1

As suggested in this question, there are some who hold that the mabul did not cover the whole Earth.

I would like to broaden the scope of that question a little. What indications are there from traditional sources one way or the other on this issue?

My source: the Gemara in Zevachim (113b):

דאמר ר"ל למה נקרא שמה מצולה שכל מתי מבול נצתללו שם ורבי יוחנן אמר למה נקרא שמה שנער שכל מתי מבול ננערו שם

As Reish Lakish says: Why is Babylonia called Metzula (see Isaiah 44:27)? It is because all the dead of the flood, throughout the world, sank [nitztalelu] there. And Rabbi Yoḥanan says: Why is Babylonia called Shinar? It is because all the dead of the flood were deposited [ninaru] there.

While it could be that the dead of Eretz Yisroel sank to Babylonia, why would the dead of India and China end up there? So it would seem that the mabul only affected Babylonia and perhaps Eretz Yisroel.

Community
  • 1
Mordechai
  • 3,463
  • 5
  • 30
  • IMHO there were no people in India or elsewhere, the whole of humanity lived in Mesopotamia. But the Mabul could be total. – Al Berko Nov 02 '19 at 21:42
  • THe fact that you have additional evidence does not make it a different question, only a different argumentation. – Al Berko Nov 02 '19 at 21:44
  • That question asks for opinions, mine indications. משמעות ולא מאן דאמר – Mordechai Nov 02 '19 at 21:58
  • Your question is just another opinion. BTW, as I noted it says nothing about the Mabul, it says the people were gathered in one place. – Al Berko Nov 02 '19 at 22:31
  • The flood with Noah was a local one. The world (as a whole) did not get soaked and to quote renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens, "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." I only quote this because G-d wants us to use our intellect, and obviously, it was a local flood. – Jonathan Nov 03 '19 at 01:11

0 Answers0