Комментарий к Берешит 8:26

ויזכור אלהים AND GOD REMEMBERED— This Divine Name really signifies the God of Strict Justice but it is transformed into Divine Mercy through the prayers of the righteous, whilst the evil practised by wicked people transforms Divine Mercy into Strict Justice, as it is said (Genesis 6:5) “And the Lord ('ה) saw that the wickedness of man was great” and (Genesis 5:7) “And the Lord ('ה) said, “I will blot out etc.”— yet in these passages the Name ('ה) is מדת רחמים, that signifying Divine Mercy (Genesis Rabbah 33:3).

AND G-D REMEMBERED NOAH, AND EVERY LIVING THING, AND ALL THE CATTLE. The remembrance of Noah was because he was a perfectly righteous man, and He had made a covenant with him to save him. The word “Noah” here includes his children that were there with him. Scripture did not mention them specifically, though, for they were saved by his merit. However, the remembrance stated concerning beast and cattle was not on account of merit, for among living creatures there is no merit or guilt save in man alone. But the remembrance concerning them was Because He remembered His holy word¹⁰⁸Psalms 105:42. which He had spoken, causing the world to come into existence, and the Will which was before Him at the creation of the world arose before Him and He desired the existence of the world with all the species that He created therein. Thus He now saw fit to bring them forth so that they should not perish in the ark. Scripture does not mention the fowl and the creeping things for the remembrance of the living thing is similar to their remembrance, and the companion thereof telleth concerning it.¹⁰⁹Job 36:33. That is, since the remembrance of the fowl and creeping things would be the same type of remembrance as that of all animals—i.e., the remembrance of His holy word—one implies the other.

ויזכר אלוקים את נח. G'd remembered Noach. The reason the Torah was not content to mention that G'd remembered Noach but added that He remembered all the beasts that were in the ark with him may have been that the animals by themselves already warranted that G'd should remember them.

ויזכר, there is no “remembering” as far as G’d is concerned, seeing that He could not have “forgotten” something. When the Torah, nonetheless, uses such terms as “He remembered” as applying to G’d, this is a figure of speech enabling the reader to employ his imagination and to realise that such wording introduces an activity by G’d now which had been latent for a while previously. We have numerous examples of such a term being used when a period of apparent inactivity by G’d had come to an end. Compare Leviticus 24,45 וזכרתי את בריתי, where the subject is that after a period of retribution, events occur which make it appear as if G’d had remembered His covenant only at that time. There are numerous other examples of this type. Here, it describes the fact that G’d concerned himself with the great discomfort experienced by all the people and creatures in the ark after such a long period of being cooped up.

ויזכר אלוקים את נח, “G-d remembered Noach, etc.” It would have been more appropriate for the Torah to write that “G-d remembered Noach and his sons, etc.” After all, we know that they too were beneficiaries of His presence since the Torah wrote in 9,8 “G-d spoke to Noach and to his sons, etc.” Why then did the Torah here mention only Noach as the one to whom G-d spoke? It is possible to understand the word את in front of the word נח as a reference to his sons. This would certainly not be the first time that the word את is used as a רבוי, a word which alludes to something additional which the Torah had not spelled out in detail. Seeing that Noach’s sons were extensions of his own self, the Torah did not see fit to mention them separately at this stage. We find a similar occurrence in Exodus 1,1 where the Torah mentions את יעקב, and Shemot Rabbah interprets the word את as a reference to all the people who descended to Egypt because they were “extensions” of Yaakov. This meant that sons and wives were automatically included in the people whose fate G-d had “remembered.” As to the fact that the Torah specifically refers to the animals and all other creatures in the Ark with Noach, something which at first glance makes it appear as if their fates were of greater concern to G-d than that of Noach’s wife, his sons and their wives, this is not so. We distinguish between השגחה כללית, and השגחה פרטית, G-d’s general overall concern and supervision of their fate, and G-d’s specific individual supervision of someone’s fate. Whereas the animals, etc., qualified for G-d’s general concern, Noach and his family qualified for G-d’s specific concern. Hence the word את is an indication that G-d’s specific concern extended also to the members of Noach’s family.
Alternatively, the reason Torah chose to mention G-d’s concern for the domestic beasts and the free-roaming animals was to draw our attention to the fact that He displayed no such concern for the birds; hence the birds are not mentioned in this verse. The reason may have been that seeing that the mammals were all created on the sixth day of creation, i.e. the same day as man, they shared special consideration by G-d with man; the birds which had been created already on the fifth day did not enjoy this distinction. This may also be reflected in the wording אשר אתו בתיבה “who were with him in the Ark.” The Torah wanted to stress that there was something that man and the other mammals shared to the exclusion of other phenomena on earth, namely G-d’s especial concern for their fates. It is noteworthy that the same word את occurs in the narrative of the Torah when it describes both man’s and the mammal’s creation on the sixth day. Please compare Genesis 1,24-25. The words אשר אתו in our verse here may be an allusion to that verse in 1,24.

The merit that they did not corrupt... This implies that the other animals corrupted their ways on their own, not due to demons. Otherwise, what was the merit of these animals? The same is implied by, “They did not cohabit in the ark,” meaning, on their own. (Kitzur Mizrachi) Both merits were needed, since “not corrupting their ways” was not an active mitzvah; it was merely refraining from sin. (Although it says in Makkos 23b that he who passively refrains from a sin is rewarded as if he did a mitzvah, but it says in Kiddushin 39b that this applies only when a chance to sin presented itself but he held back.) Therefore the animals needed also the merit of not cohabiting in the ark, which was self-imposed abstinence from permitted behavior. But this merit alone was insufficient, as it somewhat resembled doing a mitzvah without being commanded, [which is a lesser merit]. For we have no source to indicate that the animals were forbidden to cohabit in the ark. Hashem forbade only Noach and his sons. Although Rashi later says that, “Let them spread over the earth” (v. 17), teaches that the animals had a prohibition to propagate in the ark, they accepted this upon themselves without Hashem’s command. Why does the verse not say that Hashem remembered also the birds and Noach’s sons? It seems the answer is: Cham, and the raven, sinned by cohabiting in the ark. That is why Noach’s sons and the birds are not mentioned. [If so, why are beasts and animals mentioned, when the dog cohabited in the ark (Bereishis Rabba 36:7)? The answer is:] There is an uncertainty about dogs. Perhaps they are in the category of “beasts”; perhaps in that of “animals.” Although Heaven surely knows, still, the Sages disagreed about it. Thus we see that Hashem’s will is not to resolve it, and therefore, Scripture does not omit either beasts or animals [although dogs are included in one of these two categories]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

זכר .ויזכור verwandt mit סכר verschließen, also: im Gedächtnis bewahren und festhalten. — ׳אלקי, nach der Bemerkung der Weisen war diese Rettung und Wiederherstellung eine nach Gottes Gerechtigkeit verdiente, selbst ohne Rücksicht auf die sich an dieselbe knüpfende Fürsorge für die neue Zukunft des Geschlechtes, daher dieser Gottesname in dieser Erzählung hervortritt.

ויעבר אלוקים רוח על הארץ, “ G–d made wind pass over the earth;” this was the same wind of which the Torah in Genesis 1,2 had written that it was “hovering” over the surface of the waters. In other words, at this point the earth had basically reverted to what it had been before the creation of light. It was this “wind,” G–d made use of now to repair the damage earth had sustained by making the waters subside.

ויזכור אלקים את נח, “G-d remembered Noach;” G-d remembered that for a full year Noach had fed the entire animal kingdom that was with him in the ark, playing “waiter” for them.

‘ויזכור אלהים את נח וגו AND GOD REMEMBERED NOAH etc. — What did He remember regarding the cattle? The merit that no perversion of their way had been seen amongst them previously to the Flood, and that they lived apart in the Ark.

ויעבר אלוקים רוח על הארץ וישכו המים, G’d made this wind blow over the surface of the globe in order to prevent the waters from rising any further. We find the word שככה used in a similar sense, i.e. suppressing turbulence of matter or mind in Esther 7,10, and in Samuel II 11,20.the words תעלה חמת describe the exact opposite. The King’s reaction to Haman’s hanging calmed him down, whereas anger, turbulent emotions coming to the surface are described as “rising”, תעלה. The word שככה is therefore aptly translated as something abating.

ויסוכו המים, “the waters subsided.” The expression is parallel to the one in Esther 7,10 which describes the king’s anger as subsiding with the words וחמת המלך שככה, the letters ס and ש being interchangeable letters on frequent occasions. Alternatively, the word is parallel to the root סתר as in הסתר, meaning “hiding, a form of receding.” According to סדר עולם, the waters that had come forth from the bowels of the earth during the deluge, now receded back to their habitat within the bowels of the globe.

A spirit of comforting. Rashi is answering the question: If it was an actual wind, why is written afterwards, “And the water subsided”? On the contrary, it is written (Tehillim 147:8), “He blows His wind; water runs.” [I.e., wind does not calm the waters.] (Devek Tov) Alternatively, Rashi knows this because it says, “Over the earth.” How could a wind blow over the earth’s surface when the water covered the earth? But if it was “a spirit of comforting,” it is understandable. “Over the earth” then means, “On account of the matters of the earth.” In other words, for the sake of man who dwells on the earth.

Another reason is that the Torah includes in that statement that G'd considered all the hard and menial work Noach was subjected to in looking after all the animals under his care. G'd had pity on Noach. The Torah wanted to emphasise that G'd's major concern was Noach and not the animals.

וישכו, Wurzel שכך. Dieser Ausdruck weist darauf hin, dass die Wirksamkeit des Wassers nicht bloß eine mechanisch zerstörende, sondern zugleich eine chemisch auf- lösende gewesen. Sie waren, nach einer Bemerkung (Sanhedrin 108. b) רותחין, siedend. שכך iGegensatz des Siedens und Wallens einer Flut: חמת המלך שככה (Esther 7, 10). — Verwandt ist שכך in dieser Weise mit שגג, dem Gegensatz von זןד מזיד, sieden. שגג ist nicht zu verwechseln mit שגג .שגה ist der Irrtum aus Sorglosigkeit. Das Unrecht ist, dass man da ruhig und sorglos gewesen, wo man beides nicht hätte sein sollen. Ganz ähnlich wie שֶלִי ,שַל, was aus Versehen geübt wird, von שלו ,שלה, ruhig, sorglos sein. In Beziehung auf unser Geschick ist Sorglosigkeit, Ruhe, etwas sehr Gutes, in Beziehung auf unser Verhalten, etwas sehr Schlechtes; hier heißt es: אשרי איש מפחד נתמיד dort: שגה .פחדו בציון חטאים hingegen ist ein gerade durch zu intensive Geistestätigkeit veranlasster Irrtum. Es bezeichnet eine solche Eingenommenheit des Geistes von einer Gedankenrichtung oder einem Gegenstande, dass er dadurch von allem andern abgezogen wird und es außer acht lässt. Daher auch שוגה ביין ,באהבתה תשגה תמיד. Darum kommt in שגגה פ׳ קרבנות vom praktischen Irrtum des Volkes, שגיה vom theoretischen Irrtum der Sanhedrin vor. (Daher die Verwandtschaft von שגה mit .שגח השגית: seine Aufmerksamkeit intensiv auf etwas richten, שגע: das völlige Gefesseltsein von einer Idee, eine fixe Idee haben, wahnsinnig sein. Selbst שכח heißt ein Vergessen durch Eingenommensein von anderen Gedankenrichtungen, während נשה ein direktes Fahrenlassen aus Gleichgültigkeit ist, צור ילדך תשי ותשכח אל מחוללך, "wenn erst dein Hort dich geboren haben wird, wirst du ihn völlig vergessen, ist dir doch Gott, selbst während er dich noch zeugte, aus den Gedanken gekommen!" Aus dieser Verwandtschaft von שכח mit שגה erklärt sich׳s, wie im Chaldäischen אשכח: finden heißen kann. Es heißt: seinen Sinn auf einen Gegenstand richten, eigentlich: suchen, wie auch im Hebräischen מצא finden und suchen heißt).

וישכו המים, “the waters subsided.” The wording proves that the waters were almost boiling hot. [Subsiding, meaning that they had bubbled previously. Ed.] The expression שככ is used also for King Ahasverus’ angers subsiding in Esther 7,10. Compare Sanhedrin 108 on that verse.

ויעבר אלהים רוח AND GOD MADE A WIND (or SPIRIT) TO PASS — A spirit of consolation and relief passed before Him.

ויעבד אלוקים רוח על הארץ וישבו המים. G'd made a wind pass over the earth and the waters subsided. The Torah here wishes to tell us that G'd had commanded the waters to become tumultuous just as He had commanded the waters during the six days of creation to swarm with fish, etc. Here G'd commanded the waters to conduct themselves with their full power; as a result of that the remains of the creatures which had died disintegrated completely. Had it not been for this fact there would have been no point in verse 24 telling us that the waters swelled on earth for 150 days. After all, the remains of all creatures had already disintegrated previously. Until G'd remembered Noach (our verse) the waters had no reason to act differently than the instructions they had received from G'd.

על הארץ OVER THE EARTH — Because of what was happening on earth.

וישכו AND THE WATERS ASSUAGED — The word occurs again (Esther 2:1), “when the wrath of the king was assuaged (כשוך)”, and it means there abatement of anger.

ויסכרו מעינות AND THE FOUNTAINS … WERE STOPPED –– When they were opened, it was stated that all fountains were opened (7:11), whilst here the word all is omitted: the reason is that such of them as were essential to the world were left unstopped, such as the hot springs of Tiberias and their like (Sanhedrin 108a).

ויסכדו מעינות תהום. The wells of the deep closed up. The Torah here hints that the waters beneath the earth had risen in proportion to the rain descending from the heavens. These two phenomena go hand in hand. Our verse alludes to this fact by mentioning the withdrawal of the waters beneath the earth as occurring simultaneously with the cessation of the rain from the heavens. We have pointed out previously that these two types of waters complement each other, enabling growth to occur (Taanit 28).

ויסכרו, they were shut, i.e. prevented from adding further turbulence on the surface of the waters which had flooded the globe. As a result of the wind blowing, the earth gradually began to dry out, the moisture being blown away, gradually. However, these subterranean wells were not all of them shut off. This enabled some of the waters on the surface of the globe to flow back gradually into the bowels of the earth from which they had come forth. While it is true that at the time these waters had risen to the surface they had found many more apertures through which to rise, and their appearance on the surface had been rapid, now it seeped back at a much slower pace.

ויכלא הגשם, “the rain ceased.” Here the Torah cannot refer to the rain that descended as part of the deluge, seeing that this rain had stopped already on the 27th of Kislev, after 40 days. The Torah reports here that during this period of over 200 days after the first of Sivan and the family of Noach and the animals leaving the ark, no normal rainfall occurred. The strong prevailing winds at this time prevented any rain clouds from forming and descending. The purpose of the wind was to gradually restore the atmosphere to its traditional dryness.

For which the world had need. You might ask: If the world has need of them, why were they not created at the time of Creation? The answer is: Before the Flood they were not needed, as people were healthy and robust. After the Flood, people became weak [and there was a need for them].

סכר ,ויסכרו verwandt mit סגר: schließen. Auch שכר ist nichts anderes als eine Lücke schließen, ersetzen, ergänzen, daher: Lohn.

ויסכרו מעינות תהום רבה, “The subterranean sluices of the earth were shut down;” Rashi points out that the absence here of the word: כל, “all,” i.e. all these sluices, is proof that some of these springs were left open for healing purposes so that man could enjoy them in the future. [Spas such as Marienbad, Karlsbad, Leukerbad, etc. Ed.] The hot springs of Tiberias are quoted by Rashi as an example. If you were to ask that according to the opinion quoted in the Midrash that the deluge did not affect the land of Israel, whence did the hot springs in Tiberias originate? 1) There are similar hot mineral springs all over the world, Tiberias just happens to be the only such in the Holy Land. 2) When the Torah first wrote about these springs having been opened at the time of the deluge, (7,11) when the Torah there spoke about “all the springs,” it clearly included the hot springs of Tiberias, although rain may not have fallen in the Holy Land during that period. When the springs closed, the ones in Tiberias were one of the several that remained open.

ויכלא means was restrained. withheld, as (Psalms 40:12) “Thou wilt not withhold (תכלא) thy mercies” and (Genesis 23:6) “None of us will withhold (יכלה) from thee.’’

וארבות השמים, those “windows” of the heavens had already closed after the forty days of rainfall. Now no more water inundated the earth either from above or from below.

ויסכרו מעיינות תהום, this is not really the logical place where we would have expected to find this verse. Rather, we would have expected it after 7,17, before continuing with that the waters continued to rise further. The reason it was inserted here is that the Torah wished to mention together all the causes that contributed to the termination of the deluge.

ויכלא הגשם, the Torah mentions this to tell us that not even normal rainfall still occurred during this period when the earth returned to normal.

ויסכרו, the word is spelled with the letter כ,.which in this instance is used instead of the customary letter ג, in the root סגר. The construction is not unique, as we also find it in Psalms 63,12 כי יסכר פי דובר שקר, “when the mouth of liars is stopped.”

מקצה חמשים ומאת יום AFTER THE END OF ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTY DAYS they began to decrease: that was on the first day of Sivan. How so? The rains ceased to fall on the twenty-seventh day of Kislev — you have three days left in Kislev, and the 29 days of Tebeth make 32, and Shebat, Adar, Nisan and Eyar have together 118, making altogether 150.

וישובו המים מעל הארץ. The waters retreated from the earth's surface. The waters which had flooded the earth kept retreating towards the oceans. They decreased naturally, starting 150 days after the onset of the deluge.

וישבו המים..הלוך ושוב, this formulation described the gradual nature of the waters abating and the water level on the globe falling. The period this took corresponded to the 40+150 days described during which the waters rose, giving us a total of 340 days. When you add the 3 times 7 days which elapsed for the 3 missions of the raven and the pigeon respectively, you have a total of 361 days, very close to the 365 days described in the Torah as the period which elapsed from the onset of the rain until Noach left the ark. The beginning of the return to normal commenced on the second day of Sivan. As soon as the waters had peaked, they began to recede.

They began to diminish. We cannot say they were completely diminished on Sivan 1, as the waters continued diminishing until the 27th of the second month, when the earth became dry (v. 14). Rather, they now began to diminish.

