The dove returned to him in the evening, and—look!—it had a torn olive leaf in its mouth. So Noach knew that the water had gone down from the surface of the earth.

-- Breishis 8:11

Classic Questions

Where did the dove get an olive leaf? (v. 11)

Midrash: Rabbi Levi said, "The dove got its leaf from the Mount of Olives, since the floodwaters did not fall in the Land of Israel."

Rabbi Biryei said, "The gates of the Garden of Eden were opened for the dove, and it brought the leaf from there" (Bereishis Rabah 33:6).

Ramban: Clearly the Rabbis of the Midrash understood that wherever the floodwaters fell, they destroyed all plant life. According to Rabbi Levi's opinion—that the floodwaters did not fall in the land of Israel—we can assume that the land was nevertheless flooded by water that overflowed from the surrounding areas. Nevertheless, since the waters did not actually fall there, the effects of the water would not have been so devastating, allowing some vegetation to remain, which explains why the dove was able to get an olive leaf from there.

According to Rabbi Biryei's opinion—that the leaf was taken from the Garden of Eden, which was unaffected by the flood—it is difficult to understand how this proved to Noach that the floods had subsided. For, since the Garden was unaffected by the flood in any case, finding vegetation from there was hardly a reflection of the state of affairs in the rest of the world.

Perhaps it could be argued, therefore, that the doors of the Garden were only opened after all the waters had subsided. Consequently, the fact that the dove was able to enter the garden was proof that the floods had subsided.

All of the above, however, is according to the Midrashic interpretation that the flood destroyed all plant life. At the literal level, it would seem that the trees were not destroyed by the flood, because being that the whole world was filled with water in any case, there were no currents of water sufficiently strong to uproot a tree.

Abarbanel: Many olive branches would have been floating on the surface of the flood water. As soon as the mountain tops appeared, some of these branches would have become stuck in the earth and sprouted roots. Within 40-50 days they would have sprouted leaves too, and it is from here that the dove found an olive leaf.

The Rebbe's Teachings

The Olive Leaf (v. 11)

Ramban writes that, at the literal level of Torah interpretation, we can assume that the flood did not uproot trees.

However, it is difficult to accept that strong rains would not cause trees to uproot, especially when one considers that:

  1. It rained for forty consecutive days.

  2. The floodwaters prevailed for 150 days. Thus, the soil and trees would have been immersed in deep water for several months.

Therefore, it would seem that at the literal level, all trees were destroyed by the flood. We are thus left with the question: Where did the dove get an olive leaf?

Two Solutions of the Midrash

The Midrash offers two solutions to this problem. However, both interpretations of the Midrash are difficult to accept at the literal level, for the following reasons:

Rabbi Levi said, "The dove got its leaf from the Mount of Olives, since the floodwaters did not fall in the Land of Israel."

This is problematic because:

  1. If the floodwaters did not fall directly on the Land of Israel, then how would an olive leaf from there prove to Noach that the waters had subsided outside the land of Israel, where the waters did fall?

    Although we can assume that the waters spilled over into the land of Israel from the surrounding lands (as Ramban writes), nevertheless, the effects of the flood would have been far less devastating there than in the rest of the world where the waters fell directly, from which it follows that the recovery would also have been quicker. So what proof to Noach was an olive leaf from the land of Israel?


  2. Above, we read that Noach's ark found its resting place on Mount Ararat, which was the first piece of dry land to appear after the flood (v. 4). But if rain did not fall at all in the Land of Israel, then surely it would have dried up first, before Mount Ararat (even if it was flooded by the surrounding areas)? Why then did the ark not settle in the Land of Israel first, and not on Mount Ararat?

From this, we can conclude that, at the literal level, the floodwaters did fall in the land of Israel.

Rabbi Biryei said, "The gates of the Garden of Eden were opened for the dove, and it brought the leaf from there"

At the literal level, it would be acceptable to argue that the floodwaters did not fall in the Garden of Eden since the flood was a punishment for corrupt behavior (see above 6:5, ibid. 11), and this did not apply to the Garden, whose inhabitants had been evicted.

Nevertheless, Rabbi Biryei's interpretation is problematic at the literal level because:

  1. Rashi writes that the animals also ate from the Tree of Knowledge (Rashi on 3:6), from which we can conclude that they too were banished from the Garden of Eden. The Torah states explicitly, "From the east of the Garden of Eden He stationed angels [of destruction] and the flame of the revolving sword, to guard the way..." (Bereishis 3:24), preventing those who were banished from re-entering. If so, how would the dove have gained entrance to the Garden?

  2. In any case, if the floodwaters did not fall in the Garden of Eden, then how would an olive leaf from there prove to Noach that the waters outside the garden had subsided?

Ramban answers that the gates of the Garden opened after the flood. Thus, the finding of an olive leaf would have indicated to Noach indirectly that the flood had ended, for it proved that the gates had opened, which in turn indicated that the flood had ended.

However, the Torah suggests that the finding of the olive leaf indicated to Noach directly that the flood had ended: "It had a torn olive leaf in its mouth. So Noach knew that the water had gone down...."

Further Questions

Two further matters require an explanation here:

  1. Surely the dove could have found an olive leaf from the mountain-top where the ark was already resting? How did the leaf prove to Noach that "the water had gone down from the surface of the earth" (v. 11)?

  2. Why does the Torah inform us that the leaf was from an olive tree, in particular?

(Abarbanel's solution that entire trees grew during this period is difficult to accept, since the time period is too short for an entire tree to root and sprout leaves. Furthermore, Abarbanel fails to explain why the Torah refers to an olive leaf in particular.)

The Explanation

It is a plainly observable fact that the olive tree is an extremely hardy variety which is more resistant to extreme conditions than other plants. In fact, our Sages testify in numerous places to the strength of the olive tree (see sources cited in Tzafnas Paneach on our verse).

Therefore, at the literal level one could argue that while other trees were uprooted by the flood, many olive trees remained. However, the foliage would obviously have been destroyed after being soaked in water for several months.

Consequently, the olive leaf brought back by the dove must have been a fresh leaf which had sprouted after the waters had subsided. This informed Noach that the waters had subsided from the earth, for even if the dove had taken a leaf from an olive tree on a mountain, it was still a sign that considerable time had passed since the mountain had become exposed, since the leaf would have taken time to sprout.

(Based on Likutei Sichos vol. 10, p. 30ff)