Chronology of the Flood/2/en
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Chronology of the Flood
Exegetical Approaches
150 Days Which Includes the First 40 Days
The two mentions of 150 days refer to the same time period and encompass the forty days of rain. The ark landed at the conclusion of these 150 days. This approach subdivides regarding how the commentators understand the chapter's dating:
Months from creation
All the months mentioned in the verses are calculated according to the yearly calendar, from creation.
Sources:Qumran Scroll 4Q252, the Karaites, rejected approach in Lekach Tov, Ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Rid, approach in Chizkuni, Ramban #2,1 Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Seforno, Shadal, Hoil Moshe, R. D"Z Hoffmann, U. Cassuto
Months – These commentators assume that all the months mentioned in the account of the flood are numbered from the beginning of the calendar year. They disagree, though, regarding whether the first month is Tishrei or Nissan.2
150 and 40 Overlap – This position assumes that the forty days of rain are subsumed in the 150 day period, reading the final verse of Chapter 7 "וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם", as a summary statement of the previously described events rather than a successive event.3
One set of 150 – They similarly assume that the statement "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" does not mean that the water receded after a second set of 150 days, but rather that it decreased after, or the reduction was first noticeable at the end of, the 150 days previously mentioned.
"וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם" and "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם" – Though all these sources agree that there was but one set of 150 days, they disagree in how they understand the relationship between the periods of increasing and receding waters:4
- Water first decreased after 150 days - The author of the Qumran Scroll, Yefet the Karaite, Ibn Ezra,5 Ramban, and Seforno all understand the phrase "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" to mean that the water only began to decrease at the end of the 150 days. Until that point the water level was either still rising, or at least, maintaining its height. Seforno suggests that even though the rain stopped after 40 days, the underground sources of water were still open,6 causing continued water pressure during this entire period.7 Ramban, in contrast, seems to maintain that though the waters did not continue to increase after the fortieth day, due to the great humidity8 they retained their height throughout this period.
- Water decreased after the forty days of rain – Most of the other commentators in this approach9 assume that the water started to recede right after the rain stopped. The phrase " וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" simply means that the waters were is a state of strength (relative to normal water heights), not that they were increasing, or even maintaining their level. R"Y Bekhor Shor, R. Hoffmann and U. Cassuto explain the verse "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" to mean not that the water first began to recede at this point but that the decrease was first noticeable to Noach after this period, when the ark landed.10
Chronology
- Chronological –Those who maintain that the waters maintained their strength throughout the 150 days, read the verses chronologically, with Chapter 7 describing the rising flood and Chapter 8 detailing the decreasing waters at the end of the 150 days.11
- Achronological – The other commentators, though, assume that verses 8:2-4 (the sending of the wind and closing of the heavenly windows) occurred in the midst of the 150 days that are mentioned in the preceding chapter and that there is an element of achronology in the verses. Akeidat Yitzchak and Shadal explain that the Torah purposely separated the images of destruction and salvation, detailing the world's collapse in Chapter 7 before describing its rebuilding in Chapter 8.
How do 150 days fit in five months? According to the fixed lunar calendar, months generally alternate between having 29 and 30 days,12 which means that there can be at most 147-149 days in any 5 month period.13 As such, this position must explain how the 150 days fit into the five months between 2/17 when the rain began and 7/17 when the ark rested. The commentators resolve this issue in different ways:
- Different calendar – Several sources reject the assumption that the dates in the story are based on the Hebrew lunar calendar:
- Solar Calendar – Some commentators14 assert that the months mentioned relate to the solar calendar. According to this reckoning there are 152 days in five months and the 150 day period ended a couple of days before the ark rested.15
- Persian/Egyptian – Ibn Ezra suggests, in contrast, that Noach was using a calendar like that of the Egyptians or Persians who would intercalate their year by adding 5 days to a certain month. The total days in the five month period can thus equal or surpass 150.16
- Lunar calendar based on eyewitnesses – Yefet and Anan the Karaites maintain that Noach did use a lunar calendar, but one in which the months were determined by eyewitnesses rather than calculations.17 They assume that if no one can see the moon (as was the case when Noach was in the Ark)18 the default length of a month is thirty days.19 This allows for exactly 150 days between 2/17 and 7/17.20
- Fixed Hebrew Lunar Calendar – A last group of sources attempt to uphold the idea that the Torah is employing the Rabbinic calendar:
- Round Numbers - The Rid and U. Cassuto solve the problem by simply suggesting that 150 days is a round number. Though, in reality there were fewer days in the five month period, the Torah rounded up to the the next ten.21
- Full Leap Year - R. Saadia suggests that one can reach 150 days using a regular fixed lunar calendar if the year was a "full" leap year. In such a year, 4 of the 5 months( Marcheshvan, Kislev, Shevat and Adar I) would all have 30 days. As such 7/17 is the 150th day.22
How did the ark land so soon? These commentators differ in how they understand how the ark managed to land right after the 150 days of strong waters, if the mountain tops were still covered by fifteen cubits of water:23
- Receded over 110 days – According to those who say that the water started to decrease already after the 40 days of rain, this is not an issue,24 and is, in fact, one of the factors that motivate them to explain the verses as they do. Shadal even maintains that by this point the higher mountain tops were totally uncovered, and that Bereshit 8:5 describes only the revealing of the shorter mountains.
