Halakhah к Берешит 7:27

Judah the Persian also said that the years referred to in the story of Noah were solar years, since he found that the Deluge commenced “in the six-hundredth year of Noah’s life” (Genesis 7:11), and it subsequently states “in the six-hundredth and first year” (ibid. 8:13).²² The duration of the flood is measured relative to the age of Noah, and a person’s age is based on solar years, as are all living things (cf. note 69). Therefore the years referred to in the story of Noah must be solar years. For this reason an additional ten days were added to the number of months,²³ The Deluge commenced on the seventeenth day of the second month (Genesis 7:11). The earth dried and Noah exited the Ark one year later on the twenty seventh day of the second month (ibid. 8:14). Thus Noah remained in the Ark one full year and an additional ten days. for this number is approximately the excess of a solar year over a lunar year.²⁴ A solar year is approximately 365 days while an ordinary lunar year (12 months) is approximately 354 days, a difference of about eleven days. But this figure contradicts Judah the Persian’s own words, since he now admits that a month is based on the moon. He also said that the Ark came to rest after five months,²⁵ The rain began on the seventeenth of the second month (Genesis 7:11) and the Ark came to rest on Mount Ararat on the seventeenth of the seventh month (ibid. 8:4), a span of five months. a total of “one hundred and fifty days” (ibid. 8: 3). ²⁶ From this Judah the Persian again derived that the years enumerated in the Noah story are solar, because in a lunar calendar five months would consist of approximately 5 ׳ 29.5 = 147.5 days, less than 150 days. Because of this problem, the Gaon (Rabbi Saadia)²⁷ Rabbi Saadia ben Yosef Al-Fayyumi (892–942) was Gaon of the academy at Sura. was forced to set Tishre as the beginning of Noah’s years.²⁸ Rabbi Saadia Gaon disagreed with Judah the Persian and was of the opinion that the months recorded in the Noah story were lunar months. To resolve the seeming contradiction between five months and 150 days, Rabbi Saadia said that the months used in the story of Noah were numbered from Tishre, and the year of the Deluge was a leap year with Marheshvon and Khislev both full months. Hence we have 14 days of Marheshvon, 30 days of Khislev, 29 days of Tevet, 30 days of Shevat, 30 days of Adar i, and 17 days from Adar ii, a total of exactly 150 days. In his Alternative Commentary to Genesis (7:11), Ibn Ezra criticizes Rabbi Saadia’s solution by claiming that a year cannot have so many consecutive full months of thirty days. But this is not necessary,²⁹ Such a solution is not necessary to counter Judah the Persian. for even according to the months of a solar year (1⁄12 of 365 days), the count would be two days longer than what is recorded in Scripture.³⁰ 5 ׳ (1⁄12 ׳ 365) = 152+ days, more than the 150 days stated in Scripture. Ibn Ezra’s resolution of the seeming contradiction (150 days verses five months) is given in his Alternative Commentary to Genesis (7:11): The months in the story of Noah are solar, but based on a calendar similar to that of the Egyptians, where eleven months of the year are thirty days long and one month has 35 days. So five standard months would be 5 ׳ 30 = 150 days. Even if Noah counted by solar years, it would be of no consequence.³¹ It is of no importance how Noah calculated the year, for our laws are based on the teachings of Moses. Hence, we must search for the Torah’s year from Moses (the Pentateuch) or from the holy scribes (the Rabbis). We will begin with them.

