Comentário sobre Gênesis 9:31

ויברך אלוקים, even though they had enjoyed G’d’s blessing already ever since the creation of mankind, the renewal of life on earth reassured them by their receiving a new blessing also. The blessing consisted primarily of the promise that they would once again be fruitful and multiply.

(1-2). ויברך. Und nun, in diese Erde, mit diesen ganz neuen Bedingungen eingeführt, erhält das Menschengeschlecht zum zweitenmal den Segen. Das ויברך und ויאמר sind auch hier zwei Sätze, in ברך die Ausstattung, mit den dazu nötigen Kräften, sodann פרו und רבו die Aufgabe der Kindererzeugung und Erziehung (s. oben Kap.1, 28). Es ist wichtig, dass dies alles in diesem Segen hier noch einmal wiederholt wird; denn dieser Segen ist doch jedenfalls nach dem sogenannten Sündenfalle. Wo aber Gottes Segen einkehrt, kann kein Fluch ruhen. Zwei Dinge vermissen wir hier: רדו und כבשוה. Ursprünglich war der Mensch von Gott der Erdwelt gegenüber als Herrscher und Meister eingesetzt, welches in רדיה und כבוש enthalten ist. רדיה und כבוש begründen aber nur die Unterordnung von Untertanen, ja selbst von eroberten Provinzen unter ihren Fürsten. Ein solches Band setzt allerdings eine Unterordnung voraus, aber doch keine Vernichtung, lässt den Untergeordneten immerhin die Entwicklung frei, wenn gleich nur nach dem Willen des Fürsten. Es ist nur Gehorsam, der gefordert wird. Ebenso sollte das Verhältnis des Menschen zur Erdwelt ein inniges, ich anschmiegendes, schützendes sein, לעבדה ולשמרה. Dies jetzt nicht mehr. Der Mensch ist hingestellt, sich zu erhalten, und, statt des früheren innigen Verhältnisses, heißt es jetzt: Furcht und Schrecken vor euch soll über alles Tier der Erde usw.

ויאמר להם, to the sons of Noach, indirectly, who communicated the blessing to his sons. [seeing that Noach did not have any children after the deluge, the blessing had not included him. Ed.] Alternately, we must assume that Noach’s sons had prophetic status so that G’d communicated with them directly.

מוראכם, von ירא .ירא ist eine geistige Tätigkeit, die sich die Größe und die Macht auch des Abwesenden gegenwärtig vorstellt; daher auch: scheu vor dieser Macht zurücktreten, ihr aus dem Wege gehen. So כי יראו מפני הכשרים" Kön. 2, 25, 26.

חתת ,חתכם, ist ein Schrecken, der die Kraft bricht und lähmt: חתתה קשתותם (Jerem. 51, 56). Während מורא den Fürchtenden dem Gefürchteten aus dem Wege gehen lässt, hält חתת denselben zurück, dass er nicht angreife, lähmt ihn. Also: Alles andere Lebendige soll fortan dem Menschen scheu aus dem Wege gehen, ihm immer mehr Raum zur Ausbreitung gewähren, und in seinen Schlupfwinkeln vor Schreck gelähmt sein, den Menschen nicht anzugreifen. Das Band zwischen Mensch und Tier ist damit zerrissen, das Tier fürchtet den Menschen, der Mensch ist nicht mehr sein leitender Meister und gebietender Herr, der Mensch verlernt die Tiere zu verstehen, und diese treten scheu vor ihm zurück. Schwierig ist das ב in בכל אשר וגוי בכל דגי הים בירכם נתנו. Man könnte es dahin verstehen: in allem, was den Boden betritt, ja selbst in allen Fischen des Meeres lebt das Bewusstsein, dass sie in eure Hand gegeben sind. Allein dann müsste man eben das: ist das Bewusstsein, ergänzen. Es kommt jedoch mitunter das ב im Sinne eines Teilungsartikels vor, so לכו לחמו בלחמי ושתו ביין מסכתי (ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 9: 9,5): esset mit von meinem Brote und trinket von dem Weine, den ich gemischt, nehmt Teil daran. So dürfte es auch hier zu nehmen sein. Furcht und Angst vor dem Menschen erfüllt einmal alles Lebendige, er bekommt dadurch Raum und Ruhe; aber keineswegs, dass der Mensch alle Tiere in seine Gewalt bekomme, was nichts weniger als gut wäre; vielmehr: "unter allem, was den Boden betritt und auch unter allen Fischen des Meeres (gibt es Individuen) die in eure Hand gegeben sind".

Jedenfalls ist hiermit eine bedeutende Änderung in der Stellung des Menschen zur Erdwelt eingetreten. Wenn in den vorhergehenden Sätzen der durch die veränderte Stellung und Gestalt der Erde angebahnte Erziehungsplan mitgeteilt ist, dass nämlich das Böse nicht wieder wie früher anwachsen soll, vielmehr die Menschen in eine größere Mannigfaltigkeit auseinandergehen, und dadurch sowohl individuell als unter den Völkern das Böse paralysiert, und durch die verkürzte Lebensdauer ein rascherer Umschwung der Generationen gegeben ist, also, dass die in dem מפי עוללים ויונקים וגוי ausgesprochene Gründung des Gottesreiches auf die immer mit neuer, frischer Kraft eintretende Jugend, in dem Leben der Menschen und Völker den Fortschritt zum ewig winkenden Ziele bringt — wenn dies alles kein bloßer Traum ist, so dürfen wir uns sagen, dass auf dem hier begonnenen Wege bis in sehr weite Zukunft hinaus der Menschheit nicht die Aufgabe ist, die Erdwelt zu meistern und zu vollenden, vielmehr ihr jetzt nur die Aufgabe gestellt ist, sich zu vollenden, sich zu veredeln, sich wieder in die wahre Stellung zu Gott emporzuarbeiten. Diese Restituierung der Menschheit in den Standpunkt, den sie einnehmen sollte, mit der Wiederkehr des Friedens, der langen Lebensdauer, des "neuen Himmels und der neuen Erde" die uns das Prophetenwort schildert, wird, nach dem tiefen Worte unserer Weisen: — "אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל הנשמות שבגוף" nicht früher eintreten, bis nicht alle möglichen Geister eingegangen sind in die Leiblichkeit und sich veredelt haben", und von diesem Verse bis zum letzten Worte des letzten Propheten ist der ganze Inhalt der Gottesschrift nichts anderes, als die Schilderung der Rückkehr der Menschheit zu diesem einstigen Zustande, und der Gottesveranstaltungen zu diesem Ziele. Inzwischen aber und bis dahin ist dieser Standpunkt verloren, das Band zwischen dem Menschen und der Tierwelt zerrissen, und der Mensch zunächst auf die Arbeit an sich selbst und für sich selbst hingewiesen.

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).

ומוראכם, this formulation is parallel to the words וכבשוה, which also referred to dominance over other creatures on earth (Genesis 1,28).

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.

וחתכם, the root of this word is חתת, and it appears in this sense in Job 6,21 or 41,25. The grammatical construction is similar to פת-פתים-פתכם.

בכל אשר תרמוש האדמה, in the first half of the verse the Torah employed the preposition על, i.e. על כל חית הארץ, whereas now it uses the prefix ב as preposition. Both prepositions are perfectly normal in classical Hebrew. It is as if the Torah had written בכל חיה שתרמוש על האדמה.

ובכל דגי הים, even though the fish do not share the same habitat as you, and are therefore presumed to have nothing to fear from you, G’d puts the fear of man in them also, regardless of their relative immunity from man. בידכם נתנו, the Torah adds these words to include reptiles, etc., be they large of small, whose movement on earth is very slow, seeing that they too move on the face of the globe. The reason why the Torah describes their movements as תרמוש in the feminine mode, is to remind us that each of these creatures possesses a נפש, a non-tangible life force, and this life-force called נפש is a feminine noun. The basic definition of “life” is the ability to move from one place to another.

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.¹⁸³Above, 1:21.

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.

כל רמש אשר הוא חי, the word אשר which follows the word רמש lacks the connecting letter ו. This is not something unique, seeing we find it in Chabakuk 3,11 שמש ירח, “sun and moon,” instead of שמש וירח, or in Exodus 1,1 ראובן שמעון, instead of ראובן ושמעון, and many other such examples.
אשר הוא חי, these words refer to the fish. It is also possible to understand these words as if the letter ו had not been omitted at all, so that the word רמש would be a collective term for all living creatures (as in Genesis 1,21) so that the additional words אשר הוא חי, would compare living creatures now to vegetation in Genesis 1,30 when G’d permitted only ירק עשב, the higher ranking plants as food for the human species. The fruit of the trees in the Garden of Eden were also included in the term ירק עשב, seeing that man had been permitted to eat any plant that grew out of the earth. I explained the meaning of those words on Genesis 1,11

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

Any creeping thing that lives will be for you to eat. For in the day of Adam, people's bodies were strong and the fruits had not yet been damaged and they could sustain a person like meat could. But, after the deluge, when food was damaged, and man was to be scattered to the edges of the land and far off isles for at that point hot and cold (weather) were introduced, so meat was needed for the maintenance of his health. Also, after they all lived through the actions of Noah who provided for them in the ark, they were like his acquisitions and in his possession. Also, because man originally wasn't on the level of "speaker" - only of "living" so only "growing" things were permitted to him. There was no difference between him and animals except that animals were given green vegetation to eat and man was given vegetation that produce seed, meaning fruit. Now, man was elevated to the level of "speaker." Just as there is no wrongdoing in the "living" consuming the "growing" for it is elevated in this manner as it become part of the body of the "living"thing, so too there is no wrongdoing if a "speaker" eats something "living" and it is elevated to become part of the body of the "speaker. This is what is meant by "like the green vegetation, I have given you all." Meaning: just as I prepared food for the animals to eat of the green vegetation [as is written: "and to all the animals of the field, all green vegetation for eating] because it elevates it to the level of "living," so too I have given you all, that you should eat all seed producing vegetation since you are also "living" beings and you should eat animals since you are "living speakers" and anything more lowly is fit to be the sustenance of that which is greater than it.

“I did not permit... The reason why Noach was permitted to eat meat, while Adam was not, seems to be as follows: Previously, men and animals were equal in that they all were Hashem’s creations. He formed them all from the earth; none had higher status than the other [as regards their bodies]. Why should one kill the other? But when they sinned, all should have been destroyed, and they survived only in Noach’s merit. This gave Noach a higher status than the animals. (Kitzur Mizrachi) Scripture connected the permission to eat meat to that of eating vegetables so we will not say that meat is now permitted instead of vegetables, and vegetables are no longer permitted. Thus Scripture tells us that eating meat is in addition to eating vegetables. (Divrei Dovid)

Mit der veränderten Lebensstellung erhält der Mensch auch neue Nahrung. Es ist nicht unwahrscheinlich, dass in der kürzeren Lebensdauer, wo also alles, was die früheren Geschlechter in sieben bis achthundert Jahren durchgemacht, in siebzig bis achtzig Jahren durchgemacht werden soll, die raschere Entwickelung und der schnellere Umschwung die tierische Nahrung bedingen. Die Verschiedenheit der Temperatur, der Wechsel der Jahreszeiten und Klimate dürfte gleichfalls nicht ohne Einfluß auf die Gestattung der tierischen Nahrung gewesen sein. Der Mensch wird dadurch weniger abhängig von der Nahrung, die der Boden ihm gewährt. Vor der Sündflut war, wie schon bemerkt, nach der Lehre der Weisen und im Einklange mit den geologischen Annahmen, eine größere Stetigkeit der Temperatur, eine üppigere Vegetation, und daher durch Pflanzen für stete Nahrung gesorgt, so dass es der tierischen Kost nicht bedurfte. Die תורה will keine Vegetarier, sie scheut nicht den Fleischgenuss, macht ihn sogar am י"ט zur Pflicht. Wäre unsere physische Stellung noch die ursprüngliche, so wäre uns wahrscheinlich der Fleischgenuss nicht gestattet worden, jetzt aber ist er wohl Bedürfnis. Sofort aber wie der Tiergenuss gestattet wird, treten auch Speisegesetze, מאכלות אסורות, ein. Bewegen sich doch auch die späteren Speiseverbote des jüdischen Gesetzes nur innerhalb des Tiergenusses, der, ursprünglich gar nicht gestattet, nur unter Beschränkungen erlaubt wird. Unter Vegetabilien ist keine Pflanze als solche zum Genuss verboten. ערלה ,חדש und כלאי כרם wurzeln in anderen Beziehungen. Das erste Speisegesetz, das weit über den jüdischen Kreis hinaus die ganze noachidische Menschheit bindet, אבר מן החי, ist in dem folgenden Verse ausgesprochen.

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.

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.

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.”¹⁸⁴Rashi thus connects b’naphsho (with its life) with the preceding word, basar, and also with the succeeding word, damo (its blood), although the text reads, basar b’naphsho damo. 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 Noah⁶⁴See Seder Bereshith, Note 222. 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.¹⁸⁵Sanhedrin 59a. 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.¹⁸⁶Leviticus 17:14.

אך בשר בנפשו, but the flesh of living animals, while its life-force is still inside it,

אך בשר, even though I have permitted you all moving (living) creatures as food, you must not eat those animals while they are still alive, i.e. as long as the flesh and the blood are part of one whole you must not eat such tissue. First you have to slaughter the animal. It would be too cruel to simply cut living tissue from an animal and consume it while the animal it has been taken from is suffering pain. It appears reasonable to assume that Noach was permitted to use the animals as his food, seeing that but for his feeding these animals for a whole year in the ark they would have long since died, so that in effect they owed their lives to him. Basically, all the animals had been created to serve man’s needs, whether as beasts of burden, etc., or 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.

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.

