Devarim 32:10 – Who did G-d find and protect in the desert?

Devarim 32:10 records “He (G-d) found him in the wilderness land, in the waste of the howling desert. He encircled him, gave mind to him, watched him like the apple of his eye.” Alter, 2004, p. 1040, translation. This verse is part of the beginning section of the song of Hazinu (Devarim 32:1-43), which records that the people are to learn from their history to see that G-d was good to the people.

One question concerning this verse is who did G-d find in the howling desert? I believe that the standard explanation is that the someone is the Jewish people that G-d found them in the desert. With this approach the singular pronoun in the verse is understood as referring to the plural, them, but did G-d find the people in the desert? G-d "found" the people in Egypt, which was not the desert, and then G-d took the people to the desert. Seemingly to answer this question, Rashi (on 32:10) argues that the finding is that G-d found that the people were loyal, faithful to Him by the Decalogue at Mount Sinai. This is difficult since the people were not so loyal at Mount Sinai as forty days after the Decalogue, they committed the sin of the golden calf (see Shemot 32:1-6 and Devarim 9:8).

Rashi himself seems bothered by this approach and towards the end of his comments on the verse, he quotes a second explanation from Targum Onkelos (also quoted by the Rashbam on 32:10), that based on Bemidbar 11:22 one can claim that the word find means that G-d provided the people with food. N. Leibowitz (1982a, p. 342) notes that this explanation is "rather strained linguistically" and she prefers Rashi's first explanation that the finding is by the Decalogue since this approach accords with the following verse, 32:11, which has a connection with the events at Mount Sinai, see our discussion on 32:11, “On the wings of eagles.”

Another problem with the idea that 32:10 is referring to the time of the giving of the Torah is that the implication of 32:10 is that prior to this finding by G-d, someone or some people was/ were on the verge of dying in the barren desert. Were the people on the verge of dying at Mount Sinai? G-d had already given them the mahn, Shemot chapter 16. Also, Devarim 9:21, seems to refer to some river/ creek by Mount Sinai when the people were there, which implies that the people were not in a barren desert at the time of the giving of the Torah.

These problems suggest that the reference to G-d finding someone in 32:10 is referring to a specific person who was in trouble in the desert, but who could be this person? One possibility could be Moshe when he ran away from Pharaoh, Shemot 2:15, but was Moshe on the verge of dying in the desert before he found the wells by Midyan? Maybe yes, but 32:10 also implies that this finding signaled the beginning of the people, and the Jewish people existed prior to Moshe.

Another possibility is that the verse is referring to Avraham that some time prior to G-d's call in Bereshit 12:1, he had got lost in the desert. Could this be the reference to Bereshit 20:13? 

Another possibility is that the verse is referring to Yaakov, who was mentioned in the previous verse, 32:9, that maybe at some point when Yaakov was running away from Esav, he was on the verge of dying in a desert.

A fourth possibility is that the verse is referring to Terah, who was the progenitor of the Jewish people both on the male line (Avraham) and the female line (Rivka, Rahel and Leah, and maybe Sara). The verse would then be telling us that there was an incident when Terah was on the verge of dying in the desert and G-d saved him and then protected his descendants.

There is no explicit reference to such an incident in the Torah, but there are two hints that this might have happened. One, Bereshit 11:31 records that Terah, on his own, decided to go the land of Canaan/ Israel from Ur Kasdim (southern Iraq?) but he did not make it and ended up in Haran (Northern Syria). What is the significance of this verse? Why is it important that that he wanted to go to the land of Canaan/ Israel but did not make it? The Torah is giving him credit for his effort even though he did not make it, why? Our verse might suggest an answer. Maybe when he was trying to get to the land of Canaan/ Israel, he got lost and ended up in the Syrian Desert near death. At this point G-d found him and saved him, but after this experience he did not want to try again and he lived out the rest of his life in Haran. However, this moment was crucial since maybe this is when the Jewish people were founded in the sense that at that point, G-d decided to watch over Terah’s family and this is why Bereshit 11:31 recorded Terah’s effort to get to the land of Canaan/ Israel.

A second hint is that Bereshit 12:1 records that G-d told Avraham to "go to the land that I will show you." Why did G-d not say explicitly the land of Canaan? A possible answer is that since Avraham had travelled with Terah (Bereshit 11:31) when Terah had been saved by G-d, he knew which land G-d was referring to, but he also knew how dangerous was the trip that he could get lost again in the desert, so G-d had to tell him that I will show you the way in order that you will not get lost this time.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1982a, Studies in Devarim, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 7:6-11,24 – Water from the great depths of the earth during the flood by Noah

בראשית ז:יא - בשנת שש מאות שנה לחיי נח בחדש השני בשבעה עשר יום לחודש ביום הזה נבקעו כל מעינת תהום רבה וארבת השמים נפתחו.

