Q&A: The Story of Noah’s Ark
The Story of Noah’s Ark
Question
Hello, honorable Rabbi,
I wanted to ask how you read the story of Noah’s Ark — as a myth and allegory? As precise truth? Somewhere in between?
Thank you in advance.
Answer
I don’t know. All three possibilities exist. But it doesn’t really matter, since the main thing is the message, not the history.
I’ll only note that it has always seemed puzzling to me that people bring proof that this is a myth and not a historical account from the fact that this story is widespread in ancient literature (in Sumer and Akkad, such as Gilgamesh). In my view that proves nothing, and if anything it is actually evidence to the contrary. If the story appears in other literature, that דווקא supports the claim that it has historical substance to it (the similarity to the biblical description is quite strong). But as stated, this is a side remark, since this question is not really important.
Discussion on Answer
“The Torah should have begun only with the first commandment, which appears in Exodus chapter 12: ‘This month shall be for you…’”
This is a midrash, Rashi’s first comment on the Torah.
The point is simple.
Hello.
First, Moshiyahu answered nicely. Already in Rashi’s very first comment he finds it necessary to clarify that the essence of the Torah is the commandments, not the stories (although one should not necessarily infer from this that the stories are not historically true).
Second, clearly this statement has gained strength lately in light of scientific and historical discoveries. Added knowledge increases understanding, and it may be that what our predecessors missed has been revealed to our eyes because of the advance of knowledge.
Still, there are such statements here and there even before the modern pressures. Nachmanides writes about the creation passage that it is not a factual description. Maimonides held that many biblical stories are dreams or allegories (and likewise regarding the aggadot of the Sages. See his introduction to the chapter Helek, where he discusses three groups with respect to the factuality of aggadot). This became even stronger among the allegorists (Yedaya HaPenini), whom the Rashba excommunicated. Rabbi Yitzhak Hutner also wrote this in a letter (brought at the beginning of the book Beino Shenot Dor VaDor), regarding the hiding away of knowledge; he speaks there about disputes in matters of reality regarding what happened in the Bible.
See on this my article on myth and historical truth on the site: https://mikyab.net/%D7%9B%D7%AA%D7%91%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%9D/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%AA%D7%95%D7%A1-%D7%95%D7%90%D7%9E%D7%AA-%D7%94%D7%99%D7%A1%D7%98%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%99%D7%AA/
Thanks, I read the article and learned a lot.
I have 2 questions now:
1. You wrote in the article that historical truth really does matter, because without it one cannot truly educate, etc. (correct me if I’m wrong). If so, stories such as the story of the first man and the creation of the world, or also the story of Noah’s Ark—if they did not really happen as they are described—how can one educate by means of them as one should? Or should we indeed separate history from myth, as the postmodernists do?
2. Should we “blame” or “rebuke” a person who, based on the discoveries of science and the understanding that the stories in the Torah are myths that did not happen as described, chooses to leave Judaism? Or do we have no claim against him?
Hello.
1. The creation of the world or Noah’s Ark are not direct educational myths (they have effects, but it’s not like the Binding of Isaac or the deeds of Abraham). I am not claiming that educational myths in the postmodern sense are impossible, but rather that the central myths on which our education is based should have at least a realistic core. Embellishment or addition of details can always be done.
2. That is indeed what I wrote against the Rashba: it is unreasonable to demand of a person who reaches the conclusion that these are myths that he give that up for educational reasons. On the other hand, the fact that these are not historical events is not a reason that justifies abandoning Judaism.
But in general, any person who acts as he understands, to the best of his judgment—no one has, or can have, any claim against him.
Why doesn’t the fact that these are not historical events justify leaving? If it became clear to me that the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) is not historically accurate, couldn’t that lead me—or maybe even should lead me—to the conclusion that it was not really given by God?
No. Unless your assumption is that this is a historical account, in which case if it is wrong then apparently it was not given from above. But if from the outset its purpose is educational, then why is historical-factual reliability important or indicative of anything? That is the whole idea of myth that we are talking about here.
So why was the Torah presented from the outset as absolute truth (after all, the Jewish people believed that the creation of the world as described in the Torah was the true one, didn’t they)? Why not present it from the outset as a story whose purpose is educational?
Or maybe it actually was presented that way?
(By “absolute truth” I mean historical truth.)
I don’t understand what you mean by “was presented” or “was not presented,” and what “from the outset” means. A text was given to us, and we have to understand on our own when it describes reality and when it is an educational myth. Does some other book explain every time whether it is describing facts and when it is using educational parables? Maybe once people thought the meaning was factual (although Nachmanides already wrote that it wasn’t), and today they don’t. What is the problem with that?
How does that fit with the decline of the generations? Seemingly today we know—or claim to know—what the Torah really meant in its stories. Doesn’t that mean that in a certain sense we understand the Torah better?
My attitude toward the myth of the decline of the generations is very reserved. I do not believe there was a real decline. In the third section of Two Carts I explained that at most there is a decline in halakhic intuition because of distance from the source (Mount Sinai), and even about that I am not sure. Just as we have advanced in science, there is no reason not to assume that our understanding of Torah, which is nourished by that knowledge, will also advance.
