Parshas Noach
1. It has been discussed many times that Rashi's way in his commentary on the Torah is to explain every difficulty — according to the plain meaning — in the interpretation of the verses; and if there is a question in a verse and Rashi does not resolve it, this itself is proof that the answer is so understood and simple that Rashi has no need to explain it (or that the answer is understood from what Rashi wrote earlier).
Now, in our Parshah[1] it is related that after the Flood Noach knew "that the waters had abated from upon the earth" by sending the dove from the ark: "and the dove came to him… and behold, a plucked olive leaf was in its mouth."
Seemingly, however, according to the plain meaning of Scripture this is not understood:
The preceding verses[2] relate concerning the Flood that "all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the windows of heaven were opened. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights… And the waters prevailed upon the earth a hundred and fifty days," (and through this) "all flesh that moved upon the earth perished, of birds and of cattle and of beasts… And He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the ground… and they were blotted out from the earth…" After such a flood, surely no tree or plant remained in its form — so from where did the dove take the olive leaf[3]?
And no explanation of this is found in Rashi's commentary.
2. Now, the Midrash[4] brings two opinions on this: a) that it brought the leaf from (the branches, or from the Mount of Olives, in) the Land of Israel, for the Flood did not descend in the Land of Israel, as it is written[5], "You are a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon on the day of wrath"; b) that the gates of the Garden of Eden were opened for it, and it brought the leaf from there.
One cannot say, however, that Rashi's view (the plain meaning of Scripture) follows one of these two opinions, because: a) Rashi would then have had to explain them; b) these interpretations are not according to the plain meaning:
The interpretation that it brought it from the Garden of Eden — although according to the plain meaning too it is understood that the Flood did not descend in the Garden of Eden, since the cause of the Flood was "that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and every inclination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil all day"[6], "and the earth was corrupt before G‑d, and the earth was filled with violence"[7] — and none of this applies to the Garden of Eden; nevertheless:
How can one say that the dove entered[8] the Garden of Eden (and brought an olive leaf from there), when it is explicitly written[9], "and He stationed at the east of the Garden of Eden the cherubim and the flame of the revolving sword, to guard…" the entrance to the Garden of Eden, and it is impossible to enter there?
Furthermore, and most importantly: Noach's intent was to see "whether the waters had abated from upon the face of the ground"[10] — and what would he see from its bringing an olive leaf from the Garden of Eden, when the Flood had not been there in the first place[11]?
For this reason one also cannot explain according to the second interpretation: what proof is there that the waters had abated from the earth, from its bringing an olive leaf from the Land of Israel, where the Flood did not descend?
And although according to this opinion too — naturally — even though[12] the Flood did not descend in the Land of Israel, the waters that descended in the surrounding lands surely flowed and entered the Land of Israel as well, nevertheless it is understood that in a place where the Flood did not descend, and where there was also no bursting of the fountains of the great deep, there were not so many waters, nor did the waters prevail, and consequently the waters did not penetrate so deeply into (the depths of) the ground, etc.[13] — surely there the waters abated before other places, etc. Accordingly, from the olive leaf in the dove's mouth Noach would know that the waters had abated in the Land of Israel; but how would he know that the waters had abated from upon the whole earth?
3. In addition to this: according to the plain meaning of Scripture one must say that the Flood descended[14] in the Land of Israel[15]. By way of introduction:
The Midrash[16] brings two opinions in interpreting the verse[17], "Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered": "Rabbi Yehudah says: fifteen cubits on the mountain and fifteen cubits in the valley. Rabbi Nechemiah says: fifteen cubits on the mountain, but in the valley — whatever they were" ("according to the depth of the valley, whether much or little"[18]).
