Genesis · Chapter 9

And Hashem blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them: Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.

And the fear of you and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth and upon every bird of the heavens; upon all that creeps on the earth and upon all the fish of the sea — into your hand they are delivered.

וחתכם means AND THE DREAD OF YOU, similar to (Job 6:21) “ye see a terror (חתת)." The Agada takes the word as signifying “life”, “vitality” (חיות): So long as a baby, even one day old, has life you do not have to guard it against the attacks of mice, whilst Og, king of Bashan, when dead needs to be guarded against the attacks of mice, as it is said, “And the fear of you and the terror of you shall be [upon the beasts of the field etc.].” When will the fear of you be upon the beasts? So long as you are alive (חתכם) (Shabbat 151b).

"And your dread [וְחִתְּכֶם]" — this is from the doubled-root verbs, derived from the expression "you will see terror [חַתַּת]" (Job 6:21), equivalent to "your terror [חִתַּתְכֶם]". "Upon all that the earth teems with" — the sense bears on the earth, or the earth acts as the agent. "Into your hands they are given" — that is, into your hands. Some say that the בְּ of "upon all [בְּכֹל]" and "and upon all [וּבְכֹל]" stand in the place of vavs. The more likely reading is that it connects to "your dread [מוֹרַאֲכֶם]".

“And your fear and dread etc.” Although it was already stated and they shall rule over the fish of the sea etc., nevertheless, [God] added here [the elements of] fear and dread because He permitted [humans] to kill and eat from them [the animals]. For why would an ox go to slaughter and not protest against its owner if not for the fact that the hand of God did this by casting the fear of man upon all living creatures, to direct them wherever He desires. And since He permitted the killing of animals, one might think that killing humans was also permitted — therefore Scripture states However, your blood of your souls [I will demand]… And the reason why eating meat was not [originally] permitted to man was because any common person [am ha’aretz] is forbidden to eat meat. But Noah, who engaged in Torah study, was permitted to do so. The commentators gave a reason for this: Because every created being is sustained by what is beneath it. For inanimate matter, which is the lowest of all existing things, sustains itself. Plant life is sustained by inanimate matter, as it draws from the earth. All living creatures are sustained by plant life, and humans — the speaking species — are sustained by animals. However, this only applies when one is engaged in Torah study and has achieved perfection, for which one is called “human” [adam]. Without this, one is comparable to animals, so why should one eat one’s own kind? What perfection would be added to one’s equal when consuming them? For all food transforms into the nature of the one consuming it, and when a human eats from animals, perfection is added to the animal by entering into the ranks of the speaking species. But a person who is comparable to an animal — what would they give or add to what is eaten? In this vein it is said And you shall consume all the peoples (Deuteronomy 7:16) and it is written For they are our bread (Numbers 14:9), because you [Israel] are called “adam” [human] but not the [other] nations.

ומוראכם וחתכם יהיה על כל חית הארץ, “and the fear and dread of you will be upon all the animals of the earth.” This was not natural, as the animals for the year they had been provided for by Noach and his family had already gotten used to man as their provider. They had become so familiar with man that to be in awe of him would be a new experience for them.

Every creeping thing that is alive shall be yours to eat; like the green herb I have given you everything.

לכם יהיה לאכלה SHALL BE FOOD FOR YOU — For I did not permit Adam Harishon to eat meat, but green herbs alone; but lo you — even as the green herbs that I gave the full use of to Adam Harishon — do I give everything (Sanhedrin 59b).

EVERY ‘REMES’ (MOVING THING) THAT LIVETH. This refers to cattle, beasts and fowl — and also the fish in the sea — since all of them are called “moving things,” just as it is written: Every living creature ‘haromeseth’ (that creepeth) wherewith the waters swarmed.

"Every creeping thing" — a collective name encompassing the beasts of the field, domesticated animals, every bird, and every fish. Thus all of these are permitted for eating. "Like the green herb" — on two patterns [of this construction]. Similarly: "a smoking oven [תַּנּוּר עָשָׁן]" (Genesis 15:17) and "like the smoke of the furnace [כְּעֶשֶׁן הַכִּבְשָׁן]" (Exodus 19:18).

כל רמש אשר הוא חי, Any moving thing which is alive, etc. We need to understand why meat had not been permitted as food to Adam whereas now G'd permitted Noach to enjoy a meat diet. There may have been three reasons why Noach was permitted to eat meat. 1) His care for the animals during a whole year in the ark kept the whole species alive. 2) He expended a great deal of tender care on these animals. It is with regard to this that the Psalmist 128,2 says: יגיע כפיך כי תאכל אשריך וטוב לך. "When you eat what you have laboured for with your hands, you will be happy and well off." 3) G'd was in a favourable frame of mind having promised not to destroy all flesh. Hence He permitted Noach to eat of the fruit of his labours.

כירק עשב, “as if it were green grass.” Such grass had been permitted for man to eat ever since his creation. Just as some grass had never been fit to eat, though not forbidden, so some living creatures as well as fish and fowl would be permitted as food, whereas others would not because they are not suitable as such. נתתי לכם את כל, “I have allocated it all to you in a similar manner.” The reason why G-d permitted eating living creatures after they had been killed, was that all of them had to thank man for having kept them from perishing during the deluge. As a result, all the animals were now totally at the mercy of man.

כירק עשב נתתי לכם את כל, ”just like the green herbs, I have given you everything”. Had the Torah only written the word כל, I would have concluded that all kind of meat is permissible for human consumption (including that of creeping things, etc. as argued by the Gentile interpreters of the Bible). The mention of the words כירק עשב, “like the green herbs,” limits the type of meat permitted for consumption by human beings. Just as not all herbs are intended for human consumption so not all meat is intended for human consumption. Poisonous herbs and certain (most) mushrooms are certainly not fit for consumption by humans. Similarly, there are categories of meat which are harmful to human beings. The Torah permitted only the kind of meat which is beneficial for man. The plain meaning of the verse is certainly not that it permits indiscriminate consumption of all manner of meat. Talmud Sanhedrin 57 sees in the restrictive clause כירק עשב, a reference to the restrictions G-d had imposed on Adam and what he was allowed to eat, i.e. that he had not been permitted to eat meat. However, now this had changed and meat became permissible as food for human consumption just as herbs had been permitted for consumption by Adam at that time. The reason for this sudden permission of meat was that at the time of the deluge all animals had been guilty of death anyway so that man had now become their superior by dint of having already saved their various species from extinction. This gave man the right to slaughter animals for food [though not to hunt them for sport, Ed.].

כל רמש אשר הוא חי, “every moving living creature, etc.” This expression includes all creatures other than man.

But flesh with its life — its blood — you shall not eat.

בשר בנפשו FLESH WITH THE SOUL THEREOF [SHALL YE NOT EAT] — He here prohibited to them אבר מן החי the eating of a limb cut from a living animal, that is to say that בשר בנפשו (literally, flesh together with its life) means so long as its life is in it you shall not eat the flesh. בנפשו דמו (literally, its blood together with its life) means whilst its (the animal’s) life is still in it (the blood). Consequently בשר בנפשו לא תאכלו FLESH SO LONG AS THERE IS LIFE IN IT SHALL YE NOT EAT forms the prohibition of אבר מן החי the eating of a limb cut from a living animal. And connecting בנפשו with דמו we obtain the reading also בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו ITS BLOOD TOGETHER WITH ITS LIFE SHALL YE NOT EAT which forms the prohibition of partaking of blood of a living animal (Sanhedrin 59a)

ONLY FLESH WITH THE LIFE THEREOF, THE BLOOD THEREOF, SHALL YE NOT EAT. Rashi wrote: “This prohibition applies while the animal’s life is still in the blood. Thus, you should not eat flesh as long as there is life in it, meaning a limb cut from a living animal, nor shall you eat its blood together with its life, meaning the blood of a living animal.” Ramban objects that if so the text should have said, v’damo (and its blood), instead of damo. But if this be so Scripture should have said, “flesh, so long as there is life in it, and also its blood ye shall not eat.” But according to the simple meaning of Scripture, this interpretation is incorrect, and according to the Midrash it is not true, for the sons of Noah have been admonished against eating a limb cut from a living animal, as is the opinion of the Sages, but not the blood of a living animal, as is the opinion of Rabbi Chanina ben Gamliel. Rather, the interpretation of the verse is as follows: “only flesh with the life thereof, which is the blood thereof, shall you not eat,” for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof.

"But flesh with its soul, its blood" — the meaning is: but flesh together with its soul, which is its blood, you shall not eat; as in "you shall not eat the soul with the flesh" (Deuteronomy 12:23), and "for the soul of all flesh — its blood is in its soul" (Leviticus 17:14). And this soul that moves and perceives — it is the body.

אך בשר בנפשו, but the flesh of living animals, while its life-force is still inside it, i.e. this life-force is equivalent to its blood; you must neither eat its flesh nor its blood, לא תאכלו, only in that state must you not eat it; once the blood has left the body, gentiles are allowed to eat blood.

אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו, “you must not however eat meat with its lifeblood in it.” According to Rashi, this is the prohibition of eating any part of an animal as long as the animal itself is still alive. Seeing that the Torah now permitted man to eat all manner of moving creatures, the Torah now had to forbid eating parts of animals such as ribs, which had been cut off the living animal. Seeing that Adam had never been permitted to even eat a carcass, he had not been forbidden eating live tissue.

אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו, “but flesh; with its soul, its blood you must not eat.” The plain meaning is that G-d permitted only consumption of the flesh (meat) but not consumption of the life-force, נפש. In practice this means that tissue from an animal which is still alive is prohibited as food.

אך בשר בנפשו דמו, Yet the flesh of a living creature possessing a soul, etc.” According to Rashi the meaning of the verse is that any flesh of an animal which is still alive must not be eaten by man. This rule is known in halachah as the prohibition of אבר מן החי. The rule applies not only to the flesh of an animal but also to its blood, so that the interpretation of the word בנפשו means that also its blood must not yet be eaten. Nachmanides writes that Rashi’s interpretation does not correspond to the plain meaning of the text, whereas the interpretation by the Midrash upon which Rashi bases himself is not halachically accurate, as even the generation of Noach had not been given this commandment, and there is a dispute as to which part applied to them between the majority of the scholars and Rabbi Chaninah ben Gamliel.

And indeed your blood, pertaining to your lives, I will require: from the hand of every beast I will require it, and from the hand of man — from the hand of any man who sheds the blood of his brother — I will require the life of man.

ואך את דמכם HOWEVER YOUR BLOOD — Although I have permitted you to take the life of cattle yet your blood I will surely require from him amongst you who sheds his own blood (see Bava Kamma 91b). לנפשותיכם YOUR LIFE — Even though one strangles himself (Genesis Rabbah 34:13) so that no blood flows from him yet I will require it from him. מיד כל חיה AT THE HAND OF EVERY BEAST — Because the generation of the Flood sinned and they were therefore freely exposed to become food for wild beasts which would have power over them — as it is said (Psalms 49:21), “He is ruled over by wild beasts like the beasts that perish” (these being the prey of other animals) (Shabbat 151b) — it was therefore necessary to proclaim a punishment against wild animals on their account. ומיד האדם AT THE HAND OF MAN — At the hand of one who kills with premeditation, when there are no witnesses to the murder, will “I” require it. מיד איש אחיו AT THE HAND OF EVERY MAN’S BROTHER — At the hand of a man who loves him like a brother and slays him accidentally will “I” require it, unless he go into banishment (in one of the Cities of Refuge) and pray for forgiveness for his iniquity. For even one who kills another by accident needs atonement: therefore if there are no witnesses to the deed to make him liable to banishment and he does not humble himself, the Holy One, blessed be He, will require it of him, just as our Rabbis explain the text, (Exodus 21:13) ‘‘But God causes it to come to hand”, in Treatise Makkot (Makkot 10b): The Holy One, blessed be He, causes them (the man who killed by accident and had not expiated the murder and the man who killed with premeditation) to meet at the same inn. The former in ascending a ladder falls upon the latter and kills him and has therefore — the accident having been seen by men — to go to banishment.

AND SURELY YOUR BLOOD ‘LENAPHSHOTHEICHEM’ (OF YOUR LIVES) WILL I REQUIRE. This is as if it were written, your blood ‘naphshotheichem,’ [without the letter lamed], and meaning “your blood which is your lives.” This is similar to the verse, ‘Lechol’ (To all) the instruments of the tabernacle, [which means all the instruments needed for the tabernacle, the letter lamed in the word lechol being redundant]. So also, the third ‘l’Avshalom’ (to Absalom), [which means, “the third, Absolom,” the lamed in the word l’Avshalom is redundant]. It is possible to explain your blood ‘lenaphshotheichem’ as meaning benaphshotheichem (in your souls), for the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof. Likewise, And ye shall eat no manner of blood in all your dwelling places, ‘la’oph velabeheimah’ (to fowl and to cattle), which is to be explained as “in fowl or in beast.”The correct interpretation is that Scripture is saying, “the blood which is the life in you I will require.” He is thus declaring that the blood is one with the life, and He intimates that one incurs the death penalty for spilling the blood upon which life depends, but not for spilling the blood of those limbs on which life is not dependent. Our Rabbis have expounded this verse as an injunction against suicide, the verse stating, “I will require your blood from your own souls.” AT THE HAND OF EVERY BEAST WILL I REQUIRE IT. I wonder: if “the requiring” is here meant in its usual sense, i.e., from the hand of the beast as well as from the hand of man, in both cases there will be punishment in the matter, but the beast has no reason [with which to discern between good and evil] so that it should be punished or rewarded! Perhaps this principle applies only to spilling man’s blood; every beast that will devour him will itself be devoured, for such is the decree of the King. And this is the reason [why Scripture says of an ox that killed a human being], the ox shall surely be stoned, and its flesh shall not be eaten. This is not a form of monetary punishment for the owner since even an ownerless ox is subject to the death penalty, and the command applies alike to the sons of Noah and to the Israelites. The meaning of Who so sheddeth man’s blood would thus be, “all shedders” whether beast or man, their blood will be required by the Court on earth and195“And.” The Tur, quoting Ramban, has “or.” by the hand of Heaven. It is possible that the meaning of the expression, at the hand of every beast, is that the vengeance upon the shedder of blood will be at the hand of every beast, just as it is said, That she hath received of the Eternal’s hand double of all her sins. Thus He says, “Surely your blood will I require and avenge at the hand of every beast for I will send against the murderer all beasts of the earth, and I will also send against him the hand of man, and he will not escape them.” Similarly, Because of all mine adversaries I am become a reproach, meaning “because of the hand of all mine adversaries;” This is the portion of a wicked man from G-d, and the heritage appointed unto him by G-d, [meaning this is the portion of a wicked man by the hand of G-d]. Perhaps the requiring at the hand of the beast means that she should not devour man for so He established their nature. The secret of the matter is that at the time of creation He gave man every herb bearing seed… and every tree in which is the fruit of a tree… for food, and to the beast He gave every green herb for food, and Scripture says, and it was so, meaning that such was their nature and habit. But now when He said of man that he may slaughter the lower living creatures for food and it was so placed in nature or habit that living creatures should eat each other, it became necessary to command that the other living creatures be unto men a prey to their teeth while they are to fear men and not devour them. And He said, And surely, your blood of your lives will I require, in order to hint that He will not require the blood of one beast from the hand of another. This being so, it was thus left to them to devour one another. And this is the reason why He mentioned here the prohibition of spilling the blood of man; it is on account of the permission given here for slaughtering, which became the customary way of spilling blood since in the opinion of our Rabbis, Adam had already been admonished against spilling blood. But on account of the permission for slaughtering, it became necessary for Him to say, “I have permitted you to spill the blood of every living thing except your own blood. This is forbidden to you as well as to all living things for it will not be their nature to spill it.”

