Volume 52 Number 99
Produced: Wed Nov 1 5:00:25 EST 2006
Subjects Discussed In This Issue:
Fish in Noah's Ark (10)
[SBA, Alex Heppenheimer, Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz, Dov Bloom,
Dov Bloom, David Charlap, Leah S. Gordon, Brandon Raff, Ari
Trachtenberg, Menashe Elyashiv]
Sotah and the "bitter waters" (7)
[Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz, Peretz Davidson, SBA, Gershon Dubin,
Alex Heppenheimer, Shimon Lebowitz, Tzvi Stein]
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:38:33 +1100
Subject: Fish in Noah's Ark
From: Yael Levine <>
> I have been asked if there are any sources concerning the way the
> various types of fish were preserved in Noah's ark. One may assume
> they were put in some type of aquarium.
The fish (because they behaved themselves) survived in the sea.
See Rashi, Noach 7:22 sv 'Asher' and the Sifsei Chachomim.
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 07:45:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Fish in Noah's Ark
Actually, no fish needed to come on board: the Torah limits the
non-human passengers to land animals and birds (Bereishis 7:2-3), and
the destruction affected only those creatures as well (ibid.,
vv. 21-22). On the phrase (v. 22) "all that were on the dry land died,"
Rashi (from the Gemara, Sanhedrin 108a) states explicitly that this
excludes "the fishes of the sea."
(R' Avigdor Miller zt"l, in his commentary on Bereishis (The Beginning,
pp. 160-163), observes that the cataclysm must have indeed killed large
numbers of fish, and that this explains the fact that geologists have
found schools of fossil fish, whales, and other sea creatures, sometimes
at high elevations where the Flood waters would have carried
them. However, there was no general decree of destruction on them as
there was on the land animals.)
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <Sabba.Hillel@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:25:45 -0500
Subject: Re: Fish in Noah's Ark
There is a medrash that the fish survived because they swam in the water
around the ark. The comments about boiling water, etc. seem to say that
the water around the ark stayed normal and the fish that were supposed
to survive stayed around the ark. Others say that the fish were not
effected by the flood because they had not been "corrupted" as the
animals had been. Thus the water from the deep was only used to drown
the animals.
The parsha just states that Noach took the (land) animals into the ark
not the fish. Of course, since it was a nes to begin with we do not
need to ask how he managed to fit them all in.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore."
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dov Bloom <dovb@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:33:15 +0300
Subject: Re: Fish in Noah's Ark
Not so. The fish were in the water and survived without being in the
ark.
There are some midrashim commenting on the perversness of the animals of
the pre-flood era who indulged in inter-species intercourse and were
punished in the flood ( while the fish apparently kept each to its own
species so were not punished.. )
See Midrash Rabba Parsha 28 - the section beginning with "meAdam VeAd
Behema" Hakol kilkelu ma'aseihem bedor hamabul, hacelev in hazeev... and
the prooftext from Bereshit 6:12 (ki hishchit KOL BASAR et darco AL
HAARETZ - this implies that terresterial animals sinned (kol basar) but
only the ones al ha'aretz, so the fish were non-sinners and unpunished.
See also the Tanhuma and the notes in Theodor-Albeck's Bereshit Rabba on
p 266 on this. I think Cassuto also have an extensive discussion of this
subject.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Dov Bloom <dovb@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:32:38 +0300
Subject: Re: Fish in Noah's Ark
Kiddushin 13A near the end of the page " bedor hamabul lo nigzera
gezerah al dagim shbayam - sheneemar: mikol asher becharava meitu" My
translation: In the age of the flood there was no decree about fish, as
is stated: Breshit 7:22 all that was on dry land died. (so the fish
didn't die)
Also Yalkut Shimoni on Noach - Piska 7
See http://www.biu.ac.il/JH/Parasha/bereshit/bereshith3.html note 1
for a reference on this issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: David Charlap <shamino@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 18:19:17 -0500
Subject: Re: Fish in Noah's Ark
I have heard two contradictory midrashim regarding fish and the Ark.
One is that the fish lived normally outside the Ark. Since fish live in
water, cut off from mankind, they were not corrupted like the animals
were, so were not killed off with them.
The other is that the water was boiling, requiring Noah to save the fish
along with the animals. In this case, clearly some kind of aquarium
would have to have existed.
Clearly, one of these midrashim must be allegorical (and maybe both
are,) but I don't know enough to say any more on the subject.
-- David
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Leah S. Gordon <leah@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 04:48:34 -0800
Subject: Fish in Noah's Ark
Um...can't fish survive under water? ;) Why would they be in the ark
at all?
--Leah
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Brandon Raff <Brandon@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:08:39 +0200
Subject: Fish in Noah's Ark
My understanding is that only man and animals had corrupted their ways
and were accordingly destroyed. The sea creatures were not affected by
the flood and had no need to be saved on the Ark. But this does beg the
question, from what I understand the waters of the flood were boiling
hot, so why did the heat no affect them?
Brandon
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Ari Trachtenberg <trachten@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 09:35:55 -0500
Subject: Re: Fish in Noah's Ark
I believe that the traditional interpretation is that fish did not go
into Noah's ark because they were sinless (and also they could swim in
the waters). You see this from the wording in the text that the "land"
was corrupted (but not necessarily the waters). I believe that this is
also related kabbalistically to the why we don't shecht fish.
best,
Ari Trachtenberg, Boston University
http://people.bu.edu/trachten mailto:<trachten@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Menashe Elyashiv <elyashm@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:16:54 +0200 (IST)
Subject: Fish in Noah's Ark
Fish in the overcrowded ark? Why not stay in the water? Plenty of food
there!