Literally meaning: while the “soul” [life] is within its blood. The Re’m writes: I have found this correct version of Rashi: With its life — “while it is still alive.” You shall not eat — “this refers to limbs from a living animal.” While the life is in its blood you shall not eat — “this refers to blood of a living animal.” [Accordingly,] the ב of בנפשו means “with,” as if it said: “Flesh, while it is with life, you shall not eat.” And the Sages learned from the extra word דמו that the word בנפשו should be read with the preceding word, בשר, and also the following word, דמו. Thus: “בשר בנפשו — You shall not eat flesh with its life.” And also: “בנפשו דמו — You shall not eat its blood with its life.” The verse is thus telling us not to eat the flesh or the blood of an animal that is still alive. Rashi said בעוד נפשו בו, rather than [staying closer to] the wording of the verse and saying בשר עם נפשו, which would express the verse’s simple meaning. This was because the latter expression implies that the prohibition is on eating the blood and the meat together. Thus Rashi explained that בנפשו means [not to eat the meat or the blood] while the life is still in the animal. Question: A limb from a living animal had been prohibited to Adam, so [why was it repeated to Noach?] The answer is: Since Noach was now permitted to eat meat, we might think he was permitted to eat the limb from a living animal as well. Therefore, Scripture tells us that the previous prohibition stands. (Divrei Dovid)

אך בשר בנפשו דמו לא תאכלו; die gewöhnliche Übersetzung, die דמו als Apposition zu בנפשו fasst, und so lautet: jedoch Fleisch, in welchem noch seine Seele, nämlich sein Blut ist, sollt ihr nicht essen, widerspricht sowohl der Halacha, als auch dem Wortlaute und den Akzenten. Ihr zufolge wäre den Noachiden das Fleisch mit dem Blute zu essen verboten; dies ist jedoch keineswegs der Fall. Dem בן נה ist ja Blut überhaupt nicht verboten, selbst nicht דם מן החי, nur אבר מן החי, und das Blut im Fleische, — das wäre doch "Fleisch mit seinem Blute" — דם איברים שלא פירש — ist ja selbst uns nicht verboten. Es heißt ja auch nicht בשר אשר בו נפשו דמו, sondern בנפשו דמו. Es steht ferner auf בשר ein völlig trennender Akzent, und dem Wortlaut und dem Akzent nach heißt es nicht anders, als: "jedoch Fleisch, so lange sein Blut in seiner Seele ist, sollt ihr nicht essen", und ist hier offenbar durch בנפשו דמו der lebende Zustand des Tieres beschrieben, somit verboten, "Fleisch vom lebenden Tiere" d.i. אבר מן החי zu essen.

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.

בנפשו דמו (literally, its blood together with its life) means whilst its (the animal’s) life is still in it (the blood).

i.e. this life-force is equivalent to its blood; you must neither eat its flesh nor its blood,

Wir würden jedoch erwarten: נפשו בדמו, nicht: so lange noch das Blut in der Seele, sondern: so lange noch die Seele im Blute ist. Allein, wenn vom Blut und vom Leben die Rede ist, ist das Gotteswort außerordentlich präzis in seinem Ausdrucke. Selbst schon beim Tiere, insbesondere aber da, wo das Tier in den Menschen eingehen, und der Mensch seinen Leib durch den Tierleib ergänzen soll, will das göttliche Wort jeder materialistischen Anschauung vorbeugen, welcher Kraft, Geist, Seele, Leben nichts als Attribute des Stoffes, Modifikationen desselben sind, als ob wirklich הרם הוא הנפש, das Blut die Seele, mit dem Blute auch die Seele vernichtet, und nicht vielmehr das Blut nur Organ und Vermittler der Seele wäre! Nicht so das göttliche Wort. So lange das Tier lebt, ist nicht נפשו בדמו, nicht die Seele im Blute, sondern ist das Blut in der Seele, wird das Blut von der Seele umfangen ,1/דמו בנפשו und beherrscht; die Seele geht nicht in das Blut, sondern das Blut in die Seele auf.

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)

לא תאכלו, only in that state must you not eat it; once the blood has left the body, gentiles are allowed to eat blood.

Wir haben schon (1, 20. 2, 19) in נפש, verwandt mit נפץ, den Gipfel der vollständigsten Individualisierung in der Reihenfolge der Wesen erkannt. נפש ist unter den geschaffenen Wesen das selbständigste. Wir haben ebenso in דם, von דמה gleichen, assimiliert sein, das Prototyp des ganzen Leibes erkannt. Das Blut ist der ganze Körper, der Leib im Flusse. Es enthält alle Stoffe und setzt, umströmend, an alle Teile die dahin gehörigen, notwendigen Stoffe ab. Im Blute steckt somit der ganze Organismus, und vom Blute wird allerdings jeder Teil des Leibes gebildet und beherrscht. Dasjenige aber, dem das Blut den ganzen Leib zum Untertan macht, ist: נפש. So lange das Blut der נפש untertan ist, ist der Leib: בשר, Bote, Herold der Seele; so lange das בשר durch das Blut der Seele untergeordnet ist und sie, die Seele, mit dieser "roten Schnur" alles bindet und zusammen an sich hält, nur so lange bleibt der Organismus ein Individuum; sobald dieses Seelenband zerrissen ist, verfällt er den Elementen. Das דם ist daher nur die sinnliche Repräsentanz der Seele. Durch דם beherrscht die Seele den Leib. Auf dies Verhältnis weist das göttliche Wort mit den Worten בנפשו דמו, "so lange von seiner Seele sein Blut gehalten ist", hin. Die Individualität, deren Bote, בשר, der Nerven- und Muskelleib ist, ist die נפש; der Vermittler zwischen Beiden ist דם. Es heißt darum nicht: בשר ,דמו בנפשו, sondern: בשר ,בנפשו דמו; denn בשר und נפש gehören zusammen, und דם ist nur das Mittel. Der Tierleib ist nur dann zur Nahrung erlaubt, wenn bereits die Seele das Blut fahren gelassen; es kann wohl der Tierleib Menschenleib werden, denn er ist das Passive; aber nie kann und soll die Tierseele Menschenseele werden. Das Gesetz spricht sich demnach dahin aus: Kein Glied darf genossen werden, wenn es dem Tiere ent nommen, während das Glied noch von der Tierseele beherrscht wurde. Nicht wegen des Blutes; das dem Tiere entnommene Blut ist bereits tot, nicht Träger der Seele mehr. Allein im אבר מן החי, in dem dem lebendigen Tiere entrissenen Gliede, das also in dem Momente seiner Trennung noch voll im Dienste der Seele stand und im Begriff war, ihren Dienst zu verrichten, in ihm steckt noch die unsichtbare Wirkung der lebendigen Tierseele, die nicht in den Menschen mit hinübergenommen werden soll. Das Blut ist nur dem zur höheren priesterlichen Stufe berufenen Menschen, dem Volke, das ממלכת םינהכ med sad ,zteseG sad edareg dnu ,netobrev ,llos nedrew חנ ןב sad יחה ןמ םד erlaubt und אבר מן החי verbietet, dürfte sich als bedeutsame Mahnung an die noachidische Welt begreift, in welcher aufs schärfste die Seele von dem Blute geschieden erscheint. Das Blut ist erlaubt, denn das Blut ist nicht die Seele. Das lebende Glied ist verboten; denn getrennt von dem Blute lebt die Seele im Körper! —

In אחרי מות ( B. M. 17, 11 f.) wo Israel der Blutgenuss verboten wird, wechselt viermal der Ausdruck: כי נפש כל בשר ,הדם הוא בנפש יכפר ,כי נפש הבשר בדם היא כי נפש כל בשר דמו היא ,דמו בנפשו הוא. Betrachten wir diese Sätze, so tritt zunächst der Geschlechtswechsel היא und הוא hervor. דם ist Maskulinum, נפש Femininum. In dem Satze: נפש כל בשר דמו היא ist daher nicht דם Subjekt und נפש Prädikat, sondern umgekehrt, נפש ist das Subjekt und דם das Prädikat, nicht: das Blut ist die Seele, sondern: die Seele ist das Blut, d. h. alles, was das Blut tut, tut eigentlich die Seele. Jenes ist der materialistische Wahn, dieses die Wahrheit der תורה. Der Satz heißt: כי נפש כל בשר דמו בנפשו הוא ואמר לבני ישראל דם כל בשר לא תאכלו כי נפש כל בשר דמו היא כל אכליו יכרת, d.h. weil das von seiner Seele beherrschte Blut die Seele alles Fleisches ist, darum sagte ich Israels Söhnen: esset das Blut von keinem Fleische; denn die Seele alles Fleisches, sie ist sein Blut. Der hier sich wiederholende Ausdruck דמו בנפשו ist ein entschiedener Beleg für unsere Auffassung des בנפשו דמו an unserer Stelle. Nur der erste Satz: כי נפש הבשר בדם היא scheint diese Annahme umzustoßen. Allein dort soll uns nicht gesagt werden, warum das Blut zum Genusse verboten ist, sondern warum es sich als Repräsentant der Seele zum כפרה- Ausdruck für die Seele auf dem Altare eignet, und wie derselbe Grund auch dem Genussverbot zu Grunde liegt. Es dürfte daher das ב־ des נפש בדם in dem Sinne zu fassen sein wie רוח החיה באופנים, die אופנים waren durch den Geist der חיה bewegt, so auch hier: "denn die Seele ist in dem Blute lebendig, tätig, mit ihren Wirkungen gegenwärtig", in jeder Tätigkeit des Blutes siehst du eigentlich die Tätigkeit der Seele, כי הדם הוא, denn das Blut ist ja הדם, selbst דם ) ist ja das Prototyp des Leibes heißt ja eigentlich: Bild, Symbol, Repräsentant), alle Wirkung der Seele auf den Leib vermittelt das Blut, darum בנפש יכפר, erwirkt es כפרה nicht an sich, sondern durch die Seele, die es repräsentiert. Nur in משנה תורה. ( B 5.M. 12, 23 f.), wo mit wiederholten und wiederholten Verboten vor dem Genusse des Blutes gewarnt und darauf hingewiesen wird, wie unser und unserer Kinder Heil daran geknüpft ist, dass wir uns vor dem Genusse des Blutes hüten, heißt es — scheinbar materialistisch — aber nach allem früheren sicher nur in zur Warnung abschreckender Hyperbel, geradezu כי הדם הוא הנפש, damit es uns und unseren Kindern in schärfster Entschiedenheit gegenwärtig sei, wie wir mit dem Blutgenuss tierische Reize und Regungen unserem Menschenwesen einverleiben würden.

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).

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,¹⁸⁷Exodus 27:19. [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),¹⁸⁸I Chronicles 3:2. [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.¹⁸⁹Leviticus 17:14. Likewise, And ye shall eat no manner of blood in all your dwelling places, ‘la’oph velabeheimah’ (to fowl and to cattle),¹⁹⁰Ibid., 7:26. 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,¹⁹¹Baba Kamma 91b. the verse stating, “I will require your blood from your own souls.”

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.

אך את דמכם לנפשותיכם, even though I have permitted the blood of animals, i.e. you may kill animals, I have not permitted the animals to kill you, seeing that I have given them into your control, and not vice versa.

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.

From one who spills his own blood. [Rashi know this] because if it refers to spilling another's blood, this was already mentioned: ומיד האדם. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Beim Menschen tritt das Verhältnis der Seele zum Blute noch gesonderter hervor. Beim Tiere war das Blut בנפש, somit immerhin noch in einem innigen, organischen Zusammenhange. Das Blut des Menschen aber ist nur לנפשו, seiner Seele gehörig, bestimmt, untertan; ganz so wie bei der Schöpfung der Tier- und Menschenseele jene mit dem Leibe zugleich der Erde entsprang, diese aber, einem dem irdischen Leibe völlig fremden Ursprunge angehörig, als "Hauch Gottes" in den Körper trat. —

ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש, “however for your own life-blood I will demand an accounting;” this is to be understood as an accounting for their death by people who deliberately strangle themselves as an act of suicide, avoiding the shedding of their blood in the process. B’reshit Rabbah, 34,13, explains the need for this verse as being that we might think that when Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah, (Daniel chapter 3 where their Babylonian names are used) agreed to be thrown into a fiery pit, clearly committing suicide, albeit as an act of sanctifying the name of the Lord, this was forbidden also. The reason that this verse was introduced by the word: אך, was to exclude such suicides, even that of King Sha-ul, who did not want to give the Philistines the satisfaction of having killed a king who had been crowned with the approval of the Lord. (Samuel I 31,4) In both of these instances the victims did not execute themselves but were executed or meant to be executed by someone else. Committing suicide with one’s own hands is an absolute no no. According to the opinion of Rabbi Shimon bar Avraham, also known as אוכמן, the Rabbis did not make allowances for what King Sha-ul had done. There is a true story of a Rabbi, who at the time of persecutions of Jews practicing their faith, personally killed many young Jewish children in order to forestall the Christians from raising them in the Christian faith. One of his Rabbinical colleagues was very angry at that Rabbi on that account, referring to him as a murderer. The first Rabbi did not heed the second Rabbi’s warning not to become a murderer. Thereupon the Rabbi opposed to killing the infants said that if he had been right, his colleague would die a violent and painful death. Not only did the gentiles seize and kill that Rabbi-(who had killed the infants), but they stripped off his skin and placed sand between it and his flesh. Shortly thereafter, the decree forbidding the Jews to practice their faith was cancelled. If the first Rabbi had not killed all the infants, they would have been saved when the decree was cancelled.

But (ach) your blood of your lives will I require: Because it permitted to spill the blood of beasts, it forbade the spilling of the blood of man, even one's own blood. [This is] so that they will not say, "Is it not that [since] the blood of a beast is permitted for us to spill because they live through us, [so] too a man who lives through himself should be permitted to kill himself? Hence it is stated, "of your lives I will require"...

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 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.

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.¹⁹²Exodus 21:28. This is not a form of monetary punishment for the owner since even an ownerless ox is subject to the death penalty,¹⁹³Baba Kamma 44b. and the command applies alike to the sons of Noah⁶⁴See Seder Bereshith, Note 222. and to the Israelites. The meaning of Who so sheddeth man’s blood¹⁹⁴Verse 6. 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.¹⁹⁶Isaiah 40:2. 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,¹⁹⁷Psalms 31:12. 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,¹⁹⁸Job 20:29. [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,¹⁹⁹Above, 1:29. and to the beast He gave every green herb for food,²⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 30. and Scripture says, and it was so,²⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 30. 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 teeth²⁰¹Psalms 124:6. 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,²⁰²Sanhedrin 56b. 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.”

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.

לנפשותיכם, the meaning of this word is that if an animal kills a human being it becomes guilty of death itself, unless I use the animal to exact retribution form wicked people, as in the case of the bears who killed the youngsters who had mocked the prophet Elisha (Kings II 20,23, or Kings I 13, entire chapter). [the fact that the lion had not touched the corpse of the man he had killed, showed that the lion had acted as G’d’s messenger, had not acted from impulse in order to still its hunger. Ed] Also in the תוכחה in Leviticus 26,22 G’d specifically announces that He would use the free roaming beasts as His agents to wreak vengeance of the Jewish people who had sinned deliberately and for a long period of time. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 34,13) explain the words דמכם לנפשותיכם, as a warning not to commit suicide (especially to people who thereby expect to escape G’d’s retribution) The message is that the person who killed himself will be held accountable in the hereafter. They said further that the word אך at the beginning of the verse excludes such apparent suicides as Chananyah, Mishael, and Azaryah, being prepared to become martyrs to demonstrate their faith in the G’d in heaven

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.

Also if he strangles himself. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, why does it say לנפשותיכם?