Rashi, in his commentary on the verse, explains: "Fifteen cubits upward — above the height of all the mountains, after the waters had become level with the tops of the mountains," in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah[19]. The reason for this:
a) When there is no compelling reason to say that the Holy One, blessed be He, performed a miracle, it is contrary to the plain sense of the verses to say that there was a miracle and the verse concealed it! And in our case, according to Rabbi Yehudah there was a great miracle here (that the waters did not flow down from high to low (from mountain to valley), and for a long time — entirely contrary to nature[20]). And in addition, it is seemingly a miracle that served no need.
b) The plain wording of the verse, "fifteen cubits upward," implies "above the height of all the mountains."
c) From the content of the matter: according to Rabbi Nechemiah it is understood why the ark came to rest specifically on the mountains of Ararat (even though this caused Noach additional trouble — descending from the mountain, etc.): since these were among the highest mountains, when the waters began to diminish they diminished first in the highest place, and there was the first place where it was possible for the ark to rest; and therefore "the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat." But if the height of the waters was equal everywhere — fifteen cubits upward — and the waters diminished over sixty days[21], that is, equally everywhere, why did the ark rest specifically on the mountains of Ararat? Therefore Rashi explains according to the opinion of Rabbi Nechemiah.
Accordingly, if we say that the Flood did not descend in the Land of Israel — even if the waters from the surrounding lands flowed and came there — simply, the waters there abated before the other lands, as mentioned above; if so, why did the ark rest specifically on the mountains of Ararat, and not before that — in the Land of Israel?
We must therefore conclude that according to the plain meaning the Flood descended[22] in the Land of Israel too[23].
4. This will be understood by first noting some further points that are not understood in the plain interpretation of this verse:
a) It is explained in the verse that through its bringing the olive leaf Noach knew that the waters had abated from upon the earth. The meaning is that he knew not only that the waters were steadily diminishing, for that had begun long before (and Noach surely knew of it — since the ark had come to rest, etc.), and as the verse states explicitly that the waters had dried from upon the earth before the dove was sent;
but also that the waters had abated to such an extent that there was already a place where, after a short time, there would be a resting place, to rest upon the earth[24]. Seemingly, what proof of this is there from an olive leaf? It is possible that this leaf was taken from a tree on a high mountain (especially since the ark was on a high mountain), and from the top of the tree, and at that height there had already been no water for a long time — before the time of "and Noach knew…"
b) Why did it bring specifically an olive leaf, and not that of another tree? Especially since the verse is precise in saying (not simply "a leaf," but) "an olive leaf"[25] — what difference does it make which[26] leaf it brought[27]?
The explanation of this:
In several places in the words of our Sages[28] it is explained that the olive is an exceedingly strong tree. And according to the plain meaning too this is so, for in a matter of physical reality there is no distinction between halachah and the plain meaning[29]. When the student (the five-year-old who studies Scripture) sees an olive tree, he immediately discerns that it is strong. Therefore there is room to say according to the plain meaning that although the Flood was powerful, etc., nevertheless, of all the olive trees[30] in the world, at least a few of them remained[31].
On the other hand, however, it is not at all plausible that the leaves of the tree, although they too are strong[32], remained in existence and in the form of an olive leaf after the entire duration of the Flood — which was in a manner of "and the waters prevailed," with the leaves covered (and soaked) in water for many consecutive months!
We must therefore say that the olive leaf that the dove brought was a leaf[33] that was new[33*], which had grown after the Flood, after a sufficient time had passed from when the olive tree was no longer covered by water and had begun to sprout, until there grew the leaf which the dove brought.
And it is understood that through this Noach knew that the waters had abated from upon the earth.
The precision of the verse, "an olive leaf," is also understood — for this[34] resolves where the dove took the leaf from: since the olive tree is exceedingly strong, it remained in existence and began to sprout early, etc.
This also resolves what one could ask: how did Noach know from an olive leaf that the waters had abated — perhaps it found it on the surface of the water[35]? According to the above, that it was a leaf that grew after the Flood, it is simple that there is a great, recognizable difference between a leaf that has been soaked and submerged in water for close to a year and a leaf that has newly grown.
