Difference between revisions of "Chronology of the Flood/2/en"

Version as of 09:13, 21 June 2015

Fatal 38: Unescaped '<' not allowed in attributes values
57: 	<mekorot>first approach in <multilink><a href="RambanBereshit8-4-5" data-aht="source">Ramban<multilink data-aht="<a href=&quot;MaaseiHashemBereshit26&quot; data-aht=&quot;source&quot;>Ma'asei Hashem Bereshit 26</a><a href=&quot;R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)&quot; data-aht=&quot;parshan&quot;>About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)</a>"></multilink><multilink data-aht=""></multilink></a><a href="RambanBereshit8-4-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:4-5</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="MaaseiHashemBereshit26" data-aht="source">R. Eliezer Ashkenazi</a><a href="MaaseiHashemBereshit26" data-aht="source">Ma'asei Hashem Bereshit 26</a><a href="R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)</a></multilink></mekorot>

@@ Line 12: / Line 12: @@
 	<p>All the months mentioned in the verses are calculated according to the yearly calendar, from creation.</p>
 	<mekorot><multilink><a href="QumranScroll4Q252Fragment1Columns1-2" data-aht="source">Qumran Scroll 4Q252</a><a href="QumranScroll4Q252Fragment1Columns1-2" data-aht="source">Fragment 1 Columns 1-2</a><a href="Qumran Scrolls" data-aht="parshan">About the Qumran Scrolls</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit8-4" data-aht="source">the Karaites</a><a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit8-4" data-aht="source">Yefet b. Eli Bereshit 8:4</a><a href="AharonbYoseftheKaraiteBereshit8-3-8" data-aht="source">Aharon b. Yosef Bereshit 8:3-8</a><a href="AharonbEliyahutheKaraiteBereshit8-3-6" data-aht="source">Aharon b. Eliyahu Bereshit 8:3-6</a></multilink>, rejected approach in <multilink><a href="LekachTovBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Lekach Tov</a><a href="LekachTovBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:24</a><a href="R. Toviah b. Eliezer (Lekach Tov)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Toviah b. Eliezer</a></multilink>,&#160;<multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshit8-3-5" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit8-3-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:3-5</a><a href="IbnEzraAdditionalCommentaryBereshit7-11" data-aht="source">Additional Commentary Bereshit 7:11</a><a href="IbnEzraAdditionalCommentaryBereshit8-14" data-aht="source">Additional Commentary Bereshit 8:14</a><a href="IbnEzraIggeretHaShabbat" data-aht="source">Iggeret HaShabbat</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:24</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit8-3-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:3-10</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RidBereshit7-12" data-aht="source">Rid</a><a href="RidBereshit7-12" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:12</a><a href="RidBereshit8-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:4</a><a href="R. Yeshayah of Trani (Rid)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yeshayah of Trani</a></multilink>, approach in <multilink><a href="ChizkuniBereshit8-3-13" data-aht="source">Chizkuni</a><a href="ChizkuniBereshit7-17" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:17</a><a href="ChizkuniBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:24</a><a href="ChizkuniBereshit8-3-13" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:3-13</a><a href="R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach (Chizkuni)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Chizkiyah b. Manoach</a></multilink>, second approach in <multilink><a href="RambanBereshit8-4-5" data-aht="source">Ramban</a><a href="RambanBereshit8-4-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:4-5</a><a href="R. Moshe b. Nachman (Ramban, Nachmanides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe b. Nachman</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AkeidatYitzchakBereshit13" data-aht="source">Akeidat Yitzchak</a><a href="AkeidatYitzchakBereshit13" data-aht="source">Bereshit 13</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Arama (Akeidat Yitzchak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Arama</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="AbarbanelBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Abarbanel</a><a href="AbarbanelBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:24</a><a href="R. Yitzchak Abarbanel" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yitzchak Abarbanel</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="SefornoBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Seforno</a><a