tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post6970047870543858554..comments2011-11-06T00:15:15.530-04:00Shtiklerhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07498936768989355610noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post-71627268635016286812011-11-06T00:15:15.530-04:002011-11-06T00:15:15.530-04:00I forgot to mention last week - once again I went through this calculation with a few people over Shabbos. A couple of people asked the same question: How do we know the ark's shape was a rectangular prism? How do we know it wasn't boat-shaped, with a hull at the bottom? Actually you imply above that Rashi answers this question, so maybe you can relieve me of my ignorance and remind me where.3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375http://www.blogger.com/profile/12059887722695403992noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1241254853273428596.post-823956985121713952010-10-10T18:38:50.943-04:002010-10-10T18:38:50.943-04:00I discussed this over Shabbos about 5 or 6 times with different people or groups. I think it makes sense intuitively to calculate the volume in cubic amos before converting to modern measurements, especially when prompting people to work it out mentally on Shabbos. Here's what I do: The submerged volume is 165,000 cubic amos. If we estimate an amma at half a metre, then a cubic amma is 1/8 of a cubic metre. We can then approximate the volume as 160,000 cubic amos, divide by 8 and get about 20,000 cubic metres. A cubic metre of water weighs a (metric) tonne, so the weight of the displaced water, and therefore of the box, was about 20,000 tonnes. (Chazon Ish-niks can then multiply by about 1.75 as they would for any volume measurement.)3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375http://www.blogger.com/profile/12059887722695403992noreply@blogger.com