God commands Noah to leave the Arks secure isolation
And its stinky animal droppings...
>This jaded view of Genesis toward sacrifice is observed by Alter.
Perhaps..but not by Altar
Message: Divine acceptance of offering provides no protection.
Wrong message.
Correct message:
A) Yediah (Divine Providence) does not constrain Bekhira (human free will)
B) There are wages for sins. Only T'shuva (@ times accompanying sacrifice) afford rapproachment and hence "protection".
Noah's sin is fairly obvious. Many a quill has been execised to explain Abels sin.
The man who brings the first recorded animal sacrifice is immediately killed. The man who brings the second recorded animal sacrifice is violated. Message: Divine acceptance of offering provides no protection. (This jaded view of Genesis toward sacrifice is observed by Alter.)
Who does Alter believe authored those stories, that he thinks would want to convey such a message?
Also, taking the notion that Ham sodomized Noah as pshat is kind of stretching it.
I dispute limud #2 as well.
It is clear מפי ספרים ומפי סופרים that the deluge was an undoing of the Divine creative pronouncement:ט
וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים, יִקָּווּ הַמַּיִם מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמַיִם אֶל-מָקוֹם אֶחָד, וְתֵרָאֶה, הַיַּבָּשָׁה; וַיְהִי-כֵן. 9 And God said: 'Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear.' And it was so.
י וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לַיַּבָּשָׁה אֶרֶץ, וּלְמִקְוֵה הַמַּיִם קָרָא יַמִּים; וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים, כִּי-טוֹב. 10 And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called He Seas; and God saw that it was good.
Having dispensed with humanity there was no lomger a need for the Creative pronouncement that afforded humanity a habitat
ו וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ. 6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.
ז וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה, אֶמְחֶה אֶת-הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר-בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה, מֵאָדָם עַד-בְּהֵמָה, עַד-רֶמֶשׂ וְעַד-עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם: כִּי נִחַמְתִּי, כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם. 7 And the LORD said: 'I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.
As the psalmist writes re this pronuncement of the third day:
ו תְּהוֹם, כַּלְּבוּשׁ כִּסִּיתוֹ; עַל-הָרִים, יַעַמְדוּ מָיִם. 6 Thou didst cover it with the deep as with a vesture; the waters stood above the mountains.
ז מִן-גַּעֲרָתְךָ יְנוּסוּן; מִן-קוֹל רַעַמְךָ, יֵחָפֵזוּן. 7 At Thy rebuke they fled, at the voice of Thy thunder they hasted away--
ח יַעֲלוּ הָרִים, יֵרְדוּ בְקָעוֹת-- אֶל-מְקוֹם, זֶה יָסַדְתָּ לָהֶם. 8 The mountains rose, the valleys sank down--unto the place which Thou hadst founded for them;
ט גְּבוּל-שַׂמְתָּ, בַּל-יַעֲבֹרוּן; בַּל-יְשֻׁבוּן, לְכַסּוֹת הָאָרֶץ. 9 Thou didst set a bound which they should not pass over, that they might not return to cover the earth.
Also, taking the notion that Ham sodomized Noah as pshat is kind of stretching it.
Perhaps, perhaps not. The verse says Noah SAW what his son did to him, which suggests something was done to him. Also, we're not told that Noah had more sons and daughters, as we are told with all the others listed before Abraham.
"The Kli Yakar says that rainbows never existed before the flood and we see them now because God dissipated the thick cloud cover that had existed from the time of creation."
...
"he Ranbam further says that we should rely on science, which would demolish the views of both the Kli Yakar"
Except we know that on earth, originally there were very thick clouds of carbon dioxide, and almost not oxygen. And that for many years, the sunlight didn't hit the surface of the planet at all.
But I wonder: Perhaps the comfort Noach brings the workingman is wine?
Rashi is saying p'shat. you are saying drush. Talk about role-reversal!
Nechama means a change of mind usually, but not exclusively, from an attitude of sorrow to one of happiness, hence the mistranslation comfort.
However as these verses indicate nechama can mean a change from an attitude of enthusiasm to one of regret as well:
וַיִּנָּחֶם
Except we know that on earth, originally there were very thick clouds of carbon dioxide, and almost not oxygen. And that for many years, the sunlight didn't hit the surface of the planet at all.
Right, and did ten generations of humankind succesfully flourish under those conditions along with all the animals?
וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוָה, כִּי-עָשָׂה אֶת-הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ; וַיִּתְעַצֵּב, אֶל-לִבּוֹ. 6 And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart.
