[Avodah] Birds & Fish in the Mabul

[Chana Luntz]

RMB wrote:
> : > Similarly 7:19, "kol heharim hagevohim *asher tachas kol
> hashamayim*".
> 
> : > "Mitachas hashamayim" and moreso "kol hashamayim" lack the
> ambiguity
> : > of whether eretz or adamah refers to the whole world, a piece of
> it,
> : > a clump of dirt, etc...

And I responded:
 
> : But note that your translation does assume that, for example, the
> mountains
> : on the moon are a part of shamayim (not to mention those of Mars,
> Venus
> : etc).  We now know and are able to touch rocks and clumps of dirt
> that make
> : up the great mountains of the moon and these planets.
> 
And RMB further responded:

> This is not a problem with my translation, but with the words
> themselves. After all, if we take shamayim in the spiritual sense, then
the pasuq
> would be saying that the moon, Mars, Venus, and galaxies beyond were
flooded.
> So it must be meant in a spacial sense.

....

> I think etymologically it is built from "sham", and thus means
> "thereness", and would be a term referring to any unreachable domain.
> (Contrasted to "aretz", that which can be spanned, related to "rutz"?
> At least that is RSRH's take on alef-prefix nouns. But in any case,
> my comment about "shamayim" stands no worse without this contrast.)


Agreed it must  be a spacial sense.  But it is still a problem for your
translation.  On what basis do you include in the definition of shamayim the
spacial area that includes the moon, planets and galaxies?   When an all
knowing observer knows that these are places that man is capable of reaching
with the development of the right technology.  I agree totally with your
etymological explanation of both shamayim and aretz. But in terms of
ultimate reaching, the moon and planets are no more a part of "thereness",
ie unreachable, than Australia is.  Alternatively if the moon and planets
are part of thereness because *at the time of Noach* they were unreachable
and the distance was unspannable, then the same could be said for Australia,
it was just not possible for Noach and any of the dor hamabul to make their
way, or "rutz" to Australia.  On the other hand today, we can span the
distance to the moon, making it not part of shamayim, and we travel freely
to Australia, and England, and the many islands in the Pacific etc that
require serious sea going capability, making them no longer unreachable
domains either.

But you see, this way of defining (ie translating) these terms makes it
dependent upon the people in relation to whom they are defined.  Aretz and
Shamayim are thus relative terms, expressed in the language of man, derived
from looking at the people at the centre of the relevant discussion and
their accessible domains.  Thus shamayim in the context of pashat Noach
means the parts of the universe (both spiritual and physical) that people of
the time could not reach, and aretz meant those parts that they could and
did.  Today the same can be said to be true, holding the meanings of the
words constant, but the shamayim is physically smaller and the aretz is
physically bigger.  Note however that a consequence of using these
definitions there is no requirement for a flood any more universal that the
people in relation to whom it was defined.

Otherwise you end up saying, as you did:

>I think more common is to recognize shamayim as having multiple
translations. Rather than talking about the moon and angels sharing the same
abode.

And Aretz too of course, sometimes including the moon and planets and
sometimes not.  But if you agree that there are multiple meanings, then how
can you assign one meaning with any certainty to the use of these words in
parshas noach?  And especially assert that "kol hashamayim" has to mean one
very limited definition of shamayim - out of a whole range.  Why cannot it
mean that indeed the moon, Mars, Venus and galaxies beyond were flooded?
Scientific evidence?  Gut instinct? 


> Tir'u baTov!
> -Micha

Regards

Chana