 7,7 as well as 7,13.

ויעש נח, he entered the ark together with the animals slated for survival, as mentioned in ויבא נח in verse 7.

מן הבהמה הטהורה ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה....שניים,שניים באו אל נח. “Of the pure domesticated beasts, and of the not pure domesticated beasts, they came to Noach in pairs.” According to Rashi none of these beasts arrived in fewer numbers than 2 each. Some commentators understand the expression as referring to 2 pairs of each, applying the same to the pure beasts of which 7 pairs each were brought into the ark. According to Nachmanides one pair of each species came of their own volition, whereas Noach added six more pairs of each of the pure species. He had to supply the animals needed as sacrificial offerings by exerting himself.

אשר איננה טהורה, “which was not pure.” The reason why here the Torah uses the word איננה to describe something negative, as opposed to the word לא used in verse 8, is that the word refers to a subject that had already been mentioned without being described as impure. [Following Rashi, the author understands the word לא טהורה as applying to beasts which are fit to eat for Jews, such as deer, of which Solomon kept a whole stable for his guests, whereas איננה describes a totally impure animal, one which is forbidden for Jews to eat even as חולין, non-consecrated meat. Ed.] You should realize that we have been taught in the first chapter of tractate Pessachim folio 3 that the Torah used eight extra letters in order to avoid describing something as טמא, outright defiled, when the same point could be made by using more refined language such as here, i.e. “not pure,” instead of ”defiled, impure.” The Talmud quotes our verse. One could ask why the Talmud did not quote the earlier verse to make the same point. The reason, presumably, is that in that verse the Torah did not speak about impure animals but about animals which are impure only in respect of their fitness to be offered as a sacrificial offering. However, Nachmanides pursues a different approach, claiming that all the “pure animals” were fit as sacrifices, quoting ויקח נח מכל הבהמה הטהורה וגו', “Noach took from all manner of pure animal and bird and offered burnt offerings on the altar.” He adds that for the Israelites later after the revelation at Mount Sinai, only pigeons were fit as sacrifices from among the fowl, and only large cattle and small cattle from among the mammals. Nachmanides continues to explain the third time the Torah dwells on the same subject saying

I believe that the Torah meant tell us that Noach did indeed take seven pairs each from all the respective categories of pure mammals and pure birds, although the report in 7,8-7,9 does not mention that seven pairs came to the ark of their own accord.

כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, “as G’d had commanded him,”(7,16) as testifying that just as Noach complied meticulously with G’d’s instructions about entering the ark, etc., he also complied with G’d’s detailed instructions about leaving the ark. This brief reference is directly linked to the other instructions that the Torah detailed in earlier verses. The words והבאים זכר ונקבה at the beginning of verse 16, mean that these animals appeared at the last possible moment before the commencement of the deluge, and that they were welcomed by Noach who had entered the ark by that time. These animals had been driven by a divine inspiration to behave as they did at that time. Our verse is somewhat abbreviated and means: “all those who came to Noach as males and females of all flesh, Noach let into the ark because G’d had so commanded him.” The meaning of the words שניים, שניים in the previous verse is that G’d had commanded these animals to present themselves in pairs, male and female. It is possible that the words ויעש נח, as well as ונח בן שש מאות שנה, in verses 5-6 and all the subsequent verses up to 11 בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח, “in the sixth hundredth year of Noach’s life,” do not tell us about a separate action at all, but illustrate that Noach complied in every detail with the instructions which he had receive from G’d. Having reported this, the Torah proceeds to inform us about when precisely the deluge began. [Those who prefer to believe that the calendar at that time did not correspond to our calendar nowadays, are reminded that there would be no point in the Torah telling us about such dates unless we could relate to them from our own experience. Ed.] Ibn Ezra explains the words ויבא נח ובניו ואשתו ונשי בניו אתו אל התבה, (7,7) as not meaning that they entered the ark at that time, but that all these animals came to Noach’s house on the 10th of the month, [according to our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 3,6) the beginning of the deluge was postponed at the last moment to allow for the seven days’ mourning for Methuselah who died then to have been observed. Ed.] The words מפני המבול would mean that what prompted these animals to come at that time was that they felt that the disaster called deluge was imminent.

ונח, The Torah tells us how old Noach was when he entered the ark on account of the deluge that had begun. The letter ו in front of the word נח means the same as the word כאשר. We find parallel constructions of this use of the letter ו in Psalms 59,16 אם לא ישבעו וילינו, “when they are not satisfied they complain,” as well as in Psalms 63 7 ושפתי רננות יהלל פי, “I sing praises when my lips are joyful.” [clearly, one does not sing with one’s lips. Ed.]

בן שש מאות שנה. Der Mensch ist ein fortgesetztes Erzeugnis seiner Lebensjahre. Jeder Tag arbeitet physisch und psychisch an seiner Veränderung. Unsere Sprache nennt ihn daher einen Sohn der Jahre. — So ist er auch ein Sohn des Charakters, בן בליעל, auch ein Sohn an ihm zu vollziehender Strafe, .בן הכות. —

והמבול היה מים על הארץ, “when the deluge covered the earth with water.” There is good reason to ask why G–d chose the deluge as the instrument with which to punish mankind, rather than any other means at His disposal. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 12 answered this question by stating that this method was chosen as it conformed to the principle of making the punishment match the sin. Man had sinned by means of boiling water, (metaphor for extremely serious sins, involving sexual emissions that are considered as the result of the body becoming heated) so G–d chose equally severe measures as the means to punish them by. The subject has been illustrated by a parable in which a king magnanimously set aside a section of a city to serve as residence for blind people, and he provided them with all comforts in order to make their lives more tolerable. Whenever the king passed this way, the blind people would rise and shout in gratitude for the king’s generosity. Once the king heard their voices and enquired from his entourage who was the source of this shouting. He was told that it originated with the blind people whom he so lavishly supported. They added that the blind people do the same whenever they hear horses galloping in their neighbourhood. He responded by saying: “how much louder would be their shouting if they were able to see their benefactor with their own eyes.” He therefore commanded to return these blind people to their former locations, and to install people with eyesight in the section formerly reserved for the blind. He ordered that the new residents be provided with all that he had formerly provided the blind with. When these people now realised that they had been promoted, they lived it up. Instead of being grateful, whenever the king passed in their area they raised their voices cursing him for having forced them to relocate. When the king was told about this, he decided to execute all these people.
The point of the parable is that originally the universe having been in chaos, was transformed into water, i.e. an element that is both blind and deaf. Even though, the waters praised the Lord for having thus raised their status. We know this from Psalms 93,3: נשאו נהרות ה', נשאו נהרות קולם, נשאו נהרות קולם, “the oceans sound o Lord, the oceans sound their thunder, the ocean sounds its pounding.” When the Lord heard this, He ordered the oceans which had covered the surface of the earth to be relocated so as to provide room for the earth to emerge and be seen. (Genesis 1.9) He created man in order to inhabit that earth, where previously there had only been water, providing man with fruit-bearing trees and all kinds of other luxuries, expecting, of course, to be rewarded with man’s expression of appreciation. The earth was so good that it required to be tilled only once in forty years. Instead, man took his good fortune for granted and instead of accepting the rules laid down by the Creator, rebelled against Him. When the Lord became aware of this, He had no choice but to punish them for their ingratitude. He commanded the waters to return to their original areas, allocated them at the beginning of creation. [The author credits his Rabbi with telling him this parable, who in turn had credited it to Rabbi Nathan Afniel.]