7:11 records that G-d brought forth water from all the great depths during the flood. Were these great depths referring to water from the bottom of the oceans? More likely, the reference is to water that was/is below the upper mantle of the earth in a region called the transition zone, which is thought to contain more water than all the oceans (Frances, 2017, pp. 10,11). This water seems to be locked inside minerals, 500 to 660 kilometers below the surface, and if this is the water referred to in 7:11, then during the flood, G-d caused this water to separate from the minerals and rise to the surface. This would certainly be water from great depths.

Regardless of the source of this water from below, its presence can answer two questions concerning the flood. One, 7:1-4 records G-d’s final instructions to Noah before the flood. This conversation was on the tenth of the month since G-d told Noah that the rain was to begin in seven days, and the rain began to fall on the 17th of the month, 7:11.  7:6 then records that the water from the flood were on the land, and 7:7 records that Noah and is family went into the ark due to the water of the flood. Both of these verses happened on the 10th of the month. Afterwards, 7:11 records that that all the fountains of the deep and of the sky opened on the 17th of the month. How was there water from the flood already on the earth in 7:6,7? Are 7:6,7 anticipating 7:11? A simple answer is that 7:6,7 are referring to the water rising from springs not so deep or that water from the depths of the earth was starting to percolate on the land before the water from below gushed forth and the rain began.

The appearance of this water in 7:6,7 does not contradict 7:4 since 7:4 only refers to the rain that would be in seven days, and this water was not rain but springs from under the ground. This water was not yet sufficient to flood the world, but still this water was part of the flood. Later, on the 17th, then 7:11 records that all of the springs from under the earth shot up since previously only a few of the springs had "sent" water to the surface.

A second question is that 7:24 records that the water on the land swelled for 150 days, but 7:4,12 (and 7:17) record that it only rained for forty days. How could the water swell if there was no more rain?

Ibn Ezra (on 7:24) explains that during the period of 150 days there was rain, but it was not continuous, as opposed to the initial 40-day period where the rain did not stop. He brings a proof from 8:2 which records that the rain stopped, and as this is recorded after the mention of the 150 days, this implies that there was rain after the initial forty days.

Ramban (on 8:4) seems to explain that during the 150 days the water was unable to evaporate but there was no new water. The water from the initial 40 days remained with their full destructive power for all the 150 days and this is what the phrase va-yigbaru ha-mayim in 7:24 means (see his comments on 7:18).

I doubt these answers. According to the Ramban, the water stayed at the same level, which means the water did not swell up. Ibn Ezra is correct that 8:2 implies that the rain continued after the forty days, but the question is whether the rain in this period was significant or not. If it was just regular rain, then this quantity could not be said to cause the water to swell. However, if it was a significant amount of rain, then why does the Torah state in 7:12 that it rained for forty days, when it according to Ibn Ezra it rained more than forty days even if the rain was not continuous?

My understanding is that when 8:2 records that the floodgates of the shamayim were stopped and the rain ended, this means that when the land was drying up, G-d stopped even normal rain from falling to not hinder the drying up process. With this understanding, 8:2 implies that after the forty days of very significant torrential rain, there was normal rain in the ensuing period, but this rain would not have been enough to cause the water to swell up. What then caused the water on earth to swell after the significant forty-day rain stopped?

One possibility is the extent of the flood was limited after the forty days of flood. The basic amount of water remained the same during the ensuing 110 days (or 103 days according to my understanding, see our discussion on 7:11- 8:19, The chronology of the flood), but then G-d started to limit the area covered by the flood, which would lead the water in the remaining areas to rise further. Admittedly, this would require another miracle of some "fence" to keep the water from running off, but the flood can only be understood by invoking miracles, and this miracle of a "fence" reduces the amount of water, which lessens the dependence on miracles to explain the amount of water. It was during this period, after the forty days, that the mountains were covered, but this was only in the smaller area that remained flooded. (Note this idea that the area under water contracted could be whether the initial flood of forty days was global or local.)

A second possibility is that while the torrential rains stopped after forty days, the water from the great depths of the earth continued rising up until the end of the hundred and fifty-day period. This water could not have been seen by Noah, even if he was awake in this period, since it was coming from below, but it would have caused an increase in the water level on earth. 8:2 records that after one hundred and fifty days the water from the depths of the earth was stopped up since until then this water had continued to rise and had caused the water level on earth to swell.