אך rad. נכה, wörtlich: ich schlage ab, schließe aus. Während in den vorhergehenden Sätzen das Tier samt dessen Lebensbedingungen dem Menschen in die Hand gegeben war, und die höhere Dignität des Menschenwesens schon die Beschränkung des אבר מן החי- Verbotes diktierte, indem בשר אדם und בשר בהמה wohl verwandt sind und dieses in jenes einverleibt werden, nimmer aber נפש בהמה in irgend einer Weise in נפש אדם übergehen dürfe: erscheint hier diese Dignität in noch schärferem Gegensatz. Der Tierleib und des Tieres Blut und Seele sind euer, stehen zu eurer Verfügung; euer Blut aber, das euren Seelen angehört, ist mein, ist nicht euer, das אדרש, das fordere ich als mein Eigentum, als zu meiner Verfügung stehend, und fordere Rechenschaft über jeden Tropfen desselben. דרש ist speziell das Zurückfordern und Rechenschaft fordern über ein fremden Händen anvertrautes oder sich in fremden Händen befindendes Eigentum. So ודרשתי את צאני מידם (5.8.9.22,2) עד דרוש אחיך אתו Indem .(Jechesk. 34., 10) Gott von dem der Menschenseele übergebenen Blute אדרש ausspricht, hat er unser Blut als sein Eigentum vindiziert, und uns das Verfügungsrecht auch über das eigene Blut versagt. Es ist dies zunächst das Verbot des Selbstmordes.

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 B’reshit 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 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.

מיד כל חיה אדרשנו, the offending animal which killed a human being will itself be killed by another animal. Even though the principle of reward and punishment is not generally applicable to any species other than the human species, seeing that only man possesses intelligence so that he can be held responsible for his sins, when animals attack human beings G’d did restrict their instincts, and holds them responsible for not respecting the צלם אלוקים, the divine image in which man has been created. Chabakuk 2,17 phrases this principle as ושד בהמות יחיתן, “the destruction of beasts will overwhelm you.” Moreover, when speaking of retribution, we read in Kings I 13,28 ולא שבר את החמור, “nor had it mauled the ass.” [this proved that when the lion had killed the man of G’d, it had acted as an instrument of G’d’s justice. Ed]

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).

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.

מיד כל חיה; wie Gott sein Walten gegen die Tierwelt übt, liegt außer unserem Gesichtskreise. In dem späteren jüdischen Gesetze tritt ein Teil dieser Bestimmung im .hervor שור הנסקל

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.

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.

ומיד האדם, if man kills man, G’d reserves the right to exact retribution from him either in this life or in the hereafter.

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.

ומיד האדם וגוי. Von dem Tier fordert Gott דם האדם, von dem Menschen aber נפש האדם. Der Mensch als אדם, als von Gott eingesetzter Stellvertreter, die Erdwelt bis in ihre niedrigsten Wesen hinab zu schützen und nach göttlichem Willen zu verwalten, und als איש אחיו, der in jedem Menschen den gleichen gottentstammenden Bruder erkennen soll, sollte gewiß als אדם sich hüten, sich an dem heiligsten und höchsten irdischen Wesen — einer נפש האדם — zu vergreifen, und als אחיו schon aus der Tiefe des eigenen Bewusstseins in dem Menschenbruder den zur Erde gehauchten Gottesgeist erkennen und achten. Unsere ganze Humanität beruht darauf, dass wir nicht als Leib mit Leibern, sondern als Geist mit Geistern verkehren und in jedem Menschen diesen Geist erkennen. Jedem Menschen ist die נפש eines jeden Menschen anvertraut, und wenn durch Schuld eines Menschen eine Menschenseele früher von hier fortgeht, als es Gottes Wille ist, der sie hierher gestellt, so vermisst sie Gott hier, ist sie דורש מידו; auch die kleinste Spanne Zeit des mühseligsten Menschen ist Gott heilig; und wer sich oder andern auch nur um eine Sekunde das Hiersein verkürzt, eine Sekunde früher das Band löst, das die Seele durchs Blut mit dem Hiersein verknüpft, ist Gott verantwortlich.

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.

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.

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.

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)

באדם דמו ישפך, a reference to a human tribunal.

שפך..באדם ישפך, G’d says: “I ,personally, will demand satisfaction on behalf of the slain person if there are no witnesses who can testify against the murderer, so that a human tribunal will execute the guilty person. This is the meaning of the extra word באדם; i.e. by means of the judges.

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.

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.”

Den richterlichen Strafen des göttlichen Gesetzes liegt weder die Theorie des Abschreckungssystems, noch die der Vergeltung, des sogenannten jus tallonis zu Grunde, so sehr man auch das erste aus dem ,וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו (fünftes B. M. 13,11 u.f. ) und letzteres aus dem עין תחת עין ( zweites B.M. 21, 24) das zum Stichwort dieser Theorie hat werden müssen, folgern zu können geglaubt. Schon die Tatsache, dass dem jüdischen Strafgesetze kein Indizienbeweis und kein Selbstgeständnis gilt, dass Leibesstrafe nur בעדים והתראה, nur auf Grund von Zeugen, die nicht nur den Vorgang gesehen, sondern den Angeklagten im Augenblick des Vorhabens mit dem Buchstaben des Gesetzes gewarnt haben, erkannt werden darf, ein Zusammentreffen, das gewiß zu den seltenen gehört, und dem der vorbedachte Verbrecher in leichtester Weise entgehen kann; die Tatsache ferner, dass für die meisten Verbrechen gegen Eigentum, selbst für Raub, gar keine, nicht einmal eine Geldstrafe (קנס), sondern nur Wiedererstattung (תשלומי) erkannt wird; schon diese auffallenden Eigentümlichkeiten des jüdischen Strafgesetzes widersprechen entschieden dem Prinzipe der Abschreckung. Und gerade das וכל ישראל ישמעו ויראו, auf das man Bezug nimmt, ist der positive Gegenbeweis. Es sind nur vier Strafvollziehungen: עדים זוממין ,בן סורר ומורה ,זקן ממרה ,מסית ומדיח, bei welchen das Gesetz den Zusatz gibt: das ganze Volk höre es und fürchte sich, ferner solches zu verüben. Aber gerade diese vier erscheinen als etwas Abnormes. Der Charakter ihrer Tat an sich und in ihren unmittelbaren Wirkungen betrachtet, erscheint gar nicht schon so fluchwürdig. Der eine, מסית, hat nur das Wort der Verführung — erfolglos — gesprochen; der andere, עד זומם, hat noch gar nicht die Tötung des Angeklagten herbeigeführt; der זקן ממרה kann sogar in Wirklichkeit im Rechte sein, obgleich er sich der Majoritätsansicht des ב״ד הגדול in seinen Entscheidungen fügen soll; den בן סורר ומורה trifft ausgesprochener Maßen die Todesstrafe nur על שם סופו. Im Grunde werden alle diese vier על שם סופן, mit Rücksicht auf die großen verderblichen Folgen hingerichtet, die aus ihren dem Anschein nach unverhältnißmäßig kleinen Verbrechen sich ergeben könnten. Hinsichtlich ihrer erkennt es daher das Gesetz als wichtig an, dass das ganze Volk erfahre, es habe jemanden um eines solchen Verbrechens willen die Todesstrafe getroffen. Nicht von der Strafe an sich, sondern von der Öffentlichkeit oder Veröffentlichung — (das ist eben die Differenz zwischen ר׳ עקיבא und ר׳ יהודה, Sanhedrin 89.2.) — ist die Abschreckung das Motiv, und indem das Gesetz die Öffentlichkeit oder Veröffentlichung der Strafvollziehung eben nur bei diesen vieren fordert, ist dies der Beweis, dass für die Strafe überhaupt nicht die Abschreckungsabsicht das Motiv sein kann. (Sanhedrin 89,a.) — Ebensowenig ist das jus tallonls aus dem "Aug׳ für Aug" usw. des jüdischen Gesetzes zu folgern. Die Überlieferung lehrt, dass damit nur die Abmessung einer Geldstrafe gegeben sei, und ist zugleich nachgewiesen, wie eine gerechte Ausführung des buchstäblichen "Aug׳ für Aug" ja gar nicht möglich wäre. Allein aus dem schriftlichen Gesetze selbst ist ersichtlich, dass mit Aug׳ für Aug׳ nur das genaue Ausmaß der in Geld zu leistenden Schadloshaltung gemeint sei. Bevor 2. B. M. 21, 24 Aug׳ für Aug׳ usw. ausgesprochen wird, ist daselbst Raw Hirsch on Genesis 9: 19 bereits die Geldentschädigung für Verwundungen, שבתו יתן ורפא ירפא, ausgesprochen. Im Aug׳ für Aug׳ ist vielmehr der große, dem ganzen jüdischen Strafrechte zu Grunde liegende Grundsatz offenbart: Jeder darf nur das Recht beanspruchen, das er auch dem Andern zuerkennt. Er verliert den Anspruch, sobald er den des Andern nicht achtet. Er restituiert sich wieder, indem er durch Restitution oder Straferleidung das verletzte Recht entweder objektiv, oder wo dies unmöglich, in der Anerkennung wieder herstellt. Den Weisen ist jede Strafe כפרה, Sühne, nicht "Sühne der beleidigten Gerechtigkeit"; sondern Sühne des Verbrechers selbst. Selbst des Hingerichteten Zukunft geht über die kurze Spanne seines Hierseins hinaus. Hat er das durch ihn verletzte Recht mit Verlust seines Hierseins gebüßt, so geht er einem neuen Dasein in wiedergewonnener Reinheit entgegen. — כי בצלם אלקים עשה את האדם in diesem Satze der höheren göttlichen Dignität des leiblichen Wesens und Hierseins des Menschen, dürfte das Motiv für die ganze Gruppe dieser Gesetzbestimmungen liegen, für die Dahingebung der Tierwelt an den Nahrungszweck des Menschen, für die nicht gestattete Aufnahme der Tierseele in den Menschenleib: אבר מן החי, sowie für die Gotteshörigkeit und die Gottesvertretung des menschlichen leiblichen Hierseins gegen jeden Angriff.

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!”

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.

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.

כי בצלם אלוקים עשה את האדם, for he has been set apart from all other creatures in the universe, so much so that G’d personally made עשה, him in His image by endowing him with an intelligent brain. This is why humans are also held responsible for killing fellow humans, as they, no less than the animals, destroy a creature that had been made in G’d’s own image. If man had been forbidden to kill inferior creatures for food until given special permission to do so now after the deluge, how much more sacrosanct is the life of a human being who was created in G’d’s image. Remember that it required a special permission by G’d for man and beast to use even the plants as food for themselves, although the plants are inferior even to the animals. Keeping all this in mind, it is clear that in order for any creature being allowed to destroy a human being a special directive from G’d ordering this was required. This is why Moses in the chapters dealing with the retribution for the Jewish people, both in Bechukotai, and in Ki Tavo¸describes that G’d will issue such instructions to the beasts, just as He had done during the plagues (#4) in Egypt when the wild beasts invaded human habitations and wreaked havoc. When man, due to his own deeds, forfeits his claim to wearing the image of G’d on his face, the beasts no longer seeing such an image, feel free to attack such humans. An unborn fetus does not possess this divine image, i.e. it has no discernible intelligence. Intelligence is that which makes a slave obey his master, seeing that he would suffer if he did not; therefore when a human being disobeys his master (G’d), he displays lack of intelligence, i.e. can no longer demand to be treated like human being. [I have paraphrased the last few lines. Ed.]

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.

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.

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.²⁰³Ibid., 59b. A similar verse mentioned with reference to Adam,²⁰⁴Above, 1:28. also one with reference to the sons of Noah²⁰⁵Verse 1 here. in conjunction with the statement that G-d blessed them, constitutes a blessing, just as it is said concerning the fish.²⁰⁶Above, 1:22. 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,²⁰⁷Ibid., 8:17. 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.²⁰⁴Above, 1:28.
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,²⁰³Ibid., 59b. “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.

ואתם פרו ורבו, why does the Torah repeat this, seeing we have been told this already in verse 1 of this chapter? Seeing the Torah had spoken of bloodshed, a sin resulting in depopulating the earth, it was important to emphasise that it is man’s task to populate the earth, not the reverse. In fact, this is now not only a blessing but a positive commandment. The expression שרצו means that mankind should strive to produce offspring in large numbers, something that happened with the Israelites after they came to Egypt. We have evidence of this in Exodus 1,7 where the proliferation of

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.

Plain explanation, the first is... Rashi holds that, “Elohim said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’” (1:28), comes to explain [the preceding blessing of], “Elohim blessed them” (ibid.). And so it is with the verse for Noach and his descendants. “He said to them, ‘Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth’” (9:1) comes to explain [the preceding blessing of], “Elohim blessed Noach and his sons” (ibid.). However, the mitzvah to propagate is learned only from the verse, “And now be fruitful and multiply,” because no term of blessing is mentioned here. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

שרצו בארץ ורבו בה — ein höchst bedeutsamer Zusatz zur Entwicklungsaufgabe der noachidischen Welt, mit welchem diese ganze Neukonstituierung der Menschheit schließt, und dessen Bedeutung das Wort רישביל in ביר mit der Erläuterung: ברית נחלק לאוירות, ein besonderer Bund ist in den verschiedenen Klimaten und Gegenden erteilt, erschließt. שרץ ist, wie bereits erkannt, die niedrigste Lebensstufe, nach dem wesentlichen Merkmal ihrer Erscheinung, der Bewegung, ישרצו המים. Indem hier der Fortpflanzung und Vermehrung des Menschengeschlechtes noch schließlich dieses Attribut beigefügt wird, dürfte in diesem Ausdruck uns ein Gewimmel der mannigfaltigsten Menschenerscheinungen vergegenwärtigt, und somit eine Mannigfaltigkeit und unendliche Vermehrung des Menschengeschlechtes nach allen möglichen Schattierungen als künftige Entwicklung des Menschengeschlechtes bezeichnet sein, und zwar בארץ, auf der Erde und durch die Erde und von der Erde und unter dem Einflusse der mannigfach verschieden gestalteten Erde, und nicht nur שרצו בארץ, sondern auch רבו — die ganze leibliche, sittliche und geistige Erziehung — ebenfalls בה unter demselben Einflusse. Das, was oben in dem Satze ׳עוד כל ימי הארץ וגו nur geahnt werden konnte, ist hier ausgesprochen. Es erhielt die noachidische Menschheit die Bestimmung, sich über die ganze Erde zu verbreiten und unter den verschiedensten Gestalten, Verhältnissen und Einflüssen Mensch zu werden und den allgemeinen Menschencharakter zu entwickeln; eine Verschiedenheit und Mannigfaltigkeit, die uns im obigen Zusammenhange als der, s.Raw Hirsch on Genesis 9:Raw Hirsch on Genesis 9:, neue Gottesplan für die Erziehung des Menschengeschlechtes erschienen, der der Notwendigkeit totaler Katastrophen vorbeugen sollte. Die Verschiedenheit soll die Mängel ausgleichen und so den Fortschritt zum Ziele anbahnen. ברית נחלק לאוירות, sprechen daher die Weisen zur Stelle: ברוך שנתן חן המקום בעיני יושביו ,die verschiedenen Gegenden und Luftarten hat Gott mit einem besonderen Bündnisse ausgestattet" — (vielleicht wörtlich: der allgemeine Gottesbund mit der Menschheit ist über die verschiedensten Gegenden verteilt) — "Gott sei gesegnet, der jeder Örtlichkeit einen Reiz in den Augen ihrer Bewohner verliehen!" und weisen darauf hin, wie jeder Menschenstamm in seiner Heimat sich unter den unwirtlichsten Verhältnissen behaglich fühlt, wie die ungastlichste Gegend ihre Söhne in der Fremde mit Heimweh fesselt und ihre geistige Entwicklung in der Fremde stört. Der Mensch, der die Erde zu beherrschen glaubt, wird vielfach bis in sein innerstes Innere, in Geist, Gemüt, Verstand, Sprache, von dem Boden, der ihn trägt und umgibt, beherrscht, und diese Verschiedenartigkeit ist Zweck. Überall kann der Mensch Mensch sein, überall glücklich, überall das Menschliche im Menschen zur reinen Entfaltung kommen. Nur muß einer nicht seinen Maßstab an den andern legen. Darum heißt es am Schlusse dieser Neugestaltung der Erde und der Menschheit: Ver- mannigfaltigt euch auf der Erde und vermehrt euch auf ihr, durch sie, in ihr, mit ihr usw.