- Receded over 2 days – According to those who maintain that the waters retained their strength throughout, but that a solar calendar was used and thus the 150 period ended by the 15th of the seventh month, there was a period of two days in which the water lessened, allowing the ark to land.
- Miraculous intervention – Ramban, in contrast, is forced to assert that Hashem sent a miraculous wind which decreased the waters substantially on the 150th day itself.25
Shifting water levels – A simple reading of the verses suggests that the waters decreased at an extremely varied pace:
- If one posits that the water first decreased after the 150 days, then it went down only 15 cubits in the 2 1/2 months from 7/17 until 10/1 compared to thousands of cubits in the 3 months from then until the land dried on 1/1.26 Ramban explains that there is no reason to think that the water needed to decrease at a steady pace. In addition, according to him, Hashem's intervention on the first day led to a vast decrease in the water, 27 minimizing the difference in the rate of reduction thereafter slightly.28
- Those who posit that the water began to recede after the rain stopped have an even bigger problem, since according to them, initially the water receded only 15 cubits in over 180 days!29 Shadal minimizes the problem by asserting that by the time the ark landed on 7/17, more than 15 cubits of water had already receded, since Mt. Ararat was not the tallest, but rather one of the shorter mountains.30 There would, nonetheless, still seem to be a significant increase in the rate of water reduction in the last 3 months, assuming that even the shorter mountains were a few thousand cubits high.
"וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם... וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הָעֹרֵב"
- Most of these commentators count the 40 days (when the raven was sent) from the preceding date mentioned, the first of the tenth month, when the mountain tops were visible. They explain, that despite the fact that land was already visible, the dove could not find a resting place either because it preferred the valleys or the air was too moist.31
- The Rid, in contrast, counts the forty days from the landing of the ark on the seventeenth of the seventh month. He assumes that the first dove was sent ten days after the raven, and the final dove twenty-one days later, on the first of the tenth month. It was only then, when the mountaintops were finally revealed that the dove could rest.
Varied Dating
Some months are counted to creation and some are dated in reference to key points during the flood.
Months – According to Ramban and R. Ashkenazi, the beginning and end of the flood (2/17 and 2/27) are dated to the beginning of the calendar year, but the months mentioned in the middle of the story, the landing of the ark on 2/17 and the revealing of the mountain tops on 10/1, are both dated to the start of the flood.33 The last date, though, when Noach opens the ark's cover on 1/1, is once again dated to the beginning of the year. This approach is motivated by a desire to make sense of the various time-frames in the chapter34 but its obvious disadvantage is its inconsistency.35
40 and 150 overlap – Like the above approach, these commentators also view the phrase "וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם", as a summary statement of the previously described events, and assume that the 40 days are included therein.
One set of 150 – Both Ramban and R. Ashkenazi maintain that the verse "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" does not refer to a new period of 150 days, but to the end of the previously mentioned one.
"וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם" and "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם" – These commentators assert that the waters maintained their strength throughout the 150 days, and only began to abate afterwards.36
Chronology – This position does not need to assume any achronology in the verses describing the increasing and decreasing waters.
How do 150 days fit in five months? According to this approach there are really six months from the start of the flood until the resting of the ark.37 This easily fits the period of 150 days of increasing waters, even leaving a month over afterwards.
How did the ark land so soon? According to this position, there was a month between the 150 days and the resting of the ark, enough time for the water to recede sufficiently to allow the ark to find a resting place.
Shifting water levels – As this position reduces the time between the revealing of the mountain tops and the drying of the land to two months,38 it exacerbates the problem of the changing rate of reduction. It has the waters reducing 15 cubits in about 2.5 months, while they are lowered thousands of cubits in 2 months!
"וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם... וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת הָעֹרֵב" – This is dated from the previously mentioned event, the revealing of the mountain tops, which this position maintains occurred on the first of the eleventh month (the tenth month being counted from start of the flood). As such, the sending of the final dove 61 days later,39 fell on the first of the first month, when the land dried.40 This explains why it was only now, that it did not return.
150 Days Which Do Not Include the First 40 Days
The two mentions of 150 days are one unit of time, while the forty days of rain are a distinct unit. As such, there was a 190 day period before the waters began to decrease.