והמבול היה מים, the word והמבול is used both as part of the previous part of the verse and as the end of the verse, i.e. “when the deluge which consisted of water took place, Noach was 600 years old.”

נח ובניו NOAH AND HIS SONS — The men separately and the women separately, because they were forbidden to live together as man and wife since the world was living in a state of distress

"Before the water..." - He went in before they came. And we don't know the reason why he says in his interpretation that he was of little faith. Because the text testifies that he was righteous and pure and that he did everything God commanded!

Since the world was in a state of grief. It seems that Rashi is answering the question: Why does “The flood waters were on the earth” immediately precede “Noach went in...”? It is to tell us why marital relations were prohibited — the Flood came and the world was in a state of grief. Thus it is written right afterwards, “Noach went in, and his sons...” to show why the men entered separately and the women entered separately, and relations were forbidden. But why does it say the same about their departure [from the ark]: “Noach departed with his sons, his wife and son’s wives” (8:18)? Relations were then permitted! It is because, as Rashi explains later (9:9), Noach was afraid to beget children after the Flood until Hashem gave him a sign that He would not bring another Flood. Thus, [since there was still separation at the time of his departure], it is written “Noach departed with his sons, etc.” (Gur Aryeh)

ויבא נח, ובניו, ואשתו ונשי בניו, “Noach, his sons, and his wife and his sons’ wives, with him entered the ark;” Rashi, analysing the sequence in which Noach and his family entered the ark, explains that the men and women did so separately, realising that as long as the deluge would last they would not be allowed to have marital relations. (Based on an ancient version of the Tanchuma)

מפני מי המבול, “on account of the waters of the deluge, and not on account of G-d’s command to enter the ark. [This is why the sages comment that even Noach was not a strong believer as he waited till necessity forced him to take refuge in the ark. Compare Rashi. Ed.]

מפני מי המבול BECAUSE OF THE WATERS OF THE FLOOD — (מפני properly means ‘‘from before”) — Noah, also, was of those people who are wanting in faith: he believed and he did not believe that the Flood would come, and he would not enter the Ark until the waters forced him to do so (Genesis Rabbah 32:6).

מפני מי המבול, these words supply the reason why Noach entered. We do not understand the scholar in Bereshit Rabbah 32,6 who claimed that Noach lacked in faith because he did not enter the ark until after the rain forced him to. After all, the Torah had specifically stated that Noach was perfect and did all that G’d had commanded him.

OF CLEAN BEASTS, AND OF BEASTS THAT ARE NOT CLEAN. 9. TWO AND TWO THERE CAME IN UNTO NOAH. Rashi explained: “They were all equal with respect to this number for the last number of any species was two.” Others⁷⁹R’dak. said that the meaning of “two” is pairs, meaning that they came couplewise, male and female together.
In my opinion, the matter was thus: two — a male and a female — came of their own accord from each species, and Noah added by bringing six additional pairs from the clean ones since those that came to be saved arrived of their own accord while he busied himself for the sake of the commandment with those that were destined for sacrifice, for so it was told to him.⁸⁰See Ramban above, 6:20. And the meaning of the verse, And Noah did according unto all that the Eternal commanded him,⁸¹Verse 5. is, as the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah,⁷⁸32:9. that he was to prepare to bring in the cattle, beast, and fowl, meaning the clean ones, those which he himself went after and brought to his house. The verse which states a third time, as G-d hath commanded Noah,⁸²Verse 9. means that he did as He had commanded him concerning entering the ark, for this verse is connected with the above verse: And Noah came in.⁷⁷Verse 7. The verse thus states that Noah and his sons and his wife and his sons’ wives came into the ark along with two and two of the cattle and fowl and creeping things that came to him in order to enter into the ark. All of them came with him, entering the ark because of the waters of the flood,⁷⁷Verse 7. as G-d commanded him. Scripture then returns and sets forth the month and the day in which the flood came⁸³Verse 11. and how he entered the ark, stating that on that selfsame day when the rains began — and not before — Noah entered the ark, and with him were all living things.

מן הבהמה, we explained this already on verse 2 of this chapter.

ומן הבהמה אשר איננה טהורה, “and of the category of mammal that was not pure, etc.;” This “clumsy” way of describing “impure,” טמאה, by using eight extra letters merely to avoid having to use the expression: “impure,” caused the sages in the Talmud Pessachim 3, to teach us how concerned the Torah is that we use only dignified language even when describing repulsive phenomena. Actually, the Talmud could have derived this already from verse two in our chapter, i.e. אשר לא טהורה היא, but the Torah preferred to use this fine point when referring to beasts which basically are suitable as sacrifices on the altar, i.e. domesticated mammals, and free roaming mammals, although the latter do not qualify for the altar even though they may be allowed for us to eat. According to the Talmud, the word טהורה in verse 2 of our chapter would have had to be spelled with the letter ו, i.e. plene, which it is not in our texts.

שנים שנים TWO AND TWO —In this number they were all equal — the least number was two.

שנים שנים באו אל נח. They came to Noach in pairs. The Torah points out that these animals came of their own volition; Noach did not have to search for them or catch them. One of the reasons the Torah does not mention seven pairs of pure animals here is that only the number of animals that came to the ark to maintain their species are mentioned here. G'd guided them to the ark and Noach admitted them. The additional animals that served as תשלום, payment, Noach had to provide himself. You find this confirmed in verse 15 when the animals that came to the ark are specifically described as being only pairs.

שנים שנים, in pairs. Seeing that a pair is made up of a male and a female, two pairs of each species came. כאשר צוה אלוקים את נח, the animals came of their own accord, but Noach brought them into the ark as G’d had commanded him to do.

Of their own accord. Otherwise it should say [not בָּאוּ, but] הובְאו (they were brought). [You might ask:] Why did Rashi not offer this comment earlier, on: “Two of each will come to you to be kept alive” (6:20)? [The answer is:] There Scripture tells us the ark’s benefit: it will save them. But here it is an extra phrase, thus we infer that they came of their own accord. (Nachalas Yaakov) [Note: Rashi’s second comment on this verse used to appear first. Accordingly, you might ask:] Why does Rashi reverse the order of the verse and first explain, “Of their own accord,” and then, “The minimum number was two”? It seems the answer is as we explained earlier (6:20): If the animals had not come on their own, and Noach would have had to trap them, Hashem would have given him a sign [to know which ones cleaved to their own species], as we explained. And we would say that this sign is hinted to in our verse: “Two by two,” i.e., animals that go as a couple of male and female, unaccompanied by other animals. So [that we will not say this,] Rashi first explains that בָּאוּ implies that they all came on their own, as we explained on 6:20. Thus Noach could not know [through the sign of “two by two”], since all the animals and birds came. Furthermore, since [Rashi first explains that] they came on their own, then if Noach had such a sign he would need to choose from among the many animals in each species that cleaved to their own kind. Yet Noach would have no way to choose. If he took these, he would cause those to die! Which should he reject? Surely [Noach had no sign], and whatever the ark took in was saved. Thus, “two by two” [is not a sign but is as Rashi says:] “They were all equal in this number...” (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