5. To clarify the above further (that even a five-year-old, when he sees an olive leaf, will discern that it is strong):
Rashi's way in his commentary on the Torah is to explain everything explicitly, etc.; in our case too, then, he should have explained that the olive tree is strong, etc., as all the above?
One may say that according to Rashi this is explicit in the verse: "(And behold, an olive leaf) taraf in its mouth" — (Rashi explains) "taraf — snatched."
Rashi does not interpret the word "taraf" in another way, because this interpretation is more in keeping with the plain meaning[36] —
that is, the verse emphasizes that it snatched the leaf (from the tree[37]), for seemingly it should have said, "and behold, an olive leaf in its mouth"?
The explanation: a) the leaf was taken from the place where it grew (not that it was floating on the surface of the water and the like); b) the taking of an olive leaf from its tree is called "snatching," because it is done specifically by snatching — with force — for it is a strong tree.
6. In light of the above, another point in Rashi's commentary will be further clarified:
On the verse[38], "and the waters subsided (vayashoku)," Rashi explains: "as in 'when the wrath of the king subsided'[39] — an expression of the abating of anger." The commentators[40] explain that Rashi's source is what is stated in Zevachim[41]: "With heat they sinned, and with hot water they were punished; it is written here, 'and the waters subsided (vayashoku),' and it is written there, 'and the wrath of the king subsided (shachachah).'" But if that is Rashi's intent, the differences are not understood: a) In the Gemara it is explicit that the waters were boiling, whereas Rashi omits the point which, according to this, is the main thing — that they were punished with boiling water. On the contrary: if the Talmud needs to spell out its intent in interpreting the word "vayashoku," all the more so should Rashi have spelled it out. b) Rashi adds, "an expression of the abating of anger."
From this it is understood that Rashi's intent is not that the waters were boiling, but that "and they subsided etc." means "an expression of the abating (and quieting) of anger" (and not of boiling), that is, the abating of the "and the waters prevailed"[42]; and according to Rashi's view in the plain meaning of Scripture, the waters were not boiling[43].
The reason for Rashi's view on this may be: a) in the plain meaning of Scripture there is no compelling reason to add a miracle that the waters were boiling; b) according to the plain meaning of Scripture, how did the ark[44] survive in boiling water[45]?
7. The "wine of the Torah" (its inner dimension) in the above matter:
It is explained in Torah Or[46], regarding the reason the Flood is called by the Prophet[47] "the waters of Noach" [even though Noach's role was salvation from the Flood, its very opposite]: because "it is in the category of water in order to purify the impure; just as the mikveh of forty se'ah purifies the impure, so too the Flood came to purify the earth, etc.; and therefore it is called 'the waters of Noach,' for from it there came about a satisfaction of spirit (nachas ruach), etc." And Noach's role, too, was to establish the world anew in a good and pure manner, etc., which parallels the Flood — the purification of the world.
According to the principle that every descent is for the sake of a greater ascent, it is understood that the Flood did not only purify the world of its previous impurity, returning it to its former level, but that additional purity was added through the Flood[48]. This too has a parallel in purification in a mikveh: sometimes it is not only purification from impurity, but it also brings added holiness and purity[49].
Accordingly, the advantage is understood in saying that (according to the plain meaning of Scripture) the Flood descended in the Land of Israel too: through the Flood descending there, added holiness and purity was drawn down to the Land of Israel as well[50] (relative to its previous level).
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Noach, 5734)
Key Lesson
Read with Rashi's plain-meaning eye, the olive leaf was no relic from Eden or from a land the Flood had spared, but a fresh shoot snatched from a tree hardy enough to outlast the deluge — and so the Flood must have reached the Land of Israel too. Inwardly, the Flood was a mikveh for the world, and like a mikveh it did more than remove impurity: it added holiness. Even what is already pure, like the Holy Land, is raised higher by passing through such a purification; and so too in our own lives, a hard descent, endured with strength like the olive, becomes the soil from which a new and higher growth sprouts.