Albo does not explain why the generations after the flood drew the correct conclusion and were not prone again to commit the error of Cain. Rather than recognizing the inherent superiority of man that is reflected in the dispensation granted them to partake of the flesh of animals, they might have concluded that violence against man is similarly justified because men and animals are coequal. It was precisely this conclusion that Cain drew from God's acceptance of animal sacrifice. It may, however, be possible that, at that juncture of human history, the possibility of drawing such a conclusion was effectively obviated. Genesis 7:23 declares that during the period of the flood God destroyed not only man but also every living creature. The Gemara, Sanhedrin 108a, queries, "If man sinned, what was the sin of the animals? Rabbi Joshua the son of Korḥah answered the question with a parable: A man made a nuptial canopy for his son and prepared elaborate foods for the wedding feast. In the interim his son died. The father arose and took apart the nuptial canopy declaring, 'I did nothing other than on behalf of my son. Now that he has died for what purpose do I need the nuptial canopy?' Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, 'I did not create animals and beasts other than for man. Now that man has sinned for what purpose do I need animals and beasts?' " Those comments serve to indicate that the extermination of innocent animals in the course of the Deluge must be regarded as proof positive of the superiority of man over members of the animal kingdom. Animals could be destroyed by a righteous God only because the sole purpose of those creatures was to serve man. Hence, if man is to be destroyed, the continued existence of animal species is purposeless. Thus the basic principle, i.e., the superiority of man over members of the animal kingdom, was amply demonstrated by the destruction of animals during the course of the flood. No further demonstration of the relative status of man and beasts was necessary. Permission to eat the flesh of animals was then required only as a means of explicitly negating the residual notion that animals are somehow endowed with rights and that man's obligations vis-a-vis animals are rooted in such rights rather than in a concern for the possible moral degeneration of man himself.⁴See R. Ben-Zion Firrer, Panim Ḥadashot ba-Torah (Jerusalem, 5735), I, 45.

It is axiomatic, according to Halakhah, that death coincides with cessation of respiration. The primary source of this definition is to be found in Yoma 85a in connection with suspension of Sabbath regulations for the sake of the preservation of human life. The case in point concerns an individual trapped under a fallen building. Since desecration of the Sabbath is mandated even on the mere chance that a human life may be preserved, the debris of a collapsed building must be cleared away even if it is doubtful that the person under the rubble is still alive. However, once it has been determined with certainty that the person has expired, no further violation of the Sabbath regulations may be sanctioned. The question which then arises is how much of the body must be uncovered in order to ascertain conclusively that death has in fact occurred? The first opinion cited by the Gemara maintains that the nose must be uncovered and the victim of the accident be pronounced dead only if no sign of respiration is found. A second opinion maintains that death may be determined by examination of the chest for the absence of a heartbeat. It is evident that both opinions regard respiration as the crucial factor indicating the existence of life; the second opinion simply adds that the absence of a heartbeat is also to be deemed sufficient evidence that respiration has ceased and that death has actually occurred. This is evident from the statement quoted by the Gemara in the name of R. Papa in clarification of this controversy. R. Papa states that there is no disagreement in instances in which the body is uncovered "from the top down." In such cases the absence of respiration is regarded by all as being conclusive. The dispute, declares R. Papa, is limited to situations in which the body is uncovered "from the bottom up" and thus the heart is uncovered first. The controversy in such cases is whether the absence of a heartbeat is sufficient evidence to establish death in and of itself, or whether further evidence is required, i.e., uncovering of the nostrils. The necessity for examination of the nostrils is based upon the assumption that it is possible for life to exist even though such life may be undetectable by means of an examination for the presence of a heartbeat—as Rashi succinctly puts it, "For at times life is not evident at the heart but is evident at the nose."⁷There is no opinion recorded in the Babylonian Talmud—majority or minority—which requires examination of the heart. See, however, Palestinian Talmud, Yoma 8:5, where the correct textual reading is the subject of dispute. According to the version of Korban ha-Edah, one Amora requires examination of the heart. Pnei Mosheh, in accepting a variant reading, rejects this contention. In demonstration of the principle that respiration is the determining factor, the Gemara cites the verse "… all in whose nostrils is the breath of the spirit of life" (Gen. 7:22). Both Maimonides⁸Mishneh Torah, Hilkhot Shabbat 2:19. and Shulḥan Arukh⁹Oraḥ Ḥayyim 329:4. cite the first opinion as authoritative. Hence in terms of normative Halakhah, regardless of whether the head or the feet are uncovered first, death can be established only by examination of the nostrils and determination of the absence of signs of respiratory activity at that site.