Sie kamen paarweise zu Noa, wie Gott Noa geboten hatte. Gott hatte Noa die Aufnahme der Tierpaare geboten; allein die Ausführung, insbesondere so weit sie sich auch auf חיות erstreckte und das ganze paarweise Erscheinen nur geschlechtlich rein gehaltener Paare lag völlig außer seiner Macht. Allein hier tritt die im heiligen Schrifttum so bedeutsame Wahrheit, dass derselbe Gott, der dem Menschen Gesetze gibt, auch der Gesetzgeber und Gebieter der Natur ist, mit anderen Worten: dass ה׳ auch אלקי׳ ist, in faktischer Tatsächlichkeit hervor. Der dem Noa das Gebot zur freien Erfüllung erteilte, dessen Gebot führte auch die Tiere in der Weise ihm zu, dass er den göttlichen Auftrag erfüllen konnte. Diese Tatsache, die Identität des Gottes der Natur und des Gottes der Menschheit, das Walten desselben Gotteswortes in der Natur, das dem Menschen sein Gesetz zur freien Erfüllung hinausgab, bildet einen Grundzug des jüdischen Bewusstseins, das unter andern David׳s Psalm in dem Satze besingt: השלח אמרתו ארץ וגו׳ הנתן שלג כצמר וגו׳ משליך קרחו כפתים וגו׳ ישלח דברו ומסם וגו׳ מגיד דברו ליעקב חקיו ומשפטיו לישראל וגו׳. Vergl. oben Raw Hirsch on Genesis 7: 5. ויעש נח ככל אשר צוהו ד׳ und hier שנים שנים באו וגו׳ כאשר צוה אלקים את נח.

באו אל נח THEY CAME TO NOAH — of their own accord (Genesis Rabbah 32).

The minimum number was two. For if not, it contradicts what was said before (v. 2): “Of every clean animal, take to yourself seven pairs.”

Seven days (leshiv’as yamim). The numerical value of this phrase is equal to that of “the days of mourning for Mesushelach” (liymei eivel Mesushelach).

ויהי לשבעת הימים, at the end of the period which G’d had described previously as כי לימים עוד שבעה in verse 4.

Es folgt nun unter genauer Angabe der Daten die Erzählung, wie alles präzis so vorgegangen, wie es zuvor angekündigt gewesen. Damit wird die ganze Katastrophe aus dem Bereiche blind wirkender Naturkräfte herausgehoben, und als Werk des freien Waltens göttlicher Vorsehung gekennzeichnet, ganz so wie bei dem Walten in Mizrajim die Wunderereignisse immer im Voraus angekündigt wurden. Es erscheint hier die Natur- und Menschenwelt im Dienste eines einzigen Meisters und Herrn. Im Gegensatz zu der nichtjüdischen Anschauung, die auch in der sogenannten Sündflut nur ein blind waltendes Naturereignis erblickt, steht hier das Protokoll und Journal Noa׳s und zeigt uns zwei Potenzen im treuen Gehorsam gegen den göttlichen Willen, einerseits Noa, und andererseits die vernunftlose Natur; der Vogel in den Lüften, der kriechende Wurm wußte Noa zu finden "nach göttlichem Befehl", und — in keineswegs natürlicher Weise — "paarweise, männlich und weiblich" sich bei der Arche einzustellen, und ebenso die einbrechende Flut brach auf den Wink Gottes nur an dem bestimmten Tage hervor.

בחדש השני IN THE SECOND MONTH — Rabbi Eliezer said, “This is the month Marcheshvan”; Rabbi Joshua said, “This is the month Eyar (Rosh Hashanah 11b).

בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח, although Noach’s age had already been reported before, here the Torah adds further precise data about the month and the day of the month when the deluge commenced. בחודש השני, there is a disagreement between the scholars of the Talmud if the “second month” refers to a count based on the lunar year or the solar year. According to the view that the world was created in the month of Tishrey, (i.e. that Adam was created on the first of that moth), the month described here is the month of Marcheshvan, whereas according to the view that the universe was created in the month of Nissan, the deluge would have started in the month of Iyar. Rabbi Yonathan (Rosh Hashanah 11) decided that the correct version is that of Rabbi Eliezer who translated the verse בירח האתנים in Kings I 8,2 as the “ancient” month. It appears that this month was called איתנים, seeing it was the month (תשרי) in which the universe had been created. It was only after the Jewish people left Egypt, that they adopted the month of Nissan as the first month of their calendar year, (partially), as we know from Exodus 12,1-2. The verses there make sense only if the other nations had not used the month of Nissan as the first month of the calendar year.

To release their waters. [Rashi is explaining that] this was not an ordinary bursting, which conveys that the object is now broken. This bursting conveys that the wellsprings grew stronger.

פקח ,פקע) ,בקע) : auseinanderreißen. — עין ,מעין : Quell und Auge. Das Auge ist, wie schon bemerkt, der Quell, durch welchen die sichtbare Welt in den Geist einströmt. So auch באר ein Brunnen und klar machen. חפר ausgraben und untersuchen. Die Wurzel von עון :עין (wie זון :זין), kommt nur noch in עונה, die Zeit vor. Heißt עון als Wurzel von עין: aus dem Verborgenen in die Sichtbarkeit treten, so dürfte mit derselben Wurzel die Zeit, als der aus der verborgenen Vergangenheit quellende, in der sichtbaren Gegenwart sich dahin bewegende, in die verborgene Zukunft sich verlierende Strom der Dinge (מן העולם עד העולם) gezeichnet sein. — תהום, von המם, das Gewoge, die große, mächtige Flut. Dem auch sonst vorhandenen Wasser wurden weite Öffnungen aufgerissen. — ארב ,חרב ,ערב ,ארב ,ארבות: das noch zurück-- gehaltene Bestreben hervor- und in etwas hineinzustürzen. ערב ist das bereits Eingedrungensein des Fremdartigen. חרב ist die völlige Überwältigung durch etwas Fremdartiges. אֳרֻבָה ist also eine Vorkehrung, durch welche etwas zum plötzlichen Hervorstürzen bereit gehalten wird.

נבקעו WERE BROKEN UP — so that they might give forth their waters.

נבקעו, they began to crack open, and to emerge from below. As a result of tremendous amounts of rain having poured down from the skies, the crust of the earth was weakened, so that the waters underneath found it easy to burst forth in streams all over the place. This process, once started continued and accelerated and even when the 40 days of rain had stopped, the waters kept rising for 150 days due to the waters coming out of the bowels of the earth.

תהום רבה THE GREAT DEEP — Measure for measure: they had sinned with רבה רעת האדם “great was the evil of man” (i. e. their sin is described by the word רבה “great”) and they were therefore punished by תהום רבה “the great deep” (i.e. the expression “great’’ is used of the instrument by which they were punished for their great sin) (Sanhedrin 108a).

תהום רבה, the noun תהום here is used as a feminine noun, as it is also in Ezekiel 31,4. However, the same noun also occurs in the masculine mode in Psalms 42,8.

וארבות השמים נפתחו, the letter ו at the beginning of the word וארבות refers to something in addition. The Torah reports that after the “windows,” or storage chambers of the waters in the heavens had opened and poured down rain in great quantities, also the fountains in the earth below joined in flooding the surface of the globe. We already explained the procedure in our commentary on verse 4. The letter ו is used in a similar fashion in Isaiah 64,4 הן אתה קצפת ונחטא, “You are angry seeing that we have sinned.” Similar constructions are found in Judges 4,21 והוא נרדם ויעף “seeing that he was tired he fell asleep.” Or, Leviticus 9,22 וירד מעשות העולה, “seeing that he had performed the rites of the burnt-offering” he descended.” Seeing there was so much rain, the Torah, using a figure of speech, describes the source of the rain as the ארבות השמים נפתחו, “the windows of the sky having opened.” The term ארבות השמים also appears in Kings II 7,19 where the grain which had been in short supply is predicted by the skeptical captain as being inadequate to supply the necessary quantity even if all of the celestial windows were to be opened and it would rain down from there.