וישיבו kehrten in die aufgeschlossene Tiefe, aus welcher sie gekommen, zurück. —

ויחסרו המים מקצה חמשים ומאת יום, “the waters decreased at the end of one hundred and fifty days.” This date was identical with the first day of the month of Sivan. The ark came to rest in the seventh month, the month of Sivan, counting from the month of Kislev which was the month during which the rains had ceased descending. The “seventh” month here could not have been the seventh month after the rains began to descend, as that would have been Iyar, seeing that it had commenced during the second month of the year, i.e. during Marcheshvan. If we were to assume that the Torah referred to the seventh month after the rains had begun, a count of 40 days of rain falling, plus 150 days of the waters continuing to rise, this would bring us only to the 17th day in Iyar. Clearly, we must allow for days during which the waters had begun to recede, else how could the ark come to rest anywhere, seeing that the Torah told us that at its highest, the waters were 15 cubits above the highest peaks on earth? If we accept our interpretation the ark would have come to rest on Arrarat on the sixteenth day after having risen to its highest level. That date had been in the tenth Av, not Ellul. When the Torah, in verse 5, speaks of the tenth month, on the tenth of which the highest peaks became visible once more. According to Rashi’s calculation forty days elapsed (verse 6) elapsed before Noach for the first time lifted the window at the top of the ark to dispatch the raven on its mission, which it did not really carry out. Apparently sixty days passed between the time when the highest peaks became visible until the surface of the earth was no longer covered with water. If we were to assume that the highest peaks had not become visible until the month of Ellul (the tenth month when commencing with Marcheshvan when the rains first descended) we would therefore have to conclude that the waters subsided at a rate of one cubit per four days, 15 cubits during the 60 days commencing with the highest peaks having become visible again. According to this calculation, the bottom of the ark had been in eleven cubits of water at one stage at least.
According to Rashi’s calculation we face the following problem: if as the Torah writes, (verse 6) Noach opened the window of the ark after forty days of it having come to rest on Arrarat and he sent the pigeon out more that 40 days after the ark had come to rest, how come that the pigeon did not find any place to park on? It surely should have been able to rest on some mountains slightly lower than Arrarat which was near there? Rashi was aware of this problem, and this is why he wrote on verse 6 that the highest peaks had become visible. According to my understanding we must assume that the mountain range of Arrarat at the time was not above the tree line, and that the tops of these trees were visible even earlier that the peaks themselves. Accordingly, we must understand the whole period as follows: the water level on earth began to recede after having constantly risen for 150 days. These days had come to an end on the first day of Sivan. On the seventeenth of that month the ark ran aground. Forty days after continuing receding of the water levels, Noach opened the window of the ark, i.e. on the tenth day of Tammuz. He immediately dispatched the raven. When after seven days the raven had not performed his mission, he sent out a pigeon. This was on the 17th day of Tammuz. The pigeon returned not having a place where to rest its feet. I venture to add on my own that we see an allusion to the dates of the beginning of the eventual destruction of the Temple which began on the seventeenth of Tammuz when the wall of Jerusalem was breached by the Romans. Israel- also known lovingly as יונה, pigeon, (Song of Songs 2,14) has never again found rest historically since that date when Noach’s pigeon could not find rest. Noach then waited another seven days to send out the pigeon again, and on that occasion it returned with a torn olive leaf in its beak, signaling that the earth was on the way to becoming normal again. This occurred in the month of Av, on the first of the month when the receding of the waters had come to an end. The next time the pigeon never returned having found it possible to live in freedom outside the confinements of the ark, seeing that the tops of the trees had become visible. This completed the 60 days it took from when the tips of the mountains to become visible as Rashi had stated. The month of Av was the tenth month, counting from when the rains first stated descending. All this is in accordance with what the Torah reported when it wrote that on the first day of the first month of the following year, the surface of the earth had become dry [though too soft to walk on without sinking into the ground. Ed.] I have found that Seder Olam, chapter 4 agrees with my explanation though it is worded differently. However, I find it difficult to understand that if as Rashi assumes the tops of the trees became visible before the peaks themselves had become visible why did the Torah write about the tops of the peaks being visible, instead of writing about the tops of the trees on them becoming visible? Even if we were to assume that only olive trees survived the deluge until that time as a result of what is written in verse 23, something that might be understood as the result of Rashi’s comment on that verse, [I fail to see how; Ed.] our author, bases himself on the tradition that Noach must have taken branches of fruit trees into the ark, else how could he have planted a vineyard, this was as he did not assume that any trees would survive. If indeed a single tree survived, the day on which this became evident was hardly worth a special mention. Regardless of all this, why would only the olive tree be the one surviving the deluge? If you were to answer that this was because in the future this tree and its fruit would be a basic necessity for the Jewish people in the Temple service, the same argument would be true also of the vines in the vineyard, whose fruit featured equally in the Temple service; so why did Noach have to take a branch with him into the ark instead of relying on some vines to survive the deluge? We would have to answer that the fruit of the vine was sufficient for Noach as a sample with which to start a vineyard, whereas a branch of an olive tree would dry out during the year in the ark so that it could not be revived when Noach came out of the ark.

ויחסרו המים, “the waters diminished;” according to Rashi, this process began 150 days after the outbreak of the deluge, on the first day of the month of Sivan. Rashi arrives at this calculation from the Torah’s report that the deluge (rains) began on the 17th day of the second month (Cheshvan) the rains which lasted for 40 days having stopped falling on the 27th day of Kislev. It is reasonable to assume that according to Rashi’s calculation no rain fell on the 28th of Kislev, so that day was already one of the 150 days during which the water level on the earth kept rising without additional rainfall. On the other hand, when the Torah had written in verse 12 of chapter 7 that the rainfall persisted for 40 days, the impression given is that the twenty eighth day of Kislev was still a rainy day, as Rashi specifically states that the first day mentioned in the Torah did not count, as the rain had started during the daylight hours, i.e. long after the day had already commenced. The Torah describes the sky as breaking open during the daylight hours. According to this calculation the rains would only have stopped during the 28th of Kislev. We are forced therefore to understand Rashi’s words as follows: “the first day of rainfall mentioned is the Torah is not to be considered as a “day” in the same sense as all the other days, seeing that all the other “days” mentioned included the preceding night; this day did not include the preceding night.”When you follow this approach you can understand Rashi’s saying that the 17th of Cheshvan was the first day on which rain fell and continued falling for 40 days. There were 12 days left in that month, followed by 27 days in the month of Kislev, all of which included the preceding nights until daybreak on the 28th day of Kislev. This tallies with what the Torah wrote: “The rain (came down) onto the earth for 40 days and forty nights.” (7,12) When the Torah referred to 150 days, these days do not need to include the preceding nights, as the Torah itself states: “it was at the end of 150 days.”(8,3). In other words: from daybreak on the 28th of Kislev until nightfall on the first day of Sivan. If you wish to count the 150 days as whole days including the preceding nights, you would have to count from the morning of the 28th of Kislev until the morning until the morning of the first day of Sivan, giving you a total of 150 days and 150 nights. Even if you were to deduct the night of the 28th of Kislev according to Rashiג something irrelevant to the descent of rain for 40 days, the first of Sivan as the seventh month the first of Sivan, as stated in the Torah, would still be the beginning of the seventh month after the beginning of the deluge. [The significance of the number “seven” as a number signaling beneficial developments is most important in Judaism, Ed.] The reason why the manner in which the Torah reported these details is significant is because if we were to start the count of the deluge (40 days of rainfall) from Cheshvan, the ark would not have come to rest on Mount Arrarat on the seventeenth of the seventh month (Sivan) from the daylight period of the seventeenth, but on the eighteenth. Our author demonstrates how this would have contradicted other dates mentioned later in the account of the gradual abating of the waters. The most important date mentioned is that on which the ark came to rest on solid ground, the first day of the first month of the 601st year of Noach’s life, i.e. on New Year’s day according to the Jewish calendar. It signaled a new and more propitious beginning in the history of mankind. On that day the waters had dried from the surface of the earth. [as distinct from “dry” as opposed to “muddy.” Ed.]

On Kislev 27 the rains ceased. You might ask: Did Rashi not say before (7:12) that they ceased on Kislev 28? The answer is: There, Rashi explained that they ceased on Kislev 28 because the first day did not count in the forty days of rain. It did not count because its [preceding] night did not have rain. For it says (7:11), “On that day, all the wellsprings... burst open.” This means at daytime, not at night. Nevertheless, it was considered a [half] day. Thus, Marcheshvan counted for twelve full days and one [half] day, and Kislev counted for twenty-seven full days. And the rain did not cease until the morning of the 28th. So the last night, when added to the first day, completed the forty full days. Thus it could be said that the rains ceased on Kislev 28, as they still fell on its [preceding] night. And it could be said that the rains ceased on Kislev 27, because in the daytime of the 28th there was no rain.

Which accounts for three days in Kislev. This counts the following night. Also the 29 days of Teves counts the following night.

בחדש השביעי IN THE SEVENTH MONTH — viz., Sivan, which is the seventh from Kislev in which the rains stopped falling.

AND THE ARK RESTED IN THE SEVENTH MONTH, ON THE SEVENTEENTH DAY OF THE MONTH. Rashi wrote: “From here you may infer that the ark was submerged in the water to a depth of eleven cubits.” This he wrote on the basis of the calculation written in his commentaries, and it is so found in Bereshith Rabbah.¹¹⁰33:10. But since in certain places Rashi minutely examines Midrashic traditions and for the same verses also takes the trouble to explain the simple meanings of Scripture, he has thus given us permission to do likewise for there are seventy ways of interpreting the Torah,¹¹¹Midrash Othiyoth d’Rabbi Akiba. and there are many differing Midrashim among the words of the Sages. And so I say that this calculation which they have mentioned does not fit into the language of Scripture unless we bear with that which explains And the ark rested in the seventh month as referring to that day mentioned above [in Verses 2-3] when the rain was withheld and the waters receded from the earth and decreased continually. [This interpretation of the seventh month is] unlike the counting of the second month¹¹²Above, 7:11. mentioned in the beginning of the section, [which Rashi explains there as being “the second month” of the creation calendar], and unlike the counting stated at the end of the section [in Verse 13: in the first month, which Rashi similarly explains as being “the first month” of the creation calendar]! And how is it possible that in the second verse Scripture should immediately retract [from using the withholding of the rain as a reference point for counting] and state, until the tenth month,¹¹³Verse 5. and proceed to another reference point, counting it, as Rashi explains, as the tenth month with reference to the coming of the rains!
The evidence Rashi brings from the submergence of the ark in the waters is no proof for he attributes an equal decrease of water to each of the days — namely, a cubit every four days — and it is known in nature concerning the decrease of water that a great river which decreases at first a cubit every four days will at the end decrease four cubits in a day. Thus according to this calculation of Rashi, on the first day of the month of Ab the tops of the mountains were seen,¹¹⁴Rashi, ibid. and on the first day of Tishri the earth dried.¹¹⁵Rashi, Verse 13. Thus in sixty days the waters decreased the entire height of the high mountains consisting of many thousands of cubits, [surely a greater rate than four cubits a day, as Rashi would have it]! Besides, when Noah sent forth the dove on the seventeenth day of the month of Ellul,¹¹⁶The raven was sent by Noah forty days after the tops of the mountains were seen on the first day of Ab. (See Verses 5-6). This brings us to the tenth of Ellul. Seven days later, on the seventeenth day of Ellul, he sent forth the dove. the waters were yet on the face of the entire earth,¹¹⁷Verse 9. and the trees were covered, and in a matter of twelve days¹¹⁸From the eighteenth of Ellul to the first of Tishri is a period of twelve days. the whole earth dried! And by way of reason, if the ark was submerged in the waters eleven cubits, that being more than a third of its height [which was thirty cubits],¹¹⁹Above, 6:15. it would have sunk because it was wide at the bottom and finished to a cubit at the top,¹²⁰Ibid., Verse 16. contrary to the structure of ships, and there was also in it great weight!
From the simple interpretation of Scripture it appears that the hundred and fifty days mentioned in connection with the prevailing of the waters¹²¹Above, 7:24. include the forty days of the coming down of the rains¹²²Ibid., Verse 12. since the main increase and prevailing of the waters took place during these days. Thus the waters began decreasing on the seventeenth day of Nisan,¹²³From the seventeenth day of Cheshvan (the beginning of the rains) to the seventeenth day of Nisan there are 150 days. This is contrary to Rashi, who said that the decrease of the waters began forty days later on the first of Sivan. and thirty days later — the seventeenth day of the month Iyar,¹²⁴According to Rashi this was on the seventeenth of Sivan. which was the seventh month from the time the rain began to fall¹²⁵According to Rashi, “the seventh month,” mentioned in connection with the resting of the ark upon the Ararat mountains, was the seventh month after the rains stopped, as explained above. — the ark rested upon the mountains of Ararat. Seventy-three days later, on the first of Ab, which was the tenth month from the time the rain began to fall, the tops of the mountains were seen. We have thus made a small correction in the interpretation of the language of Scripture, [namely, that all counting begins from the time the rain began to fall].
But the correct interpretation appears to me to be that the hundred and fifty days¹²¹Above, 7:24. were from the seventeenth day of the second month, namely, the month of Marcheshvan, to the seventeenth day of the seventh month, namely, the month of Nisan, and that was the day when the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat.¹²⁶This is unlike his opinion above that the ark rested thirty days after the seventeenth of Nisan. For then G-d caused a strong east wind to pass all the night and made the waters dry land,¹²⁷Exodus 14:21. Also see Verse 1 here in Chapter 8. meaning that they decreased very much, and the ark rested. The proof for this is that Scripture does not say here, “and the waters decreased on such a month and on such a day and the waters decreased continually until the seventh month, and the ark rested, etc.,” as it said concerning the other decrease when the tops of the mountains were seen, for on the very day the waters began decreasing, the ark rested. The order of events in this matter was thus: on the day the rain began to fall all the fountains of the great deep were broken up,¹¹²Above, 7:11. and the windows of the heavens were opened and the rain came down for forty days. During that time the waters prevailed fifteen cubits above¹²⁸Above, 7:19. [the summits of all the mountains]. The rain stopped at the end of forty days, but “the fountains of the deep” and “the windows of the heavens” remained open. The atmosphere was very damp, and the whole earth was full of water, not like waters poured down a precipice,¹²⁹See Micah 1:4. nor ever to become dried. And they stood thus in their power until one hundred and fifty days from the day the rain began were completed. Then G-d caused a very powerful wind to pass through the heavens and over the earth, and the fountains of the deep were stopped¹³⁰Verses 1-2. for the water that flowed from them returned to its place until the deep filled up as it was before the flood, and the openings of its fountains were locked, as were “the windows of the heavens.” And the air was dried very much by a drying wind, and the water on the earth was licked up.¹³¹See I Kings 18:38. Thus the waters decreased exceedingly on that day, and the ark, which was submerged in the waters about two to three cubits, rested. Seventy-three days after that — on the first day of the tenth month, namely, the month of Tammuz — the tops of the mountains were seen. At the end of forty additional days — on the tenth day of the eleventh month, Ab — Noah opened the window of the ark, and three weeks later the dove left him; thirty days later, he removed the covering of the ark.

ותנח התבה בחדש השביעי, this is the month of Sivan being the seventh month counting from the end of the rain descending which occurred in Kislev. Even though, as we know, the rains had begun to fall in the month of Marcheshvan, the Torah speaks here of a count beginning in Kislev seeing that the end of the rains and the end of the ark floating around have something in common in terms of stages of the deluge ending.
על הרי אררט, perhaps those were the tallest mountain range, or it happened that the ark was in that region on the day in question. At any event, the mountain range of Ararat is one of the highest mountain ranges that we know of. What is clear is that lower mountain ranges on earth did not become visible to people in the ark until the tenth month. The meaning of the line is that the process of the waters diminishing continued progressively until at the beginning of the tenth month the tops of the mountains became visible. These “mountains” were actually only hills. The process continued unabated. The “tenth” month mentioned here was the month of Av, seeing it was the tenth month counting from the month during which the rains had started, Marcheshvan.

ותנח התבה בחודש השביעי, “the ark came to rest in the seventh month.” According to Rashi this was the month of Sivan, and we would learn from this information that the keel of the ark was submerged in the water by 11 cubits (approx 6.6 meters) Nachmanides confirms that Rashi’s explanation follows Bereshit Rabbah He adds that seeing that Rashi himself frequently takes issue with such Midrashim in light of the dictum that on the one hand there are 70 facets to the written Torah, whereas at the same time we must establish the plain meaning of the text, (a major concern of Rashi), we too may also be permitted to emphasise another aspect of our verse. The difficulty with Rashi’s explanation is that he counts the words “in the seventh month,” as referring to a date, as the seventh month after the original rains had stopped at which time the waters had already begun to recede; how can the Torah immediately afterwards refer to the first of the month of the 601st year of Noach’s life (8,13) where clearly the reference must be to the first month of the calendar year, i.e. the first of Tishrey? How could the Torah switch its terms of reference and confuse its readers? Besides, whence do we have proof that the keel of the ark was submerged by 11 cubits? This calculation appears based on Rashi’s assumption that the waters receded at a constant speed of 1 cubit every four days, seeing that the keel of the ark had been reported as above the highest mountain by 15 cubits (7,20). From the 1st of Sivan till the first of Av there are 60 days. If the ark, as reported, ran aground on the17th of the seventh month, and the summits of the highest mountains became visible once more, how could the surface of the earth become dry by the first of Tishrey according to Rashi’s calculation, seeing that many mountains were thousands of cubits high? According to the calculation of Rashi all this took place within 13 days (from the 17th of the seventh month counting from Kislev, as interpreted verse 4) Furthermore, from a mariner’s point of view, a vessel which is more than one third submerged in water (the ark’s total height being 30 cubits), is not really capable of navigating waters, too much of its weight being under the water’s surface. In view of the problems of Rashi’s interpretation, Nachmanides understands that the 150 days which the Torah describes the waters as being turbulent and rising, commence by including the 40 days of rain, so that these days concluded on the 17th of Iyar, seeing that the major flooding took place during the 40 days of incessant rainfall. 73 days after the 17th of Iyar on the first of the tenth month, i.e. the first of Av. This was the tenth month after the beginning of the rainfall, the tops of the mountains becoming visible. Another approach to the report of the dates in the Torah, and this is the correct approach according to Nachmanides, is that the 150 days certainly commenced with the 17th of the second month (Marcheshvan) the day the deluge began, and ended on the 17th day in Nissan (which is the seventh month after Tishrey, which is the first month of the year.) On this day the ark came to rest on Mount Arrarat, for then G’d made a strong easterly wind blow (verse 1).This wind dried out the surface of the earth.(The wind accelerated the lowering of the water level dramatically.) Until the Exodus from Egypt all of mankind considered the first of Tishrey as New Year. Only immediately prior the Exodus from Egypt did G’d command the Jewish people to henceforth count “their” years from the first of the month of Nissan. [concerning matters which they did not have in common with mankind as a whole, Ed.] Proof that this approach is correct is the fact that the Torah does not mention that the waters decreased by a certain amount on a certain day during a specific month. Such details were reserved for the second stage of the recovery after the waters had peaked, such as when the Torah mentions the date on which the highest mountain peaks once again became visible. The sequence in which the various stages occurred was as follows: on the day the rain started falling on earth, the fountains of the earth below also opened and added huge amounts of water which flooded the surface of the earth. The atmosphere became extremely saturated with moisture. The flooding of the earth continued at this level for 150 days. At that point G’d made a strong wind sweep over the earth that accounted for a sudden and substantial drop of the water level on earth as well as a drying of the atmosphere. The water level dropped so much on that day as a result of that wind that the ark landed on top of Mount Arrarat on that same day. Prior to that the ark’s keel had been submerged by 2-3 cubits. 73 days later, on the first of the month of Tamuz, the tenth month of the year, the tops of various mountains became visible. 40 days later, on the tenth of Av, Noach opened the window of the ark for the first time and three weeks later on the first day of Ellul he dispatched the dove for the first time. 40 days later he decided to remove the roof of the ark. The meaning of the words (verse 1) “G’d made a wind sweep the earth so that the waters calmed,” is something that occurred simultaneously with the retreat of the subterranean waters into the bowels of the earth. You will note that the Torah speaks of a wind sweeping over the earth, not over the water.

Which is the seventh month from Kislev, in which the rain stopped. The counting cannot start from the rainfall, as it is not logical that the count of 150 days includes forty of rain and [110] of powerful waters. It must be either rain alone or powerful waters alone. Since it cannot be rain alone [see 7:17], it must be powerful waters alone. Thus they were two separate periods and did not finish until Sivan 1.

.בחודש השביעי, “in the seventh month.” The “seventh” month mentioned here is the month of Sivan starting with Kislev, the month during which the rains had ceased. On the tenth of the first month (verse 5) the first mountain tops became visible to Noach. This was the month of Av in our calendar, which is the tenth month of the year starting with Cheshvan the month during which the rain started falling. This is how Rashi understands the text of the Torah. If you were to argue that the year of the deluge could have been a year which had 13 months, something easily computed, the whole calculation is erroneous. From the data in the Torah, 1656 years had elapsed since the creation of Adam. We observe a cycle of 19 years during which 7 years are leap years, i.e. years of 13 months. A calculation would reveal that the year of the deluge would have been the third leap year during such a cycle. The result would be that the month of Sivan would not be the seventh but the eighth month of that particular year. According to this calculation the deluge would have commenced instead of in the 1656th year, in the year following. A different interpretation of the data provided by the Torah: The calculation of the year of the deluge is based on the year of tohu, the period preceding the creation of Adam. If so the year of the deluge was not a leap year. A third possible approach to the data provided by the Torah on the timing of the deluge: the year of the deluge was not included in calendar calculations of world history, according to Rabbi Yochanan in B’reshit Rabbah 33,3, as the planets in heaven did not describe their regular orbits during that period. Rabbi Yonathan responded to that statement by Rabbi Yochanan, that while the planets did not perform their function during that year, this does not mean that the year is to be considered as not having occurred.

