Comentario citado sobre Génesis 7:23

V. 2. זאת החיה אשר תאכלו מכל בהמה וגו׳. Wir haben bereits zu Bereschit 1, 24 u. 25 bemerkt, wie im allgemeinen בהמה und חיה zwei charakteristisch gesonderte Klassen des Reiches der Säugetiere bezeichnen, indem unter בהמה diejenigen Tiere begriffen werden, welche sich dem Menschen dienend unterordnen, die במה seiner Hoheit bilden, der Begriff חיה hingegen alle die übrigen umfaßt, die sich seiner Herrschaft entziehen und ein "selbständiges Leben" zur Erscheinung bringen. So Bereschit 7, 14: וכל החיה למינה וכל הבהמה למינה , daselbst 8, 1: ואת כל החיה ואת כל הבהמה Allein es kommt auch die Bezeichnung חיה als Gesamtbegriff des Lebendigen vor, so daselbst 8, 17 u. 19: ' כל החיה אשר אתך וגו' כל החיה כל הרמש וג . So schließt auch unser Kapitel: להבריל וגו׳ ובין החיה הנאכלת ובין החיה אשר לא תאכל und umfaßt in diesem Ausdruck alle in diesem Kapitel besprochenen Tiere. Allein es kommt auch בהמה in erweitertem Sinne vor zur Bezeichnung der ganzen dem Menschen untergeordneten Tierwelt, so Bereschit 6, 7: מאדם ועד בהמה , so auch daselbst 7, 23 und Schmot 9, 25 u.a.m. In charakteristischer Weise treten aber beide Ausdrücke nebeneinander in unserem Satze auf: מכל בהמה וגו׳ .את החיה וגו׳, eine Wahl des Ausdrucks, die eine beziehungsreiche Absicht voraussetzen läßt. Chulin 70b und 71a wird auf diese und die korrespondierende Stelle Dewarim 14, 4 u. 5 hingewiesen, wie hier, nachdem zuerst חיה als Objekt des Satzes genannt ist, in der ergänzenden Beifügung מכל בהמה וגו׳ und im folgenden Satze mit בהמה fortgefahren wird, somit בהמה בכלל חיה , unter חיה hier בהמה mitbegriffen ist, und dem hingegen dort: זאת הבהמה אשר תאכלו שור וגו׳ איל וצבי וגו׳ offenbar בהמה ,חיה בכלל בהמה auch היה mitbegreift.

So it is with any [of the prophetic words] that God commanded to be written. As stated in Bereshis Rabbah 85, “The Book of Daniel was not written in chronological order, so that people should not say that it was merely a historical account. [Rather, it is] in order for all to know that he [Daniel] uttered [these words] through Divine inspiration.” The meaning of this midrash is, since [the Book of Daniel] was not written in chronological order – the way in which it would be written if it originated in the human intellect – it is then understood that this book contains concealed matters, and for this reason it needed to be written in this manner. If this was said of the Book of Daniel, which is in the Hagiographa and written in Aramaic,¹⁴The Mishnah refers to Hebrew as Lashon ha-kodesh, “the holy tongue,” in order to distinguish it from Aramaic or other “secular languages” spoken by the Jewish people (see Sotah 7:2–4; 8:1). how much more so are the books of the Prophets which are even greater in holiness [written in an ambiguous way, as they conceal hidden matters]. It is because of this [Divine plan] that there are many verses in which because of either extraneous or missing words, the language does not appear to be [written] in a precise manner. All of the thirty-two rules of aggadic exegesis¹⁵These rules are distinct from Rabbi Ishmael’s thirteen rules of biblical exegesis, although some of the latter are contained within the thirty-two rules of aggadic exegesis, which are attributed to R. Eliezer ben R. Yosi ha-Gelili and can be found at the end of Tractate Berachos. The following are a few examples of these rules: 1. Other items or individuals may be included in a scriptural statement by the use of particles such as “es.” Since “es” is used in Gen. 21:1, “And God remembered Sarah as He had said,” we infer that all barren women were remembered together with Sarah. 2. Some words function as a limitation, such as “ach,” which is usually translated as “only.” It states in Gen. 7:23, “and Noah ach (only) remained alive.” We infer from this that Noah was coughing and spitting blood. Since ach is a limitation, we infer that something was wrong with Noah. 3. Gezerah shavah, an analogy through the use of identical words. We infer that the prophet Samuel was a Nazirite because the word moreh (razor) is used concerning both Samson and Samuel, and since it is known that Samson was a Nazirite, we learn that Samuel was a Nazirite as well. and all the toil of the more straightforward expounders of Biblical text [do not provide] sufficient explanations, or elevate one’s understanding [of the verses],¹⁶The Netziv uses a play on words regarding the verse in Isa. 40:16, “Lebanon does not contain sufficient fuel, nor are its beasts sufficient for burnt-offerings.” By exchanging the ayin of ba’er with an alef, “fuel” becomes “explanation.” The word olah, meaning “burnt-offering,” can also be translated as “enhancement.” so that one could understand why it was written in an ambiguous manner [and what it intended to teach].

היקום The existence... there are 3 parallel verses in Tanakh: And I wiped out the whole universe. (Gen. 7:23) All existence on earth was blotted out. (Deut. 11:6) and the whole universe at their feet. To say that just as the generation of the flood sinned because of the abundance of favors and wealth that they had, so did a קרח (Korach Tosefta, Sanhedrin XIII, 9, Rab. Bah. 16:1:8) from the abundance of wealth that he had remained and sinned.