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz <Sabba.Hillel@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:38:54 -0500
Subject: Re: Sotah and the "bitter waters"
> From: Alan Friedenberg <elshpen@...>
> This topic came up at Shabbat lunch, somehow. Suppose a husband
> suspects his wife of being a Sotah, and takes her to the Bait Hamikdash.
> Can the wife refuse to drink the "bitter waters?" Does she have a
> choice? What would happen if she does not drink?
She can refuse to take the test and she is divorced without getting the
kesuva. If she refuses to take the test, the husband *must* divorce
her.
Sotah daf 19 and 20
http://uscj.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind0502&L=mishnahyomit&P=455
Introduction
The Mishnah has now arrived at the critical moment, right before she is
about to drink the bitter waters. She is given one last opportunity to
refuse to drink or to admit to her crime.
Mishnah Three
1) If before [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out, she said
"I refuse to drink", her scroll is stored away and her meal-offering is
scattered over the ashes.
a) And her scroll is not valid to be used in giving another sotah to drink.
2) If [the writing on] the scroll has been rubbed out and she said "I am
defiled", the water is poured out and her meal-offering is scattered
over the ashes.
a) If [the writing on] the scroll had been rubbed out and she said "I
refuse to drink", they open her throat and make her drink by force.
Explanation
Section one: She may refuse to drink the water any time until the
writing on the scroll has been rubbed out onto the water. At this point
she need not admit that she had been defiled through adultery. However,
she does lose her ketubah, as she would had she refused to drink at any
other point in the process.
At this point, the scroll has already been written and her meal offering
has already been prepared. The scroll cannot be used by another sotah,
rather it is stored away. According to the Palestinian Talmud, it is
hidden in the hinges of the doors to the Temple's entrance. There it
will become worn out quickly. The meal offering cannot be eaten or used
for another purpose; rather it must be burned by spreading it out upon
the ashes (but not upon the altar).
Section two: If the writing had already been rubbed out, she may no
longer refuse to drink the water without admitting her guilt. If she
does try to do so, she can be forced to drink the water. However, even
at this very late stage she may admit her guilt and thereby avoid
drinking the water. If she does so, the water is spilled out and as
before, the meal offering is burned on the ashes. We can see that the
rabbis wanted to do just about everything possible to allow her to avoid
drinking the water.
Hillel (Sabba) Markowitz | Said the fox to the fish, "Join me ashore."
<Sabba.Hillel@...> | The fish are the Jews, Torah is our water.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Peretz Davidson <perzvi@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 17:42:50 GMT
Subject: Sotah and the "bitter waters"
In fact, it says miferesh in the meshechta that in the absence of the
beis hamikdash, one should not warn his wife not to seclude herself with
another man for fear that he won't be able to test her or divorce her.
Peretz Davidson
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: SBA <sba@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:42:46 +1100
Subject: Sotah and the "bitter waters"
She may refuse, but then she must separate from her husband and does not
get her kesuba money. See Mishna, Sotah 1:3
SBA
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Gershon Dubin <gdubin@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:45:32 GMT
Subject: Sotah and the "bitter waters"
It depends on when in the process she refuses. If it's before the name
of Hashem is erased, she is within her rights, but is given a divorce
with no kesuba. (If he wishes to stop the process at this point, he
can, but has to divorce her w i t h payment of the kesuba.)
If she refuses after the name of Hashem is erased, they force her to
drink it.
Gershon
<gershon.dubin@...>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Alex Heppenheimer <aheppenh@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 08:07:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: Sotah and the "bitter waters"
The short answer is that she can indeed refuse, but then her husband
must divorce her, and she forfeits her ketubah payment (Rambam,
Hil. Sotah 2:1, from Gemara, Sotah 6a). The idea is that the wife's
"setirah" (seclusion with another man) following her husband's "kinui"
(formal warning not to do so) makes her conditionally prohibited to him;
the "bitter waters" ordeal, if she survives it, removes that prohibition
and re-establishes their relationship. (Indeed, this is why Hashem
considers such a case important enough to override the prohibition
against erasing His name.)
(For this reason, Shulchan Aruch (Even HaEzer 178:7 and Rema there)
caution that a man should not issue a "kinui" to his wife nowadays,
since if she violates it, we have no Sotah waters to clear her of
suspicion, and they will be forced to divorce unless he retracts the
warning.)
The only time she can be forced to drink the water is if the writing on
the scroll (containing G-d's name) was already dissolved into it -
unless she actually admits to having committed adultery, in which case
she can never be forced to drink (Rambam ibid. 4:4-6, from Gemara, Sotah
19b and 20a).
Kol tuv,
Alex
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Shimon Lebowitz <shimonl@...>
Date: Wed, 01 Nov 2006 00:27:51 +0200
Subject: Re: Sotah and the "bitter waters"
AFAIR (I haven't studied Sotah recently) the answer is: "it
depends". :-)
UNTIL the parsha (biblical portion) is erased into the 'potion', she can
announce that she will not drink. In this case, she can not be
prosecuted for adultery, but she will be divorced with no ketuba
settlement. (She waives the ketuba by refusing the test).
AFTER the Holy Name has been erased (along with the rest of the parsha),
she is forced (if necessary) to drink the"bitter waters".
Regarding your statement "Suppose a husband suspects his wife": I do not
think simple suspicion is enough. I seem to remember a difference of
opinion regarding the required strength of the testimony that she had in
fact secluded herself with a man she was previously warned about by her
husband, but I think *some* testimony is needed.
Shimon (sorry I didn't look it up... its late)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Tzvi Stein <Tzvi.Stein@...>
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 23:01:13 -0500
Subject: Re: Sotah and the "bitter waters"
This question is discussed in detail in Meseches Sotah and the Rambam.
She does not have to drink, but they would become forbidden to each
other in such a case.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
End of Volume 52 Issue 99
