Noach Answers

Noach 5724.

Alef.

בראשית פרק ח

(יא) וַתָּבֹא אֵלָיו הַיּוֹנָה לְעֵת עֶרֶב וְהִנֵּה עֲלֵה זַיִת טָרָף בְּפִיהָ וַיֵּדַע נֹחַ כִּי קַלּוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ:

And the dove came in to him at eventide; and lo in her mouth an olive-leaf freshly plucked; so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.

1. Grammatical issue:

  ותבא—fem.; טרף—masc.; בפיה—fem.

    Content issue:

       What is the significance of the olive leaf in the mouth of the dove, beyond the simple    meaning of the text?

2. RaMBaN takes issue with both of RaShI’s points. He does not agree that the biblical text would arbitrarily move back and forth between declining יונה in male and female forms, and he disagrees that the Midrash is suggesting that the dove verbally spoke to Noach, conveying to him a message about how it prefers to obtain its food.

3.  RaMBaN’s two linguistic issues with RaShI’s commentary:

a. If יונה is usually declined in the feminine form, why should that rule not be followed in this case?

b. The Midrash is not based upon understanding בפי' as suggesting that the dove said something, but rather since it would appear that it was not necessary to mention what sort of tree the leaf came from, by the text stating זית, specifically, a leaf from a tree that typically birds would not sit in due to its low height, it allowed the Midrash to make its interpretation.

4.  The diference between RaShI and RaMBaN regarding the Midrash is whether it has to be posited that some sort of miracle took place in terms of the communication between the dove and Noach, or whether this simply reflects Noach’s (through the eyes of the Rabbis) personal interpretation of the meaning of the type of leaf that the dove is presenting to him. Furthermore, it also presumes different levels of self-consciousness on the part of the dove. According to RaShI this is deliberate and premeditated, in light of the verbal explanation being suppled. According to RaMBaN, the dove might not have realized what it was doing, but its having taken specifically this leaf becomes the basis for a homiletic interpretation.

5.  By saying אם נאמר שאירע כן, RaMBaN seems to be suggesting that it is possible to assume that this incident as well as its interpretation was part of a prophetic vision that Noach had, rather than something that actually took place in the real world. Consequently RaMBaN goes on to present the possibility that it did actually happen, and then focusses upon the implication of the text’s mentioning the species of leaf that the Yona brought back. By placing this interpretation in the secondary position, rather than beginning with it, RaMBaN is illustrating a naturalistic, miracle-free approach to the text whenever possible.

6.  If the olive tree is not particularly tall, then it would have been more likely for the dove to bring back a leaf from a taller species of tree upon which it would have been more likely for it to have rested. By bringing back a leaf from a tree that would be atypical to the normal habits of a bird, it suggests that this fact is in need of spiritual interpretation.

7.  RaMBaN is reflecting the work ethic that a person prefers to earn his own keep rather than be supported by another without expending any of his own effort or relying on his own ability.

8.  Sanhedrin 108b—טרף = food.

     RaMBaN—טרף  is not a verb in masculine form describing something that the dove did.

     Peshuto Shel Mikra—טרף is an adjective describing the leaf, i.e., it had been ripped from the tree.

9.  RaMBaN means that while ordinarily two “Kamatz’” in a word indicate that it is an adjective, there are cases regarding “them”, i.e., words with two “Kamatz’”, which will not follow this rule, as in the examples that RaMBaN provides from Hoshea 6 and VaYikra 5.

10.

הושע פרק ו

(א) לְכוּ וְנָשׁוּבָה אֶל יְקֹוָק כִּי הוּא טָרָף וְיִרְפָּאֵנוּ יַךְ וְיַחְבְּשֵׁנוּ:

ויקרא פרק ה

(כג) וְהָיָה כִּי יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל אוֹ אֶת הָעֹשֶׁק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק אוֹ אֶת הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָפְקַד אִתּוֹ אוֹ אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר מָצָא:

ויקרא פרק ה

(יח) וְהֵבִיא אַיִל תָּמִים מִן הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם אֶל הַכֹּהֵן וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן עַל שִׁגְגָתוֹ אֲשֶׁר שָׁגָג וְהוּא לֹא יָדַע וְנִסְלַח לוֹ:

The words in question are not presented as adjectives, but rather two verbs and a noun!

Hoshea 6:1

      'Come, and let us return unto the LORD; for He hath Torn (v.), and He will Heal us, He hath smitten, and He will bind us up.’

VaYikra 5:23

Then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery (n.), or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found.

Ibid. 18

And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the error which he committed (v.), though he knew it not, and he shall be forgiven.) 

Beit.

בראשית פרק ח

(כא) וַיָּרַח יְקֹוָק אֶת רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֶל לִבּוֹ לֹא אֹסִף לְקַלֵּל עוֹד אֶת הָאֲדָמָה בַּעֲבוּר הָאָדָם וְלֹא אֹסִף עוֹד לְהַכּוֹת אֶת כָּל חַי כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי:

One could have interpreted כי as “if”, i.e., if man is evil, then I am not Going to Curse the ground—the nature of man has yet to be determined. Ibn Kaspi understands כי as “because”, i.e., if this is the intrinsic nature rather than the choice of man, what is the point of punishing him? He can’t change this aspect of himself.