"But your blood" — the meaning is: I have permitted you to shed the blood of every living creature, but your blood — the blood of your lives, since you are human — I have not permitted; rather I will demand it, as in the sense of "one who demands blood [דּוֹרֵשׁ דָּמִים]" (Psalm 9:13). This is the general statement; then he elaborated: "from the hand of man" — whether many kill one, or one kills one, I will demand the blood. I will also demand it from the hand of every beast, for I will command another animal to kill it. Thus the animals are permitted to you, but you are not permitted to them. As for the one who interprets "your blood for your souls" as referring to one who kills himself — that view seems far-fetched to me. And he adds further elaboration, or this is a commandment for the sons of Noah — which is the correct view — to put to death one who kills.

ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, although I will not punish you for spilling animal’s blood, I will hold you responsible for shedding the blood of fellow human beings. Human beings, all human beings, are more precious to Me than the lives of animals. This retribution for spilling the blood of human beings may on different occasions be applied in different ways: It all depends on the worthiness of the person under attack or potential attack. If, for instance, the person deserves saving, the words מיד כל חיה אדרשנו ומיד אדם are meant in the preventive sense, i.e. G’d will save such a person’s life be it under attack from animals or from human beings. If, in the eyes of G’d, the person under attack does not deserve being saved from violent death, this still did not give the animals or other human beings the right to kill him. Therefore, in such instances, ipso facto, G’d will exact retribution from the killers. This is the meaning of the apparently redundant words מיד איש אחיו אדרוש את נפש האדם, where the word אדרוש refers to the life of a human being that has already been killed. We find the word אדרוש in both senses depending on circumstances, compare Ezekiel 34,10. The emphasis on איש את אחיו, refers to G’d exacting such retribution from humans for killing humans, seeing that this is not their nature, or should not be their nature. He will not exact retribution from an animal which killed a human being who, in G’d’s eyes, had already forfeited its right to live.

ואך את דמכם, “yet your (human) blood”, etc; this is a warning to any animal not to kill any human being, as G-d would hold it responsible for harming humans. Rashi explains the verse as follows: the peculiar wording is to include killing, including suicide that does not involve the actual shedding of blood, such as by strangulation. לנפשותיכם, according to Rashi, this refers to people who strangulate themselves. The passage is intended as an answer to people who deny that G-d operates vis a vis man through a system of reward and punishment, i.e. reward after the body has died and punishment after the body has died, and who therefore see in suicide a way of avoiding being held responsible for their actions on earth. Clearly a system of reward and punishment, unless it included posthumous reward and punishment, would be meaningless, and would not act as deterrent not to sin. In Bereshit Rabbah, 34,13 the word אך in our verse is understood as including the mortally wounded King Shaul who completed dying by falling intentionally on his own sword to escape being killed by the Philistines whom he did not want to be able to claim that they had killed G-d’s anointed king. Others believe that it applies to Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, who had consulted with the prophet Ezekiel before submitting to being thrown to the lions by Nevuchadnezar. Some authorities do not agree that they were permitted to do so. מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, “I will demand an accounting from every living creature for having shed it.” This is meant to prevent man from using animals to kill his foes, claiming that he had not killed anyone. A different interpretation of this phrase: “I, G-d, will demand an accounting directly from the animal concerned. Compare Exodus 21,29 where not only the owner of the ox who gored is to be stoned but also the ox itself. מיד איש אחיו, “of every man of that of his fellow man;” man must not conclude that seeing that all the beasts have become permitted as food (after death of the animal) so human carcasses have also been permitted to him as food. אדרוש, “I will demand an accounting even of anyone killing himself, or who kills a fellow human being in the absence of witnesses who could bring him to justice before a human tribunal.” Open murder must, of course, be dealt with by human tribunals.

ואך את דמכם, “however, your blood, etc.,” The Torah specifies that permission to consume the body of a creature which had once been alive applies only to those creatures whose life-force extends only to their bodies’ mobility; human beings whose life-force is superior and includes communicative skills are not permitted to be eaten. This is the deeper meaning of אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, “but I will demand an accounting for the blood of your life-force.” It is the prohibition to commit suicide. The Talmud Bava Kama 91 deals with the culpability of people who take their own lives. The letter ל in לנפשותיכם is similar to the same letter in Chronicles I 3,2 השלישי לאבשלום בן מעכה, “the third one of Avshalom was Maachah,” which is understood to mean השלישי אבשלום בן מעכה, “the third one was Avshalom son of Maachah". מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, “I will demand an accounting from any animal concerning him.” Any animal which will kill a human being will be held accountable for its deed by G-d. It happened that a rooster had killed a human being and that the family of the victim brought that rooster to the court and the court executed it by stoning it. The Torah continues ומיד האדם, “and from the human being, etc.” This refers to instances where there are witnesses to the murder. In other words: man must judge murder when there are witnesses, whereas G-d will judge the murderer when there is no evidence which is admissible in a human tribunal.

דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, “(but) I shall demand your (human beings’) blood if it results in loss of your life.” The meaning is: “your blood,” i.e. that which is the essence of your lives, I shall demand an accounting for seeing that the blood is what makes flesh viable. I will demand such an accounting from every mammal a well as bird (who kills a human being). The word חיה in this verse is comprehensive and not restricted to predatory animals. An alternative meaning of the verse could be: “blood which is of the type that is vital, without which death results, I will demand an accounting for, whereas blood in the capillaries which is not vital is not subject to the same kind of capital punishment.” This verse is an allusion to the verse שופך דם האדם באדם דמו יישפך, “Whosoever sheds the blood of man will have his own blood shed by man” (court). (verse 6) This would more clearly spell out that only spilling the life-blood of a human being is subject to the death penalty. מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, “I will demand such account from any living creature.” Nachmanides questions the expression אדרשנו, “I will demand an accounting of,” as not applicable to animals which do not have the intelligence to understand such commandments. How can creatures without intelligence qualify for punishment for not obeying laws? He answers that the shedding of human blood may be an exception, and that this is not in the nature of a punitive reprisal but is a law promulgated by the Creator as a sort of axiom. This is also the meaning of the words סקול יסקל השור, “the offending ox must surely be stoned to death” in Exodus 21,28, where this is not to be construed as a penalty for the owner of the beast, as the same procedure is applicable to an ox that killed a human being even though he may not be owned by a specific person at all, but is a free-roaming animal. The Torah’s command to mankind in general is the same as the Torah’s legislation for the Jewish people later on. The meaning of the words: שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך, is then that anyone, man or beast, which sheds human blood will be put to death by a human tribunal as the violent death of a creature bearing the image of G’d cannot remain unaccounted. In the absence of a court that can put the offending human or animal to death, sentence and execution will be at the hands of heaven. It is further possible that the words מיד כל חיה ומיד האדם can allude to this heavenly intervention in avenging the killer, so that the word מיד should be understand as על יד. Perhaps the very fact that the nature of many beasts is to kill, is the reason the Torah warns that such instinct when practiced against humans is perverse. The mystical dimension of the subject is that at the time of the creation G’d assigned all the herbs to be food for man; after that the Torah wrote ויהי כן, “it remained so,” i.e. the vegetarian diet of man became the norm. (Genesis 1,28) Now that G’d had permitted man a meat diet provided the animal eaten had been killed first, and it had become the norm that living creatures feed on one another, it became necessary to legislate limits as to who might be killed and who not, and by whom. G’d therefore instilled within the animals a natural awe of man, which would restrain them from attacking and killing him. This is why the Torah commanded אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, to indicate that G’d would not hold an animal responsible for killing and feeding upon other animals. This is the reason why the subject of bloodshed had to be introduced at this juncture, seeing that for the first time killing some of G’d’s creatures for the sake of eating had become permitted. According to the view of our sages (Sanhedrin 56 interpreting the words על האדם), Adam himself had already been warned concerning this. The reason for the prohibition to kill man is the fact that he was created in the image of G’d, as our verse concludes. ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, ”however, your blood for your (own) lives I will demand (an accounting for)” You must not reason that just as it is permissible for you to kill animals seeing the animals which are alive nowadays have all been kept alive by man (Noach), that a human being who is alive by his own efforts is also in charge of his own body and may decide to kill himself, I will demand an accounting for anyone committing suicide. In the event that you might think that just as I permitted you to kill animals, they have the right to see in you the enemy and they may kill you with impunity, I reassure you by saying that I will demand an accounting for your lives from any creature (if they killed you). ואך את דמכם, “however your blood, etc.” It is possible that when King Sha-ul committed suicide by telling his arms bearer to finish him off (Samuel I 31,4) he thought that he committed a meritorious act denying the Philistines the boast that they had killed the anointed one of G’d. This is why the Torah uses the diminutive word אך, when writing this legislation, to tell us that there are situations, such as when Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah agreed to be thrown into the fiery furnace, that this was not considered suicide but [after consultation with the prophet Ezekiel Ed] an act of sanctifying the name of the Lord. Commentators raised the question why we needed a special verse to sanction actions such as those by Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, as the correctness of their conduct was based on simple logic. By comparing their behaviour with the frogs which invaded Pharaoh’s and the Egyptians’ homes knowing that they were courting their own death by doing so. The answer given is that the analogy with the frogs is not foolproof as the frogs had not been commanded to by Pharaoh or Moses to injure or kill themselves. The word אך on the other hand, is also not sufficient excuse to exempt people such as Chananyah and colleagues, unless we also invoke the logic by comparing them partially with the frogs. The word אך would only teach us that Chananyah and others like him would not be held culpable for such acts of suicide, not that they committed a meritorious deed. This is why we require both the word אך and the example of the frogs to teach us that under the proper circumstances suicide can be a מצוה, meritorious deed.

Whoever sheds the blood of man — through witnesses, by the decree of judges, shall his blood be shed; for in the image of Hashem He made man.

באדם דמו ישפך BY MAN SHALL HIS BLOOD BE SHED — If there are witnesses you kill him. Why? Because in the image of God [made He man] and he has destroyed the Divine image (Genesis Rabbah 34:14) עשה את האדם HE MADE MAN — This verse is abbreviated and should be “the Maker made man”; there are many similar expressions in the Scriptures.

"The meaning of 'by man'" — in the presence of witnesses, or in the sight of all. Or: on account of the man whose blood was shed. There are many [verses] like it.

באדם דמו ישפך, a reference to a human tribunal. כי בצלם אלוקים, this is the reason why G’d exacts retribution for killing human beings, whereas He does not exact retribution from man for killing animals, [even though killing, say for sport is prohibited. Ed.] The animals have not been created in the image of G’d, so that their death does not deprive the earth of a divine image. Only human beings are described in the Torah, on occasion, also as אלוהים, as for instance in Exodus 22,8. את האדם, from the moment G’d had said (Genesis 1,26) נעשה אדם, “let us make a human being,” He had endowed His creatures with an independent intelligence, able to defy Him either collectively or individually. It is this “divine attribute” of man that makes him sufficiently important for his Creator to demand an accounting from those who destroy that divine image by killing a human being.

באדם דמו ישפך, “his blood will be spilled by a fellow human being.” Here the Torah revealed the penalty for murder. Where had it issued the warning not to commit murder? This is found in Exodus 20,13: לא תרצח, “do not commit murder!” כי בצלם אלוקים, the meaning of the word: elohim here is the same as the meaning of that word in Exodus 22,27, where it means that one must not curse a judge. עשה את האדם, He appointed man on earth to be judge so that fellow man would be deterred from committing sins and crimes.

שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך” when someone spills the blood of a human being his own blood is to be spilled by a human being.” The word באדם, means: “before a human tribunal.” There have to be witnesses who can testify. If so, the guilty person is subject to execution. This is also the thrust of the Targum’s translation: דישוד דמא דאינשא בסהדין על מימר דיינא דמיה יתשד, Onkelos clearly translates the word באדם as “in the presence of witnesses.” כי בצלם אלוקים עשה את האדם, “for in the image of G-d did the Maker make man.” [This is obviously not a literal quotation of our verse, as the word העושה, does not appear in the text The author adopted Rashi’s comment that the word העושה is missing in our text and has to be substituted by the reader. Rashi adds that there are numerous other examples of this type throughout the Torah.] Bereshit Rabbah 34, 14 understands the words אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, as including suicide by means of asphyxiation when no blood has been spilled. To the question if the kind of suicide committed by King Saul who was already in his death throes when he commanded the Amalekite to finish him off so that he would not be captured by the Philistines alive counted as suicide, the answer is that it is not, as the word אך in our verse is an exclusion and exempts such a situation. The question is also asked if people such as Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah who allowed themselves to be thrown into a fiery furnace (i.e. certain death) had been guilty of a form of suicide, the answer is negative and the reason cited is also the restrictive word אך in our verse (verse 5). The words מיד כל חיה are understood by the Midrash as a reference to the four empires who have hosted Jews in exile as these are referred to as חיות, comparable to beasts in Daniel 7.3. מיד האדם, this is a reference to Israelites who have been referred to as אדם by Ezekiel 34,31 when he said ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם, “and you are My flock, sheep of My pasture-you are Adam.” The words מיד איש אחיו refer to the descendants of Esau as Yaakov prayed in Genesis 32,12 “save me please from my brother, from Esau.” The words אדרש את נפש האדם, refer to an accounting to be rendered at a future time.

שופך דם האדם דמו ישפך, “anyone shedding human blood will have his own blood shed by human beings.” Some commentators understand the word באדם in this verse to mean: “on account of the man who had shed his blood.” Now the blood of the original killer has to be shed also.

And as for you, be fruitful and multiply; bring forth offspring on the earth and multiply on it.

