נר לאפרים בס"ד

NOACH נח

www.parshapages.com

For subscription to weekly emails send note to info@parshapages.com

Collection compiled hopefully for the elucidation of Torah

CONTENTS

Seven Mitzvos B’nai Noach

Non-Jew Cannot Observe a Complete Shabbos

Rainbow

11 Generations of Dispersion

Two Types of Eradication Including Dinosaurs

Layout of the Three Decks in Noach’s Ark

Age of the Universe – Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan

Eating Before Feeding Your Animals

Wine

A Look Inside the Ark

The Numbers Just Don’t Add Up

Weekly Haftorah review

Selections from Rabbi Baruch Epstein

Selections from Baal haTurim

Selections from Ohr haChaim

SEVEN MITZVOS BNEI NOACH Mnemonic and source verse to understand this concept

THE BIG THREE

Don’t worship idols עבודה זרה (1)

Don’t murder שפיכת דמים (2)

ת גלוי עריו (3) Prohibited relationships

א ב ג ד

מן חי ברא (4) Eating limb from a living animal

השם את (5) רךב Curse (bless) the Name

זלג (6) Stealing

יןד (7) Establish court system

Sanhedrin 56: These 7 laws above are alluded to in this verse (Bereshis 2:16)

ויצו Commanded: How carry out? Set up courts (7th from above list)

' ה Merciful aspect: He takes the trouble to speak to us. The worst we can do is

to use His name to curse. (5th)

אלקים Might think plural. Need to know one force controls everything (1st)

על האדם Why "about" instead of "to "? Can mean in regard to people and known from

next lesson, the story of Kayin (2nd)

Indicates speaking to future generations. Must have appropriate relations to לאמר

have generations to pass the information to (3rd)

Permitted to eat, not from that which is stolen (6th) מכל עץ הגן

Eat that which is food, but not torn from a living animal (4th) אכל תאכל

All of these seven Mitzvos to Bnei Noach are general commandments with many details.

Transgressing any one of them is considered such a breach in the natural order that the

offender incurs the death penalty. Chazal termed this as, "Ben Noach - Azharaso Zo Hi

Misaso" - "Any act prohibited to a Ben Noach invokes the death sentence" (RAMBAM

Hilchos Melachim 9:14).

Besides these seven major Mitzvos, Chazal received a tradition that there are other Mitzvos and

prohibitions that are incumbent upon Bnei Noach. The Beraisa (Sanhedrin 56b) notes

certain Tana'im who list other prohibitions that are incumbent upon B’nei Noach. These

additional prohibitions include:

1. Dam Min ha'Chai, not to eat blood that is taken from an animal when it is alive.

2. Sirus, not to perform castration.

3. Kishuf, witchcraft.

4. Harba'as Behemah, mating animals of different species.

5. Harkavas ha'Ilan, grafting trees of different species.

The Amora'im add two more prohibitions:

1. Keeping Shabbos, that is, choosing a day of the week on which to refrain from work

(Sanhedrin 58b).

2. Learning Torah other than the portions that deal with the seven major Mitzvos above

(Sanhedrin 59a).

The Rambam (ibid. 8:11) writes that all Bnei Noach, who accept upon themselves the Seven

Mitzvos and are careful to keep them, are termed "Chasidei Umos ha'Olam" ("the Pious Ones

of the Nations") and they merit a share in the World to Come. However, they must keep these

Mitzvos specifically because HaShem commanded them in the Torah through Moshe Rabeinu.

If they keep and perform these Mitzvos as logical guidelines for the survival of the world, they

are not termed "Chasidei Umos ha'Olam."

When a Ben Noach fulfills a Mitzvah of the Torah that is not prohibited to him, he receives the

reward of an "Eino Metzuveh v'Oseh" - "one who performs a Mitzvah in which he was not

commanded." This reward is less than the reward of one who performs Mitzvos in which he

was commanded (Bava Kama 38a, Kidushin 31a).

SEFIROS AND THE LAWS OF BNEI NOACH

Based on Kabbalah and Meditation for the Nations

By Rabbi Yitzchak Ginsburgh

Sefirah Bnei Noach Law Inner Dimension

Divine Meditation

Color of

Rainbow

חסד

Loving kindness

Prohibition

Against Adultery

Love

Continual Recreation

of Reality

Blue

גבורה

Might

Prohibition

Against Murder

Fear

Standing in Awe

Before G-d

Red

תפארת

Beauty

Prohibition

Against Theft

Mercy

Recognizing G-d’s

Miracles

Yellow

נצח

Victory

Prohibition

Against Idolatry

Confidence

Committing to

Self-transformation

Violet

הוד

Acknowledgment

Prohibition

Against

Blasphemy

Sincerity

Becoming a

Servant of G-d

Orange

יסוד

Foundation

Prohibition

Against Eating

Flesh from a Live

Animal

Truth/Fulfillment

Experiencing

Divine Providence

Green

מלכות

Kingdom

Establish a Just

Legal System

Humility

Making a Home for

G-d on Earth

Indigo

At what age does a non-Jew become obligated in the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach?

Do they become obligated at 13 years old or perhaps earlier?

The concept that the age of 13 years is a part of the measurements that are “halacha to Moshe

from Sinai” which the Rambam states only applies to Jews. Thus, non-Jews might be obligated

earlier.

Chasam Sofer indicates that non-Jews are obligated in these seven Mitzvos from birth but due to

ones (unpreventable circumstances) are not punishable until one would reach the age of

understanding these concepts.

Chedas Yisrael writes that a non-Jew becomes obligated at 13 years old just like a Jew.

The Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach also applies to Jews. A Jewish child is not punishable for

violation of the Mitzvos. However, perhaps a Jewish child of understanding is also

obligated for punishment for these Mitzvos?

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 59a) states a principal that there is not something that is permitted to a

Jew that is forbidden to a non-Jew, so that when a non-Jew converts one would become more

lenient. Thus this might be a difficulty according to the opinion that non-Jewish children are

punishment for failing the Seven Mitzvos if the Jewish children are not obligated.

The Ohr Sameach writes that for this very reason the Jewish children are obligated in the Seven

Mitzvos just like the non-Jewish children.

The Bais Shaarim deduces a unique reasoning. The concept is expressed that even Bais Din is not

required to prevent a child from prohibited actions (like eating non-kosher food). This concept

only applies to Mitzvos that only the Jews are obligated. However, the Seven universal Mitzvos

that a non-Jewish child is obligated, also apply to a Jewish child and thus, Bais Din and anyone

else must actively prevent the Jewish child from transgressing.

However, many cite the statement of the Rema that a Jewish child that hits a parent does not need

to do Teshuvah when one becomes an adult (but should seek means of forgiveness). This is one

of the Seven Mitzvos (honoring one’s parents) that such a hitting would obligate a non-Jew.

Shevat Levi also states that a child is not commanded in Mitzvos until one reaches the proper age

and the above reason does not apply (there is not something that is permitted to a Jew that is

forbidden to a non-Jew).

Are female non-Jews also obligated in the Seven Mitzvos of Bnei Noach?

The verse (2,16) from which we derive the Seven Mitzvos was said to Adom haRishon prior to

the creation of Chava. The Torah teaches (Kiddushin 35a, Sotah 28b) that are equated to men

in regards to punishments (with certain exceptions). However, this applies to Jews and thus,

non-Jewish women may not be equated to non-Jewish men in this matter. Regarding the

situation in Schem, only the men and not the women were killed by the children of Yaacov as

punishment for violation of one of the Seven Mitzvos.

The Mahari answers that non-Jewish women are obligated in the Seven Mitzvos just like the non-

Jewish men. His source in the verse 92,16) is the word לאמר which is understood as saying to

others. In reference to Adom the only other person available to be told was Chava.

The Tzlach states that the comparison between men and women only applies to Jews.

Meiri states explicitly that non-Jewish women are equated to non-Jewish men and no distinction

is made between the status of men and women regarding the Seven Mitzvos.

NON-JEW CAN NOT OBSERVE A COMPLETE DAY OF SHABBOS Sanhedrin 58a: (Reish Lakish): If a Nochri did not work for an entire day, he is Chayav Misah - "v'Yom v'Laylah

Lo Yishbosu" “A day and a night shall not cease” (Bereshis 8, 22);

A Nochri is Chayav Misah for transgressing any of his Mitzvos.

(Ravina): He is liable even if he (did not intend to observe our Shabbos or the Nochri 'day of rest', rather, he)

ceased on Monday.

The Medrash tells us Yaacov Avinu and Yosef (and by extension all of the Avos) were Shomer Shabbos. Yet

they lived prior to Matan Torah and had a status of a Ben-Noach (a non-Jew).

How did the Avos not transgress this prohibition of “Lo Yishbosu”?

Perashas Derachim(also author of the Mishneh LeMelech): From this point, it is obvious that the Avos were not

considered as the status of Ben Noach, even for leniencies. The Avos were not included in the prohibition of

"Lo Yishbosu" because they were in the category of people who dedicate their lives to serving HaShem. They

therefore were not prohibited from observing Shabbos in the normal manner. (However, this exemption

applies only before the Torah was given, before Hashem clearly distinguished between Nochrim and Bnei

Yisrael. Today a person who is born a Nochri has only

one of two options, as stated by the Rambam.).

Rambam: The concern about making a new religion only

applies to the Nochri, but the Avos clearly wished to

follow the ways of HaShem. Therefore, when they kept

the Mitzvos it was not considered like “making a new

religion” and they could do the mitzvos even though the

mitzvos were not yet commanded.

HaMakneh: To Bnei Noach the night follows the day.

However, the time of Shabbos begins with the night and

continues with the following day. Therefore, when the

Avos kept Shabbos (Friday night and Saturday day) they

did not violate the prohibition since they did not violate

the prohibition of a day and its following night.

Choshek Shlomo: The Avos would wear Tzitzis on Shabbos and avoided any violation of this prohibition. If

they were considered having the status of Jews, then they were fulfilling the mitzvah of Tzitzis and allowed

to wear Tzitzis as part of their clothing on Shabbos. If they were considered having the status of Bnei Noach,

then they were not fulfilling the mitzvah of Tzitzis; therefore, when they wore Tzitzis on Shabbos they were

doing the melachah of “carrying” and thus, would not completely observe the Shabbos and not violate the

prohibition of "Lo Yishbosu".

Chasam Sofer: The Avos made a shliach (agent) to do a melachah on Shabbos. Thus, either way they would not

violate a prohibition. Alternative solution is that they did a melachah with another, which is not a violation of

Shabbos for a Jew, but this action would be a melachah for a non-Jew.

Pardes Yosef: The Avos would carry an item that one is not permitted to have benefit from that item. If they were

considered to have the status of a Jew, carrying such an item is not a violation of Shabbos (Shabbos 75b). If

they were considered as a non-Jew, carrying such an item would be considered not keeping Shabbos.

Torah Temimah: The understanding of this verse is that the action of “not refraining” refers to a person, and not

to the six types of times previously mentioned in the verse, since these time periods and constellations did not

cease to function during the Flood. And the general rule is that a human was created to do work, and needs to

do work to live and not die. Great is the work that a person does, since it will “enliven” one. Thus, G-d

commanded that humans must work or they would “as if” incur a death penalty. However, Jews (or the Avos)

are able to do a positive alternative by engaging in Torah study and spiritual avodah when refraining from

work (which is not an option for non-Jews).

The nature of this prohibition:

Rambam: "We do not let them make a new

religion and to make up their own Mitzvos.

Rather, he (the Nochri) should become a

righteous convert and observe all of the Mitzvos,

or he should uphold his laws (the Seven Mitzvos

of Bnei Noach) and not add to or subtract from

them."

Ramah: Due to stealing since they would not

fulfill their worldly obligations.

Meiri: If they kept Shabbos, they would appear

like Jews and could be misleading.