יח כִּי-אַחֲרֵי שׁוּבִי, נִחַמְתִּי, וְאַחֲרֵי הִוָּדְעִי, סָפַקְתִּי עַל-יָרֵךְ; בֹּשְׁתִּי וְגַם-נִכְלַמְתִּי, כִּי נָשָׂאתִי חֶרְפַּת נְעוּרָי. 18 Surely after that I was turned, I repented, and after that I was instructed, I smote upon my thigh; I was ashamed, yea, even confounded, because I did bear the reproach of my youth.'
Hence intoxicants can never effect a nechama. they can mask and supress attitudes but never change them.
"Except we know that on earth, originally there were very thick clouds of carbon dioxide, and almost not oxygen. And that for many years, the sunlight didn't hit the surface of the planet at all.
Right, and did ten generations of humankind succesfully flourish under those conditions along with all the animals?"
Enough sunlight reached the surface through the clouds to allow photosynthetic bacteria to thrive.
Enough sunlight reached the surface through the clouds to allow photosynthetic bacteria to thrive.
Shkoyach, the Torah says PEOPLE and ANIMALS were living during the time KY says the clouds were too thick to let sunlight in.
And if bacteria could thrive, then there may have been enough sunlight for plants to photosynthesize, and provide food for animals. Photosynthesis takes place even on cloudy days.
And if bacteria could thrive, then there may have been enough sunlight for plants to photosynthesize, and provide food for animals. Photosynthesis takes place even on cloudy days.
You don't teach science right?
Anyway, photosynthesis takes place on cloudy days, but rainbows also appear on cloudy days. The KY is suggesting something impossible - an ultra thick cloud cover coinciding with human life.
"Anyway, photosynthesis takes place on cloudy days, but rainbows also appear on cloudy days."
rainbows only appear when there is a break in the clouds.
Schuster is making some good points against me.
The cloud cover was thin enough for some sunlight to diffuse to the surface, enough to allow photosynthesis. For rainbows to be visible direct sunlight shining through droplets in the air is necessary.
"The KY is suggesting something impossible - an ultra thick cloud cover coinciding with human life.
DovBear | 10.30.08 - 2:50 pm | # "
That's also not the way I read the KY.
But we also know, just from the issues regarding the age of the people at that time, that time and nature are not working the way we expect them to work.
The cloud cover was thin enough for some sunlight to diffuse to the surface, enough to allow photosynthesis. For rainbows to be visible direct sunlight shining through droplets in the air is necessary.
1 - If its enough for photosynethesis its enough for rainbows.
2 - If its not enough for rainbows, its not enogh for human and animal life.
I really don't htink you fully understand or grasp what you are suggesting here.
That's also not the way I read the KY.
You haven't read it
But we also know, just from the issues regarding the age of the people at that time, that time and nature are not working the way we expect them to work.
Right, I forgot you're a lunatic. Thanks for stopping by.
Bear start ignoring the pseudoscientists and stop ignoring me. Why not adress my very cogent points?
Bray, which point was that?
points-plural
@ 1:21, 1:32, 1:52 and 1:55
The last two are really one comment but haloscan gobbeled the last few sentences.
It's possible that the sunlight was only composed of those wavelengths that photosynthesis is highly sensitive to. Chlorophyl A is the most common and is most absorbent in the 400-450 nm and 650-700 nm range. This would mean that sunlight was made of ONLY deep violet and deep red.
Of course with only these colors photosynthesis could occur thereby allowing sustainable life. But, at the same time there really wouldn't be rainbows like we know them since there are only violet and red and none of the colors in between.
Problem solved!
The cloud cover was thin enough for some sunlight to diffuse to the surface, enough to allow photosynthesis. For rainbows to be visible direct sunlight shining through droplets in the air is necessary.
"1 - If its enough for photosynethesis its enough for rainbows.
2 - If its not enough for rainbows, its not enogh for human and animal life.
I really don't htink you fully understand or grasp what you are suggesting here."
Once more. Photsynthesis can happen in diffuse light. It happens on cloudy days. Rainbows are only visible when direct light shines through droplets. See, the light rays have to be traveling in the right directon to ne refracted at the correct angle for a rainbow to be visible. Diffuse lighht does refract, but since it is scattered before it hits the droplets, it is scattered after it leaves. Hence no rainbow.