href="SefornoBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:24</a><a href="R. Ovadyah Seforno" data-aht="parshan">About R. Ovadyah Seforno</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Shadal</a><a href="ShadalBereshit7-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:24</a><a href="ShadalBereshit8-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:2</a><a href="ShadalBereshit8-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 8:4</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="HoilMosheBereshit7-11" data-aht="source">Hoil Moshe</a><a href="HoilMosheBereshit7-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:11</a><a href="R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi (Hoil Moshe)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Moshe Yitzchak Ashkenazi</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RDZHoffmannBereshit7-21-24" data-aht="source">R. D"Z Hoffmann</a><a href="RDZHoffmannBereshit7-21-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 7:21-24</a><a href="R. David Zvi Hoffmann" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Zvi Hoffmann</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="UCassutoBereshitIntroductiontotheFlood" data-aht="source">U. Cassuto</a><a href="UCassutoBereshitIntroductiontotheFlood" data-aht="source">Bereshit Introduction to the Flood</a><a href="Prof. Umberto Cassuto" data-aht="parshan">About Prof. Umberto Cassuto</a></multilink></mekorot>
-		<point><b>Months</b> – These commentators assume that all the months mentioned in the account of the flood are numbered from the beginning of the calendrical year.&#160; They disagree, though, regarding whether the first month is Tishrei or Nissan.<fn>The Rid, Ramban, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel and R. David Zvi Hoffmann all date them to Tishrei while Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Shadal date them to Nissan.&#160; The difference of opinion relates to the controversy in Bavli Rosh HaShanah 10b-11a regarding whether the world was created in Tishrei or Nissan.&#160;</fn></point>
+		<point><b>Months</b> – These commentators assume that all the months mentioned in the account of the flood are numbered from the beginning of the calendar year.&#160; They disagree, though, regarding whether the first month is Tishrei or Nissan.<fn>The Rid, Ramban, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel and R. David Zvi Hoffmann all date them to Tishrei while Ibn Ezra, R"Y Bekhor Shor, and Shadal date them to Nissan.&#160; The difference of opinion relates to the controversy in Bavli Rosh HaShanah 10b-11a regarding whether the world was created in Tishrei or Nissan.</fn></point>
 		<point><b>How do 150 days fit in five months?</b> According to the fixed lunar calendar, months generally alternate between having 29 and 30 days,<fn>There are two potential exceptions to this rule. In a "regular" year, Marcheshvan has 29 days and Kislev has 30 days, but there are some "full" years in which both have 30 days, and some "missing" years in which both have only 29 days. In addition, in a leap year, Adar I precedes the regular Adar and has 30 days.</fn> which means that there can be at most 147-149 days in any 5 month period.<fn>This depends on whether the beginning and ending dates (in our case, 2/17 and 7/17) are both included in the count, whether the year is counted from Tishrei or Nissan, and whether it is a "full" or "regular" year:<br/>
 <ul>
 <li>If one assumes that the flood dates are counted from Nissan, and one includes both the beginning and end dates in the count, there are 148 days.&#160; If, though, only one end date is included there are 147 days.</li>
 <li>If one posits that the year began in Tishrei, included the final date of 7/17 and that both Marcheshvan and Kislev had 30 days, there would be 149 days in this five month period.&#160; On the other hand, if one does not include the end date of 7/17 and assumes that this is a regular year in which all the months alternate between 29-30 days, there would be only 147 days.Finally, if only one or the other assumption is true, one would get to 148 days.</li>
-</ul></fn>&#160; As such, this position must explain how the 150 days fit into the five month period between 2/17 when the rain began and 7/17 when the ark rested. &#160; The commentators resolve this issue in different ways:<br/>
+</ul></fn>&#160; 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. &#160; The commentators resolve this issue in different ways:<br/>
 <ul>
-<li>Different calendar&#160;– Several sources question the assumption that the dates in the story are based on the Hebrew lunar calendar:</li>
+<li><b>Different calendar&#160;</b>– Several sources question the assumption that the dates in the story are based on the Hebrew lunar calendar:</li>