ואתם פרו ורבו AND YE, BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY — According to the real sense, the first time this mas said to man (Genesis 9:1) it was said as a blessing (an assurance that they would be fruitful); here it is a command (Ketubot 5a). According to the Midrashic explanation this command is mentioned here after the mention of murder in order to liken one who abstains from having children to one who sheds blood (Yevamot 63b).

AND YOU, BE YE FRUITFUL, AND MULTIPLY. The plain meaning thereof is as its Midrash, i.e., that it is a commandment. b. A similar verse mentioned with reference to Adam, also one with reference to the sons of Noah here. in conjunction with the statement that G-d blessed them, constitutes a blessing, just as it is said concerning the fish. Now because He spoke here of the other living things and said, that they may swarm in the earth, and be fruitful, and multiply upon the earth, He said here, And you — man — be ye fruitful and multiply. He continued saying, swarm in the earth, and multiply therein, in order to repeat the commandment for the purpose of emphasis, thus stating that they should be engaged in it with all power [since those who came forth from the ark were few]. Perhaps He commanded them concerning the settlement of the whole earth, as I have explained in Seder Bereshith. Now Rashi wrote, “According to the plain interpretation, the first time [this was said to man it was said] as a blessing; here it is a command. According to the Midrashic explanation, [this command is mentioned here after the prohibition of murder] in order to liken one who abstains from having children to one who sheds blood.” Now the Rabbis have derived this Midrash only from the juxtaposition of the verses, but the verse itself was written as a commandment, and the first [time this was said to man it was] as a blessing. [This is contrary to Rashi who implies that the Midrashic explanation differs from the plain interpretation.] And so the Rabbis have said in Tractate Sanhedrin, b. “But the commandment to be fruitful which was declared to the sons of Noah — as it is written, And you, be ye fruitful and multiply,….”

ואתם פרו ורבו, not only must you not diminish the human population on earth, but you are commanded to increase it by being fruitful and by multiplying.

פרו ורבו. Be fruitful and multiply! It was necessary to repeat this because when the Torah permitted resumption of marital relations when Noach and his wife left the ark (8,16), He gave permission to multiply. In this instance G'd commanded man to be fruitful and to multiply. Why did the Torah have to repeat this formula both in 9,1 and here in 9,7? Presumably in 9,1 the Torah introduced this commandment as a desirable action on man's part, a מצוה, whereas here it is repeated as a חובה, an absolute duty. Not only is performance of this commandment subject to reward, non-performance is subject to punishment. The letter ו at the beginning of the verse ואתם is a strong hint in that direction. G'd said to Noach that inasmuch as He had sworn never again to destroy all flesh, man too must perform something in recognition of G'd's oath, i.e. to be fruitful and to multiply. We can now understand the statement in Shabbat 41 that if someone takes hold of his member and ejaculates, this is tantamount to his bringing a deluge on the world. Our sages considered such action a breach of the mutual oath between G'd and man. When man deliberately destroys his semen he is in violation of that oath.

ואתם פרו ורבו, “as for you, be fruitful and multiply!” I G-d, do not wish that you diminish in numbers but that you increase in numbers. An alternate interpretation: if you follow My instructions to deal sternly with murderers, I will in turn insure that you will increase in numbers, [although you might have to execute the odd murderer in your midst. Ed.] A third possible interpretation: This blessing appears here twice, once (verse 1) for the human race and once for the animal kingdom.

The words ואתם פרו ורבו “and you be fruitful and multiply,” have been placed here in order to teach that anyone who fails to practice the commandment to procreate is just as bad as someone who has committed murder. In fact, the sages in Yevamot 63 go so far as to say that failure to try and procreate is not only akin to bloodshed but that he is guilty of diminishing G-d’s image in the world. Different scholars phrase this idea slightly differently but they all agree that failure to attempt to procreate is equivalent to damaging G-d’s image in the eyes of His creatures. The idea underlying such statements is Genesis 17,7 in which the covenant between Avraham and G-d stipulates להיות לך לאלוקים ולזרעך אחריך, “to be your G-d and the G-d of your descendants after you.” G-d meant that as long as you will do your best to have descendants G-d’s benevolent presence will be manifest amongst you. If you leave no descendants after you, on whom is G-d’s benevolent presence supposed to manifest itself? On the trees? On the stones? We need to explore the precise meaning of Rabbi Akiva who speaks of man who does not try and start a family as diminishing the image of G-d.” How can man “diminish” G-d’s image? Rabbi Akiva was careful not to say that such people “void” G-d’s image. We have a verse in Isaiah 13,4 קול המון בהרים דמות עם רב, “the sound of a great multitude of people, creating the impression (image) of a great many people.” There are similar verses in the Bible, and our sages explain that the expression דמות עם רב is a reference to G-d Himself. There is another homiletical explanation of the verse in Song of Songs 1,9 דמיתיך רעיתי as meaning that on occasion a human being has the impression as if he had seen an image of G-d similar to what is described in Exodus 15,2 This is my G-d and I want to exalt Him.” This is why Solomon wrote in Song of Songs דמיתיך רעיתי “I have had an image of You as my beloved companion.”

ואתם פרו ורבו ושרצו בארץ, “as to you, be fruitful and multiply and swarm over the earth.” The commandment at this time shows that during their stay in the ark both man and beast had been forbidden to have sexual relations.

And Hashem said to Noah and to his sons with him, saying:

AND G-D SPOKE TO NOAH AND TO HIS SONS. The meaning thereof is that He spoke to the sons by means of their father for his sons were not prophets, and Ham did not reach the level of prophecy. Likewise, “And the Eternal spoke to Ahaz,” (Isaiah 7:10.) [which means that G-d spoke to him through Isaiah]. And so also, And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron, and others. which according to the words of our Rabbis means He spoke to Moses so that he would in turn speak to Aaron. And so Scripture makes explicit at the end of the present chapter: And G-d spoke to Noah. here.

"And God spoke to Noah and to his sons" — through their father. And some say that all four of them were prophets.

ואל בניו אתו, “and to his sons with him.” Noach’s sons also heard the divine voice. In order that we should not think that only Noach himself heard this voice and that he was to tell his sons about it, the Torah adds the word אתו, “simultaneously.” This is why you find that the paragraph phrased in the plural, i.e. G-d saying אתכם, ביניכם, “with you”, (pl) among you, (pl).” G-d included Shem and Yaphet in those whom He addressed. Cham no longer qualified for being addressed by G-d directly.

ויאמר אלוקים אל נח ואל בניו אתו, “G’d said to Noach and to his sons with him.” G’d spoke to Noach’s sons, using their father as His intermediary. The sons had not attained the spiritual level which qualified them to be addressed by G’d in their own right.

And I — behold, I am establishing My covenant with you and with your descendants after you,

ואני הנני AND I BEHOLD I — “I am in agreement with you”; He said this because Noah feared to fulfil the duty of propagating the species until the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him that he would not again destroy the world and this promise God made (Midrash Tanchuma, Noach 11). Ultimately He said to him, “If you are still anxious I am willing to give to My promise the permanence and strength of a covenant and I will give you a sign.”

"And your seed" — together with "and with you," it is the third [element indicating] what will be with you; or it is a repetition for added clarification. And the covenant that I will establish is that all flesh shall not be cut off.

ואני הנני מקים את בריתי, this promise is conditional on man keeping his part of the bargain, bringing murderers to justice. If, however, innocent blood will be shed in the manner it had been before the deluge, this may lead to destruction of the earth (not necessarily by water). This is what is meant in Numbers 35,33 הדם הוא יחניף את הארץ ולארץ לא יכופר לדם אשר שפך בה כי אם בדם שפכו “for blood turns the earth into a hypocrite and there will be no atonement for the land except through the blood of him who has spilled it.”

ואני הנני, “and as far as I am concerned, etc;” according to Rashi, this is G-d’s way of saying that He agreed with Noach who had not wanted to resume normal marital relations until specifically encouraged by G-d to do so. He waited for G-d’s promise not ever again to bring on the kind of destruction of the human race that he had just been a witness to.

and with every living creature that is with you: the birds, the cattle, and every beast of the earth that is with you — all that came out of the ark — for every beast of the earth.

חית הארץ אתכם AND EVERY ANIMAL OF THE EARTH WITH YOU or, THAT ARE WITH YOU — those which go about with human beings. מכל יוצאי התבה OF ALL THAT GO OUT OF THE ARK — These words would include creeping things and reptiles. חית הארץ [EVEN EVERY] BEAST OF THE EARTH — These words are intended to include dangerous animals which cannot be included in the above description, “every living creature that is with you” — for these do not go about with human beings.

And I will establish My covenant with you: never again shall all flesh be cut off by the waters of a flood, and never again shall there be a flood to destroy the earth.

והקמתי AND I WILL ESTABLISH — I will give confirmation to my covenant; and in what consists this confirmation? “The sign of the rainbow”, as it goes on explaining at the end.

The word "flesh" means the body, for it perceives sensation, whereas bone does not feel. Hence the covenant: that no body shall be cut off by flood waters. And it is possible that if a flood were to come He would deliver them — but He has included in the covenant that there shall be no further flood. It is concerning this covenant that it is said: "which I swore that the waters of Noah would not pass over" (Isaiah 54:9).

ולא יהיה עוד מבול לשחת הארץ, there will not ever again be the kind of catastrophe which will destroy the whole surface of the earth at the same time.

והקימותי את בריתי אתכם. And I will keep My covenant with you. We need to understand why the Torah repeated the promise that all flesh would not be destroyed again and that there would not be another deluge. If, as Rava had said in Shavuot 36, the reason is to give this assurance the status of an oath, our sages used both this and the second half of the verse, ולא יהיה המים for that purpose. They ignored 8,21 in that context. I have explained all that in connection with 8,21. Perhaps we need to understand this verse in light of what the Talmud says in Sotah 11. The Talmud there questions why the Torah used the singular when speaking of the Jewish nation in Exodus 1,10. Why did the Torah say הבה נתחכמה לו, "let us outsmart it," instead of הבה נתחכמה להם, "let us outsmart them." Rabbi Chamah says there that the pronoun לו refers to the saviour of the Jewish people, i.e. to G'd. The Egyptians wanted to kill the Jewish babies by drowning because G'd had sworn not to bring another deluge. The Egyptians were aware that G'd makes the punishment fit the crime and that therefore G'd's retribution would have to be by water. They were confident they could escape G'd's wrath because He had sworn not to bring on another deluge. They did not realise that G'd had only promised not to flood the whole earth at one time; G'd remained free to flood parts of the earth at any time. Besides, G'd's promise extended to the waters not "descending" upon man; if man decided to walk into the waters, as did the Egyptians in Exodus 14,27, this was not part of the oath at all. Thus far the Talmud in Sotah. According to the first statement in the verse לא יכרת כל בשר עוד ממי המבול, G'd undertook not to bring on a flood which would engulf everybody; He was free to kill part of mankind by means of a flood; according to the second half of the verse G'd undertook not to destroy the earth itself even if He were forced to bring on a partial flood. The second half of the verse is a promise to earth, not to man. It would not have sufficed to write merely: "there will not be another deluge." This is why the Torah adds: "all flesh will not again be cut off by the waters of a deluge." According to this explanation the repeated "לא" mentioned in our verse, which, according to Rava in Shavuot constitutes an oath, are the words לא יכרת and לא יהיה; it does not matter that the two "לא" are followed by different verbs (יכרת or יהיה), as long as the oath applies to the same facts, i.e. no total deluge. [At this point the author engages in a lengthy dialectic about the statements in the Talmud concerning this and other matters where an all-inclusive statement is followed by a more restrictive one. As the matter is of interest to advanced students of the Talmud only, I have omitted it. Ed.] Summing up the discussion of the Talmud the lesson is this. We must not worry as much about the exact parameters of G'd's oath, and whether destruction of earth by fire is included in the oath or not. What matters is that G'd reassured His creatures that the effort to procreate was not futile. Never again would a species or its habitat the earth, be subject to total annihilation. If G'd's oath would refer only to using water as the agent to destroy earth or mankind, the whole oath would not be worth very much. This is one reason why the Talmud quotes Bileam as convincing Pharaoh that G'd's oath also included destruction of mankind or earth by fire. The exact wording of G'd's oath concerned Abraham very deeply when he prayed about the possible salvation of Sodom.

והקימותי את בריתי, “I shall maintain My covenant as applicable, etc.” The reason why G-d’s promise not to bring on another deluge is repeated in the same verse, is to underline that even if the human race would again be guilty of similar conduct to that which had brought about the deluge, this covenant would not be considered by G-d as null and void.

And Hashem said: This is the sign of the covenant that I am giving between My Word and you, and between every living creature that is with you, for all generations of the world.

לדרת עולם FOR GENERATIONS FOR EVER — The word לדרת “for generations” is written defective (without Vav) (implying that the sign will be necessary only for such generations as are “defective’’ in faith) because there will be some generations which will require no sign since they were completely righteous, such as the generation of Hezekiah, king of Judah, and the generation of R. Simeon ben Yochai (Genesis Rabbah 35:2).