After the flood, G-d promised Noah that He would never again bring a flood that would destroy the world.

A rainbow is a reminder of this covenant that G-d made with Noah, his descendants, and all living creatures.

Therefore, upon seeing a rainbow, we recite the following blessing:

ה ה' אלו רוך את ן ק ב נאמ רית ו ם זוכר הב עול קים ינו מלך ה ריתו ו רו בב מאמ ב

Baruch ata Ado-nai Elo-heinu melech ha'olam zocher ha'bris v'ne'eman bivriso v'kayam b'ma'amaro.

Blessed are You, Lord our G-d, King of the universe, who remembers the covenant, and is faithful to His

covenant, and keeps His promise. (Berachos 59a; Shulchan Aruch Orach Chaim 229:1.)

Definition of a Rainbow: An arc of light separated into bands of color that appears when the sun’s rays are

refracted by drops of mist or rain.

Question: On what types of rainbows do we make a blessing?

Answer: The blessing is made on a rainbow that results from a rain event. We do not make a blessing on the

rainbows from other circumstances such as seen from waterfalls, sprinklers, etc.

Question: What is the meaning of the multiple parts of this blessing?

Answer: “Who remembers the covenant” HaShem does not need a reminder. Rather, the reminder of the rainbow

shows to the world that HaShem would not destroy the world even when evil deeds increase and the world

might be liable for destruction. “And keeps his promise” Even if He did not make the covenant, He would

not destroy the entire world again. (Marasha)

Ben Yehoyada explains that the three types of praise in the blessing reflects the three unique colors and their

connection to attributes of HaShem:

White Chesed Who remembers the covenant

Red Gevurah Is faithful to His covenant

Green Rachamim Keeps His promise

Question: Does one make a bracha again if one sees a rainbow a second time within 30 days?

Answer: If one sees a rainbow again, even within 30 days, one makes another blessing. This is unlike similar

blessings on nature such as the newness of the moon, upon seeing the ocean, etc. (which are only recited

once in 30 days). Each rainbow is different, since each rainbow is the result of a different cloud and water

situation. (Shaarei Teshuvah)

Question: How much of the rainbow must be seen in order to say this blessing?

Answer: The Shulchan Aruch writes that one who sees a Keshes, a rainbow, should recite the Bracha. The Biur

Halacha (ibid. "Haroeh") raises the question whether one must see the entire rainbow, i.e. the bow-shape,

in order to make the Bracha, or it is enough to see any part of the rainbow. He leaves the question

unanswered. The Teshuvos V'hanhagos (3:76:6) concludes that since it is a Safaik (case of doubt), one

should not say a Bracha unless he sees the bow-shape of the rainbow.

Background: We learned that there is a special bracha one says when he sees a rainbow. The Shulchan Aruch,

immediately after mentioning the bracha, says that it is not permissible to look at the rainbow for a prolonged

period of time.

Question: Why can't you look at a rainbow longer than it takes to say the bracha?

Answer: The Gemara (Chagiga 16a) mentions this amongst other things that a person shouldn't look at (for a

prolonged period). Two other things are the Cohanim (while they are blessing Yisrael) and the Nasi. The

Gemara explains that these things are representative of the Shechina, and therefore one shouldn't look at

them. Maharsha explains that one who looks at the Shechina dies,

and being representative of the Shechina, one shouldn't look at these

three things.

Question: Is it proper to tell another person that a rainbow can be seen?

Answer: Chayai Adam mentions that one should not tell another about the

rainbow due to a reason of spreading a bad report (a rainbow reflects

evil deeds being done). Mishneh Berura states that it is not proper to

tell another. Torah Ladaas says it is not proper even though the other

person would then be able to say a blessing. The Zos Habracha says

that everyone maintains one can pursue the opportunity to see the

rainbow in order to make a blessing, since the only possible

“disgrace” involves telling another person. He wonders whether it

is possible to gesture to another (by eyes or hands) to another to be

able to see the rainbow.

However, The Bris Cohunah and the Yalkut Yosef maintain it is permissible to tell another Jew in order that

they could make a blessing. They maintain this blessing was instituted as an acknowledgment of G-d’s

Chesed and we should be happy and share that happiness with others.

Question: How is the rainbow connected with the coming of Moshiach?

Answer: Before the coming of Moshiach, a very special rainbow will appear. This rainbow will be so bright that

all rainbows that have appeared on earth will seem very dim and weak in comparison. The bright strong

colors of this rainbow are a sign that the Redemption is about to come. It is this rainbow, the Zohar tells

us, that G-d was speaking about when He said to Noah (Gen. 9:16), "I will look at it to recall the eternal

promise." (Zohar 1:72b as quoted in Discover Moshiach)

Question: Why, of all His many creations did G-d choose a rainbow as this symbol?

Answer: A rainbow is a diffusion of light through water.

Light starts out as a single monocular ray. When it is filtered through a cloud in a certain way the one single

color diffuses and diversifies into all colors. In a sense, the rainbow is a revelation of the inner truth of

light. What seems to be white and simple is actually made up of many different colors.

In the Yom Kippur prayer, we describe the beautiful sight of the Kohein Gadol as he came out of the Holy of

Holies. We describe him like a rainbow. The Kohein represents the entire nation of Israel when he stands

before G-d. He stands before the One, the only One, but represents the diversity which HaShem created.

When one succeeds, he is beautiful in his Ahavas Yisroel. He brings forth the simple light, the Ohr Dak

and turns it into a rainbow.

Further, all living things need water to survive. Water, also known as H2O, has a molecular weight of eighteen

atomic mass units (amu). The Hebrew word Chai, which means life, has a gematriyah (numerical value)

of eighteen.

The generation of the Flood had the commandment to “be fruitful and multiply.” However, Man desecrated

this commandment by mating with other creatures. As a result, God destroyed the generation with the

substance on which life is dependent. Just as a newborn baby emerges from the amniotic fluid, a whole

world was reborn from water. Thus, water is a vital component of the rainbow which provides the message

to people to seek ultimate perfection (peace).

A discussion of Halachic topics; for final rulings, consult your Rav.

את קשתי נתתי בענן )בראשית ט,יג(

Chasam Sofer

"מיניי"ורתי ת"מי ש "דושתיק

As the intention at the end of

a person’s silent supplication

we request even )אלקי נצר(

when a cloud is between us

that HaShem accept us for

the sake of Your name, for

Your right hand, for Your

Torah, for Your holiness.

Colors On the Mystical Significance of the Rainbow

Based on the teachings of the Lubavitcher Rebbe Courtesy of MeaningfulLife.com And G-d spoke to Noah and to his sons with him, saying: "...This shall be the sign of the covenant which I am

making between Me and you and every living creature that is with you, for all generations. My rainbow I have

set in the cloud... When the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud, I shall remember My covenant... Never again

shall the waters become a flood to destroy all flesh." Genesis 9:8-15

The rainbow, of course, is a natural phenomenon. Rays of sunlight pass through water droplets suspended in the

atmosphere; the clear, crystal-like droplets refract the light, unleashing the spectrum of colors it contains and

displaying them in an arc across the misty skies.

Yet before the Flood, this natural occurrence did not occur. There was something about the interaction between

the moisture in the earth's atmosphere and the light emanating from the sun that failed to produce a rainbow.

It was only after the Flood that the dynamics that create a rainbow were set in place by the Creator as a sign of

His newly-formed covenant with His creation.

The spiritual and the physical are two faces of the same reality. This change in the physical nature of the

interaction between water and light reflects a deeper, spiritual difference between the pre- and post-Flood

worlds, and the resultant difference in G-d's manner of dealing with a corrupted world.

Contrary Differences

An examination of the Torah's account of the first twenty generations of history reveals two primary differences

between the world before the Flood and the post-Flood era.

The pre-Flood generations enjoyed long lives -- we find people living into their 8th, 9th and 10th centuries (Noah's

grandfather, Methuselah, lived 969 years; his father, Lemech, 777 years; Noah himself, 950 years). The Zohar

explains that this was an era of divine benevolence, in which life, health and prosperity flowed freely and

indiscriminately from Above.

Following the Flood, we see a steady decline in the human lifespan. Within ten generations, Abraham is old at

the age of 100.

The second difference is one that seems at odds with, and even contradictory to, the first: After the Flood, the

world gained a stability and permanence it did not enjoy in the pre-Flood era. Before the Flood, the world's

very existence was contingent upon its moral state. When humanity disintegrated into corruption and violence,

G-d said to Noah:

The end of all flesh is come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence through them; behold, I shall destroy

them and the earth.

Following the Flood, G-d vowed:

I will not again curse the earth because of man... neither will I again smite everything living, as I have done. For

all days of the earth, [the seasons for] seed time and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night,

shall not cease.

No longer would the cycles of life and nature totter on the verge of extinction whenever man strays from his G-

d. The post-Flood world is a world whose existence is assured, a world that is desired by its Creator regardless

of its present state of conformity to His will.

And the guarantor of this assurance, the symbol of this new stability, is the rainbow.

An Opaque World

Before the Flood, man's role in creation lay primarily in reacting to G-d's involvement in the world. The flow of

divine vitality into the world was plentiful and uninhibited, enabling man to attain great material and spiritual

heights; but these achievements were merely man's acceptance of what was being bestowed upon him from

Above, rather than the fruits of his own initiative.

The pre-Flood world was like a brilliant pupil who grasps the most profound teachings of his master, but who

lacks the ability to conceive of a single original thought of his own. So once corrupted -- once it had distanced

itself from its Master and disavowed its relationship with Him -- it lost the basis for its existence. When man

ceased to respond, the world held no further use for the Creator.

After the Flood, G-d imbued the world with a new potential -- the potential to create. He granted it the ability to

take what it receives from Above and develop it, extend it, and expand upon it. The world was now like a disciple

who had been trained by his master to think on his own, to take the ideas which he has learned and apply them to

new areas. Man was now able not only to absorb the divine input into his life but also to unleash its potential in

new, unprecedented ways.

Such a world is in many ways a weaker world than one that is wholly sustained by divine grace. It is more

independent, and thus more subject to the limitations and mortality of the human state. Hence the shorter lifespans

of the post-Flood generations. But in the final analysis, such a world is more enduring: Even when it loses sight

of its origin and purpose, it retains the ability to rehabilitate itself and restore its relationship with its Creator.

Because it possesses an independent potential for self-renewal, it can always reawaken this potential, even after

it has been suppressed and lain dormant for generations.

Rising Mist

The rainbow is the natural event that exemplifies the new post-Flood order. Moisture rises from the earth to form

clouds and raindrops, which catch the light of the sun. A less refined substance would merely absorb the light,

but the purity and translucency of these droplets allows them to focus and channel the rays they capture in such a

way that reveals the many colors implicit within each ray of sunlight.

The pre-Flood world lacked the rainbow. There was nothing in or about it that could rise from below to interact

with and develop what it received from Above. Such was its spiritual nature; as a result, the conditions for a

physical rainbow also failed to develop -- the mist it raised could only absorb, but not refract, the light of the sun.

Lacking a creative potential of its own, the pre-Flood world was left without reason and right for existence when

it ceased to receive the divine effluence from Above. Then came the Flood. The rains that destroyed a corrupted

world also cleansed it and purified it, leaving in their wake a new world with a new nature: a world that rises to

meet and transform what is bestowed upon it; a world with the translucency and refinement to develop the gifts

it receives into new, unprecedented vistas of color and light.

When this world goes astray, G-d sees its rainbow, and the sight causes Him to desist from destroying it. For the

rainbow attests to the world's new maturity -- its ability to ultimately rise above its present lapse and rebuild its

relationship with its Creator.