 <ul>
-<li>Solar Calendar –&#160; Some commentaors<fn>See one of the possibilities raised by <a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit8-4" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a> in his arguments against the Karaitic position regarding the establishing of new months, the opinion rejected by Ibn Ezra, and the opinion of R. Yehuda HaParsi (quoted in Ibn Ezra's Iggeret HaShabbat).&#160; The Qumran sect also use a solar calendar&#160; which is divided into four quarters, in each of which two out of every three months has thirty days and the third month has thirty one days. They thus calculate that the 150 days lasted through the 14th of the seventh month, several days before the ark rested on 7/17.&#160;</fn> 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.</li>
+<li><b>Solar Calendar</b> –&#160; Some commentators<fn>See one of the possibilities raised by <a href="YefetbElitheKaraiteBereshit8-4" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a> in his arguments against the Karaitic position regarding the establishing of new months, the opinion rejected by Ibn Ezra, and the opinion of R. Yehuda HaParsi (quoted in Ibn Ezra's Iggeret HaShabbat).&#160; The Qumran sect also use a solar calendar&#160; which is divided into four quarters, in each of which two out of every three months has thirty days and the third month has thirty one days. They thus calculate that the 150 days lasted through the 14th of the seventh month, several days before the ark rested on 7/17.&#160;</fn> 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.<fn>According to this approach, the 150 day period mentioned is not equivalent to the five month period and ends a couple of days before it. Yefet and Anan (Karaites) reject this possibility for this very reason. [See Ibn Ezra as well.] They assume that there have to be exactly 150 days between 2/17 and 7/17, asserting that only the receding waters, which began after the 150 days, could possibly explain why the ark was able to finally rest. [They assume that had the water decreased earlier, the ark would have rested earlier.] See below, though, for other explanations of how and when the water level fell and how this impacted the landing of the ark.</fn></li>
-<li>Persian/Egyptian&#160;– Ibn Ezra suggests, in contrast, that Noach was using a calendar like that of the Egyptians or Persians who would intercalate their calendars by adding 5 days to a certain month. The total days in the five month period can thus surpass 150.<fn>According to both these variations, the 150 day period mentioned is not equivalent to the five month period and ends a couple of days before it. Yefet and Anan (Karaites) reject this possibility for this very reason. They assume that there have to be exactly 150 days between 2/17 and 7/17, asserting that only the receding waters, which began after the 150 days, could possibly explain why the ark was able to finally rest. See below, though, for different explanations of how and when the water level fell and how this impacted the landing of the ark.</fn></li>
+<li><b>Persian/Egyptian</b>&#160;– Ibn Ezra (in his שיטה אחרת) 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.<fn>Based on the math, one would think that such a calendar would allow for more than 150 days in the five month period.&#160; Yet, Ibn Ezra himself seems to assume that such a calendar would equal exactly 150 days, since right beforehand and in his comments elsewhere, he rejects the possibility that Noach used a solar calendar because that would add to the days to the 150 given in the text.</fn></li>
 </ul>
-<li>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.<fn>In their arguments with the Rabbis, they even point to this story as proof of their position that moths are determined by eyewitnesses, claiming that if one uses calculations the dating in the story does not work.</fn> In addition, they assume that if no one can see the moon (as was the case when Noach was in the Ark)<fn>R. Saadia questions this assumption, suggesting that after the rain ceased on the fortieth day, the moon should have been visible.&#160; Moreover, there is no reason to assume that the months mentioned were calculated by Noach, rather than Hashem, who does not need the moon to calculate time.</fn> the default length of a month is thirty days.&#160; This allows for exactly 150 days between 2/17 and 7/17.<fn>This count does not include the end date, 7/17. Alternatively, according to Aharon b. Yosef and Aharon b. Eliyahu the Karaites, though 7/17 is included and there are really 151 days, the Torah was not bothered by the extra day and rounded it to 150.</fn> </li>