Bibliography:

Frances, Peter, 2017, Natural Wonders of the World, London: Dorling Kindersley (DK) Limited, a division of Penguin Random House LLC.

Bereshit 7:4- 8:19 – The chronology of the flood by Noah and parallelism in the flood narrative

One of the prominent aspects of the flood narrative is the numerous references to specific dates and time periods, 7:4,11,12,17,24; 8:4-6,13,14. Why are these dates important? For instance, 8:5 records that on the first day of the tenth month, the tops of the mountains were visible. Was Noah and his family able to see the tops of the mountains? Why is this significant? Conceivably the Torah could have recorded the events of the flood in a few verses. Why all the dates? One answer is from S. R. Hirsch (1989, p. 154) who writes that these dates "raise the whole catastrophe out of the realm of the blind workings of the forces of nature, and stamps it as the free-willed administration of the Divine Providence." Or, maybe the dates are a literary way to convey the magnitude of the flood. Or, maybe these dates are to contradict the possible thought that the flood was just a metaphor and did not happen.

A different set of questions is how do all the dates mesh together? No date is given for the first communication between G-d and Noah, 6:13-21, maybe since it was not clear how long it would take Noah to build the ark. Cassuto (1964, p. 43) suggests that the first communication was on the first day of the first month, but then Noah would have had to build the ark in forty days, which seems very difficult even if he had easy access to wood. Rashi (on 6:3,14) follows the idea in Chazal that it took Noah 120 years to build the ark, but this seems too much. More likely, it took Noah several years to build the ark.

The second communication between G-d and Noah, 7:1-4, was on the tenth day of the second month since 7:4 records that the rain would start in seven days and 7:11,12 record that on the 17th day of the second month, there began torrential rains for forty days. Note we do not know which is the second month, and if these dates, the tenth and the 17th, have any importance. It could be that the tenth day of the second month was close to the time that Noah finished building the ark.

If every month is 30 days, then the forty days of rain starting from the 17th day of the second month ended on the 27th day of the third month, while if a month is reckoned as 29.5 days (the more exact calculation), then forty days of rain might have ended on the 28th day of the third month.

The next verse which refers to the timing of the flood is that 7:24 records that the water swelled for 150 days. What is the connection between the forty days of rain, 7:4,12,17 and the 150 days when the water swelled, 7:24? One possibility is that these were two separate periods, altogether 190 days (Rashi on 8:3-5, Radak on 7:24), and then 7:24 is referring to the 27th of the eighth month (if a month is 30 days) or the 30th of the eighth month or the first of the ninth month (if a month is 29.5 days). The second option is that the forty days of torrential rains are part of the 150 days (Ramban on 8:4), and then the 150 days ended on 17th of the seventh month (if a month is 30 days) or the 20th of the seventh month (if a month is 29.5 days). A third option, is that I believe that already on the tenth of the second month, water started to rise from the depths of the earth (see our discussion on 7:1-11, “Water from the great depths of the earth”), and then the 150 days when the water swelled would include the forty days of torrential rains and the seven days when only the water from the depths rose to the surface. With this calculation, the swelling of water referred to in 7:24 would have ended on the 10th of the seventh month (if a month is 30 days) or on the 13th of the seventh month (if a month is 29.5 days).

The next date is that 8:3 records that the waters began to dimmish and this diminishment occurred for 150 days. This diminishment of the water for 150 days is parallel to the water swelling for 150 days (see Radak on 8:3). Presumably, these 150 days of the water level diminishing began immediately after the 150-day period of the water swelling ended, and there would be three sets of possibilities as to when this second 150 period ended. If the first set of 150 days did not include the forty days of torrential rains, then the second set of 150 days ended on 27th day of the first month of the second year (if a month is 30 days) or on the 3rd day of the second month of the second year (if a month is 29.5 days). Note that as we discuss below, this possibility cannot be correct since it contradicts 8:13. A second set of possibilities would be if the first set of 150 days included the forty days of torrential rains, and then the second set of 150 days ended either on the 17th day of the 12th month (if a month is 30 days) or on the 23rd day of the 12th month (if a month is 29.5 days). The third set of possibilities follows my idea that waters starting come up from the depths of the earth on the 10th day of the second month, and then the second set of 150 days ended on either the 10th of the 12th month (if a month is 30 days) or on the 16th of the 12th month (if a month is 29.5 days).

8:4 then records that the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat on the 17th day of the seventh month. This verse begins a new section of the episode as the 17th day of the seventh month was way before the end of the second set of 150 days for all three possibilities.