11 GENERATIONS OF THE DISPERSION OF MANKIND (FROM NOACH TO AVRAHAM) Birth

Year

Since

Creation

Birth

Year

Since

Flood

NOACH

1056

SHEM 1558

ARPACH

SHAD

1658 2

SHELAH 1693 37

EBER 1723 67

PELEG 1757 101

REU 1787 131

SERUG 1819 163

NACHOR 1843 I193

TERACH 1878 222

AVRAHAM 1948 298

Age in

Year 1996

940

438 338 303 279 239 209 177 147 118 48

Years

lived

950

600 438 433 464 239 239 230 148 205 175

Important Dates:

1656 Year of Flood

1996 Year of Dispersion Death of Peleg (all others above still alive) 340 years after Flood; Avram 48 years

2001 Start of 2000 Years of Torah – Avram makes new souls in Charan; Avram 53 years old

2006 Noach died Avram 58 years old

2018 Bris Bein HaBasarim Covenant Between the Parts Avram 70 years old

2023 Avram Goes Out (commanded to leave Charan) Avram 75 years old

2047 Avram undergoes circumcision Avram 99 years old

2048 Yitzchak born Avraham was 100 years old

Two Types of Eradication Plus Dinosaurs

Bereshis 7, v. 23: "Va'yimach es kol ha'y'kum ...... va'yimochu min ho'oretz" - Why the

duplication of the same concept that everything was eradicated?

1) The Gemara Sanhedrin 108a says that the double expression indicates that they were

eradicated from this physical world, plus no existence in the world to come.

2) The Ibn Ezra answers that the expression "va'yimach" refers to the actual eradication of

the people and all that stood on the face of the earth, while "va'yimochu" refers to the

total erasure of the people, since they left over no descendants.

3) The Radak answers that the expression "va'yimach" refers to the actual eradication of the

people and all that stood on the face of the earth, while "va'yimochu" refers to the total

destruction of all buildings. This leaves no trace of the previous civilization, where one

could have possibly said that these buildings are the remnant of a previous generation.

This is a second level of eradication.

4) The Ramban answers that the second expression of destruction refers to the fact that

besides the birds being destroyed, their eggs were also destroyed, thus leaving no

opportunity for a continuation of their species beyond those that found safe harbor in the

ark.

5) The Rokei'ach answers that the first expression refers to the destruction of the flesh of all

living beings, while the second expression refers to the pulverizing and disintegration of

their bones.

6) The Malbim says that the second expression of destruction does not refer to the

disintegration of the bones, but rather that the earth swallowed up the bodies of all

creatures and brought them deep into the bowels of the earth. He adds that this explains

the archaeological finds of dinosaurs and the like found deep in the earth. The extremely

old age placed upon these finds can also be explained even though the numbers predate

the creation of the world since they are from a previous world that was created and

destroyed.

Dinosaurs: Essentially, there are three major theories to explain the past occurrence of dinosaurs on this planet.

Rabbi Menachem Schneersohn, the Lubavitch Rebbe, presented two thoughts. Perhaps, dinosaurs existed

over the past 5,800 years, died, and because of environmental conditions that differ from today, their skeletal

remains underwent a rapid fossilization process. The second thought is that living dinosaurs never existed.

Perhaps, “G-d created ready fossils, bones, or skeletons (for reasons best known to Him). If so, “why did G-d

have to create fossils in the first place? The answer is simple: we cannot know the reason why G-d chose this

manner of creation in preference to another, and whatever theory of creation is accepted, the question will always

remain unanswered. The question “Why create a fossil?” Is no more valid than the question “Why create an

atom?”” [http://www.chabadnews.us/Old%20Letters/RA000014.htm].

Rabbi Naftali Berlin (Netziv) in parshas Noach (HaAmek Davar; 7:23) suggested a second theory that

dinosaurs roamed the world in the pre-mabul period. According to Chazal, animals in the antediluvian pre-

mabul era mated outside their species, leading to the birth of different types of hybrid creatures, including the

dinosaurs. The flood waters destroyed the dinosaurs and it was HaShem’s intent that their bones remain buried

for centuries, as a warning to future generations not to mate with different species. Rabbi Meir Leibush ben

Yechiel Michel (Malbim commentary to Genesis 7:23) also suggested that dinosaurs lived in the era prior to the

flood. Accordingly, although “they (i.e., the dinosaurs) may have survived the action of the water, they were

nevertheless eliminated from the face of the earth by the strong currents which carried them into the chasms that

had been formed when the ground was split. They were absorbed and deposited thousands of cubits deep - and so

completely that when Noach later left the ark, he found no traces of any animal remains, not even of those giant

creatures which existed before the Flood.” A weakness with the theory presented by the Netziv and the Malbim

is that if dinosaurs died along with other animals and with human beings, then fossilized bones of dinosaurs would

be found in the same sedimentary rock layers as fossils of other creatures. The fact that we do not find this is a

strong indication that dinosaurs, large mammals, and human beings lived in different epochs. Rabbi Brown noted

that the mabul cannot explain the numerous geological strata, each containing its unique blend of fossilized

animals. As pointed out by Rabbi Slifkin, both the Malbim (1809-1879) and the Netziv (1817-1893) lived when

fossilized dinosaur bones were just being discovered. If they were alive today, with the abundance of fossilized

dinosaur bones found, perhaps they would have presented a different explanation for the occurrence of dinosaurs

on this planet.

The third approach is based on a midrash (Bereshis Rabbah, 3:7; 9:2; Koheles Rabbah 3:1.11; Yalkut Shimoni

Koheles Rabbah 968:3) that, according to Rabbi Avahu, prior to this world, HaShem created many other words

and destroyed them, saying, “This one pleases Me, those did not please Me.” According to this thought, dinosaurs

lived these prior worlds. The concept of prior worlds eliminates a controversy between Torah and science of the

age of the universe. The Torah’s viewpoint is that, as of September 2017, our world is 5,777 years old, calculated

from the creation of Adom HaRishon. However, according to the scientific viewpoint, our universe dates back

13.8 billion years, calculated from the Big Bang and progressing through all the prior worlds that were created

and destroyed (boneh olamos umachrivon) subsequent to the world that we now inhabit. Thus, depending upon

your point of reference, both calculations are correct. The concept of boneh olamos umachrivon was promulgated

by Rabbi Israel Lipschitz (author of the commentary Teferes Yisrael on the Mishnah) in his D’rush Or HaHayyim,

printed in the Yachin u-Boaz edition of the Mishnah, after Sanhedrin). Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik, Rabbi

Shlomo Aviner, Yeshivat Ateret Yerushalayim, Rabbi Yisroel Belsky, Mesivta Torah Vodaath, Rabbi Dovid

Brown, Ner Yisrael, and according to Rabbi Natan Slifkin, Rabbi Shalom Mordechai Schwadron (the

Maharsham), Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch, and Rabbi Yehudah Yudel Rosenberg (author of the Talmudic work,

Yados Nedarim) agreed with the approach of boneh olamos umachrivon.

It should be noted that not all scholars concurred with the above interpretation of the midrash. the Netziv

(HaAmek Davar; Bereishis 7:23) concluded that dinosaurs could not have roamed in prior worlds, as according

his interpretation of the midrash, these prior worlds were totally destroyed, leaving no remnants. Thus, according

to the Netziv, the fossilized dinosaur bones must have been from creatures that lived in our current world. Rabbi

Slifkin cited Rabbi Yaakov Yisrael Kanievsky, who suggested that, perhaps, the prior worlds were entirely

spiritual in nature and even if they were physical, there would be no remnant in our universe. Rabbi Chaim Eliezar

Shapira (the Rebbe Munkatch) noted that D’rush Or HaHayyim contained statements that were “damaging views

that tend towards heresy,” and suggested that this essay was forged by the son of Rabbi Lipschitz yet published

in his name. Citing Shemos Rabbah 1:2, “... that He created worlds and looked at them and they were not

endearing to him, and He returned them to chaos and emptiness,” the Netziv stated that if neither vestige nor trace

remained from these worlds, then dinosaur fossils could not be remnants from prior worlds.

H. Babich, Ph.D. Biology Department/SCW Dinosaurs and Wooly Mammoths - is there a Torah Viewpoint?

download.yutorah.org/2016/1053/859980.pdf

Slifkin, N., 2006, The Challenge of Creation, Yashar Books/Lambda Publ., Brooklyn, NY.

Brown, D., 1997, Mysteries of the Creation, Targum/Feldheim, Southfield, MI.

Holzer, D., 2010, The Rav. Thinking Aloud on the Parsha. Sefer Bereishis, Laor Ltd., Jerusalem, Israel.

Aviner, S., 2009, Were there dinosaurs? http://www.ravaviner.com/2009/07/were-theredinosaurs.html

Belsky, Y., 2005, Einei Yisroel on Sefer Bereishis, Machon Simchas Torah, Kiryat Sefer, Israel.

Kaplan, A., 1993, Immortality, Resurrection and the Age of the Universe: a Kabbalistic View, KTAV Publ. House, Inc., Hoboken, NJ

Layout of the Three Decks in Noach’s Ark Designs per Matanos Kekunah

The Medrash Rabbah (31:11) presents two views, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi

Nechemyah, as to the layout of the three decks. Each Tanna’s design is identical for

each of the three decks. Each Tanna agrees that the Torah designated the dimensions

of the Ark as 300 amos length and width of 50 amos.

Rabbi Yehuda states that the Ark contained 360 rooms, each room measuring 10

amos by10 amos each. Each deck thus held 120 rooms, built in four rows. of thirty

attached rooms. Between the four rows were two corridors of four amos, to allow

access to each room. Further on each outer row, there as a one-amah corridor

between the row and the side of the Ark. Please see the diagram below:

According to Rabbi Yehudah OPEN SPACE OF ONE AMAH WIDTH

WALKWAY OF FOUR AMOS WIDTH

WALKWAY OF FOUR AMOS WIDTH

OPEN SPACE OF ONE AMAH WIDTH

Rabbi Nechemyah states that the Ark contained 900 rooms, each room measuring 6

amos by 6 amos each. Each deck thus held 300 rooms, built in six rows of fifty

attached rooms. Between the six rows were three corridors of four amos, to allow

access to each room. Further on each outer row, there as a one-amah corridor

between the row and the side of the Ark. Please see the diagram below:

According to Rabbi Nechemyah OPEN SPACE OF ONE AMAH WIDTH

WALKWAY OF FOUR AMOS WIDTH

WALKWAY OF FOUR AMOS WIDTH

WALKWAY OF FOUR AMOS WIDTH

OPEN SPACE OF ONE AMAH WIDTH

Another Medrash posits that one desk was for waste and thus, did not need rooms

on that deck. Yefeh To’ar maintains that both Rabbi Yehdah and Rabbi Nechemyah

disagree with the other Medrash and they held that there was no separate deck for

waste.

The Torah states that the Ark was finished to an Amah (Bereshis 6,16). If the three

decks were symmetrical, how does each Tanna explain this concept?

Rabbi Yehdah says the Torah means like the Ark’s amah on the lower deck, so was

it amah on the upper deck. Thus, the instruction is to use the same measurement to

finish the Ark from above, that is used below. Thus, the Ark would not be narrower

at the top than the bottom, same measurement for the bottom would apply to the top.

The Ark was like a cuboid.

Rabbi Nechemyah says the Torah means that the top of the Ark should be shaped

like a tent slanting upwards until the top was only one cubit wide. This would enable

the water could easily run off. Yefeh To’ar maintains the roof was slanted along the

length of the ark but not it’s width. So, the at its peak, the Ark measured 300 amos

by one amah.

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan, z"l, On The Age Of The Universe

Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan's, z"l, position of the age of the universe based on early Kabbalistic sources

is highlighted after the jump.

Rabbi Kaplan was both an illui (genius) in Torah and an illui in physics and was arguably the most

qualified individual of the previous generation to discuss the interface of Torah and science.