+<li><b> Lunar calendar based on eyewitnesses</b> – 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.<fn>In their arguments with the Rabbis, they even point to this story as proof of their position that moths are determined by eyewitnesses, claiming that if one uses calculations the dating in the story does not work.</fn> They assume that if no one can see the moon (as was the case when Noach was in the Ark)<fn>R. Saadia questions this assumption, suggesting that after the rain ceased on the fortieth day, the moon should have been visible.&#160; Moreover, there is no reason to assume that the months mentioned were calculated by Noach, rather than Hashem, who does not need the moon to calculate time.</fn> the default length of a month is thirty days.<fn>R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Seforno, and Hoil Moshe also maintain that Noach was using a thirty day per month calendar, but do not elaborate regarding how they reach this conclusion.&#160; Hoil Moshe suggests that in the time of Noach people might not have been very adept at mathematical and astronomical calculations, leading to an inexact calendar.</fn>&#160; This allows for exactly 150 days between 2/17 and 7/17.<fn>This count does not include the end date, 7/17. Alternatively, according to Aharon b. Yosef and Aharon b. Eliyahu the Karaites, though 7/17 is included and there are really 151 days, the Torah was not bothered by the extra day and rounded it to 150.</fn> </li>
 </ul>
 <ul>
-<li>Fixed Hebrew Lunar Calendar</li>
+<li><b>Fixed Hebrew Lunar Calendar</b>&#160;– A last group of sources attempt to uphold the idea that the Torah is employing the Rabbinic calendar:</li>
 <ul>
-<li>Round Numbers - The Rid and Cassuto <fn>For other examples where the Torah uses round numbers see the Karaites and the Rid and see <a href="http://alhatorah.org/Round_Numbers/" data-aht="page">Round Numbers</a>.</fn></li>
+<li><b>Round Numbers</b> - 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.<fn>U. Cassuto points out that this is common usage.&#160; Often, a person might speak of a three month period as 90 days, even though it is not an exact calculation.&#160; The Rid points to other examples in Torah, such as the punishment of lashes which is referred to as 40 lashes, even though there are only 39.&#160;</fn></li>
+<li><b>Full Leap Year</b> - 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.<fn>This end date in included in the count. Cf. R D"Z Hoffmann who counts the days similarly.</fn></li>
 </ul>
 </ul></point>
-		<point><b>"בָּעֲשִׂירִי בְּאֶחָד לַחֹדֶשׁ נִרְאוּ רָאשֵׁי הֶהָרִים"</b> – The commentators in this approach are consistent in their explanation of the tenth month and seventh month.&#160; Ramban in his first explanation and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi explain also here that the month is counted from the beginning of the rain while most commentators explain that the month is the tenth month from the beginning of the year.</point>
+		<point><b>"וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם" and "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם"</b> – The commentaors disagree:<br/>
-		<point><b>"וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם"</b> – According to Ramban and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi's approach the second forty days are from the first of the tenth month from the start of the rain and therefore the 21 days after the forty end around the first of the first month when Noach opens the Ark's cover.&#160; Most of the other commentators who explain that the tenth month is from the beginning of the year say also the the second forty days are from the tenth month.&#160; According to them the dove not coming back is not because "חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ" but they are two separate stages and after the dove did not come back there was another month until "חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם". The Rid explains that the forty and 21 days are after the landing of the ark.&#160; According to him the sending of the raven lasted for ten days that are not mentioned explicitly and therefore the last sending of the dove was on the first of the tenth month when the tops of the mountains appear. This explains why the dove could not land until the last time it was sent.</point>
+<ul>
-		<point><b>"וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם" and "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם"</b> – The commentators disagree regarding what happened during the rest of the 150 days after the forty days of rain:<br/>