I think this myth was created for the intellectually weak, who do not understand that commitment to the Talmud does not have to be based on the claim that it never errs or that it was written with divine inspiration. The commitment to the Talmud is because it was accepted as binding law (as the Kesef Mishneh writes at the beginning of chapter 2 of the laws of Rebels). Exactly like the commitment to the laws of the Knesset. Therefore people want to explain that the Talmud does not err and that the ancients were heavenly seraphs, in order to persuade people to remain committed. To my mind this is similar to someone telling me that angels of heaven sit in the Knesset in order to persuade me to obey the law. Children need explanations like that, but from adults I expect more.
What does that say about our attitude toward the Talmud? If we found something that doesn’t fit our time (for example, the attitude toward women), are we supposed to grit our teeth and do nothing because we accepted it upon ourselves as binding law?
Or are there some loopholes?
First, one has to be convinced that it really does not fit our generation—that is, that the disqualification of women from testimony is because of some parameter that truly changed from then until today (it is not simple to prove such a thing). If we are indeed convinced, and a reasonable consensus emerges among the sages of our generation, then in sufficiently clear-cut situations there is room to deviate from the rule, like from any halakhic rule (the rules of Jewish law are supposed to be applied flexibly, not by banging one’s head against the wall). See my article on changes in Jewish law here:
Michi, hello.
I’d be glad if you would explain what the authors of the Talmud meant when they said:
“If the earlier ones are like angels, we are like human beings; and if they are like human beings, we are like donkeys.”
Or what they meant when they said: “We are like a finger in wax when it comes to reasoning”?
Seemingly they meant a decline in Torah level and understanding. Now there are three possibilities:
1. They meant it literally. If so, I do not agree with them on this.
2. They meant that there is a decline in the sense of hitting on the halakhic truth (a developed halakhic intuition). With that I of course agree.
3. There are situations in which sages say something for educational purposes and are not describing facts literally. When they speak to people who tend to deviate from the guidance of earlier generations, they tell them that the medieval authorities are like angels. Meaning: one should relate to them as if they were angels compared to us. Similarly, “its general principles and its details were from Sinai” is a normative statement, not a historical one. One should relate to the innovations of the Oral Torah as though they were all handed down at Sinai. Tosafot also wrote that the wording “a law given to Moses at Sinai” is said even regarding rabbinic laws when one wants to strengthen them as binding and weighty like a law given to Moses at Sinai.
I have now found a discussion dealing with this (and bringing two approaches):
http://www.yeshiva.org.il/wiki/index.php?title=%D7%A1%D7%9E%D7%9B%D7%95%D7%AA_%D7%97%D7%96%22%D7%9C_%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%AA_%D7%94%D7%94%D7%9C%D7%9B%D7%94
Thank you.
Excellent article. Doesn’t it create a problem/obstacle that the Meiri is a lone opinion? You said that a reasonable consensus among the sages of the generation has to emerge, but if the Meiri stands alone in his view, then apparently the likelihood of such agreement emerging is extremely low.
That is indeed an obstacle. As far as I’m concerned there is no need for the Meiri either, and the Torah of truth makes its own way. That is, I would say the same thing even without his words (just as he himself did without someone preceding him). Therefore my personal attitude toward gentiles today is different.
But if one needs to establish a public halakhic ruling, that is another question, and here consensus matters. But in practice all the halakhic decisors think this way; they just do not admit it (and use terminology such as “our hand is not strong enough,” “for the sake of peace,” “appearance,” “desecration of God’s name,” and the like). Regarding the fitness of women for testimony, that is another question, since it concerns the halakhic legal system, and therefore here it is not reasonable for an individual person to take unilateral steps.
Israel, I have now been reminded of the Talmud in Bava Batra, in the passage about “retracting and making a new claim,” where we find (folio 31a):
“This one says, ‘It belonged to my ancestors,’ and that one says, ‘It belonged to my ancestors.’ This one brings witnesses that it belonged to his ancestors, and that one brings witnesses that he had possessed it for the years required to establish a presumption of ownership. Rabbah said: Why should he lie? If he wanted, he could have said to him, ‘I bought it from you and possessed it for the years required to establish a presumption of ownership.’ Abaye said to him: We do not say ‘why should he lie’ in a place where there are witnesses.
He then went back and said to him: ‘Yes, it belonged to your ancestors, but I bought it from you, and the reason I told you that it belonged to my ancestors is that I rely on it as I do on my ancestors.’ Can one make a claim and then go back and make another claim, or can one not? Ulla said: He can make a claim and go back and make another claim. The Sages of Nehardea said: He cannot make a claim and then go back and make another claim…”
And in practice we rule that one can retract and make a new claim, in accordance with Ulla. Study this carefully.
Thank you for the answer.
I’m wondering whether the statement that in the Hebrew Bible (Tanakh) the main thing is the message and history is secondary by comparison is something being said lately because we are seeing science proven right, or whether this statement is made independently of science (at least directly). Could you explain?