One question about 8:4 is whether the ark would have rested on the mountain when the water was rising or only when the water was dropping? If it was only when the water was dropping, then this means that the waters had to start receding by the 17th of the seventh month. This could only have happened if the first set of 150 days included the 40 days of torrential rain, and each month is 30 days, as then the ark would have lodged into the mountain immediately when waters stopped rising, or if the first set of 150 days includes the 40 days of torrential rains and the seven days when the water was rising from the depths of the earth, as then the water peaked on the 13th of the seventh month, and began to recede on the 14th day of the seventh month.

A second question about 8:4, is did the ark stayed lodged in the mountain until the end of the flood? I believe that many people think that the ark did not move from this point, but I doubt this since it is unlikely that Noah and his family left the ark high up in the mountains. More likely, the ark rested for a short time on the mountains of Ararat, but then as water continued to diminish, the ark went down with the water. If this is true, then this mention of the ark being on the mountains was to show how high the waters reached, similar to 7:20 when the water level was rising.

8:5 then records that on the first day of the tenth month, the water receded enough that the tops of the mountains could be seen. This implies that the ark was now below the mountains and not on the mountains of Ararat. This might indicate that the ark reached its final resting point. This information was also to show the magnitude of the flood, similar to the information in 7:19. Cassuto (1964, p. 106) notes that the word here ad, until, does not indicate that the waters stopped receding at this point, just that it reached a significant point, as in Bereshit 28:15.

8:6 then records that at the end of forty days, Noah opened the window in the ark. We do not know when these forty days began. Cassuto (1964, p. 106) writes that the forty-day period began on the first day of the tenth month since this was the date in the preceding verse, and then Noah opened the window on the tenth day of the eleventh month. This seems reasonable. This forty-day period from the first day of the tenth month to the tenth day of the eleventh month parallels the forty-day period of torrential rains in the beginning of the flood. Also, in the first forty-day period, the ark remained in one spot even as the water was rising, 7:17, while possibly now when the water was receding, the ark remained in its final spot for forty days. Also, at the beginning of the first forty-day period, G-d closed up the ark, 7:16, while at the end of the second forty- day period, Noah opened the window in the ark. Furthermore, the first 40 days was part of the first 150 days, and the second set of 40 days was part of the second set of the 150 days.

After Noah opened the window on the tenth day of the eleventh month, he sent out a raven and three doves, 8:7-12. Between the sending of the first and second doves and second and third doves, the Torah records that Noah waited seven days, but we do know how soon Noah sent out the raven after he opened the window, and how much time elapsed between when Noah sent out the raven and when he sent out the first dove. Cassuto (1964, p. 44) writes that Noah immediately sent out the raven when he opened the window and that there was a week between the sending out of the raven and the first dove. If this correct, then it took twenty-one days to send out the birds, and this process ended around the first day of the 12th month. This could be, but maybe Noah did not send out the raven right after he opened the window and maybe the end of the process of sending out the birds coincided with the end of the 150 days of the diminishment of the water. Also, the two seven days period between the sending out of a dove a second and third time corresponds to the seven-day period when G-d spoke to Noah on the tenth of the second month, 7:1-4. Note the seven-day period prior to the 40 days of torrential rains is mentioned twice, 7:4,10, and twice the Torah mentions Noah waiting seven days in between the sending the doves, 8:10,12.

The next date recorded is on the first day of the first month of the second year, and this was significant since on that day Noah took off the roof of the ark, 8:13. Until this point, Noah, and whoever was awake on the ark, was only able to look out of window.

8:13 also records that the land had dried out, which Rashi (on 8:13) writes means that it was still muddy, as there were no large puddles, but still the ground was soft. This description of the ground as dry, even if muddy, contradicts the possibility mentioned above that the first set of 150 days did not include the 40 days of torrential rains since with that possibility there was still water on the earth on the first month of the second year. With the other two possibilities as to when the first set of 150 days began, the first day of the first month of the second year was at most twenty days after the second set of 150 days period of the diminishment of the water ended.

Most likely, it took Noah some time to remove the roof, as it was 300 amot by 50 amot, and that he started to take off the roof after the third sending of the dove. This period would correspond to the period of the building of the ark, and both periods were not part of either of the two periods of one hundred and fifty days.

8:14 records the last date in the chronology of the flood and this was the 27th day of the second month, when the land was dry, and apparently on this day, Noah, his family and the animals left the ark, 8:15-19. This was one solar year from the time the rain started on the 17th day of the second month of the previous year if one counts both days and a month is 29.5 days. It could be that the need to have a complete solar year is why Noah, his family and the animals were unable to leave the ark earlier. Also, during the time from when the roof was removed until they left the ark, Noah and family could have looked at the earth from the ark. This seeing parallels 6:12 that G-d looked at the earth before he spoke to Noah the first time.