בשבעה עשר יום ON THE SEVENTEENTH DAY — From here you may infer that the Ark was submerged in the water to a depth of eleven cubits. For it is written (next verse) “In the tenth month on the first day of the month the tops of the mountains were seen” and this was Ab which is the tenth month after Cheshvan — after the rain began to fall. Now the waters were 15 cubits high above the mountains so that they subsided from the first of Sivan to the first of Ab 15 cubits for those 60 intervening days, which is one cubit each four days. Consequently by the sixteenth of Sivan they had subsided only 4 cubits, and since the Ark rested on Ararat on the next day, you may learn that it was submerged eleven cubits in the waters which were then still above the mountain tops (Genesis Rabbah 33:7).

AND G-D MADE A WIND TO PASS OVER THE EARTH.¹³²Verse 1. This means that there was a great and powerful wind coming out from the bowels of the earth over the face of the deep and hovering over the waters, and the fountains of the deep were stopped thereby. This is so since Scripture does not say, “and G-d made a wind to pass over the waters.”

Immersed eleven amohs in the water. Meaning: at least eleven amohs were immersed, maybe more. For there might be mountains higher than those of Ararat, and the ark did not come to a rest earlier because it did not reach those mountains. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

ותנח התבה בחדש השביעי בשבעה עשר יום, “the ark came to rest on the seventeenth day of the seventh month.” According to Rashi, we learn from this verse that the ark was deep in the water to a depth of 11 cubits. If you were to counter that the Torah reported that the tops of the mountains had become visible on the first day of Av, and that by the first day of Tishrey nature had resumed to function as usual, as we know from verse 13, this would suggest that during the preceding 60 days the water level had dropped precipitously, and there are certainly many mountains that are higher than 15 cubits, so that the water level must have receded by a whole cubit every four days, how could the ark still have been in eleven cubits of water?We would have to answer that the (air surrounding mountains is measured by different yardsticks than the earth upon which they rise, so that all of the mountains and the waters surrounding them receded totally during those 60 days. The waters in the airspace above the level of the mountains receded at a different rate of speed. Once the waters had dropped below the mountainous regions, they retreated at the rate of one cubit per day. The proof that this interpretation is true is the fact that we do not encounter the expression חסרון, diminution, reduction, when the Torah speaks of the mountain tops having become visible again. This teaches that a minor abatement of the waters was not deemed worthy of comment. Rashi also comments: “if you were to interpret the word שביעי, “seventh month,” as referring to the month of Sivan, as referring to the period during which the waters abated, how could you understand the line: “the ark came to rest in the seventh month of the cumulative abatement of the waters as occurring on the seventeenth of the month?” At that time the waters had not yet even stopped increasing in their inundation of the surface of the earth? We had already proved that the waters inundated progressively more parts of the earth commencing with the cessation of the rain for 150 days! This day only concluded on the first day of Sivan! This was the day when the deluge reached its crest! Every day thereafter was part of the recovery from the deluge. According to Rashi, the relevant dates of the story of the deluge are as follows: “in the second month of the year. i.e. the month of Cheshvan, which according to the Talmud in Rosh Hashanah 12 is the second month of the year, the deluge commenced. According to the compilation of a well known historical text relied upon by our sages, known as seder olam, the sages accepted the view of Rabbi Eliezer concerning the Torah report of the deluge, whereas they accepted the view expressed by Rabbi Joshua, concerning the calculations of the seasons of the year. According to this view both the rains and the opening of subterranean wells commenced on the 17th day of the month of Cheshvan, on the morning of that day. Both events continued until the morning of the 28th day of Kislev. At that point both rain and waters from subterranean parts of the globe ceased, but the inundation was felt as increasing until the ark‘s bottom was 15 cubits above the top of the highest mountain. As a result the ark kept on moving. The process of waters rising continued from the morning of the 28th of Kislev until sundown on the first day of Sivan. This was followed immediately by the verse: ויזכור אלוקים את נח, that G-d remembered Noach, etc. (8,1) revealing that as from that day on the waters receded at the end of 150 days. (verse 3) The ark running aground occurred 7 days later on the 17th day of the seventh month, i.e. the 17th of Sivan.(verse 3). It was the seventh month after the rains had commenced to fall. The waters kept receding after the rains had ceased (verse 5) from the first of Sivan until the month of Av, the tenth month after the rains had commenced descending on the earth. On the first day of the tenth month the tops of the highest mountains became visible. 40 days later on the tenth day of Ellul, Noach opened the window of the ark and sent out the raven. The raven not having returned, Noach sent out the pigeon after having waited for seven days. (according to Rashi). The pigeon returned to the ark not having found a foothold outside of it. Noach waited another seven days before sending out the pigeon again. This time the pigeon returned on the evening of the same day carrying part of an olive leaf in its beak. Some commentators believe that this leaf came from Mount Olives in the land of Israel. (Rabbi Levi in B’reshit Rabbah 33,6 according to the view that the rains did not flood the soil of the Land of Israel) The Scriptural basis for this view is found in Ezekiel 22,24: לא גושמה ביום זעם, “which was not rained upon on the day of anger.” Noach then waited for another seven days before dispatching a pigeon a third time. That time the pigeon did not return to the ark. Immediately after this, the Torah reports, (8,13) that the waters on earth had dried as of the first day of the month of Tishrey in the 601st year of Noach’s life. Finally, on the 27th day of Cheshvan, (57 days later) the soil was dry enough for man and beast to walk on without sinking into mud. Some commentators wonder what forced Rashi to state that the words: “it was at the end of forty days,” in 8,6 refer to 40 days after the tops of the mountains had become visible. If correct, why would the pigeon not have found a foothold on earth then? After all, 47 days had elapsed since that time before Noach sent out the pigeon. Some commentators dismiss this argument saying that since no actual land surfaces were visible, the pigeon did not find a suitable place to rest. We may assume that Rashi accepted the report of the Torah as following events chronologically so that the date on which the pigeon finally decided to remain outside the ark was on the first of Tishrey when the surface of the earth appeared dry, [capable of supporting the weight of a little bird. Ed.] Some commentators begin the count of 150 days from the first day the rains had commenced, i.e. from the 17th day of Cheshvan. Those days accordingly would include the 40 days of incessant rainfall. They consider the seventh month, Iyar as already a month during which the waters receded, just as we consider the tenth month as the month during which the waters receded. Their interpretation of the Torah’s report, commencing with 8,18: “the waters grew more powerful,” is thus: starting with the 17th of Cheshvan the water level on earth kept rising for a continuous 150 days culminating on the 20th day of Nissan. On that day the tide was turned and the waters began to recede. The ark came to rest on Mount Arrarat in the month of Iyar, i.e. the seventh month during which the waters were receding, on the 17th of that month. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month continuously, and during the tenth month of their retreat on the on the first of that month the tops of the tallest mountains became visible. The 15 cubits of water which had covered the tallest mountains for 95 days, between the 20th of Nissan until the 1st day of Av, had retreated at the rate of 1 cubit every 6 and a half days between the 20th of Nissan and the 16th day of Iyar, whereas the 11 cubits of the ark which were beneath the water level, retreated during the 7 days between the 17th of Iyar and the 1st day of Av, at the rate of one cubit every 6 and a half days. Some commentators explain the conclusion of this section in accordance with what we have learned in Seder Olam, which addresses the meaning of the paragraph commencing with: “it was at the end of 40 days (8,6)” as referring to 40 days which commenced with the first day in Sivan and concluded on the 10th day of Tammuz. According to that calculation, Noach immediately opened the window of the ark on that day and dispatched the raven. He then waited for seven days before dispatching the pigeon. He waited another seven days before dispatching the pigeon again. The reason why the pigeon on that occasion did not return was that it had found room on a top of a mountain that had been revealed in the meantime. The day under discussion was the first day of the month of Av, as already mentioned, seeing that the Torah had written that the tops of the mountains became visible on the first of the tenth month (8,5). Av is the tenth month of the year if the month during which the deluge started is considered as the “first month.” According to this method of counting, any part of a month is considered as if it were a full month. On the other hand, the month of Elul is never considered as the tenth month following Kislev during which the rains ceased, for if so, why when Noach dispatched a bird a third time would the pigeon not have returned to the ark seeing that according the calculation the tops of the mountains had not yet reappeared until the first of the month of Elul?Do not query the verse commencing with the words: והמים הלוך וחסור, “and the waters continued to diminish,” (8,5) by asking by what yardstick Noach decided on when to dispatch another bird, this is no problem for once the process of waters receding had commenced until the ark had come to rest on Mount Arrarat, Noach could confidently expect that with the passage of another week the chances of land appearing had increased. Between the first day of Av and the until the first day of Tishrey all the waters remaining from the deluge had been absorbed by the earth, and by the 27th of the month of Cheshvan the earth had become dry enough to walk on and to build on.

AND THE WATERS ASSUAGED (‘VAYASHOKU’).¹³²Verse 1. This means that the waters which were flowing from the deep subsided. It is the same expression as, Then the king’s wrath ‘shachachah’ (assuaged),¹³³Esther 7:10. meaning that his anger subsided. Or it may be that this is an expression of a thing being concealed and swallowed up. Thus the verse teaches that the waters of the deep were swallowed up in their place. And so did the Rabbis say in Seder Olam:¹³⁴Chapter 4. The Seder Olam (Order of the World) is a historical record of events from the time of creation to the destruction of the Second Temple. It was authored by Rabbi Yosei, a disciple of Rabbi Akiba. “The waters that went up were dried by the wind, and those that went down were swallowed in their place.”

AND THE RAINS FROM THE HEAVENS WERE WITHHELD.¹³⁵Verse 2. This means that no more rain came down until they [Noah and his family and all living creatures] went out of the ark for by this wind [which G-d made to pass over the earth] the heavens became as iron.¹³⁶See Leviticus 26:19. Neither dew nor rain came down, the air lost its moisture, and the waters dried up for the rain of the flood completely stopped after the fortieth day.

AND THE WATERS RETURNED FROM OFF THE EARTH CONTINUALLY.¹³⁷Verse 3. The verse states that the waters decreased gradually until the face of the ground was dried up.¹³⁸Verse 13.
And after the end of a hundred and fifty days the waters decreased.¹³⁷Verse 3. This is connected with the following verse, And the ark rested,¹³⁹Verse 4. thus stating that on that day there was a great decrease in the waters which enabled the ark to rest [on the mountains of Ararat], as I have explained.

בעשירי וגו' נראו ראשי ההרים IN THE TENTH MONTH … WERE THE TOPS OF THE MOUNTAINS SEEN —This was Ab which is the tenth from Marcheshvan when the rain began. If, however, you say that it means Elul, the tenth month from Kislev in which the rain stopped, just as you said (see Rashi on verse 4) that “in the seventh month” means Sivan which was the seventh month after the rain stopped, then I reply that it is impossible to argue so. For you must needs admit that the “seventh” month when the Ark rested can only be counted from the time when the rain stopped, since the 40 days during which the rain fell and the 150 days during which the waters prevailed did not terminate until the first day of Sivan, and if you say that it means the seventh after the rain began to fall, this would not be Sivan. The “tenth month”, however, when the tops of the mountains became visible cannot possibly be counted except from the time the rain began to fall, for if you say that it must be calculated from the time when it stopped, which would be Elul, you would not then find that “in the first month, on the first day of the month the waters dried up from off the earth” (Genesis 8:13). For it was only at the end of 40 days after the tops of the mountains were visible that he sent forth the raven (Genesis 8:6), and he waited periods amounting altogether to 21 days during which he was sending forth the dove, making altogether 60 days from when the tops of the mountains became visible until when the face of the earth became dry; if, therefore, you say that it was in Elul that they were seen, it would follow that the earth became dry in Marcheshvan (60 days after Elul). But it (Scripture) calls it (the month when the waters were dried up; Genesis 5:13) the first month, and that can only be Tishri which is the first month reckoning according to the creation of the world — or according to R. Joshua, it would be Nisan (Genesis Rabbah 30:6).

AND THE WATERS DECREASED CONTINUALLY UNTIL THE TENTH MONTH. This verse is to be interpreted by transposition: the waters decreased continually until the tops of the mountains were seen in the tenth month, which is the month of Tammuz. Scripture thus informs us that during seventy-three days¹⁴⁰From the seventeenth of Nisan, which marked the end of the 150 days during which the waters prevailed, as explained above in Verse 4, to the first day of Tammuz. the waters decreased fifteen cubits.¹⁴¹See above, 7:20. But we do not know the amount of the original decrease which enabled the ark to rest since Scripture did not find it necessary to inform us either of the number of cubits that the ark was submerged in the waters or of the amount of the decrease.
In the matter of the floating of the ark, it appears to me that because the waters flowed from the deeps and were hot, as our Rabbis have said,¹⁰⁰Sanhedrin 108b. the ark therefore floated upon the face of the waters. Were it not for that, it would have sunk on account of its weight for there were many living things in it, as well as a great deal of food and drink. But as soon as the waters subsided from their flowing or from their heat and they decreased on account of the wind, the ark at once entered into the midst of the waters due to the weight of its load, and it rested on the mountain.
In the opinion of the commentators,¹⁴²Ibn Ezra and R’dak. See my Hebrew commentary, p. 59. the Scriptural accounts concerning the total of one hundred and fifty days during which the waters prevailed, the resting of the ark, the visibility of the tops of the mountains and the succeeding forty days — all these events we know by way of prophecy for Scripture so informs us, but Noah knew only that he felt that the ark had rested, and he waited a period of time which, in his opinion, was sufficient for the waters to abate.
Now according to our words, as well as those of our Rabbis and all commentators, the mountains of Ararat, which are among the highest mountains under the heavens, had fifteen cubits of water above their summit.¹⁴³Above, 7:20. Therefore this difficulty is to be posed: it is known that the Greek mountain Olympus is very much higher than they, and the land of Ararat, which is near Babylon,¹⁴⁴See Ramban further 11:2. lies in the lower part of the globe! Perhaps we should then say that the decrease of waters which took place on the seventeenth day of the seventh month¹⁴⁵That is, the seventeenth day of Nisan, on which date the ark rested. was very much more than fifteen cubits, and at first the tops of the high mountains were seen, not the mountains of Ararat, and it just happened that the ark was in the land of Ararat during the seventh month and it rested on the tops of those mountains.
Now Noah, from the time the rains ceased, would open and close the window at his will. Seventy-three days¹⁴⁰From the seventeenth of Nisan, which marked the end of the 150 days during which the waters prevailed, as explained above in Verse 4, to the first day of Tammuz. after the resting of the ark he looked forth from the window and the tops of the mountains of Ararat were visible to him, and he again closed the window. Scripture then relates that forty days later he sent forth the raven. Scripture does not say, “and it was in such-a-month and on such-a-day that Noah opened the window,” but instead it says, And it came to pass at the end of forty days,¹⁴⁶Verse 6. in order to declare that from the time the tops of the mountains were seen by Noah, he waited forty days for he thought that by then the towers would be seen and the trees would become visible and the fowls would thus find in them a place to nest, and so he opened the window in order to send forth the raven. In the first month, which is the month of Tishri, the waters were dried up,¹³⁸Verse 13. and in the second month, which is the month of Marcheshvan, on the twenty-seventh day thereof, was the earth dry,¹⁴⁷Verse 14. and on that day they went out of the ark. Thus all calculations of the section are in accordance with the simple explanation of Scripture and its usual sense.
Know that after the Sages agreed that it was in the month of Tishri that the world was created¹⁴⁸In Tractate Rosh Hashana, 11 a, it is recorded that there was a difference of opinion on this matter. Rabbi Eliezer maintained that the world was created in Tishri while Rabbi Yehoshua taught that the world was created in the month of Nisan. The consensus of the Sages conformed with Rabbi Eliezer’s view (ibid., 27 a). This is the intent of Ramban’s saying here: “Know that after the sages agreed, etc.” See also Ramban further, 17:26. — as [is evidenced by the text of the prayer for the New Year which] they formulated, i.e., “This day, on which was the beginning of Thy work, is a memorial of the first day,” and by the fact that the Scriptural order of the seasons is seedtime and harvest, and cold and heat¹⁴⁹Further, Verse 22. Thus the winter precedes the summer. — that the beginning of the year is reckoned from Tishri. And so also were the months reckoned from Tishri until we reached the exodus from Egypt. Then the Holy One, blessed be He, commanded us to reckon the months according to another count, [namely, from the going forth from Egypt, which occurred in the month of Nisan], as it is said, This month shall be unto you the beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you.¹⁵⁰Exodus 12:2. Thenceforth in all of Scripture, Tishri is reckoned as the seventh month. But as far as the years are concerned, the reckoning from Tishri was still retained, as it is written, And the feast of ingathering at the turn of the year.¹⁵¹Ibid., 34:22. And so did Jonathan the son of Uziel¹⁵²A disciple of Rabbi Yochanan ben Zakkai and one of the early Tannaitic sages. He wrote a Targum or Aramaic version of the books of the Prophets. It is similar in scope to that of Onkelos on the Five Books of Moses. translate the verse, In the month of Eithanim which is the seventh month,¹⁵³I Kings 8:2. saying, “in the month which the ancients called the first month and which is now the seventh month.” And in the Mechilta we also find:¹⁵⁴Mechilta, Exodus 12:2. “This month [Nisan] shall be unto you. But the first man did not reckon by it; [he reckoned Tishri as the first month].”

והמים הלוך וחסור. The waters kept ebbing away. Part of the water retreated whereas part still flooded the earth until the tenth month.

והמים היו הלוך וחסור, the waters kept receding. This construction is not unique, as we encounter it in Ezekiel 1,34 והחיות רצוא ושוב.

והמים היו הלוך וחסור עד החודש העשירי בעשירי וגו', “and the waters had been in a steady retreat until the tenth month; on the tenth day of that month, etc.” This verse sounds like the kind of verse our sages describe as מסורס, “truncated,” and its meaning is that the waters had kept receding until the time when the tops of the mountains had become visible in the tenth month; the Torah informs us that during these 73 days the level of the water fell by 15 cubits. This contrasts with the first period during which the water level fell, as a result of which there occurred the landing of the ark on top of Mount Arrarat. We do not know how many cubits the water level had fallen then, nor do we know how deeply the ark had sat beneath the surface of the waters. It was of no concern to us. Personally, I believe that the fact that the ark was floating was due to the current created by the subterranean wells which had opened up. Had it not been for this, the extreme weight of the ark, caused by both the great number of passengers and the tremendous amount of food stored within it, would have resulted in the ark sitting pretty much in the same spot during all this time. As soon as the current of the subterranean wells subsided, and these waters had returned to their former habitat, and the wind which G’d had sent ceased, the ark, in accordance with the laws of physics, settled more deeply in the water and struck solid rock (foundered) on Mount Arrarat. Note that both according to our understanding and according to the understanding of our sages in the Midrash, as well as in accordance with the various commentators who have laboured over our chapter, Arrarat is one of the tallest mountains in the region, and the waters of the deluge covered its peak to a depth of at least 15 cubits. This “axiom” is difficult to comprehend, as according to general agreement Mount Olympus is considerably higher than Mount Arrarat. The Arrarat mountain range is located close to the valley within which Bagdad is situated. [modern cartographers give the height of Mount Olympus as 2917 meters, and that of Arrarat as 5122 meters. Ed.] Perhaps the Torah meant to tell us that prior to the 17th of the seventh month the ark was far more than 15 cubits above the tallest mountain, and that other higher mountain tops had been visible already before then but that by that time the waters had receded so much that even Mount Arrarat, though far lower, was already capable of arresting the movement of the ark. Noach had opened the window of the ark ever since the rains had stopped (after the first 40 days) closing it at will from time to time. After the 73 days when the ark had become stationary, Noach used the window to look out and observe what was happening around him. When he perceived the tops of high mountains all around him, he closed the window and waited for another 40 days before checking on his surroundings again. 40 days later he dispatched the raven. You will note that the Torah did not write “Noach opened the window, etc.,” but merely that this event occurred at the end of a period of 40 days. This is to tell us that the raven was dispatched 40 days after the tops of other mountains had become visible. Noach had hoped that enough time had elapsed to reveal the tops of the trees, (on mountains below the tree line) If correct, he thought to release the birds, as there would be a habitat available for them once more. The raven was released on the first of Tishrey when for the first time חרבה הארץ, the surface of the earth was earth instead of water, although the earth dried out sufficiently only in the second month. At that time (17th of Marcheshvan) Noach and his passengers left the ark at G’d’s command. There is a minor difficulty with Nachmanides’ description, in that he perceives the tops of the mountains having become visible before the first of the tenth month, seeing that the Torah writes specifically that these mountain tops became visible on the first of the month. Nachmanides’ saying that these words refer once more to Mount Arrarat is difficult to accept.