PART 1: Background

1. As long as no halakha is involved, there is no reason to poskin on (decide) an issue.

2. In his Guide to the Perplexed, the Rambam builds several shitot (philosophies) based on da'at yachid,

an individual view of a sage that is not upheld by the majority. As long as this is done for hashgafah

(philosophy, outlook) and not for legal issues, this is perfectly fine.

3. One cannot label an idea heretical until one has surveyed the sources. Perhaps Gedolim from earlier

generations held the same view. If so, the view is not heresy.

4. Sefer Temunah, an early kabbalistic work attributed to the 1st century Tanna Nehunya ben ha-

Kanah, is a work that discusses the kabbalistic import of the shapes of the Hebrew letters. Sefer

Temunah is quoted in many different Halakhic sources (including the Beit Yosef) that deal with sofrut

– writing Torah scrolls, mezuzot and megilot.

5. Sefer Temunah also comments on the Shmita Theory, the idea that sabbatical cycles existed before

the creation of Adam, and that those cycles – those years – were actual physical years.

6. Sefer Temunah states that we are in the 6th 7,000-year sabbatical cycle and that the world is 42,000

years old.

7. The Shmita Theory became known as the Shitat Sefer Temunah.

8. Many pre-ARI kabbalists accepted the Shitat Sefer Temunah, including the Ramban, his close student

Yitzhak of Akko, and the RADBAZ.

9. The Ramban's position is difficult to understand if you have not first learned Shitat Sefer Temunah.

10. The ARI (Rabbi Isaac Luria) rejected Shitat Sefer Temunah and taught that these cycles were not

physical years but were instead spiritual, non-physical years. Rabbi Moshe Cordevero agreed with

the ARI.

11. Because of the spread of Lurianic Kabbalah, Shitat Sefer Temunah became less and less known. For

the most part, only those few scholars who studied ancient kabbalistic works were aware of it.

12. In 1838, when the Tiferet Yisrael wrote his essay on the age of the universe that advocated a universe

much older than 6,000 years, his works were banned by some chasidim. Others simply ripped the

essay out of the larger work.

13. The Tiferet Yisrael's 'crime'? Not accepting the ARI's opinion as binding. (See #1, #2 and #3 above.)

PART 2: Could The World Have Been Created 'Old'?

1. No Jewish source exists to support this contention.

2. To make the world appear to be billions of years old when it is really 6000 years old is problematic:

a. It makes G-d appear to be deceptive.

b. If one accepts the idea that G-d created an 'old' world, why not say the world was created 5

minutes ago and we with it, with all of our memories, etc. ready-made?

c. Again, there is no Jewish source for this idea. [It was invented by the 19th century Christian

apologist Philip Henry Gosse.]

3. One can believe it it one desires. Such a belief – even absent Jewish sources to support it – is not

heresy.

PART 3: The Shita of Yitzhak of Akko.

1. He was a student and a colleague of the RAMBAN.

2. Was one of the foremost kabbalists of his time.

3. Investigated and authenticated the Zohar, which was then published in his lifetime.

4. Is often quoted in the Mussar classic, Reishit Hokhmah.

5. In his work Otzar HaHayyim, Yizhak of Acco writes that, because the sabbatical cycles referred to in

Shitat Sefer Temunah existed before Adam, they must be measured in Divine years, not human

years.

6. Therefore, Sefer Temunah is speaking of Divine years when it states that the world is 42,000 years

old.

7. According to midrashic sources, a Divine day is 1,000 earth-years long.

8. A Divine year would therefore equal 365,250 earth years.

9. So, according to Yitzhak of Acco, the universe would be 42,000 x 365,250 earth-years old.

10. That calculation comes out to 15.3 billion years, very close to current estimates for the Big Bang.

Part 4: Conclusion.

1. There is no real conflict between science and Torah on the age of the universe.

2. Ancient Torah-teachings have in fact been vindicated by modern science.

For more information:

Genesis and the Big Bang, by Gerald L. Schroeder

Towards Reconciliation of Biblical and Cosmological Ages of the Universe by Alexander Poltorak

http://www.quantumtorah.com/towards-reconciliation-of-biblical-and-cosmological-ages-of-the-universe/

Eating before Feeding Your Animals

Based on article from Rabbi Yirmiyohu Kaganoff

Question #1: Coffee and the concierge

“Was Noach permitted to have his morning coffee before he brought all the animals

breakfast?”

Question #2: Dog’s best friend

“I would like to eat an apple. Must I first feed Fido?”

Question #3: Fish on Shabbos

“On Shabbos, may I make kiddush before I feed the fish?”

Introduction

Taking care of all the animals in the teivah was not easy and was even harder for an inexperienced zookeeper like

Noach. Understanding Noach’s travails provides ample opportunity to discuss the ruling of the Gemara (Brachos

40a; Gittin 62a) that one may not eat without first feeding his animals, as the Torah says, in the second paragraph

of Shema, And I will provide grass in your field for your animals, and only subsequently does the Torah say, and

you will eat and be satisfied (Devarim 11:15).

Analyzing the mitzvah

There are numerous questions about this mitzvah:

Is this required min hatorah or miderabbanan?

Are we forbidden to eat only a full meal, or even just a snack?

May I quench my thirst before I provide water or feed my animal? In other words, does the prohibition apply only

to eating or also to drinking?

Does this mitzvah apply on Shabbos and Yom Tov?

Torah or rabbinic?

Let us start with a basic question: Is the obligation to feed my animals before I eat min hatorah or miderabbanan?

A prominent, early acharon, Rav Yaakov Reischer (Shu”t Shevus Yaakov 3:13), rules that, although the Gemara

cites a pasuk as the source for this halachah, it is required only as a rabbinic mitzvah, and the pasuk is an allusion,

what Chazal call asmachta. Although I have seen authorities quoted as holding that the requirement is min hatorah

(see, for example, Sedei Chemed Volume I, page 40), I have not yet found anyone who rules this way clearly.

Quite the contrary, the Rambam (Hilchos Avodim 9:8) states that feeding your animals before you eat is an

exemplary way to act but is not required.

A full meal or a snack?

Are we forbidden to eat only a full meal before feeding our animals, or are we prohibited to eat even a snack?

This question is subject to a dispute among early authorities, which appears to be based on how one reads and

understands the pertinent passage of Gemara. The two times the Gemara cites this mitzvah in our published

editions, it quotes varying and conflicting passages. In Brachos, the Gemara reads, It is prohibited to eat before

you provide food for your animals, whereas in Gittin the passage reads, It is prohibited to taste [food] before you

provide food for your animals. In Chazal’s lexicon, eating usually implies eating a full meal, whereas te’imah,

tasting, implies eating a snack. Thus, the text in Brachos (eat) implies that the prohibition is limited to eating a

full meal, but that one may eat a snack even though he has not yet fed his animals. On the other hand, the version

in Gittin (taste) implies that a snack is prohibited. However, I found variations on the Gemara texts, including

versions in both places that prohibit tasting, and versions in both places that only prohibit eating. Most

significantly, both the Rif and the Rosh, two of the most preeminent authorities, state in their comments to the

passage in Brachos that tasting is prohibited. It seems that they prohibit even snacking prior to feeding one’s

animals, which is also implied by the Beis Yosef (Orach Chayim 167).

The two major commentaries on the Shulchan Aruch seem to dispute whether one may snack prior to feeding

one’s animals — the Taz (167:7) expressly permits snacking before feeding your animal, whereas the Magen

Avraham (167:18) implies that it is prohibited.

An in-between meals’ snack

Some authorities endeavor to resolve the inconsistency between the two Talmudic versions of the text. The

Nishmas Odom suggests that the two versions are not contradictory. It is prohibited to eat a meal without feeding

your animal first, and that one who is planning to sit down to a meal may not taste anything of the meal without

first feeding his animals. However, it is permitted to eat only a small snack prior to feeding your animals, when

that is all one intends to eat. This approach is how the Nishmas Odom concludes in his magnum opus, the Chayei

Odom (5:11), where he implies that one may eat a snack before feeding one’s animals.

The Nahar Shalom (167:4) answers the contradiction in the two texts in a similar fashion, ruling that when it is

meal time, one may not eat even a snack, out of concern that he’ll forget to feed his animals, but between meals,

one may eat a snack without feeding his animals first. This approach is also quoted by the Kaf Hachayim (167:52)

as definitive halachah. However, the Shevus Yaakov, the Kesav Sofer (Shu”t Orach Chayim #32) and the Mishnah

Berurah (167:40) all prohibit eating even a snack before feeding one’s animals.

At this point, we can address one of our opening questions: “I would like to eat an apple. Must I first feed Fido?”

According to the Taz, the Chayei Odom, the Nahar Shalom and the Kaf Hachayim, one may eat an apple or some

other snack before feeding his dog, although the Nahar Shalom and the Kaf Hachayim permit this only when it is

not meal time. On the other hand, many other authorities prohibit eating even a snack without first feeding one’s

animals.

Is instructing enough?

The Nahar Shalom and the Kaf Hachayim also permit if the owner commanded his servants to feed the animals,

then he may begin his meal. Since his instructions will be obeyed, he does not need to worry that his animals will

go hungry. However, other authorities do not record this lenient ruling (see Mishnah Berurah).

Drinking before feeding

Is it permitted to drink before one feeds the animals, or it the prohibition limited to eating?

Based on the Torah’s description of how Rivkah greeted Eliezer, the Sefer Chassidim (#531), makes a distinction

between eating and drinking. The Torah teaches that Eliezer asked her for a little bit of water, and she answered

him, I will serve you water and also your camels. The Sefer Chassidim asks how Eliezer could drink without first

providing the camels with water. He concludes that although one may not eat without first feeding one’s animals,

it is permitted to drink. This conclusion is quoted by many later authorities (for example, Magen Avraham 167:18;

Birkei Yosef 167:6; Mishnah Berurah 167:40; Shu”t Har Tzvi 1:90), although several others (Pri Megadim,

Mishbetzos Zahav 167:7; Shu”t Kesav Sofer, Orach Chayim #32) dispute it. For example, the Pri Megadim rules

that when the animals are thirsty, one is required to water them before one may drink. He contends that Rivkah

offered the men to drink first, because the camels were not as thirsty. This was because the camels had been

drinking roadside water that people would consider too dirty to drink.

Another approach is that of the Chasam Sofer, who contends that when someone is offered food by a host, he

may eat without first feeding his animals, since the host has no obligation to feed the guest’s animals. This explains

why Eliezer drank before watering his camels.

Yet another approach to explain Rivkah’s actions is that she assessed that it was dangerous for Eliezer and his

men not to hydrate themselves immediately, and that pikuach nefesh certainly supersedes the requirement to feed

or water the animals first (Or Hachayim, quoted by Yad Efrayim on Magen Avraham 167:18).

A drinking problem

Why should drinking be permitted before one feeds one’s animals when it is forbidden to eat, and, according to

many authorities, even to have a small snack? Rav Tzvi Pesach Frank (Shu”t Har Tzvi, Orach Chayim 1:90)

provides two reasons for this distinction. First, suffering from thirst is far more uncomfortable than suffering from

hunger, so the Torah did not require one to remain thirsty in order to make sure that the animals are fed. Second,

the Torah forbade eating before feeding one’s animals out of concern that once one gets involved in eating, he

may forget to feed his animals. Drinking does not create this concern, since it takes less time and does not involve

as much procedure.

Is Shabbos different?

May one eat on Shabbos and Yom Tov before feeding one’s animals? The Kesav Sofer rules that the prohibition

of eating before one feeds one’s animals applies only to eating a meal that does not fulfill a mitzvah, but that one

may eat on Shabbos and Yom Tov before one has fed one’s animals, since this eating fulfills a mitzvah. Not all

authorities appear to accept this ruling.