With this chronology, we have six parallel periods in concentric order: One, the looking at the world in the very beginning and the end of the flood, 6:12 and 8:14. Two, the building of the ark and taking apart its roof, 6:13-22 and 8:13. Three, the seven days periods, 7:1-5, and 8:7-12. Four, the two forty-day periods, 7:6-17 and 8:5,6. Five, the covering and then seeing the tops of the mountains within the two periods of 150 days, 7:19,20 and 8:4,5. Six, the two periods of 150 days, 7:18-24, and 8:3. The center of this literary structure is that G-d remembered Noah, and all of the animals, and stopped the water, 8:1,2. One could even add a seventh parallel to this structure, that 6:5-8 corresponds to 8:20,21. (Two other scholars, Wenham (1978) and Radday (1981) have also argued for a chiastic structure in the flood narrative centering on 8:1, though with different structures than what is presented here.)

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1964, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part two: From Noah to Abraham, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Radday, Yehuda T., 1981, Chiasmus in Hebrew Biblical Narrative, in Chiasmus in Antiquity: Structure, Analysis, Exegesis, ed. John W. Welch, Provo, UT: Research Press, pp. 99–100.

Wenham, Gordan J., 1978, The Coherence of the Flood Narrative, Vetus Testamentum, 28, pp. 336–348.

Bereshit 11:1-9 (Noah) – The tower of Bavel: To boldly go, not?

Bereshit 11:1-9 records the story of the Tower of Babel. The people of the world gathered together to build a city and a tower, but G-d disapproved of their efforts and stopped them by dispersing them all over the world. What was wrong in building the city and the tower that G-d had to intervene in the world? Also, this episode is recorded between two sets of genealogies, elleh toledot of the children of Noah, 10:1-32 and the elleh toledot of Shem, 11:10-11:26. How does this episode relate to these genealogies?

One approach to understanding the building of the city and the tower is that the tower was meant to be used for idolatrous practices. Bereshit Rabbah 38:6 explains that the people said "Come let us build a tower at the top of which we will set an idol holding a sword in its hand, which will thus appear to wage war against Him." (This same idea appears explicitly in the piyyut atah konnata and hinted to in the piyyut amitz koah, both of which are recited in the avodah prayer in the repetition of the chazzan’s Shemoneh Esrei on Musaf of Yom Kippur.)  This approach is based on the idea that the word shamayim in 11:4 means the heavens, but really this word in all of the Torah just means air. 11:4 then means that the people wanted to build a tower or building high in the air.

Seforno (on 11:4, see Sanhedrin 109a and Haketav Vehakabbalah on 11:4) varies this idea and suggests that when the Torah records that the people wanted to make a name for themselves this meant they wanted to worship idolatry.

Modern archeological might support this approach, as large towers, called ziqqurat, have been found in many ancient Mesopotamian (Bavel, modern day Iraq) cities. Sarna (1970, pp. 63-80) notes that the Torah specifically records that the bricks for building the tower were baked in an oven and bitumen was used for mortar, 11:3, and this was the method for building in Mesopotamia. Also, the idea of making a name, 11:4, could correspond to the ancient practice of inscribing names of kings on bricks and depositing the bricks in the foundations of the ziqqurat. Ziqqurat were a central part of the Mesopotamian religion that it was believed that by going up to the tower the people would contact god.

Sarna argues that the episode is an anti-pagan polemic since it shows G-d's superiority that G-d could easily stop the building of the tower. This episode could then relate to the birth of Avram, which is recorded at the end of the elleh toledot of Shem, 11:26, because prior to the development of a new religion the Torah shows the meaninglessness of the pagan religion of Avram's time.

While this approach seems reasonable, P.J. Harland (1998) doubts this approach since "there is no reference to any image on the tower,… there is no mention made by the people that they intended any improper worship,"… and he claims the word tower, migdal, should be understood as a fortress and not a tower. 

N. Leibowitz (1976, pp. 100-108, see also Ramban on 11:2 though he is very cryptic) proposes a second approach that the purpose of building the tower was "to make man forget his insignificance and transientness, to delude him with his greatness and immortality, in short to make for himself a name." The sin was then of hubris that the people thought they could become like G-d. With this idea, the people's dispersal was a punishment to cut them down to size and reduce their pride. N. Leibowitz further writes that "only when there will be an end to man's pride which takes advantage of the wisdom implanted in him by G-d in order to turn himself into a deity and worship the work of his own hands" will people be able to truly worship G-d. One could then suggest that humankind's pride had to be reduced before Avram was to spread his religious message.