If you might say... Elul. Furthermore, we could not learn that the ark was immersed eleven amohs if “In the tenth, on the first of the month” means Elul. For from Sivan 1 until Elul 1 there are ninety days, thus the water receded one amoh every five or six days. Accordingly, the ark would have been immersed twelve and a third amohs.

עד החודש העשירי, this does not mean that during this month the waters had already receded completely; what happened was that the waters receded progressively until relatively low mountain tops became visible. The process continued further. The “tenth” month described was the month of Av, seeing it was the tenth, counting from the month of Marcheshvan when the rains had started falling.

“The tenth” can only be counted... For the ark did not come to rest until after the 40 days of rain and the 150 days of powerful waters were finished. And this was in Sivan, not in Iyar.

A total of sixty days from when the mountain peaks appeared... [You might ask: Why does it not total sixty-one? The answer is] that the forty days after [the mountains appeared] is counted from the very beginning of the forty days, producing thirty-nine full days [since one night is missing. See entries on v. 3]. With the twenty-one days of sending the dove, it makes sixty. Since Av and Elul together are only fifty-nine days, Rosh Chodesh Tishrei must be counted in the twenty-one days [of sending the dove.]

מקץ ארבעים יום AT THE END OF FORTY DAYS from when the tops of the mountains were seen.

ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום. It was at the end of a period of forty days. How did Noach know when the time had come to safely open the window? Was he not scared the surrounding waters would flood the ark? Perhaps G'd had told him that the deluge would not last longer than twelve months and he had prepared a food supply to last for that period of time.

ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום, these words refer to the end of forty days after the waters had begun to recede; personally, I feel that the period described dates back to the day when the ark had come to rest on Mount Ararat. How else would Noach have been able to determine that the waters had begun to recede, seeing that all around him there was only water? Once the ark had come to rest on Mount Ararat Noach could measure how much more of the mountain was becoming visible beneath the ark. Noach knew that the ark had come to rest on something solid. He then waited another 40 days to give the waters a chance to recede still further, before he saw any point in sending out a bird (raven) to determine if that bird could locate a tree which was exposed above the water.

ויהי מקץ ארבעים יום ויפתח נח את חלון התבה, “it was at the end of 40 days that Noach opened the window of the ark.” According to Rashi the meaning of the line is that this was 40 days after the tops of the mountains had become visible. If that were correct, we are hard pressed to understand why the dove did not find a resting place. Nachmanides writes concerning this that it is not the nature of the birds to seek out resting places in lofty mountains.

From when the mountain peaks appeared. We cannot count from when the ark rested, and say that “the tenth” means the tenth month from the rain’s ceasing, just as “the seventh” is the seventh month from when they ceased — and accordingly, the ark would be immersed twelve and a third amohs. [Because] if so, this verse should come earlier, rather than following: “The mountaintops became visible.” The Re’m asks: Why did the dove not find a place to rest, if it was sent forty-seven days after the mountain peaks appeared? This was only fourteen days before the water began to dry, and assumedly, all the high and low mountain peaks had appeared, as well as some tall trees, etc. It seems the answer is: Although the mountain peaks had appeared, the dove could not rest on the ground because the water had not begun to dry. And the high trees were uprooted and wiped out by the flood waters, as the Midrash implies.

את חלון התבה אשר עשה THE WINDOW OF THE ARK WHICH HE HAD MADE — for the light; it does not mean the door of the Ark intended for entry and exit.

את חלון התבה, the window of the ark which he had made before departure. The window described here as חלון is identical with what had been described by G’d as צוהר in 6,16. He sent the raven out from this widow. We may legitimately ask that if Noach knew the day on which the rains had stopped as we stated earlier, why did he not open the window of the ark immediately, seeing that no more rain was falling? We may answer that Noach was still worried that the turbulent waves surrounding the ark would come crashing through such an open window. This is why he waited another 40 days until such waves were much below the lower decks of the ark and posed no threat.

To the window. Meaning, this window was their light source.

And not the door... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it say before (6:16) “opening,” and here, “window?” He answers: “This is not the door...” Although Rashi on 6:16 brought two meanings for צוהר — “window” and “precious stone” — as he was in doubt, this verse implies it was a window. Some say that לצוהר means “for illumination,” similar to צהרים. Thus, Rashi is explaining that Noach opened the window which he had made for light, and not for entry and exit. You might ask: If so, [that the window provided light], why did he need the light of the precious stone? The answer is: It was needed for nights, and for the days when the window was closed. For it says, “Noach opened the window...” [implying that some days the window was closed]. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

יצא ושוב WENT FORTH TO AND FRO — It (the raven) flew in circles round and round the Ark and did not go on its errand for it suspected that he (Noah) intended to injure its mate, just as we learn in the Agada of Chelek (Sanhedrin 108b).

וישלח את העורב, to find out if the atmosphere had dried out after the tops of the mountains had become visible. Noach wanted to know if the atmosphere in the meanwhile was such that the raven could tolerate it.

וישלח את העורב. He sent away the raven. Why did Noach sent away the raven? If it was to examine if the waters had receded sufficiently, why does the Torah not mention this? If the Torah assumed that we could figure this out for ourseleves, why did the Torah mention the reason for Noach sending out the dove? What exactly is the meaning of: "it went to and fro until the water on the earth dried out?" If the meaning is that the raven could not find a place to rest outside the ark and that therefore it kept re-entering the ark and leaving anew, why was there a need to send out a dove altogether? Did not the raven's behaviour indicate that the waters had not yet eased sufficiently? What exactly does the Torah mean by the words עד יבשת המים? Furthermore, did Noach not have sufficient information once he sent out the dove? Why does the Torah not mention that Noach extended his hand to bring the raven back, just as it does in connection with the dove in verse 9?

וישלח, why did Noach send out the raven? He had said to himself that the raven is a flesh eating bird and will most likely find remains of dead animals to feed on. [our author understands the word עורב as referring to what is better known as the “black raven,” a type of vulture (corvus cornix) which feeds on carcasses. Ed.] If the bird would return with such remains in its beak, Noach would know that the waters had receded somewhat. The raven returned without anything in its beak, so that Noach did not learn anything new about the state of the waters. The raven returned to its nest, leaving from time to time to see if the situation outside the ark enabled it to survive on the outside. It carried on in this fashion until the surface of the earth had dried out. In Bereshit Rabbah 33,5 the sages view the fact that the raven was chosen as the experiment by Noach in a different light. The blackness of that bird is paraphrased in Psalms 105,28 where the psalmist writes שלח חשך ויחשיך, “he sent darkness and it became dark.” [a figure of speech, meaning that if one pins one’s hopes on something black, one is likely to receive darkness in return, i.e. not achieve one’s objective. Ed.] Seeing that this mission of the raven had proved totally unproductive, after waiting seven days, Noach sent out a pigeon. A pigeon is known to have a well developed sense of imagination and direction, finding its way back after having flown over a route only once or twice. It knows that it was dispatched for a purpose, i.e. to receive some information in return for having been dispatched [we know of carrier pigeons in our time, but if there had been such already in the days of Noach is highly speculative. Ed.] Moreover, it is in the character of pigeons to be attached to their home base, so that they can be depended on to return to their nest. When we have been told in Shabbat 49 that the wings of the pigeon protect it, the meaning is that seeing that the pigeons are being raised as carrier pigeons, transporting messages attached to its wings, the fact that their owners need them alive is their insurance against being slaughtered prematurely. Noach, in sending out the pigeon, was therefore convinced that the bird would return to the ark even if there were places on earth in the meantime where it could make its nest. ולא..ותשב אליו אל התבה, the Torah describes the return of the pigeon both as a return to Noach, i.e. אליו, and as a return to the ark, i.e. אל התבה. Why was the return of the pigeon described in such detail? It is first described as a return to Noach, seeing that the fact that it did not bring back any bit of vegetation indicated that it had been unable to find any, i.e. had not performed its mission and brought Noach information. Secondly, it did not re-enter the ark as the raven had done. It remained perched on the roof of the ark. It was unhappy at not having brought back some kind of message to Noach. This is why Noach stretched out his hand and brought it back into the ark. The amount of time that elapsed between the dispatch of the raven, and the dispatch of the pigeon, was seven days. How did we arrive at this information? ויחל עוד שבעת ימים אחרים, the addition of the word אחרים, “others,” proves that there had already been a waiting period of seven days

ויצא יצא ושוב, “it kept coming back;” Noach concluded at that point not to endanger the species of which only one pair was in the ark, and to dispatch birds of the “pure” species of which he had seven pairs each at his disposal.

Because it suspected him concerning his mate. Meaning: [Its suspicion was] concerning Noach’s mate — that [Noach and] his wife were having marital relations in the ark. This is because the raven cohabited in the ark, and one accuses another of his own flaw (Kiddushin 70b). Thus the raven, too, did not want to be separated from its mate. And this is the explanation in Sanhedrin 108b as well. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

יבשת המים. Die letzte Stufe ist יבשה הארץ , der Anfang: יבשת המים, dass schon hie und da etwas Trockenes im Wasser sichtbar wurde. Der Stufengang des Trockenwerdens ist durch die Ausdrücke: חרבו פני ,קלו מעל פני האדמה ,ויהסרו המים bezeichnet. Die Wasser nahmen ab, so dass zuerst die Bergspitzen יבשה הארץ ,האדמה sichtbar wurden; sie wurden dann nur noch zu einer leichten Schicht auf der Erdfläche; die Erdfläche ward trocken, es war kein Wasser mehr sichtbar; die Erde ward trocken, fest, ward יַבָשָה, erhielt ihre ursprüngliche Festigkeit wieder.

וישלח את העורב, “he dispatched the raven;” the reason Noach chose one of the impure birds for this mission, [although he could have chosen a pigeon of which he had seven pairs, Ed.] was that since that bird feeds on carcasses, the chances that it would find something to eat were far greater than if he had sent a pigeon which is more circumspect in what it chooses as its food. Do not question how Noach could have dispatched any creature from the ark seeing that at that time it was totally dark outside? While it is true that there was no sunshine or moonlight, and the light of the stars is insufficient to know thereby whether it is day or night, there was some light, as we know from when the Torah wrote in verse 5 that the mountain tops had become visible at the beginning of the tenth month. Furthermore, there is an opinion cited in B’reshit Rabbah 33,5, according to which light of sun and moon was usable, but was not usable by Noach for astronomical calculations. Unless this was so, how would Noach have been able to tell day from night?

עד יבשת המים UNTIL THE WATERS WERE DRIED UP—The real sense of the verse is what it plainly implies (until the waters of the Flood were dried up); but the Midrashic explanation (Genesis Rabbah 33:5) is: The raven went to and fro in the world being kept in readiness for another errand during the time when the rain was withheld and the waters dried up in the days of Elijah, as it is said, (1 Kings 17:6) “And the ravens brought him bread and flesh”.

ויצא יצוא ושוב, this proved that the atmosphere was not yet dry enough for the raven to tolerate it for any extended period of time.

During the time of Eliyahu. A hint to this [Midrashic explanation] is that the word יבֹשת is written without the ו, yielding the letters תשבי — a hint to אליהו התשבי. Furthermore, it is written “the water dried up” rather than “the earth dried up,” alluding to [the drought in] Eliyahu’s days. (Maharshal)

The entire verse must be understood in light of the aggadah (Sanhedrin 108) that the raven mated while in the ark and that Noach knew about it. This is why he expelled the raven from the ark as soon as he opened its window. This is why the Torah does not mention that the raven was despatched in order to examine the extent to which the waters had receded. The raven was forced to remain outside the ark though it tried to return to it. This situation continued until the waters on the earth had dried out. When Noach wanted to know how far the waters had receded he sent out the dove. He had not been able to find this out from the raven which he had expelled. The dove was willing to undertake the mission of relaying information to Noach. Initially, the dove reported that it had not been able to find a place to rest. As soon as Noach heard this he took the dove back into the ark with him. The detailed wording of verse 9 suggests that Noach made a special place in the ark for the dove. Later on Noach sent out the same dove a second time.

Noa entsendet zuerst den עורב, einen Vogel, der nicht die Gesellschaft des Menschen aufsucht; ערבה, die Wüste, ist seine Heimat. Kehrt der zurück, so muß es draußen noch ganz stättelos sein. Bei dem Raben heißt es wohl daher auch nicht: מאתו, "von sich", wie bei der Taube, die an seine Gesellschaft gewöhnt war, bei der es auch Raw Hirsch on Genesis 8: 9 bei der Wiederkehr heißt: ויקחה ויבא אותה אליו. Wenn die Taube nicht wiederkehrt, muss es bereits draußen ganz behaglich geworden sein.

ויצא יצוא ושוב, “it kept going back and forth;” Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish in Sanhedrin 108 claims that the raven accused Noach with an ironclad argument of hating it, else he would have used a bird of which there were seven species rather than endanger the species of the raven of which he had only a single pair. As a result, the raven did not fly far away from the ark to ensure it would find its way back, and could protect its mate if need be.

Our sages derived another lesson from the wording of this verse when they stated (Sanhedrin 108) that the raven used an ironclad argument when it accused both G'd and Noach of hating it. It said: "G'd hates me because only a single pair of my species has been allowed into the ark whereas the "pure" birds are represented by seven pairs. You hate me because you endangered me instead of one of the birds of which there are seven pairs." The raven went on to suspect Noach of personal motives in sending it on a mission so that Noach could have relations with its mate. Noach was very angry, telling the raven that since he refrained from having inter-course with is own wife in the ark he most certainly would not dream of mating with a species that was forbidden to him. According to this aggadah the raven refused to undertake the mission Noach wanted to assign to it for fear of its species becoming extinct should anything happen to it outside the ark. As a result, Noach had to send the dove on the mission originally planned for the raven. The raven's very fear and constant circling of the ark told Noach that the waters were still covering most of the earth. What Noach did not know was whether the water level on earth was already substantially lower. He sent out the dove to find out this information.

Until the water … dried up. See Rashi in the name of the Midrash. Since the raven is a callous creature it would not have been sent to bring glad tidings to the world. Rather, its real mission was to sustain Eliyahu in the desert so that he could bring famine to the world.

The deeper meaning of the aggadah depicting the raven's confrontation with Noach can be understood in terms of Psalms 69,27: "For they persecute those whom You have struck." Normally, those who have been persecuted can expect to encounter mercy and pity. The people who persecute Jews in exile heap more suffering on those already in unfortunate circumstances. This was basically the raven's argument against Noach when it said: "is it not enough that Your Master hates me, must you hate me also?" The raven continued: "if you are not motivated by hatred of me, do you have designs on my mate and wish me out of the way?" The raven implied that precisely because Noach was not allowed to have sexual relations with his wife in the ark, he might have reasoned that he could have relations with other species. There is no reason to question why the raven's mate should be different from any other female animal. The raven's argument applied to all female animals, but seeing the others remained under their mates' supervision Noach would not be able to carry out such a design unseen. Only the female raven would be unprotected during its mate's absence from the ark.

The raven may also have extrapolated from the very fact that it had been guilty of mating in the ark. It reasoned that the fact that Noach had seen this take place had aroused his instincts. Our sages have always claimed that watching something arouses one's greed and lust to possess the object one has watched. This is why the sages have been so careful to forbid looking at parts of the body. Noach was angry at the raven for having referred to G'd only as Noach's "Master," not it's own. This is why he called the raven "wicked." Concerning the suspicion that Noach had designs on the raven's mate, Noach retorted that seeing he had been able to restrain himself from sleeping with his own wife, something which was only a simple prohibition, he could certainly restrain himself from sleeping with the raven's mate, something that involved violating two prohibitions.

Another reason that prompted Noach to call the raven "wicked" in that aggadah is that Noach applied the principle כל הפוסל במומו פוסל, that "when someone accuses others of moral shortcomings, he usually accuses the outsider of a moral defect that he himself is guilty of" (Kidushin 70). Noach told the raven it could never have suspected him of what it did unless it was guilty of such misdemeanours itself. The reason the Talmud describes the raven's argument as ניצחת, ironclad, is that Noach could not answer why he had picked for this mission a bird of which there was only a single pair.

Another reason why Noach called the raven wicked could be that seeing it had impregnated its mate already, the species would not die out even if some accident were to befall the male raven on its mission. Its very wickedness therefore had made the raven the only expendable bird.

וישלח את היונה AND HE SENT FORTH A DOVE at the end of seven days, for it is written, (Genesis 8:10) “And he stayed yet other seven days” — from this statement you may infer that after the first occasion, also, he waited seven days.

וישלח את היונה, all of the seven pairs of pigeons [based on the latter ה in front of the word יונה. Ed.]

This does not refer to sending it on an errand... For שליחות is only [sending] someone with intelligence. Earlier (v. 7), [regarding the raven,] Rashi saw no need to explain this. For there it is written, “Going to and fro,” on which Rashi comments, “It flew around, circling the ark.” Clearly, this is not שליחות, therefore Rashi did not comment when Noach sent the raven. [The Kitzur Mizrachi explains differently:] Rashi did not [make this] comment regarding the raven because Rashi had the following question: Why did it not say about sending the raven, “To see if the water had subsided,” as it says about sending the dove? Apparently, because Noach did not send the raven to see if the water subsided! Rather, he drove it out to seek its own place because it [sinned and] cohabited in the ark. But Noach did not do this right after its misdeed, since the water still covered the earth, and driving it out then would make its species extinct. This also explains why Noach waited seven days before sending the dove. He should have sent it immediately, if the raven did not fulfill its errand! Perforce, Noach did not send the raven “to see” [if there still was water]. Accordingly, “He sent out the raven” is similar in meaning to, “Moshe sent his father-in-law off” (Shemos 18:27), and other verses, which do not mean sending to bring back a response. That is why Rashi did not make this comment [regarding the raven]. But with sending the dove, which Noach indeed sent “to see” [if there still was water], it appeared like a שליחות. [Thus, Rashi needed to comment.] (Kitzur Mizrachi) [Rashi knows that Noach sent the dove on its way] because it says מאתו, implying that it will no longer be “with him.” (Divrei Dovid)

וישלח, “he sent it off on a one way trip;” the dot in the letter ל is the proof that this is the correct interpretation. When someone is dispatched in order to report back, that letter never appears with such a dot.

וישלח And HE SENT FORTH — This does not mean merely “sending on an errand”, but “sending away”, “letting go” — he freed her to go where she liked, and thus he could see whether the waters abated, because if she could find a resting place she would not return to him.

לראות הקלו, if the atmosphere had improved they would build their nests in the mountains and high structures as is their custom.

AND THE DOVE FOUND NO REST. It is not customary for fowl to rest on the tops of the high mountains on the earth which are bare of trees and surely not when the waters were on the face of the whole earth. Therefore, the dove found no rest suitable for her. But as soon as she saw the trees she went her own way¹⁵⁵Verse 12. for in their branches she would build her nest.

כי מים על פני כל הארץ, even on the tops of the mountains which had become visible, everything was still thoroughly wet so that even there לא מצא מנוח לכף רגלו, it could not find a resting place for its foot.

וישלח ידו ויקחה ויבא אותה אל התבה. He extended his hand, took her (the dove) and brought her to him into the ark. The verse tells us that the dove was exhausted from its mission, not having found a place to land. Noach was worried that the dove did not have strength enough to enter the ark on her own and would fall into the water and drown.

ולא מצאה היונה מנוח, “but the dove did not find a place to rest the ball of its foot on.” Even though one of our sages holds that the deluge left the Land of Israel unaffected, the dove did not descend there on account of the heat. The giant Og took refuge in the vicinity of the ark as the immediate area around the ark was cooler than the atmosphere at large. The truth is that –as Nachmanides writes- that even though the deluge did not flood the Holy Land directly and the rains did not fall there, water from the surrounding countries flooded the Holy Land also, seeing that the Holy Land was not enclosed by a water-proof fence which could keep out the waters. The Biblical verse supporting the view that the waters of the deluge did not descend on the Holy Land, only speaks of ארץ מטוהרה לא גושמה ביום זעם, “a land which remained pure and did not experience destructive rain on the day of (G’d’s) anger.” (Ezekiel 22,24) The verse did not mention that no water penetrated the Holy Land during the deluge, only that it did not endure the rain, and that the subterranean wells did not gush forth from underneath it.