Dog’s best friend

“I would like to eat an apple. Must I first feed Fido?”

An anonymous questioner asked the great eighteenth-century halachic authority, Rav Yaakov Emden, whether

one may eat before feeding his dog or cat. The Yaavetz (She’eilas Yaavetz #17), an acronym by which Rav Emden

was often called, responded that he is uncertain as to why the questioner thought that dogs and cats should be

treated differently from any other of G-d’s creatures. He then suggests two reasons that might explain why the

questioner thought that one may eat before feeding one’s dog or cat. Each of these reasons requires an

introduction.

Beheimah versus chayah

For certain laws, the Torah divides animals into two categories, beheimos and chayos. These two categories defy

a clear translation in English, although often beheimos are called domesticated animal species and chayos are

called wild species. Rav Yaakov Emden suggested that perhaps the questioner thought that the requirement to

feed your animals before you eat applies only to species of animal that qualify as beheimah and not to those that

are chayah, and that the questioner thought that both dogs and cats are categorized as chayos, thereby exempting

the owner from the obligation of feeding his animals before eating. The Yaavetz does agree that both dogs and

cats are categorized as chayos — the Mishnah (Kelayim 8:6) quotes a dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages

as to whether a dog is considered a chayah or a beheimah. According to the Sages, whose ruling is the halachic

conclusion, dogs qualify as chayos, and the Yaavetz endeavors to demonstrate that cats also qualify as chayos.

However, the Yaavetz notes that the prohibition to eat before feeding your animals applies equally to beheimos

and chayos. Although there are several areas of halachah in which there is a difference between kosher beheimos

and kosher chayos, there is only one Talmudic source that discusses what halachic difference it makes whether a

non-kosher animal is categorized as a chayah or as a beheimah. This source is a Tosefta (Kelayim 5:5) that

discusses the above-mentioned dispute between Rabbi Meir and the Sages whether a dog qualifies as a chayah or

as a beheimah. The Tosefta’s question is, what difference does it make whether a dog is a chayah or a beheimah.

The Tosefta explains that the difference in halachah is germane to someone who gives all his chayos to his son,

whether his dogs are included in the gift. According to the Sages, the dogs have now been given to the son,

whereas according to Rabbi Meir, they remain property of the father.

The Rash, one of the early Baalei Tosafos, adds another similar halachic difference that will result from the

question as to whether a creature is a beheimah or a chayah: The case where someone declared all his chayos to

be kodesh, which means that they have all become property of the Beis Hamikdash. According to Rabbi Meir,

since dogs are beheimos, in this situation his dogs will remain his property, whereas, according to the Sages, Fido

and his buddies have now become property of the Beis Hamikdash and require redemption.

Both the Tosefta and the Rash imply that the mitzvah of feeding your animals before you eat applies equally to

beheimos and to chayos.

This Tosefta answers another question, which arises from a mishnah that states that a pig qualifies as a beheimah,

whereas the elephant, the monkey and the arod, a type of wildass (probably an onager) are chayos. Since these

are all non-kosher species, what difference does it make in halachah whether these species qualify as beheimah

or as chayah? The answer is that after Mr. Goldberg gave all the chayos in his personal zoo and petting farm to

his son as a gift, who owns the pigs, the elephants, the monkeys and the onagers? The halachah is that Mr.

Goldberg still owns the pigs, but he has given the elephants, the monkeys and the onagers to his son.

Feed your workers!

Having rejected this attempt to explain why his questioner thought one may eat before he feeds his dogs and cats,

the Yaavetz suggests another possibility why dogs and cats would be excluded from the requirements of this

mitzvah. Perhaps the requirement to feed your animal before you eat is because it is working for you, and the

questioner thought that dogs and cats are not considered workers. According to this approach, one would be

permitted to eat before feeding the fish or the canaries, since they are basically pension receivers, whereas one

would be required to feed his carrier pigeons, cattle, sheep, goats, horses, donkeys and gaming falcons before

eating.

However, the Yaavetz rejects both suppositions of this approach.

First, he contends that both dogs and cats qualify as workers, dogs because they serve as loyal watchmen and cats

because they clear the house of mice.

Second, the requirement to feed your animal has nothing to do with whether the animal works for you; once you

are responsible for the animal, the rules of tzaar baalei chayim, not to cause an animal to suffer, require you to

provide it with food. Thus, even pension-receiving animals are entitled to be fed, and the owner must attend to

them before he is permitted to eat.

Man’s best friend

So, is there any reason to treat dogs and cats differently from other animals?

Notwithstanding the Yaavetz‘s rejection of both of his suggestions why dogs and cats should be treated differently

from other animals, he concludes that, although one is required to make sure that one’s dogs and cats are fed, one

is not required to feed them prior to his own eating. He presents the following novel suggestion: Since both of

these species do not have difficulty finding food on their own, the responsibility to feed them does not lie so

heavily on the owner to feed them before eating. The prohibition to eat before feeding your animals is restricted

to animals that, once domesticated, would not be able to find food without the owner feeding them. The Yaavetz

contends that only animals that may have difficulty finding food on their own create an onus on the owner to the

extent that he may have to go hungry until he provides them with victuals.

By the way, very few later authorities who quote this position of the Yaavetz authoritatively.

Returning to Noach

The Gemara (Sanhedrin 108b) records that Shem, the son of Noach, was once telling Eliezer, Avraham’s servant,

how difficult life was in the teivah. Shem recounted: “It was quite difficult. A creature that usually eats in the

daytime, we fed by day. One that eats at night, we fed by night. My father did not know what to feed the zekisa.

One day, he was sitting and slicing a pomegranate, and a worm fell out, and the zekisa ate it. From that day on,

we made a mix of bran and allowed it to turn wormy, after which time the zekisa ate it.”

Conclusion

Why are we required to feed one’s animals before we eat? The Yad Efrayim (on Orach Chayim, Magen Avraham

167:18) suggests the following: One should always look at himself as unworthy to receive HaShem’s bounty.

Perhaps one’s only merit to be fed is that we feed the animals that are dependent upon us. Thus, this mitzvah has

a secondary goal – not only to teach us to be concerned about HaShem’s creatures, but also to teach us humility.

WHAT IS AN “ARAD”?

The onager (/ˈɒnədʒər/; Equus hemionus), also known as hemione or Asiatic wild ass, is a species of the family Equidae (horse family) native to Asia. A member of the subgenus Asinus, the onager was described and given its binomial name by German zoologist Peter Simon Pallas in 1775. Five subspecies have been recognized, one of which is extinct.

WINE פרק ט בראשית

רם: כ ה ויטע כ מ אד חל נח איש ה וי

ת מן כא הלה: -ויש תוך א גל ב ר וית כ היין וישאו כב ם יר נען אבי ח ת כ ות א ביו ער דו א י יג נ יו-לש : בחוץ אחה וישימו על-ם ויפת אתח ש ויק כג ל ניהם אחרנית ו -השמ ות אביהם ופ ת ער כסו א כו אחרנית וי ניהם ויל כם ש ותש ער

או לא אביהם ינו נח ייקץו כד: ר דעו מי ת י ה-אשר א ש נו לו ע ט ב : ןהק

The first time that the Torah mentions wine (concerning Noach), it prefixes thirteen words with a Vav and

vowelizes them וי which is an Aramaic wailing sound (similar to the English word “oy”). These vavs are not

extra; they are needed grammatically. Still from the Torah placing thirteen vav-prefixes in this portion

discussing wine, Chaza”l (Sanhedrin 70a) derive that overdrinking will eventually lead to problems (oy).

It is noteworthy that we find two separate reasons for drinking wine. The pasuk in Koheles (10:9) says, "Wine

gives joy to life." Likewise the pasuk in Tehillim (104:15) says, "Wine causes the heart of man to rejoice." The

Gemara (Pesachim 109b) also says that joy can only come through wine. Obviously, the poskim (halachic

authorities) and Gemara convey that wine is associated with true joy and happiness and is specifically

recommended for Kiddush. The Gemara (Taanis 7) compares Torah to wine.

However, we also find that wine is associated with pain and suffering. The pasuk (Mishlei 31:6) says, "Give new

wine to the destitute and old wine to the bitter of spirit, let them drink and forget their troubles, their toil they

will no longer remember." Likewise, the Gemara (Sanhedrin 70a) says the wine was only created to comfort

the mourners.

The commentators explain that wine has the ability to deepen and magnify the mood that one finds himself in.

When one is in the joyous mood, wine will intensify the mood by bringing out truer happiness. And when one

is looking for comfort the wine will likewise have the power to bring a more intense feeling of comfort.

However, if one uses wine improperly, then one’s actions will result in improper behavior (such as occurred

with Noach).

Maharsha points out that the thirteen vavs (above) are all connected to actions (verbs and not names or nouns).

The first six depict negative actions. The other group of vavs reflects positive actions. Nevertheless, all thirteen

are included in the expression of “oy”, since even the positive actions have potential for bad, so that the use of

wine has to be vigorously watched and regulated. One needs to use wine properly in order to obtain proper

results.

These are the thirteen "woes." (Thirteen times the Gematria of "Vai" (16) equals 208, which is the Gematriya of

"Yitzchak," who represents the Midah of Gevurah and Din of HaShem). Yitzchak, through the Akeidah, was

able to deflect the Gevurah and Din of HaShem and convert it back to Rachamim, as we say in the morning

Tefilos before Pesukei d'Zimra, and as we say in the Shemoneh Esreh of Rosh Hashanah, when we ask HaShem

to turn His Midah of Din into Rachamim in the merit of Avrohom offering Yitzchak at the Akeidah.

This might also be related to the Gemara in Megilah (15b) which says that Haman had 208 sons, meaning that he

aroused the Din (represented by the number 208, as mentioned above) upon himself by causing the Jewish

people to sin with wine at the first banquet of Achashverosh, and by coming to Esther's Mishteh Yayin, her

wine party. The Gemara says that Esther was hoping to arouse the Midas ha'Din against Haman by having him

overindulge in wine.

Sanhedrin 70a: (Over Galila'ah): In the Parshah that discusses Noach's drunkenness, 13 words begin with 'Vov-

Yud' (suggesting Vai, woe) - "va'Yachel Noach..."

Chulin 27b (Over Galila'ah): Animals were created (in the six days of creation) from the dry land, both of their

Simanim must be slaughtered; fish were created from the water, they are permitted without any slaughter; birds

were created from the mud, one Siman must be slaughtered to permit them.

Who is Over Galila’ah? Only two places this Amora is mentioned in Talmid Babli. No one suggests a name for

this person. Some say he was a traveler who crossed into the Galil area and settled into a Bais Medrash and

learned there anonymously for many years. Others say he was a businessman who came to the Galil area,

concluded his business and stayed.

ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם: וישת מן היין וישכר ויתגל בתוך אהלה

Medrash Rabbah: ויחל – Noach made himself profane

Noach drank beyond standards – וישת

Why does the Medrash emphasize these two actions that Noach did incorrectly?

Gemara (Avodah Zara) states that year of the Flood was 1656 and the next year was a Shmittah year. (Jews

entered Eretz Yisrael in the year 2488 and 14 years later years began the count of Shmittah.)

Further, the Gemara (Sanhendrin 26a) states that Cohanim are suspected regarding keeping the sanctity of

Shmittah food restrictions. (Rashi explains that the Cohanim reasoned that since Terumah and Kodshim were

permitted to them then Shmittah foods should also be permitted to them) According to at least one opinion,

Noach was considered a Cohen.

In addition, the Gemara (Taanis 17a) states that Cohanim nowadays are not allowed to drink wine since the Bais

HaMikdash might be rebuilt at any moment and the Cohanim must be prepared to serve in the Bais HaMikdash

(an intoxicated Cohen can not serve). Why can’t the Cohen use the advice to sleep a little or take a walk to

remove the effects of the wine in order to be ready to serve? These methods are only effective when drinking

in proper, restricted amounts. Perhaps a Cohen would drink beyond the proper amounts in which instance these

methods would not remove the effects of the intoxication.