+<li><b>Water first decreased after 150 days</b>  - The author of the Qumran Scroll, Yefet the Karaite, Ramban, and Seforno all understand the phrase "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" to mean that the water did not begin to decrease until the end of the 150 days. Seforno suggests that even though the rain stopped after 40 days, the underground sources of water were still open,<fn>Chapter 7:17 speaks of the flood lasting for 40 days, but it is only in 8:2 that the text mentions the closing of the heavenly windows and subterranean sources of water.&#160; This leads Seforno (and Ramban) to sugest that there were two stages.&#160; However, the continuation of 8:2 reads, "וַיִּכָּלֵא הַגֶּשֶׁם מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם" which leads others to suggest that the two events happened simultaneously.&#160;</fn> causing continued water pressure during this entire period.<fn>His words are slightly ambiguous, and can be interpreted to mean either that the subterranean waters caused an increase in the water throughout this period or that they simply caused a continuous pressure, preventing the water from standing still or decreasing.</fn> Ramban, in contrast, seems to maintain that though the waters did not continue to increase after the fortieth day, due to the great humidity<fn>This was caused by the fact that the heavenly windows and subterranean water sources were still open.</fn> they retained their height throughout this period.</li>
+<li><b>Water decreased after the forty days of rain</b> – Most of the other commentators in this approach<fn>See R"Y Bekhor Shor, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel,, Shadal, r. D"Z Hoffmann, and U,. Cassuto.</fn> 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.&#160; Similarly, R"Y Bekhor Shor, R. Hoffmann and U. Cassuto explain the verse "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם"&#160;&#160; to mean that the decrease was only noticeable to Noach after 150 days when the ark landed.<fn>Until then, when the ark was still moving and Noach could only see water and sky he had no way of knowing if the water level was increasing, staying the same or decreasing.</fn></li>
+</ul></point>
+		<point><b>How did the ark land so soon?</b> 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 had been covered&#160; by fifteen cubits of water throughout that period:<br/>
+<ul>
+<li><b>Receded over 110 days</b> – According to those who say that the water started to decrease already after the 40 days of rain, this is not an issue,<fn>There was a full 110 days for the water to recede enough for the ark to land.</fn> and is, in fact, one of the factors that motivate them to explain the verses as they do.</li>
+</ul>
 <ul>
-<li>Some maintain that the water was increasing for all 150 days.&#160; They understand verse 7:24 as its simple meaning that the water was increasing on the land for 150 days. Verse 8:3 which says "וַיַּחְסְרוּ הַמַּיִם מִקְצֵה חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" they explain to mean that the water decreased from the end of the 150 days.&#160; Akeidat Yitzchak questions what the was the need for extra days after the forty themselves. Seforno explains that while in the forty days there was both rain and water rising from underneath the ground, after the forty days the rain stopped.<fn>In verse 7:11 it says that&#160;on the seventeenth of the second month the underground waters and the heavens opened up.&#160; Seforno is based on verses 7:4 and 7:12 where it says that for forty days there was rain but only in verse 8:2 after the 150 days end does it say that the underground waters stopped. However, in verse 8:2 it is also mentioned that the rain stopped, implying that both ended at the same time.</fn> These commentators have to explain how the ark landed immediately after the water stopped increasing.<fn>Akeidat Yitzchak points out that the Torah mentions that the ark landed only after it talks about the decrease in the water even though this approach holds that the ark landed at the beginning of the decrease.</fn>&#160; According to Qumran, Ramban's first approach, and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi there are extra days between the end of the 150 days and the landing of the ark in which the water decreased.&#160; However, according to the other commentators the ark landed immediately after the 150 days.<fn>Akeidat Yitzchak points out that the Torah mentions that the ark landed only after it talks about the decrease in the water even though this approach holds that the ark landed at the beginning of the decrease.</fn> Ramban in his second approach explains that Hashem brought a wind which caused the water to decrease a lot.<fn>Ramban compares this to Yam Suf where it says: "וַיּוֹלֶךְ י"י אֶת הַיָּם בְּרוּחַ קָדִים עַזָּה כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַיָּם לֶחָרָבָה וַיִּבָּקְעוּ הַמָּיִם".</fn></li>