ויהי הגשם על הארץ AND THE RAIN WAS UPON THE EARTH — But later on (v. 17) it says. “And the Flood was upon the earth”! But the explanation is this: when He poured down the water at first He made it fall in mercy (gently), in order that if the people would repent, it might prove a rain of blessing; but when they did not repent it became a destructive flood (Genesis Rabbah 31:12) .

ויהי הגשם, as G’d had predicted so it came to pass; it kept raining non-stop for 40 days.

ארבעים יום, “forty days.” According to Rashi, the first day is not to be counted. (as the first night no rain had fallen) The Torah had made a point of writing in verse 11: ביום הזה נבקעו כל מעינות תהום, “on this day all the fountains of the deep broke open.” Accordingly the 40 days came to an end on the 28th day of Kislev.” This does not seem accurate, seeing that he himself wrote on verse 24, where the Torah wrote that the water level on earth kept increasing for a period of one hundred and fifty days which would mean that they kept increasing until the first day of Sivan where the Torah spoke about the seventh month as the day when the rains stopped descending. (compare his commentary on 8,4) We would therefore have to include the first day of the “forty” days as being part of that count. I believe therefore that the rains had started falling as soon as it was daylight on the seventeenth of the second month, as the words: ביום הזה in our verse do not prove anything about which part of the day it refers to. We find this expression in the Torah on numerous occasions when it clearly includes the preceding night. (The author quotes Genesis 2,2, and Leviticus 23,28 as examples to prove his point.) The author also cites Seder Olam, an ancient history text, as supporting his conclusion. He quotes that text verbatim: “on this day all the fissures in the earth broke open, and rain fell on the earth from the sky. This state of affairs continued until the 27th day of Kislev, but the level of water covering the surface of the earth continued to rise until the end of 150 days, that day being the first day of the month of Sivan.” In light of what the author of that text writes, we must include the first day of the “forty” days given in the Torah in our total.

‘ארבעים יום וגו FORTY DAYS AND [FORTY NIGHTS] — The first day is not included in this number, because its night (i.e. the night that preceded it, since according to Jewish reckoning a “day” comprises night-time and the following day-time) was not included with it — for it is written (v. 11) “On the same day (i. e. day-time) were all the fountains of the great deep broken up”. (Consequently the forty days ended, according to R. Eliezer, on the 28th day of Kislev (Rosh Hashanah 11b). as the months are counted as regular months, one full (of 30 days) and the next defective (of 29 days), so we have, 12 days of Marcheshvan and 28 days of Kislev.

בעצם היום הזה IN THE SELFSAME DAY — Scripture teaches you that the people of his generation said: “If we see him enter the Ark we will smash it up and kill him”. The Holy One, blessed be He, thereupon said, ‘‘I will let him enter before the eyes of everyone and we shall see whose word prevails” (Genesis Rabbah 32:8).

בעצם היום הזה, on this very date, the 17th day of the second month, after Noach had entered the ark. How do we reconcile this statement with the verses 4-6 from which we deduced that Noach entered the ark already 7 days before the onset of the deluge? We must conclude that whereas the animals entered the ark at the beginning of the seven day period, Noach, who entered with them and made things comfortable for them, still commuted between the ark and his regular home. It is possible that even the animals and the birds still grazed in the vicinity of the ark, knowing that as soon as the rains would start their place was only inside the ark. They did not look forward to having to spend any more time than absolutely necessary for their survival inside the ark. On the seventh day, i.e. the 17th of the month, they all entered the ark for the last time prior to the earth having dried sufficiently after the deluge to enable them to disembark. As soon as everybody was inside, Noach locked the exit door, as well as the window which he had built into the roof of the ark, seeing the waters of the deluge would commence to descend on this very day.

בא נח ושם וחם ויפת בני נח ואשת נח וגו' , “Noach, Shem, Cham, and Yaphet, Noach’s sons and his wife entered, etc.” By rights the Torah should have written: בא נח ושם וחם ויפת בניו ואשתו ושלשת נשי בניו, in that order.[Had the Torah written the verse in that way it could have avoided mentioning the name Noach three times in that verse. Ed.] However, Noach was so beloved of G-d that G-d wanted to mention his name repeatedly in order to convey this to us. It is a common practice amongst people that when they are especially fond of someone they look for opportunities to refer to such a person by his name.

Scripture teaches... For if not, it should say just ביום הזה, as it says earlier (v. 11).

צפור כל כנף [EVERY] BIRD OF EVERY KIND — The word צפור is in the construct state, viz.. birds of every kind of wing, thus including locusts (Chullin 139b). The word כנף means “wingfeather”, as (Leviticus 1:17) “He shall rend it by the wings thereof”, for even its feathers were offered as a sacrifice. Also here, the meaning is, birds with any kind of semblance of wing.

המה..כל צפור, כל כנף, when the Torah used the word עוף it referred to any creature that could fly, יעוף. Now the Torah became even more explicit, writing כל צפור, a generic term for all the larger birds. The expression צפור includes both the ritually pure birds as well as the ritually impure ones. כל כנף, the Torah adds more detail, writing that every creature that has wings was included in those entering the ark; alternatively, the word could be understood as an adjective, i.e. “every feathered creature.”

[The word ציפור] is in the construct state. I.e., we should not think that צפור stands on its own and כנף stands on its own. [This cannot be,] since a צפור, too, has a כנף. Alternatively, if כל כנף is a different thing, how could it come into the ark with Noach? There cannot be a wing without a bird! Thus, it must be in the construct state. Rashi then answers the questions: [If so,] why is it necessary to write כנף? Obviously, a bird has wings! Furthermore, how can it say כל כנף? A bird does not have all the wings in the world! Rashi answers: It means, “Birds of every winged species, including locusts,” since they, too, have wings. But צפור [alone] does not include locusts, as they are not birds. The Maharshal explains that if not for the construct state, we would interpret it as כל צפור כנף, thereby excluding anything without a wing. And locusts would be excluded too, since they are not called birds.

עוף .כל צפור כל כנף bezeichnet den Vogel nach seiner Bewegung; עוף nach etwas streben, hinfliegen. כנף verwandt mit גנב bezeichnet den Flügel, nach seiner Wirkung, indem er den Vogel der Erde entzieht, enthebt. Die Herleitung von צפור ist dunkel. Es findet sich צפר in Nagel: צפרן und in צָפִיר, gleichbedeutend mit שעיר, das Haarige, Struppige: der Bock. Es kann daher צפור den Vogel nach seiner Federbedeckung, dem Gefieder bezeichnen, und wäre daher die Radix צפר gleichzeitig Bezeichnung für Nagel, Haar und Feder, die doch im Grunde aus demselben Gewebe bestehen. Dunkel bleibt aber der Zusammenhang mit צפירת תפארה und ויצפר מהר גלער (Richter 7, 3). Ebenso ist nicht klar, was hier durch die dreifache Bezeichnung: "כל העוף למינהו כל צפור כל כנף" gesagt wird. Vielleicht ist unter עוף alles Fliegende im allgemeinen, und hier, in Unterscheidung von צפר, alles geflügelte Insekt zu verstehen, das fliegt, aber nicht gefiedert ist; unter צפור dann das gefiederte Fliegende, also der eigentliche Vogel. Die Weisen verstehen aber überall unter צפור nur den reinen Vogel. Vielleicht wird hier das Fliegende aller Art so besonders hervorgehoben, weil es eben sich dem Menschen am meisten entzieht, hier aber auf Gottes Geheiss sich bei Noa einfand.

