The assertion that Eretz Israel (ארץ ישראל), the Land of Israel, was not flooded by the waters of Noah’s Flood It is not directly stated in the Book of Genesis. It is an ancient interpretive tradition of rabbinic Judaism, based primarily on Ezekiel 22:24, developed in Bereshit Rabbah and discussed extensively in the Talmud Bavlí, Zevajim 113a–b.
However, there is one crucial detail: Even the sages disagree on this matterRabbi Yochanan maintains that the Mabul did not descend upon Eretz Israel, while Reish Lakish affirms that it did.
Therefore, the question is not simply whether Israel was left out of the Flood, but what exactly the rabbinic sources say and what theological significance this tradition may have.
Genesis describes a seemingly universal Flood
The Torah presents the Mabul or the Flood of Noah in terms that seem universal. Genesis 7:19 states that the waters rose over the earth until they covered the high mountains, while Genesis 7:22 states that everything that had the breath of life and was on dry land died.
From the peshatIn the plain sense of the text, Genesis does not explicitly mention an exception for Eretz Israel.
This point is essential: The idea that the Land of Israel was not flooded belongs to the later rabbinic interpretationnot to an explicit affirmation of the Genesis account.
SEE THE VIDEO OF THIS CLASS IN SPANISH
Ezekiel 22:24: the source of tradition
The rabbinic discussion begins with an enigmatic verse from Ezekiel:
Son of man, say to her, "You are an unclean land; you will not be cleansed in the day of wrath."
“Son of man, say to him: You are an unclean land, on which no rain fell on the day of wrath.”
The decisive expression is Lo gushmah beyom za'amwhich can be understood as "it did not receive rain on the day of wrath."
In its context, Ezekiel denounces the sins of Jerusalem and Judah. However, the sages connected that mysterious “day of wrath” with the Flood of Noah.
This interpretation is the source of the controversy.
Rabbi Yochanan: The Mabul did not descend upon Eretz Israel
The Talmud, in Zevgim 113a, records a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Reish Lakish.
According to Rabbi Yochanan's interpretation, Ezekiel 22:24 indicates that the rains of Mabul did not fall on the Land of Israel. The principle is summarized in the expression:
No flood descended on the Land of Israel.
“The Flood did not descend upon Eretz Israel.”
This is one of the main rabbinic sources of the tradition according to which Eretz Israel was not directly flooded during the Mabul.
Reish Lakish maintains that the Flood did reach Israel
Rabbinic tradition, however, is not unanimous.
Reish Lakish interprets the same passage from Ezekiel differently and argues:
A flood descended on the Land of Israel
“The Flood descended upon Eretz Israel.”
Therefore, it would not be accurate to state that "according to Judaism, Israel did not suffer the Flood."
The most appropriate formulation would be that There is an important rabbinic tradition, represented by Rabbi Yochanan and various midrashim, according to which the waters of the Mabul did not descend directly upon Eretz Israel.
SEE THE VIDEO OF THIS CLASS IN ENGLISH
The olive leaf of the dove and Eretz Israel
The discussion takes on another dimension with one of the best-known episodes in the story of Noah.
Genesis 8:11 tells that the dove returned to the ark with a freshly plucked olive leafThis raises a question: where did he get a fresh leaf if the plant world had been devastated by the Flood?
Bereshit Rabbah It retains several answers. One tradition holds that the dove carried the leaf from Eretz Israel.
Rabbi Levi goes further and relates it to the Mount of Olivesarguing that the Land of Israel had not been flooded during the Mabul.
Tradition thus establishes a powerful relationship:
Mabul → Eretz Israel preserved from the flood → Mount of Olives → dove → olive leaf.
From this midrashic perspective, the leaf would not only be a sign that the waters were receding. It could also represent a remnant from a land that had not been submerged.
Shir HaShirim Rabbah preserves a similar tradition
The same idea appears in Shir HaShirim Rabbah 1:15, where the question of where the dove got the olive leaf is raised again.
The tradition attributed to Rabbi Levi states:
The Land of Israel was not affected by the flood waters.