THIS IS THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT WHICH I MAKE. It would appear from this sign that the rainbow in the cloud was not part of creation and that now G-d created a new thing by making a rainbow in the heavens on a cloudy day. Now commentators have said concerning the meaning of this sign that He has not made the rainbow with its feet bent upward because it might have appeared that arrows were being shot from heaven, as in the verse, And He sent out his arrows and scattered them on the earth. Instead He made it the opposite of this — [with the feet bent downward] — in order to show that they are not shooting at the earth from the heavens. It is indeed the way of warriors to invert the instruments of war which they hold in their hands when calling for peace from their opponents. Moreover, [with the feet of the bow being turned downward towards the earth, it can be seen] that the bow has no rope upon which to bend the arrows. We must perforce believe the words of the Greek [philosophers who maintain] that the rainbow is a natural result of the heat of the sun falling upon damp air for even in a vessel containing water which stands in the sun there is the appearance of the rainbow. When contemplating the language of Scripture we will understand that it is so, for He said, I have set My bow in the cloud, here. [the use of the past tense indicating that He had already set it so from the beginning and it is not a new creation]. He did not say, “I set in the cloud,” even as He said, This is the sign of the covenant which I make. Moreover, the word kashti (My bow) — [in the possessive form] — indicates that He possessed the bow previously. Therefore, we shall explain the verse thus: “The rainbow which I have set in the clouds from the day of creation will be from this day on a sign of covenant between Me and you; whenever I will see it I will remember that there is a covenant of peace between Me and you.”And should you want to know how the rainbow can be a sign, the answer is that it has the same meaning as the verse, This stone-heap be witness, and this pillar be witness; likewise, For these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me. Every visible object that is set before two parties to remind them of a matter that they have vowed between them is called a “sign,” and every agreement is called a “covenant.” Similarly, in the case of circumcision, He said, And it shall be a token of a covenant between Me and you, because of the agreement that all seed of Abraham be circumcised to serve Him with one consent. Moreover, when the above-mentioned rainbow is seen in its inverted form, [namely, with the feet of the bow turned downward], it is a reminder of peace, as we have written. Thus, whether the bow was a newly established phenomenon or one that always existed in nature, the significance thereof as a sign is the same. Our Rabbis however have a profound secret in this section. They have said in Bereshith Rabbah:3. “I have set ‘kashti’ (My bow) in the cloud. here. This means, ‘My likeness, that which resembles Me.’ But is that possible? It is possible only as the straw resembles the fruit. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth. here. Rabbi Yudan said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Shimon, ‘This is like one who had in his hand some heated flour which he wanted to cast upon his son, but [because of his compassion for him] he cast it upon his servant.’” There in Bereshith Rabbah it also says:4. “And the bow shall be in the cloud, and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between G-d here. — this alludes to the attribute of Justice on high. And every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth here. — this alludes to the attribute of justice on earth. The heavenly attribute of justice is stern; the earthly one is sparing.” And you already know the saying of the Rabbis concerning one who gazes at the rainbow: “Whosoever takes no thought for the honor of his Maker would have been better off had he not come into the world.” And if you will be worthy to understand the words of the Rabbis, you will know that the explanation of the verses is as follows: My bow — [kashti shares a common root with the word kasheh (hard, stern)] — which is symbolic of the attribute of justice, set in the cloud, shall be at the time of judgment for a token of the covenant. here. And it shall come to pass when I bring clouds over the earth here. — meaning that when G-d will not make His countenance shine upon the earth on account of the sins of its inhabitants— “My attribute of justice will be seen in the cloud, and I will remember the covenant in a remembrance of mercy, and I will have compassion on the little ones that are on the earth.” Thus, this token and the covenant are like the token of circumcision and the covenant thereof, and the language of the verses is very appropriate for the subject. And thus the Rabbis in the above Midrash have explained the expression between G-d here. as referring to the attribute of justice on high, which is gevurah (strength), and that which is upon the earth here. as being the attribute of justice on earth, which is a kindly attribute, conducting the world together with the attribute of mercy, for Scripture does not say “that which is in the earth,” [which would have alluded to “the earth above”], but only “that which is on the earth.” I have already hinted at the secret of the Rabbis concerning the name “earth.” But Rashi wrote, “Between G-d here.— between the attribute of justice on high and you.” But our Rabbis did not intend to imply this interpretation in their Midrash.

"Sign" — [the Hebrew word אוֹת is] both masculine and feminine.

זאת אות הברית, “this is the sign of the covenant, etc.” Nachmanides writes that at first glance it appears from these words as if prior to the deluge there had never been rainbow visible in the universe, and that at this time G’d created a new phenomenon. However, when you examine the wording of the text more closely you will find that this is not so. G’d speaks about קשתי, “MY (rain)bow,” i.e. this is not a new phenomenon. Had it been something new, the wording would have had to be “I am placing a bow in the clouds, etc.,” instead of “My bow which I have placed among the clouds will henceforth be a sign of the covenant between Me and the earth from now so that every time I behold it I will remember that there is a covenant between Me and all living creatures.” The word קשתי is proof that there had been a rainbow already earlier. If you were to ask what the point is in making out of this rainbow a sign, a symbol, the meaning is not so different from the pile of stones Yaakov and Lavan erected between them in Genesis Surely, there had been occasions when people had erected piles of stones. It was on this occasion that a pile of stones had been designated to serve as a specific purpose, as a reminder that two people had made a truce at that location. The Torah simply tells us that as of then the rainbow would serve in a similar capacity, reminding G’d as well as people that there existed a binding agreement between the Creator and His creatures not to bring another deluge on the globe. The term ברית is applicable to any such visual reminder of an agreement that is visible to both the parties who are party to such an agreement. Circumcision is also known as a ברית, as it represents the agreement between G’d and the male descendants of Avraham that there is a special relationship between them, an exclusive relationship. Continuance of this relationship is proved by the continued observance of the rite of circumcision on the part of the creature involved. A further reason, purpose to this particular אות, sign, is the fact that the rainbow is not shaped in a manner suggesting that it is anchored in the sky, suggesting that it is something decreed from heaven, from above. [the author compares the rainbow to the bow used by the archer in hunting or in war. Ed.] If the rainbow were to appear in the sky with its two ”feet” at the top this would suggest that it is a dictate from heaven. However it is positioned with its two feet on the ground, suggesting that man is not merely a creature at the whim of the Creator Who is a dictatorial ruler. [I have changed the wording somewhat to convey the author’s idea, I hope. Ed.] When warriors call their opponents to a truce, they also reverse the position in which they hold their bows in order to signal peaceful, conciliatory intentions. Another special feature of the rainbow versus the archer’s bow is that it has no provision for placing arrows at the base of it, i.e. it is the reverse of a war-like instrument. Some commentators see in the shape of the rainbow an allusion to the verse in Ezekiel 1,27:ממראה מתניו ולמעלה וממראה מתניו ולמטה ראיתי כמראה אש סביב ראיתי כמראה אש ונוגה לו סביב כמראה הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם, “like the appearance of his loins upward, and from the appearance of his loins downward I saw as if the appearance of fire, like the appearance of which shall be so was the appearance of the brilliance all around. on the cloud of a rainy day. the bow.”

My bow I have set in the cloud, and it shall be as a sign of the covenant between My Word and the earth.

"My bow" — that is, I have now placed a bow in the cloud. The meaning is not as the Gaon [Saadia] said, that it had existed from the beginning.

את קשתי נתתי בענן, I have arranged that the rainbow become a natural phenomenon. והיתה לאות ברית, there is a dual function to the rainbow; it is true that the scientists have already tired of trying to explain the phenomenon of the various colours of the second rainbow, something which appears in the opposite order of the colours in the original rainbow, [according to the encyclopedia Britannica, there are primary and secondary rainbows, the secondary rainbow having a colour pattern in a reverse order of that known as the primary rainbow. Our author may understand that which has baffled scientists in his time, as a hint of the dual nature of the rainbow, i.e. as a warning, or a promise respectively. Ed.] According to the view of the sages in Ketuvot 77 the very appearance of the rainbow is a reminder that the generation in which it appears is a guilty generation. It is reported there that two generations were fortunate enough that in their time no rainbow was ever observed. This was interpreted as a sign that the people of that generation did not need the phenomenon of the rainbow to alert them to become penitents. Their religious leaders did an outstanding job in prevailing on the people to be Torah-observant. [according to the של'ה, it is not reasonable to assume that there were periods when the laws of nature were suspended and there was no rainbow; rather if the Jewish people during certain periods were very deserving, had lots of merits, so that they did not need to be reminded of the deluge, the rain descended at night when no rainbow would become visible even if they had not been a deserving generation. Ed.]

את קשתי, My rainbow, etc;” the rainbow is considered as a very significant visible sign directly from the celestial regions. If we needed proof for this, the reader isreferred to Ezekiel 1,28: 'כן מראה דמות כבוד ה... כמראה הקשת,“just as the appearance of the rainbow... so is theappearance of the semblance of the glory of Hashem.”If it were My intention to destroy you when the rains intensified in quality and quantity, I would not first show you a semblance of My glory, just as it is not the custom of a mortal king to show himself amongst his subjects when he is angry at them. A different approach to this subject of the rainbow: just as the rainbow does not change its consistency although it reflects both water and fire and provides a greater variety of light than any other phenomenon at the same time, and water and fire do not act as mutually destructive as they do in nature normally, so its very appearance is a reassurance that rain will never again be the precursor to the destruction of the human race. A third interpretation: normally a hunter when aiming the bow (and arrow) aims it inclined upwards, or at least horizontally; the fact that this bow is inclined downwards is proof that it is not the bow used by an antagonist bent on destroying his foe. [For a further study on the significance of the rainbow, and the changes it reflects in cosmic conditions after the deluge, the reader is referred to the commentary by Rabbi Elie Munk, in his “The call of the Torah,” Feldheim Publishing. Ed.]

את קשתי נתתי בענן, “I have placed My bow in the cloud, etc.” The plain meaning of these words is that the rainbow is to serve as a sign just as when Yaakov and Lavan erected a mound (pile of stones) as a monument, i.e. a symbol of their treaty in Genesis 31,52. Another example of such a symbol is found when Avraham and Avimelech concluded a treaty in Genesis 21,30 and Avraham set aside seven sheep to serve as a visible symbol of their treaty, (as testimony that he had dug the well). Any symbol which is displayed in front to two partners to a treaty or agreement is called אות, “sign.” This is particularly evident when the removal of the foreskin is referred to as the “sign,” אות, of the covenant between G-d and the Jewish people Genesis 17,11. Just as circumcision is the symbol of a special relationship between Avraham and his descendants and G-d, so the rainbow was a symbol of a new relationship between G-d and mankind which would preclude the recurrence of a deluge. The word נתתי, “I gave or I have given,” may either mean that G-d placed the rainbow in the sky now or that He had done so much previously, in fact before the deluge, at the time of creation; but at that time there had not been a covenantal significance to that phenomenon. There can be no doubt that the phenomenon of the rainbow as a symbol of the new relationship between man and G-d was meant to reassure man that there would not again be a deluge on earth. The word נתתי may be translated as “I have sworn.” When G-d bestows a gift upon people it is sufficient for Him to say so; there is no need for G-d to confirm this by an oath. We have proof of this when G-d promised the land of Canaan to Avraham and his descendants as an inheritance. He did not do so by swearing an oath; He simply said לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת, “to your descendants I have given this land (Genesis 15,18).” When G-d refers to this gift on future occasions He refers to an oath (Numbers 14,23, Deut. 34,4 etc.) although we never find that He accompanied the promise with an oath. We may therefore understand the word נתתי, “I have given,” as “I have sworn. “This is also the reason why Isaiah 54, 9 could say כי מי נח זאת לי אשר נשבעתי, ”for this is for Me just like the waters of the time of Noach, concerning which I have sworn, etc.” While it is true that some of our sages (Shevuot 36) have used this passage to prove that when the Torah quotes G-d as saying “no” twice in the same verse this is equivalent to an oath as the Torah writes in verse 11 ולא יכרת כל בשר עוד ממי המבול ולא יהיה עוד מבול לשחת הארץ “and all flesh will not again be destroyed by the waters of a deluge, nor will there be another deluge to destroy the earth,” the words of the Torah are like fire and may be divided into yielding many different meanings. You will observe that Onkelos translates the words (Genesis 15,18) “לזרעך נתתי as יהבית “I have given,” whereas in our verse he translates נתתי as “יהבית also. as “I have given.” Whereas in Genesis 15,18 G-d had only promised that He would give something to Avram’s descendants, we would have expected Him to say “I will give,” especially since, at the time, Avram did not yet have any descendants.” However, the point the Torah and Onkelos wanted to make was that when G-d promises someone a gift in the future the Torah describes it as if it had been given already as when G-d promises He will surely keep His promise. We have a similar situation when Avraham purchased the cave of Machpelah from Efron in Genesis 23,13 where Avraham speaks of the money for that cave in these words: נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have given the money for the field, take it from me!” (actually Avraham had not yet “given: the money as yet). Onkelos therefore correctly translates the word נתתי when spoken by Avraham (a mortal human being) as אתן, “I am going to give.” This is so in spite of the fact that Avraham was already holding the money in his hands, and he had no intention of changing his mind. However, there is a difference between a promise by a human being even someone of the calibre of Avraham and that of a promise by G-d. G-d does not go back on a promise; hence it may be described as if it had already been fulfilled. The lesson is that when the Torah speaks of something G-d will do in the past tense this merely confirms that the promise was unconditional. Remember that this sign of the rainbow is not one that is visible on a daily basis whenever there are clouds in the sky as the wording of the Torah might suggest. The rainbow is also not visible on every rainy day However, in a generation which is guilty of sins it appears in order to remind people of G-d’s commitment. You have proof that this is the case as we have a tradition (Bereshit Rabbah 35,2) that during the generation of King Chiskiyahu a rainbow was never observed; neither was it observed during the generation of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai. The reason was that both these people were so righteous that their accumulated merits served as sufficient protection for the people of their respective generations. It is also reported (in the same section of the Midrash) that in the time of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi there never appeared a rainbow in the sky. Such phenomena explain why the word לדרת in the line לדורות עולם “for all future generations” is spelled with the respective letters ו missing. This was a hint that there would be generations which do not require this sign as reassurance that there would not be another deluge. Looking at our passage from a rational-investigative point of view, the word קשת, “bow,” usually refers to an instrument of war; it is so called as it cannot shoot arrows unless the person holding it exerts considerable tension on its frame. When such a “bow” is visible in the sky it is observed in an inverted shape, its “feet” on the ground. If its “feet” were visible in the sky it would symbolise warfare, as if the arrows were pointed at man from heaven. Now that the “bow” points in the other direction, this symbolises that man and G-d are at peace with one another. It is the custom of warring nations to hold their bows in such a position (when not actively engaged in shooting) that the string faces outward whereas when they are at peace they hold it in the opposite direction. Scientists have written in their textbooks that the appearance of a rainbow in the sky is a natural phenomenon. They describe that the rainbow has three distinct appearances. The first arc is reddish; the second arc is greenish, whereas the third section tends towards the colour black. The famous scientist Averroes (1126-1198) called that colour “violet” tending towards the colour black. These scientists also claim that the material the rainbow is made of is opaque and that the phenomenon is caused by the rays of the sun striking the opaque moisture which is like very fine droplets of rain which still linger in the air after most rainfalls. This is why the opaqueness which was black was turned into red. It is a fact that when white traverses something black it tends to become reddish-looking You will observe that when moist trees are subjected to fire the flame which rises from that fire is red because the fire itself tends to be reddish-whitish. It passes something black, i.e. the smoke, so that the flame which emerges afterwards is red. Bereshit Rabbah 35,3 sees something homiletical in the whole passage dealing with the rainbow. The word קשתי is related to היקש, “comparison,” similar in meaning to the word דמות, “likeness.” G-d said: “My rainbow is sort of a reminder of My image when it appears in the cloud.” Is it not extremely irreverent to say something like this? We must therefore understand the word קשתי as "My straw.” The meaning is that just as the straw, i.e. the pedicle of a fruit is necessary but quite subordinate to the fruit itself, it is necessary at times for such subordinate matters to become visible. Man possesses an invisible essence, the soul, and a visible peripheral shell, the body. The words “it will be when I place My clouds above the earth,” are similar to G-d saying: “when I fuse the physical with the spiritual, intangible, then this rainbow will become visible on earth.” The message to mankind is that the invisible spiritual forces we call soul must become manifest in the body. This is the meaning of the words ונראתה הקשת בענן, “the rainbow will become visible in the cloud.” The cloud is the curtain which divides between man’s body and soul and the rainbow is the imperative call to man for his soul to become manifest. A kabbalistic approach. The word קשתי is derived from קשה, “hard, severe.” It is a reference to the attribute of Justice, the “hard” attribute. G-d said that it should become the sign of the covenant, i.e. the sign of circumcision. The Torah very significantly did not say את הקשת נתתי בענן, “the rainbow I have placed in the cloud,” in other words “the well-known rainbow.” The reason G-d refers to “My rainbow,” is to remind us that the cloud He speaks of is not one of the regular clouds which appear in the sky every day. He does not speak of the kind of cloud which discharges rain. G-d speaks of the ענני הכבוד, “the clouds of glory,” such as when we are told in Exodus 16,10 והנה כבוד ה' נראה בענן, “and behold! The glory of G-d became manifest in the clouds” (the prelude to the Israelites receiving meat and bread from heaven at the hands of G-d).” The meaning of the words in our verse ונראתה הקשת בענן, is “the attribute of Justice will (then) become manifest in the cloud.” Seeing that we have a verse in Ezekiel 1,28 כמראה הקשת אשר יהיה בענן ביום הגשם, כן מראה הנוגה סביב הוא מראה דמות כבוד ה', “as the appearance of the bow which shall be on a rainy day, so was the appearance of the brilliance all around. That was the appearance of the semblance of the glory of G-d.” Our sages in Chagigah 16 interpreted these words as being a warning that anyone who looks deliberately at the rainbow will have diminished eyesight. You should be enlightened by the following comment in Bereshit Rabbah 35,3 on the words את קשתי נתתי בענן. “The word קשתי describes something that is an obstacle for Me.” Is there then such a thing as an “obstacle” for G-d? Is there anything that HE cannot overcome? We must therefore understand the word as derived from קש, ‘straw,” the pedicle of a fruit. Why did the Midrash repeat the same comment twice? Look at the conclusion of the passage! Here G-d speaks to Noach alone (not to his children) when He says “this is the sign of the covenant which I have established between Me and all of mankind.” At this point G-d took Noach into His confidence and revealed a mystical aspect to him which He had not revealed to his children. This is the deeper meaning of the words זאת אות הברית, “this is the visible symbol of the covenant.”

