Commentaire sur La Genèse 7:23

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...”