ויחל AND HE STAYED — The word means waiting, as (Job 29:21) “Unto me they gave ear and waited (ויחלו)”, and it occurs frequently in the Scriptures.

ויחל, the root of this word is חול, it is used in the transitive mode, הפעיל, similar to Judges 3,25 ויחולו עד בוש, “they waited a long time.”

ויחל. Wenn ויחל in der Bedeutung "warten" zu nehmen wäre, etwa zusammengezogen aus וַיִיָחֶל, oder wie ויחילו עד בוש (Richter 3, 25), welches letztere jedoch mehr ein Erwarten bedeutet, so wäre das עוד שבעת ימים אחרים ,,noch andere sieben Tage" nicht erklärt; denn es ist nicht erzählt, dass er schon einmal sieben Tage gewartet hätte. Vielleicht ist ויָחֶל Hiphil entweder von חלל, anfangen, oder von חול, eintreten, und es hieße: Noa ließ erst wiederum andere sieben Tage eintreten. Die Vernichtung war nämlich in eben solchen Perioden gekommen, erst sieben Tage und dann vierzig. Zwischen der zu vernichtenden Gegenwart und dem Beginn der Vernichtung verliefen sieben Tage, in denen nichts verändert ward, in ihnen lief die zu verändernde Gegenwart ab. So vielleicht auch hier bei dem Wiederübergang in die neu zu gestaltende Zukunft. Noa war inne geworden, dass Gott noch seiner gedachte, die Arche war zum Stillstand gekommen, und es waren die Spitzen der Berge sichtbar geworden. Noa aber öffnete noch nicht, er dachte, wie die Flut gekommen, so werde sie auch schwinden. Er wartete deshalb vierzig Tage. Es käm ihm jedoch zum Bewusstsein, es sei noch kein bewohnbarer Zustand vorhanden, er vermutete daher, dass, wie früher, auch jetzt zwischen der vollendeten Pause der Vernichtung und dem Eintritt der neuen Zeit erst wieder sieben Tage verstreichen müßten. "Er ließ daher erst wiederum so andere sieben Tage verstreichen." Solche Perioden von sieben Tagen zur Bezeichnung des völligen Ablaufs eines Zustandes vor dem Eintritt eines neuen, kennt später das Gesetz in טומאה וטהרה .usw

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.”

וייחל AND HE STAYED — This has the same meaning as ויחל (Genesis 8:10), only that the latter is the Kal, whereas the word here is the Hithpael: ויחל means “he waited” וייחל “he had patience”.

וייחל עוד, the word is in a passive mode, the root being יחל. If it had been in a hitpael mode, the letter י should have the vowel patach underneath it, but the fact is that it has the vowel kametz.

וייחל [means] he had forbearance. Rashi is saying that [the reflexive form וייחל was used because] the point was easy to understand without analysis: if the waters dried up in seven days, they will dry up more if Noach will wait another seven days. (Maharshal)

וַיִיָחֶל Niphal von חל׳, erwarten, auf etwas harren, eigentlich: der antizipierte Anfang von etwas, zur Unterscheidung von קוה, in welchem über den Eintritt des ersehnten Gegenstandes keine Meinung ausgedrückt ist, wovon man aber in יהל überzeugt ist. Der hier stehende Niphal, während sonst יהל nur im Piel und Hiphil vorkommt, ist nicht so vereinzelt, hat dann aber fast die entgegengesetzte Bedeutung. Jecheskeel 19, 5 ותרא ,כי נוחלה אבדה תקותה, sie sah sich in ihrer Erwartung getäuscht. Eine Analogie für diese den Begriff aufhebende Bedeutung des Niphal findet sich in: נהייתי נחלתי (Daniel 8. 17): ich bin in meinem Dasein gestört, gehemmt worden. תאוה נהיה eine überwundene Begierde. Demgemäß auch hier: Noa :(ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 8: 13. 19) hatte geglaubt, nach Ablauf der ersten sieben Tage bereits hinaus gehen zu können, fand sich jedoch in seiner Erwartung getäuscht, und ließ in dieser zurückgehaltenen Erwartung noch sieben Tage verstreichen.

ולא יספה שוב אליו עוד, this is when Noach realised that the surface of the earth had dried sufficiently and that the pigeon had found a resting place on earth as well as on many trees so that it did not bother to come back to him. This happened in the 601st year of Noach’s life, seeing that the Torah mentions that it was on the first of the first month of that year. (verse 13) Noach’s 600th year had been completed on the 30th of Ellul, and he had entered the 601st year of his life on the first of Tishrey, which is the first month of the year. On the 17th day of the second month he had completed a full year’s stay in the ark. Even though the surface of the earth was “dry” in the sense that it was no longer covered by water, it was still too muddy, and the surface was misleading, seeing that beneath the immediate surface it was soft, spongy. It was not yet ready for walking on without risking that one would break through a very thin veneer of dry earth. This is why G’d had not yet commanded him to leave the ark (until the 27th of that month) At that time, as testified by the word יבשה, the earth had dried sufficiently to make using it as one’s habitat a safe endeavour. Noach did not want to leave the ark until he had been commanded to do so by G’d. He knew that G’d would issue such a command, just as He had at the time commanded him to enter the ark.

בראשׂון IN THE FIRST MONTH — According to R. Eliezer this would be Tishri, and according to R. Joshua Nisan (Rosh Hashanah 11b).

ויסר נח את מכסה התבה, he had thought that the earth had already dried out completely only to find

[Began] to dry. It was still like mud, dry on the surface but soft underneath. Noach knew that Hashem would tell them when it was safe to go out.

ויהי באחת ושש מאות שנה בראשון באחד לחודש. It was inthe 601st year (of Noach’s life) on the first day of the first month; even a single day of a new year is referred to as the year just commencing.” (Compare Talmud Rosh Hashanah 10) A different explanation of the significance of this statement: in the 600th year of Noach’s life in the month of Iyar on the 17th of the month the deluge had commenced, and the rain lasted for 40 days and 40 nights, so that the rains ceased by the 28th day of Sivan. According to this interpretation the first month of the year is the month of Nissan. All the other months follow the same patterns according to the solar calendar. Each month is considered as having thirty days.

חרבו [THE WATERS] DRIED UP — It (the earth) had become like clay, for now its surface had become somewhat hardened.

והנה חרבה פני האדמה, that whereas there was a thin layer of earth above the water, the earth had not yet dried out thoroughly.

בשבעה ועשרים ON THE TWENTY-SEVENTH [OF THE MONTH] —The rain had begun to fall in the second month on the seventeenth day (Genesis 7:11): the ten days are those by which the solar year exceeds the lunar year; for the punishment of the generation of the Flood lasted a full (i.e. a solar) year (Genesis Rabbah 33:17).

ובחודש השני בשבעה ועשרים יום לחודש, this is the month of Marcheshvan Our sages (at the end of section 33 of Bereshit Rabbah say that these 10 days represent the 10 days which the solar year is longer than the lunar year.

יבשה WAS [THE EARTH] DRIED — It became hard as is its normal condition.

וידבר אלוקים אל נח לאמור, “G-d spoke to Noach for him to tell the members of his family;” this apparently repetitive statement is customary in the Torah; compare Exodus 6,10, or even more definitively, Leviticus 11,1;

’אתה ואשתך וגו THOU AND THY WIFE etc. — Husband and wife are mentioned together— now He allowed them to resume family life (Genesis Rabbah 34:8).

צא מן התבה אתה ואשתך. Leave the ark, you and your wife, etc. The wording was intended to permit Noach what had been forbidden to him while he was in the ark, namely normal relations with his wife. G'd also commanded all the other species to resume multiplying. G'd made this resumption of sexual relations dependent on Noach and the other species having left the ark. Even though the deluge was over, normalcy returned only after they all left the ark. All of this is indicated again by the report in the next verse that the males and the females exited from the ark separately. There was no point in telling us this except to teach us that the ark was not a home, but only a refuge.

וידבר ...צא מן התבה אתה ואשתך, in this verse, as opposed to the phraseology used when he was bidden to enter the ark, Noach and his wife were mentioned together, i.e. an indication that henceforth the mating of man and wife was once again permitted.

צא מן התבה, “leave the ark!” Noach was not willing to leave the ark without specific instructions from G’d.

צא מן התיבה אתה ואשתך, “leave the ark, you and your wife, etc;” when you check the text you will find that Noach did not follow G-d’s instructions precisely, as in verse 18 the Torah reports that Noach did not leave the ark at the same time as his wife, but he left in the company of his sons. According to an argument between Rabbi Nechemyah and Rabbi Yehudah, according to one Noach was punished for not taking advantage of living with his wife again immediately and siring more children by being debased and castrated in his wife’s tent. (B’reshit Rabbah 35,1) The other Rabbi disagrees, claiming that he was rewarded, seeing that he proved more chaste than even commanded, by not immediately indulging in sex with his wife so that G-d spoke to both him and his children in 9,1.

הוצא BRING FORTH — The Ketib is הוצא and the Keri היצא — ;היצא means, “tell them to go forth”, הוצא means, ‘‘if they do not wish (if they refuse) to go forth, you make them go out”.

כל החיה, a general clause followed by a specific clause. The meaning of the expression כל החיה is “all the living creatures,” as in מכל בשר on a previous occasion, whereas the meaning of the words later on in 9,10 is the same. The verse speaks about the life-force {abstract, i.e. נפש החיה, often equated in the Torah with the life-blood, Ed.] hence the prefixes ב before the words עוף, בהמה כל הרמש.

But it is read היצא. Meaning, even without the ו it may be read הוצא. For the ו is the [sometimes] absent first letter of the three letter root (in place of the י of יצא). Thus, Rashi says it is read with a י, because the י and ו are interchangeable, yielding היוצא. (Maharshal) [Rashi knows this because] היצא means Noach should cause them to leave by themselves, whereas הוצא means he should remove them himself. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

הַיְצֵא. Während הוצֵא: führe sie hinaus, hieße, heißt הַיְצֵא: gib ihnen die Erlaubnis hinauszugehen. In der Form הוצֵא ist die Tätigkeit des Hinausgehenden ganz gegen die des Hinausführenden zurückgetreten, er ist ganz passiRaw Hirsch on Genesis 8: In הַיְצֵא ist die Tätigkeit des Hinausgehenden selbständig erhalten. Gib ihnen nur die Erlaubnis, so gehen sie von selbst hinaus. Das ganze Aufatmen der aus dem unnatürlichen Aufenthalt in der Arche in die freie Luft Tretenden liegt in dem: הַיְצֵא.

הוצא אתך, this word is to be read as if it had been spelled: “היצא!” “Take out!”

ושרצו בארץ THAT THEY MAY BRING FORTH ABUNDANTLY IN THE EARTH but not in the Ark: this teaches that cattle and fowls also were separated, male and female, in the Ark (Genesis Rabbah 34:8).

הוצא, the letter ו in the middle instead of the letter י is not unusual in verbs whose first root letter is supplanted by the letter ו. Nonetheless the ו is read as if it were a י. We have a similar construction in Psalms 5,9 הישר לפני דרכך, which is spelled הושר, “make Your way straight before me.” Proverbs 4,25 יישירו נגדך is another such example. The meaning of the instruction is: “take them out just as you have brought them in!”

ושרצו בארץ, a duplication of the blessing/command after the living creatures had been created (Genesis 1,22. The reason why this time G’d uses the word שרץ previously applied to the multiple births by fish, (1,20) is because this time only a very few of each species left the ark so that they needed the encouragement by being told they would once more be very numerous.
ושרצו ופרו ורבו, this is a most unusual sequence, beginning with the word שרצו, implying the very least individuality, switching to relative individuality by the use of the word פרו, implying single births, and ending with the word רבו implying single births at frequent intervals (compare our comments in chapter 1 20 and 28 on the meaning of these terms. In Bereshit Rabbah 34,8 the emphasis in this verse is on the word בארץ, meaning that whereas it had been forbidden to engage in reproduction while in the ark, now this could all be made up for.

ויצא נח, the fact that the Torah, in this verse, separates the females from the males, may hint that the females were afraid to leave the ark until after the males had left and assured themselves and them that it was possible again to live outside the ark.

ויצא נח ובניו, “Noach and his sons left the ark, etc.” Some commentators claim that although marital relations between the sexes had been permitted again, the manner in which the Torah writes the males exiting from the ark as if in a group is revealing. On the other hand, the Talmud in Sanhedrin 108 states that there were three creatures which violated the prohibition of sexual relations during their stay in the ark: the dog, the raven and Noach’s son Cham. All of them were punished for their misconduct. The dog is tied by a chain or leash to its owner. The raven is forced to spit after indulging in mating, and Cham’s skin, or that of his offspring, turned black.

למשפחתיהם AFTER THEIR FAMILIES — They took upon themselves to keep to their specie.

כל החיה, as we explained on verse 17. הרמש וכל העוף, followed by כל הרומש על הארץ, including both the domesticated animals and the free-roaming beasts.

למשפחותיהם יצאו מן התבה, “they left the ark according to their respective families.” In Sanhedin 108 this is understood as למשפחותיהם ולא הם.This statement is not elaborated on there. [The simplest interpretation is that only those animals capable of reproducing left the ark; any animal which was sterile did not live on after the deluge for any length of time. Some commentators believe that whereas the animals left the ark without awaiting instructions from either Noach or G’d, Noach and family awaited such instructions. Noach demanded a promise from G’d that He would not again bring a flood upon the earth. Still other commentators view the word למשפחותיהם here as a hint that the animals undertook henceforth to mate only with their own species.

They accepted... Rashi is answering the question: No beast or bird remained in the world. How could they go to their families? Thus Rashi explains that they accepted to keep to their own species, i.e., to be a family. And this is what R. Yochanan meant when he said (Sanhedrin 108b), “According to their families, but not they themselves.” (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

למשפחתיהם, beim Hinausgehen wird noch einmal das große למיניהם- Gesetz der lebendigen organischen Welt als Geleit gegeben. — משפחה, Wurzel שפח, verwandt mit צבא ,סבא ,שפה ,ספה ,ספח ,שבע ,שבע ,שפע, usw. die alle eine Fülle, eine Ansammlung vieler zu einer Masse bedeuten. (In Parenthese sei bemerkt, wie die dasjenige Individuum, welches in der nichtjüdischen Anschauung auf der tiefsten ,שפחה sozialen Stufe steht, nach jüdischer, in ihrer Benennung ausgedrückter Anschauung, als Mitglied in die Familie gehoben wird.)

למשפחותיהם יצאו מן התבה, “they left the ark as families.” On the face of it this sounds incredible; the Torah wishes to tell us that the animals which prior to the deluge had mated only with members of their own species were rewarded by being able to continue to do so. This was also why these pairs had seen fit to enter the ark together in the first place.

למשפחותיהם, according to their species, every species separately.

מכל הבהמה הטהרה OF ALL CLEAN CATTLE — He said: “The Holy One, blessed be He, ordered me to take in seven pairs of these only in order that I might offer a sacrifice of them” (Genesis Rabbah 34:9).

ויבן נח, at the very site where he had come out of the ark. It is possible that he left the ark on Mount Ararat, where the ark had been reported as coming to rest (7,2), or that the ark had moved away from there after having come to rest there temporarily. Or, Noach, after exiting from the ark walked a distance before he found a suitable site or cave to establish a temporary residence. As soon as he found a place to start farming, he built an altar to thank G’d for his and his family’s deliverance. According to Bereshit Rabbah 34,9 this was the great altar in Jerusalem where Adam had brought his offering, and this is what Psalms 69,32 refers to when David speaks of ותיטיב לה' משור פר מקרין מפריס, “which will please the Lord more than oxen, bulls with horns, and hooves.”

ויבן נח מזבח לה’, “Noach built an altar for the Lord, etc.” Noach’s thinking when offering sacrifices was in an ascending manner. First, he built an altar on earth, addressing himself to G-d as the attribute of Mercy, hence the word לה’. From this attribute of Mercy, he proceeded to ויעל עלת, “he raised total-offerings on top of that altar.” Although the word עולות for total-offerings is read as a plural, it is spelled without the letters ו, i.e. as if it were a singular. This indicated his intent to elevate himself spiritually by means of the sacrifices. The animal was to take his place symbolically when the smoke of its flesh rose heavenwards. Isaiah 60,7 where the prophet, quoting G-d, exclaims יעלו על רצון מזבחי ובית תפארתי אפאר, “they will ascend on high achieving goodwill associated with My altar and I will glorify even further My glorious House,” is similar. [We would have expected the prophet to write יעלו לרצון על מזבחי, “they will ascend on My altar to achieve goodwill, etc.” The change in the wording indicates that the person offering the sacrifice wanted to achieve a spiritual union with Him [Who is “above,” Ed.]. We find such a concept even with Manoach in Judges. He had not even bothered to build an altar [it was forbidden at that time to build private altars, Ed.], but the prophet described the ascent of his sacrifice from a spiritual point located as higher than the altar i.e. מעל המזבח, “from above the altar” (Judges 13,20). Subsequently, that same sacrifice is described as reaching heaven. At that point the angel is depicted as “taking a ride in the flame and ascending” (to heaven? also). The word להב in Judges may be understood as connected to לב, heart. In other words, the heart was the medium which enabled the sacrifice and what it stood for to reach heaven. This explains G-d’s reaction which is described here in the words וירח את ריח הניחח, “G-d’s bounty which originates in the celestial regions was drawn “downwards”. At that point G-d said אל לבו, to the attribute of Justice, “I will not continue ever to allow My attribute of Justice to curse the earth because of man, i.e. “because I have discovered something positive in man.”

To sacrifice... The Re’m writes that Rashi is explaining how Noach knew he should bring sacrifices, although there was no such command from Hashem. Rashi explains that Noach reasoned: “Hashem would not have commanded me to take in seven of each...” But if it is as the Re’m explained, Rashi should have explained this on, “Noach built an altar,” or on, “And brought up burnt-offerings on the altar.” Thus it seems to me [to explain differently.] Noach knew on his own to bring offerings to Hashem, just as Hevel brought offerings for the goodness he received from Hashem. Surely Noach should bring offerings as thanksgiving, since he was saved from the Flood, and “four people need to offer thanks: Seafarers...” (Berachos 54b) Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why did Noach bring a burntoffering from each and every clean animal and bird? Was it not enough to bring for himself, his wife, his sons and their wives? Why did he bring from all the species? Rashi answers: “He thought: Hashem would not have commanded me to take in seven of each...” This answers the difficulties raised by the Re’m.

Wenn es etwas gibt, wodurch die hohe Bedeutsamkeit der Opfer zu Tage tritt, und die Wahrheitswidrigkeit aller den Begriff derselben herabwürdigenden Vorstellungen dokumentiert, so ist es diese Stelle, in welcher uns zuerst מזבח und עולות vorgeführt werden.

ויעל עולות, “he offered burnt offerings.” He acted similar to the sailors in the story of Jonah, who after having been saved from a great storm and returned to dry land, immediately offered offerings to G-d for their deliverance. (Jonah 2,16). We learn from here that anyone who has been miraculously saved from dangers beyond his control is expected to offer tangible thanksgiving offerings.

ויקח מכל הבהמה הטהורה, the free roaming beasts which chewed the cud and had split hooves were included in the expression מכל הבהמה הטהורה as an expression of gratitude for his survival. He did not take any of the ritually impure beasts as they were not fit for him to eat from except if there would not be any other meat available. (compare our comments on 7,2) If they were not fit for human consumption, how could one offer them for consumption by G’d on His altar?