And it shall come to pass, when I bring clouds over the earth, that the bow shall appear in the cloud.

בענני ענן WHEN I BRING A CLOUD — When I have it in mind to bring darkness and destruction upon the world.

"When I cloud clouds [בְּעַנְנִי עָנָן]" — the first nun is vocalized lightly, and it ought by right to be doubled since it belongs to the heavy conjugation [the Pi'el], as in "when I speak with you [בְּדַבְּרִי אִתְּךָ]" (Exodus 19:9). "And the bow shall be seen" — were we to accept the view of the Greek sages, that the rainbow is produced from the heat of the sun, one could say that Hashem strengthened the light of the sun after the Flood, and this is a sound approach for one who understands.

בענני ענן, a reminder that the rainbow will not be visible unless there are dark clouds in the sky after the atmosphere had been very moist.

ונראתה הקשת, “when the rainbow becomes visible;” the fact that the bow appears without arrows appearing at the same time, is to serve as reassurance to the beholder.

And it shall be, when I bring clouds over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud. Regarding the rainbow, there are many opinions, and great commentators have pondered this matter, as have many others. For at first glance, it seems that the rainbow was created anew at this time and indicates the new covenant that God made with all living things. Yet our eyes see that the rainbow is a natural phenomenon born from the sun when it strikes the moist air. Mahariya [Abarbanel] explained that even before this the rainbow emerged from the sun’s rays, but it wasn’t visible to creatures at all, neither in clouds nor in the air. This was because from the beginning of creation, the vapors rising from the earth were very thick and dense due to the earth’s strength, as it is written, and a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground (Genesis 2:6). Even a single mist rising from the earth was sufficient to water all the ground, and due to the great abundance of water in the air, the sun’s rays could not pass through it to the extent that the rainbow could not be reflected, neither in clouds nor in air. This was the cause of the flood — meaning, the abundance of water within the vapors. Through God’s mercy, after the flood He diminished the vapors and purified the air until the sun’s rays could pass through it. Then the rainbow became visible to creatures in the cloud, and this served as a sign for them of the reduction of water in the air, such that there would not come another flood to destroy all flesh. And regarding what was said, and I will see it to remember the eternal covenant, the explanation is like “and I will show it,” similar to now I know that you fear God, which Rambam explained as meaning “now I have made known.” Ramban also inclined toward this view, except that he wrote that initially the rainbow was visible in the air but not in clouds, and after the flood it became visible in clouds as well. However, their interpretation is difficult to accept given what our Sages said (Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 65a, Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 77b) that in the days of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi the rainbow was not seen. If so, the air returned to its original state, and after their deaths it returned to being pure and thin as before. These are matters that are strange for the intellect to accept — that the air would change during different time periods. What seems most correct to me in resolving this question is based on what they said about these pious ones — that the rainbow was not seen in their days. They didn’t say there was no rainbow at all, rather certainly there was a rainbow, but it wasn’t seen because people weren’t searching for it and didn’t make an effort to see it; therefore it wasn’t seen. For in every generation where people were afraid of punishment due to the evil of its inhabitants, because their divine protection had departed and there weren’t righteous people in the generation to protect them — in those generations people would fix their eyes upon the sign of the rainbow and would look for it to see if the vapors hadn’t changed due to their sins to return to how they were before the flood. They would constantly raise their eyes to this sign, trusting in the sign that He would not bring punishment to the world. But these pious ones — Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi — who protected the people of their generation to the extent that everyone relied on the power of these elders, that their merit would stand for them to protect them — therefore they didn’t need to look for the rainbow because they were confident that the covenant that God made with all flesh after the flood would not be altered for them. And it shall be, when I bring clouds over the earth. Rashi explains: When I consider bringing darkness and destruction to the world, etc. What did Rashi see to interpret when I bring clouds as referring to darkness and destruction? Perhaps it simply means rain clouds, as per the plain meaning? Rather, it must have been difficult for Rashi: if this refers to rain clouds, it would imply that the rainbow appears in every rain cloud, but this is not the case, as in generations of righteous people, the rainbow does not appear. Rather, this is the interpretation: when I consider bringing darkness and destruction to the world — and this is specifically at times when righteous people are scarce in the world — then the rainbow will appear in the cloud, so that people will look at the rainbow and raise their eyes to this sign, for through it they are assured that He will not bring a flood to the world. This is what it means And I will see it, to remember the eternal covenant. I will set My eyes upon the covenant sign that I gave to all flesh, not to bring a flood even in a generation entirely guilty that deserves darkness and destruction. However, when I am not considering bringing darkness and destruction — meaning when righteous people are present in the generation — then the rainbow does not appear in the cloud, because people need not look for it, and I also see the deeds of the righteous and withhold the attribute of justice from bringing darkness and destruction, and I need not set My eyes upon the covenant sign of the rainbow. Perhaps this follows what our Sages said (Chagigah 16a): Anyone who gazes at the rainbow shows no concern for his Creator’s honor, because in every generation there are many common people who do not care for their Creator’s honor and gaze at the rainbow, except in the days of these righteous ones who merited and brought merit to their generation and prevented them from gazing at the rainbow. Therefore, the rainbow was not seen in their days because they did not look at it out of respect for their Creator’s honor, even though the rainbow actually existed in every generation, since nature does not change. This interpretation is also correct. The matter of the refinement of vapors that I mentioned serves as somewhat of a proof to what I wrote above: that through the flood the earth’s hardness and strength were softened. This is the reason for the weakening and diminishing of the vapors.

והיה בענני ענן, “it will be whenever I wish to bring darkness and destruction etc.” This proves that Satan goes into high gear whenever disaster is around.

And I will remember My covenant that is between My Word and you and between every living creature among all flesh, and the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh.

The word יִהְיֶה ["it shall be"] with "the waters" is no proof that "waters [מַיִם]" is singular; and similarly: "and there were men [וַיְהִי אֲנָשִׁים]" (Numbers 9:6).

And the bow shall be in the cloud, and I will look upon it to remember the everlasting covenant between the Word of Hashem and every living creature among all flesh that is upon the earth.

בין אלהים ובין כל נפש חיה BETWEEN GOD AND EVERY LIVING SOUL — Between Divine Justice and you; for otherwise it should have written “between Me and every living thing”. But this is its explanation: when Justice will come to accuse and condemn you I will look upon the sign and remember the covenant (see Genesis Rabbah 35:3).

"The meaning of 'and the bow shall be in the cloud'" — it is always there in concealment, and Hashem sees it.

וראיתיה לזכור ברית עולם, I will take a close look at how the righteous of that time call the ordinary people to order, and whether their prayers are on behalf of their contemporaries. If they make their weight felt, I, in turn, will remember My covenant in their favour, and My wrath at them will be turned aside.

And Hashem said to Noah: This is the sign of the covenant that I have established between My Word and all flesh that is upon the earth.

זאת אות הברית THIS IS THE SIGN OF THE COVENANT — He pointed to the rainbow, and said to him, “This is the sign of which I have spoken.”

"And God said to Noah" — this is the covenant of which I spoke to you, and this is the oath that I have established.

ויאמר אלוקים לנח זאת אות הברית, the word זאת refers to the “secondary” rainbow, [I mentioned earlier. Ed.] which acts as the sign of the warning aspect of the covenant. When this rainbow appears it is high time to call people to order and to warn them of impending natural calamities unless they change their ways.

And the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan.

וחם הוא אבי כנען AND HAM IS THE FATHER OF CANAAN — Why is it necessary to mention this here? Because this section goes on to deal with the account of Noah’s drunkenness when Ham sinned and through him Canaan was cursed. Now as the generations of Ham have not yet been mentioned and we therefore would not know that Canaan was his son, it was necessary to state here that “Ham is the father of Canaan”.

AND HAM IS THE FATHER OF CANAAN. Rashi explained, “Because this section goes on to deal with Noah’s family,229“Family.” The first edition of Rashi concurs with this quote. In our texts of Rashi: “drunkenness.” relating that Ham sinned and through him Canaan was cursed, and since the generations of Ham have not yet been mentioned [to let us know that Canaan was his son], it was necessary to state here that Ham is the father of Canaan.”And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Ham only saw the nakedness of his father and informed his brothers while Canaan did him the evil, the nature of which Scripture does not reveal, here. and this is the meaning of the verse, And he knew what his youngest son had done unto him, here. since Canaan was the youngest of Ham’s sons, as Scripture enumerates them, And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mitzraim, and Phut, and Canaan. [Ibn Ezra thus interprets “son” to mean “grandson.”] Now here Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra abandoned his method of explaining Scripture according to its plain meaning and began to declare statements contrary to the truth. Instead, it mentions only Ham, (Verse 22). Thus what made Ibn Ezra say that it was Canaan that did it? The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Ham was the youngest of Noah’s sons as I have explained at the beginning of this portion of the Torah, and Canaan was Ham’s oldest son. And as for the verse which states, And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mitzraim, and Phut, and Canaan, [which indicates that Canaan was the youngest son], this was stated after he was sold to be a servant of servants; here. Scripture gave his brothers preference over him. Now when this event happened to Noah, Ham had no other children except Canaan. This explains the verse, And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw, for Ham had no other son then, and when he sinned unto his father, he cursed his seed. Now if Noah had said, “cursed be Ham, a servant of servants shall he be,” the punishment would have been only his since the seed already born to him is not part of him, and perhaps Ham would no longer beget children. In that case Noah would not have taken his vengeance of him for who knows what shall be after him. Therefore, he cursed the son he had. Even if he will later beget a hundred children, 6:3. it is enough that the oldest son — and all his seed with him — were cursed. The sin committed was that Ham saw the nakedness of his father and did not act respectfully. He should have covered his nakedness and concealed his shame by not telling even his brothers, but he told the matter to his two brothers in the presence of many people in order to deride him [Noah]. This is the meaning of the word outside (Verse 22.) And so did Onkelos translate it as “in the market-place.” The meaning of the verse, And [Noah] knew what he had done unto him, here. is that he knew that Ham had disclosed his disgrace to many, and he was ashamed of the matter. Our Rabbis have mentioned an additional sin that Ham committed. See Rashi at the end of Verse 22.

"And Ham, he is the father of Canaan" — to teach that both are wicked: as the fathers do, so will the sons do. He mentions Canaan and not Cush, because it is Canaan who will be cursed. This passage was written to make known that the Canaanites are accursed — and likewise their daughters — from the days of Noah. So too Abraham said: "You shall not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanite" (Genesis 24:3); and likewise Rebekah: "women like these, daughters of Heth" (Genesis 27:46). And should someone ask: what did the sons of Heth sin? Let him open his eyes, for the Hittite, the Amorite, and all the others are all sons of Canaan — therefore Scripture says: "to the land of Canaan" (Genesis 45:25).

Cham was the father of Canaan. Canaan infamous for his wickedness and Cham was similar in character, thus he was the father of Canaan in the spiritual as well as the biological sense.

וחם הוא אבי כנען “and Cham is the one who is Canaan’s father.” He is singled out for mention as he was conceived while his parents were still in the ark. He was born immediately after his parents left the ark.

וחם אבי כנען, “and Cham the father of Canaan.” According to Rashi seeing that this paragraph describes the matter of Noach becoming drunk, which led to his cursing his grandson Canaan, through his cursing his son Cham, and through him his grandson Canaan, the Torah had to first tell us who this Canaan was, although Noach’s children’s offspring had not yet been discussed. Ibn Ezra explains that Cham had seen Noach’s drunkenness and his nudity and had told his brothers of it, whereas during that time Canaan had harmed his grandfather when he was defenseless, something the Torah did not spell out. This had only been alluded to by the words אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “what his youngest son (grandson) had done to him.” (verse 24) Seeing that Canaan was the youngest of Noach’s offspring at that time, the wording of the Torah is justified. According to Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra departed here from the norms of interpreting the plain meaning of the text and began to invent lies. According to the opinion of Nachmanides, the words “his youngest son,” refer to Cham, Noach’s youngest son, whose oldest son was Canaan. The reason he was mentioned last was that he had been demoted to be a slave to his brothers. The Torah (Noach) by mentioning him last here, stressed the fact that he had been demoted. At the time when Noach’s drunkenness had occurred, Cham had only the one son, and this is why the Torah had to phrase what happened with the words: “Cham, Canaan’s father saw, etc.” When Cham committed the sin against his father, Noach cursed Cham’s offspring by cursing Canaan. Had he cursed Cham instead, saying he would be a lowly servant to his brothers, the curse would have been restricted to Cham personally only; now it applied to all of Cham’s children and offspring throughout the ages. [Seeing that G’d had already blessed all of Noach’s children, Noach could not cancel G’d’s blessing. [This was also why Bileam could not curse Israel, seeing they had been blessed by G’d Himself. Ed.] According to Nachmanides, cursing Cham might have resulted in Cham’s no longer being able to sire children, whereas the one born to him already would not be affected by the curse. [if Cham or Canaan had been guilty of castrating Noach, one view expressed in the Midrash- revenge would have been just this kind of a curse, punishment fitting the crime. Ed.] According to Nachmanides Cham’s sin consisted primarily of publicizing that he had seen his father in a drunken stupor when he had disrobed completely. This constituted publicly making fun of one’s father.

