GEN622 Here we have “windows,” and elsewhere [in relation to the manna] Psalms 78:23: “And He commanded the clouds from above and opened the doors of heaven” – to teach us that the measure for good is more ample than the measure for evil.  Yoma 67a TEMIMAH-GEN 39-40

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN623 It is axiomatic, according to Halakhah, that death coincides with cessation of respiration. The primary source of this definition is to be found in Yoma 85a in connection with suspension of Sabbath regulations for the sake of the preservation of human life. The case in point concerns an individual trapped under a fallen building. Since desecration of the Sabbath is mandated even on the mere chance that a human life may be preserved, the debris of a collapsed building must be cleared away even if it is doubtful that the person under the rubble is still alive. However, once it has been determined with certainty that the person has expired, no further violation of the Sabbath regulations may be sanctioned. The question which then arises is how much of the body must be uncovered in order to ascertain conclusively that death has in fact occurred? … the absence of respiration is regarded by all as being conclusive. … The necessity for the examination of the nostrils is based upon the assumption that it is possible for life to exist even though such life may be undetectable by means of an examination for the presence of a heartbeat … In demonstration of the principle that respiration is the determining factor, the Gemara cites [this verse].  [See also Genesis 2:7

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN624 If men sinned, how did the animals sin [i.e., Why should they be destroyed?] The Holy One Blessed be He said: “Did I not create beasts and animals for man’s sake alone? Now that man has sinned, what need have I of beasts and animals? Sanhedrin 108a TEMIMAH-GEN 42

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN625 If we have sent someone on a mission, we should treat him kindly even if he is unsuccessful.  Rabbi Naftoli Tzvi Yehuda Berlin, Rosh Hayeshiva of the Volozhin Yeshiva, points out that the dove did not fly into the ark. Rather, she merely came “to the ark,” that is close to the ark.  Since she returned without anything in her mouth, she though that her master would not allow her to come back inside.  Noah, however, had compassion for the dove and took her in his hand to warm her while she rested from her journey.  Rabbi Berlin adds that we can learn from Noah’s behavior.  Whenever you ask someone to do a mission for you and due to circumstances beyond his control he is unsuccessful, you should treat him as if her were successful.  (Haamek Dovor, on this verse).  PLYN 40

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN626 The Chumash [Torah] relates that Noah sent forth a dove from the Ark to see if the waters of the flood had yet receded. When the dove returned, it carried an olive-branch in its mouth and Noah understood that indeed the waters had begun to disperse. The Talmud, Eruvin 18b (quoted there by Rashi) explains that the olive branch was symbolic, for when the dove returned to Noah, it said “Better that my food come from God, be it as bitter as this olive branch, than through the hands of flesh and blood, though it be as sweet as honey.” We may readily appreciate the sentiments expressed by this dove. Surely we are all aware of the humiliation of having to ask another person for help. Yet by analyzing this Midrash in context, the student of mussar finds a deeper meaning. This dove received is sustenance fro Noah. It is beyond our capacity to appreciate the hardships Noah must have face in caring for all the animals in the ark. Still, the Talmud Sanhedrin 108b relates that on one occasion Noah was struck by a lion for being late with his food. Though burdened beyond endurance, Noah accepted this lion’s unwarranted reproach and continued to be diligent in its service. Envision the care and dignity accorded his charges by this paragon of virtue. Envision the sincerity of a man who spared no effort in is kindness and yet evidence not a sign of superiority or condescension in his actions. Would we imagine that the recipient of a favor from so sincere a man would feel shamed? Would we think for an instant that the beneficiary of such genuine assistance would be humbled or hurt? Yet despite the heartfelt manner in which Noah exercised his duties, despite the warmth of his kindness, the dove felt pain at having had to come to flesh and blood for his food. This [teaches] Rashi broadens the dimension of our conception of chessed. It is not enough to engage in charity. We must be aware that another human is deeply hurt when even asking for our help, and we must strive to relieve him by acting as genuinely and sincerely as we can. And although the graciousness of Noah himself could not completely dispel this pain, we must do everything within our power to minimize its hurt. To do less would be to ignore the suffering of a fellow human being.  BUILD 57-8