“The Land of Israel was not struck by the waters of the Flood.”
Once again, Ezekiel 22:24 serves as an interpretive foundation.
Tradition, therefore, does not appear in isolation, but can be traced through Bereshit Rabbah, Shir HaShirim Rabbah y el Talmud Bavlí.
Not being flooded does not mean not having been affected
This distinction is probably the most important for understanding the discussion.
According to the Talmudic explanation linked to Rabbi Yochanan, the waters did not descend directly onto Eretz Israel. But that This does not mean that its inhabitants necessarily survived the Flood..
Reish Lakish raises precisely this difficulty: if Genesis states that every living being that was on dry land died, how could those who were in Eretz Israel have died if the Mabul did not fall there?
The Talmudic answer is:
Because of the evil — mishum havla
That is, “because of the heat” or the “steam”.
According to this interpretation, even if the waters of the Flood had not directly covered Eretz Israel, Its destructive effect would have also reached those who were there.
Therefore, stating that "Israel was not affected by the Mabul" would be inaccurate.
The idea is much more specific: The earth would not have been directly flooded, but the judgment of the Mabul could reach living beings by other means.
Could anyone escape the Flood by taking refuge in Eretz Israel?
This interpretation also responds to an obvious difficulty.
If the Land of Israel had simply functioned as a safe zone, the construction of the NoahideThe ark. It would be enough to move to that territory.
The Gemara's explanation avoids that conclusion: The exceptional nature of the land belongs primarily to the land itself, and not necessarily to its inhabitants..
Eretz Israel could remain uncovered by the waters, and at the same time, those under judgment could die from the destructive effects associated with the Mabul.
Why would Eretz Israel have been preserved?
The sources cited focus primarily on establishing if Eretz Israel was flooded. They do not offer a single, explicit explanation as to why God would have specifically preserved that territory.
However, within the biblical and rabbinic conception of the Land of Israel, a possible theological logic can be observed.
Deuteronomy 11:12 describes Eretz Israel as:
A land which the LORD your God requires
“A land that YHWH your God cares for.”
The concept allows us to interpret that The uniqueness of Eretz Israel predates even the history of the people of Israel..
From this perspective, its holiness would not begin with the Israelite conquest. Israel would receive a land that already held a particular place within the order of creation.
The Mabul as de-creation
The Flood story can also be understood as a reversal of the creative process.
In Genesis 1, God establishes boundaries between the upper waters, the lower waters, and the dry land. During the Mabul, those boundaries are broken again: the fountains of the great deep and the floodgates of the heavens are opened.
The process can be expressed as follows:
Creation → human corruption → de-creation → new creation.
Within this interpretation, if Eretz Israel remains uncovered by the waters, it could be symbolically understood as a territorial remnant of the created order.
This explanation is not formulated in this way in Zevajim or Bereshit Rabbah. It is a theological interpretation constructed from the rabbinic representation of the uniqueness of the land.
Adam, Jerusalem, and the primordial holiness of the land
Rabbinic literature also links the site of the future Temple with the creation of Adam and with the origin of the world.
Thus, a symbolic sequence emerges:
Creation → Adam → sacred place → Eretz Israel → Jerusalem → Temple.
From this perspective, the idea that the sacred land was not submerged during the “de-creation” represented by the Mabul takes on a particularly profound theological dimension.
It should not be presented as the explicit explanation of Zevajim 113a–b, but as a possible reading based on the body of rabbinic traditions on the primordial holiness of Eretz Israel.
What about “all the mountains under the entire heavens”?
There is still a textual difficulty.
Genesis 7:19 states that “all the high mountains under the entire heavens” were covered. How can this statement be reconciled with Rabbi Yochanan’s opinion?
The Tosafot en Zevaim They address precisely this problem.
One of the distinctions discussed allows us to separate the physical reach of the waters from the reach of the Abel the Flood — hevel haMabulThat is, the heat, steam, or destructive effect associated with the Flood.
In this way, three ideas can coexist: Eretz Israel did not directly receive the waters, the destructive power of the Mabul was able to reach the region, and the universal description of the destruction retains its meaning.
