Comentario sobre Génesis 8:11

טרף בפיה PLUCKED IN HER MOUTH — I am of opinion that it (the dove) was a male and that therefore it (the text) speaks of it sometimes as masculine and sometimes as feminine, because really wherever יונה “dove” occurs in the Scriptures it is spoken of as feminine, as (Song 5:12) “[His eyes] are like those of doves beside the water brooks. that are washing themselves (רוחצות fem.) in milk”; (Ezekiel 7:16) “Like the doves of the valleys, all of them moaning" and as (Hosea 7:11) “Like a silly (פותה fem.) dove”

AND LO AN OLIVE LEAF. From the plain meaning of this verse it would appear that the trees were not uprooted or blotted out in the flood because there was there no flooding stream since the whole world became full of water. But in Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis have said,¹⁵⁶33:9. “From where did the dove bring the olive leaf? Rabbi Levi said, ‘She brought it from the Mount of Olives since the land of Israel was not inundated by the waters of the flood. This is as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet Ezekiel: Son of man, say unto her: Thou art a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation.’¹⁵⁷Ezekiel 22:24. Rabbi Biryei said, ‘The gates of the garden of Eden were opened for the dove and from there she brought the leaf.’” Thus the intent of the Rabbis is that the trees were uprooted and blotted out in those places where the flood was, and surely the leaf faded.¹⁵⁸See Jeremiah 8:13. Similarly the Rabbis said,¹⁵⁹Bereshith Rabbah 28:3. “Even the [solid substance of the] lower stationery millstone was blotted out in the flood,” and [to substantiate this statement] they expounded the verse, The waters wore the stones,¹⁶⁰Job 14:19. [as referring to the waters of the flood which wore down stones]. And their saying that “the Land of Israel was not inundated by the flood” is to be understood as meaning that the rain of the flood was not there, as it is written, nor rained upon;¹⁵⁷Ezekiel 22:24. the fountains of the great deep¹⁶¹Above, 7:11. were not therein. But the waters did spread over the whole world, and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered,¹⁶²Ibid., 19. as it is clearly written, and there is no partition around the Land of Israel to prevent the waters from entering. And so did the Sages say in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer:¹⁶³Chapter 23. “The waters of the flood did not come down from heaven upon the land of Israel, but they rolled in from other lands and came there, as it is said, Son of man, say unto her, etc.”¹⁵⁷Ezekiel 22:24. Now according to the opinion of Rabbi Levi, [mentioned above, that the dove brought the olive leaf from the Mount of Olives], it was because the torrential rain did not come down upon the land of Israel and the windows of heaven¹⁶¹Above, 7:11. were not opened there that the trees remained there while in the rest of the world they were broken and uprooted by the flood and His mighty rain.¹⁶⁴Job 37:6.
But I wonder about their saying that [the olive leaf was brought by the dove] from the garden of Eden. If it were so, then Noah did not know that the waters abated from off the earth for there [in Eden] the waters of the flood did not enter. But perhaps its gates were closed so that the waters did not enter there, but when the waters abated they were opened. [Thus the olive leaf indicated the opening of the gates which in turn indicated that the waters had abated.]
It is on the basis of this opinion of theirs [—that the trees were broken and uprooted in the entire world during the flood — that the Rabbis] have said there in Bereshith Rabbah,¹⁶⁵36:4. “And he [Noah] planted a vineyard.¹⁶⁶Genesis 9:20. And from where did he have a branch? Said Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, ‘When he went into the ark he had taken with him branches of the vine, shoots of fig trees, and stumps of olive trees.’”

ותבא...לעת ערב, it came (back) at evening time of the same day it had been dispatched.

והנה עלה זית בפיה, “and here she had torn off an olive leaf with its beak.” According to Nachmanides, the plain meaning of the words indicate that the trees in that region had not been uprooted, the reason being that the deluge was not like a raging river which sweeps everything ahead of it. However, according to Bereshit Rabbah, the wording supports the view that the trees themselves had disintegrated, There is a discussion in the Midrash according to which the dove brought this leaf from the Holy Land, proving to Noach that in that region there had not been a deluge. True, that the waters had flooded the earth also in that region, as we pointed out already, however, seeing that no torrential rain had descended on that region and no hot geysers had gushed forth in that region from below, the trunks of the trees had survived, whereas elsewhere all the trees had been completely destroyed. There is another opinion in the Midrash according to which the dove found the leaf in Gan Eden. Nachmanides questions how, according to the view that the olive leaf came from Gan Eden, did Noach know that the waters outside the ark had subsided? Surely, the waters had never penetrated into Gan Eden in the first place? He answers that possibly the gates of Gan Eden had been shut to prevent the waters from getting inside, and as soon as the waters subsided these gates were reopened.