I do not like this approach for two reasons. One, as noted by Sarna, "the desire for fame is perfectly human and not in itself reprehensible. Indeed, the granting thereof is part of the divine promise to Avram, 12:2" (see also Cassuto, 1964, p. 243). Two, is there really a need for G-d to intervene to reduce man's pride? Lemekh (4:23,24) and others since him have been proud and G-d did not intervene explicitly in the world to reduce their pride.

According to the above approaches, the dispersal of the people was a punishment, but there are other approaches which understand the dispersal as a beneficial action. One of these approaches is to argue that the sin of building the tower and the city was that the people were setting up an inappropriate political system. S.R. Hirsch (1989, p. 207) writes that the building was "to make something that should serve as a perpetual reminder of the power of the community over the individual." (I wonder if these comments relate to Hirsch's fight to separate from the Reform community in Germany.) Similarly, Yeshayahu Leibowitz (1990, p. 18) writes that the sin of the building of the city and the tower was not the building per se, but "the aim to use these artificial means to ensure a situation of 'one language and one speech' of centralization, which in modern parlance would be known as totalitarianism." Thus, Y. Leibowitz argues that when G-d dispersed the people, G-d was helping the people by giving them back their freedom. This approach could also relate to the birth of Avram since as Avram was going to start a new nation there was need for political freedom. Yet, while this approach is interesting, I doubt the Torah here is trying to teach us political lessons.

Another approach which views the dispersal of mankind in a positive vein is that the dispersal was part of the fulfillment of the blessing to humankind in 1:28 and 9:1 to "fill the world." (Ibn Ezra end of comments on 11:7, Rashbam on 11:4, Radak on 11:5, Bekhor Shor on 11:4, Hizkuni on 11:1, Luzzatto on 11:4 and Cassuto, 1964 p. 243, all follow this approach.  See also Hiebert 2007.) The idea here is that the people wanted to build the tower and the city to ensure that everybody would live in one place since the tower was to be a central point that people would return to. Similarly, the idea of making a name was that if people left the city they would remember the city and return to it (Radak on 11:4). Ibn Ezra (on 11:4) notes that according to this approach there is no issue with the height of the tower, as the phrase "until the heavens" was just meant to imply a tall building (see Devarim 1:28). 

According to this approach, the problem here was that G-d did not want people to live in one place since humankind was blessed to spread throughout the world (1:28, and 9:1), and hence G-d dispersed the people. The people were not being punished since it was always part of their destiny to spread out all over the world. Furthermore, according to this approach it is not even clear if the people sinned, as Ibn Ezra (on 11:4) points out that maybe they did not know that they were supposed to spread out all over the world.

This "dispersal" approach accords with the text as 11:4 explicitly records that the people said that they were building the city and the tower "lest we be dispersed over the face of all the earth." The same word for dispersed, nafutz, occurs again in 11:8, va-yafatz, which records G-d's dispersal of the people, and in the last sentence of the description of this incident, which summarizes the incident, 11:9, he-fitzam. We see that this was the main issue that the people did not want to disperse since they wanted everybody to live in some large metropolis, and G-d wanted them to disperse.

Yet, why was there a need for G-d to intervene and disperse the people, as human nature will lead people to go out, travel and explore, and eventually after building the tower, people would have left to go to other places. Furthermore, chapter 10 already recorded that the people had dispersed throughout the world, 10:5,32, which seemed to occur without G-d intervening. Thus, the phrase "all the earth" in 11:1 most likely signifies many people in the world were involved in this project to build the city and the tower, but not that literally every person in the world was involved in building the tower since some people had already dispersed from the area. 

People will naturally spread out throughout the world, but the episode here shows that this action is part of G-d's will. G-d's dispersal of the people by the Tower of Babel was then one example of the spreading out of people throughout the world as recorded in chapter 10, and hence this episode is part of the elleh toledot section of chapter 10.

Why was it important to show that the spreading out of people throughout the world was G-d's will? The answer relates to the ensuing narrative, which records the genealogy leading up to Avram. G-d was going to establish a covenant with Avram and his descendants (15:18, 17:7), but did that mean that G-d was no longer the G-d of the other nations? No, and this is seen by the episode of the Tower of Babel. The other nations of the world would not be part of the covenant of Avram, but they were still part of the blessing in Bereshit 1:28, that they should fill the world and conquer it. The episode of the Tower of Babel shows that G-d cares about all people in the world as G-d was helping the people of the world to fill and conquer the world, and hence G-d was also their G-d. To highlight this connection between humankind and G-d, the Torah uses anthropomorphic words, that G-d came down to see the building (11:5) and the use of the royal we in 11:7. The message of 11:1-9 is then to show that G-d is involved with the affairs of all of humankind, even if G-d was about to make a covenant with one nation.