כל צפור כל כנף, “every bird, every wing.” According to B’reshit Rabbah 32,8, these apparently superfluous words are to tell us that every one of these birds some of which Noach would use as sacrifices later on, were complete, whole, i.e. did not have a single feather missing, as this would have disqualified them as potential sacrifices. None had damaged reproductive organs.

AND THEY CAME IN UNTO NOAH INTO THE ARK. The intent of this is to make known that the beasts, fowl, etc., did not gather to him at all, nor did they come until that selfsame day when the rains came. And he came into the ark for it was G-d that hath commanded and His breath which hath gathered them⁸⁴Isaiah 34:16. in one moment.

ויבאו שנים שנים, in pairs, just as the first time. They all showed up, not a single one had disappeared or joined another species.

ויבאו אל נח אל התבה, “they came to Noach, to the Ark.” This verse is a continuation of the words בעצם היום הזה, “on this same day,” in verse 13, where the Torah had mentioned first that Noach and his family entered the Ark before going on to say that the animals arrived in pairs. All this occurred on the same day. The Torah was at pains to describe the miraculous nature of what happened, i.e. that this was a manifestation of G-d’s will.

Der Mensch erscheint hier in seiner höchsten Würde. Die Tiergeschlechter kamen alle zu ihm, als ihrem Erretter und Erhalter.

ויסגור ה' בעדו AND THE LORD SHUT HIM IN — He protected him so that they could not smash up the Ark (cf. 5:13): He surrounded the Ark (thus enclosing it סגר) with bears and lions which killed some of them (Genesis Rabbah 32:8). But the literal meaning of the text is: He shut the door in front of him against the waters. Similarly, wherever בעד occurs in the Scriptures it means כנגד in front of. E. g., (20:18) “The lord had made a closure in front of (בעד) every womb”; (2 Kings 4:4) “Close the door in front of thyself (בעדך) and in front of (ובעד) thy sons”; (Job 2:4) ‘‘skin in front of (as a protection for) (בעד) skin”; (Psalms 3:4) “a shield in front of me ובעדי”: (1 Samuel 12:19) “Pray (בעד) thy servants” which means כנגד in front of (i. e. on behalf of, as a protection for) thy servants.

AND THEY THAT CAME IN, CAME IN MALE AND FEMALE OF ALL FLESH. The intent of this is that those who came into the ark were male and female for so Noah brought them in. This is why Scripture says, as G-d hath commanded him, since it was He who commanded him to bring them into the ark.
But the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra is that the verse, And Noah came in, and his sons, and his wife, and his sons’ wives with him, into the ark,⁷⁷Verse 7. does not mean that they entered it but that they all came to Noah on the tenth day of the second month for his house was near the ark. [He thus interprets the verse as meaning “to the ark,” rather than “into the ark.”] Ibn Ezra explains the phrase, because of the waters of the flood,⁷⁷Verse 7. to mean “on account of the fear of the waters of the flood.” At the end of the seven days came the waters of the flood, and then they all gathered in the ark, and Noah closed the door and the window.⁸⁵See above, 6:16. But Ibn Ezra’s words are not correct.⁸⁶As explained above in Verses 1 and 8, when the time of the flood arrived G-d again commanded Noah that he and all his household come into the ark, and He further informed him of the day of the flood.
It is possible that the verses, And Noah did according to all that the Eternal hath commanded him, And Noah was six hundred years old,⁸⁷Verses 5-6. and the succeeding verses until, In the six hundredth year,⁸⁸Verse 11. do not recount a narrative. Rather, And Noah did according to all that the Eternal commanded him generalizes the entire matter. It states that he did everything as he was commanded, not omitting a thing: he constructed the ark and assembled the food and took of the clean beasts and fowl seven and seven on the day He commanded him. When he was six hundred years old and the flood came down upon the earth, he came with his household and with the clean beasts and all living things into the ark, as G-d had commanded him. After that, Scripture narrates the event, And it came to pass after the seven days … in the six hundredth year,⁸⁹Verses 10-11. and completes the subject.

כאשר צוה אותו אלוקים, to place every species in a separate cubicle.

He protected him. Otherwise why does it say, “Hashem shut him in”? Noach already built the ark and entered it as commanded, to be thereby saved. [Compare this with next entry.] It must refer back to (6:18), “And I will establish My covenant...” [on which Rashi explains, “...that the evil people of that generation not kill him.”] But without Hashem’s protection, Noach could not survive. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Sie kamen nur hinein, weil sie als "männlich und weiblich" paarweise gekommen. ויסגר ד׳ בעדו. Obgleich Noa alles getan hatte, so war damit die Rettung nicht gesichert; er hatte das ihm Befohlene getan; aber es war ׳ד, die göttliche Absicht der Erhaltung für die Zukunft, die ihn schützte. Worin diefer Schutz bestand, was Gott für Noa that, wird uns in den folgenden Versen erzählt.

ויסגור ה׳ בעדו, “the Lord closed the door from the outside on his behalf.” Noach had left the door open, as seeing he did not know every species of creature, he was afraid that by closing the door prematurely he might prevent a species from gaining entry to the ark and that it therefore would die out. After they had all come, the wind closed the door as a signal that they had arrived. We find another example of this in the Talmud Pessachim 64, where the doors to the Temple entrance are described as closing apparently on their own account on the eve of Passover to signify that otherwise there would be overcrowding.

ויסגר ה' בעדו, He protected him against the chance of even a small hole opening in the ark as a result of the powerful rains which continued for forty days.

The simple explanation... He shut before him against the waters. In other words, [it does not mean shutting the door. Rather,] Hashem’s command to build the ark and enter it is how He shut before him against the waters. (Nachalas Yaakov)

ותרם מעל הארץ AND IT WAS LIFTED UP ABOVE THE EARTH — It was eleven cubits deep in the water like a laden ship that has part of it sunk in the waters (Genesis Rabbah 32:9); the following verses prove that this is the meaning.

ויהי המבול ארבעים יום, day and night, as has been mentioned in verse 12. The night is usually included when the Torah speaks of יום, day. We have learned this already in Genesis 1,8 ויהי ערב ויהי בוקר יום אחד, “it was evening, it became morning, one day.”

ויהי המבול ארבעים יום, “The deluge continued for a period of 40 days.” According to Rashi, the first day, i.e. the 17th of the second month, does not count as one of the 40 days mentioned here, the reason being that the deluge started during the daylight hours, part of that date, i.e. the night, already having passed. Accordingly, the 40 days mentioned here ended on the 28th day of Kislev. Everybody questions Rashi’s commentary in view of his own commentary later on (8,3) that the words ויחסרו המים מקצה חמישים יום, “at the conclusion of 150 days the waters began to recede,” refers to the first day of Sivan. Rashi proceeds to make the following calculation: “on the 27th of of Kislev the rains ceased. We are left with 3 more days in Kislev, plus 29 days for Tevet, which amount to a total of 32. Adding a total of 118 days for the months of Shevat, Adar, Nissan, and Iyar, brings us to a total of 150. [2 of the last four months are presumed to have 29 days and 2 have 30 days. Ed.] According to this latest calculation by Rashi, the 17th of Marcheshvan forms part of the 150 days!