(רש"י בראשית פרק יח

(טו) כי יראה וגו' כי צחקת - ...שאמרו רבותינו "כי" משמש בארבע לשונות: אי, דילמא, אלא, דהא:)

Gimel.

1.  Abrabanel and Ashkenazi are concerned whether the description in Beraishit 8:21 :

...כִּי יֵצֶר לֵב הָאָדָם רַע מִנְּעֻרָיו...

     is a permanent condition for humanity or is it only a stage that can be “outgrown”?

     ShaDaL raises the question of even should we posit that man is not intrinsically evil, who is to say that he will ever move past his childish silliness?

2.  Abrabanel offers three answers to the issue that he raises:

a. Just as an individual human being matures and ceases to engage in sophomoric behavior, so too all of humanity.

b. The impact that the Flood makes will have a long-term affect upon human beings and prevent them from repeating the follies of the generation of the Flood.

c.  Since post-Flood, everyone derives from Noach’s three sons, Shem, Cham and Yefet, rather than the single point of origin of Adam HaRishon, the possibility that all of humanity will be unified and engage in the same type of corruption that could lead to another disaster, will no longer be possible.

3.  Abrabanel could respond that while it could very well be that everyone, without exception, has a childish, foolish stage, as a result of the Flood and the tri-partite division of humanity beginning post-Flood, there is little likelihood that man will permanently act in accordance with his childish tendencies.

4.  In the same manner that God Assured multiple approaches by disrupting the Tower of Babel project that was fueled by everyone being unified (Beraishit 11:1, 6-7):

בראשית פרק יא

(א) וַיְהִי כָל הָאָרֶץ שָׂפָה אֶחָת וּדְבָרִים אֲחָדִים:

(ו) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק הֵן עַם אֶחָד וְשָׂפָה אַחַת לְכֻלָּם וְזֶה הַחִלָּם לַעֲשׂוֹת וְעַתָּה לֹא יִבָּצֵר מֵהֶם כֹּל אֲשֶׁר יָזְמוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת:

(ז) הָבָה נֵרְדָה וְנָבְלָה שָׁם שְׂפָתָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִשְׁמְעוּ אִישׁ שְׂפַת רֵעֵהוּ:

so too by having everyone defining themselves as descendants of one of three traditions and cultures, there is no chance that everyone will do everything exactly the same, for good or bad.

Daled.

1.  Ibn Ezra and Ibn Kaspi are debating whether there is an objective end to the existence of the world.

Ibn Ezra’s position is based upon the word עוד, i.e., “as long as”. Consequently the commentator thinks that an outer limit is implied.

Ibn Kaspi would respond that the text merely says that as long as the world exists, which could be infinitely long, these meteorological conditions will apply, but not that there necessarily will be an end point.

2.  Aristotle was a pagan and therefore, however much admiration RaMBaM had for the Greek philosopher, there were going to be areas, particularly theological ones, which by definition RaMBaM could simply not accept.

Heh.

1.  Usually, the term שבת is associated with a conscious decision to not continue to do certain actions. The laws of nature that control natural phenomena and the phenomena themselves, are not subject to any such decision. Something from without could impose a שבת state on these things, like the Tora describes regarding Shmita:

ויקרא פרק כה

(ג) שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְרַע שָׂדֶךָ וְשֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים תִּזְמֹר כַּרְמֶךָ וְאָסַפְתָּ אֶת תְּבוּאָתָהּ:

(ד) וּבַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִת שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ שַׁבָּת לַיקֹוָק שָׂדְךָ לֹא תִזְרָע וְכַרְמְךָ לֹא תִזְמֹר:

(ה) אֵת סְפִיחַ קְצִירְךָ לֹא תִקְצוֹר וְאֶת עִנְּבֵי נְזִירֶךָ לֹא תִבְצֹר שְׁנַת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ:

שם פרק כו

(לד) אָז תִּרְצֶה הָאָרֶץ אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ כֹּל יְמֵי הֳשַׁמָּה וְאַתֶּם בְּאֶרֶץ אֹיְבֵיכֶם אָז תִּשְׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ וְהִרְצָת אֶת שַׁבְּתֹתֶיהָ:

(לה) כָּל יְמֵי הָשַּׁמָּה תִּשְׁבֹּת אֵת אֲשֶׁר לֹא שָׁבְתָה בְּשַׁבְּתֹתֵיכֶם בְּשִׁבְתְּכֶם עָלֶיהָ:

Otherwise, simply because nature would stop functioning, would not constitute a Shabbat, but simply a cessation. Therefore RaShI is trying to redefine the verb so that it could apply to natural things without man’s intercession.

2.  There was no reason to define Shabbat in Beraishit 2:2 because HaShem is a “conscious” “Being” and fits the definition of “Choosing” to cease His Creative Activity.

בראשית פרק ב

(ב) וַיְכַל אֱלֹקים בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיִּשְׁבֹּת בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי מִכָּל מְלַאכְתּוֹ אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה: