[Avodah] Birds & Fish in the Mabul

[Lisa Liel]

On 11/2/2011 5:04 PM, Chana Luntz wrote:
> To recap, the point I was making there was that it was in many ways more
> logical, to my mind, to understand "kol haaretz" as "all the known world" -
> meaning known to Noach and the other members of the dor hamabul.  That is
> not such a local flood, but nor is it global either, as it would seem clear
> that at the time of the dor hamabul, people had not spread *that* far around
> the globe, certainly never making it to islands like Great Britain etc, not
> to mention further afield.  None of what you describe above causes any
> problems for this approach.

Except that there's no reason to imagine that Bnei Adam existed in Great 
Britain or Australia.  Or even that those islands existed as they do today.

> b) it avoids one having to add in miracles not even whispered at in Chazal,
> such as airlifting the animals to and from such islands pre and post flood
> (ie first you have to get them to the ark in the first place - getting the
> koalas, who only eats eucalyptus leaves and do not swim, to make their way
> 10,000 miles across land and sea to Noach even in 120 years requires yet
> another miracle, and similarly with getting them back).

If Pangaea hadn't yet split up, this wouldn't be an issue.

> And all you need to do to avoid these problems is understand kol to be said
> (as is not infrequently the case in the Torah) in the language of man, and
> specifically the language of the people involved.  From Noach's point of
> view, and all of the dor hamabul, it was unquestionably kol haaretz

But the phrase "kol haaretz" isn't in Noach's dialogue. It's narrative.
As such, it's hard to imagine that Noach's perceptions were relevant.

Lisa