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 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.

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,”²⁰⁸Reference is to the verse, Once more the Eternal spoke to Ahaz. (Isaiah 7:10.) [which means that G-d spoke to him through Isaiah].²⁰⁹See R’dak there. And so also, And the Eternal spoke unto Moses and unto Aaron,²¹⁰Exodus 7:8 and others. which according to the words of our Rabbis²¹¹Torath Kohanim Vayikra, 1. 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.²¹²Verse 17 here.

ויאמר אל נח ואל בניו, either Noach’s sons were also prophets, or G’d spoke to Noach to tell his sons, as we had discussed already in connection with verse 1. The reason for the word אתו, with him, was to ensure that the sons would know that the blessing applied both to them and to their offspring.

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.

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.

Was Gott oben, Kap.8, 21, als Beschluss אל לבו ausgesprochen, das wird hier dem Menschen für sich und seine Welt als ברית, als unabänderliche, absolute Bestimmung zugesichert, und als Motiv der von nun an fortbestehenden natürlichen Ordnung der Dinge offenbart.

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.”

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 מקים, the letter ו before the word אניintroduces an addition to the previous words ואתם פרו ורבו, meaning if you will do your part in trying to populate the earth, I for My part promise to keep My covenant with you, making sure that life on earth will not again be drastically disrupted. G’d can be relied upon to keep His promises and assurances, as distinct from man, as has been pointed out already by Bileam in Numbers 23, 19.

Hashem did so eventually... Meaning, Hashem did so a second time. Although Hashem had already promised Noach, he was still concerned. For Hashem’s promises are conditional: if they fulfill His will [and do not sin as the generation of the Flood did,] He will keep His promise; and if not, not. Therefore Noach was concerned, until Hashem promised him again that He would never bring another Flood. This also explains why Noach was commanded to have children. For even though Adam had already been commanded — Hashem needed to command Noach again because Noach was concerned. We need not ask: Why was Noach concerned? Hashem already swore He would never again smite mankind! As Rashi explained (8:21), “Never again, never again” serves as an oath. The answer is: It says (ibid), “And Adonoy said in His heart, ‘Never again...’” I.e., Hashem thought this [oath], but Noach knew nothing of it. (Re’m) It seems that Rashi deduced [that Noach was concerned] from the fact that Noach was permitted marital relations when he left the ark, as it says (8:16), “Depart from the ark, yourself and your wife” — yet he did not engage in relations. Rather, they left in separation (ibid v. 18): “Noach departed from the ark together with his sons, his wife and son’s wives.” So we see that Noach did not wish to have children. Therefore Hashem said, “I agree with you...” (Nachalas Yaakov)

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.

חית הארץ אתכם AND EVERY ANIMAL OF THE EARTH WITH YOU or, THAT ARE WITH YOU — those which go about with human beings.

ואת כל הנפש אשר אתכם, the ones which had been in the ark with you; this is spelled out shortly by the words מכל יוצאי התבה, “I will make a covenant with all the species of creatures that came out of the ark. None of these species will again become subject to extinction.” G’d said further: לכל חית הארץ, in order to make the meaning of what had been written before perfectly clear. In Bereshit Rabbah it is pointed out that these words include all the subsequent generations of these animals, just as the subsequent generations of Noach’s sons and their wives were included in the blessing as we know from the words ואת זרעכם אחריכם, “and your offspring after you.”

Unclean birds, and crawlers. שקצים means unclean fowl, of which it says (Vayikra 11:13), שקץ הם. And רמשים has its usual meaning. (Maharshal)

Which do not walk among humans. The meaning of "damaging beasts" (chayyot hamazikin) is such things as the lion, the bear and the leopard. The Re'em says that hamazikin, "damagers," means demons. But this is an error, because here it is written, "with every beast of the earth." Demons are not called chayyot, but rather are in the category of kol chai, "all living things," as it is written (above, Bereishit 6:19 and Rashi ad loc.): "from all the living things." And they are not called chayyot, "beasts."

מכל יוצאי התבה OF ALL THAT GO OUT OF THE ARK — These words would include creeping things and reptiles.

That is with you. [You might ask:] Why does Rashi reverse the order and explain “that is with you,” which comes first in the verse, at the end? [The answer is:] It is all part of the same comment [as it appears in our version of Rashi], as follows: Beasts of the earth — [These] include the dangerous animals that are not included in “Every living creature that is with you,” [i.e.,] that they do not walk among people.

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.

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.

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.

והקימותי, earlier the formulation had been הנני מקים. At that time G’d had not mentioned the substance of the covenant. Now the Torah spells out what G’d had had in mind with the line (in verse 9) ואני הנני מקים את בריתי. The promise not to wipe out כל בשר is parallel to the promise not to flood the entire universe with water again. In both instances G’d reserves the right to flood part of the earth or to destroy part of mankind. The promise does include the assurance that rain of the dimensions and duration experienced during the deluge will not occur again, ever. The words לשחת את הארץ are an illustration of what would happen if G’d would bring on another deluge.

“I will confirm My covenant.” Rashi is answering the question: Is it not already written (v. 9), ואני הנני מקים את בריתי, “I am making a covenant with you”?

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.

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.

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 said²¹³I have found this opinion in Chizkuni. 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 them²¹⁴Psalms 18:15. 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,²¹⁵Verse 13 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;²¹⁶Genesis 31:52. likewise, For these seven ewe-lambs shalt thou take of my hand, that it may be a witness unto me.²¹⁷Ibid., 21:30. 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,²¹⁸Ibid., 17:11. because of the agreement that all seed of Abraham be circumcised to serve Him with one consent.²¹⁹Zephaniah 3:9. 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:²²⁰35:3. “I have set ‘kashti’ (My bow) in the cloud.²¹⁵Verse 13 here. This means, ‘My likeness, that which resembles Me.’ But is that possible? It is possible only as the straw resembles the fruit.

ויאמר אלוקים, to both Noach and his sons, that the visible sign that they need not worry about experiencing another deluge when He had occasion to make rain fall on earth, is the rainbow, which will serve as such a sign of the covenant for all future generations.

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.”

That did not require a sign. You might ask: How does the incomplete form imply this exegesis? It seems the answer is: When the generations are incomplete — wicked — they need the rainbow as a sign, but not when they are complete, i.e., righteous, they do not need the rainbow as a sign. Another answer: Since דרת is written in an incomplete form, it can be read דָרַת — “dweller,” in the singular. Thus, לדרת עולם connotes “for a certain dweller in the world.” The verse is saying: “For certain families that dwell in the world, I have set My rainbow in the clouds.” Yet, [we ask,] is not the rainbow for all? Perforce, “There are some generations that did not require a sign....” (Re’m) The Maharshal explains: If it were written complete, we would understand that all generations for all time require the sign. Now that it is written incomplete, it implies the generations that [dwell in] this world [only], require a sign. However, those generations which dwell in this world and are destined for the World to Come, do not require a sign.

Wie Gott hier sich nicht mit dem bloßen Ausspruch seines Wortes begnügt,. sondern seinem Ausspruche ein Denkmal stiftet, so sehen wir auch im ganzen Verlauf der weiteren Geschichte der göttlichen Waltungen, für alle das Heil der Menschheit und Israels begründenden Wahrheiten, אותות, Zeichen, Denkmäler gestiftet, die diese Wahrheiten mit immer neuer Frische dem MenschenBewusstsein vergegenwärtigen sollen; so תפלין ,שבת ,מילה usw. - לדרת עולם, doppelt חסר, für Zeiten, die intensiv und extensiv mangelhaft erscheinen, die, sich selbst überlassen, dem Untergang verfallen wären. Wenn in solchen Zeiten das Menschengemüt verzagt, oder an der Gottesgerechtigkeit verzweifeln will, erinnert es der Lichtbogen im Gewölke, dass selbst über solche Zeiten hinaus die Gotteswaltung den Bund mit der Menschheit und ihrer Erde geschlossen, und selbst über solche Zeiten hinüber zu ihrem Ziele leitet.

And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth.²²¹Verse 14 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.’”²²²In the same way, when the generation is wicked and deserves destruction, G-d instead punishes the fruit of the earth. There in Bereshith Rabbah it also says:²²³35:4. “And the bow shall be in the cloud, and I will look upon it, that I may remember the everlasting covenant between G-d²²⁴Verse 16 here. — this alludes to the attribute of Justice on high. And every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth²²⁴Verse 16 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:²²⁵Chagigah 16a. “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.²¹⁵Verse 13 here. And it shall come to pass when I bring clouds over the earth²²¹Verse 14 here. — meaning that when G-d will not make His countenance shine upon²²⁶See Numbers 6:25. 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,²²⁷See Ramban further, 17:13. 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-d²²⁴Verse 16 here. as referring to the attribute of justice on high, which is gevurah (strength), and that which is upon the earth²²⁴Verse 16 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 hinted²²⁸See Ramban above, 6:13. at the secret of the Rabbis concerning the name “earth.” But Rashi wrote, “Between G-d²²⁴Verse 16 here.— between the attribute of justice on high and you.” But our Rabbis did not intend to imply this interpretation in their Midrash.

את קשתי נתתי בענן, I have arranged that the rainbow become a natural phenomenon.

את קשתי נתתי בענן, the reason why G’d speaks of “My” rainbow, instead of “the rainbow,” is because He had now made it the visible reminder of the covenant between Himself and mankind, just as He had said ביני ובין הארץ, “between Me and the earth,” or as the prophet Ezekiel refers to this in Ezekiel 1,28 כמראה הקשת, “as the manifestation of the rainbow.” The prophet considered the vision he had seen in that chapter as comparable to the spectacle of the rainbow, i.e. something of which he stood in awe. Concerning this the question is raised in Bereshit Rabbah 35,3 that the word קשתי means מוקש לי, “an hidden obstacle for Me, a stumbling block for Me., [If I understand this correctly, the problem is if the rainbow as a reminder is supposed to frighten man into conducting himself properly so that no deluge will be necessary, or if he is to think only of the promise that there will not be another flood, just as now after the rain the sunlight appears in many different colours, something beautiful and certainly encouraging. Ed] Nowadays, the emphasis is only on the promise, as we have never experienced a deluge, unlike the sons of Noach for whom each time a rainbow appeared it reminded them of the horrible ordeal from which they had been saved.

את קשתי נתתי בענן. Es ist nicht notwendig anzunehmen, es habe bis dahin keinen Regenbogen gegeben, und dies mit den nach der Sündflut eingetretenen atmosphärischen Veränderungen in Verbindung zu setzen. Wie Gott Abraham den Sternhimmel zeigte und sprach: כה יהיה זרעך, wie er Moses und Ahron den Neumond zeigte, und mit den Worten החדש הזה לכם diese längst vorhanden gewesene Himmelserscheinung zu einem Wahrzeichen geistiger und sittlicher Verjüngung für Israel weihte, wie ebenso die vorhandenen Jahreszeiten für Israel zu Denkmälern geschichtlicher und belehrender Erinnerung wurden: so kann auch der Regenbogen eine schon längst bekannte Himmelserscheinung gewesen und nun von Gott zum Zeichen seines Menschenweltbündnisses bestimmt worden sein. Das נתתי kann daher ganz buchstäblich sein: Meinen Bogen, ich habe ihn längst schon in die Wolken gegeben, fortan soll er zum Bundeszeichen zwischen mir und euch dienen.

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 byRabbi Elie Munk, in his “The call of the Torah,” Feldheim Publishing. Ed.]

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.]

נתתי, is in the future mode, as for instance when Avraham speaks of money in payment for the cave of Machpelah in Genesis 23,13, when he says “נתתי כסף השדה, “I have given the money for the field,” when the deal had not even been completed yet, and certainly no payment had been made. It is best to explain the formulation here as did Rav Saadyah gaon, when he said that G’d, in speaking of what had thus far been exclusively “My” rainbow, He would from this time on share with mankind, also reinforcing the rays of the sun as a blessing for man and the crops in the field. Every time rain would cease, and the rainbow would appear in the sky or on the horizon, man would be reminded of G’d’s promise not to bring on another deluge. The word נתתי in a distant past mode, actually emphasises that the phenomenon of the rainbow had existed already since the six days of creation. During the days of the deluge the rainbow had not appeared, first because the rains had been incessant, and at any rate, there was no one to appreciate it. Now, G’d promises that there would be a regular appearance of the rainbow after every rainfall. In Pessachim 54 the rainbow is listed as one of the phenomena created at dusk immediately before the original Sabbath, seeing there has not been anything new created after the 6 days of creation. The references to the rainbow have been repeated only in order to impress upon people’s minds that it is a powerful sign of G’d’s covenant.

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

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.

והיה בענני ענן, I will place clouds for a variety of reasons.

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.

To bring darkness... Rashi holds that “When I bring clouds” does not means actual clouds, rather: “If you are deserving of a Flood, and it enters My mind to bring darkness and destruction to the world, then the rainbow will be seen in the ‘clouds’ [i.e., the darkness] and I shall remember My covenant.” [And therefore,] “Never again will flood waters destroy all flesh.” But if the verse meant actual clouds, why then would it say, “Never again will flood waters destroy all flesh,” [implying that if not for the rainbow, they would be punished]? Why should they be deserving of a Flood just because there are clouds over the earth? [Alternatively,] it seems that Rashi knew this because it is written, “Clouds over the earth,” connecting the clouds to the earth. But in fact, clouds are not connected to the earth! It should say, “When I bring clouds in the heavens.” Thus Rashi explains that it is not actual clouds, rather “darkness and destruction” regarding the world. (R. Meir Stern)

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.