Bibliography:

Harland, P.J. 1998, Vertical or horizontal: The sin of Babel, Vetus Testamentum, 1998, pp. 515-533.

Hiebert, Theodore, 2007, The tower of Babel and the origins of the world's cultures, Journal of Biblical Literature, 126:1, pp. 29-58.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808-1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Leibowitz, Yeshayahu, 1990, Notes and remarks on the weekly parashah, translated by Shmuel Himelstein, Brooklyn: Chemed Books.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1970, Understanding Genesis, New York: Schocken Books.

Bereshit 9:12-17 (Noah) – A rainbow after the flood?

Bereshit (Genesis) 9:12-17 record that the sign of the covenant between G-d and Noah is the keshet, and keshet is translated as a rainbow based on Yechezkel 1:28. The symbolism of the rainbow accords nicely with the timing of the covenant with Noah since just as the rainbow shows hope after the storm, so too Noah should have been hopeful to re-start the world.

Was the rainbow just created at the time of the flood? Ibn Ezra (on 9:13) argues yes, based on the word natati (9:13). Radak (on 9:13) explains that according to this approach after the flood G-d made the sun stronger that it would cause a rainbow. On the other hand, the Mishnah (Pirkei Avot 5:9) records that the rainbow was created during the twilight of the eve of the first Shabbat. Similarly, Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon (on 9:13) and the Ramban (on 9:12) argue that the rainbow always existed and only after the flood was its appearance to be taken as an ot, sign, of the covenant. (Does Radak suggest an in-between approach that it existed before the flood but did not exist during the year of the flood?) The text here supports the Ibn Ezra, but it is hard to argue that the physical properties of the sun and water changed from before the flood to after the flood.

Another question is the purpose of the rainbow. It is commonly understood that the rainbow informs a person that really G-d should have destroyed the world but G-d did not do so since G-d had promised not to. With this idea, the rainbow is for people to realize that they are misbehaving. However, 9:15 states that rainbow was for G-d to remember.

The language of G-d remembering is also not clear since we believe that G-d does not forget. Instead, the word remembering in reference to G-d is traditionally understood as a way of expressing the idea, in human terms that G-d is acting after ignoring something but in this case what was G-d ignoring?

Cassuto (1964, pp. 138,139) notes two other difficulties with the sign of the rainbow. One, 9:13,14,16, all record that the keshet was to be in the clouds, but rainbows are in the sky not in the clouds. Two, how can the rainbow remind G-d to not wipe out the world, if the rainbow appears after the storm is over?

While Cassuto suggests answers to his questions, I doubt the word keshet here means rainbow. I believe that after the flood, G-d put in the clouds (atmosphere?) a mechanism to stop the rains at some point, a type of automatic shut-off system. The language of G-d remembering is in reference to the system that the system that G-d set up would act to stop the world from being flooded. This action would occur after the rains had begun, which from the system's point of view would be ignored until the rains reached a certain "danger" point, and then the new system would stop or slow down the rains.

With this idea, the word, ot, sign, does not mean a sign that people will see on a regular basis but it is a sign that the covenant is being fulfilled and is not mere words. Thus, G-d established the system to stop the rains from flooding the world, and this indicates that the promise of the covenant of 9:8-11 is being fulfilled. This would be similar to the ot by circumcision, 17:11, that it is not for a person to always look at this sign, but when parents circumcise their sons, then they have demonstrated their commitment to the covenant. This demonstration is the ot of the covenant.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1964, A commentary on the book of Genesis, part two: From Noah to Abraham, Jerusalem: Magnes Press.

Bereshit 8:21 (Noah) - Is man evil?

At the end of the flood, Noah left the ark and offered sacrifices to G-d, Bereshit 8:20. 8:21 records G-d’s response: “The Lord smelled the pleasing odor, and the Lord said to Himself, ‘Never again will I doom the earth because of man, since the devisings of man’s mind are evil from his youth; (ki yetser lev ha-adam ra me-neurav) nor will I ever again destroy every living being, as I have done (JPS translation, Sarna 1989).”

