Luminous Stones and Peshat in Midrash

Remaking a Midrash in our Image

While not precisely the focus of this Substack, and something relating to Noach and the Deluge is normally something I’d post on parshablog, I decided to post this here.

Call it an ark tangent.

I recently saw Rabbi Natan Slifkin’s post at Rationalist Judaism, about the banning of the sefer Peshuto shel Mikra, following up with an analysis of banner’s reaction to the book’s take on the tzohar in Noach’s teiva.

Veyavinu BeMikra is a booklet written to explain why Peshuto Shel Mikra had to be banned. The very first example that it brings is the explanation of the illumination of the Ark. As you will recall, Chazal gave two explanations - one was that it was a window, and the second was that it was a gemstone or crystal that radiated light. In discussing the second view, Peshuto Shel Mikra says as follows:

"והדעת נוטה, שהאבנים הטובות המאירות אין להן אור מעצמן, כי בכוחן רק להגביר את האור מחמת המאור הנמצא בקרבתן ולהפיצו ביותר, כדוגמאות המראות המבריקים מאוד. וא"כ, גם לדעה זו הֻצרך נח לנרות דולקים, שעל ידם יפיצו המרגליות את אורן בתבה".

"Reason indicates that because precious stones do not emit their own light, but rather refract the light emitted from other sources, like very shiny mirrors, then Noah must have also been burning candles, the light of which would be reflected around the Ark by these precious stones."

Veyavinu BeMikra explains that this heretical for two reasons. First is that the Rishonim who discuss this approach are clearly of the view that the stone emitted its own light. Second is that the authors preference for that which makes sense according to "reason" means that he only accepts that which the human mind can rationally grasp and rejects the supernatural.

At the outset, I’ll state that I am against banning books, and also have a rationalist bent so am unlikely to find the above heretical. Even so, I have some affinity to the objections raised by the Veyavinu BeMikra booklet. Let’s explore.

The pasuk in question reads:

צֹ֣הַר ׀ תַּֽעֲשֶׂ֣ה לַתֵּבָ֗ה וְאֶל־אַמָּה֙ תְּכַלֶּ֣נָּה מִלְמַ֔עְלָה וּפֶ֥תַח הַתֵּבָ֖ה בְּצִדָּ֣הּ תָּשִׂ֑ים תַּחְתִּיִּ֛ם שְׁנִיִּ֥ם וּשְׁלִשִׁ֖ים תַּֽעֲשֶֽׂהָ׃

Make an opening for daylight in the ark, and terminate it within a cubit of the top. Put the entrance to the ark in its side; make it with bottom, second, and third decks.

Explaining tzohar, Rashi writes:

צהר. יֵ"אֹ חַלּוֹן וְיֵ"אֹ אֶבֶן טוֹבָה הַמְּאִירָה לָהֶם (ב"ר שם)

A LIGHT — Some say this was a window; others say that it was a precious stone that gave light to them (Genesis Rabbah 31:11).

Thus, the two possibilities are window or luminous gem. We (or DALL-e) might imagine the latter as something like this:

A luminous gem lighting up the ark, DALL-e

If we want to understand what Rashi means, a good approach is to examine Rashi’s sources. We would then look up Bereshit Rabba 31:11:

צֹהַר תַּעֲשֶׂה לַתֵּבָה (בראשית ו, טז), רַבִּי חוּנְיָה וְרַבִּי פִּינְחָס רַבִּי חָנִין וְרַבִּי הוֹשַׁעְיָא לָא מְפָרְשִׁין, רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא וְרַבִּי לֵוִי מְפָרְשִׁין. רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אָמַר, חַלּוֹן. רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר, מַרְגָּלִיּוֹת. רַבִּי פִּינְחָס מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ שֶׁהָיָה נֹחַ בַּתֵּבָה, לֹא צָרִיךְ לֹא לְאוֹר הַחַמָּה בַּיּוֹם וְלֹא לְאוֹר הַלְּבָנָה בַּלַּיְלָה, אֶלָּא מַרְגָּלִית הָיְתָה לוֹ וְהָיָה תּוֹלֶה אוֹתָהּ, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהִיא כֵּהָה הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא יוֹם, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיְתָה מַבְהֶקֶת הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁהוּא לַיְלָה.

Several Amoraim had the good sense to shrug their shoulders and leave tzohar untranslated. Rabbi Abba bar Kahanah (a third-generation Israeli Amora) explained it as a window, while Rabbi Levi (same, associated with Teveriah) said it was a margalit, gem or pearl. Rabbi Pinchas (a fourth-generation Amora, associated with Teveriah), citing Rabbi Levi, expanded on the latter idea. For the twelve months Noach was in the ark, he didn’t need sunlight during the day or moonlight at night. Rather, he suspended the margalit, and when it dimmed he knew it was daytime, and at night when it shone brightly, he knew it was night.

Is this magic? Miracle? The natural process by which luminous stones glow? It seems a natural process. Bereishit Rabba continues:

אָמַר רַבִּי הוּנָא עֲרִיקִין הֲוֵינָן מִן קוֹמֵי גוּנְדָא בַּהֲדָא בּוּטִיטָה דִּטְבֶרְיָה וְהָיָה בְּיָדֵינוּ נֵרוֹת, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ כֵּהִים הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהוּא יוֹם, וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיוּ מַבְהִיקִים הָיִינוּ יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהוּא לָיְלָה.

Rabbi Huna relates how, when they were hiding from a troop in the ruins of Teveriah, they had lamps. When they grew dim they knew it was day, while when they grew bright, they knew it was night.

Thus, I’d guess that Rabbi Levi, the author of this midrash, viewed it as natural rather than supernatural. If the critics dislike the rationality of the modern explanation (reflecting candles inside the ark), the original may have also been rationalist. Or maybe it was meant to be a mythical, magical gemstone. Rabbi Slifkin notes, “The Rishonim who spoke about Noah's crystal emitting light were not trying to describe a miracle - they explained it in this way because until recently it was standard belief that certain precious stones do indeed emit light (which actually isn't so far from the truth).” Indeed, some stones glow through thermoluminescence (heat) and others due to friction - not just exposure to light.

I don’t think they were going for peshat in Rashi / the midrash, however. They have a separate, earlier commentary called Rashi Kefshuto. This is Peshuto shel Mikra, what they think the true literal meaning of the Biblical verses are.

For that, I’m not sure we should consider the gemstone idea in the first place. It is found in a midrash, and may be considered midrash rather than peshat. OK, admittedly (see Bartenura’s supercommentary on Rashi) the rival explanations of window / luminous gem can be linguistically derived (from associations with tzohorayim and zohar with a sibilant switch-off, respectively). And so, we’d want to explore the merits and possibility of luminous gemstone as peshat. Just as we can explore Pharoah’s daughter stretching out her hand (rather than sending forth her handmaiden) as peshat without imagining her as Stretch Armstrong. Also, I’m reminded of Gilgamesh destroying the stone charms of Urshanabi the ferryman, which would help him cross the Waters of Death. So maybe a magic stone has a place.

Still, it reminds me of this joke:

Nine-year-old Joey, was asked by his mother what he had learned in Sunday school.

"Well, Mom, our teacher told us how God sent Moses behind enemy lines on a rescue mission to lead the Israelite people out of Egypt."

"When he got to the Red Sea, he had his army build a pontoon bridge and all the people walked across safely."

"Then, he radioed headquarters for reinforcements."

"They sent bombers to blow up the bridge and all the Israelite's were saved".

"Now, Joey, is that really what your teacher taught you?" his mother
asked.

"Well, no Mom, but if I told it the way the teacher did, you'd never believe it!"

There is a meta level to this joke, in that the Biblical account, with wind blowing all night to dry out the sea floor, lends itself to a naturalist explanation, albeit at God’s direction. But if you already are rejecting an idea of miraculous intervention, and trying to find the most logical, rationalist explanation, why not remain entirely with the window explanation, instead of trying to wedge a square seemingly mystical stone into a round porthole?