Therefore, Noach engaged both in the improper production of wine (planting during Shmittah) and in the improper

drinking of wine to an excess.

The Shibolei Ho'leket cites Rabbeinu Yitzchak b"r Yehudah who says that he found written that the reason we

say "savri" before we drink wine is because wine brought about major devastation in this incident with Noach.

We therefore say "savri," meaning "what is your opinion," i.e. be aware that wine brought misery to the world

and we are about to embark upon its consumption. Let us heed our drinking and make sure that it will bring

positive results rather than what happened with Noach. This is why the others respond with 'l'chaim," that the

drinking bring life and not the opposite.

The Abudraham writes that the reason for this is that the Gemara (Berachos 40a) says that the tree from which

Adom ate the forbidden fruit was a grape vine. Death for all of mankind was decreed as a result of his behavior.

It is for this reason that we say "savri," asking those assembled if they agree that the wine be drunk, and that it

would bring to positive results. This is why people respond with "l'chaim," that the drinking brings to life and

not the opposite chas ‘vshalom.

“And he planted a vineyard” Yalkut Shimeoni brings the following Medrash: When Noach went to plant the

vineyard, Satan met him. Satan suggested that they plant the vineyard together and Noach agreed. Immediately

Satan brought a young lamb and schecheted it over the grapes. Afterwards, Satan brought a lion and also

schecheted it over the grapes. Then Satan brought a pig and also schecheted it over the grapes. Why did Satan

do these things? When a person drinks one copy of wine, he acts like a docile lamb. After drinking two cups

a person feels strong like a lion and begins to talk big talk. After three or four cups a person acts like a pig

wallowing in the mud and make a fool of himself. Noach drank beyond proper limits and was debased.

1. Why did Satan need to join with Noach to plant the wineyard?

2. Why did Satan need to schecht the various animals?

3. Why did Noach not learn the lesson from Satan and avoid drinking too much?

4. Grapes and wines existed from the time of Gan Eden. Why did the Medrash source the problems with wine

to Noach?

Adom haRishon was fed food and wine from the angels in Gan Eden. Noach recognized the wine in his life as a

beverage that made one happy without side effects and no one become intoxicated. However, when Noach

planted the vine after exiting the Ark Satan assisted Noach in order to join a negative influence to the wine that

would be produced in addition to the effect of happiness. Satan combined the various effects into the wine by

the efforts of schechting the lamb, then the lion and then the pig. Thus, the wine that Noach produced was

different than the prior wine of earlier generations but did not know in advance. Thus, all the questions are

answered.

A Look Inside the Ark (Chapter 5 of 10) Now we can answer a number of the most puzzling questions associated with the ark story.

What did Noah’s family and animals eat?

Where they get water to drink?

Since the ark was sealed, how did Noah and his “passengers” get air to breath?

How did Noah clear the waste from all the animals?

Starting with the issue of food. Gen. 6:21, states, “And take unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to

you, and it shall be for you and for them for food.” The Hebrew word m’ochal means “of/from all the food.” Just

as Noah did not take all the animals available, he did not take all the food types. He had to be selective.

The last part of Gen. 6:21 states that his effort “shall be for food…” The Torah should have said, “Noah gathered

food.” In our opinion, the Torah is commanding Noah to take plants that he could grow for food.

Think about it. Noah did not know how many animals would be coming on board or how long his journey would

last. So how could he possibly know how much food to take along?

The solution: Noah grew food for his family and the animals. In other words, the ark was more than a self-

contained environment, it was a self-sustaining environment.

This isn’t mere conjecture. It’s the result of hints the Torah gives. For example, the Torah tells us that the ark

came to rest high up on the mountains. At that altitude, nothing grew even in normal circumstances. Where was

Noah going to find food to feed all the animals?

Being a talented husbandman and farmer, Noah could continue to grow food for as long as necessary in the ark,

no matter whether the ark was in the water or on dry land.

The construction of the ark also hints that the ark incorporated its own greenhouse. For example, the ark was

“pitched” inside and outside to prevent water from entering. This helped to create a full-fledged ecological system

by preventing evaporation.

Another fact. The third floor of the ark occupied over 60,000 sq. ft. (627’ long x 104.5’ wide.) That’s a lot of

room for eight people. Noah could have reserved space for living quarters, then used the rest to raise crops. In

my opinion, he could have easily spread a layer of soil six inches deep over virtually the entire surface, except

for living quarters and two work paths. (See diagram X).

In Chapter IV, we stated that the animals lived on the middle level. The logs between the middle and bottom

floors were loosely joined. The gaps between the logs on the middle level permitted waste to fall to the bottom

of the ark.

Naturally occurring gas would result and rise up through the gaps in the floor and nourish the soil.

Let’s reread Gen. 6:21, “And take unto thee of all food that is eaten, and gather it to you, and it shall be for you

and for them for food.” Suddenly, the Torah is telling Noah to take growing things and plant them in the ark!

This also explains, Lemech’s mysterious prophecy in Gen. 5: 29). It states, “And he (Lemech) called his name

Noah, saying that this name shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our land, which come from the ground,

which the L-rd has cursed….” Until now, we don’t find any particular need for this talent.

What’s more, the Torah certainly would not have mentioned Lemech’s prophecy unless it was important.

Using his skills as a farmer, Noah planted and grew his crops on the ark so they would mature and to start to

reproduce in one week. Even if Noah was a master agronomist, how could plants have grown so quickly?

Gen. 1: 16, states, “And G-d made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day and the lesser light to rule the

night.” At that time, day and night were more uniform. The light of day and the dark of night were similar, so the

growing season was much faster.

Gen. 7:4 tells Noah that the Flood would start in “yet seven days.” This is followed by an account of the animals

boarding the ark. At this point, everything had been prepared. The soil was in place and the first crop was ready

for harvest. All Noah had to do was to cut the fresh grains and drop them into shafts that opened above the stalls

on the second level. The animals simply would enter the ark seeking food and find the stalls where the shafts

were located. In this way, we can understand how all the animals knew where to go without Noah’s assistance.

This procedure corresponds to a Jewish source which states that “there were vine twigs for elephants, bean plants

for ravens and other birds, lupine seeds for goats, hay for cows, straw for the camels, oats for the horses, barley

for the donkeys and grasses and grains of every sort.”

In addition to food, the plants served another function, as well. In 1771, Joseph Priestly discovered

photosynthesis. This clergyman demonstrated that when plants were placed inside a glass jar filled with air made

impure by the breathing of animals, the air became pure again. This led to the discovery that plants produced

oxygen in the presence of light.

Similarly, to be self-sufficient, the ark’s ecological system needed air circulation, temperature control, and

a source of energy. Since the ark’s covering was transparent, the light provided its energy just as the sun does

for the earth. The roof acted as a cloud covering does for our atmosphere, diffusing the light and preventing the

ark from becoming too hot or too cold.

In addition, the roots of the plants absorbed the carbon monoxide and waste gases given off by animals and man,

and produced oxygen. The oxygen would be warmed by the light, rise to the top of the ark, cool and re-circulate

downward through the feed shafts. Condensation would take place and provide a passive means of supplying

water.

As mentioned earlier, the ark was sealed with pitch, within and without. The outside pitch protected the ark from

the elements. The inside seal of pitch protected the wood from the high humidity and acidity of the waste matter.

In terms of nutrients for the soil, the main gas released from animal waste is ammonia. These fumes would

follow the lines of the least resistance through gas vents (shafts similar to the feed shafts) to the opening of the

upper deck into the soil. As some point, the ammonia gas (NH3) from the animal waste would unite with the air

(N202), water (H20) and lime (CaO) to produce nitrogen phosphorus and other minerals. The roots and moist earth

would absorb these gases and compounds through natural soil chemistry.

The theory sounds plausible, but can it stand up under closer examination?

To find out, we’ll figure the amount of space needed to support the nutritional requirements of all the animals

and people on the ark. We will also determine the combined weight of the animals and man and food and

compare that to the payload figure that we calculated earlier. Ready?

Science has shown that grains, fruits, vegetables and grasses could be grown in six inches of soil. According to

weight calculation for “strong soil”, such soil would average 127 lbs./ cubic foot. The ark’s dimensions (627 x

104.5) provide 65,521.5 sq. ft. of area. Deducting the aisles and the thickness of the lumber, we estimate about

30,000 cubic feet of soil. Multiply this by 127 lbs. per cubic foot, and we arrive at 3.810 million pounds of soil.

Duke’s Physiology Book reports that the average dairy cow weighs 1,000 pounds and eats 20 pounds of dry hay,

plus additional hay and grain each day when supplying milk. Logically, we can assume that the animals in the

ark were young and unbred. Therefore, the animals did not require extra nourishment.

Nevertheless, allowing for larger and greedier species, we could safely say that the food eaten would equal 5%

of their own weight. In other words, a 1,000 lb. animal would eat approximately 50 pounds of food daily.

On this basis, if the average animal weighs 800 lbs., and consumes 40 lbs. per day, then the count of 18,000

animals would consume 720,000 pounds of food daily. The waste would average about 10% of the daily food

eaten, about 72,000 pounds of waste per day. Over the 207-day journey, 14.904M pounds of waste was produced.

To be thorough, we should include the food and waste of the eight people on board. If we accept their average

individual weight as 200 pounds, we start with 1600 pounds total weight. If they eat 5% of their weight daily,

they consume about 80 pounds of food. Eight pounds (10%) per day will end up as waste.

Multiply that by 207 days and you get 1,656 pounds of waste. The total weight of the humans on board is an

additional 3,816 pounds.

We now have accounted for the following weight:

Gross weight of the ark (12 cubits deep) 102,541,871 lbs.

Empty weight of the ark 31,697, 484 lbs.

Actual payload capacity 70,844,387 lbs.

That total weight of 18,000 animals, the soil, the food, animal waste, and human weight and waste amounts to

38,157,816 lbs. If we subtract this from the gross capacity of 70,844 million pounds, we find that the ark had an

additional payload capacity of 31,686,571 lbs.

We can see that only half the available payload is used for 18,000 animals. If we double the count to 36,000

animals, we come up with the following figures.

Animals (36,000) = 28,800,000 lbs.

Food = 10,080,000 lbs.

Waste = 29,808,000 lbs.

Soil (as before) = 3,810,000 lbs.

Maximum payload = 72,498,000 lbs.

36,000 animals would generate 29,808,000 pounds of waste. Assuming the weight of the waste corresponds to

that of the rich soil weight, then 29,808,000 divided by 127 lbs. = 234,708 cubic feet of waste materials.

In other words, the lowest level of the ark must have at least 234,708 cubic feet of space available to hold the

waste. The space in the lowest level was 627 ft. x

104.5 ft. x 20.9 ft. = 1,579,399 cubic feet of space. This proves there was ample room for the ark to hold between

18,800 and 36,000 animals.

To double-check our calculations, let’s look at the relative draft of the ark. Calculating the weight of the ark and

its payload of 18,000 animals, we find that the ark would sit 12 cubits in the water.

If we doubled the payload to 36,000 animals, the draft would amount to 15.25 cubits. Since this is only 50% of

the closed structure (free board) of thirty cubits, the ark is still stable.

The Torah (Gen. 7:20) tells us that water rose to 15 cubits above the mountains. Even with 36,000 animals on

board, this does not present a problem, since the ark would likely have come to rest at a point lower than the peak

of the highest mountain.

Summarizing, Noah and his sons achieved one of the most incredible engineering feats in history. They

constructed a stable, sea-worthy vessel capable of holding and sustaining over 18,000 animals for twelve

months or more!