Ein ganzes Jahr hatte Noa alle seine Tätigkeit auf die Erhaltung der Tiere zu richten gehabt, und nun, im ersten Momente der Rettung, opfert er sie! Und diese Opferung erhält hier eine so unendliche, welthistorische Bedeutung, dass in den folgenden Versen 21 und 22, ausdrücklich als Folge dieser Opfer, gleichsam als Antwort darauf — וירח ה׳ וגו׳ ויאמר ד׳ אל לבו וגו׳ — die ganze Entwickelung der Erde und der Menschheit bis auf den heutigen Tag festgestellt wird! Was war nun wohl durch Noas Altarbauen und m^^-Darbringen ausgesprochen, worauf eine solche Welt erhaltende und ihre Entwicklung begründende Gottesbestimmung folgen konnte? Es tritt an vielen Stellen klar hervor, dass מזבה eine vom Menschen gebaute Erhebung der Erde zur Höhe bedeutet, so dass in Jecheskeel der מזבח geradezu: הראל, Gottesberg genannt wird. Ja, es ist sehr wahrscheinlich, dass der מזבה im מקדש nichts als eine Vergegenwärtigung des Sinai ist, auf dessen Gipfel das אש המערכה dem אש אוכלה בראש ההר entspricht. So heißt es Psalm 68. אדנ׳בם סיני בקדש, "da trat Gott aus den Himmelshöhen in den engen Kreis der Menschen, Gott im Volke und sein Berg im Heiligtume"; so dass die Stelle in עולת תמיד העשויה בהר סיני :פ׳ התמיד mit ziemlicher Wahrscheinlichkeit dasselbe bedeutet. Charakteristisch ist es dazu, dass das jüdische Gesetzesheiligtum auch dadurch von den Begriffen der Noachiden sich scheidet, dass der Altar, auf dem wir opfern durften, nur ein מזכח, nur aus mehreren Steinen gebaut, nicht aber מצבה, nicht aus einem Stein, wie ihn die Natur darbietet, sein durfte. Wir mußten den Altar bauen, er durfte auch nicht על גבי כיפין ועמודים, nicht auf Bogen und Säulen stehen, mußte מחובר באדמה, mußte מזבח אדמה sein, sich als Fortsetzung der Erde darstellen. Nur so spricht sich der Altar als Erhebung der Erde durch Menschentätigkeit zu Gott aus. Einen Stein nehmen und darauf opfern, hieße auf dem Standpunkt der Natur bleiben; während der gebaute מזבח ausspricht: über diesen Standpunkt der Natur sich erst schöpferisch zu dem göttlich freien Menschenstandpunkt erheben und auf diesem zu Gott aufstreben. Indem also Noa auf der neugeschenkten Erde Gott einen Altar baute, weihte er als Stammvater der Zukunft die neugeschenkte Erde zu einer Stätte, auf welcher die künftige Menschentat Stein zu Stein fügen solle, bis einst die ganze Erde ein heiliger Gottesberg geworden!

במזבח, “on the altar.” This is a reference to the altar on which Kayin and Hevel had presented their respective offerings.

ויעל עולות במזבח, there is a disagreement among our sages if Noach only offered burnt-offerings or if he also offered peace-offerings, i.e. offerings part of which may be eaten by the owners. (Zevachim 116)

Wenn andere Völker ihrer Gottheit näher traten und treten, so treten sie hinaus außerhalb des Menschenkreises, glauben Gott in der Natur näher zu finden. Freilich ist Gott auch dort zu finden, aber noch viel näher ist er mit seiner Herrlichkeit im Kreise des reinen Menschenlebens. Dort offenbart sich seine Allmacht, hier seine Liebe. Darum ist der מזבח der geweihtere Altar, in Vergleich zu dem von der Natur als מצבה dargereichten Stein. Dieser Gedanke ist ein dem jüdischen Gesetzesheiligtum so wesentlicher, dass in dem ganzen Umkreise des Altars kein Baum, und an dem ihn umschließenden Gebäude kein an einen Baum erinnernder Balken sichtbar sein durfte.

dasjenige Töten, das nicht die Absicht der Vernichtung, sondern ,זבה :Wurzel ,מזבח der Nahrung hat; זבח, heißt ganz eigentlich: Mahl, und ist lautverwandt mit סבא ,שבע usw. die alle eine Fülle, eine Sättigung bedeuten. Das Opfer wird ja überhaupt als "Mahl" gefasst, es ist ׳לחם אשה ד, Nahrung des göttlichen Feuers auf Erden. Der Opfernde gibt sich hin, um die Flamme des göttlichen Lichtes auf Erden leuchten zu lassen.

Es wird ferner Gott beim Opfer immer ׳ה, nie ׳אלקי bezeichnet, gewiss zunächst, wie schon die Weisen bemerken, um auch den letzten Schein einer Verwechslung mit den nichtjüdischen Opfern zu vermeiden, die blinden Naturmächten dargebracht wurden. Der Name tritt aber auch zugleich jener blasphemierenden Ansicht schlagend entgegen, die in dem ה׳ Opfer nichts als Tötung und Vernichtung erblickt, darin die "blutige" Befriedigung einer rachevollen Gottheit sieht und in ihrer schmalstirnigen Beschränktheit jubelt, dass wir gottlob keine Opfer mehr bringen und gottlob schon so erleuchtet sind zu wissen, dass Gott mit dem Blute der Opfer nicht gedient sei!! Denen steht mit niederschlagender Abwehr der Name ה׳ beim Opfer entgegen, dem auch hier Noa den Altar baut, und den ja auch die Stirne des jüdischen Hohenpriesters, jeder unlauteren Trübung des reinen Opfergedankens abwehrend, entgegentrug. לה׳, also gerade auf diejenige Gotteswaltung blicken unsere Opfer hin, die nicht die Vernichtung will, sondern das Leben, ja, von der eben das Leben und alle Zukunft kommt, die in jedem Augenblick bereit ist, neues Leben, neue Kraft und eine neue Zukunft zu spenden; man tötet sich, um von Gott Leben zu gewinnen, man gibt sich auf und Gott hin, um von Gott, geheiligt und geweiht, in den Kreis des göttlichen Lebens auf Erden gehoben zu werden. Da ist nichts von blutiger Dahingebung an einen zornglühenden Rachegott. Da ist Heiligung jedes Pulsschlages, jeder Nervenregung und jeder Muskelkraft an Gott und an seines heiligen Willens Vollbringung. Opfern heißt: Eingehen in das göttliche ewige Leben. Nicht das Tier, sich opfert der Opfernde im Tier. Wenn wir es hinführen, uns mit unseren Händen darauf stützen, es töten, sein Blut aufnehmen und sprengen lassen, sein Haupt, seine Füße, Brust und Leib usw. dem Feuer übergeben lassen, so geben wir unser Blut, unser Haupt, unsere Muskelkraft dem Göttlichen hin, gehen wir völlig auf in die alles überwältigende Kraft des göttlichen Willens, den Er für uns in der תורה niedergelegt.

Noa brachte עולות. Kains und Hebels Opfer waren מנחות, Huldigungsgaben, Anerkennungsopfer; עולות aber stehen in dem Begriff der Tatenweihe. עלה: hinaufsteigen, sich entwickeln, daher עלה, das Blatt. עולה ist מכפר על עשה, soll die zu träg gebliebene Tatkraft zur pflichtgetreuen Tätigkeit wecken, soll sie spornen לעלות fortzuschreiten, hinanzustreben zu der als Ziel und Bestimmung winkenden Höhe. Während חטאת das durch Leichtsinn verscherzte Beharren auf der eingenommenen sittlichen Höhe lehrt, auf welche daher der Finger des Priesters das Blut בנתינה על קרנות המזבת an die Höhe des Altars hinweist, steht beim עולה der Priester mit dem Blute von ferne, wirft es aus der Ferne an die untere Hälfte des Altars, und sagt damit dem Opferbringenden, der aus Trägheit oder Dünkel durch Unthätigkeit gesündigt: du stehst noch ferne, noch nicht einmal בתחתית ההר, geschweige denn auf der Höhe deiner Bestimmung, und hast daher alle deine Lebenskraft zusammen zu nehmen, um sie energievoll zu der Höhe deiner Bestimmung hinan- und hinauf zu richten.

Alle diese Sätze bedürfen der näheren Begründung und weiteren Ausführung, die aber unseren Betrachtungen zu den פ׳ הקרבנות, s.G.w. vorbehalten bleiben müssen. Hier waren sie nur insofern heranzubringen, um einen Standpunkt zur richtigen Würdigung der Opfer Noas zu gewinnen.

Wenn Noa auf der wiedergeschenkten Erde Gott einen Altar baute und darauf -darbrachte: so weihte er damit die Erde zu einer Stätte eines zu Gott empor עולות strebenden Menschenbaus, der Stein zu Stein fügen solle, bis die ganze Erde zu einem Gottesberge werde, auf welchem die Menschheit mit Dahingebung aller ihrer Kräfte zu der Höhe ihrer Gott dienenden Bestimmung in ewigem Fortschritt emporstrebe.

Er nahm zu diesem Opfer von allen reinen Tieren und Vögeln. Wir haben schon oben bemerkt, wie auch den Noachiden nur reine Tiere zum Opfer dienten und glaubten das Motiv darin zu finden, dass diese vermöge ihres Naturells sich mehr zu Repräsentanten von Menschenpersönlichkeiten eignen. In der Tat sehen wir auch in den späteren Opfergesetzen die Opfertiere, je nach der zu repräsentirenden Persönlichkeit, verschieden bestimmt, sowohl nach Art, als Geschlecht; כהיג und "שעיר ננשיא זפר :סנהדרין שעירה :הדיוט oder כבש נקבה Wenn daher dieses Menschheitzukunftsopfer von .1.1.19 allen reinen Tieren gebracht wurde, so dürfte damit der Gedanke noch die Nuance erhalten: auf dieser zum Gottesaltar sich erhebenden Erde sollen, so verschieden sich auch die Menschenpersönlichkeiten im Laufe der Entwicklung gestalten, Alle עולות במזבח werden.

. מנעריו FROM HIS YOUTH — This word is written without a Vav after the ע so that it may be read as מנעריו which would imply that from the moment the embryo bestirs itself to have an independent existence the evil inclination is given to it (Genesis Rabbah 34:10).

AND THE ETERNAL SAID IN HIS HEART. He did not reveal the matter to a prophet at that time, but on the day He commanded Moses concerning the writing of the Torah He revealed to him that as Noah brought his sacrifice it mounted pleasingly, and He decreed that He will no more smite every living thing. In this regard, I have already written of a secret¹⁷⁷See Ramban above, 6:6. hinted at by our Rabbis.
The sense of the expression, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake is that they were punished because of him for if man had not sinned, they have been spared even though they had also corrupted their ways.

את ריח הניחוח, proving that at that time all these species of ritually pure animals were fit as sacrifices.

'וירח ה, the Torah uses a figure of speech to facilitate our understanding of G’d’s reaction, seeing that G’d has no nose and therefore cannot smell in the accepted sense of the word. When in Psalms 50,13 the psalmist speaks of G’d asking if He would “eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of he goats,” this is also a figure of speech, of course. David most certainly did not suggest that such a thing were possible in the literal meaning of the words. The meaning of such phrases is that the offerings were pleasing to G’d as if, if we had been speaking of human beings, they smelled good and tasted good. The proof that G’d had accepted the offering and was well disposed toward all His creatures was the fire which descended from heaven and consumed the offerings. This is what David referred to in Psalms 104,31 when he described G’d as ישמח ה' במעשיו, “that the Lord took pleasure in His creatures,” as opposed to Genesis 6,7 when we were told ויתעצב ה' אל לבו, “that the Lord was saddened in His heart.”

ויאמר ה' אל לבו, “The Lord said to Himself, etc.” According to Nachmanides this strange formulation simply means that G’d did not reveal His thoughts to anyone at that time. Only when Moses received the Torah, did G’d reveal what His thoughts had been at the time. He had not revealed to Noach what precisely His reaction had been to Noach’s sacrifice, i.e. that on account of it He would not again use the deluge as a means to punish mankind.

The expression is repeated, as an oath. We cannot say that one expression of “Never again” refers to the destroying of three handbreadths’ depth of the ground, and the other expression of “Never again” refers to the smiting of every living thing. For both could be included in one phrase: “Never again will I curse the ground or smite every living thing.” Perforce, “Never again” is repeated to serve as an oath. This seems preferable to Re’m’s explanation, that [one expression of] “Never again will I curse” refers to destroying the three handbreadths’ depth of the ground as well as the smiting of every living thing — and perforce, the expression is repeated to serve as an oath.

ניחוח .ריח הניחוח ist Substantiv von נוח, wie ניצוץ von נוץ, und kommt außer in dieser Verbindung nicht vor. נוח ist die zur Ruhe gekommene Bewegung, und wird daher הנים, eigentlich: zur Ruhe bringen, Ruhe gewähren, auch für die Gewährung eines Wunsches, Befriedigung gewähren, gebraucht; so יסר בנך ויניחך/ (Pro9. 29) פני ילכו והנחתי לך iNie aber kommt die Rad. .(2. B. M. 33) נוח i,in dieser Bedeutung für die Gewährung eines sinnlichen Genusses vor wie es doch sein müßte, wenn ריח ניחוח "ein angenehmer Geruch" bedeuten sollte. Ein einziges Mal heißt es: ונחת שלחנך מלא דשן (Job 36, 16). Allein auch da, und gerade da dürfte es ebenfalls nur Ausdruck für die geistige Befriedigung sein. Es heißt dort: "Und hätte dich Gott auch aller Not entrückt, dein Wohlstand entbehrte doch des festen Grundes, wenn auch die Befriedigung, die dir dein Tisch gewährt, die Fülle des Überflusses wäre; sobald du die Schuld des Schuldigen erfüllt, müssen Schuld und Verhängnis sich die Hände reichen". Es unterliegt demnach keinem Zweifel, dass die substantivische Pielform: ניחוח die Befriedigung der Wünsche, des Strebens eines Andern bedeutet. ריח ניחוח hieße also: der Geruch der Befriedigung, der Willenserfüllung, nicht dass der Geruch an sich angenehm wäre. — ריח rad. רוח: Wind. Erwägen wir die Erscheinung, dass רחים die Mühle bedeutet, so ergiebt sich, dass ריח nicht zunächst die Sinnestätigkeit des Riechens, sondern die Eigenschaft des den Duft verbreitenden Gegenstandes bedeutet. Die Mühle ist ja ein Werkzeug, um einen Gegenstand möglichst fein zu pulverisieren. הריח heißt daher riechen, weil mit dem Geruch die feinsten Teilchen eines Gegenstandes aufgenommen werden. Nur dasjenige gewährt Geruch, wovon sich feinste Teile ätherisch verflüchtigen. Geruch ist derjenige Sinn, mit welchem feinste Teilchen ferner Gegenstände in unmittelbare Berührung kommen. Während der Geschmack- und Tastsinn nur die Gegenstände selbst in unmittelbarer Berührung wahrnehmen, Gehör und Gesicht nur Wirkungen von den durchaus fernbleibenden Gegenständen empfinden, steht der Geruchsinn in der Mitte. Die Gegenstände bleiben fern wie beim Gehör und Gesicht; allein Teilchen von ihnen müssen den Sinn berühren, wie beim Geschmack- und Tastsinn. Daher wird ריח, der Geruch, auch von den leisesten Wahrnehmungen gebraucht: מריח מים יפריח (Job 14. 19) vom "Geruch" des Wassers blüht die abgestorbene Pflanze wieder auf; מרחוק יריח מלחמה das Roß "riecht" von ferne den Krieg. Bedeutet somit ריח allgemein: Wahrnehmung leisester Äußerung, so wäre das Opfer als ריח ניחוח, ein leiser, nur andeutender Ausdruck der Will- fahrung des göttlichen Willens, ein leiser, nur andeutender Ausdruck, dass wir Gottes Willen erfüllen wollen. Das Opfer ist nicht schon selbst ניהוח, die Willfahrung, sondern ריח ניחוח, eine Andeutung der Willensbefriedigung, die Gott an unserem Leben finden soll, eine Andeutung unserer Willfährigkeit. dass der Begriff ריח mit dem Begriff ניחוח nicht in eins zusammenfällt, ersehen wir aus den sechs AnForderungen, die an das Opfer gestellt sind (Sebachim 46.b.) לשם ששה דברים ,הזבח לשם הנחת רוח, .d.i ,לשם ניחוח :und, davon getrennt ,נזבח לשם זבח וכוי לשם ריח siehe daselbst.

ויאמר ה' אל לבו, “the Lord said to Himself, etc.,” Prior to the deluge (Genesis 6,6) the Lord had seen fit to feel saddened in His heart; now He felt greatly encouraged about the human species He had created.[Noach could have drawn comparisons between the chaos he faced in spite of having lived a blameless life for 600 years, with the Gan Eden into which Adam had been placed without his having done anything to merit this. Instead, he was grateful. Ed.] לא אוסיף, “I will not continue, etc;” according to the plain meaning of the text, i.e. the additional, apparently superfluous word: עוד, again, further, the first word refers to the earth, whereas the second word refers to the living creatures on it. If we needed proof of this, it can be found in Genesis 9,12).

לא אסף… ולא אסף I WILL NEVER AGAIN … NEITHER WILL I EVER AGAIN — He repeated the expression that it might serve as a solemn oath, and it is to this that the text (Isaiah 54:9) refers: “For as I have sworn that the waters of Noah [will never again pass over the earth]”. We, however, do not find any explicit oath regarding this, but this passage in which He repeated these words, which may be regarded as an oath. Thus do our Sages explain in Treatise Shevuot 36a.

FOR THE IMAGINATION OF MAN’s HEART IS EVIL FROM HIS YOUTH. He ascribes merit to men because by their very creation they have an evil nature in their youthful days but not in their mature years. If so, for these two reasons,¹⁷⁸First, that by his very creation, man’s heart is evil, and second, that this evil persists only when he is young but not when he matures. Therefore, for these two reasons it is not proper that every living thing be smitten on account of man. it is not proper to smite every living thing. The reason for the prefix mem [which signifies “from” in the word] min’urav (from his youth) is to indicate that the evil imagination is with men from the very beginning of their youth, just as the Rabbis have said:¹⁷⁹Bereshith Rabbah 34:12. “From the moment he awakes to go forth from his mother’s womb the evil impulse is placed in him.” It is possible that the verse is saying that it is from youth — meaning, on account of youth — that the evil inclination is in man, for youth causes him to sin. And some say¹⁸⁰I have not identified the source of this opinion. that it is as if it said “in his youth,” [min’urav being interpreted as if it were bin’urav]. Similarly we find ‘Miterem’ (Before) a stone was laid upon a stone in the temple of the Eternal,¹⁸¹Haggai 2:15. [where the word miterem is interpreted as beterem]; so too, This is the land which ye shall divide ‘minachlah’ (by lot) unto the tribes of Israel,¹⁸²Ezekiel 48:29. [where minachlah is interpreted as benachlah].

In His heart. He did not reveal this resolution to Noach and his sons until after they had accepted His commandments and He established His covenant with them.

את ריח הניחוח, a noun belonging to the same category as ניצוץ in Isaiah 1,31 meaning that Noach had succeeded in calming down G’d’s anger at the world, (His creatures).

בעבור האדם, “because of man.” The earth had only been cursed on account of original man. Had Adam not sinned, his descendants, despite their corruption, would not have had to endure a deluge.

That is... the verse: “That I have sworn ... The Re’m asks: Why does Rashi not bring the verse written in this passage as his proof that it was repeated as an oath? For it says (9:11): “I will keep My ברית with you”, implying that Hashem already made a ברית, and now wishes to establish it. Why did Rashi need a verse from the Prophets, “That I have sworn...,” to prove this? The Re’m left this unanswered, but perhaps the answer is: The term ברית implies only a promise, not an oath. Thus, Rashi had to prove it from, “That I have sworn...,” which clearly implies that the repetition constitutes an oath.

ויאמר השם אל לבו לא אוסיף עוד לקלל G'd said to His heart: "I will not continue to curse, etc." Why does G'd use the words לא אוסיף twice in the same verse? Rashi claims that the repetition makes the statement equivalent to an oath. He bases himself on Shavuot 36. This poses a problem, seeing that the sages do not really say this. This is the text of the Talmud: Rabbi Eliezer said the word לא is a term used as an oath; the word הן is also a term used as an oath; Rabbi Eliezer quotes some verse as proof. Rava corrects his statement by saying that only when these words are used twice do they constitute an oath. Rava quotes Genesis 9,11 ולא יכרת כל בשר עוד ממי המבול ולא יהיה עוד מבול, all flesh will not again be annihilated by the waters of the deluge, nor will there ever be another flood, as proof for his rule. The fact that Rava quotes this verse and not 8,21 shows that he means two separate verses or statements are needed. The single verse in 8,21 does not constitute an oath according to the Talmud.

