Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Bereshit 6:19-21 (Noah)– The big sleep

Many aspects of the flood can only be understood by invoking miracles, but still many commentators have attempted to understand the flood as naturally as possible. One example of this approach is the Ramban (on 6:19) who notes that the ark could not have contained all the animals, but still Noah built a large ark to minimize the miracle.

Ibn Ezra (on 6:20) provides another example of the difficulties in understanding the flood in a natural manner. He quotes the simpletons (?) who asked what did the carnivores eat in the ark? Ibn Ezra states that this is no question since he claims that carnivores could naturally eat vegetation if they had no meat. While this is physically impossible, one could claim that G-d miraculously temporarily changed all the animals to herbivores. (This was suggested by Augustine, see Young, 1995, p.24.) Avraham Korman (1998, p.66) varies this idea, and argues that until the flood there were no carnivores since he claims that G-d created carnivores only after the flood. This suggestion is even more dependent on miracles than the idea that G-d temporarily changed the nature of animals.

Ibn Ezra (in second commentary on Bereshit, 6:21) suggests a different answer for the survival of the carnivores in the ark. He quotes that some people have claimed that Noah brought meat on the ark. Yet, how could the meat have stayed fresh? One could again resort to the miraculous approach that G-d preserved the meat or argue that extra animals were taken in for food for the carnivores. For example, John Wilkins, (1614-1672, quoted in Young, 1995, p.59) a Bishop and a founder of the Royal Society of London, argued that Noah only had to take in 40 carnivores, but to feed these animals he also took in 1,825 sheep!

A simpler answer, though also miraculous, is that everybody on the ark hibernated during the flood. (Young, 1995, p.290, quotes from a John Jefferson Davis, 1975, Paradise to Prison, “that a combination of a lack of exercise and hibernation reduced the animals’ appetites.”) With this idea, not only did the carnivores not need to eat or exercise, but also Noah his family did not have take care of the animals. Also, if everybody was a sleep, then maybe nobody suffered from seasickness when the waters were raging. Furthermore since the ark was almost completely dark, the people had nothing to do, so it probably was best that they slept the whole time. In addition, this idea could explain why G-d had to close the door of the ark, 7:16, since Noah and his family had already fallen asleep. This idea accords with the fact that the flood lasted a solar year, as then when everybody woke up, they returned to the same point in the year as when they entered the ark.

A proof for this idea of hibernation is that the Torah records that Noah was 600 years old before the flood, 7:6, that he lived 350 years after the flood, 9:28, and that in total he was 950 years old when he died, 9:29. However, since the flood lasted one year, then he should have been 951 years old when he died. The answer is that during the flood he was hibernating so the year did not count. Noah (also the raven and the dove) would have woken up a little earlier then everybody else when he opened the window to send out the raven, 8:6. (This answer’s the Or ha-Chayyim’s question, how did Noah know to open the window, as he opened it when he woke up.)

If everybody slept, what was the reason for collecting food? The answer could be that the food was needed for after the flood, though again the question would be how did the carnivores survive after the flood?

There are at least three ways to understand the survival of the carnivores after the flood. One, if G-d changed the carnivores into herbivores prior to the flood, then maybe the animals only reverted back to being carnivores when there was enough sources of available food for them. Two, maybe the carnivores ate the animals that died in the flood, but then G-d would have had to ensure that this food was still edible after the waters receded. A third possibility is that the flood was only local, and then other animals entered the area of the flood after the water subsided.

No comments:

Post a Comment