+<li><b>Receded over 2 days</b> – According to the Qumran Scroll, which asserts that the water maintained its strength throughout but that the 150 days ended on 7/14, there was a period of two days in which the water lessened, allowing the ark to land.</li>
-<li>Other commentators explain that already from the end of the forty days the water was decreasing.&#160; They<fn>See Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, R. D"Z Hoffmann and perhaps R. Yosef Bekhor Shor.</fn> explain that until the end of the 150 days the water were still considered high upon the earth since the ark could not land yet. Chizkuni explains that "וַיִּגְבְּרוּ הַמַּיִם עַל הָאָרֶץ חֲמִשִּׁים וּמְאַת יוֹם" is mentioned before the decreasing of the water since the Torah wanted to put together everything about the ceasing of the water.</li>
+<li><b>Miraculous intervention</b> – Ramban, in contrast, is forced to assert that Hashem sent a miraculous wind which decreased the waters substantially in a very short period of time.<fn>Ramban compares this to Yam Suf where it says: "וַיּוֹלֶךְ י"י אֶת הַיָּם בְּרוּחַ קָדִים עַזָּה כׇּל הַלַּיְלָה וַיָּשֶׂם אֶת הַיָּם לֶחָרָבָה וַיִּבָּקְעוּ הַמָּיִם".</fn>&#160; Afterwards, they decreased much more gradually.</li>
 </ul></point>
+		<point><b>Chronology</b><ul>
+<li>Those who maintain that the waters maintained their strength throughout the 150 days, read the verses chronologically, with Chapter 7 describing the rising&#160; flood and Chapter 8 detailing the decreasing water at the end of the 150 days.<fn>Ramban might have been motivated to read the verses in this manner due to his general tendency to posit that the Torah is written in chronological order.</fn></li>
+<li>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.&#160; Akeidat Yitzchak and Shadal explain that the Torah purposely separated the images of destruction and salvation, having Chapter 7 detail all the ruin before moving into the rebuilding of Chapter 8.</li>
+</ul></point>
+		<point><b>"וַיְהִי מִקֵּץ אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם"</b> – According to Ramban and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi's approach the second forty days are from the first of the tenth month from the start of the rain and therefore the 21 days after the forty end around the first of the first month when Noach opens the Ark's cover.&#160; Most of the other commentators who explain that the tenth month is from the beginning of the year say also the the second forty days are from the tenth month.&#160; According to them the dove not coming back is not because "חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם מֵעַל הָאָרֶץ" but they are two separate stages and after the dove did not come back there was another month until "חָרְבוּ הַמַּיִם". The Rid explains that the forty and 21 days are after the landing of the ark.&#160; According to him the sending of the raven lasted for ten days that are not mentioned explicitly and therefore the last sending of the dove was on the first of the tenth month when the tops of the mountains appear. This explains why the dove could not land until the last time it was sent.</point>
 		<point><b>Water level relative to the ark</b> – According to verse 7:20 the water covered 15 ammot on top of the mountains. According to those who say that the water was decreasing already from the end of the forty days the 15 ammot were decreasing for 180 days until the first of the tenth month and when the ark landed the water was only covering 6 ammot of the height of the ark.<fn>Lekach Tov and R. Yosef Bekhor Shor write that the water was decreasing evenly for all the 180 days and therefore every twelve days the water decreased an ammah. Therefore, in the 110 days before the ark landed the water decreased nine full ammot and the other six of the fifteen ammot decreased after the ark landed.</fn>&#160; However, according to those who maintain that only after the 150 days did the water start decreasing when the ark landed the water was still covering half the height of the ark.<fn>According to Ramban's first approach and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi there is an extra month after the water started decreasing before the ark landed but the water would still be covering a lot of the ark.</fn> Ramban writes that in the night after the water started decreasing and before the ark landed the next morning most of the water decreased and compares it to Yam Suf.</point>
 	</opinion>

Difference between revisions of "Chronology of the Flood/2/en"

Version as of 09:13, 21 June 2015

Navigation menu

Personal tools

Namespaces

Variants

Views

More

Search

Navigation

Tools