The Mabul and ritual purity
The discussion appears in Zevajim, a treatise dedicated to sacrificial service, because it also has consequences related to the tum’ah, the ritual impurity produced by corpses.
One of the questions is whether we should suspect the existence, under the soil of Eretz Israel, of unknown human remains from the Mabul generation.
This shows that the rabbinic discussion did not arise as a modern geographical theory about the Flood.
It is part of a reflection that relates:
Mabul → death → corpses → tomb → earth → Jerusalem → sacred service.
How did the vegetation survive?
The olive leaf once again plays a fundamental role here.
If one adopts the position of Rabbi Yochanan and the tradition contained in Bereshit Rabbah, the sequence is coherent: Eretz Israel was not covered by the waters; some of the vegetation was able to remain, and the dove found the olive leaf there..
That is why a tradition comes to identify its origin with Har HaZeitim (Mount of Olives), el Monte de los Olivos.
However, the Midrash also preserves another explanation: the dove would have obtained the leaf when the gates of the Gan Eden.
The coexistence of both interpretations reminds us that the Midrash preserves multiple traditions and does not necessarily intend to offer a single historical reconstruction.
Does this mean that not a single drop of the Flood entered Israel?
The Talmudic expression No flood descended on the Land of Israel. It literally means that "the Mabul did not descend on Eretz Israel."
This does not necessarily require imagining a physical barrier that would prevent any amount of water from reaching the territory.
Ancient sources do not offer a detailed hydrological description. The discussion focuses on whether The Flood fell there in the same way as in other regions and what its effects were.
Therefore, it is not appropriate to construct a detailed physical geography of the Mabul from an aggadic statement.
Eretz Israel: the preserved land and the judgment upon its inhabitants
The distinction between the land and its inhabitants allows for a better understanding of the theological meaning of this tradition.
The Mabul represents the judgment upon a corrupt humanity. Eretz Israel, on the other hand, appears in certain sources as a territory whose sacred significance is part of the very order of creation.
In this way, two realities can be distinguished:
the judgment upon those who inhabit the earth and the particular status of the land itself.
This structure finds an interesting parallel in Leviticus 18, where the land can be contaminated by human actions and “vomit out” its inhabitants.
The inhabitant can become corrupted and be expelled, while the land retains its identity.
The paradox of Ezekiel 22
There is finally a significant irony in the use of Ezekiel 22:24.
The verse used by the sages to discuss whether Eretz Israel received the waters of Mabul belongs to a chapter that contains a severe denunciation against Jerusalem for violence, corruption, injustice, and bloodshed.
This prevents interpreting tradition as an automatic guarantee of immunity.
The holiness of Eretz IsraelWithin this interpretation, it also implies responsibility. The territory may possess a particular status without exempting its inhabitants from judgment for their actions.
Conclusion: Did Noah's Flood reach Eretz Israel?
The tradition according to which Eretz Israel was not flooded by the Mabul It has ancient roots in rabbinic literature and is especially linked with Ezekiel 22:24, Bereshit Rabbah, Shir HaShirim Rabbah y Zevajim 113a–b.
But the sources preserve a real discussion.
Rabbi Yochanan maintains that the waters of the Mabul did not descend upon Eretz Israel, while Reish Lakish affirms that they did. Some midrashic traditions follow the first interpretation and even relate it to the olive leaf carried by the dove from the Land of Israel.
Furthermore, even according to Rabbi Yochanan, the waters did not directly flood Eretz Israel. This does not mean that its inhabitants would necessarily be excluded from the trial.The Talmud explains that the destructive effect of the Mabul could reach them through the siphon, understood as heat or steam.
Thus a more complex idea emerges: Eretz Israel could be preserved as land without those who lived on it being automatically preserved..
Within this tradition, the uniqueness of the Land of Israel predates Abraham, Sinai, and the conquest of Canaan. The discussion about the Mabul then becomes not only a question about the waters of the Flood, but also a reflection on the primordial holiness of Eretz Israel and its place within the order of creation.
