And the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that He had made man on the earth, and it grieved Him at His heart. And the LORD said: ‘I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and creeping thing, and fowl of the air; for it repenteth Me that I have made them.’ (Genesis 6:5–7)
וַיַּרְא ה' כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וְכָל יֵצֶר מַחְשְׁבֹת לִבּוֹ רַק רַע כָּל הַיּוֹם. וַיִּנָּחֶם ה' כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ וַיִּתְעַצֵּב אֶל לִבּוֹ. וַיֹּאמֶר ה', אֶמְחֶה אֶת הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר בָּרָאתִי מֵעַל פְּנֵי הָאֲדָמָה: מֵאָדָם, עַד בְּהֵמָה, עַד רֶמֶשׂ, וְעַד עוֹף הַשָּׁמָיִם – כִּי נִחַמְתִּי כִּי עֲשִׂיתִם. (בראשית ו', ה-ז)
Why did the LORD destroy humanity and all land animals in the flood, but leave fish and plants unharmed?
To answer, we must first ask an earlier question: after seeing “that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually” (Genesis 6:5), why did the LORD decide to blot out not only humans but beasts, creeping things, and birds? What had these creatures done wrong?
One possible explanation is that animals are subordinate to humanity and were therefore harmed along with it. Thus the Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108, says: “Did I create domestic and wild animals for any purpose other than humanity? Now that humanity sins, what need have I of domestic and wild animals?” Yet fish, too, apparently lie under human dominion and serve humanity (Genesis 1:28). If this is indeed why animals were destroyed, fish should have been destroyed too. Since floodwater cannot destroy fish, another means would have been necessary.
Human wickedness appears to have been the culmination of a much broader corruption of the earth, encompassing all land animals but not sea creatures:
And God saw the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth. . And God said unto Noah: ‘The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth. (Genesis 6:12–13)
וַיַּרְא אֱלֹהִים אֶת הָאָרֶץ וְהִנֵּה נִשְׁחָתָה – כִּי הִשְׁחִית כָּל בָּשָׂר אֶת דַּרְכּוֹ עַל הָאָרֶץ. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים לְנֹחַ: קֵץ כָּל בָּשָׂר בָּא לְפָנַי, כִּי מָלְאָה הָאָרֶץ חָמָס מִפְּנֵיהֶם – וְהִנְנִי מַשְׁחִיתָם אֶת הָאָרֶץ. (בראשית ו', יב-יג)
The overwhelming majority of fish reproduce through fertilization outside the body: the female releases eggs into the water and the male fertilizes them. They do not mate or engage in visible sexual activity as land animals do. Even if there are exceptions, in the observable world – certainly the ancient world, which did not investigate with scientific instruments – sea creatures are not perceived as belonging to humanity’s and land animals’ world of visible sexuality.
We can accordingly suggest, as Rashi and Ibn Ezra interpreted, that “for all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth” refers to sexual corruption. Present in both humans and land animals but not sea creatures, this corruption ruined the order God created, based on clear distinctions and separation between species (see “On the Need for Separation”). Since sea creatures do not belong to the world of visible sexuality, they did not participate in this corruption and were therefore not destroyed in the flood.
An even bolder proposal is possible. The flood may have punished a much broader moral corruption, rather than sexual corruption specifically. This corruption, however, is attributed only to land animals, not sea creatures: only land animals bear some moral responsibility and can therefore corrupt their way, as they did before the flood. Sea creatures stand outside this world.
This emerges, for example, at the flood story’s conclusion: “And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it” (Genesis 9:5). The LORD declares that He will hold animals accountable for killing humans – a declaration presupposing that animals bear some moral responsibility and deserve punishment, rather than being driven solely by instinct.
Against this background, an ox’s sentence of stoning for killing a person becomes understandable (Exodus 21:29). The law is not merely an attempt to remove danger, but, as Cassuto says, expresses the principle of animals’ moral responsibility already introduced at the flood story’s end.
Why, then, does this moral demand not apply to sea fish?
In the biblical conception, aquatic creatures seem to be an existentially lower form of life than land animals. They live and reproduce, but, like plants, are not perceived as having a moral “way” that can be corrupted, and therefore bear no responsibility for their actions.
The connection between sexuality and moral responsibility already emerges in eating the tree of knowledge’s fruit. There the Torah links knowledge of good and evil, including moral judgment, to the awakening of sexual awareness. We can infer that entering the world of sexuality also means entering a world of awareness, choice, and responsibility. Whoever belongs to the sexual world also belongs to the world in which one can corrupt one’s way, choose evil, and bear responsibility for one’s actions.
Human responsibility is complete; animals’ responsibility is much smaller but still exists, as shown by “at the hand of every beast will I require it” and the law of an ox that kills a person. Creeping creatures, too, belong to the terrestrial animal world of which it is said that “all flesh had corrupted their way upon the earth,” though their precise role in this corruption is difficult to define.
Sea creatures stand outside both arenas, sexual and moral. They do not mate like land animals, so they are not perceived as sexual creatures in the visible, familiar terrestrial sense. Their lack of mating is thus not itself the reason for exemption from the flood, but a sign of their existential and moral status: they do not belong to a world with a “way” that can be corrupted. Their actions are assessed as part of life’s natural movement, rather than in terms of good and evil, corruption, or responsibility. Like plants, they were therefore excluded from the flood’s decree.
In a sense, the Torah’s attitude to fish here resembles our usual attitude today to animals generally. We do not judge their actions as good or evil, but regard them as natural, instinctive behavior. In the Torah’s world, however, this distinction applies only to sea creatures, while land animals are perceived as capable of corrupting their way and bearing responsibility. Thus land animals were blotted out in the flood, while sea creatures were unharmed.
