0388 - Was the Water of the Mabul Boiling

00:01 In Likutei Sichos Chelek Yud, Parshas Noach, the third Sichos, page thirty-five, the Rebbe brings raayas that according to Rashi, the water of the Mabul was not boiling, was not reischin. And then the Rebbe says, "What's the reason of Rashi?" So you could say, number one, alef, "Ein hechr bepshuto shel mikra leheys iv nesho yayim reischin." There is no hechr, there's no reason in pshat. There's nothing forcing us in simple pshat to add b'sanun nes, which is not written, that it was boiling water. And the second thing he says, beis, b'kasalti pshuto shel mikra, in simple pshat, "Eich nes kamo hateiva b'mayim reischin?" How could the teiva, the ark, survive in boiling water? So in derech hapshat, probably it wasn't. But the fabregen, when the Rebbe said the Sichos, which was Shabbos, Shabbos Parshas Noach, Tov Shin Lamed Daled. So there the Rebbe brought another raya, that since the yona brought the leaf, the alef leaf, a leaf from the alef tree, and where did it come from? From a tree that must have survived the Mabul. If it would have been boiling water, it wouldn't have survived the Mabul. That's what the Rebbe mentioned. When this was written in the Sichos here, the Rebbe crossed it out. Now everyone must learn his own pshat why the Rebbe crossed it out, that this is seemingly not a raya. Then another thing. In the Ha'arah it says, "V'tzorich im m'pirush Rashi." The Rebbe has a kasha on what he says that according to Rashi it wasn't boiling.

01:23 He has a kasha from Rashi in which Rashi says when they made the teiva from atzei gafer. So Rashi says the word gafer is Hashem gofris, is because of the word gofris. Gofris means sulfur, and it's from the same word as gafer as the name of the tree, the wood that the teiva was made. And Rashi says, "She nigzar aleihem limochaz beez," because of gofris, that the teiva, that the Mabul was, the gezeirah of the Mabul was that they would be wiped out with it, with gofris. So l'chura, from this Rashi, we see that it was reischin, because gofri means it was hot, it was sulfur, which sulfur makes fire. So l'chura from there is a raya that against what the Rebbe says. And the Rebbe says, "V'tzorich iyun." The truth is, this question from this Rashi was asked by the Rebbe when the Sichos was given in. The Sichos was given in with this thing that the Rebbe says that according to Rashi it wasn't hot. The question was asked by the Rebbe. And then it was written to the Rebbe, maybe the pshat is that chatchilah the gezeirah was, when the Aibishter told him to make the, the teiva, the gezeirah was that it should be reischin, and that's why he said, "Atzei gafer al shem gofris." But lapel mamash, the Aibishter changed, changed for the good, and took off that part of the reischin. This part, uh, also the Rebbe crossed out. This whole thing the Rebbe crossed out is giving this,

02:44 trying to give this answer, the Rebbe crossed it out, and all the Rebbe left was, he wrote, "V'tzorich iyun." When there was a question asked from Rashi, the Rebbe wrote, "Tzorich iyun m'pirush Rashi." The Rebbe also added the words, "U're'ei pirush Rashi vayera yutes chav daled." But he left it as a kasha, and obviously didn't accept the answer that was tried to be given to the Rebbe, that the reason is that what it really means is that originally it was supposed to be reischin. That's why it was originally mitzot gofris. But lapel mamash, the Aibishter changed for the better. The Rebbe didn't accept that answer, and he left it open as a kasha.