Joe Silver, the author of this manuscript, was an engineer, an inventor, a philosopher, and a mystic. By day, he

worked for the Goodyear Co. in their airships’ division. At night and during the weekends, he pursued his own

ideas, building a car with three wheels, among other inventions.

However, Joe’s most focused pursuit was spirituality. Long before it became popular, he rediscovered his Jewish

roots and identity. To Joe, Jewish tradition served as a guiding force in his life.

Yet, strange as it may seem, Joe Silver had additional guiding force, a “magid” or spiritual teacher. The rabbi

appeared in Joe’s dreams two or three times a week. He always looked down at a book, never at Joe. And he

taught him in English. The subject apparently was Noah and the ark. In a tape made during 1985, Joe Silver

explained his relationship to the magid and how it took him to Israel, where he learned the magid’s identity.

The Numbers Just Don’t Tally Up!

ה; ויולד, -ויחי כו נ תרח, שבעים שם, את-את ן. -נחור, ואת-אבר ר ה

11,26 And Terah lived seventy years, and begot Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

”And Avrohom came to eulogize Sarah and to cry for her“ ולבכתה לשרה לספוד אברהם ויבא

(based on derush from R' Nesanel Chalomish)

The Medrash on the Pasuk asks from where did Avrohom come?

The Medrash quotes R’ Levi who explains that Avrohom came from burying his father Terach, and now he came

to Sarah. This statement is very puzzling as we know from Parshas Noach that Terach gave birth to Avrohom

when he was 70 and died at the age of 205 which means that Avrohom was 135 when Terach died. Avrohom was

10 years older than Sarah, hence at Sarah’s death who died when she was 127, Avrohom was 137 years old.

This means that Terach must have died 2 years prior to Sarah’s death, so how can R’ Levi suggest that Avrohom

came from burying his father Terach, to bury Sarah?

The question is so powerful that R’ Yossi himself challenged R’ Levi on this The Medrash quotes R’ Yossi, who

for this reason that the numbers don’t add up, argued with R’ Levi and said the famous explanation which Rashi

quotes, that Avrohom came from Mount Moriah and Sarah died from the shock, hence the juxtaposition of the

Parsha of the Akeida to Parshas Lech Lecha.

The Meforshim try to defend R’ Levi’s explanation but their explanations do not justify the power of the question.

The Pasuk says, ויחי תרח שבעים שנה ויולד את אברם את נחור ואת הרן ‘And Terach was 70 years old and he gave birth

to Avram, Nachor and Haran’. The Pasuk is very difficult as since they weren’t triplets how was it possible to be

70 years old when all 3 sons were born? The simple and traditional explanation is that the births started when he

was 70, i.e. Avram was born at 70 followed by Nachor some months later followed by Haran.

However, the Or HaChaim at the end of Parshas Noach has a novel approach and assumes that Avram was indeed

born 2 years prior to Terach being 70 and at the age of 70 Terach had finished giving birth to his 3 sons which

would come out that Terach was only 68 years older than Avram and not 70 years older as generally assumed!

If this is the correct explanation of R’ Levi fits like a glove, as Avram was 137 years old when Terach died so

Terach and Sarah died at the same time, therefore it would make perfect sense for R’ Levi to explain that Avram

came to Sarah from burying Terach.

There are 3 possible ways to understand R’ Yossi,

i) that he agrees in principle to the Or HaChaim but he held that Avram was the youngest but mentioned

first because he was the greatest (see Sanhedrin 69b);

ii) that he held like Rashi in the sedra that they weren’t all from the same mother and therefore all of

them could’ve been born when Terach was 70 years old;

iii) that he understood the Pasuk in the traditional way that the births started when Terach was 70 years

old.

We can bring support that the 3rd possibility. R’ Yossi compiled the Seder Olam (Yevamos 82b and Nidah 46b)

and in the 2nd Perek of Seder Oilam R’ Yossi says clearly that Avrohom was the oldest and that there were two

years between Avrohom and Haran (a year between each brother) which means they must have been born from

the same mother, so we are compelled to say that he understood the Pasuk in Parshas Noach the simple way that

the births started when Terach was 70 years.

The Weekly Haftorah

by Reuben Ebrahimoff - The Haftorahman The Haftorah for Parashat Noah

Mount Ararat The resting place of Noah's Ark.

The Haftorah is read from the Book of Isaiah Chapter 54:1-55:5

The Story line of this week’s Haftorah:

Yerushalayim Will be rebuilt with Precious gems and All the Jews will know the Torah. Jerusalem will be repopulated

(54:1-3) Comfort to Jerusalem, “Rani Akara Lo Yalada” “Sing out, O barren one, who has not given birth, break out

into glad song and be jubilant, O one who has no labor pains, for the children of the desolate [Jerusalem) outnumber the

children of the inhabited city – said HaShem,” (54:2) Expand, Jerusalem! Then Isaiah instructs Jerusalem to make a lot

more room for the incoming exiles. The Jews will increase vastly. Don't hesitate Jerusalem, go all out, the rough times

are over and the brilliant years are coming. Because HaShem is your master, you are his wife and he wants you back

now! Yes, I got angry with you in the past and turned my back against you for a short while but I will never do that

again. HaShem will in-gather the Jewish Nation, never to disperse it again. (54:4-8). HaShem Will Not Destroy Israel

Comfort that our present situation is only temporary. (54:9-10) Similar to the promise I made to Noah, I am promising

you (Israel) to never get angry again. For HaShem's kindness will not leave us and his peace will endure, so says HaShem.

HaShem will rebuild Jerusalem With Gems. Future Wealth (54:11-12) The Spiritual Greatness (54:13) If the Jews Obey

HaShem, they need not fear the Enemy. HaShem will be righteous to the Jew. (54:14-17) HaShem is in Charge of War

and Peace. (55:1-3). Call to all Jews to Study Torah. Isaiah explains the Virtues of Torah Study. Subordination of all the

Nations to The Nation of Israel in the Time of The Mashiach. (55:4-5).

The Connection of the Haftorah to the Parasha: Both the Parasha and the Haftorah speak of HaShem "saving" the

world and the Nation of Israel.

Haftorahman's thought of the week. Imagine when Isaiah says that Jerusalem open up the pegs on your party tent, its

going to be a big one! There is a saying that “We are all the children of one man“, so we are all family and the whole

family is invited to this party.

Famous Phrases from the Book of Isaiah: This is the last Passuk of the prayer “Uvah Letzion” said three times a day,

just before we say Aleynu Leshabeach.” Taken from Isaiah 42:21 “HaShem chafetz le’ma’an tzidko yagdiltorah

v’ya’adir”. “HaShem desired, for the sake of Israel’s righteousness, that the Torah be made great and glorious”.

Isaiah’s Biography:

Name means “Salvation of HaShem”

· Wrote his own book, 66 chapters long

· Father was a prophet named Amoz

· Was from a royal family and had access to the Bait Hamikdash. (The Holy Temple)

· He was born in the year 765 B.C.E. (8th century) about 2760 years ago.

· 25 years old when he had his first prophetic vision.

· After Moses he was considered to be the greatest of all prophets.

· 4 prophets lived in Isaiah’s time –Hosea, Amos, Michah and Isaiah.

· Born circumcised

· He survived 4 kings – Uzziah, Yotham, Ahaz, Hezkiah

· He lived 120 years

· Isaiah said he saw a “vision” of HaShem’s throne.

· He had one wife and two sons. His sons’ names were Maher Shlal Baz & Shear Yashuv.

· He was killed by Menasheh the King of Judah.

· He predicted Israel’s demise

Timeline: This Haftorah takes place just before the Bait Hamikdash was destroyed about 2600 years ago.

Map: Isaiah prophesied in Jerusalem.

ONE THAT DOES NOT KEEP THEIR WORD

ל יג ,ו בראשית ץ כ ני כי -ק פ א ל ר ב ש ס - ב מ רץ ח א ה ה א ל מהיה חמסן הוה בר נש נפיק טעין קופה ומה בבא מציעא דף טו/א פרק ד הלכה ב ירושלמי

ן פחות משוה פרוטה דבר שאינו יוצא בדיינין. ן ונוטלימתכווני והיו מלאה תורמוסין This explains well why Bais Din declares a “Mi sh’para” that “one who does not keep their word should be

punished like the generation of the Flood” בורומי שפרע אנשי דור המבול הוא יפרע ממי שאינו עומד בד . The Gemara

(B.M. 48a) explains that one is obligated to keep their word. However, Bais Din is unable to enforce a promise.

Thus, Bais Din pronounces a “Mi sh’para”, implying that this person should be punished just like G-d punished

the generation of the Flood, who also attempted to deceive others in a manner that does not become applicable

to court actions.

A NON-JEW THAT KEEPS SHABBOS INCURS THE DEATH PENALTY

יום כב ,ח בראשית ה ו ל בתו לא ולי : ישלא ישבותו ולילה"ל עובד כוכבים ששבת חייב מיתה שנא' ויום אר סנהדרין דף נח/ב מסכת

ואמר מר אזהרה שלהן זו היא מיתתן Rashi says that to become liable, a non-Jew must refrain from halachic work for a full day.

T.T. The understanding of this verse is that the action of “not refraining” refers to a person, and not to the six

types of times previously mentioned in the verse, since these time periods and constellations did not cease to

function during the Flood. And the general rule is that a human was created to do work, and needs to do work

to live and not die. Great is the work that a person does, since it will “enliven” one. Thus, G-d commanded that

humans must work or they would “as if” incur a death penalty.

T.T. Thus, one must think this would also apply to a Jew if one were to refrain from work for a complete day.

However, a Jew is able to do a positive alternative by engaging in Torah study and spiritual avodah when

refraining from work (which is not an option for non-Jews).

ONE LANGUAGE

שפה אחת א יא, בראשית י/א פרק א הלכה ט מסכת ירושלמי יוחנן חד אמר שהיו מדברים מגילה דף ור' ר' לעזר

אמר שהיו מדברין בלשון יחידו של עולם בלשון הקודש דלשון וח בשבעים

T.T. This is difficult since how did they immediately speak different languages? Further, the preceding chapters

said the children of Noach to their families and to their languages לשונם.

Thus, it appears that at this time the Holy language (Hebrew) was a general, common language known by all, yet

each group of people also had their own particular language. And at the time of the Dispersion, HaShem caused

all (except people of Shem) to forget the Holy language, and thus, they lost the common language in which to

communicate with each other,

Therefore, in the Gemara cited above, the Rabbis did not argue. One Rabbi explained that they all used to speak

the one common Holy language, and the other Rabbi explains that each nation also spoke their own language

(the number 70 being the standard expression at the time of Chazal).

יו ט ,ו בראשית דרת יה ב מים ה דת נח נח איש צדיק ת לה תול אSome places the word תולדות is written with two Vav’s, and in some places the word is written with only one Vav.

In the latter case (of one Vav) this indicates that from one side the “generation” contains full meaning and from

another side, the “generation” is without complete meaning. Here, in this verse, the word with one Vav indicates

that the phrase that follows (“Tzadik”) is not complete. The same is indicated later regarding the תולדת (one

Vav) of Yitzchak, which contained Yaacov and Eisav.

אל - את ט ,ו בראשית הלךק ה נח -ים התWhat is this matter of “going” (also found by Chanoch and by the Avos)? Understand that a righteous person

fulfills the verse בכל דרכיך דעהו (in all one’s ways, know Him), that in every place that a person goes, one should

not remove one’s mind from HaShem. This implies that in all one’s “going” even in matters of Chol (mundane)

one should contemplate and think about HaShem and His Torah.

ל גי ,ו בראשית ץ כ ני כי-ק פ א ל ר ב ש ס -ב מ רץ ח א ה ה א ל מChazal stated that the Generation of the Flood were punished since they engaged in stealing one from another.