The phrase “the devisings of man are evil” is difficult within the overall story of the flood. Cassuto (1964, p.120, see also Hizkuni) notes that the phrase has been understood to mean that since man is by nature evil, man cannot be responsible for his actions. This clemency would explain the two promises of 8:21 that the earth will not be cursed again due to mankind and that there will never again be universal retribution upon humanity. However, the idea that man is evil not only appears after the flood in 8:21, but also before the flood. 6:5 records, “The Lord saw how great was man’s wickedness on earth, and how every plan devised by his mind was nothing but evil all the time.” As Sarna (1989, p.59) notes the repetition of the evil of man’s mind “makes for an inclusion, or envelope structure,” from the beginning to the end of the flood narrative. Yet, Sarna also notes the difficulty of this repetition since in 6:5 the idea that man’s thoughts were evil was apparently the reason for the flood while the same idea in 8:21 is apparently a justification for why there will be no future destruction either of mankind or of the earth.

The phrase “the devisings of man’s mind are evil” also seems to be in disaccord with the beginning of 8:21 which records that G-d smelled the pleasing odor of Noah’s sacrifices. It is clear that G-d’s smelling is an anthropomorphic term, and that the verse is just telling us that G-d approved the sacrifices, see Ibn Ezra on 8:21. Yet, how can the idea that G-d was pleased relate to the idea that the “devisings of man’s mind are evil?” Furthermore, Noah seems to have acted in a positive manner, yet we are then told that man’s mind always thinks evil thoughts.

Finally, the phrase “the devisings of man’s mind are evil” is also difficult as a general description of mankind independent of the textual issues. Is man intrinsically good or not? Most people would want to believe yes, as who wants to think of themselves as evil? Also, why would G-d create mankind if by nature man is evil? Also, after the creation of man, G-d declared that everything was good, 1:31, yet how could that be if man is evil?

Yehuda Nachshoni (1987, p.31) quotes the Bina la-Ettim (R. Azarya Figo, Venice, 1579-1647) that 8:21 refers to the evil desire, which can have a positive aspect in causing man to develop his world. This idea is based on a comment by Nahman in R. Shmuel's name (Bereshit Rabbah 9:7 on Bereshit 1:31) who states that man was considered very good because he was created with the evil desire. The Midrash explains that if there was no evil desire, then no man would build a house, take a wife and beget children. Thus, G-d had to create mankind with this evil desire for the world to exist. The Bina la-Ettim suggests that before the flood, the evil desire was only used for evil, but after the flood, when Noah offered his sacrifices then the evil desire was being used for good. Yet, how can Noah's sacrifices be considered as emanating from his evil desire?

The term yester in 8:21 should be understood based on Adam Smith's invisible hand, see Ohrenstein and Gordon, 1992, pp.35-45. Adam Smith wrote in the Wealth of Nations, (1776, p.423), “He (any person) generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it… He intends only for his own gain, and he is in this… led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” The idea of the invisible hand is that even though man is selfish still in a competitive market the selfishness leads to the most efficient outcome.

The reference to man's evil nature in 6:5 and 8:21 is to man’s selfishness, which can prompt mankind to act evil but also can cause man to act good. In 6:5, mankind's selfishness prompted man to act wickedly, but in 8:21 the same selfishness prompted Noah to offer sacrifices. Why did Noah offer sacrifices when he left the ark? Cassuto explain that it was to thank G-d for saving him. It was Noah’s selfish instincts to want to survive and the satisfaction of his instincts led him to thank G-d, a good deed. Yet, this was a selfish act since he was thanking G-d that he was saved, as opposed to the other people who were killed.

Man’s selfishness is a test. One can be concerned about good causes and then selfishness is “a good thing” or one’s selfishness can lead one to run amuck and then it is negative. Due to this second possibility, there was a need for laws to suppress the negative consequences of man’s selfishness. The introduction of laws is the new situation after the flood. Prior to the flood, mankind existed without any laws, but after the flood there would be laws, 9:4-6, which hopefully would prevent the wickedness that existed prior to the flood from re-occurring. (Possibly, G-d did not just start the world with laws to answer the anarchist’s (Rousseau's) claim that the world would be better with no laws. G-d initially allowed the world to exist with no laws and it was a disaster.)

When 6:5-8 records that the world was to be destroyed but Noah was to live, this meant that the world was to be destroyed in order to start the world again. Yet, the conditions in the world were to be changed because the new world would have a system of laws. The flood was to enable the world to start anew, with a new set of conditions. 8:21, the envelope of 6:5, is telling the reader that man's selfishness can be used for good, and G-d states that He will not destroy the world again since man can be good. The question is just how to increase the chance that man's selfish nature would lead to good outcomes and this is through the laws that follow. Furthermore, with the introduction of laws, there was no reason to destroy humanity or the world again (8:21, 9:1) in order to establish a new system.

In conclusion, 8:21 is telling us that man is intrinsically selfish from birth, which is usually considered a negative characteristic, but it can lead a person to be good. It remains to one’s education and the laws to encourage the positive aspects of selfishness to assert itself.

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.