This is because wherever יונה... Meaning: Even had the verse said טריפה בפיה [the more standard form], it still would apply to a male dove. But since the dove was indeed male, Scripture preferred the masculine form, טרף.

Zur Abendzeit: sie war also schon den ganzen Tag ausgeblieben, es war somit schon eine bedeutende Veränderung eingetreten. — טרף ist nicht Zeitwort, sondern Substantiv, wie טָרָף: selbstgenommene Nahrung, und ist hier mit höchster Bedeutsamkeit gewählt. Was das Tier in freiem Zustande sich selbständig zur Nahrung nimmt, ist: טרף. So: טרף נתן ליראיו, was andere als "Raub" gewinnen, ist den יראים ein von Gott Gegebenes. Ein ganzes Jahr war die Taube gefüttert worden, hatte טרף, selbstgenommenes Futter, nicht genossen. Dass sie den ganzen Tag ausgeblieben, war schon ein Zeichen, dass קלו המים, sie fand schon מנוח für ihre Füße. Allein sie hätte auch schon durch Hunger zurückgetrieben werden können. Da kommt sie und hat ein Oliven- blatt als Nahrung im Munde — eine Nahrung, durch die sie sonst sich nicht nährt! Das bittere Olivenblatt im Munde der Taube spricht daher nach dem Verständnis unserer Weisen das große Wort aus: Besser bittere, ungewohnte und sonst nicht zusagende Kost selbständig und frei, als süße und abhängig. So ist für uns das Olivenblatt nicht ein Bild des Friedens, sondern des Wertes der Selbständigkeit und Freiheit, und der Genügsamkeit in der Freiheit. —

והנה עלי זית טרף בפיה, “and behold, it had a sprouting olive leaf in its beak.” The word טרף in this sense also occurs in Ezekiel 17,9 i.e. כל טרפי צמחה תיבש, “all its sprouting leaves may wither.” [The normal translation of the word טרף is familiar to us from Genesis 37,33, where Yaakov used it when confronted with the bloodied shreds of his son Joseph, is “torn.” Presumably, the author felt that if that was the meaning of the word here, it would have been unnecessary, as how else could the pigeon have gotten hold of it. Ed.] Seeing the sprouting leaf, Noach knew that the waters had receded significantly. It was also clear to him that the pigeon had not found that leaf floating on top of the water. He was certain that it had been plucked from a tree that was in good condition.

וידע נח כי קלו המים, “then Noach knew that the waters had subsided substantially. The fact that the pigeon stayed out all day long convinced Noach that there was what to look at other than mere water. According to the view that the deluge did not affect the land of Israel (Zevachim 113) how could Noach have known from the torn olive leaf that the waters had indeed subsided so much? He could have deduced that this leaf had originated in the Holy Land, or it had been picked up floating on the surface of the waters? The word חטף used by the Torah here, always is used in connection with something that has been plucked from a tree. If it had been picked up floating, it would have been a whole leaf, and would not have shown signs of having been picked from its branch. The translation by Yonathan ben Uzziel is further proof of this. He translates: נחית, i.e. plucked by mouth or beak. [The Hebrew equivalent of when Yaakov mourned his son Joseph as having been torn to shreds by a wild beast, טרף טרף יוסף, Genesis 37,33.]

טרף means IT HAD PLUCKED OFF — The Midrashic explanation takes it as meaning “food”, and interprets בפיה as “speaking” — viz., she said. “Rather that my food be bitter as an olive but from the hand of God, than as sweet as honey and from the hand of mortal men” (Eruvin 18b; Genesis Rabbah 33).

