Now, this, I did say is possible. I recently attended a lecture at Chabad that discussed the texts and authorities on this issue that was very persuasive.
Briefly, “kol erets” is used a number of ways in the Torah, which can mean “all the populated world” or “the entire globe” or even more limited to a specific area (as when discussing certain leaders who were king of the “whole world” when we know them not to have been).
Not clear at all, and you have to look to oral tradition, which is also not particularly specific on the issue.
Again, not advocating any given position, but I will state that the Orthodox world is not nearly entrenched on the concept of a global flood as one would think.
'Eretz is certainly a very flexible term, but this is the first time I have ever heard of the possibility of a localized flood in Jewish tradition (and CHaBa"D is pretty literal, so I'm sure they can be trusted on this. I wish I had access to some of this material).
However, the Torah states that the waters came not only from the heavens but from within the earth and covered the tallest mountains. Furthermore, if the flood did not cover the entire earth, why was there the need for an ark and the preservation of all the animal species? The whole thing seems kind of unnecessary if only the small part of earth where humans lived was covered. That sort of implies the universality of the flood.
There's always been the question as to whether 'Eretz Yisra'el was subject to the flood, though all its inhabitants died. Phinneous and I were discussing this above (he also provided an excellent video). Perhaps this is what the ChaBa"D lecturer was referring to? But then again, you were there and I wasn't.
I apologize again for being so quick on the trigger, and most especially for scolding you publicly, which as you know is a great sin. I ask for your forgiveness and will try to behave better in the future, although it is quite obvious to everyone from my posts that I have . . . issues.
We live in a world where G-d and the Bible have been completely de-Judaified and chrstianized. The TaNa"KH is not and was never intended to be a chrstian book, yet that is the only context in which the vast majority of the human race knows it. The Bible belongs to chrstianity and Jews are merely sullen and iconoclastic critics throwing stones from the sidelines while chrstianity stands alone against all the forces of e--vil. Bible-haters (who make such a great show of being philo-Semitic) have felt free for many generations to blaspheme G-d and tear the Bible to shreds thinking that they were attacking chrstianity and acting in the "iconoclastic" and "irreverent" Jewish spirit. I regard this whole situation as a chillul HaShem. Before chrstianity there was absolutely no confusion. If you were drawn to HaShem or the TaNa"KH, the Jews were the only game in town. Chrstianity was not an option because it didn't even exist. This is the situation we need to get back to--and get away from the current situation where chrstianity means "gxd" and Yiddishkeit means Lenny Bruce, the I.M. Peretz Workman's Circle, and the Nobel Physics Prize.
I became an identifying Noachide in the late summer of 1990. Lenny Bruce, the Catskills, and the ACLU had nothing to do with it. All my life I've been in love with those rustic Theocratic warrior shepherds who lived three thousand years ago. They are no longer visible, but I like to think that they're still here--just very deeply disguised.
I must confess that, like Abe Foxman, I hear a lot of "dog whistles" . . . they're just different from the ones he hears. Hence my hair trigger temper and tendency to jump the gun.
Finally, while you may very well be right that "the Orthodox world is not nearly entrenched on the concept of a global flood as one would think," I have heard that claim made so many times with regard to so many issues (Jews don't believe in sheshet yamim, yesh me'ayin, monogenism, etc.) that I have come to instinctively treat all such claims with suspicion. I have read some very absurd claims, the grand champion being that angels are evolved from the dinosaurs! Now just where did CHaZa"L teach that???
I hope my thoughtless and crude treatment of you in this instance has not destroyed our friendship.
Lively debate is encouraged in Judaism. It sharpens both parties. Heck, half the Talmud are recordations of debates.
If I haven’t had you stomp off from your computer in a huff at least once, I’m not a very good Jew.
So argue on. Call me names, even.
I’m certainly no Rabbi deserving of respect. Yes, I did grow up observant and am observant. Yes, I did marry into an Hasidic family. But I’m primarily just an Israeli who flew an F-16 and dropped bombs on people that deserved it. Shot down a crappy Soviet aircraft, even. Now I teach others to do the same.
Regarding the point at issue:
I can’t say I am persuaded re: a “local” flood (that being, an area about 1/2 the size of the continental USA), but I am not going to say such ideas are wrong.
The most persuasive item, to me, is that such a flood is agreed to have occurred by a broad spectrum of hard scientists, in the very area that was the cradle of mankind and in a timeframe that certainly makes sense.
There are layers to the Torah, only the shallowest of which we have come to understand. Revelation of what is within comes from many routes: prayer, study, conflict, debate, simple passage of time, and, yes, sometimes even science.
And, importantly, the concept of a “local” flood is not new. Josephus, while no theologian and not what I would call a loyal Jew, was a pretty good reporter of events. He discussed the conflicting opinions on this very issue back in his day.