These three were the sons of Noah, and from these all the earth was dispersed.

שלשה אלה בני נח, seeing that all of them were Noach’s sons, G’d blessed them all, even though one of them was wicked, when He said “be fruitful and multiply and fill the globe.” As a result of this blessing, באלה נפצה כל הארץ, the entire population of the earth traces its origin to one of these three sons of Noach.

And Noah began as a man who worked the earth, and he planted a vineyard.

ויחל [AND NOAH] BEGAN — (The word may be connected also with a root meaning “profane”) He profaned (degraded) himself, for he should have occupied himself first with planting something different (Genesis Rabbah 36:3). איש האדמה A MAN OF THE GROUND — The master (owner, lord) of the ground; similar to Ruth 1:3 איש נעמי “The husband (lord) of Naomi”. ויטע כרם AND HE PLANTED A VINEYARD — When he went into the Ark he had taken with him vine-branches and shoots of fig trees (Genesis Rabbah 36:3).

‘ISH’ (A MAN) OF THE GROUND. Rashi explained it as “the master [owner or lord] of the ground. This is similar to the expression, ‘ish’ (the man) of Naomi,” [which means the master of Naomi]. But this is not so. ‘Ish’ Naomi is an expression of the marital state, just as: ‘ish ve’ishto’ (a man and his wife). Others have said that it means “the outstanding one of the earth, and its leader,” and they brought proof from similar verses: Gideon the son of Joash, ‘ish’ (a man) of Israel, [meaning a chief of Israel]; Both ye sons of ‘adam’ and ye son of ‘ish;’ Translated: both low and high. Art thou not ‘ish’ (a man)? And who is like to thee in Israel? And there are many other similar verses according to their opinion. In my opinion, Gideon the son of Joash ‘ish’ of Israel, refers to his genealogy, i.e., that he was an Israelite. Art thou not a man? means that “there is no one like you in Israel.” Similarly, strengthen yourselves, and be men, means that they should not be weak like women. Both ye sons of ‘adam’ and ye sons of ‘ish,’ Translated: both low and high. [means “both ye low-born and] ye men of higher station.” However, a man of the ground is like the men of the city, since Noah lived all over the earth and never built a city or country to which he should relate himself. Similarly, a man of the field means one who constantly stayed there. In the Mishnah we find: “Yosei ben Yoezer a man of Tzreidah, and Yosei ben Yochanan a man of Jerusalem.”[It may be that a man of the ground means] that he was determined to work the ground, to sow and to plant, because he found the earth had been laid waste, for whoever dedicates himself to a certain purpose is so called, [i.e., ish of that purpose]. The men of the city means those that dwell in it. The men of David are his servants, and a man of G-d is one who is dedicated to His service. And so the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah:6. “A man of the ground [is so called just] as the castle guard is called by the name of the castle.” And the Rabbis also said that Noah had a passion for agriculture. Thus [the word ish is here used to signify] a relationship. The meaning of the word vayachel (and he began) is that he commenced the planting of vineyards. The preceding men had planted single vines, but Noah began to plant many rows of vines, which together comprise a vineyard. On account of his desire for wine, he did not plant the vine singly as other trees; rather, he made a vineyard.

"And he began [וַיָּחֶל]" — from the word "beginning [תְּחִלָּה]"; it is from the doubled-root verbs in the heavy augmented conjugation [the Hif'il], like "and shut in the sea with doors [וַיָּסֶךְ בִּדְלָתַיִם יָם]" (Job 38:8). "A man of the earth" — one who knows the work of the soil, which is a great wisdom. As for the midrashic interpretation that on the very day he planted he drank of its wine — that has an esoteric dimension and is not to be taken literally. Similarly, "and the woman conceived and bore a son" (Exodus 2:2) did not happen in a single day.

Noach began. Since his first undertaking was an unworthy one it led to disgraceful consequences, illustrating that a small flaw at the outset of an endeavor leads to a large one in the end.

איש האדמה, a man to whom (and to his children) the earth had been given after the deluge, after the curse that had rested upon it had been removed. ויטע כרם, “he planted a vineyard.” According to Rashi, Noach had taken branches of the fig tree and the grapevine with him into the ark. (based on Bereshit Rabbah 36,3) These plants are especially sensitive to water and need protecting more than other trees. Alternate interpretation: both of these seeds need especial attention in order to be planted successfully.

ויחל נח איש האדמה ויטע כרם, “Noach the man of the earth debased himself and planted a vineyard.” The reason that the Torah reports the planting of a vineyard by Noach as immediately following the covenant of the rainbow may well be in order to tell us that wine is an allusion to the attribute of Justice, something that you are already familiar with. Concerning this our sages have said in Berachot 50: “one is not to recite a benediction over wine until one has added some water to it.” No one had paid any attention to this until the time of Noach. The early generations had each planted vines for their personal consumption. Noach began to plant vines in rows which we call כרם. This is why the Torah wrote ויחל, “he commenced,” i.e. he commenced to go about this matter in a novel fashion.” Another possible way of explaining the word ויחל is connected to the fact that Noach was the first member of the tenth generation of mankind, and every tenth is sacred. Now that he became preoccupied with the growing of wine, an intoxicating drink, he debased himself from his former state of holiness. This is the meaning of the word ויחל. The Torah informed us of many problems that are apt to be caused by wine if wine was even able to cause a righteous man such as Noach, a man who had saved all mankind, to commit a sin by cursing his descendants. This whole paragraph is at least as much a warning to mankind as is the passage in Numbers chapter six which discusses that a nazirite must abstain from wine and any grape product. Our sages in Sanhedrin 70 note that the passage discussing wine contains the letter ו thirteen times (ויחל, ויטע, וישת, וישכר, ויתגל, וירא חם, ויגד, ויקח שם ויפת, וישימו, וילכו ויכסו, ויקץ, וידע, אחורנית) “And he debased himself, and he planted, and he drank, and he got drunk; and he uncovered himself, and Cham saw, and he told; and Shem and Yaphet took the cover, and they placed the cover; and they walked backwards; and he woke up; and he knew, and they did not look at their father’s nakedness. This is what Solomon had in mind when he said in Proverbs 23,29 למי אוי, למי אבוי למי מדינים למי שיח למי פצעים חנם, למי חכללית עינים “Who has woe? Who has sorrow? Who has contentions, who has quarrels? Who has injuries without cause, who suffers from redness of his eyes? Those who linger over wine, etc.” Solomon does not refer exclusively to wine but he includes all other matters which are the objects of man’s lusting after worldly pleasures and which are addictive and become the cause of man’s [premature] death in this world and his losing his right to eternal life in the hereafter. This is why Solomon adds in Kohelet 2,25 כי מי יאכל ומי יחוש חוץ ממני, “for who should eat and who should make haste (to enjoy these things) more than I?” He meant that he more than any other mortal being was able to indulge himself by tasting all the pleasures of the body available in this life. Having tasted all these pleasures he concluded that these too were all vanity, not worth having.

And Noah, man of the earth, began and planted a vineyard. The word “vayachel” [began] is related to the word “chol” [mundane/profane], which is the opposite of holiness. Wherever you find a fence against sexual immorality, there you will find holiness. However, wine leads to sexual immorality, as it is written: Harlotry, wine and new wine take away the heart (Hosea 4:11), and anyone who witnesses a sotah [suspected adulteress] in her disgrace should abstain from wine. Therefore, the Torah uses the term “vayachel,” because through this planting, Noah became profane and exposed himself within his tent. This will also be explained later, God willing, in the verse And the people began to commit harlotry (Numbers 25:1), and see also in Parshat Naso regarding the nazir and the sotah. He is called man of the earth because this action stemmed from the material aspect which originates from the earth, but the intellect in man, which is a divine portion from above, does not agree with this planting because wine confuses a person’s mind. Another explanation of why he was called “man of the earth” [adamah]: He followed in the path of Adam who sinned with the grapevine — according to the opinion that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine. Another explanation is that wine causes one’s spirit to return to the earth before its time. As it is written: There is a path that seems straight to a man, but its end leads to death (Proverbs 14:12). The final letters of There is a straight path [yesh derekh yashar] spell “intoxicating drink” [shekhar], because every drunkard walks as if on a straight path, and all forbidden sexual relations appear level and straight to him — as they explained in Yoma 75b. And not only sexual transgressions, but every sin and transgression appears straight in his eyes, and he doesn’t realize that it costs him his life, as wine destroys from soul to flesh. Therefore it says “its end” — meaning the final letters of there is a straight path spell out “ways of death,” because intoxicating drink is a path to death. And there is a hint regarding Noah: when you write the letters of “wine” [yayin] — yud and yud and nun — the final letters add up to the numerical value of “Noah” [Noach]. This hints that he was the first to engage in this planting. And our Sages said (Genesis Rabbah 36:4): And he uncovered himself within his tent — that he caused exile for his children due to the sin of those who drink from wine bowls. And perhaps this is the intention of the Midrash that concludes in the Yalkut (9:20) that Satan encountered Noah when he planted the vineyard, and first slaughtered before him a lamb, then a lion, and then a pig, etc. There is in these hidden matters an allusion to the three well-known exiles: The Egyptian exile, where they worshipped the lamb; and the Babylonian exile, referring to Nebuchadnezzar who was called a lion, as it is said A lion has gone up from his thicket (Jeremiah 4:7); and the third exile by the nation about which it is said The boar from the forest ravages it (Psalms 80:14). And the word anavim [grapes] shares partnership with Samael in the secondary letters of the alphabet [the letters of grapes are all adjacent to the letters of Samael] — a proper hint that Satan encountered him through the planting of the grapes.

איש האדמה, “a man of the soil.” According to Rashi the word איש in front of the word האדמה has to be understood like the word איש in Ruth 1,3 איש נעמי, where it means: “Naomi’s husband.” Noach became a “master farmer.” Nachmanides, on the other hand, writes that the expression איש נעמי, describes only a marital status as in איש ואשתו, “man and wife,” and that the meaning of the expression איש האדמה is comparable to אנשי העיר, “the townspeople,” i.e. the people who lived in the town. Noach, instead of becoming an urbanite, building towns as had Kayin, became a dweller on the land, a rurally oriented person. Similarly, when the Torah describes Esau as an איש שדה, the meaning is that he was at home in the outdoors, spent most of his time there, as opposed to his brother Yaakov. (Genesis 25,27) Yet another meaning of the expression איש האדמה would interpret the word איש in the sense of “master of,” “in charge of.” The word is used in that sense with Gideon, who is described by the prophet Samuel as גדעון בן יואש איש ישראל, “Gideon, son of Yoash, a leader, head, of the people of Israel.” (Judges 7,14).

And he drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent.

ויתגל AND HE UNCOVERED HIMSELF — This is the Hithpael form. אהלה HIS TENT — This word is written אהלה (with ה at end instead of ו) so that it may be regarded as an allusion to the ten tribes who were spoken of as Samaria which was called “אהלה” Ohala and who were exiled because of indulgence in wine, at it is said (Amos 6:6) ‘‘that drink wine in bowls”.

"And he uncovered himself [וַיִּתְגַּל]" — from the language of uncovering [גִּלּוּי], in the Hitpa'el conjugation. Similarly: "and let him not arm himself [וְאַל יִתְעַל]" (Jeremiah 51:3). The heh of "his tent [אָהֳלֹה]" stands in the place of a vav. Similarly: "the sound of the people in [their] evil [אֶת קוֹל הָעָם בְּרָעֹה]" (Exodus 32:17), and "for Aharon had let them loose [כִּי פָרֻעַ אַהֲרֹן]" (Exodus 32:25).

, ויתגל בתוך אהלה, “he had disrobed inside his tent.” According to Rashi, basing himself on a Midrash, (Tanchuma, edition Buber) the correct interpretation, seeing that the last letter in the word אהלה is the letter ה instead of ו this is a hint of the exile of the Tent Tribes, who, according to some prophets, were guilty of too much wine drinking. (Amos 6,1)

ויתגל בתוך אהלה, “he uncovered himself within his tent.” The word אהלה meaning “his tent” is spelled with the letter ה at the end as if it meant “her tent,” i. e. the tent of his wife. This is an allusion to the fact that overindulgence in wine leads to excessive sexual activity. The Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 36,7 conjectures that the spelling of the word אהלה is an allusion to the kingdom of the Ten Tribes who were exiled because of too much preoccupation with intoxicating wine. The capital city of that Kingdom, Shomron, is also referred to as אהלה in Ezekiel 23,4. Moreover we have a verse in Isaiah 28,7 וגם אלה ביין שגו ובשכר תעו “and these people are also muddled by wine and dazed by liquor.” The reference is to the Ten Tribes of the Northern Kingdom. The reason the Torah chose the expression (double entendre) ויתגל to describe Noach’s uncovering himself is that this word also means exile, גלות.

ויתגל, “he disrobed completely.” The reflexive mode which also appears as a passive mode on many occasions, suggests that Noach was disrobed by someone else, presumably Cham, who then reported his father’s state of nudity to his brothers. בתוך אהלו, “inside his tent.” The Torah wrote the word אהלה with the feminine suffix, to indicate that he was disrobed in his wife’s tent.

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers in the street.

וירא חם אבי כנען AND HAM THE FATHER OF CANAAN SAW — Some of our Rabbis say that Canaan saw it and told his father about it, and on that account he is mentioned in connection with this matter and was cursed (Genesis Rabbah 36:7). וירא את ערות אביו AND HE SAW HIS FATHER'S NAKEDNESS — Some say that he castrated him and some say that he sodomized him (Sanhedrin 70a).