בענני, this word, though without the dagesh in the letter נ is in the conjugation kal. It is not at all unusual that it appears without the dagesh. The reason why G’d repeats the word ענןhaving already said that He speaks of having provided clouds, is to underline the importance of that activity, just as the line מרקר קיר, “tumult and din” in Isaiah 22,5 or ותשרש שרשיה in Psalms 80,10 “and uprooted its roots.”

ונראתה, it will be seen by people.

וזכרתי, the Torah again uses a formulation we as human are familiar with, although, as pointed out repeatedly, G’d does not need to remember, never having forgotten. The same formulation is found in Leviticus 26,42, and in numerous other verses throughout the Torah. They are inaccurate approximations, so that we can understand G’d’s reaction in terms familiar to us.

Das Zeichen und dessen Bedeutung ist ausgesprochen; darüber kann kein Zweifel sein. Der Überlegung bleibt nur, die Beziehung zwischen dem Zeichen und seiner Bedeutung zu ermitteln. Man hat dies verschiedentlich versucht. Das Zeichen ist ein umgekehrtes Geschoß, ein mit der Sehne zur Erde gekehrter Bogen, somit ein Zeichen des Friedens: kein Pfeil mehr vom Himmel. — Es erscheint als ein den Himmel und die Erde verbindender Bogen, somit als Band zwischen Himmel und Erde. — Die Erscheinung selbst ist aus Licht und Wasser gewoben. Mitten im Leben und Tod spendenden Gewölke verkündet sich die Gegenwart des Lichtes, somit Erinnerung, dass mitten im zürnenden Verhängnis doch die erhaltende Gnade noch gegenwärtig sei. — Vielleicht steht aber der Anblick des Farbenbildes in noch engerer Verbindung zu allem Bisherigen. Wurden wir doch wiederholt darauf hingewiesen, wie die fernere Gotteswaltung, trotz aller in verschiedentlicher Abstufung sich ergebenden Menschenentwicklung, nie wieder den Untergang des Menschengeschlechts verhängen, vielmehr die fernere Erziehung desselben zum göttlichen Ziele eben auf diese Verschiedenheit und Mannigfaltigkeit der Menschen gegründet sein soll. Ist nun nicht der Regenbogen nichts, als der eine, reine, volle Lichtstrahl, siebenfarbig und siebenstufig gebrochen, von dem, dem Lichte nächsten roten Strahle, bis zu dem dem Lichte fernsten, sich in Dunkel verlierenden violetten, und bleibts nicht von jenem zu diesem immer noch Licht, und bilden sie nicht alle zusammen den einen, vollen, reinen, weißen Strahl, und dürfte damit nicht vielleicht gesagt sein: die ganze Mannigfaltigkeit aller lebendigen Wesen, von dem Lebendigen im Adam, dem "Roten", dem Göttlichen nächsten "Menschen", bis zu dem dunkelsten, unscheinbarsten Leben im unscheinbarsten Wurm, alle נפש היה בכל בשר, und vor allem die ganze Mannigfaltigkeit der Schattierungen, in welchen sich fortan das Menschliche im Menschenkreise darstellen wird, von dem hell durchgeistigten Menschen, bis hinab zu dem, in welchem das Göttliche dem Menschenauge kaum noch dunkel entgegendämmert, Gott eint sie alle zusammen zu einem Friedensbunde, alle Bruchstücke eines Lebens, alle: Strahlen- brechung eines göttlichen Geistes noch der letzte, dunkelste, fernste ein Sohn des Lichtes? — So zeichnen später die Weisen die verschiedenen geistigen und sittlichen Abstufungen der צדיקים in dem Bilde der Lichtnuancen, von dem leuchtenden Sonnenstrahl bis zum Schein der Tempellampe, alles ist Licht, nur nach der Verschiedenheit des Stoffes stellt es sich in der Erscheinung verschieden dar. שבע כתות של צדיקים וכוי ופניהם דומות לחמה ללבנה לרקיע לברקים לכוכבים לשושנים ולמנורת בית המקדש (Jalkut אמור)

ולא יהי עוד המים, the meaning is similar to the formulation in Leviticus 11,38 כי יותן מים על זרע, “when water falls on plants (seed), etc.”

The meaning of the word למבול, is that there will not be so much rain that anyone will have reason to fear another deluge.

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).

והיתה הקשת בענן, it will be there as a sign, וראיתיהו לזכור, a figure of speech, as already commented upon by us elsewhere. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra writes that actually, the rainbow is not a passing phenomenon but is in the clouds or sky at all times but at times is visible only to G’d.

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.

בין אלוקים, as if the Torah had written this in the first person, i.e. ביני as earlier in verse 12. This formulation of G’d speaking of Himself in the third person is also found in Exodus 24,1 ואל משה אמר עלה אל ה', “and to Moses He had said: “ascend to G’d, etc.” The word אלוקים is used as G’d’s attribute when He wants to be perceived as judge and leader. It is usually found when the generation concerning whom this attribute is used was found wanting, was disobedient.

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.”

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.

ויאמר אלוקים, G’d repeated His blessings a third time in order to reassure him beyond doubt. According to Bereshit Rabbah 38 our paragraph contains 6 covenants which were meant to correspond to the six days of the creation. If you were to question that actually there are 7, the answer is that the first one was needed in its own right, and cannot be used to relate to other matters. [what are meant by “6 covenants,” are the 6 (respectively 7) separate utterances reported by G’d in this paragraph, utterances which could have been considerably condensed by the use of longer sentences and conjunctive letters. Ed.]

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,²³⁰Verse 24 here. and this is the meaning of the verse, And he knew what his youngest son had done unto him,²³⁰Verse 24 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.²³¹Further, 10:6. [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.²³²For Scripture in no way ascribes the act of evil done to Noah by Canaan. 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,²³¹Further, 10:6. [which indicates that Canaan was the youngest son], this was stated after he was sold to be a servant of servants;²³³Verse 25 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,²³⁴Verse 22. 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.²³⁵See Ecclesiastes 3:22. Therefore, he cursed the son he had. Even if he will later beget a hundred children,²³⁶See ibid., 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 father²³⁴Verse 22. 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 outside²³⁷And he told his two brethren 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,²³⁰Verse 24 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.²³⁸Sanhedrin 70a. See Rashi at the end of Verse 22.

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.

ויהיו בני נח, a reminder that when Noach’s sons came out of the ark they did not have any offspring as yet. They begat offspring only afterwards, and from their children mankind as we know it is descended.

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.

Wir haben schon früher auf die Bedeutsamkeit der Tatsache hingewiesen, dass Schem, Cham und Japhet schon mit zu den in die Arche Geretteten gehörten, haben gesehen, wie wichtig es sei, dass sie schon vor der Sündflut in ihrer Verschiedenartigkeit dagestanden, und trotz dieser Verschiedenartigkeit gewürdigt wurden, mit Noa gerettet zu werden. Also kann auch noch heute, selbst bei einer fast bis zur Entartung schreitenden Verschiedenheit der Typen, in welchen wir die Völker finden, diese Verschiedenheit doch kein Hindernis sein, "Mensch" zu sein und zu werden. Alle waren sie יוצאי התבה alle sind sie צלם אלקי, keiner kann zu dem andern sprechen: du bist weniger Mensch als ich, gehörst eigentlich nicht zu dem Begriff der Menschheit. Dieser Gedanke wird seiner Wichtigkeit halber am Eingang dieses Kapitels nochmals wiederholt. —

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 הוא אבי כנען, this is mentioned as background to the story of Noach and the, wine.

וחם הוא אבי כנען. Wie wir hinsichtlich des gesetzlichen Teiles der תורה uns immer zu vergegenwärtigen haben, dass die תשביפ der תשביכ vorangegangen, das ganze Gesetz bereits vollständig in mündlicher Mitteilung bekannt gewesen, als das Schriftliche als kurze Erinnerungsnotizen überantwortet wurde, und daher bei diesen schriftlichen Notizen überall das vollständigere Mündliche vorausgesetzt und darauf Rücksicht genommen ist: so müssen wir uns bei dem geschichtlichen Teile erinnern, dass z. B. dies hier nicht zur Zeit Noas sondern zu einer Zeit niedergeschrieben ist, wo Israel bereits den kanaaniti- schen Völkerstamm vollständig kannte. Das kanaanitische Volk war bereits bis zur höchsten Blüte sittlicher Entartung ausgewachsen, das "Land duldete seine Bewohner" schon nicht mehr, und Israel sollte an ihre Stelle als Erbe eintreten. Denn wenn gleich der oben geschlossene Gottesbund die Wiederkehr eines allgemeinen Untergangs des Menschengeschlechts beseitigt, so ist doch damit der sittlichen Entartung der Völker kein Freibrief erteilt. Vielmehr sind Nationen nach Nationen von der Bühne der Geschichte geschwunden, wenn ihr "Maß voll war" und andere, frischere, sind an ihre Stelle getreten. Obenan in dieser Entartung stand aber Kanaan, und war Israel, dem diese Geschichte eingehändigt wurde, vor Augen. Nun wird hier gesagt: וחם, mit eine der geretteten Stammwurzeln der künftigen Völker, war der Vater dieses entarteten Volkes. Dieses entartete Volk, das der Boden nicht mehr duldet, hat seinen Stammvater in Cham. Es war für Israel und ist für uns ungemein belehrend, aus Gottes Munde zu hören, in welchen kleinen, leisen Ausschreitungen des Stammvaters der Keim zu der späteren Entartung des Volkes zu finden sei.

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.

שלשה...נפצה, the root of the word is נפץ, an intransitive verb appearing also in Samuel I 13,11 כי נפץ העם מעלי, “the people were leaving me.” The word is used in this sense also in respect of the people dispersing over the earth on the occasion of the tower of Babylon and its collapse.

From these the whole world developed. Hashem intended humankind to be comprised of three categories: 1) simple workers, 2) refined intellectuals and 3) people of God who would serve as His “throne” on earth.

Nochmals wiederholt: Alle drei: Söhne eines Vaters und zwar eines Vaters, der צדיק תמים וגוי war, und alle drei doch so sehr verschieden! "Von diesen dreien individualisierte sich die ganze Erde" ( נפץ, wovon מכץ, der Hammer, der in kleine Teilchen zerschlägt), ging die Erde in die mannigfaltigste Individualisierung und Zerstreuung auseinander. Alle die späteren Verschiedenheiten sind auf diese drei Grundtypen zurückzuführen.

"Be fruitful and multiply, etc." It is not far fetched to say that the reason the Torah exempted women from the mitzvah of Pru U'Rvu and obligated only men is because the laws of Hashem and His ways "... are pleasant and all of his paths peaceful" [Mishlei 3:17] and he did not amass on a Jewish person what the body can not tolerate. Everything that is prohibited by the Torah there is a permitted alternative as detailed in [Tractate Hullin 8th chapter] "Kal Habasar". Due to this principle there is only one day in the calendar th at we are [biblically] obligated to not eat [Yom Kippur] and the preceding day [the 9th] we are warned and obligated TO eat. Similarly the Torah does not prevent marital relations from any creature besides for Moshe Rabenu because there was no one else as exalted and required such carefulness with his body as Moshe. Similarly, the during wartime when the [Jewish] army is successful and the passions run high Hashem realized there is no way to stop the [soldiers wild] spirit as he desires the beautiful [captive] women [Deuteronomy 21:11] and the Torah allowed this women to the soldier [as outlined by Deuteronomy 21:11]. The Torah is only bending in response to evil inclinations and passions. This principle [of the Torahs ways are pleasant] became a corner stone of legal policy to our predecessors who established laws and exempted a Yibum who's children died after her husband died. Women endanger themselves in pregnancy and childbirth, that has been established as a legal principle that death is prevalent [see Tosfos Ketubot 83b]. As a result women are not commanded with the mitzvah of Pru U'Rvu. For the same reason a woman is allowed to drink a potion that makes her sterile [from having children] as Yehudit the wife of Rav Hiya [Yevamot 65b]. Women desire to have children is much stronger than men, as we see with Rachel who demanded from Jacob children "or its as if I'm dead". This explains what Rav Yosef said in Tractate Yevamot [65b] that women are exempt from Pru U'Rvu. The verse states "I am El-Shadai, Pre Urve" [singular form] and it doesn't use the plural form Pru U'Rvu. Adam and Even who were commanded together with Pru U'Rvu were commanded before the first sin and at that time there was no pain associated with childbirth. Therefore it was a mitzvah for both Adam and Eve to Pru U'Rvu. After the sin when there is pain in childbirth and frequently can be dangerous and life threatening [its not longer a mitzvah for women]. We see that women are known to swear never to become pregnant again while in labor. Noah [after he left the arc] was commanded with Pru U'Rru [in the plural form, and this was after the first sin], however the Torah in the verses preceding the command its written in the Torah that G-d blessed Noah and his sons, whereas their wives are not mentioned, since they are not obligated in the command of Pru U'Rvu. By Jacob its written "Pre Urve" [Genesis 25:1] [in the singular form] which is accurate [way the command should have been addressed]. The Maharsha in his commentary to Tractate Sanhedrin 55...

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).

‘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,”²³⁹Ruth 1:3. [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).²⁴⁰Above, 7:2. Others²⁴¹Found in R’dak’s Book of Roots. 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,²⁴²Judges 7:14. [meaning a chief of Israel]; Both ye sons of ‘adam’ and ye son of ‘ish;’²⁴³Psalms 49:3. Translated: both low and high. Art thou not ‘ish’ (a man)? And who is like to thee in Israel?²⁴⁴I Samuel 26:15. And there are many other similar verses according to their opinion.
In my opinion, Gideon the son of Joash ‘ish’ of Israel,²⁴²Judges 7:14. refers to his genealogy, i.e., that he was an Israelite. Art thou not a man?²⁴⁴I Samuel 26:15. means that “there is no one like you in Israel.” Similarly, strengthen yourselves, and be men,²⁴⁵Ibid., 4:9. means that they should not be weak like women. Both ye sons of ‘adam’ and ye sons of ‘ish,’²⁴³Psalms 49:3. 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,²⁴⁶Genesis 19:4. 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 field²⁴⁷Ibid., 25:27. means one who constantly stayed there. In the Mishnah we find:²⁴⁸Aboth, I, 4. “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 city²⁴⁶Genesis 19:4. means those that dwell in it. The men of David²⁴⁹I Samuel 23:3. are his servants, and a man of G-d²⁵⁰Deuteronomy 33:1. is one who is dedicated to His service. And so the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah:²⁵¹36:6. “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 said²⁵²Ibid., 36:5. 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.

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.

ויחל נח איש האדמה, we had already pointed out in 5,29 that Noach was a farmer and excelled in this vocation. Now, after the deluge, he acquired additional expertise in combining different strains of grapes and making wine out of the grapes. Up until this time people had used grapes only as a fruit to eat, and had not learned how to make intoxicating wine. When the Torah writes ויחל ויטע, this means that he began by planting grapes and ended by making wine. The expression ויחל is usually associated with the first stage תחלה, in a process requiring several stages. Alternately, the word ויחל is used in the same sense as in Samuel I 14,35 החל לבנות מזבח, “it was the first altar which he (Saul) established” Or, the meaning of the word ויחל may be similar to Joshua 3,7 אחל גדלך, “I will establish your greatness.” and similar to Genesis 10,8 הוא החל להיות גבור, “he was the first to become a hero, a warrior.” Or, the word simply means “he began with this work of farming, as part of which he planted a vineyard.” The line may simply mean that Noach began to plant a vineyard, [in which case we gain the impression that this was his major concern at this time. Ed.] What leads to all these explanations is the repetition of two verbs in close succession ויחל ...ויטע, without the Torah telling us what Noach had done. We have such a construction in Genesis 28,10 ויצא יעקב מבאר שבע וילך חרנה, “Yaakov left Beer Shevah heading towards Charan,” where we are also forced to understand the second verb וילך as meaning ללכת, to go. This story has to be understood as portraying two separate subjects. First we have to remember that Canaan, Cham’s son and his offspring were a cursed tribe, cursed by Noach, that is. We observe throughout the Book of Genesis how careful our ancestors were not to intermarry with members of such a cursed part of mankind. Avraham not only went out of his way to forbid Eliezer to take a wife from such people for his son Yitzchok (Genesis 24,3) but Yitzchok and Rivkah both warned Yaakov against such liaisons (Genesis 28,1). The Torah introduces a story showing how Canaan was even worse than his father Cham, so that the Torah makes a point of calling Cham “the father of Canaan,” [although he was the youngest of his four sons. (10,6) G’d had foreseen already that the offspring of Canaan would be totally corrupt, depraved. This is why He had encouraged Noach to curse his own grandson. (compare our comment on verse 8 on the wording of G’d’s address to Noach) Seeing that Noach was a prophet, his curse came true. Another aspect of this story is to warn anyone drinking wine not to overindulge, as this will impair the functioning of his brain, that which separates him from the animals. Solomon in Proverbs 23,2 is extremely critical of people who drink to excess. Also the prophets, (Isaiah 5,22; 28,1, and Amos 6,6) are very outspoken about the detrimental effects of drinking too much intoxicating wine. If the first human being ever to drink wine, i.e. Noach, became so drunk that he was unaware that he had disrobed himself, this serves as a warning to all of his descendants to be very careful in the manner in which the treat such intoxicating drink.

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).

He made himself profane [חולין]. Otherwise, why does it say ויחל? It should simply say, “He planted a vineyard.” (Kitzur Mizrachi)

(20-21) כרם, vielleicht verwandt mit גרם, Stufe, גרם המעלות, von den Reihen der Reben sich terrassenförmig erheben. — יין rad. יין möglich (wie קין mit :übervorteilt werden, im Hiphil: übervorteilen, auch :ינה .verwandt ינה mit (קנה mit Worten wehe tun. Zunächst also: sich im Verkehr mehr als ihm zukommt geben lassen, jemandem das Seinige ablisten, abpressen. Wir rauben nicht, sondern: setzen den Andern in die Lage, dass er uns von dem Seinigen das hergebe, was er eigentlich behalten sollte. Es ist nun sehr möglich, dass der Wein deshalb יין heißt, weil er das der Beere abgepresste Eigentum ist. Vergleiche הירוש, das doch unbestritten von ירש: Jemanden aus seinem Besitze drängen, stammt. Zuerst ist der Saft תירוש, einfach aus der Beere gepresst. Wird dies gewaltsam Genommene nun noch allerhand Misshandlungen, Kränkungen und Trübungen ausgesetzt, damit es uns seine innerste Kraft zum Genuss herauskehre, so ist dies: שכר — יין verwandt mit שיר .שגר ,שקר ,שיר ist der begeisterte Ausdruck des geistig Geschauten, des Wahren, aber nicht, oder noch nicht in konkreter Wirklichkeit Vorhandenen. das שיר ;singt das unsichtbare Göttliche in den Ereignissen der Gegenwart שירה in der Gegenwart noch nicht sichtbare Künftige. Beides spricht das für das sinnliche Auge nicht Vorhandene aus, obgleich es wahr ist, wahrer und wirklicher vielleicht als das, was das sinnliche Auge für wahr und wirklich erkennt. — שכר: der Rausch, der Zustand, in welchem die Phantasie sich eine Wirklichkeit bildet, der in Wahrheit nichts entspricht. שקר: die vollendete Lüge, die keinen Rausch hat, sondern mit Bewusstsein das Falsche für das Wahre ausgibt. — Was alle drei geistig sind, ein Produzieren von Innen heraus, das ist שגר leiblich: die tierische Geburt.

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.

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”.

As in “Naomi’s master.” We cannot say it means Naomi’s husband, because a husband does not belong to his wife in the way a wife belongs to her husband. We do not say איש אשה (a man belonging to a wife) like we say אשת איש (a woman belonging to a husband). The construct form, אשת איש, indicates “belonging to.” (Kitzur Mizrachi)

גלה .ויתגל: aufdecken und zugleich auswandern, und zwar unfreiwillig ins Exil. Es dürfte diese verwandtschaftliche Erscheinung dasjenige bestätigen, was wir früher über עיר und כפר geäußert. רפכ: Dorf, weil es schützt und deckt; עיר: Stadt, weil sie in noch näherer Beziehung gleichsam עור, Haut, dem Menschen die organische Hülle für seine geistige Entwickelung gewährt. Während das Dorf nur schützt, das eigentliche Leben sich aber außerhalb desselben entfaltet, umfasst die Stadt das ganze Leben, umschließt die Einwohnerschaft wie die Haut. Wer auswandern muss und heimatlos wird, der wird entblößt, verliert Schutz und Schirm, und denjenigen berechtigten Raum, in welchem alle Verhältnisse von ihm zu seiner Entwickelung in Anspruch genommen werden können, er geht eben bloß "hautlos" in die Fremde. So liegt in diesem Worte die ganze Innigkeit und das Schmerzgefühl dessen, was die Heimat dem Juden ist. Nicht umsonst wird der גר so oft und warm dem Mitleid empfohlen. Verwandt mit -g ewaltsam bloß machen, abscheeren, den Schutz der Haut, die Haare ab :גלח ist גלה nehmen. גלע ist gleichfalls entblößen. — אהל: Zelt, von הלל mit dem vorgesetzten א. (Vergl. אבר ,אכל usw.) הלל: strahlen, Kräfte von einem Punkte aus nach allen Seiten ausströmen lassen. Wenn dieses zunächst nur dem Mittelpunkt zu Gute kommt, dann bildet sich אהל, ein Kreis, in welchem ein Individuum alle seine Kräfte um sich sammelt, eigentlich: Kraftbereich, Vermögensbereich: Zelt. An diese Bedeutung dürfte hier um so mehr zu erinnern sein, da es בתוך אהלה, nicht באהלה heißt. באהל : allgemein im Zelte. בתוך האהל: in der Mitte, in dem Innern des Zeltes. — תָוֶך: die Mitte, in eigentümlicher Weise mit דבק und דפק verwandt. דבק: sich ganz nahe an etwas anschließen. דפק: diese Berührung noch eindringlicher, so dass der berührte Gegenstand durch den Berührenden getrieben wird. Dem jüdischen Gedanken ist die Mitte derjenige Punkt, in welchem man dem Gegenstand am nächsten kommt. Er schaut den Gegenstand immer aus seiner Mitte an (vergl. קֶרֶב das Innere und :nahe), also dass der Prophetenblick ihn auch aus der Mitte misst. Er spricht קרוב Ein Gegenstand ist eine Elle lang und breit, wenn er nach unserem Ausdruck zwei Quadratellen misst. Ihm ist der Gegenstand in seinem Mittelpunkt vorhanden und erstreckt sich nach jeder Seite hin eine Elle. (Siehe Jecheskeels Altarmessung 43, 16, 17.)

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 B’reshit 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.

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).

Vine branches and fig shoots. You might ask: How does Rashi know he brought with him fig shoots? Granted that he brought vine branches, for it says ויטע כרם, and נטיעה denotes planting branches. For when seeds are used, it is not called נטיעה, [rather זריעה]. But how does Rashi know about fig shoots? R. Isserel answers in his commentary: Since Noach “should have first been occupied with another נטיעה,” as learned from ויחל, he must have had some other branch to plant! Although we do not know which other species he had, we do know that until this point, the Torah has mentioned no species of trees other than figs. For it is written in Parshas Bereishis (3:7): “They sewed together fig leaves.” Thus we may infer that Noach had fig shoots. But it seems to me [that Rashi knew Noach had fig shoots because] Noach’s son Cham castrated him in order that Noach should not have a fourth son (see Rashi 9:25). But how did Cham know he wanted to have another son? Because he planted trees whose fruit bring physical desire. And there is no fruit that brings desire like figs. For it is written in Sanhedrin 70b that the tree from which Adam was a fig tree, as it says, “They sewed together fig leaves, etc.” They set themselves aright with what they had sinned. And the fig tree brought upon Adam additional physical desire, for it says (4:25), “Adam knew his wife again.” And Rashi explains: “His desire for her was greater than before.” This explains why Rashi said that Noach brought vine branches and fig shoots into the ark. The Re’m answers differently, citing R. Yaakov of Orleans: [Noach brought these species] because vines and figs are more easily damaged by water. Thus Noach chose to bring them into the ark over other trees, and therefore he needed to bring in the actual branches, [not just the seeds].

Auf האדמה steht ein אתנה; es heißt ferner nicht איש אדמה, das allenfalls ein Landmann heißen könnte, wie איש שדה ein Waidmann, obgleich der Ausdruck sonst nicht vorkommt, sondern איש האדמה. Es kann somit nicht heißen: Noa, der Landmann, pflanzte den ersten Weinberg. Wir haben vielmehr zwei Sätze vor uns: ויחל נח איש האדמה und ויטע כרם. Vergegenwärtigen wir uns, dass Noa den Untergang der Erde und des Menschengeschlechts erlebt, und die Erde ihm jetzt öde und wüst da lag, so begreifen wir den Ausdruck: er war der Mann und Herr des Erdbodens, ihm war er anvertraut; deshalb: Nachdem so lange die Zerstörung auf Erden gewütet hatte, "fing Noa an, איש האדמה zu sein", sich als solchen zu betätigen, und es gelang ihm, sogar das edelste Gewächs wieder in alter Weise zu pflanzen. Er sah daran, dass der alte Segen der Fruchtbarkeit nicht geschwunden. Das Dokument ist ihm die wiedergewonnene erste Traube, der wiedergewonnene erste Wein! Wollen wir uns da wundern, dass der erste Wein aus der so hart geprüften Erde ihn mit Entzücken erfüllte, und möchten wir nicht glauben, dass in solchem Entzücken, wo man schon halb durch den Gedanken trunken ist, nicht eben viel dazu gehörte, durch den Trunk berauscht zu werden? — Auch auf וישכר steht בתוך אהל ;אתנה, in dem eigentlichen Innern seines Zeltes hatte er den Wein nicht getrunken; ויתגל בתוך אהלה, als er fühlte, dass er ihm zu Kopfe stieg, flüchtete er sich in das Innerste seines Zeltes, wo er hoffen durfte, nicht gesehen zu werden. Ja, die Weisen bemerken, es sei אהלה geschrieben, also sogar das Frauengemach, wo er gewiss hoffen durfte, dem Blick seiner Söhne entzogen zu bleiben, die den Vater nicht berauscht sehen sollten.

ויתגל AND HE UNCOVERED HIMSELF — This is the Hithpael form.

וישת מן היין וישכר, he drank without setting himself a limit until in the end he became drunk and disgraced himself.

Within his tent - the expression should have been "in his tent"; "within" means in the middle of, just as "within the garden" (Gen. 2:9) and in a few other places. And it is not typical to put one's place of sleeping in the middle of the tent, rather, to one side. And this appears to have been a cause for the deed of his younger son, who "played" with him as he was asleep due to his drunkenness. This is beside the known drash [ed. note: castration].

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.

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.

Referred to as Shomron. In Yechezkel (23:4) it says, “And they bore sons and daughters, and their names: Shomron is Oholah (אהלה)...” And here since it is written אהלה instead of אהלו, to hint to Shomron’s exile (which was due to wine). This also explains the expression ויתגל, which is related to גלות (exile). (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Spoken of as Samaria - It seems to me that the text hints at the core of the punishments that come through wine, and they are two: the first is the abasement that comes to a person through drunkenness, that they humiliate themselves, and that's why we read "and he uncovered himself in the middle of his tent". The second is the loss of wisdom and intelligence that a person has. And know that intelligence is the connection with the Holy One of Blessing, and through drunkenness this connection will be lost, and when a person has no connection to Hashem - exile and divisiveness come to a person, since whenever a person has his intelligence on, one is called a faithful seed, one is "a tree on a field" (Deut. 20:19), and one's saplings are in heaven, since the head which is the root of the tree/human turns upwards, and this is why a person is called "tree of the field" planted in heaven, and it is through the rational part one is planted in one's place, and all the winds come and blow, but do not move the person from one's place (see Avot 3:17) and when a person goes after getting drunk and one's rational faculties get lost - then one is in exile, and this is what the Torah truly hints with its word "itgal", the writing is "vaitgal" because it comes from the expression of galut, exile.
And the words of Rashi are surprising, because our sages in Bereshit Rabbah (Bereshit Rabbah 36:4) did not say that the text hints at the exile of the ten tribes using the word "vaitgal", which is an expression of galut, but using the word "his tent", which I did not find in Bereshit Rabbah. And the rabbis of blessed memory are right, because the Text hints to exile (galut) with the word "vayitgal", since there is no difference between exile (galut) and revealed (galuy), since when one is exiled from one's place comes out from one's hiding place and is seen in another place, and the hint is the exile - that comes from the word revelation that humiliates, and a different revelation - the exile from one;s place, and this thing that maintains the exile of the ten tribes that were exile due to drunkenness, since they separated from the rational part that is the faithful seed, as we explained above. And this is what Bereshit Rabbah says (36:4) - Rabbi Shmuek bar Nachmani says it is not written 'and he revealed' (vaigal) rather 'and he uncovered himself', this thing brought about exile for him and his children. The ten tribes were not only exiled due to wine, etc.' And from the fact that he said 'brought about exile for him' and what was the exile that it was brought about if not as we said, that he experienced exile from the place of his [high] stanting and level, and so [also] he brought exile to his children. And this is not like Rashi has explained that the Text hints specifically to the ten tribes, since behold he said 'to him and his children' - meaning, all his children, just what was found in the ten tribes, and see.

, 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)

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”.

ויתגל, by himself, unaided.

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.