There is some prima facie evidence indicating that lack of respiration and the state of death are, by definition, synonymous. The Sages inform us that the soul departs through the nostrils, thereby causing respiration to cease and death to occur. The Yalkut Shim'oni, Lekh Lekha, no. 77, observes that after sneezing one should give thanks for having been privileged to remain alive.¹⁶Cf. R. Baruch ha-Levi Epstein, Torah Temimah, Gen. 7:22. The Yalkut, noting that the first mention of sickness in Scripture occurs in Genesis 48:1, remarks that prior to the time of Jacob sickness was unknown. It is the view of the Sages that illness became part of man's destiny in answer to Jacob's plea for prior indication of impending death in order that he might make a testament before dying. Before the days of Jacob, according to the Yalkut, an individual simply sneezed and expired without any indication whatsoever that death was about to overtake him. The Yalkut can readily be understood on the basis of the verse "… and He blew into his nostrils the soul of life" (Gen. 2:6). In the narrative concerning the creation of Adam, the soul is described as having entered through the nostrils. According to the Yalkut, the soul departs through the same aperture through which it entered; hence terminal sneezing is associated with the soul's departure from the body. Apparently, then, respiration and life both cease with the departure of the soul.

In both of those guises the blessing oseh ma'aseh bereshit is designed to underscore the notion that there is no sharp distinction between the miraculous and the natural. Nes, or miracle, and teva, or nature, are two sides of the same coin. Ramban, in numerous passages in his Commentary on the Pentateuch,¹³See, for example, Genesis 7:17, 35:13 and 46:15; Exodus 6:12; Leviticus 18:29 and 26:11; and Deuteronomy 11:13. eloquently formulates a distinction between a nes nistar, or a hidden miracle, and a nes nigleh, or an open miracle. The miraculous nature of hidden miracles is obscured by virtue of the fact that to the beholder the result appears simply as the manifestation of natural occurrences. Open miracles are perceived as the suspension of the natural order. Perhaps even more emphatic are the comments of R. Meir Simchah of Dvinsk, Meshekh Hokhmah, Parasḥat Beḥukotai. Meshekh Hokhmah comments that miracles are not designed as ends in themselves; on the contrary, a nes is entirely instrumental. Miracles are designed to impress upon us that all of teva is a nes; nature is miraculous; the natural order is the greatest of all miracles. The temporary suspension of that order is designed to make us realize that the order and regularity of nature is born of divine decree and subject to divine will. The problem for mankind is that we have become desensitized. Every day the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. We take that for granted, with the result that such phenomena no longer strike us as wondrous. From time to time it is necessary for us to be jolted out of our intellectual complacency. Observation of an extraordinary phenomenon is an occasion to be reminded that miracles are built into the principles governing the universe as variations in the regularity that is the hallmark of nature.¹⁴See Avot 5:6; Bereshit Rabbah 5:4; and Shemot Rabbah 21:16. See also Rambam, Commentary on the Mishneh, Avot 5:6; idem, Guide to the Perplexed, Part II, chaps. 25 and 29; and Ḥasdai Crescas, Or ha-Shem, Part II, p. 5. Miracles are designed to impress upon us that, in reality, teva is the greatest of all miracles. That is why, declares Meshekh Hokhmah, "one who recites hallel ha-gadol every day commits blasphemy" (Shabbat 118b). If a person recites hallel every day it is because he feels he must give thanks for what he perceives as miracles performed on his behalf on a daily basis. But God does not perform overt miracles on a daily basis; He does not disturb the laws of nature with any frequency. To presume that He does so is a form of blasphemy. But at the same time we are charged with recognizing that nature itself is miraculous. That is why, explains Meshekh Hokhmah, a person who recites ashrei thrice daily is assured of a share in the World to Come (Berakhot 4b). The omnipotence, grandeur and majesty of God is manifest in the ordinary, but regular and ongoing, phenomena described in ashrei: "You give them their food in due season. You open your hand and satiate every living creature with favor" (Psalms 145:15-16). Recitation of ashrei serves to acknowledge that the phenomena we regard as natural, ordinary and run of the mill are really miracles wrought by God.

However, it is certain and elementary that the nose is not the organ which gives life to men…. Rather the brain and the heart are those [organs] which give life to men…. We have the indicator of life only through the nose even though [the nose] does not cause respiration because we cannot properly recognize [life] in the heart or in the navel and certainly we cannot recognize [life] in the brain. The connotation of the verse "… all in whose nostrils is the breath of the spirit of life" (Genesis 7:22) does not [refer to] the intrinsic spirit of life for that is certainly not in the nose; rather, the spirit of life which we see is [perceived] in the nostrils even though it is not seen in the large limbs, the limbs of motion, and [it is perceived in the nostrils] even after it is no longer perceived either in the beating of the heart or the navel.⁵⁵See also Jewish Bioethics, p. 314, note 4.