It was immersed in water. Rashi is answering the question: After forty days there was high water. Why did the ark not lift up before? Because, “It was immersed eleven cubits in water.”

ויהי המבול ארבעים יום, “the deluge lasted for 40 days;” how do we square this with verse 12 according to which the rain had continued for 40 days? We must assume that matters which had not been spelled out in the earlier verse have now been added, i.e. that after a period of 40 days of continuous rain and other manifestations of the deluge, the ark began to rise from its site. We find a similar construction in verse 19 where the waters are described as covering the mountains, after the Torah had first given details about the gradual inundation of high places on earth by the waters of the deluge. Had we only read verse 18 and the first half of verse 19, we would not have been able to imagine the extent of the flooding.

וירבו המים, when the waters had increased for forty days, and the waters of the underground wells were added to the rainwater, the latter were powerful enough to lift the ark and all the creatures inside. Due to its weight it had not risen from the ground until the force of the subterranean geysers lifted it, and the ark now floated on the waters.

ויגברו [AND THE WATERS] PREVAILED — by themselves (without any external aid).

AND THE WATERS PREVAILED (‘Vayigb’ru’). 19. AND THE WATERS ‘GAVRU’ (PREVAILED). This means that they increased exceedingly, for the Hebrew language calls great abundance gvurah (strength, power). So too, And their transgressions which ‘yithgavru’ (have prevailed),⁹⁰Job 36:9. meaning increased exceedingly; His mercy ‘gavar’ (has prevailed) toward them that fear Him,⁹¹Psalms 103:11. meaning increased. And so also: If ‘bigvuroth’ four-score years,⁹²Ibid., 90:10. meaning with great abundance.
It is conceivable that the meaning of vayigb’ru is that the rains came in a rushing downpour, uprooting trees and toppling buildings, since power is called in Hebrew gvurah (strength) because strength lies in power. In a similar sense are the verses: They also ‘gavru’ (wax mighty) in power;⁹³Job 21:7. ‘Vehigbir brith’ (And he shall make a strong covenant) with many for one week,⁹⁴Daniel 9:27. meaning he will establish the covenant with firmness. And in the words of the Sages, [we find the expression], gvuroth geshamim (the powers of the rains),⁹⁵Taanith 2a. because they come down with strength. It is possible that the verse, If ‘bigvuroth’ four-score years,⁹²Ibid., 90:10. is of the same sense, i.e., if his bones and body be strong, and he is a man of power, he will live four-score years. And if so, ‘gavru’ upon the earth⁹⁶Verse 19. will mean that the waters were in their complete strength, overcoming even the high mountains and inundating them.

ויגברו המים, this verse adds a new dimension to what we have been told already, i.e. that the waters became turbulent. This is why the Torah adds the word מאד מאד twice, something most unusual. The repeated statement וירבו, that the waters still kept increasing in volume, is meant to tell us that the waters did not only increase in turbulence but also kept increasing in quantity. Whereas originally, the waters could only raise the ark, now, thanks to the turbulence, the ark was driven in different directions from where it had stood originally.

ותלך התבה, not under its own power but by the pressure of the external waters.

By themselves. [Rashi knows this] because if they became powerful from the forty days of [rain of] the Flood, the order should be reversed and it should have written: “There was a Flood on the earth for forty days. The waters were powerful and increased greatly over the earth and lifted the ark, and it rose [high] above the earth, and the ark moved on the surface of the waters.” Rather, “The waters were powerful” was written at the end to teach that the [waters of the] deep rose “by themselves” and made the waters powerful. The Re”m explained differently: The rain stopped after forty days. And the water’s power could not have been during these forty days, for it is written (v. 24), “The waters were powerful over the earth for 150 days.” And it is not logical to say that the first “powerful” [mentioned in our verse] was from the rain, and the second “powerful prevailed” [of v. 24] was from the deep; [rather, the waters became powerful by themselves].

והמים גברו, this too is meant to give us additional information. This is why the words מאד מאד have been added, each of these words alerting us to an increasing power of the waters driving the ark. Now the waters were so powerful that they drove the ark far away from where it had stood originally. The second word מאד hints at the ark rising higher than any of the surrounding mountains.

והמים גברו, “and the waters had kept rising and becoming more turbulent;” Verse 18, writing וירבו ויגברו המים, had taught us that when waters increase in volume the Torah describes this in terms of גברו, becoming strong, powerful, turbulent. It is possible, however, to understand the word ויגברו in verse 18 for the word כח also is often referred to as גבורה. In this case the turbulence of the waters uprooted trees, etc.

חמש עשרה אמה מלמעלה FIFTEEN CUBITS ABOVE —above the summits of all the mountains when once the waters reached the level of the mountains (Yoma 76a).

חמש עשרה, this number describes how much above the highest mount the keel of the ark had risen.
ויכוסו ההרים, even the tallest of the mountains were covered by at least 15 cubits of water.

Once the water reached the level... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means fifteen amos above the ground! The answer is: Then the high mountains would not have been covered with water. And in the verse it is written (v. 19), “And they covered all the high mountains.” Thus Rashi explains, “Above the peaks...”

ויכוסו ההרים, “the mountains were covered (with water) hence what follows: ויגוע כל בשר “all flesh perished.” (verse 21) There was no place left to take refuge from the water.

'חמש עשרה אמה מלמעלה גברו המים וגו. This verse teaches us, using our intellect, that the ark could not have been submerged in the waters to an extent of more than six cubits. How do we arrive at this conclusion? The water level on earth has been described as at its highest level being 15 cubits above the top of the highest mountain. This level had been attained during the 7 days from the 17th day in Tishrey in which the ark ran aground on Mount Arrarat. By the first day in Tevet, the highest mountain tops became visible. It was then easy to determine the level at which the ark had been waterlogged prior to having run aground. The water leaves marks on the outside that can easily be distinguished. The inhabitants of the ark were therefore able to calculate that the speed at which the waters had been receding was one cubit for each 12 days. Having arrived at this calculation they had to count another 180 days from the 28th of Sivan the day on which the rains had ceased. They were therefore able to calculate that at its highest point the waters had been 15 cubits above the highest mountain. [There is a very minor discrepancy, a few centimeters when allowing for 2 days not included in the above count. Ed.]

ויגוע...וכל האדם, the reason the word האדם is mentioned last, is to tell us that even man, who thanks to his intelligence and foresight could have been expected to find ways of escaping this disaster by taking refuge on top of the mountains, etc., was unable to save himself. The 15 cubits of water that covered even the tallest of the mountains made it impossible for any person to survive. The addition of the word וכל, includes even the giants drowned in these waters. The expression גויעה as a description of dying, refers to prompt death, as opposed to lingering death. People who drown die without prolonged agony.

Siehe oben 6, 17.

וכל האדם, “as well as every human being.” The word: אדם when used in the Holy Scriptures always includes men women and children. If you were to ask why the human race was punished when it had not been given commandments by G-d that had to be observed, we must answer that there are a number of rules for behaviour of society that mankind can be expected to honour without the need to be specifically commanded to do so. If proof were needed for this statement we remind you of Kayin being punished for having killed his brother Hevel, although there is no record that he was ever warned by G-d not to kill another human being.

נשמת רוח חיים means the breathing of the breath of life.