וירא חם אבי כנען את ערות אביו, he saw the shameful deed his son כנען had done to his father Noach when he had castrated him. (according to some of our sages in Sanhedrin 70) According to the historian Berussi Hacaldaii, (compare Genesis 6,9) Canaan castrated his grandfather not surgically, but by some means of sorcery. His father Cham watched his son invoke the witchcraft without protesting or trying to stop him. Disgrace, shame, is also called ערוה, “nakedness.” Compare Ezra 4,14 וערות מלכא לא אריך לנא למחזא “it is not right that we should see the king being disgraced.” Also, in Deuteronomy 21,4 the expression ערות דבר does not refer to either literal nakedness, or to sexual licentiousness, or incest, but refers to “a disgraceful thing.” ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ, he revealed that he had enjoyed what his son had done.

ויגד לשני אחיו, “he told his two brothers of this.” Since the Torah did not use the word: ויאמר, for Cham telling his brothers, but ויגד, “he elaborated on this,” it is clear that he emphasised that his father had embarrassed himself. According to Rabbi Yaakov bar Zivdi in Bereshit Rabbah 36,5 the reason why a Canaanite slave is released immediately when his owner has ruined a tooth of his or an eye of his (Exodus 21,26), is because the eye is used to see things that should not be seen, and the tooth (mouth) is used to tell what should not be told. [Once the limb of a Canaanite’s slave whose forefather had abused it has been ruined, that curse has been removed from him. Ed]

ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ, “he told his two brothers who had remained outside.” The word ויגד suggests that Cham told his brothers about his father’s condition in a playful manner, making fun of their father’s state of undress. When Canaan heard what his father had seen, he went inside and either castrated his grandfather or engaged in sodomy with him, depending on which of the opinions in the Midrash we accept. This is why Noach cursed Canaan, not Cham.

And Shem and Japheth took the garment and placed it upon the shoulders of them both, and they walked backward and covered the nakedness of their father; their faces were turned away, and their father's nakedness they did not see.

ויקח שם ויפת AND SHEM AND JAPHETH TOOK — (literally, “And Shem took and Japheth”) It is not written here ויקחו ‘‘And they took”, but ויקח “And he took”, in order to teach regarding Shem that he devoted himself to this duty with more eagerness than Japheth. Therefore have Shem’s sons received the privilege of wearing the cloak that has fringes, and the sons of Japheth were privileged to receive honorable burial, as it is said, (Ezekiel 39:11) “I will give unto Gog (a descendant of Japheth) a place fit for burial [in Israel]”. But as for Ham who despised his father — of his descendants it is said (Isaiah 20:4) “So shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt, and the exiles of Ethiopia (these were peopled by the children of Ham) young and old, naked and barefoot and with buttocks uncovered etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 36:6 and Tanchuma 1:2:15). ופניהם אחורנית AND THEIR FACES WERE BACKWARD — Wherefore is it written a second time (that they turned themselves backward)? It is to tell us that when they came near to him and it was necessary for them to turn round in order to cover him they kept their faces turned away (Genesis Rabbah 36:6).

"Upon the shoulders of both" — each one placed part of the garment upon his own shoulder. The word שֶׁכֶם [shoulder] does not form a plural [and therefore has no construct-plural form]. "Backward" — the opposite of a person's normal walk, for all one's movement is forward.

ופניהם אחורנית, even when only covering their father they walked with their faces averting their eyes from him. It would have caused them additional grief to behold their father in such a state.

ויקח שם ויפת, “Shem and Yephet took the bedcloth, etc;“ according to Rashi, Shem’s initiative in this instance resulted in the Jewish people, a nation descended from him, being rewarded with the commandment to wear fringes, ציציות on four cornered garments. (Numbers 15,37) According to the statement in the Talmud Sotah 17, the origin of that commandment had been when Avraham refused to accept as much as a thread or shoelace from the loot of the war against Kedorloomer, (Genesis 15,23) this refers to the specific kind of “threads” used in the tzitzit.

And Shem and Japheth took the garment. Rashi explains that because of this, Shem merited the tallit with tzitzit. The Re’em raises a difficulty from what our Sages said (Sotah 17a) that in the merit of from a thread to a shoe strap [which Abraham refused to take from the King of Sodom], they merited the thread of techelet. However, it appears there is no difficulty at all, because in the merit of covering with a garment, they merited the garment, and in the merit of the thread, they merited the thread. For a person cannot fulfill the commandment of tzitzit until the Holy One, Blessed be He, first gives him a garment, as is found in Midrash Tanchuma and the Yalkut bring at the end of the book of Job on the verse Who has preceded Me, that I should repay him? (Job 41:3) — who made tzitzit before I gave him a garment? This is its simple meaning. As for the allegorical interpretation, it seems to me that since it is known that the commandment of tzitzit protects a person from promiscuity, as is found in Menachot 44a regarding the one who hired a prostitute for four hundred zuz but was ultimately saved from transgression through his tzitzit. And one who is saved from promiscuity is also saved from poverty, for one who shepherds prostitutes loses wealth, and as our Sages said (Sotah 4b), “Anyone who consorts with a prostitute will ultimately seek a loaf of bread and not find it.” Therefore, tzitzit protects from two things: from the sin of promiscuity and from poverty. And Israel merited these two things through two merits: Through the merit of And Shem and Japheth took the garment to cover their father’s nakedness, they merited tzitzit which protects from sexual immorality. And through the merit of from a thread to a shoe strap, where Abraham did not covet others’ money, he merited the second reward that comes from the thread of tzitzit, which is protection from poverty, for “who is rich? One who is happy with his portion.” And in the portion Shelach Lecha (Numbers 15:38), it will be explained, God willing, regarding what our Sages said (Menachot 43b) that techelet resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky, etc., following the Midrash that concludes in Yalkut on the portion Ha’azinu: Look at the heavens — have they changed their nature? … And similarly look at the sea that does not exceed its boundaries… Through the appearance of techelet, one will remember the sky and the sea, and from them he will see and do likewise — not to exceed the boundaries of proper measure even by as much as a thread. They merited this through the merit of if so much as a thread, as Abraham did not exceed the boundaries of contentment even by as much as a thread. This is an appropriate allusion.

ויקח שם ויפת את השמלה, “Shem and Yaphet took the garment, etc.” According to Rashi the positive commandment of the tallit is a compensation for the Jewish people for what their forefather Shem [the Torah wrote ויקח, “he took,” not ויקחו, “they took” Rashi] had done with that simlah, when he used it to cover his father’s nudity. Rashi picks up this thread when he explains that as a compensation for Avraham refusing the king of Sodom’s offer to keep the spoils of war, his descendants were rewarded with both the phylacteries and the commandment of fringes, tzitziyot. (Genesis 14,23) In other words, although it was clear that Shem had acquired the merit of the commandment of tallit, it was not clear to which of his children this commandment would be bestowed until Avraham refused to be enriched by the King of Sodom.

And Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him.

בנו הקטן HIS YOUNGER SON — The unworthy and despicable one, as (Jeremiah 49:15) “For, behold, I make thee small (קטן) among the nations, and despised among men" (Genesis Rabbah 36:7).

"And Noah awoke" — the text does not reveal what was done to him. The one who did it was Canaan. And so it was: Ham saw and did not cover him as his brothers did; instead he disclosed the matter, and Canaan heard, and we do not know what he did. The meaning of "his youngest son" is testimony, for so it is said: "and the sons of Ham: Cush, Mizraim, Put, and Canaan" (Genesis 10:6); moreover, the vav of "his son [בְּנוֹ]" refers back to Ham, who is mentioned there — therefore he cursed Canaan. As for the one who says that Noah cursed his grandson because God had blessed his sons — that is a midrashic approach.

אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “what his youngest son had done for him;” a reference to the kind deed done by Shem and his brother Yephet. This is why he gave Shem a greater blessing than the one he gave to Yephet his older brother. [a totally different interpretation from the commonly accepted one, including Rashi. Ed.]

וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “he became aware of what his younger son had done to him.” Cham was the youngest of Noach’s sons. Why then did Noach curse Canaan, Cham’s son instead of Cham? Actually, there were two reasons why Noach did not curse Cham himself 1) He was not able to curse Cham effectively seeing G’d had already blessed him as we read in 9,1 “G’d blessed Noach and his sons.” 2) Had Noach cursed Cham he would have only be able to make such a curse apply to his body but not his descendants (seeing that any offspring of Cham which had already been born would not have been included in he curse). This is why he chose to curse Canaan who as Cham’s firstborn so that even if he were to father a thousand children hey would all be included in the curse. When the verse tells us that Cham’s offspring were: Cush, Mitzrayim, and Put, and Canaan, in that order (10,6) which at first glance gives the impression that Canaan was the youngest of the four, the Torah enumerated these sons after the curse, at a time when Canaan had already been demoted from his rank as the firstborn. Proof that Canaan was indeed Cham’s firstborn son is when the Torah said in 9,21 “He (Cham) the father of Canaan saw his father’s nakedness, etc. If Cham had already had other sons at the time, why would the Torah describe him as the father of Canaan rather than as the father of his older brothers. No doubt at the time when this occurred Canaan was the only son whom Cham had fathered.

And he knew what his youngest son had done to him. It is not written in the passage who told Noah what his son had done to him, and whether Noah saw this through prophecy. It seems to me [to be explained] according to what our Sages said (Sanhedrin 108b) that three [beings] engaged in relations in the ark: the raven, the dog, and Ham, etc. According to this, when Noah arose from his sleep, he contemplated within himself who could have done this thing to him. Surely it was one of his sons who was suspect of sexual impropriety who did this to him — who violated him. Through this contemplation, he remembered what had happened and knew what his youngest son had done to him in the ark, for he had defiled it through forbidden relations at a prohibited time. Noah said, “He who did this [in the ark] also did this [now],” and therefore cursed him. As for why he cursed Canaan his son and not Ham himself, there are multiple opinions on this. Some say that Canaan saw and told his father Ham. Others say that since the Holy One, blessed be He, had blessed Noah and his sons, it would not have been proper to curse one of his sons after God had already blessed them. And some say that Canaan engaged in sexual impropriety, and his father learned from his son to act like Canaan. And regarding the curse of servitude — since one who consorts with prostitutes loses wealth and will inevitably become enslaved for mere bread, as our Sages said (Sotah 4b): Anyone who has relations with a prostitute will eventually seek a loaf of bread and not find it, etc. And regarding what was written a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers and then later repeated saying and Canaan shall be a servant to them without mentioning “servant of servants” — it appears to me that servant of servants shall he be to his brothers means that Canaan would be a servant of servants specifically to his brothers, the sons of Ham, because in any case the younger brother serves his older brothers, and through this curse an additional level of servitude was added — to be their servant of servants. However, to Shem and Yapheth he would be simply a servant to them, as this was sufficient since he wouldn’t otherwise need to be a servant to his uncle.

וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “he realized what his younger son had done to him.” The Torah has a habit of associating misdemeanors with people who had already previously been guilty of other misdemeanors. In this instance, Cham, who reportedly did not obey the commandment of sexual continence while in the ark, is now accused of a misdemeanor actually perpetrated by his son. The term וידע had first been used in the Torah to describe marital intimacy between Adam and Chavah. (Genesis 4,1) In Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer the words וירא חם, are understood to describe Cham’s inactivity; although he observed his father in the nude, he did not bother to cover his nudity.

And he said: Cursed be Canaan — a slave who serves slaves shall he be to his brothers.

ארור כנען CURSED BE CANAAN — You have brought it about that I cannot beget a fourth son to serve me; cursed, therefore, be your fourth son (see Chap. 10:6) to serve under the descendants of these elder ones upon whom the duty of serving me will devolve from now on. Why did Ham maltreat him in this manner? He said to his brothers, “Adam Harishon had two sons and one killed the other in order that he might possess the whole world(Genesis Rabbah 36:7): our father already has three sons, and he wishes to have yet another “.

"Slave of slaves" — the meaning is: a slave like any other slave. Were it to mean the slave of [other] slaves, it would read "a slave to slaves [עֶבֶד לַעֲבָדִים]". The proof is from "holy of holies [קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים]" and "in the holy of holies [בְּקֹדֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁים]". "The meaning of 'to his brothers'" — to Cush, Mizraim, and Put, who are the sons of his father. And some say that the Cushites are slaves because Noah cursed Ham. But they have forgotten that the first king after the Flood was from Cush, as it is written: "and the beginning of his kingdom was Babel" (Genesis 10:10).

עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו, his being in a position of dependence to his senior brothers, i.e. a plain עבד, was merely natural, and would not have been a special curse, especially in view of his disgraceful conduct. Solomon paraphrased this in Proverbs 11,29 when he spoke about ועבד אויל לחכם לב, that “a fool is a slave to the wise-hearted.”