Sources:Seder Olam Rabbah, Bereshit Rabbah, Sefer HaArukh, Rashi, Lekach Tov, Rashbam, Chizkuni, R. Chaim Paltiel, Ba'alei HaTosafot, Minchat Yehuda, Daat Zekeinim, first approach of R. Eliezer Ashkenazi
Distinct 40 and 150 days – This approach assumes that there is no overlap between the description of the flood and the 150 days of strong waters. The verses follow sequentially, with the forty days of rain preceding the 150 days.
One Set of 150 – This position, nonetheless, agrees that there is only one set of 150 days and that the waters receded at the end of the previously mentioned 150 days (and not after a new set).
"וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם" and "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם" – Though all these commentators maintain that the water started to abate only after the 150 days, they differ regarding what happened during the initial period itself:
- Waters retained strength – According to Seder Olam Rabbah and the Arukh the water stopped increasing after the forty days of rain, but maintained its level throughout.41 According to this, the phrase "וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם" does not mean that the waters increased but that they stayed in their strength.
- Waters increased – According to Ba'alei HaTosafot, in contrast, even after the rain stopped, the water continued to increase throughout the 150 days. He might maintain that the waters continued to emerge from underground.42
How do 190 days fit into 5 months? The verses state that the ark rested on the 17th of the seventh month. According to this position, though, at this point the waters were still at their height (and would be through the 29th of the eighth month)!43 This forces these commentators to reinterpret this date and to assume that it is dated to an event in the flood narrative rather than the beginning of the calendar year:
- End of rain – Most of these commentators44 assert that 7/17 is being counted from the month in which the rain stopped. As such, it is really equivalent to 9/17,45 which gives ample time for the waters to decrease before the ark landed.46
- Beginning of Rain – The Arukh, Lekach Tov and R. Yitzchak (in a gloss found in Ms. Leipzig 1 of Rashi's commentary) get to the same date but through a different calculation. They assert that 7/17 means to count seven full months from the date the rain began (Thus, 2/17 plus 7 months brings one to 9/17).47
"בָּעֲשִׂירִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ נִרְאוּ רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים." – These sources suggest that this date, too, should not be counted from the beginning of the year. Instead, they almost unanimously date it to the start of the flood, reaching a date of 11/1.48 This, of course, is inconsistent both with the dates of the start and end of teh flood (dated to the beginning of the calendar year), and with the way most of these commentators dated 7/17, which was to the end of the rain, not the beginning.49 They are motivated to do so, though, by their understanding of the dating regarding the sending of the doves - see below.
"וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם" and the sending of the doves – The verse does not say explicitly from which event the forty days are to be counted. These commentators offer three different possibilities:
- From when the waters began to abate – According to Seder Olam Rabbah, Rashbam and one version of R. Tam50 the 40 days are counted from the first of the ninth month, after the waters began to decrease. They suggest this so as to allows the final dove to be sent on the day the mountain tops appear, assuming that had the dove been sent any later there would be no way to explain why it could not previously find a resting place.51 This reading, though, necessitates dating the appearance of the mountains to the first of the eleventh month,52 leading to the above mentioned idea that the date mentioned in the verses, 10/1, is really dated to the beginning of the rain (and not the year).53
- From the revealing of the mountain tops –The Arukh and Rashi,54 in contrast, maintain more simply that the forty days are counted from the last date mentioned in the verses, the revealing of the mountain tops.55 They assume that the final sending of the dove must have coincided with the drying of the land on the first of the first month, as only this would explain why it did not return.56 Thus, working backwards from this date (1/1), they, too, need to suggest that the mountain tops appeared on the first of the eleventh month,57 and that the date mentioned in the verses (10/1) is from the beginning of the rain (and not the year).58
- From the resting of the ark – R. Tam, as brought by R. Chayim Paltiel, and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi assert that the forty days began with the landing of the ark, which they date to the seventeenth of the ninth month.59 They reject Seder Olam's possibility above, asserting that Noach would have been unaware of the day in which the water started decreasing, and so he must have counted the forty days from an event he was cognizant of, such as the landing of the ark.
- According to R. Tam the tenth month is really the eleventh month and he has to explain why the dove did not land when the mountains first appeared. R. Eliezer Ashkenazi holds that the tenth month is counted from the end of the rain like the seventh month. This would cause the dove to land before the mountains appeared. It is possible to explain like the Rid above that there was more time for the sending of the raven.
The seventh and tenth months – According to these commentators the seventh and tenth months are not being counted from the beginning of the year. Three opinions are brought by the exegetes regarding these months:
- Most of these commentators explain that the seventeenth of the seventh month is really the seventeenth of the ninth month to the beginning of the year and then the 150 and 40 days fit before the ark landed. They hold that the tenth month is the eleventh month to the beginning of the year.60 This approach subdivides regarding how one gets to this calculation:
- Seder Olam Rabbah, Bereshit Rabbah, Lekach Tov, and Rashi hold that the seventh month is being counted from the time in which the rain stopped while the tenth month is being counted from the time in which the rain started. This inconsistency causes other exegetes to raise alternatives.