‘TARAPH’ (PLUCKED) IN HER MOUTH. Rashi wrote: “I am of the opinion that the dove was a male and that therefore Scripture sometimes speaks of it as masculine¹⁶⁷It is indicated by taraph (he plucked) rather than tarpha (she plucked). and sometimes as feminine¹⁶⁸It is indicated by the word b’phiha (in her mouth). because where the word yonah (dove) occurs in Scripture it is spoken of as feminine. Taraph however means ‘he plucked.’ But a Midrashic explanation takes it [taraph] as meaning ‘food,’ and the word b’phiha (in her mouth) it explains as meaning ‘speaking.’ Thus she said: ‘Rather that my food be bitter as an olive and come by the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, than as sweet as honey and from the hand of mortal man.’”
All this does not appear to me to be correct for there is no reason why Scripture should change its reference to doves from feminine to masculine in one place in the same section. And if it is proper language to always speak of yonah in Scripture as feminine, why did it change here? Similarly, their Midrashic explanation does not at all make the word b’phiha to mean “speaking.” Instead, their Midrash is based on the fact that she brought this kind of leaf for if we should say that it just happened [that she brought an olive leaf], it cannot be in vain that Scripture mentioned it since it should have said, “And, lo, in her mouth a leaf freshly plucked.” Besides, the olive does not come from the very high trees that the fowl should nest there on account of its long branches. It was for this reason that the Sages said that there was in this a hint that it is more pleasing to the fowl to have their food bitter as wormwood from the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, and not have it be good and sweet as honey from the hand of mortal man, and surely, all the more, people do not wish to be dependent for their livehood upon one another. In the words of Bereshith Rabbah:¹⁵⁶33:9. “Rabbi Abahu said, ‘If the dove brought the olive leaf from the garden of Eden, could she not have brought something exceptional such as either cinnamon or balsam? But it was a hint which she gave to Noah: rather something even more bitter than this from the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, than something sweet from your hand.’” But in the Gemara¹⁶⁹Erubin 18b. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 61, Note 28. they [the Sages] added: “What evidence is there that the word taraph means food? It is written, ‘Hatripheni’ (Feed me) with mine allotted bread.”¹⁷⁰Proverbs 30:8. It is due to the reason we have stated, [namely, that Scripture mentioned the name of the tree in order to indicate this hint] for which the Rabbis found support in the word hatripheni, implying that it is as if Scripture said, “And, lo, an olive-leaf of tereph (food)¹⁷¹And not taraph (he plucked), as it is actually vocalized. in her mouth.”
As for the plain meaning of Scripture, the commentators¹⁷²Ibn Ezra and R’dak. have explained that the word taraph modifies the word “leaf,” thus stating, “And, lo, a plucked olive leaf was in her mouth.” Proof for this [i.e., that taraph modifies “leaf” rather than acting as a verb] is that taraph is wholly vocalized with the kamatz, as is the rule.¹⁷³If it were a verb, it would have been vocalized with a kamatz followed by a patach. It is, however, found in irregular forms: For ‘taraph’ (He hath torn), and He will heal us;¹⁷⁴Hosea 6:1. Here the word is vocalized wholly with the kamatz, and yet it is a verb rather than an adjective. And he shall restore that which ‘gazal’ (he took by robbery);¹⁷⁵Leviticus 5:23. Similar to the above. The error which ‘shagag’ (he committed);¹⁷⁶Ibid., Verse 18. This too is similar to the above. and many other additional verses.

טרף, both vowels in this word are kametz, indicating that the word is an adjective similar to having been spelled טרוף, as a participle. The word implies that the pigeon had torn this leaf off an olive tree with its beak in order to bring it back to Noach. This is the reason why the Torah used the word טרף, to show that Noach realised that it had torn it off the tree and broken it from the olive. [not just from a branch. Ed.] This was not a leaf which had been found floating on the surface of the water.

והנה עלה זית טרף בפיה. Our sages explain that the word טרף here means “booty,” as it does many times in the Bible, and that the dove had prayed to find such booty, i.e. it succeeded בפיה, thanks to the pleading with her mouth. Still other commentators understand the word טרף as meaning “torn off,” as in Exodus 22,30 ובשר בשדה טרפה, “flesh of an animal in the field which has been torn apart, etc.” This corresponds to Onkelos who renders the word there as תליש, meaning שבור, broken, damaged, ripped off. [a reference to tissue ripped from a live beast. Ed.] If that were not so, perhaps the dove had simply scooped up a torn leaf that was floating on top of the water.

Means: “he seized.” As opposed to meaning “he killed,” as in, “Like a wolf that preys (יטרוף)” (49:27). Since every preying animal seizes [its victim], one who seizes is called טורף. [You might ask:] Why did Noach send the male [dove]? Was he not concerned that it would suspect him, as the raven did? The answer is: A person accuses another of his own flaw (Kiddushin 70b). Therefore, because the raven cohabited in the ark, it suspected Noach, too, of marital relations. And Noach intended to bring this out into the open: for the dove was also male, yet it went on its errand. Why? Because the dove [unlike the raven] did not cohabit in the ark. Thus he did not suspect that Noach will have relations with his mate. (Maharshal)

כי קלו המים, that they had decreased in quantity. When something is in short supply it is often referred to as being קל, whereas when something is in ample supply it is called כבד. Examples of this are found in Job 14,21 יכבדו בניו,”his sons become ‘heavyweights’ (important, of consequence) We have the expression מקנה כבד, a great deal of cattle (Exodus 12,38) or חיל כבד, an army of numerous soldiers (Kings II 18,17). Why did the pigeon choose a leaf from an olive tree? Perhaps it was the first tree it encountered after flying away from the ark. Or, seeing that the leaves of the olive tree stay on the tree all year round it was the most likely leaf available. According to Sanhedrin 108 the pigeon reasoned that even a bitter tasting leaf eaten in freedom was preferable to being cooped up in luxurious surroundings. In the final analysis, the pigeon preferred to entrust its future to G’d rather than to man.

She said, “Better that my food be...” And the verse reads as follows: עלה זית — “bitter as an olive.” טרף — “my food.” בפיה — “she said.”