כל אשר נשמת רוח חיים באפיו, both the words נשמת and רוח are in a construct mode belonging to the word חיים, as if the Torah had written נשמת חיים ורוח חיים. Other examples of such a construction are found in Ezekiel 31,16 מבחר וטוב לבנון, “the choicest and best of Lebanon.” Or, Job 20,17 נהרי נחלי דבש וחמאה, “the streams, the rivers of honey, the brooks of cream.” The Torah, when referring to man, speaks of נשמת, whereas when speaking of the animals it describes their essence of life as רוח חיים.

A breath of the spirit of life. The Ibn Ezra writes that נשמת רוח חיים refers only to man. But [the Re’m disagrees, and says that] the text of Rashi should read נשימה, not נשמה, and it means “breath,” not “soul.” For animals have no נשמה, only man. Pertaining to man only is it written (2:7), “And He blew into his nostrils the נשמת חיים,” but not about other creatures.

Wenn es wahr sein sollte, dass die "Diluvialschichten" der Geologen von unserer "Sündflut" herrühren, so würde der Umstand, dass sich darin vorzugsweise nur Reste von Landtieren und nicht von Seetieren finden, in dem מכל אשר בחרבה מתו unseres Textes seine Erklärung finden, da diesem nach zunächst nur die Landtiere von der Flut ergriffen wurden.

אשר בחרבה WHATSOEVER WAS IN THE DRY LAND [DIED] — and not the fish in the sea (Sanhedrin 108a).

בחרבה, but the fish on the earth did not die. They were, after all in their habitat. Furthermore, apart from the technical reason why they would not drown in the water, more importantly, seeing that they had never shared the same habitat as man, they had not learned of man’s corrupt ways and become corrupt themselves. We must contrast the implication here that the fish did not die, with definitive statements threatening the death of the fish of the sea as a result of G’d’s retribution to man for his iniquity both in Hoseah 4,3 וגם דגי הים יאספו, “also the fish in the sea will perish,” as well as the statement in Tzefaniah 1,3 אסף עוף השמים ודגי הים, “both the birds in the sky I will sweep away as well as the fish in the sea.” Either what these prophets threaten are exaggerations, or if we are to take these threats at face value, literally, these predictions apply to specific countries but not world-wide. If the prophet speaks about events which have happened since he issued the threat in G’d’s name, he referred to the fish adjoining a specific country being devastated by G’d, but this did not result in a species of fish being wiped out on a global scale. At the time of the deluge there was a wholesale destruction of life on the earth barring the seas, except for the few specimen of each species that survived in the ark. The specimen that were saved did not deserve to die any less than their counterparts, but they were saved in order not to make it necessary for G’d to create them anew after the deluge. It had been inappropriate for G’d to destroy the fish, or even to save them by means of a miracle, as they would not have been able to share the accommodation in the ark, and the ark itself would have sunk if part of it had been converted into an aquarium holding all the fish.

But not the fish in the sea. Perhaps this was Rashi’s intention when on “For all flesh had corrupted...” (6:12), he commented: “Even cattle and beasts...” but omitted fish. The verse itself implies this, for it is written על הארץ — but not fish in the sea. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

מכל אשר בחרבה מתו, “of all the creatures whose habitat is on the dry land, they died.” This teaches that the fish in the rivers and in the oceans did not die. They were able to escape the destruction by fleeing to the oceans as the deluge had been decreed only on earth. This is the meaning of the words (verse 12) “the rain was on the earth.”

וימח AND HE BLOTTED OUT — The word וימח is a Kal form and not a Niphal, and it is of the same grammatical form as ויפן and ויבן Every verb whose last root letter is ה, such as בנה, מחה, קנה when י and ו are perfixed, has Chireq as its vowel beneath the yod.

AND HE BLOTTED OUT EVERY LIVING SUBSTANCE WHICH WAS UPON THE FACE OF THE EARTH. After having said, And all flesh perished,⁹⁷Verse 21. and having said, whatever was in the dry land, died,⁹⁸Verse 22. Scripture continues to say, And He blotted out, meaning that the bodies dissolved and became water, just as is in the verse, And he shall blot them out in the water of bitterness⁹⁹Numbers 5:23. — for the waters of the flood were hot, as our Rabbis have said.¹⁰⁰Sanhedrin 108b. But if so, the fish also would have died. Perhaps it was as the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁰¹32:19. “Whatever was in the dry land died,⁹⁸Verse 22. but not the fish in the sea. And some authorities say that they too were destined to be destroyed, but they fled to the Mediterranean.”¹⁰²Literally, Okeanus (ocean), but usually meaning the Mediterranean Sea. (See Jastrow.) Either way the fish were saved.
Both of these opinions are plausible. For it is conceivable that the hot waters of the flood mingled with the seas, heating only their upper waters, while the fish descended to the depths of the ponds and lived there. Or, in accordance with the opinion of some authorities,¹⁰³Mentioned in the Midrash quoted above, that the fish too were destined to be destroyed, but they fled to the Mediterranean. it is possible that the fish in the waters of the countries near the Mediterranean¹⁰²Literally, Okeanus (ocean), but usually meaning the Mediterranean Sea. (See Jastrow.) fled there when they felt the heat of the water, and were thus saved. And even if all those outside the Mediterranean died, since the majority of fish are in the Mediterranean¹⁰²Literally, Okeanus (ocean), but usually meaning the Mediterranean Sea. (See Jastrow.) where the waters of the flood did not come down — as it is said, And the rain was upon the earth¹⁰⁴Verse 12. — the fish were thus saved. For none of the fish were brought into the ark to keep their seed alive, and at the time of the covenant it is said, I establish My covenant with you… and with every living creature that is with you, the fowl, and cattle, and every beast of the earth with you; of all that go out of the ark,¹⁰⁵Genesis 9:9-10. but it does not mention the fish of the sea.

וימח את כל היקום, the structure of all the living beings was completely dissolved, but not that of the plants. “[trunks of trees might survive in recognisable form, whereas bodies would not be recognisable. Ed.]

וימח את כל היקום. He dissolved all life. Not only did all living creatures of the earth (dry land) die, as pointed out in verse 21, but their remains dissolved completely due to the heat of the waters. No trace of them was left. This verse also enables us to understand the comment of Rabbi Ami in Eyruvin 18 on Psalms 139,5: אחור וקדם צרתני, ותשת עלי כפכה, "You have made me before and behind; You lay Your hand upon me." Rabbi Ami understood this to mean that Adam was created at the end of the whole process of creation whereas the word קדם refers to "prior to the curse." Rabbi Ami meant that man disintegrated before the curse, i.e. before all the animals' bodies dissolved. He referred to man dying ahead of the animals during the deluge. Who needed Rabbi Ami to tell us something that the Torah has already spelled out in 7,23? Actually, when you look at verse 21 you notice that the death of the creatures is reported in the reverse order, i.e. first the animals, then the human beings. According to our interpretation there is no contradiction here. Whereas verse 21 discusses the timing of the deaths, verse 23 discusses the dissolution of the remains of the dead creatures. Man's remains dissolved first though he had died last.

וימח, the word is in the kal conjugation similar to וישע in Genesis 4,4, but it is in a transitive mode. There are verbs which by definition are in a transitive mode though they appear in the conjugation kal. [prominent examples are such roots as נתן, to give, רצח, to murder, etc. Ed.] וימחו מן הארץ, if G’d wiped out these creatures, וימח, is it not obvious that they were wiped out, וימחו? So what do these words tell us? The repetition is to indicate that they were so thoroughly wiped out that not a trace of them remained. [scientists digging for their remains would not find any. Ed.] There were no ruins left behind, concerning which anyone could ever say: “this building had been owned or built by a certain individual.” Our sages in Sanhedrin 108 understand the repetition asוימח referring to their destruction in this physical material world, whereas the word וימחו refers to their obliteration also from the world to come.