However, they did perform many sins, seemingly more damaging, why was the flood specifically on account

of the sin of stealing?

Thus, one needs to understand that the punishment did not come to this Generation for their harsher sins, since

peaceful personal relationships protected them from judgment on those sins. But once they began stealing from

each other, this led to separation and hatred. And at that point, the previously deserved punishments for the

harsher sins were now judged.

ה טז ,ו בראשית ב צהר תעשה לתIn the Medrash Rabbah, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia disagree. One says Noach placed a window in the

Ark, and one says Noach placed a brilliant stone which provided light as if the sun shone.

A window causes a double effect: it brings light from the outside to the inside, plus allows what occurs inside to

be seen to the outside. However, an internal light source shines inside, but does not allow the outside to see

what occurs inside.

This follows the discussion as to how to consider the righteousness of Noach in his generation (as compared to

Avrohom in his generation).

According to the opinion that Noach placed a window in the Ark, this reflects the concept that Noach’s complete

righteousness allowed him the ability to see what was inside of the surrounding people of his time as to their

true nature of wickedness; nevertheless, Noach did not allow himself to be affected by them.

According to the other opinion that Noach placed an internal light source in the Ark, this reflects that Noach’s

level of being not-completely righteous, which did not allow him to see the inside of others and empathize with

them. Thus he only sought to save himself (and did not attempt to save others).

לם סימן להימים שקוראים בהם הלל ש

The Medrosh on the verse (Bereshis 7, 9) שנים שנים באו אל נח, says that this is an allusion the days that we complete

the Hallel, but without further explanation. Therefore, we could say as follows:

The days that we say a complete Hallel are: the first two days of Pesach, the two days of Shavous, the nine days

of Sukkos, and the eight days of Chanukah.

And this verse serves as a device to remember these days:

Two days of Pesach – שנים

Two days of Shavous – שנים

ואב – numerical value is 9 – nine days of Sukkos

חנוכה numerical value is 89 –same numerical value as -אל נח

נשמת כל חי תברך את שמך

The prayer uses the language of “all living things” not to limit the praise to that which comes from humans, but

to also include praises that comes from any creation that has the breath of life. And, that is similar to the

language used in the verse (Bereshis 7, 22) that included in the drowning of the Flood were כל אשר נשמת רוח

.which indicates all living creatures ,חיים

This prayer is probably referring to the different creatures that praise G-d as recorded in Perek Shirah. We do not

know who authored Perek Shirah, but the concept that animals and birds praise HaShem is mentioned many

times in the Gemara (see Sanhendrin 95b, Avodah Zarah 24b and Chullin 64b).

אברים שפלגת בנו

The word "שפלגת" can have two implications.

The first implication is separation and opposition as in Tehilim 55, פלג לשונם. This word is used often in Gemara

לגחכם מופ Further, this implication is involved in the title .במאי קמפלגי, פליגא , that such a person is separated to a

higher level than others in terms of wisdom and knowledge (also, עשיר מופלג, etc.).

According to this first implication, the verse infers that we have various separated limbs yet we unite them to

praise the Creator.

The second implication of "שפלגת" is one that investigates and arranges items to their parts and functions, like

the verse (Bereshis 10, 25) בימיו נפלגה הארץ. It is understood that this verse means that in his days the land was

arranged according to the differing settlements.

According to this second implication, we can understand the phrase in the prayer means that one’s limbs are

arranged according to each function and proper place, and yet unite to praise HaShem.

After seven days, the flood waters were on the earth” (Bereshis 6,10)

What is the nature of these seven days?

HaShem provided all the food and drink needed for the generation of the Flood, so they were able to sit and

experience the fullness of material existence in order to know what they were going to be missing. (Tosefta)

Thus, one needs a full seven days to receive the complete “picture” or experience.

Thus, when HaShem wished for the Jewish people to receive a complete experience of the holidays, the standard

is seven days of Simchah. Also, when Achashverosh wished to provide a complete experience he set up special

meals for seven days. Thus, we also have the concept of seven days of blessings for the newlyweds.

Within halacha, many concepts of seven reflect the complete idea represented by seven: seven days prior to a bris

milah; seven days of zivus; seven years of shmitah; seven sprinklings of purification on Yom Kippur; seven

circuits on Sukkos around the altar with the aravos. As mentioned in the Medrash Shochar Tov, “all sevens are

beloved.”

This can assist in understanding a custom among many Jews. Halacha declares that the blessing of the new moon

should occur after the third of the month. However, many have a custom to wait until seven days of the month

have passed.

This concept as applies to the good also applies to the opposite: seven days of mourning, seven הבל at the

beginning of Koheles (1,2) provides the siman for the days of mourning:

( 1( הכל הבל )2( הבלים )1הבל ) ( אמר קהלת2( הבלים )1הבל )

a total of seven futilities of life (if not lived according to the Torah)

(The Medrash says these futilities are the seven stages of one’s life, when does not follow Torah. Rabbi Epstein

elaborates: at the age of a year one is like a King seated in a canopied litter, embraced and kissed by all; at the

age of two and three, one is like a pig wallowing in mud and dirt; at ten one frolics like a young goat; at twenty

one like a neighing horse, preening and seeking a spouse; after marriage, one works hard for a livelihood like a

donkey; when one has children one grows brazen as a dog to supply their sustenance; and in old age, one loses

one’s senses and is like an ape with almost human characteristics but lacking understanding.)

PARSHAS NOACH נח SELECTIONS

He Was Perfect in His Generation

יה ו,ט: ראשיתב מים ה דת נח נח איש צדיק ת לה תול יוא דרת אל ב הלך־נח ק את־ה : ים הת

The Gematriyah of היה, the Baal haTurim points out, is twenty. This is because Noach was considered 'Tamim'

compared to the twenty generations between Adam and Avroham; but once Avroham appeared on scene, Noach

was no longer considered 'Tamim'.

Three Times Noach דת נ ו,ט: ראשיתב לה תול מ א יוח נח איש צדיק ת דרת יה ב אל ים ה הלך־נח ק את־ה : ים הת

The word "Noach" appears three times in this Pasuk, says the Baal haTurim, because Noach saw

three worlds: he saw the world before it was destroyed, he saw it in a state of destruction and he

saw it after it had had been rebuilt.

Alternatively, Noach was one of the three people, each of whom was responsible for the salvation of

three people: Noach saved his three sons, Shem, Cham and Yafes; Daniel saved Chananyah,

Mishael and Azaryah (when he interpreted the dream); and Iyov saved his three friends, Elifaz

haTeimani, Bildad haShuchi and Tzofer haNaamasi.

And a 3rd explanation (based on a play on the word "Noach which means pleasant, or well-liked) is

that he was: 'Noach' to HaShem and 'Noach’ to his contemporaries; 'Noach' to the celestial-beings

and 'Noach' to those who live on earth; 'Noach' in this world and 'Noach' in the 'World to Come'.

Not Just Noach ה ז,כג: ראשיתב ב אר אך־נח ואשר אתו בת : ויש

What we have here is a double exclusion, says the Ba'al haTurim, and a double exclusion always

comes to include something. This is Chazal's source in saying that Og Melech ha'Bashan survived

the flood too (and they even discuss as to how he managed to do so, seeing as he was not allowed

to enter No'ach's boat). Indeed, the Ba'al ha'Turim adds, the Gematriyah of "ach Noach" (79) is

equivalent to that of 'Og' (79) עוג.

Ararat ם כל קראוי ח,ד: ראשיתב וא היתה א י ה שתו חוה כ ם א חי: - האדם ש

The Baal HaTurim notes that the word Ararat (with a Kamatz under the second 'Resh') appears on

two other occasions in Tenach (once in Melachim and once in Yeshayahu) both describing how

the sons of Sancheriv after murdering their father, escaped to the land of Ararat. The same Pasuk

already described how they killed him as he was bowing down in the House of Nisroch his god.

Now the word 'Nisroch', the Baal haTurim explains, means a plank (like the word 'Neser'). Because

Sancheriv took a plank from Noach's Ark, which he discovered on Mount Ararat, and he had

declared 'This is the god who saved Noach from the Flood!' and promptly began to worship it. He

had then said to the plank, “If I go to war and prevail, then I will offer my two sons (as sacrifices)

before you (the plank).” The sons overheard him and then killed him.

PARSHA Noach נח SELECTIONS

Why Didn’t Noach Speak Up for the People? The Torah tells us that when G-d had informed Avraham, our Patriarch, that He was going to obliterate Sodom,

he immediately engaged G-d in a dialogue on their behalf. After the sin of the Golden Calf, G-d told Moshe that

He was going to destroy the Jewish people and establish a new nation from him. Moshe, prayed to G-d that they

should be forgiven. In contrast, when G-d informed Noach that He was going to bring an end to all existence

because the world had become corrupt, Noach remained silent and did not respond.

Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh asks, “How could Noach, being of such dimension of righteousness, not seek mercy on

behalf of his generation? When G-d had told Noach of the impending destruction of existence, it was clear the He

had already reached the verdict that the world would be destroyed. There was no possibility that G-d would retract

His decision. As it states, ‘The end of all flesh has come before Me…’ Noach understood from G-d’s terminology

that it was a closed subject. It would be an affront to G-d if Noach would plead on behalf of his generation.

However, when G-d communicated to Avraham and Moshe, He did so in a manner that indicated that His decision

was not necessarily final. Thus, Avraham and Moshe were given the opportunity to plead for G-d’s Mercy.”

Who Can Save The World From Destruction? “Fashion an Ark” (6:14)

The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh teaches that this command can be explained by the pasuk in Yechezkel 14:14:

“Now should these three men be in its midst: [namely] Noach, Daniel and Iyov; they will save themselves with

their righteousness, says the L-rd G-d.” Three have the power to save themselves from evil, whereas only two –

and obviously just one – cannot prevent themselves from destruction… This is why Noach was commanded by

HaSehm to build “himself” a teiva, because he was not righteous enough to be saved on his own merits. Clearly

his sons were also not as righteous as he was, since together they were more than three and, had they been

sufficiently righteous, they would have been saved from destruction.

In the previous pasuk the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh cited Chazal (Medrash Bereishis Rabba 49), that Avrohom

Avinu only asked HaSehm to prevent the destruction of Sedom if there were ten Tzaddikim, and that he learned

this from Noach, who did not daven that the world be saved because there were fewer than ten Tzaddikim.

However, this idea is difficult to understand, because Noach was alone in his generation (and how could Avrohom

learn this from Noach when their situations were not the same)! The answer seems to be that once the angel of

destruction was unleashed into the world, they were required to be as righteous as Noach – or more so – in order

to prevent their own deaths and save themselves. Had Noach davened to prevent the destruction before the forces

of evil were unleashed, he would have succeeded. Although others in the world were not as righteous as him,

their righteousness was sufficient to save others before the destruction was unleashed. Once it was unleashed,

however, only Tzaddikim of an equal stature to Noach could have stopped it and saved even just themselves. But

Noach was alone.

This is why the pasuk in Yechezkel names three specific Tzaddikim: Noach, Daniel and Iyov, rather than counting

any three Tzaddikim, because once permission is granted for the forces of evil and destruction to begin, only

those of similar stature can succeed in saving others.

The Raven – Nevermore? The Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh questions why the raven was sent but rejects the suggestion that it was in order to

check the water level: The Torah surely would have stated this, as it does subsequently regarding the dove's

mission. Rather, in keeping with a Talmudic tradition (Sanhedrin 108b) the Ohr HaChaim HaKadosh reveals why

the raven was sent: because Noach didn't want it around. The Talmud suggests that the raven was cast out because

it broke protocol and had relations on the Ark. While the dove was sent on a reconnaissance mission, the raven

was simply expelled. The raven, for his part, refused to leave.