Es heißt nun aber hier an dieser bedeutsamen Stelle das einzige Mal in :תנ"ך ריח הניחוח. Alle andern קרבנות sind nur symbolischer Ausdruck einer Willenserfüllung; denn das Ganze kann kein einzelner Mensch und keine einzelne Zeit vollbringen; darum ein ריח ניחוח. Noa aber hatte die ganze künftige Menschheit vor sich, und sein Opfer lieh allem dem Ausdruck, was im Laufe aller Zeiten in der Gesamtmenschheit zur endlichen, vollen Befriedigung Gottes an der Menschheit vollbracht werden werde, daher war sein Opfer ריח הניחוח: Hindeutung auf die ganze Willfahrung, die einst Gott aus der Menschheit auf der neugeschenkten, zum Gottesaltar geweihten Erde reifen werde. So auch die Weisen in וירח ד׳ את ריח הניחוח הריח ריחו של אברהם אבינו :ב"ר עולה מכבשן האש ,ריח של חנניה מישאל ועזריה עולין מכבשן האש ,ריח דורו של שמד — alles Momente aus der großen Entwicklungsgeschichte der Menschheit, in welchen sich Menschen selbst für die Erfüllung des göttlichen Willens zum Opfer brachten, alles Beispiele der großen ניחוח, in welche einst die ganze Menschengeschichte aufgehen soll!

כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, “because the tendencies of man’s heart are evil from his youth already.” Man’s immaturity in his younger years is the reason for these evil inclinations. G-d therefore had decided not to visit punishments on man promptly as a result this consideration as He used to do.

For the inclination of man’s heart. Human makeup was now inferior to what it was before the flood and the intellect no longer held sway during the years of youth. This enabled the appetites to achieve domination

ויאמר ה' אל לבו, He foresaw in His mind that He would not again have to wreak wholesale destruction on earth seeing that it would not happen again that the majority of the human species would be as depraved as those before the deluge. The report of what happened during the generation of the deluge was handed down from generation to generation and served as a warning against man again becoming as corrupt as at that time. G’d would not again punish the community at large on account of depraved individuals, but He would punish all the individuals who are wicked, as He demonstrated when He destroyed Sodom and its satellites.

ולא אוסיף עוד להכות את כל חי, “and I will not again smite all living creatures simultaneously. However, I reserve the right to decree collective punishment on a city or a country.

The Talmud is quite correct in not using the repeated words לא אוסיף as an oath where G'd is reported as saying this "to His heart." In that verse the words לא אוסיף were applied to two different undertakings by G'd. He promised not to curse the earth, and He promised not to curse all the living creatures. It would not be proper to speak of a repetition then. What G'd undertook in this verse was not to punish the earth again on account of man's deeds as He had done when Adam sinned and when Cain sinned. Not even a part of the earth would henceforth be cursed on account of man's actions or inactions. In addition G'd expressed His satisfaction with Noach's sacrifice and promised not to smite whole categories of creatures even when this did not involve destroying their habitat. It is clear then that there is no oath here since G'd did not repeat anything. That is why Rava in the Talmud uses the verse in 9,11 as an example of an oath. We will explain that verse in detail in its proper place. Perhaps Rashi had a different version of the Talmud as suggested by the commentary of the רא׳ש on that folio.

ואמר ד׳ אל לבו. Wir haben schon auf die Wichtigkeit dieser und ähnlicher anthropomorphistischen Ausdrücke von Gott aufmerksam gemacht. Die Gefahr, von Gott eine zu körperliche Vorstellung zu haben, ist bei weitem nicht so groß, als jene, auf dem Wege der Spekulation Gott zu einem transzendentalen, metaphysischen Begriff zu ver flüchtigen. Es ist viel wichtiger, von der Persönlichkeit Gottes und seinen innigen BeZiehungen zu jedem Menschen auf Erden überzeugt zu sein, als über die transzendentalen Begriffe der Ewigkeit, Unkörperlichkeit usw. zu spekulieren, die fast so wenig in bezug zu unserem sittlichen Leben stehen, wie die algebraischen Chiffern. Alles, was beim Menschen das Band knüpft zwischen dem Menschen und den ihn umgebenden, insbesondere den ihm nahe stehenden Wesen, fasst hier der Ausdruck לב von Gott zusammen. So wahr wir von Gott sagen, dass er חנון ,רחום. usw. sei, ebenso können hier alle diese מדות in לב zusammen ihren Ausdruck finden. Es steht dies in voller Parallele zu dem früheren: ויתעצב אל לבו, wo es Gott um sein "Herz" leid tat, d. h. wo er schmerzlich all dem Heil entsagte, welches seine Barmherzigkeit und Liebe an der Menschheit zur Erfüllung bringen wollte. So auch hier: der Komplex aller göttlichen Liebe und Barmherzigkeit sprach für die künftige Erhaltung der Menschenwelt. Die Weisen machen noch aufmerksam, wie hier: אל לבו, nicht: בלבו steht, als Vorbild des sittlich freien Menschen, der nicht ברשות לבו, nicht Sklave seiner Empfindungen und Gefühle sein soll. Sie erinnern, wie überall bei Männern, die uns als Muster dienen können, אל לבו steht, so: ובל לא דוד רמאיו, ובל לא לאינד רמאיו הבל לע תרבדמ איה הנח, reih eiw: ׳ד רמאיו אל לבו, zu seinem Herzen. Dagegen: ,ויאמר ירבעם בלבו ,ויאמר עשו בלבו ,אמר נבל כלבו ויאמר המן בלבו. Also: ויאמר ד׳ אל לבו alle מדות הרחמים standen vor Gott und plädierten für die künftige Erhaltung der Menschenwelt; und wie weit ab auch die Erde von dem auf ihr zu erreichenden Ziele war, sprach Gott doch, im Hinblick auf dies von Noa in seinem Opfer angedeutete Ziel: לא אוסיף עוד וגוי. —

בעבור האדם, on account of the wicked people among mankind; rather those will be killed so that the earth will be at the disposal of the good people. If small parts of the earth would indeed be destroyed as happened in the case of Sodom and that part of the Jordan valley, this cannot be considered as a destruction of the earth. Such destructions will be understood as the destruction of that particular population including the earth they had dwelled on.

We still need to supply a reason why the verse once mentions the curse before the word עוד, i.e. לא אוסיף לקלל עוד, whereas in the second half of the verse the sequence is ולא אוסיף עוד להכות, the word עוד already appearing before the predicate of the sentence. The reason is that a curse directed at the earth already has a past history, i.e. earth has been cursed before and the effects of that curse still existed. When G'd curses living creatures there is no noticeable effect of any previous curse as any living creatures that had been cursed or smitten prior to the present curse were already dead and as if they had never existed. Our verse incorporates this nuance. It reminds us that the earth was still suffering from the effect of previous curses.

לקלל. קלל von קל‎ ‎leicht, Gegensatz von כבד schwer, und insofern auch von‎ ברכה Segen. Segen ist die immer fortschreitende Entwicklung und Entfaltung eines Wesens, wodurch es immer mehr Ausdehnung erhält, immer mehr materiellen Stoff sich assimiliert, sein Wesen in immer größerer stofflicher Mannigfaltigkeit ausprägt und aufprägt. So der Segen der Fruchtbarkeit bei Menschen, Tieren, Bäumen usw. Umgekehrt, wenn etwas an materiellem Stoff abnimmt, in seiner stofflichen Entfaltung gehemmt wird, ists: קללה. Gott hat bis jetzt immer בעבור האדם, zu des Menschen Heile, um seiner sittlichen und geistigen Rettung willen, die Entfaltung der אדמה, der Menschenerde herabgestimmt, so bei Adam, Kain usw. Gott wird die fruchtbringende Kraft der Erde nicht weiter schmälern um den Menschen zu erziehen. Man hat nun — so weit unsere Einsicht reicht — durchaus irrtümlich das Folgende כי יצר לב האדם וגוי als Ursache dieser neuen Bestimmung gefasst: "weil ja der Trieb des Menschen bös sei von Jugend auf". Wir verstehen nicht, was das heißen sollte. Etwa: "weil es doch nichts nützt"! Das wäre ein ungemein unwürdiges Zeugnis, das man hier Gott sich selbst und seiner Schöpfung geben lässt. Man darf ja aber überhaupt nicht übersehen, dass derselbe Satz früher als Ursache der Strafe angegeben ward, (VI. 5) und hier soll dies als Ursache des Gegenteils stehen! Gott hat das מבול gebracht, weil כל יצר מחשבות לבו רק רע כל היום, und hier soll aus derselben Rücksicht auf diesen יצר הרע die Schonung eintreten! Auch die Konstruktion spricht gegen diese Auffassung. Ihr zufolge hätte das כי יצר לב וגו׳ zuletzt stehen müssen: לא אוסיף עוד לקלל וגו׳ ולא אוסיף להכות וגו׳ כי weil darauf dann der Nachdruck zu fallen hätte. So wie die Sätze vor uns יצר וגו׳ stehen, liegt der Nachdruck auf beiden לא אוסיף וגו׳ und das: כי יצר וגו׳ ist Parenthese. "Wenn wieder יצר לב האדם רע und sogar מנעוריו sein sollte, so dass die einzige Rettung sich in dem Untergang des Geschlechtes darbieten würde, so werde ich doch nicht wie bisher לא אוסיף עוד וגו׳" — Dass יצר nicht den aktiven Trieb, sondern das passive Getriebene bezeichnet, das, was das Menschenherz schafft, bildet, als Ideal anstrebt, haben wir bereits nachgewiesen; was heißt nun: נעורים ,מנעוריו, die Jugend? Warum heißt die Jugend so? נער ursprünglich: abschütteln, so bei Simson אִנָעֵר (Richter 16, 20). נוער כפיו מתמוך בשוחד usw. Auch (Jesaias 33, 15) נעורת: iWerg, als Abfall vom Flachs. Die Jugend heißt deshalb נעורים, weil sie die Zeit ist, in welcher das junge Menschenwesen eigentlich aus sich selbst heraus wachsen will. Weder gute noch böse Eindrücke haften fest an ihm, die Menschennatur ist noch in ihrer Eigentümlichkeit da, noch nicht mit dem Gewande der Heuchelei umkleidet, schüttelt noch gute und böse Eindrücke ab. "Jugend hat keine Tugend", sehr wohl, aber auch kein Laster. Wehe dem, der den Durchschnitt der Kindes- und Knabennatur für bös und boshaft hält! Wer Kinder beobachtet hat, sagt: Nein! es ist nicht wahr, nicht die Jugend ist schlecht, nicht מנעוריו ist יצר לב האדם רע, strebt der Mensch das Schlechte als solches an. In gewöhnlichen Zeiten wird man eine viel größere Menge von Männern als von Jünglingen finden, deren Herz auf das Schlechte gerichtet ist. Von der Jugend wird wohl manches geschehen, was böse ist, weil sie noch nicht gewohnt ist, sich unter עול מצות, unter das Gebot der Pflicht zu beugen, weil sie noch in der Selbstbeherrschung und in dem Pflichtgehorsam ein Joch erblickt, das ihre zur Selbständigkeit emporstrebende Natur "abschüttelt". Allein eben in dieser nicht leicht zu überwindenden Willensselbständigkeit, die bei der Unreife der Erkenntnis allerdings als Eigensinn erscheint, wurzelt der ganze künftige sittliche Mann. Wie Gott sich Israel erwählte, nicht weil es das gefügigste, sondern weil es das hartnäckigste Volk ist, weil, wenn diese Hartnäckigkeit einmal überwunden und für das Gute gewonnen (wie geschehen), es dann dieselbe Hartnäckigkeit und Selbständigkeit im Guten bewähren werde: ganz so hat Gott jedem Menschen, um der künftigen Charakterfestigkeit im Guten willen, das Prinzip der Selbständigkeit eingepflanzt. In der Jugend äußert sich diese allerdings als נעורים, schüttelt die Zügel ab, beugt sich nicht willig unter sie. Wenn aber die Erkenntnis reift, dass das bisher als Beschränkung angesehene Pflichtgebot in der Tat zur Freiheit führt und die wahre freie Menschennatur sichert, dann ist es gerade die Jugend, die sich für das Ideal des sittlich Reinen und Edlen begeistert, und Vorsätze für die höchste Hingebung und Aufopferung an das Höchste und für das Höchste fasst. Nicht die Jugend, das Alter ist es, wo Eigennutz und Wollust und Habsucht, wo die "böse" Klugheit, die als Weisheit gilt, die Ideale des Guten, Edlen und Erhabenen als "Jugendträume" verlachen und den Menschen, der dann kein "נער" mehr ist, sich sehr wohl schicken und fügen lehrt, aber in das, was der Leidenschaft und dem Eigennutz fröhnt. Das Alter ist es in gewöhnlichen Zeiten, wo das "רע" seine eigentlichen Ernten feiert. Eine Zeit vielmehr, von deren Jugend man schon sagen könnte, dass sie das Schlechte mit Bewusstsein als Schlechtes, als יצר לבם, als Ideal ihres Herzens anstrebe, das wäre allerdings eine Zeit, die ein zweites מבול fordern würde. Allein dies wäre nicht der normale, sondern der abnormste Zustand. Es heißt daher hier: "wenn auch das Gebilde des Herzens des Menschen bös sein sollte von Jugend auf׳, schon die Jugend (im Gegensatz zu dem natürlichen Verhältnisse) sich das רע als das Ziel, das Ideal ihres Lebens gesetzt haben sollte, und dann eigentlich von einer solchen Generation nichts mehr zu erwarten wäre — denn die Hoffnung beruht auf der Jugend und nicht auf dem Alter — wenn also wieder eine Zeit wäre, dass Gott בעבור הארם zur Rettung des Menschen selbst, die Erdwelt wieder herabdrücken, ja gänzlichen Untergang bringen müßte — so werde Gott dies doch nicht mehr tun, sondern:

כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, this urge is called יצר as it was formed at the same time as the fetus. The reason why the Torah writes מנעוריו, literally “from his youth,” is that the evil urge is with man from an earlier age than the יצר הטוב, the impulse to do good. The latter urge becomes active in man only with the advent of maturity, at age of 13, as we know from Job 11,12 ואיש נבוב ילבב ועיר פרא אדם יולד, “a hollow man will get understanding, when a wild ass is born a man.” The meaning of that line is that man is like wild ass from the time of birth, without restraining influences, following his instinct rather than being guided by his intelligence. As he grows older, becomes more mature, forces known as the יצר טוב begin to assert themselves Seeing that man had been formed without the benefit of the impulse to do what is good, useful, rather than what is designed to gratify his baser urges, as G’d decided in His wisdom to do, seeing that man was part of the overall scheme of nature, he will become guilty of sin again and again, with the exception of an infinitely small percentage of people. Therefore, G’d would not continue to punish mankind at large on account of most people acting out their natural inclinations. According to Sanhedrin 91 the Roman governor Antoninus asked Rabbi Yehudah hanassi, his frequent companion, at what point the “evil urge” entered the human being. He wanted to know if this occurred at the moment of birth or at the moment when the fetus assumed a certain shape, say 40 days after fertilisation of the ovum. Rabbi Yehudah answered that this occurred already at the earlier of these two points in time. Antoninus found it difficult to accept this, saying that if it were so the fetus would keep hitting out at his mother while in her womb, and as a result, she would give birth prematurely. Rabbi Yehudah quoted as his source Genesis 4,7 where G’d told Kayin that the evil urge was lying already at the entrance of the birth canal, מפתח חטאת רובץ. Antoninus countered that from our verse here it seems that the evil urge commences his activity only after the child can be called נער, a lad. Rabbi Yehudah drew Antoninus’ attention to the defective spelling in the word נעריו, which if Antoninus were correct, should have had the letter ו after the letter ע, i.e. making נעוריו, after he had attained the status of a human being. Seeing that this letter is missing, this is a clear hint that this רע within the human being predates his birth. Rabbi Yudan, enlarging on this unusual spelling, plus the fact that the words לא אסיף are repeated twice in this verse, stated that such repetition, when reported in G’d’s name, is always an equivalent to an oath by G’d, i.e. something that He will not change for any reason This is why the prophet Isaiah correctly quoted G’d in Isaiah 54,9 as saying “I have sworn to Myself not to bring on another deluge of water such as in the days of Noach.”

כי יצר לב האדם רע מנעוריו, for the inclination of man's heart is evil from its youth. This statement is best understood as similar to the Talmud Baba Kama 39. The Talmud discusses an incidence in which a bull trained to perform in an arena has gored someone. Such an animal is not subject to the death penalty as it only did what it was expected to do. The reason cited in that Mishnah is that the Torah uses the future tense יגח in Exodus 21,28 when providing the death penalty for oxen which gore a human being. Animals which have been trained to do just that are not culpable for doing what comes naturally. Similarly, man, equipped as he is with an evil instinct from birth, is not culpable until he has learned to distinguish right from wrong. This rule applies to minors not being subject to the judiciary process. They are, however, punishable by G'd for not having heeded His call. In that respect man is not like the bull we mentioned. Man's advantage over the beasts is his knowledge of good and evil. He is charged with despising evil and choosing what is good. The fact that man was born with the יצר הרע only, acts like an extenuating circumstance protecting him against G'd's anger.

עוד כל ימי הארץ וגו' לא ישבתו WHILE THE EARTH REMAINETH … SHALL NOT CEASE — Of these six seasons each consists of two months, as we have learned (Bava Metzia 106b): Half of Tishri, Marcheshvan and half of Kislev is seedtime; half of Kislev, Tebeth and half of Shebat is the cold-season.

עוד כל ימי הארץ זרע וקציר, וקור וחום, וקיץ וחורף, ויום ולילה, לא ישבתו; nature will not cease to function dependably as it had prior to the deluge. The sun will orbit predictably, its orbit will be subject to calculation in advance, so will be its position relative to other phenomena in the sky. All the time periods mentioned in this verse will somehow be related to the position of the sun at different times during the year. It would be different from before the deluge. Whereas prior to the deluge the sun had remained at a fixed distance relative to the earth all year round, its orbit being circular, resulting in eternal spring in the populated parts of the earth, now there would be all these changes, though at predetermined intervals, resulting in alternating seasons of relative warmth and cold due to the elliptical nature of the sun’s orbit [Although the author lived approximately at the time of Copernicus having determined that the earth moves around the sun instead of being the center of our galaxy, the basic concept even according to the ancient world view does not invalidate the author’s description of antediluvian and postdiluvian climatic conditions. Ed.. כל ימי הארץ, until such time as G’d would correct this deterioration in living conditions on earth due to the effect of the deluge. This “correction” is what the prophet Isaiah 66,22 had in mind when he spoke of the הארץ החדשה אשר אני עושה, “the new earth which I am going to make.” In that future foreseen by the prophet, the sun will once more orbit like a circle instead of like an ellipsis, a configuration responsible for the uneven temperatures on earth during different parts of the year. At that time, the whole vegetation on earth will undergo an upgrading, the curse earth experienced both after Adam’s sin and after Kayin’s murder of his brother Hevel being lifted. Conditions of length of human life will revert to what they had been before the deluge, as the prophet said that a נער, a youth, if he dies at a hundred years old will be considered as having died in his adolescence and more verses there describing this future. This is also what David referred to in Psalms 65,9 מוצאי בוקר וערב תרנין, “You make the lands of sunrise and sunset shout for joy.”

עוד כל ימי הארץ, Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that the formulation of כל ימי הארץ here is proof that the duration of this earth is finite, in fact that G’d had already set a time limit to its existence.

עוד כל ימי הארץ , “Furthermore, as long as the earth will continue to exist, etc.” The wording of this verse [Rabbi Chavell sees in the word כל an allusion to כלה, “something finite”] indicates that there will come a time when the earth will no longer exist. Even though the word עוד is spelled defective without the letter ו, and this would allude to the very reverse, i.e. the infinite existence of earth based on the word עד being similar to ועד, “forever,” we must give precedence to the reading of the word over its spelling.
זרע וקציר, “seedtime and harvest;” the ones (being seeded) are going to be born, whereas the others are going to die (harvested). The verse goes on to explain the cause of such birth and death respectively, i.e. קר וחם, “cold and heat.” Basically, this verse intends to acquaint us with six regular phenomena which will recur at regular intervals as do day and night.