It is in the וַיִפְעַל form. וַיִפְעַל is the simple verb form, like וירא and ויתן. But they are intransitive, while וימח is transitive. It is not the וַיִפָּעֶל form, which is passive — as in וימחו מן הארץ, “they were obliterated from the earth.”

וישאר אך נח ואשר אתו בתבה, “there survived only Noach and the people and animals with him in the ark.” According to a quote attributed to Rabbi Yehudah hachasid, this wording contains a hint that the giant Og, later known as the king of Bashan, survived the deluge, the letters in the words: אך נח in our verse, which are unnecessary, have the same numerical value as the letters in the or עוג, (79)

אך נח means NOAH ONLY. This is its real meaning. But the Midrashic explanation is (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 9) that he was coughing and spitting blood because of the trouble he had with the cattle and beasts (אך is taken as a מיעוט limitation, meaning to say that something is defective); others say, that he was once late in bringing food to a lion, so it struck him. Regarding him may the words be applied (Proverbs 11:31), “Behold, even the righteous is paid (for his evil deeds) in this world’’.

AND THEY WERE BLOTTED OUT FROM THE EARTH. The commentators¹⁰⁶Ibn Ezra and R’dak. have explained that the reason for the double [expression, And He blotted out … and they were blotted out], is that their remembrance was forgotten since they had no seed. But what need is there to say that after we are told that they all died? Perhaps on account of the fowl and some creeping things, Scripture tells that none of their eggs were left on any tree or under the earth for everything was blotted out. It is probable that the sense of the verse is as follows: “And He blotted out every living substance which was upon the face of the earth, for from man to beast to creeping things and to fowl of the heaven, they were blotted out from the earth, only Noah remaining alive.” Now our Rabbis have expounded:¹⁰⁰Sanhedrin 108b. “And He blotted out, meaning from this world. And they were blotted out from the earth, meaning from the World to Come.” The Rabbis thus explained “the earth” mentioned here as meaning “the land of eternal life.” I have already alluded to its secret.¹⁰⁷Above, 6:13.

This is why the Torah added the words מאדם ועד בהמה, עד רמש ועד עוף השמים וימחו מן הארץ, “man or beast, moving creatures, including the birds of the sky disintegrated completely.” No traceable remains survived.

This is from the forms [of the verbs:] ויפן ויבן. Rashi is answering the question: If it is in the simple וַיִפְrַל form, why is it vowelized ויִמח, which is a strong verb form, rather than ויָמח, which denotes a simple verb? Rashi answers: “This is from the forms ויפן ויבן,” which are also vowelized with a chirik under the yud. This differs from the Re’m’s explanation, that [Rashi is addressing the point: Why is it vowelized וימַח rather than וימֶח? And Rashi answers that] it is like ויפן but here the mem has a patach because of the following ches, which is a guttural letter.

Every word whose last root letter... Rashi is answering the question: Why do all these verbs have a chirik under the yud?

Only Noach. You might ask: What is Rashi’s source [in the verse to support the Midrashic explanation]? The answer is: It is written אך נח, and אך comes to exclude something. But there is nothing here to exclude; [only Noach was left]! Rather, it means that part of Noach’s very self was excluded. I.e., his vitality was diminished. “He was coughing...”

ויגברו...חמישים ומאת יום. These 150 days are counted from the beginning of the 40 days of rainfall. The level of water on the surface of the earth kept increasing for 150 days, concluding on the 17th of the seventh month (Nissan). On that date the ark came to rest (on the waters) seeing there was no pressure exerted on it from any direction. The pressure on the ark to move was exerted from the first day of the rain when the Torah simultaneously reported the fountains below opening and adding their water to that of the rain. (verse 11). The ark resisted this pressure until the waters on earth were so high that they lifted the ark from its base. When the days of rainfall had concluded, the pressure from the subterranean waters kept up until the end of 150 days. When that pressure ceased the ark finally came to rest on Mount Ararat.

ויגברו, the Torah now describes for how many days this overwhelming force of the water continued to increase, i.e. for 150 days. Moses knew all this due to his holy spirit, [which included not only prophetic visions of the future, but knowledge of the past that no living man had seen. Ed.] We cannot assume that Noach, personally, was aware that the waters kept rising for 150 days and that he passed on this information throughout the ages. What instruments did Noach have to arrive at such a conclusion? All he knew for sure was that the rain had stopped after 40 days. No doubt he had implicit trust that G’d had told him the truth when He had announced that here would be continuous rain for 40 days. Still, he had ways of confirming this by his own observations. If there is a question, the question is what way did Noach have to determine that precisely 40 days had elapsed since the beginning of the deluge? Surely, inside the ark with its windows closed, he could not be sure when it was daylight outside and when it was night? This is assuming that even if he had been outside he could have told the difference between day and night, with the sun blocked out through the clouds all that time. Furthermore, how could he determine that after 40 days the waters had begun to recede? How could he know for sure that seven days had elapsed between the dispatch of the raven and the pigeon on two occasions? We must conclude that Noach was an exceedingly smart man who had prepared [during the preceding 120 years, presumably, Ed.] instruments, such as an hour glass, to measure the progress of time, so that he could measure hours and therefore day and night by means of these instruments, even if he could not see either the sun or the sky. There is no question that lamps were burning inside the ark by means of which one could find one’s way around, serving food, preparing meals and gaining access to where supplies had been stored. The 150 days that our verse speaks about were after the 40 days of continuous rain, which had concluded on the 27th day of Kislev. By adding 150 days from that date on we arrive at the 1st of Sivan, counting the months on the basis of the solar year of 365 days, allocating approximately 30 days to each month. [I know that the author’s arithmetic is problematic. Ed.]

ויגברו המים על הארץ חמשים ומאת יום, “the waters kept rising above the earth for a period of 150 days.” The Torah reconstructs Noach’s calculations based on the waters not having started to recede until the ark had run aground on Mount Arrarat. In actual fact, however, the waters had commenced to recede already since the twenty eighth day in Sivan, as testified to by the Torah (8,23). [The line about the rain having disappeared from the skies, (verse 2) and the immediately following report about the receding of the waters is extremely puzzling when compared to 7,12. No wonder the commentators had difficulty with this. In order to remove apparent contradictions the two reports have to be understood as: 1) objective report by the Torah; 2) subjective report as seen by the inhabitants of the ark, [who were somewhat limited in their observations. Ed.] After the ark ran aground on the 17 day of Tishrey, on the first day of Tevet, the tops of the mountains became visible. Forty days after that, on the eleventh day of the month of Sh’vat, Noach opened the window of the ark and sent out the raven. Seven days thereafter as explained by Rashi, on the 18th of Sh’vat, he sent out the pigeon, i.e. on the 25th of that month. He waited another seven days until the second day of Adar and sent out the pigeon again, but this time the pigeon did not return. He remained inside the ark for another 28 days, until the first day of Nissan. This is what the Torah meant when it wrote: “It was on the first day of the 601st year on the first day of the month when Noach removed the cover from the ark and found that the waters on the surface of the earth had dried.” At the same time he noted that the earth’s surface was still muddy and not fit to be walked on. It took another 57 days until the 27th day of lyar before Noach saw that the earth was absolutely dry whereupon G-d commanded him to exit the ark. (verse 15).