ויאמר ארור כנען, He said: “cursed be Canaan, etc.” Concerning Canaan, the prophet Yoel said (Yoel, 4,8) “and they will sell them to the people of Sh’va, to a far distant nation.” The slaves will in turn sell the Canaanites to an even more degrading status. ארור כנען, Cham sinned and his son Canaan was punished. Why? Seeing that G-d had already blessed Noach and all of his sons, Noach’s cursing Cham would have been totally ineffective. [Compare what G-d said to Bileam when He told him that seeing that the Jewish people had already been blessed by Him, he, Bileam, could not undo this by cursing them. (Numbers 22,12) Ed.] Some commentators say that actually Cham had not done anything; he had only viewed the exposed body of his father, and had failed to cover him as did his brothers subsequently. However, he had told others about it without intending to cover his father. Had he intended to cover his father, why did he tell his brothers about what he had seen without at least first having covered his father’s shame? This is why Noach cursed him when he found out. These commentators cite the line: “what his younger son had done to him,” as proof for their interpretation. (Since the son’s name had already been mentioned at the beginning of the paragraph, there was no need to repeat it.) The word: הקטן does not refer to the youngest son of Noach seeing that Cham was not Noach’s youngest son, the eldest being Yephet and the youngest being Shem, as already pointed out earlier. Noach blessed the two sons who had treated him as was proper, whereas he remained silent concerning Cham. Canaan who had shamed him, he cursed. ארור כנען, “cursed be Canaan,” he cursed him by referring to his name, meaning that his very name which indicated something negative, suppressed, downtrodden, should become his curse. He would become subservient to his brothers. Whenever a servant does not carry out the wishes of his master he attracts a curse to himself. עבד עבדים יהיה, “he will become a slave to slaves.” His fate will not be determined by warfare, but when the Jewish people would conquer the land of Canaan, they would be instructed not to let any Canaanite survive on that land. (Deuteronomy 20,16)

עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו, “a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” According to the plain meaning of the text, Noach made the curse fit the sin of his son. He who had shamed his father by viewing his nakedness and not only not covering his father’s nakedness but calling in his brothers to show them that spectacle, in other words, making sport of his father, was cursed by becoming an object of derision as a punishment for having made his own father an object of derision. Shem and Yaphet who had covered their father’s nakedness and put the blanket on their shoulders in a dignified manner walking backwards, were rewarded by G’d in a manner fitting their sensitive conduct. Israel, the descendants of Shem who later on received the Torah were given the commandment of ציצית, “fringes” on their garments as a form of distinction (compare Tanchuma on our verse). The descendants of Yaphet will merit proper burial at the time of the final war before the arrival of the Messiah, the war between Israel and Gog and Magog. Ezekiel 39,11 states אתן למגוג קבר, “I will provide a burial ground for Magog.” This is his reward for his conduct vis-a-vis his father Noach although in the war under discussion he attacked Israel. We know from 10,2 that Gomer and Magog are descendants of Yaphet. From this entire episode we can learn that when two people between them perform a single commandment, they receive a reward for having performed the entire commandment. Furthermore, the one who commenced the performance receives a greater reward. The Torah stresses the difference between the relative merit acquired by Shem and that acquired by Yaphet in our episode of covering their father, by not writing ויקחו את השמלה “they took the garment,” but by writing ויקח שם ויפת את השמלה, “Shem and Yaphet each took the garment, etc.” The word ויקח is in the singular. This is an allusion that Shem made the greater effort of the two. The reward of the מצוה of ציצית is greater than the reward of being allocated burial We find a similar distinction between relative merits awarded for the performance of similar virtuous deeds when the Talmud in Sotah 36 discusses the relative moral value of both Joseph and Yehudah sanctifying the name of the Lord. Joseph’s deed performed in the privacy of Potiphar’s house when he declined the efforts of Mrs Potiphar to seduce him quoting that it would be sinful against both G’d and her husband was rewarded by G’d by his having the letter ה of the holy name of G’ added to his name (Psalms 81,6). Yehudah, who sanctified G’d’s name in public when entering the sea of reeds before it had been split, thus demonstrating his faith in G’d’s forthcoming help, was rewarded by his name containing all the letters of the holy name of G’d. According to a Midrashic interpretation, the words יהיה לאחיו “he will be for his brothers,” means that thirty descendants will be descended from Canaan (compare 10,15-18). Also the standard compensation to be paid by someone who killed a Canaanite slave is 30 shekel of silver. Both these matters are alluded to in the word יהיה in our verse.

And he said: Blessed be Hashem, the God of Shem, and may Canaan be a slave to them.

ברוך ה' אלהי שם BLESSED BE THE ETERNAL, THE GOD OF SHEM, who will in days to come carry out his promise to his descendants to give them the land of Canaan. ויהי AND MAY HE BE — Canaan — their servant serving and paying tribute (Cp. Josh. 16:10).

BLESSED BE THE ETERNAL G-D OF SHEM, AND MAY CANAAN BE SERVANT TO THEM. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that to them means that Canaan be servant to G-d and to Shem since Shem will compel him to worship G-d. And the second time [this expression is repeated — in Verse 27: May G-d enlarge Japheth, and may He dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be servant to them — Ibn Ezra] explained that Canaan would be a servant to Japheth and Shem. But if this be so, Noah came to curse his enemies, and behold he blessed Canaan that he be a servant to G-d! But Rashi wrote: “Blessed be the Eternal G-d of Shem, Who will in days to come carry out His promise to the descendants of Shem to give them the land of Canaan, and may Canaan pay them tribute. This is repeated again [in Verse 27, as explained above], in order to state that even when the children of Shem will be in exile, the children of Canaan will be sold to them as slaves.” [Thus Rashi interprets to them as referring to the descendants of Shem.]The correct interpretation appears to me to be that at first he [Noah] cursed him that he be a servant of servants to the entire world, and whosoever will find him will enslave him, for the meaning of unto his brethren here. is “unto all men,” just as in the verse, For I will set all men every one against his neighbor, and as is the sense of the expression, Every man his fellow. It may that unto his brethren here. refers to Shem and Japheth for his father’s brothers are called “his brothers,” just as in the expression, that his brother was taken captive, [which refers to Lot who was a son of Abraham’s brother]. And some say — as found in Ibn Ezra — that unto his brethren means his father’s children [namely, Cush, Mitzraim and Phut, who are his father’s children]. Thus, after being made a servant to his father’s children and to Shem and Japheth, he was a servant to the whole world. Now Noah first blessed the G-d of Shem, thereby letting it be known that Shem will be a servant of G-d while Canaan will be subject to him. And to them alludes to the seed of Shem who were many. It is possible that to them reverts also to his brothers already mentioned. Then he blessed Japheth with an enlargement of the boundary, he blessed Shem with the dwelling of G-d in his tents, and finally said that Canaan be a servant to them, meaning to the two of them. He made Canaan subservient to Shem twice, [in Verses 26 and 27, as explained above], thus hinting that the seed of Shem will inherit his land and all that he has, for that which a slave acquires belongs to his master. This section was written in Scripture in order to make known that it was on account of his sin that Canaan became a servant forever and that Abraham was favored with his land. The subject of the wine’s effect on Noah was written because it contains a greater warning against drunkeness than that of the section on the Nazirite: even the perfectly righteous man — whose righteousness saved the whole world — even he sinned on account of wine, and it brought him to disgrace and the cursing of his seed.

"Blessed be Hashem, the God of Shem" — we are obligated to add thanks to Hashem, who is the God of Shem, and He will make Canaan a slave to him and to Shem. The meaning is that He will compel Canaan to serve Shem. The word לָמוֹ is like לָהֶם ["to them"], and the vav is a supplementary letter like the vav of "you will bring them [תְּבִיאֵמוֹ]" (Exodus 15:17) — therefore it is not found without the heh and without the vav [in standard usage]. He associates the Glorious and Awesome Name with Shem for the sake of Shem's honor, and Japheth is not like him. The Gaon [Saadia] said that the word "father of" is missing here, and that it ought to read "cursed is the father of Canaan." He cites as a parallel: "before my uncle [דּוֹדִי] Hanamel" (Jeremiah 32:12), meaning his cousin. It is possible that Hanamel was older than Jeremiah and he called him in his father's role out of respect for the elder; and similarly the wife of a father's brother is called by Scripture "your aunt [דוֹדָתְךָ]" (Leviticus 18:14). But this [phrase] "the father of Canaan" is not analogous to those cases.

ויהי כנען, his offspring [seeing that the word ויהי is in the future tense; Ed.] עבד למו, to the G’d as well as to the offspring of Shem. The formulation is parallel to Joshua 9,27 where the Gibeonites are condemned to be “hewers of wood and carriers of water” for the Israelites (having duped them into thinking that they were not Canaanites)

ברוך ה' אלוקי שם, “Blessed be the Lord, G-d of Shem;” Noach blessed his G-d Who had also proven to be the G-d of his son Shem who served no other deity; being a servant of the Lord is being truly free, as opposed to Canaan, who was cursed to be truly subservient even to slaves. ויהי כנען עבד למו, “whereas Canaan will be a slave to them.” He will be a slave both to Shem and to His G-d. He will be a slave to the Lord by having to carry water and kindling for the altar when the descendants of Shem would offer sacrifices to their Lord. [This is a reference to the Gibeonites, a Canaanite tribe who had duped Joshua into accepting them as converts. (Joshua chapter 9) Ed.]

ויהי כנען עבד למו, “and Canaan will be a slave to them.” Ibn Ezra explains this to mean that in verse 25 the words עבד עבדים mean that Shem will force Cham to be a servant to G’d and to himself, whereas in verse 26 the words עבד למו refer to Cham being in a state of dependency to him. Nachmanides writes that if that were correct Noach would have cursed his enemies after first having blessed Canaan by declaring him to be a servant of G’d. Rashi explained that the phrase ברוך ה' אלוקי שם, refers to the time when the Jewish people by their conquest of the land of Canaan would prove that Canaan is the subordinate, the slave. Personally, I believe that in verse 25 Noach cursed Canaan to be a slave to all the rest of mankind, and the words עבד עבדים refer to the descendants of Shem, of whom there would be many. Uncles of Canaan would also be called “brothers,” as we know from Lot who was called “brother” by his uncle Avraham on repeated occasions, both by Avraham and by the Torah. (Genesis 13,8; 14,14) Seeing that Canaan would be a slave to his uncles, he would automatically have that status regarding the whole of mankind. Noach blessed Shem first to indicate that Shem would be a true servant of the Lord, whereas Canaan would be a servant of Shem’s offspring of whom there would be many. It is also possible that the word.למו refers back to the word לאחיו, “to his brothers,” and that Noach continued his blessing to his other two sons granting Yephet large portions of the earth as his domain, and Shem the privilege of being host to the Presence of G’d in the land at his disposal. He declared Canaan as a slave of Shem twice, as a hint Shem would eventually inherit land belonging to the descendants of Canaan, seeing that all the property once owned by a slave becomes the master’s. The reason why this whole paragraph has been recorded in the Torah, was to go on record that Canaan’s sin made him into a slave of the whole of mankind and that it was Avraham who eventually became the owner of what had been meant to be Canaan’s. The reason why the cause of all this has been recorded, i.e. Noach’s state of inebriation, is a warning to all mankind to keep their distance from strong drink, wine in particular, as if even a man of the stature of Noach was victimized by drinking too much of it, how would lesser individuals fare, people who possess far less self control than Noach. Some commentators are of the opinion that Noach was obliged to bless Shem after he had cursed Canaan to be a slave so as to indicate that Shem was free and not subservient to anyone else (creature) on earth.

May Hashem enlarge Japheth, and may His Shechinah dwell in the tent of Shem, and may Canaan be a slave to them.

יפת אלהים ליפת MAY GOD ENLARGE JAPHETH — The Targum renders the verb by יפתי meaning, “may He extend”. וישכון באהלי שם AND MAY HE DWELL IN THE TENTS OF SHEM — may He make His Divine Presence (Shechinah) dwell in Israel. According to the Midrashic exposition of the Sages (Yoma 10a) it means: Although God enlarged Japheth inasmuch that Cyrus, who was a descendant of Japheth, built the second Temple, yet the Shechinah did not dwell in it. Where, then, did it dwell? In the first Temple which Solomon, a descendant of Shem, built. ויהי כנען עבד למו AND MAY CANAAN BE SERVANT TO THEM — Even when the children of Shem be in exile, children of Canaan will be sold to them as slaves.

"Japheth" is derived from "beautiful [יָפֶה]". But it does not mean beautiful; rather it means "may He enlarge [יַרְחִיב]", and so too in Aramaic — and it is in the heavy augmented conjugation [the Hif'il], like "and brought down kings [וּמְלָכִים יַרְד]" (Isaiah 41:2). In this verse he blesses both Japheth and Shem, for the meaning of "and He shall dwell in the tents of Shem" is that God shall dwell in the tents of Shem — for in the first verse he blessed Hashem. "And Canaan shall be a slave to them" — to Shem and Japheth, and also to his [other] brothers. Thus he is a slave forever, for from these [three] the whole earth was spread — and this matter came about many years after the Flood.

באהלי שם, (the plural mode) is a reference to Torah academies in addition to the Temple. עבד למו, both to Yaphet and to Shem, even at times when the Temple will not stand.

יפת, “May He expand;” Noach did not use the name of the Lord additionally when blessing Yephet as he had done in connection with Shem’s blessing, as the latter was a righteous person.

יפת אלוקים ליפת, “may the Lord grant beauty to Yaphet.” Noach blessed Yaphet by promising him that G’d would increase the area of the earth he would dwell in. Onkelos translates the word כי ירחיב, “when He will expand,” in Deut 12,20 as ארי יפת. We see that to this very day the descendants of Yaphet occupy a major part of the surface of the earth. Noach blessed his son Shem by promising that the presence of the Lord would be manifest within his dwellings. There is no other nation which has experienced the presence of G’d in its midst except the people of Israel. This is partly due to the fact that they are descended from Shem. The expression וישכון באהלי שם is most prominently repeated when Yaakov, Yitzchok’s pious son is described as יושב אהלים, “a dweller in tents.” This expression in Genesis 25,27 is a reference to “the tents of Torah,” the most wide-spread manifestation of the presence of G’d. There is an allusion here that the presence of G’d, i.e. its becoming manifest, is usually found where Torah is being studied. In this manner Shem actually received two blessings from his father. Although G’d will, on occasion, grace Yaphet, grant him flashes of insights into the workings of the divine, the same is reserved on a regular basis for the descendants of Shem. An example of these “flashes of insight” is provided by the fact that King Coresh, (Ezra 1,2) a descendant of Yaphet, gave orders to rebuild the Holy Temple in Jerusalem and provided money and military escorts for the Jews to do so (compare Bereshit Rabbah 36,12 and Yuma 9). Actually, the presence of G’d (in its full Majesty) dwelled only in the Temple which Solomon had built. This is the meaning of וישכון באהלי שם, “it will dwell” (feel at home) in the tents of Shem. This is the opinion expressed in Yuma 10. The Talmud states that the reason for the absence of the presence of G’d in the Second Temple was not only the fact that most Jews preferred to stay in the Diaspora but that even if they had all moved to the Holy land, G’d could not have felt at home therein as it was built by grace of Coresh instead of by grace of descendants of Shem. Genesis 10,4 proves that the Persians are descended from Yaphet. Rabbi Yossi claims that the name Tiras mentioned there is equivalent to Paras, i.e Persia. ויהי כנען עבד למו, “and Canaan be a slave to them.” The word למו refers back to “his brothers.” He is to be a slave to the descendants of Shem and Yaphet. The reason the Torah repeats this for a second time is to stress that the state of slavery decreed for Canaan and his descendants is not something temporary. It is also a hint that in due course Shem will inherit the lands of Canaan and all his property. This is simply an application of the principle that anything which is owned by a slave becomes the property of his master (Pesachim 88).

And Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years.

And all the days of Noah were nine hundred and fifty years, and he died.

וימות, not before Avraham had already become active, and begun to proclaim the name of G’d, as a true descendant of Shem.

ויהי כל ימי נח תשע מאות שנה וחמישים שנה וימת, “When Noach had reached the age of 950 years, he died.” You might ask that seeing we already know that Noach lived to become 950 years old, as the Torah had told us this in 7,11 and in the verse immediately preceding this one, so why did the Torah have to write this verse? The fact is that we might have added 7,11 and 9,28, and have arrived at the erroneous conclusion that Noach had lived 951 years. The Torah wished to inform us that the year in the ark was not considered as one of the years that Noach had “lived;” The author had already referred to that fact in chapter 9, verse 4.