Ramban

AND LO AN OLIVE LEAF. From the plain meaning of this verse it would appear that the trees were not uprooted or blotted out in the flood because there was there no flooding stream since the whole world became full of water. But in Bereshith Rabbah the Rabbis have said, “From where did the dove bring the olive leaf? Rabbi Levi said, ‘She brought it from the Mount of Olives since the land of Israel was not inundated by the waters of the flood. This is as the Holy One, blessed be He, said to the prophet Ezekiel: Son of man, say unto her: Thou art a land that is not cleansed, nor rained upon in the day of indignation.’ Rabbi Biryei said, ‘The gates of the garden of Eden were opened for the dove and from there she brought the leaf.’” Thus the intent of the Rabbis is that the trees were uprooted and blotted out in those places where the flood was, and surely the leaf faded. Similarly the Rabbis said, “Even the [solid substance of the] lower stationery millstone was blotted out in the flood,” and [to substantiate this statement] they expounded the verse, The waters wore the stones, [as referring to the waters of the flood which wore down stones]. And their saying that “the Land of Israel was not inundated by the flood” is to be understood as meaning that the rain of the flood was not there, as it is written, nor rained upon; the fountains of the great deep were not therein. But the waters did spread over the whole world, and all the high mountains that were under the whole heaven were covered,, 19. as it is clearly written, and there is no partition around the Land of Israel to prevent the waters from entering. And so did the Sages say in Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer: “The waters of the flood did not come down from heaven upon the land of Israel, but they rolled in from other lands and came there, as it is said, Son of man, say unto her, etc.” Now according to the opinion of Rabbi Levi, [mentioned above, that the dove brought the olive leaf from the Mount of Olives], it was because the torrential rain did not come down upon the land of Israel and the windows of heaven were not opened there that the trees remained there while in the rest of the world they were broken and uprooted by the flood and His mighty rain. But I wonder about their saying that [the olive leaf was brought by the dove] from the garden of Eden. If it were so, then Noah did not know that the waters abated from off the earth for there [in Eden] the waters of the flood did not enter. But perhaps its gates were closed so that the waters did not enter there, but when the waters abated they were opened. [Thus the olive leaf indicated the opening of the gates which in turn indicated that the waters had abated.] It is on the basis of this opinion of theirs [—that the trees were broken and uprooted in the entire world during the flood — that the Rabbis] have said there in Bereshith Rabbah, “And he [Noah] planted a vineyard. And from where did he have a branch? Said Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, ‘When he went into the ark he had taken with him branches of the vine, shoots of fig trees, and stumps of olive trees.’” ‘TARAPH’ (PLUCKED) IN HER MOUTH. Rashi wrote: “I am of the opinion that the dove was a male and that therefore Scripture sometimes speaks of it as masculine (he plucked) rather than tarpha (she plucked). and sometimes as feminine (in her mouth). because where the word yonah (dove) occurs in Scripture it is spoken of as feminine. Taraph however means ‘he plucked.’ But a Midrashic explanation takes it [taraph] as meaning ‘food,’ and the word b’phiha (in her mouth) it explains as meaning ‘speaking.’ Thus she said: ‘Rather that my food be bitter as an olive and come by the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, than as sweet as honey and from the hand of mortal man.’” All this does not appear to me to be correct for there is no reason why Scripture should change its reference to doves from feminine to masculine in one place in the same section. And if it is proper language to always speak of yonah in Scripture as feminine, why did it change here? Similarly, their Midrashic explanation does not at all make the word b’phiha to mean “speaking.” Instead, their Midrash is based on the fact that she brought this kind of leaf for if we should say that it just happened [that she brought an olive leaf], it cannot be in vain that Scripture mentioned it since it should have said, “And, lo, in her mouth a leaf freshly plucked.” Besides, the olive does not come from the very high trees that the fowl should nest there on account of its long branches. It was for this reason that the Sages said that there was in this a hint that it is more pleasing to the fowl to have their food bitter as wormwood from the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, and not have it be good and sweet as honey from the hand of mortal man, and surely, all the more, people do not wish to be dependent for their livehood upon one another. In the words of Bereshith Rabbah: “Rabbi Abahu said, ‘If the dove brought the olive leaf from the garden of Eden, could she not have brought something exceptional such as either cinnamon or balsam? But it was a hint which she gave to Noah: rather something even more bitter than this from the hand of the Holy One, blessed be He, than something sweet from your hand.’” But in the Gemara they [the Sages] added: “What evidence is there that the word taraph means food? It is written, ‘Hatripheni’ (Feed me) with mine allotted bread.” It is due to the reason we have stated, [namely, that Scripture mentioned the name of the tree in order to indicate this hint] for which the Rabbis found support in the word hatripheni, implying that it is as if Scripture said, “And, lo, an olive-leaf of tereph (food) (he plucked), as it is actually vocalized. in her mouth.” As for the plain meaning of Scripture, the commentators have explained that the word taraph modifies the word “leaf,” thus stating, “And, lo, a plucked olive leaf was in her mouth.” Proof for this [i.e., that taraph modifies “leaf” rather than acting as a verb] is that taraph is wholly vocalized with the kamatz, as is the rule. followed by a patach. It is, however, found in irregular forms: For ‘taraph’ (He hath torn), and He will heal us;, and yet it is a verb rather than an adjective. And he shall restore that which ‘gazal’ (he took by robbery); The error which ‘shagag’ (he committed);, Verse 18. This too is similar to the above. and many other additional verses.