- The Arukh and R. Yitzchak in a gloss on Ms. Leipzig 1 of Rashi explain that there are seven full months from the start of the rain until the ark landed and the tenth month is also counted from the start of the rain.61
- According to one of the Ba'alei HaTosafot the year of the flood was a leap year and both months were counted from the end of the rain. This leaves enough time for the 150 and first 40 days to end before the ark landed but leaves two months before the end of the year from when the tops of the mountains appeared.62
- Ba'alei HaTosafot quote an approach that the seventh month is really only the eighth month to the start of the year. This approach would say that the tenth month is really the eleventh month and both months are being counted from the start of the rain. Ba'alei HaTosafot reject this explanation since the ark would have rested before the water started decreasing. However, according to the approach it is possible that the ark got stuck and landed as Rasag quoted in Yefet suggests. This would be simpler to say if during the 150 days the water wasn't increasing anymore but just stayed in their place or were already decreasing.
- According to R. Eliezer Ashkenazi's approach both months are being counted from the end of the rain and the seventh month is the ninth month and the tenth month is the twelfth month.
"וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם" – Three options are brought explaining from when the forty days are counted which affect when the tops of the mountains appeared:
- According to Seder Olam Rabbah, Rashbam and perhaps R. Tam the days are counted from the time the water started to abate on the first of Sivan. According to this approach the dove was sent for the last time on the day that the tops of the mountains appeared and that is were it landed. This interpretation forces the commentators to explain that the tenth month is really the tenth month from the start of the rain and not like the seventh month which is from the end of the rain in order that the dove could land after the mountains appear. The takers of this approach have to assume that before the tops of the mountains appeared there were trees that appeared and the dove could bring back an olive tree leaf.
- The Arukh, Rashi and Lekach Tov hold that the forty days are counted from the first of the tenth month which is mentioned immediately before in the verses.63 According to them the dove landed on the first of the first month when "חָרְבוּ פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה" and therefore the tenth month can be no later since the dove would have landed as soon as the water disappeared. R. Tam questions this approach why the dove could not land on the tops of the mountains which appeared already when the dove was sent. R. Elyakim suggests that the dove could only land in valleys and not on mountains. Another answer suggested by Ba'alei HaTosafot is that when it says "וְלֹא מָצְאָה הַיּוֹנָה מָנוֹחַ" it means that the dove did not find any food.
- R. Tam according to R. Chayim Paltiel's version and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi hold that the forty days started when the ark landed which was a date that Noach knew when it was as oppose to the day in which the water started decreasing. According to R. Tam the tenth month is really the eleventh month and he has to explain why the dove did not land when the mountains first appeared. R. Eliezer Ashkenazi holds that the tenth month is counted from the end of the rain like the seventh month. This would cause the dove to land before the mountains appeared. It is possible to explain like the Rid above that there was more time for the sending of the raven.
Shifting water levels – Seder Olam Rabbah calculates that if from the first of the ninth month when the water started abating until the first of the eleventh month when the mountains appeared the water decreased 15 ammot then the water went down an ammah every four days. Therefore, on the 17th of the ninth month when the ark landed it was covered with 11 ammot of water.
Two sets of 150 Days Which Include the Second 40 Days
Sources:Radak
Relationship between numbers of days – Radak writes that for forty days there was rain and then there were two sets of 150 days one in which the water was increasing and one in which the water was decreasing. The second 150 days includes the second forty days but does not include the 21 days of sending the birds. These numbers come out to 361 days that Noach was in the ark.
The seventh and tenth months – According to Radak the water stopped increasing on the first of the ninth month with the conclusion of the first 40 and 150 days. The seventh month in which the ark landed is being counted from the end of the rain and really is the ninth month to the beginning of the year. The ark landed on the seventeenth of the ninth month after the water started decreasing. Radak also writes that the tenth month is the tenth month to the beginning of the flood and the tops of the mountains appeared on the first of the eleventh month.
"וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם" – Radak writes that the second forty days started when the ark landed and not when the water started decreasing as Noach only knew when the ark landed because he felt it. According to this explanation the 21 days were during the second 150 days in which the water was decreasing and not like his previous explanation that they were at the end of the flood after the second set of 150 days ended. This approach has to explain why the dove did not land already on the first time it was sent which was after the tops of the mountains appeared. Ba'alei HaTosafot explain this based on Radak's explanation that Noach sent the dove which only rests once it finishes the mission it was given and therefore it only landed after it gave Noach a sign that the water was lowering by giving him an olive leaf.