Here's a link:
Look at the pictures about halfway down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbows
DB,
Time after time, I get the hugest kick out of observing your regular coneheads rushing in to defend the (un)scientific pronouncements of medieval rabbis who wouldn't know photosynthesis from potato kugel if their lives depended on it. When someone like Kli Yakar speaks of 'cloud thickness', it's a safe bet that he means it in its crudest possible sense. So even if he manages to stumble upon the 'right' conclusion, it's almost certainly for the wrong reasons.
Zak:
But the Kli Yokor was mechavein to one of the latest theories in geology. How did he manage that? Roach Hakodesh?
N.S.
Sounds like you doubt the KY had ruach hakodesh. Actually, there is a greater chance of that then that he had a scientific grasp of the issue.
"But we also know, just from the issues regarding the age of the people at that time, that time and nature are not working the way we expect them to work.
Right, I forgot you're a lunatic. Thanks for stopping by.
DovBear | 10.30.08 - 3:09 pm | # "
So you think Adam lived 900+ years?
How can you say that nature was the same before and after the flood, with statements like that?
Rabbi Etshalom says "ervat aviv" could mean Noah's wife and not Noah.
In ancient days, to acquire power, you would take the wives of the person that is currently reigning. You see this in Sefer Shmuel. It could be, that Ham was seeking to take some power away from his father.
Maybe the same with Reuven and the bed incident.
How did Noah bring comfort? With the plow he invented, Rashi says He also invented the scythe and ax. But then again, he had a major advantage in that he was the first human to be born without webbed hands!
http://frumheretic.blogspot.com/
...crapometer.html
I will point out frum heretic that babies have webbed hands before they're born, so it isn't quite so insane.
even if inaccurate.
but there are reasons why there would have been comfort. also, wheat wasn't perfected yet. early varieties of wheat were very poor. (and the earliest were thorns and thistles basicaly. it took a long time for something edible to develop from them.)
however, ramban is right. The rainbow always existed. I see no reason to defend rashi when ramban already explained the pshat so well.
God outright commands Noah to leave the Ark's secure isolation and to engage the world with all its dangers and all its challenges.
Nope, ain't gonna do it. I've served my time in hell already.
So you think Adam lived 900+ years?
How can you say that nature was the same before and after the flood, with statements like that?
I don't think he lived 900 years.
“The man who brings the first recorded animal sacrifice is immediately killed.”
I was at a restaurant with a friend who is a huge carnivore – just loves meat . When his wife asked him if he wanted pasta/veggi’s or meat, he quipped “Don’t ask me a question like that, the first time g-d was given that choice, someone died”
Anon,
“I don't think he lived 900 years.”
Why are so convinced he didn’t?
If you believe that there were other mammal that where vastly lager and stronger then the ones that exist today, then why not extent that to the human.
Why cant you say, years ago, the human was physically more durable then he is today.
We still have reptiles today that live to be almost 200 years old!
The proposition that there was a thick cloud cover from the 4th "day" of creation until Noah's flood just won't wash. If there was such a constant, dense atmosphere that didn't allow the penetration of direct sunlight, then moonlight and starlight would surely not have penetrated that cover. Then the creation statement that there be illuminants in the sky was inoperative for some 17 centuries from Adam. Moreover, why would the torah state that the flood started on the 17th day of the 2nd month, when the moon was invisible due to the cloud cover? How was the start of the month (or midmonth) determined? If there was a thick cloud every day, why would it disappear at night?
Y. Aharon
Y. Aharon et al,
These types of discussions (about cloud coverings) are plain silly.
There are thousands (millions) of variables that are required in order for the planet to survive.
When the Klay Yokar changes one of these variables (by saying there was a dense cloud cover) it makes no sense to try and prove or disprove him by assuming that the remainder of the variables remained the same. Being that nature is all interrelated, it seems obvious that if one variable changed, then many more had to change behind the scenes in order to accommodate the change.
Its like trying to disprove science that maintains that all life started out living in water by saying “How can it be? Humans can only survive in water for a short period of time”. The answer is obvious, many more variables have changed.
^^^
Which makes the klay yakar's 'explanation' even more
untenable.
Think: I wasn't arguing from a scientific standpoint, but from biblical verses. The scientific aspect of a largely opaque atmosphere is not so easily dismissed (there are various mechanisms including massive volcanism that could account for it). The questions from the contrary implications of various biblical verses are more fundamental, it seems to me.
The other suggestion made about the sun producing only red light (in addition to long ultra-violet) is more easily dismissed scientifically, based on the sun acting as an ideal ("blackbody") radiation source. If it were cool enough to produce predominantly red light, then the earth would be seriously cold, and there would be no liquid water.
Y. Aharon
Commenting by HaloScan