Half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat is the cold season. Rashi’s text should read: Half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat is חורף, winter. (Re’m) But the Nachalas Yaakov writes that he sees no need to alter the text; it is indeed as Rashi explained [in the extant text].

עוד כל ימי הארץ. Es wird dies gewöhnlich in dem Sinne genommen, dass während der Zeit des מבול die verschiedenen Jahres- und Tageszeiten gestört gewesen und hier daher die Bestimmung gegeben werde, dass, sowie überhaupt keine allgemeine Vernichtung wieder kommen, auch in dem regelmäßigen Gang dieser Zeiten keine Störung wieder eintreten solle. Es setzt dies voraus, dass vor der Sündflut dieser Wechsel der Jahreszeiten, wie er noch heute besteht, schon vorhanden gewesen sei. Die uns aufbewahrten Überlieferungen sprechen jedoch hiergegen. Nach ר׳ יצחק in ב"ר brauchte man vor der Sündflut nur alle vierzig Jahre einmal das Feld zu bestellen, es war ein ewiger Frühling, die Zeiten waren sich immer gleich: היה להם אויר יפה כמן הפסח עד העצרת, es war auch auf der ganzen Erde die gleiche Temperatur und auch die Zerklüftung des Kontinents nicht vorhanden, so dass die rascheste Kommunikation von einem Ende zum andern stattfand: היו מהלכין מסוף העולם ועד סופו לשעה קלה. Die hier aufgeführten Jahreszeiten werden dort ausdrücklich als neue, nachsündf-lutliche Ordnung aufgefasst: מכאן ואילך זרע וקציר וגוי" also, dass, wenn ר׳ שמואל בר נחמן durch Witterungswechsel am Kopfe litt, er scherzend sagte: המי מה עבד לן דרא דמבולא, siehe, was wir den Zeiten der Sündflut verdanken! Es wird in der klimatischen Stetigkeit, die vor der Sündflut herrschte, ein vornehmlicher Grund des eingerissenen Verderbnisses gefunden: מי גרם להם שימרודו בי לא ע"י שהיו זורעין ולא קוצרין יולדין ולא קוברין und wird durch die Beifügung: יולדין ולא קוברין zugleich in den vorsündflutlichen klimatischen Verhältnissen die Ursache der größeren Lebensdauer, sowie durch das folgende מכאן ואילך זרע וקציר וגו׳ in der nachsündflutlichen Veränderung dieser Einflüsse zugleich die Ursache der kürzeren Lebensdauer erkannt. Mit dieser Annahme einer früheren anderen Beschaffenheit und Stellung der Erde und dadurch bedingter anderer klimatischen Verhältnisse stehen die Ergebnisse der geologischen und physikalisch geographischen Forschungen im Einklang. Die Fundorte sogenannter vorsündflutlicher Reste weisen darauf hin, dass früher eine ganz andere Verteilung der Jahreszeiten und der Temperatur gewesen und dass die Zerklüftung und Gestaltung der Erde durch Ozeane, Flüsse, Berge, Wüsten usw. jüngeren Datums sei. Eine Äußerung unserer Weisen (Berachoth 59, a.) scheint sogar die Sündflut als aus einer vom Schöpfer bewirkten Veränderung der Stellung der Gestirne und einer dadurch bewirkten Störung des tellurischen Gleichgewichts hervorgegangen zu erklären. בשעה שבקש הב"ה להביא מבול לעולם נטל שני כוכבים מכימה והביא מבול לעולם. Dies jedoch dahingestellt, ist es sicher, dass die Weisen nicht glaubten, der Wechsel der Jahreszeiten sei bereits vor der Sündflut vorhanden gewesen. —

עוד כל ימי הארץ, “as long as earth will continue in existence, etc.;” this verse refers to what we read in the previous verse, where G–d promised never again to bring on a deluge. He added now that from that time on, nature will prove more or less predictable, each part of the earth experiences regular cycles of seasons and crops which ripen during those seasons will provide mankind with it needs. [The Torah states –after the Exodus and the giving to the Jewish people of the Torah- that as far as the Jewish people will be concerned, the earth producing its yield would depend on their keeping the terms of the covenant they had entered into with G–d at the revelation on Mount Sinai. Ed.]

עוד כל ימי הארץ, “as long as earth exists, etc;” our author understands these words as parallel to Isaiah 51,6: כי שמים כעשן נמלחו והארץ כבגד תבלה, “for the heavens should melt way like smoke and the earth wear out like a garment.” In other words, the covenant now concluded with mankind is not eternal, but subject to the same conditions as the duration of the material universe as we know it.

קור COLD-SEASON is more severe than חורף winter.

זרע וקציר, the year is divided into basically 2 periods, the time to plant and the time to harvest. In the immediately following words the year is divided into 4 seasons. Still later the Torah speaks of the alternating periods of day and night. The meaning of all this is that during the four seasons the relative length of day and night constantly change, summer and winter being indicated by the relative longer periods of daylight and darkness, depending on the part of earth on which one lives, whereas even in higher latitudes when there is no true summer or in the equatorial zones when there is no true cold season, the relative length of days and nights are a guide to the season, i.e. whether it is time to sow, etc. Regardless of which season, the combined total of darkness and daylight always amounts to the same number of hours, minutes, etc, i.e. a day has 24 hours of 60 minutes each..

קור is half of Shevat, Adar, and half of Nissan. [This version follows the alteration of the Re’m. But] the correct version is: קור is half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat.

Betrachten wir unsere Stelle näher, so steht auf הארץ der in der Regel satzteilende Akzent אתנח; es bilden somit die Worte עוד כל ימי הארץ einen geschlossenen Gedankensatz. עוד, Grundbedeutung: dauern, עוד כל ימי הארץ usw. (davon auch עד, der Zeuge, der durch sein Auffassen, Bewahren und gelegentlich wieder Äußern, einem vorübergehenden, ohne seine Anwesenheit verschwindenden Vorgang Dauer verleiht, daher auch: Denkmal) gewöhnlich die Partikel noch, die ja auch eine Fortdauer bezeichnet. Es kommt jedoch auch absolut, als fortdauernd, immerwährend usw. vor; so ,עוד יהללוך סלה, sie rühmen dich ohne Unterlaß. In diesem Sinne dürfte auch hier עוד כל ימי הארץ heißen können: "Alle Tage der Erde sollen fortan immer da sein."

Rashi understands the whole verse as describing the seasons of the year which will repeat regularly, [limited, of course to our northern hemisphere. Ed.] two months for each season, but they do not coincide with the beginning of the lunar months but run from the middle of the month approximately. This subject is dwelt on in Baba Metzia, 106. If you were to counter that in the Talmud Baba Metzia the Talmud does not appear to match what is written here, as the year is described as the seasons being described as contrasting each other, i.e. cold season versus hot season, etc; it is possible that the version of Rashi that we have is faulty.

חורף WINTER is the time of sowing barley and pulse which are quick (חריף) to ripen. It is half of Shebat, Adar and half of Nisan.

לא ישבתו, the fact that G’d promises that such regularity will not cease in the future, is proof that during the deluge the pattern of day and night and seasonal change had not been as it is now. Noach may not even have been able to tell if it was day or night while he was in the ark, or at least while the rain was still descending during the first 40 days. According to Bereshit Rabbah 34,11 in the view of Rabbi Yochanan, none of the celestial bodies performed their normal functions during the entire year that Noach was in the ark. Rabbi Yonathan said to Rabbi Yochanan that the celestial bodies did perform their functions, but that Noach was unable to derive any advantage from this, as he could not be guided by what he could not see. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehushua, disagreed on another aspect of the meaning of our verse, Rabbi Eliezer claiming that the word לא ישבתו have to be understood as being in the past tense, i.e. the functions of the celestial bodies had not been suspended at all, whereas Rabbi Yehoshua understood the words לא ישבתו as referring only to the future. Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar, specifying further, claimed that the second half of the month of Tishrey, the whole month of Marcheshvan, and the first half of the month of Kislev are devoted to sowing and planting, whereas the second half of Kislev, the whole month of Tevet and half the month of Shevat are considered winter. The second half of the month of Shevat, the whole month of Adar, and the first half of Nissan are called “cold.” [i.e. what the Torah described as קר. Ed.] This is followed by two months of spring, by two months of summer, and two months of “heat.” referred to in our verse as חם.

The end of the summer is more severe than the summer. This is because people are still cool all summer, due to the winter’s cold. But at the end of summer they heat up. That is why summer’s end is more severe than its middle. [And according to the Re’m, we can say that] the cold season is more severe than winter for a similar reason. Rashi writes in Bava Metzia 106b that winter is “the most chilly part of the fall season; the days of cold.” If so, how could Rashi say here that the cold season is more severe than winter? Perforce, it is the way we explained. And so it is implied by the Re’m as well.

Es hatte die Erde auch bis jetzt verschiedene Zeiten durchgemacht; allein sie waren nacheinander über die Erde gekommen. Zur Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes hatte Gott wiederholt plötzlich eintretende Katastrophen des Unsegens über die Erde gebracht. Und noch zuletzt, in den Jahrhunderten vor der Sündflut, war alles in dauernder Blüte, die Leute waren reich und alt, sie waren üppig, חמס wuchs, es gab lauter alte רשעים bis, dem gipfelnden השחתת דרך und חמס gegenüber, der barmherzige Gott nichts als plötzliche Gesamtvernichtung bringen konnte. Das soll ferner nicht mehr sein. Alle die verschiedenen Zeiten der Gestaltungen der Erde, die Gott bis dahin immer plötzlich hatte eintreten lassen, der Wechsel des Blühens und Welkens, des Lebens und Absterbens, des Aufblühens zum Dasein und der Vergegenwärtigung des Todes, der paradiesisch anwehenden Frühlingsluft und der eisig umarmenden Erstarrung, alle diese sollen fortan immer da sein; Saat und Ernte, Kälte und Hitze, Sommer und Winter, Tag und Nacht sollen fortan nicht nacheinander, sollen fortan stets gleichzeitig auf Erden sein, sollen nie aufhören zu wirken, לא ישבתו! Es soll die Erde eine solche Stellung und Gestaltung haben, dass alle Tages- und Jahreszeiten, Temperaturen und Klimate unaufhörlich gleichzeitig auf Erden seien, hier Tag, dort Nacht, hier Frühling, dort Herbst, hier Sommer, dort Winter, hier kalt, dort heiß usw., wie diese räumliche Verschiedenheit und dieser zeitliche Wechsel uns seitdem die Mannigfaltigkeit der Erde nach Zonen, Ländern, Gegenden usw. vor Augen führt. —

קציר HARVEST — Half of Nisan, Eyar, and half of Sivan.

...During all the days of the Flood. I.e., all twelve months of the Flood. The Re’m asks: But how will we explain [verse (8:13), “...He looked, and behold the surface of the ground had dried”]? How could Noach see on the first of Tishrei that the water had dried, if this was during the twelve months [when there was no light]? Furthermore, how could he count the days? For it says (v. 6): “At the end of forty days, Noach opened the window of the ark.” Also (v. 8), “[After 7 days] he sent the dove...” Furthermore, how did the dove fly without light, and how could it see if there was a place to rest? Furthermore, how did the window benefit the ark, if there was no light? The Re’m left the issue unresolved.

Dürften wir es wagen, von der Tiefe der göttlichen Waltung einen Schaum — oder einen Traum — abzuschöpfen, so würden wir sagen: Durch diese ganze neue Gestaltung der Erde ward eine neue Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes eingeleitet. Der Mensch ist seitdem fortwährend abhängig. Es genügt nicht mehr, "einmal zu säen um für vierzig Jahre genug zu haben"; er ist fortwährend abhängig und mit seiner Existenz und seinem Streben immerfort einer Störung ausgesetzt.

קיץ SUMMER — Half of Sivan, Tammuz and half of Ab. This is the time of fig-gathering, the time when they lay them out to dry in the fields. and its name is קיץ “summer-fruittime”, as (2 Samuel 16:2) “And the bread and the summer-fruit (קיץ) for the young men to eat”.

The constellations did not function. Although the verse speaks of the six seasons as well, Rashi explains specifically that the constellations ceased functioning — rather than that the seasons ceased — since the seasons obviously depend on the earth’s existence, but the water covered the surface of the earth, [so the seasons obviously ceased]. Thus Rashi explained that even day and night ceased, although they do not depend on the earth’s existence. This was due to the constellations not functioning. It seems the answer is: The constellations “not functioning” means the heavenly spheres did not move. There were no normal daily twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of darkness. Rather, during all twelve months, one half of the globe had light while the other had darkness — as at the beginning of Creation, before the luminaries were placed in their orbits. And when Noach entered the ark, the sun was shining, as it is written (7:13), “On that very day...” This is why the Midrash says, “The constellations did not function,” rather than saying, “The constellations did not give light.” They gave light, but they did not alternate in their normal daily manner of day and night. And when Rashi says, “Night and day were indistinguishable,” it means that in one place it was always daytime, and in another, darkness. And the earth’s surface dried up from the sun’s heat since it shone on the earth even during these twelve months. This resolves [almost] all the Re’m’s questions. As for his question, “How could he count the days?” perhaps Noach knew the days by measuring the passage of time, as the Akeidah explains in Parshas Bereishis, or through a sun dial. For the sun would shine through the ark’s window. Noach made the window for a purpose, so he would not dwell in darkness, according to the opinion that צהר means window. Or, [Noach counted the days] by observing the animals, as it says in Berachos 3a: “In the first watch the donkey brays...” Or, by observing the ravens or roosters, according the opinion that הנותן לשכוי בינה להבחין בין יום ובין לילה [refers to the rooster]. Or, by observing a special stone or by some other means. Similarly it was asked about Moshe Rabbeinu, “How did he know when it was day and night [when he was in heaven for forty days]?” May Hashem show us the wonders of His Torah.

Es ist dadurch ferner eine große Verschiedenheit der Einzelnen hervorgerufen, verschieden freilich im Guten, aber doch auch im Grade des Schlechten.

ויום ולילה לא ישבתו DAY AND NIGHT SHALL NOT CEASE — From this we may infer that they (day and night) ceased during the period of the Flood, for the planetary system did not function, so that there was no distinction between day and night (Genesis Rabbah 34:11).

חום HEAT — This is the end of the hot season, half of Ab, Elul and half of Tishri, when the world is excessively hot, as we have learned in Treatise Yoma 29a: “The end of the summer is worse than the summer itself”.

None of them shall cease. Rashi is saying that we should not understand ישבותו to mean resting. For “rest” can be said only about the performer of the activity, not about the activity itself. Thus for the seasons, we cannot say that they “rested.” We could say only that Hashem rested, as He performs the activity. That is why Rashi explainsישבותו to mean cessation.

Dieser größere und raschere Wechsel der Lebensbedingungen hat auch die Lebens- dauer gekürzt, die sehr bald nach der Sündflut auf das gegenwärtige Maß herabsank und seitdem sich gleich geblieben. Man denke nur an die Worte Kalebs, der sich Josua gegenüber (Josua 14, 11) als einer Seltenheit rühmte, noch zu fünfundachtzig Jahren rüstig und kräftig wie ein Vierziger zu sein, und an die "siebzig und höchstens achtzig" Jahre des mosaischen Psalms. Mit dieser Kürzung der Lebensdauer ist ein großer Riegel vorgeschoben, dass menschliche Bosheit nicht auf die Dauer die Übermacht gewinnen könne.

Auch der mächtigste Tyrann kann das Zepter nicht viel über fünfzig Jahre hinaus führen. Es ist endlich dadurch auch jetzt noch eine Wahrheit, dass מפי עוללים ויונקים יסדת עוז dass Gott sein Reich auf den Mund der Kinder und Säuglinge erbauen kann. Nicht auf die "Klugheit" der Alten, auf die immer in ungetrübter Seelenreinheit und Unschuld eintretende Kindheit und Jugend hat Er sein Reich gegründet. Mit jedem Kinde tritt ein Engel in die Welt. So lange aber die Schlechten ihre sieben bis achthundert Jahre erreichten, konnte eine bessere Jugend nie zur Geltung kommen. In dieser Lebenskürze kann Gott ein Geschlecht rasch hinwegsterben und eine bessere Generation heranwachsen lassen. Vorwärts blickt seitdem der Genius der Menschheit, und der Jugend gehört die Hoffnung und die Zukunft. Erst wenn der Mensch zu seinem Gott zurückkehrt, und mit dieser Rückkehr auch der alte Frieden auf Erden wiederkommen kann, erst dann wird auch diese Kürze des Lebens wieder schwinden, und mit der wahrhaftigen Gotteshuldigung auch das ursprünglich der Menschenerde bestimmte Paradiesesdasein beginnen. (Jesaias 65, 17, 20f.)

לא ישבתו SHALL NOT CEASE — None of these shall cease to take their natural course.

Nehmen wir zu dieser Verschiedenheit der Einzelnen, die durch die neue Gestaltung der Erde vorbereitete noch größere Verschiedenheit der Völker, und dabei die durch die Zerklüftung und Scheidung der Kontinente und Länder natürliche Hemmung der Kommunikation, die erst nach Jahrtausenden auf künstlichem Wege allmälich überwunden wird; denken wir, wie eben dadurch Jahrtausende hinab keine Entartung sich all- gemein über die Erde verbreitet, und wie in dem Generationswechsel der Einzelnen, so auch damit die fernere Entwicklung der Völkergeschichte angebahnt ist, in welcher immer neue Völker mit frischen, noch unverbrauchten Kräften, an die Stelle entarteter und entnervter Nationen treten: so dürfte mit diesem Verse alles gesagt sein, womit Gott nunmehr eine ganz neue Phase der Menschenentwicklung und Erziehung angebahnt: "Wenn", spricht Gott, "das Streben der Menschen schlecht, und sogar schon von Jugend auf schlecht sein sollte, so werde ich doch nicht wie bisher die Erde um der Menschen willen stören und eine Gesamtvernichtung bringen; vielmehr sollen alle die Gegensätze als Tages- und Jahreszeiten fortan immerfort und zugleich auf Erden sein und wirken". —

Es sind hier sechs Jahreszeiten genannt, drei Winter- und drei Sommer-Jahreszeiten. זרע: der Anfang des Winterhalbjahrs vom 15. תשרי bis 15. קציר ;כסלו: der Anfang des Sommerhalbjahrs, vom 15. ניסן bis 15. קור - .סיון: das Ende des Winterhalbjahrs, vom 15. שבט bis 15. חום ;ניסן: das Ende des Sommerhalbjahrs, vom bis סיון .die Mitte des Sommerhalbjahrs, vom 15 :קיץ — .תשרי .bis 15 15. אב Baba) — .שבט .bis 15 כסלו .die Mitte des Winterhalbjahrs, vom 15 :15. חורף ;אב Mezia 106, b.)

Die Etymologie von זרע haben wir schon oben versucht (Kap.1, 11). — קציר Überdruss haben, die Zeit, in ,קוץ von קיץ — .abschneiden ,גזר ist das verstärkte קצר welcher die Früchte der Säfte der Erde nicht nur nicht mehr bedürfen, sondern sie sogar verschmähen, indem sie abfallen. — חורף von חרף: im Piel: preisgeben, חרף נפשו, daher im Kal: der Zustand der vollständigen Unselbständigkeit der Erde, in welcher ,למות sie allen Einwirkungen der Elemente preisgegeben ist, und sich nichts selbständig entwickelt, die passive Zeit; somit Gegensatz zum קיץ, worin die Erzeugnisse ihre vollste Selbständigkeit erlangen.

That is that he commanded us to place the bread of display always in front of Him. And that is His, may He be exalted, saying, "And on the table shall you set the bread of display, to be before Me always" (Exodus 25:30). And you already know the language of the Torah about placing new bread every Shabbat, and that frankincense be with it and that the priests eat the bread made for the previous Shabbat (Leviticus 23:8,7,9). And the regulations of this commandment have already been explained in Chapter 11 of Menachot. (See Parashat Terumah; Mishneh Torah, Daily Offerings and Additional Offerings 2).