Comentário sobre Gênesis 7:2

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.