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN627 The preservation of life is one of the main aims of our legislation. Man can achieve this by heeding the wise counsels offered by man who were past-masters at the art of living. Here are a few of of their observations. “The world grows dark for him who has to depend on the table of others; such a life is really not worth while.” Betzah 32b Could independence wish for a better advocate? “A man takes greater delight in one measure of his own than in nine belonging to his fellow-man.” Baba Metzia 38a Who does not recall the advice placed into the mouth of the dove when, with an olive-leaf in her beak, she returned from the flood without to the safety of Noah’s Ark? [this verse] “Let my food be bitter as an olive, O God, but dependent on Thee, than sweet as honey, but dependent on the gifts of flesh and blood.”  [A prayer so acceptable, that it has been incorporated, with some slight changes, into the Grace After Meals; see Singer’s Prayer Book, p. 281].  “He who eats of his own bread is like the child reared at his mother’s breast.” Abot d’R. Nathan 37  “He who eats of the bread of another fears to look at him.” Orlah 1:3; “The mind is not contended unless man eats of the fruit of his own labour.” Shekalim 3. LEHRMAN 289-90

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN628 One must refrain from performing any act, no matter how inconsequ3ential, without first obtaining the explicit permission of the head of the household.  Noah did not dare leave the ark until Hashem said to him, “Go out of the ark.”  Noah said, “I only went in with Hashem’s permission; I will not go out unless Hashem permits me to.”  Chananyah, Mishael and Azariah also understood this principle – they did not go out of the furnace until Nebuchadnezzar ordered them to.  Tanchuma, Noah.  WAGS 122

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN629 R. Chiyya b. Ba said: “’In their families, they went out from the ark’ – Because they preserved their proper familiar relationships, they merited being rescued from the ark” Yerushalmi, Ta’anith 1:6 TEMIMAH-GEN 44

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN630 Noah celebrated the renewal of all life after the Flood by building a sacred slaughter-site and lifting up to YHWH, the Breath of Life, those animals and fowl that were “pure” for eating, to reconnect the Earth with God. … This practice taught that the relationship between adam and adamah was the expression of relationship with God. So it is not surprising that biblically, and then in rabbinic tradition, elaboration of proper and improper foods, what was and was not kosher to eat, took on immense importance in defining a sacred life. Animals described by their relationship to earth, sea, and air embodied into intimate human relationship those three primal aspects of God’s process of creation. Separating mammalian foods of life (milk) and death (meat) became a marker of sacred limitation of the God Who gave life or decreed death. (By Arthur Waskow, "Jewish Environmental Ethics: Intertwining Adam with Adamah") OXFORD 412-3

SHOW FULL EXCERPT

GEN631 According to [Rabbi Joseph] Albo, the logic of the passage [Genesis 8:20-9:6] is clear. Noah offers an animal sacrifice in thanksgiving for having survived the Flood [this verse]. God sees that human beings need this way of expressing themselves. They are genetically predisposed to violence (“every inclination of his heart is evil from childhood “). If society were to survive, humans would need to be able to direct their violence toward non-human animals, whether as food or sacrificial offerings. The crucial line to be drawn is between human and non-human. The permission to kill animals is accompanied by an absolute prohibition against killing human beings, “For in the image of God has God made man.” It is not that God approves of killing animals, weather for sacrifice or food, but that to deny this to human beings, given their genetic predisposition to bloodshed, is utopian. It is not for now but for the end of days. Until then, the least bad solution is to let people kill animals rather than murder their fellow humans. [On why God never chooses to change human nature, see Rambam, The Guide for the Perplexed, III:32].  Sacrifices are a substitute for violence directed against mankind. SACKS 160-1

SHOW FULL EXCERPT