בתוך אהלו, the letter ה at the end of אהלה, where we would expect the letter ו for the masculine ending “his,” is interpreted (and quoted by Rashi) as an allusion to the ten tribes who have been referred to as אהלה in Amos 6,6, and whose exile has been attributed to their excessive drinking of strong wine both in Isaiah 28,1 and Amos 6,6). From a grammatical perspective, the construction here is not really so unusual

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 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.”

וירא, by feasting his eyes on his father’s nudity, Cham showed that he was the father of Canaan, i.e. that his son already had inherited a genetic flaw. The additional impropriety he committed was that he told his brothers about it, instead of first covering his father’s nudity.

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.

Some of our Sages say, he castrated him. Others say, he sodomized him. I will explain this a little later (v. 25, ד"ה אתה גרמת לי), with Hashem’s help.

Seine anderen Söhne blieben ehrfurchtsvoll und scheu בחוץ, draußen; Cham aber "ging hinein"; schon das Hineingehen, den Vater da aufsuchen, wo er erwarten durfte, nicht gesehen zu werden, hingehen, "um den Vater auch einmal im Rausch zu sehen", das stempelt schon Cham zum Kanaaniter. Und nun die Steigerung, — ,וירא אבי כנען, ider doch selbst schon Vater war, und den somit der Gedanke an das Verhältnis seines Kindes zu ihm doppelt mit den Gefühlen des Sohnes gegen seinen Vater hätte erfüllen müssen, — ערות אביו — und nun noch gar ויגד! nicht bloß ויאמר, sondern: vergegenwärtigen, anschaulich machen durch Worte, erzählen, macht eine ganze Erzählung daraus, freut sich mit dem Ereignis, das er gesehen, und glaubt auch seinen Brüdern etwas Ergötzliches zu erzählen!!

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 B’reshit 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]

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).

ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ, he revealed that he had enjoyed what his son had done.

And told it (vayageid) to his brothers. Vayageid signifies regaling the listener with a story rather than reporting it dryly. Thus Cham’s Canaan-like behavior consisted in the way he relayed the information and not only in the fact that he did so.

Wir haben schon darauf hingewiesen, wie in dem אבי כנען an das bereits in seiner Entartung vorhandene Volk gedacht wird, und so Israel, zwischen zwei chamitische Völker gestellt, in Egypten die soziale, in Kanaan die sittliche Entartung vor Augen, an dem Grabe beider Völker des leisen Anfangs inne werden sollte, mit welchem diese Entartung begonnen, — und dieser Anfang war: das Verhältnis Cham׳s zu seinem Vater!

Auf das Verhältnis der Kinder zu den Eltern ist die ganze Menschenwelt gebaut. Freilich sind die Eltern um der Kinder willen da, die Mutter: אם, die Bedingung, und der Vater אב: (von אבה) der dem Heile des Kindes hingegeben sein sollende. Aber beides ist bedingt durch כבוד ומורא אב ואם, durch Verehrung und Ehrfurcht vor Vater und Mutter. Nicht umsonst steht diese Mizwa als Schlußstein der ersten Gesetzestafel. So lange Kinder in den Eltern die Depositäre der göttlichen Aufgabe erblicken, nicht das leiblich sinnliche, sondern das geistige Wesen in ihnen achten, aus dessen Händen sie ihr geistiges Wesen erhalten, so lange wächst die Menschheit wie ein Baum. Wenn aber umgekehrt dies Moment den Kindern ganz entschwunden ist; wenn es eine Möglichkeit ist, dass das Kind sich an der Seite des väterlichen Wesens, die sinnlich ist, freuen kann; wenn die Scheu des Kindes vor den Eltern geschwunden ist; dann ist der Stamm durchschnitten, der aus der Vergangenheit die Zukunft immer veredelter hervorgehen lassen soll. Dann betrachtet sich das jüngere Geschlecht nur als יורש des älteren, das, als das rüstigere, das ältere, abgelebte, verdrängt und an seine Stelle tritt (ירש, aus dem Besitz drängen, verwandt mit גרש und selbst mit כרש, dem Namen des großen Welteroberers). In Israel soll das Verhältnis der auf einander folgenden Geschlechter נחלה, eine "Strömung" sein, da überträgt das Alter seine Kraft und seine Macht, seine geistigen und leiblichen Schätze dem Folgenden. Da liegt die Quelle der Kräfte oben, abwärts geht der Strom, es ist die geistige Aufgabe, die das Ältere mit den Mitteln auf das Jüngere überträgt. Dort hingegen beginnt jedes Geschlecht seine Schule von neuem, will von der Vergangenheit nichts lernen, es wechseln die Geschlechter auf Erden und die eigentliche Zukunft ist noch zu erwarten. (Siehe נחלה a 62 a. נחלה nur bei ירושה ;ישראל bei בן נח). Also כבוד ומורא אב ואם ist die Grundlage aller Menschenentwicklung. Als daher Israel an die Grenze des Landes geführt war, das von seinen Bewohnern um ihrer Entartung willen Israel zum reinen Lebensaufbau geräumt werden sollte, ward ihm diese Entartung und ihre Folgen gezeigt und zu ihm gesprochen: siehe, diese Entartung begann mit der ersten Verachtung, mit welcher der Stamm- vater dieser Bevölkerung seinen Vater betrachtet hatte!

Es ist übrigens nicht notwendig, dass hier dieses וירא את ערות אביו im buchstäblichen Sinne gemeint sei. Abgesehen davon, dass ערוה überhaupt als Ausdruck für eine Schwäche, eine schwache Seite, einen beschämenden Zustand, und damit auch ראה sehen, in Verbindung vorkommt, z. B. 1.1) לראות את ערות הארץB. M. 42.9) die Blöße, die Schwäche, den erniedrigten Zustand des Landes zu sehen, seid ihr gekommen, so kommt "Blöße" ganz speziell als Bezeichnung des den Menschen er- niedrigenden Zustandes des Rausches vor: הוי, heißt es Chabakuk 2, 15. משקה רעהו מספח חמתך ואף שכר למען הביט על מעוריהם: " ,der du deinem Nächsten, "Weh׳ der du deinem nächsten zu trinken gibst, ihm mit Wut zusetzest und ihn berauscht machst, um dich an ihrer Blöße zu weiden!" Dazu kommt auch גלה, (hier) ויתגל, auch nicht gerade als buchstäbliche Entblößung, sondern als Ausdruck des Sichselbsterniedrigens, des Sichgehen- lassens vor. So sagt Michal zu David: (Samuel 2, 20) מה נכבד היום מלך ישראל אשר נגלה היום לעיני אמהות עבדיו כהגלות נגלות אחד הרקים, "wie hat sich heute Israels König geehrt, indem er sich heute vor den Augen der Mägde seiner Diener, wie nur einer der Charakterlosen bloß gegeben!" Es kann daher Noa in seinem Zeltgemach lediglich im erniedrigenden Zustand des Rausches dagelegen haben, ohne dass eine wirkliche Körperentblößung stattgefunden.

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, 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, this formulation is similar to ויבא משה ואהרון in Exodus 6,10, where it describes the promptness and dedication of Moses and Aaron. Here two of the brothers not only covered their father’s private parts, but made sure that he was completely covered.

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 their backsides bare. חשופי means exposed and שת means loins, so it is saying their loins were exposed since they were naked and had no clothing to cover themselves. But Yefes, who covered [his father’s nakedness], merited a covering for himself: burial. And Sheim who exerted himself more for the mitzvah — and covered Noach with a cloak — merited a tallis with tzitzis. [You might ask:] It says in Maseches Sotah 17a that Avraham’s descendants were rewarded with techeiles strings and tefillin straps for his saying [to the King of Sedom], “Neither a thread nor a shoelace” (14:23). Does this not imply that the mitzvah of tzitzis was given to Avraham for saying, “Neither a thread,” rather than for Sheim’s covering his father? The answer is: A tallis with tzitzis is one thing, and techeiles is another. Due to Sheim, they merited a tallis with white tzitzis strings. And due to what Avraham said, they merited techeiles. (Re’m)

Schem nahm׳s zuerst, Japhet schloss sich ihm an, Cham kam nicht einmal zur Besinnung, als er sah, was die Brüder taten. In diesen drei Abstufungen charakterisieren sich die Brüder. — שכם, Schulter, auch rad. von השכם: sich vom Schlaf erheben, aufstehen. Wenn ein liegender Mensch sich zum Aufstehen entschließt, hebt er von selbst zuerst die Schulter.

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.

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).

אחרנית. Eigentümlich heißt אחר sowohl ein Anderer, als auch אחר: hinten und אחרית: das Ende. Vielleicht ist אחר ebenso wie אכל usw. von חר mit vorgesetztem א׳ gebildet. ארר ,ערר ,חרר sprechen alle die Verneinung einer vorhandenen Kraft usw. aus: חרר, Säfte ausdorren, ערר, vereinsamen, ארר: vollste Negierung der Möglichkeit, sich weiter zu entwickeln. Auch חרה: glühen und חרה ל־ einem Andern gegenüberstehen, Verdruss machen, eigentlich: die betreffende Sache stellt das dar, was der Andere nicht haben will, verwirklicht das ihm zuwider Seiende. Liegt so in חר die Verneinung, so ist אחר: das, was eben durch diese Verneinung charakterisiert wird. אחר: jeder Gegenstand, der das ist, was der andere nicht ist. Es ist immer ein, wenn auch relativer, Gegensatz, selbst wenn der andere demselben Begriff angehört, nur ein anderes Exemplar derselben Gattung ist. Daher auch räumlicher und zeitlicher Gegensatz: אָחר, räumlich, die dem פנים entgegengesetzte Seite. אחר, zeitlich, derjenige Moment, der dann eintritt, wenn ein anderer zu Ende ist. Während פנים, räumlich, die Vorderseite und אחר die Rückseite ist, heißt (der Vermutung entgegengesetzt) לפנים die Vergangenheit; denn אחרית, die Zukunft, ist dasjenige, was אחר הפנים was eintritt, wenn das Vorhergehende gewesen ist. אחרית Ende, Ziel, Gegensatz von ראשית, ist dasjenige, was im ראשית noch nicht vorhanden war, das immer erst zuletzt kommt, während קץ ,קצה nur einfach Grenze und daher ebenso Anfang als Ende bedeutet. אחרית ist sehr oft der gerade Gegensatz von Anfang: והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאור (Job 8,7). Daher: אחרית לאיש שלום (Psalm 37, 37). Dem איש שלום ist anfangs viel versagt, aber er findet ein אחרית, er hat eine Zukunft; der רשע hingegen hat nur ein קץ.

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).

ויקץ נח, drunkenness makes a person as insensitive to what goes on around him as does sleep. Therefore, the Torah describes his becoming sober as “waking up.”

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.

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.

The worthless and contemptible one. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise why does it call Cham קטן? He was older than Yefes, for Scripture (5:32) counts him before Yefes. And we cannot say Cham was counted before Yefes because of his importance, although Rashi writes (ibid.) that Sheim was counted first of all due to his importance. For Cham was the lowliest of them all. (Re’m) But the Maharshal [writes that the Re’m was mistaken, and Cham surely was not older than Yefes. He] explains that Rashi is rather answering the question: [Why is Cham called קטן?] Sheim was the youngest! For it is written (ibid.), “Noach was 500 years old, and Noach produced Sheim, Cham, and Yafes.” And it is written (7:6), “Noach was 600 years old when the flood waters were on the earth,” [thus his oldest child was then 100]. Additionally, it is written (11:10): “Sheim was 100 years old... two years after the Flood.” Since Sheim was born when his father was 502, he [was not the oldest. Rather he] was the youngest son, [for if Cham was youngest, then in 5:32 the order should be: “Shem, Yefes, and Cham.” See entry there, citing Maharshal.]

קוץ und יקץ: erwachen: ebenso wie קוץ in קיץ die Zeit ausdrückt, wenn die Früchte "genug" gesogen haben, nicht mehr mögen, ebenso קוץ vom Menschen in Beziehung zum Schlafe. Im Schlafe liegen wir an der Brust des Schlafes, der uns nährt: wir erwachen, wenn wir uns satt gesogen haben.

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.]

ויקץ, the reason why this is spelled with a single letter י so that the letter י which is part of the root is missing, is because this was not a true “awakening:” from sleep. [The fact is that in all the Torah scrolls nowadays the word is spelled with two letters י, so that there is no need to justify a “missing” letter, seeing it is not missing. Ed.]

בנו הקטן, wir sind nicht berechtigt, hierin etwas anderes als: "sein jüngster Sohn" zu erblicken und haben Cham für den jüngsten der Söhne zu halten, obgleich er in der Aufzählung der Söhne als der zweite erscheint. Heißt ja auch Japhet der älteste יפת הגדול obgleich er zuletzt genannt wird. Dem Alter nach folgten sie (B. M. 10, 21 .1) demnach also: Japhet, Schem, Cham. Die Nennung Schem, Cham, Japhet erklärt sich, wenn wir bedenken, dass alle diese geschichtlichen Offenbarungen zunächst für Israel bestimmt sind. Für Israel ist aber Schem, als der eigene Urstammvater, der wichtigste, und ihm zunächst Cham, dessen Völker — Ägypten und Kanaan — die hauptsächlichsten Gegensätze bildeten, in deren Überwindung Israel fortgesetzt seine geschichtliche Entwicklung fand. Mit Japhet׳s Völkern kam es erst später in Berührung. Ohnehin sind Schem und Cham völkergeschichtliche Gegensätze und Japhet die Vermittlung. dass aber im Verfolg Noa von Kenaan und nicht von Cham spricht, das kann uns nicht befremden. Dem Cham wird so wenig geflucht, wie Schem der Segen wird. Nicht Cham und Schem für ihre Person, sondern dem, was sie durch ihre Nachkommen der Menschheit werden, wird Fluch und Segen erteilt, nicht ברוך שם, sondern ברוך אלקי שם - Dabei ist es tief erschütternd, dass Noa dem Cham in seinem Kinde den Fluch ausspricht, und spricht dies die inhaltsschwere Warnung aus: "Wer nicht in seinem Kinde bestraft werden will, der ehre seine Eltern!" Will Cham nicht einst in Kenaan bestraft werden, so versündige er sich nicht an Noa! Die Sünde, die die Kinder an ihren Eltern geübt, bestraft sich in den eigenen Kindern! Und wie in der einzelnen Familie, so gilt dies Gesetz von der Entwicklung ganzer Menschengeschlechter. Nur wo das jüngere Geschlecht ehrfurchtsvoll auf dem Grabe der Vergangenen steht, über die "Blöße der Vergangenheit das Gewand deckt", ihr Edles, Wahres und Großes aber als teure Hinterlassenschaft zum Weiterbau des eigenen Lebens hinnimmt, da ist die Entwicklung der Geschlechter ein in fortschreitender Blüte sich entfaltender Baum. Sobald aber das jüngere Geschlecht, Cham gleich, sich an den Blößen der Ahnen weidet, und über deren menschliche Blößen ihre geistig großen Überlieferungen verlacht, sobald die Zukunst das Band mit der Vergangenheit hohnlachend zerreißt, ist auch ihre Zukunft ein Traum, und hohnlachend, wie sie bei dem Andenken ihrer Ahnen, stehen einst ihre Enkel bei dem ihren — Cham ist immer der Vater von Kenaan!

אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, if we were to understand these words as referring to what Cham had done, we would have to understand the word הקטן as “the inferior one.” We have explained already on 5,32 as well as on 6,10 that Cham was not the youngest of Noach’s sons as he was never mentioned last in the list of Noach’s sons. If what he did was to only tell his brothers about his father’s nakedness instead of first covering up his private parts, why did Noach cause Canaan, Cham’s son, instead of Cham himself? He foresaw in prophetic vision that both Cham and his offspring would forever be evil people. Actually, he could not effectively curse Cham, as G’d had already blessed him. (compare verse 1 in our chapter) Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 36,7) therefore say that “Cham saw and Canaan was cursed,” the reason being that once G’d has blessed someone, man cannot annul G’d’s blessing. Other sages are of the opinion that Canaan castrated Noach, and that the words בנו הקטן refer to Canaan, seeing that he was the youngest of Cham’s sons. There is nothing unusual in a grandson being referred to as a “son.”

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 “.

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 cursed Canaan by invoking his prophetic vision, so that his curse would take lasting effect. All he patriarchs were extremely careful not to marry women descended from these cursed tribes. Avraham had already warned Eliezer his servant, against taking a wife from these tribes for Yitzchok, and so had Yitzchok as well as Rivkah expressed their opposition to such liaisons.

You caused me. This is proof for those who say Cham castrated Noach. For it is written, “Cursed is Canaan.” Why did Noach curse Canaan? Because Cham castrated Noach, who then said, “You caused me... may your fourth son...” And the proof for those who say he sodomized him is from (9:22): “Cham the father of Canaan saw.” And it is written (34:2): “She was seen by Shechem.” Just as there, Shechem had relations, so too here, Cham had relations. If so, why did Noach curse Canaan? Because Cham did both: he sodomized him and castrated him. Tosafos explain in Sanhedrin 70a that the reason Noach did not curse Cham himself is because it is written (9:1), “Elohim blessed Noach and his sons.” And a curse cannot be effectuated where there is a blessing. (Maharshal)

Das in diesen Versen Ausgesprochene enthält vielleicht das tiefste und weitest reichende, was je das von Gott geöffnete Auge eines Sterblichen geschaut, und Gott durch dessen Mund zum Ausspruch hat kommen lassen. Die ganze Geschichte der Menschheit, ihr Anfang, ihr Ende und ihre Mitte liegt in diesen drei Sätzen.

ויאמר (נח) ארור כנען, “Noach said: “Canaan be cursed and become a lowly slave to his brothers" Our sages in B’reshit Rabbah 36,7 state that already when Noach entered the ark, he had been upset that he did not have a young son who could perform for him many chores that it had now become his task to perform personally. He therefore had resolved that when he would sire more children after leaving the ark, he would train some as his servants. Upon hearing him say something of that nature, his grandson Canaan went ahead and castrated him to prevent him from having more children. Noach therefore decided to treat Canaan as if he had been his fourth son and decreed that he should become a servant to his brothers. If you were to ask why he cursed Canaan more than anyone of Cham’s other children, a question which is justified according to the opinion that it had been Canaan who had castrated him, [Canaan could not have been even one year old when Noach left the ark, so that Noach must have failed to impregnate with wife until he had grown up, Ed.] how do we answer the problem according to the opinion that it was his son Cham, and not his grandson who had castrated him? A sage by the name of Rabbi Aaron, found a Midrash that Cham had discovered his father in a state of nudity, and told his brothers about it in a derogatory manner, and he had been overheard by Canaan, who had decided to castrate his grandfather. This is the meaning of the puzzling words: את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “what his son the minor had done to him” (9,24) Grandchildren are often referred to in the Torah as if they were children, not grandchildren. Actually, the line could not have referred to Cham, as he was not Noach’s youngest son, as the Torah lists him as his middle son. (10,1) The Torah, in referring to Canaan as Noach’s youngest son, meant his grandson. [At that time he only had one grandson, so that he did not have to be named. Ed.] We find proof that grandsons may be called younger sons in Ovadiah: 1,2: הנה קטון נתתיך בגוים, “here I will make you the least among the nations;”Furthermore, according to Pirkey de rabbi Eliezer, chapter 23, the line in Malachi 1,6: בן יכבד אב ועבד אדוניו, “a son is expected to honour his father, and a servant his master,” is interpreted as follows: when a son honours his father, all is well; if not, he will wind up as a servant to his master. [not found in my edition of the Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer. Ed.] An alternate interpretation. The reason why Noach chose as punishment that the person who witnessed his disgrace become a slave was that seeing he was the one who saw his state of nudity first, it was his duty to do what any servant would to, i.e. to cover his nudity. Seeing that he had neglected to perform the duty of a servant, he was now condemned to remain a servant all the time. This is also why he used the expression עבד עבדים, “a servant of servants,” instead of simply עבד “servant.” Both Cham and his son Canaan were condemned to be servants to Cham’s brothers.

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.

עבד עבדים, even his brothers would be slaves too; but he, Canaan, would be a slave even to them.

Why did Cham... You might ask: How did Cham know that Noach desired a fourth son? The answer is: It is written, “He uncovered himself (ויתגל) in his tent (אהלה).” It is read אהלו (his tent) but is written אהלה (her tent). And Rashi explained there that ... ויתגל is the reflexive form. Thus, the verse is saying that Noach acted with himself [“reflexive”] as if he was engaged in relations with his wife [“her tent”]. I.e., his organ had the requisite hardness as if he was engaged in relations. Cham thereby recognized that Noach desired a fourth son. See the other answer I wrote on v. 20 (ד"ה זמורות וייחורי תאנים); both are good.

Wir haben schon früher in den Namen der Söhne Noa׳s deren Charakteristik und die wesentlichen Nuancen zu erblicken geglaubt, welche die von ihnen stammenden verschiedenen Völker kennzeichnen, je nachdem bei ihnen der Geist, die Sinnlichkeit, oder das Gemüt vorherrscht. Hier stehen sie in ihrer doppelten Bedeutung als Individuen und als Wurzeln der einstigen Völkerstämme.

עבד עבדים, “a slave for evermore.” What caused him this terrible curse? It was all because he had shamed his father. As a punishment, in future his descendants would be put to shame, as we know from Isaiah 20,4: כאשר הלך עבדי ישעיהו ערום ויחף שלש שנים אות ומופת על מצרים ועל כוש, “just as My servant Yeshayahu had to go naked and barefoot, the captives of Egypt and the slaves of Nubia young and old will have to go naked and barefoot.” But Yephet who honoured his father will be honoured by G–d in the days of the wars preceding the final redemption when G–d will reward him by humbling Gog and Magog, and by covering the shame of Yephet. (Compare Ezekiel 39,11).” He will also compensate Shem, at the time when the two priests, sons of Aaron, prepared to offer their unauthorised incense in the Temple, when only their souls were burned, but their bodies as well as their garments were left intact by the heavenly fire and were buried in a dignified manner. This was because they had also been descendants of Shem. (Leviticus 10,2-7)

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.

Als Noa erwachte und Cham׳s Handlungsweise erfuhr, war sein erster Gedanke: das Prinzip, das sich in Cham hier herausgestellt, das kann und darf und wird nicht — (denn es ist durchaus nicht notwendig, dass in ארור immer in gewöhn lichem Sinne des "Fluches" ein Wunsch ausgesprochen sei, vielmehr, und hier zumal, ist׳s wohl eher eine Verkündigung) — das Herrschende werden. Die rohe "heiße" Sinnlichkeit, die sich selbst nicht beherrscht, die alle Scheu vor dem geistig Höheren verloren hat, ist zur Herrschaft, ja der Freiheit unfähig; sie ist in sich unfruchtbar, saft- und macht- und kraft- und kinderlos; sie trägt das Verderben in sich. — עבד עבדים, nicht: der tiefste Knecht, sondern, wie אלקי האלהים nicht der höchste Gott, sondern der Gott der Götter heißt, so auch עבד עבדים; auch die anderen sind עבדים, Kenaan aber wird: עבד עכדים. Indem ferner wiederholt von Kenaan עבר prädiziert wird, liegt unzweifelhaft ein tiefer Nexus zwischen dem Kenaan-Charakter und dem עבד-Geschick. Und in der Tat, wie in Kenaan ארור liegt, so dass nur dem Reinen, Veredelten die Zukunft angehöre, dem Rohen aber nicht, so erringt und bewahrt auch im sozialen und nationalen Leben, in dem Verhältnis des Menschen zum Menschen, der Völker zu Völkern, nur das die Freiheit, was sich selbst beherrschen kann. Die Leidenschaft, die sich nicht beherrschen kann, wird die Lockspeise, durch die man in die Knecht- schaft gegängelt wird. Wer zu aller Zeit sich selbst beherrscht, wer auf Befriedigung seiner sinnlichen Natur leicht verzichtet, den kann man nie bestechen, verlocken, ihm nicht aus dem Golde goldne Fesseln machen; er kann untergehen, sterben, — aber nicht geknechtet werden. So Menschen, so Völker. —

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)

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.

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 blessed²⁵³See Numbers 24:10. 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 brethren²³³Verse 25 here. is “unto all men,” just as in the verse, For I will set all men every one against his neighbor,²⁵⁴Zechariah 8:10. and as is the sense of the expression, Every man his fellow.²⁵⁵Isaiah 3:5. It may that unto his brethren²³³Verse 25 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,²⁵⁶Genesis 14:14. [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].²³¹Further, 10:6. 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.²⁵⁷Pesachim 88b.
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:²⁵⁸Numbers 6:1-21. 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.

ויהי כנען, his offspring [seeing that the word ויהי is in the future tense; Ed.]

ויאמר ברוך ה' אלוקי שם, Noach said this as a prophecy. He used the most holy attribute of G’d in conjunction with the regularly mentioned attribute of G’d when blessing in His name. The reason he did this was that he foresaw in his vision that the descendants of Shem would serve G’d in His capacity as the “Lord, the Eternal,” i.e. as Hashem. When we recite our major prayers we always combine mention of these two attributes of G’d; Noach foresaw this already. We encounter this combination in connection with the Jewish people, the descendants of Shem for the first time in Exodus 3,6. G’d has described Himself as being especially אלוקי ישראל, the G’d of Israel. (Exodus 5,1)

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.

His promise to his seed. The verse is explained as referring to Sheim’s seed, rather than to Sheim himself, because it is written: “May Canaan be their (למו) slave.” If it referred to Sheim himself, it should say, “May Canaan be his (לו) slave.” Alternatively, it must refer to Sheim’s seed because it is written, “Elokei [God of] Sheim,” and Scripture does not say “Elokeif” regarding an individual. Hashem places His Name only on a nation, such as “Elokei Yisrael” or “Elokei the Hebrews.” (Kitzur Mizrachi)

ויאמר. Es ist dies ein zweiter Absatz, ein neuer, fernerer Ausspruch, darum wiederholt אלקי שם — .ויאמר. Wie überall אלקי אברהם nicht in dem Sinne des vermeintlichen Partikularismus gesagt ist, den man so gerne dem jüdischen Gottesgedanken andichten möchte, sondern diese Bezeichnung deshalb die gewöhnliche ist, weil 1) Gott sich in Abrahams, Isaaks, Jakobs, Israels Geschichte und Leitung besonders offenbart, 2) weil sie ihn erkannt und verkündet, und diese Bezeichnung aus dem Grunde eine höchst notwendige ist, weil unter dem Namen, "Gott" so vieles und so mancherlei verstanden wird, — von dem rohen und pantheistischen Fetischismus bis zur spekulativen Idee, die die Wesenheit Gottes zu einer leeren Abstraktion verflüchtigt —, und es zur entscheidenden Bezeichnung des wahren und wahrhaftigen Gottes von allen übrigen Gotteslarven des Wahnes und der Phantasie gar kein anderes Mittel der Bezeichnung gibt, als "der Gott Abrahams, Isaaks und Jakobs", d. h. der Gott, wie sie ihn erkannt und gelehrt: so wird er hier אלקי שם genannt. Abrahams, ja Jakobs Gotteserkenntnis war ja in der Schule Schems gereift, und lange ehe Abraham zum Werkzeuge der Verkündigung Gottes erwählt wurde, hatte Schem ihn erkannt. אלקי שם heißt: der Gott, den Schem erkannt, verehrt, dessen Priester Schem ist. Also im Gegensatz zu dem ארור des Kenaan, wird ברוך וגוי wird die Anerkennung des von Schem gelehrten Gottes einen immer größeren Umfang gewinnen, sich verbreiten, immer fortschreiten und zuletzt dasjenige Prinzip werden, dem endlich alles Materielle sich unterordnet. Während Cham die unveredelte, nackteste und keckste Sinnlichkeit repräsentiert, lehrt Schem einen Gott, der nicht bloß einmal dem Himmel und der Erde als Urkraft zum Ursprung gedient, sondern noch קונה des Himmels und der Erde ist, noch in der Gegenwart alles beherrscht, dem somit jede Fiber unseres Daseins und jede Regung unseres Wollens angehört; somit das Cham diametral entgegengesetzte Prinzip. Auf das ויהי כנען עבר למו kommen wir noch unten zurück. Hier nur die Bemerkung, dass der Plural למו ein Beweis ist, dass hier Schem und korrespondierend auch Kenaan nicht als Individuen, sondern als die künftig von ihnen stammenden Völker angeschaut werden.

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 AND MAY HE BE — Canaan — their servant serving and paying tribute (Cp. Josh. 16:10).

... 2. Blessed be Hashem the God of Shem - behold, the mitzvah of honoring one's father brings reward and fruit in this world as it is known from the story of Dama ben Netina. Yet that there is a practical difference between one who does this mitzvah because this is the Holy One's will, and not due to human [natural] feelings; and between one whose common sense forces him to. So, Shem, who did this mitzvah because it was a mitzvah, was blessed to have among his children people who serve Hashem and His Torah, even up to having the laws of nature apply to them through HaVaYaH Himself, and this is why the text says "Blessed is Hashem the God of Shem" - behold the Holy One of Blessing Himself leads the ways of nature and He is Blessed and Magnified through nature [or through Shem / through the one who does God's will, text unclear.]

ויהי כנען עבד למו, Canaan is to be a servant to the descendants of Shem.

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)

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.]

יפת אלהים ליפת MAY GOD ENLARGE JAPHETH — The Targum renders the verb by יפתי meaning, “may He extend”.

באהלי שם, (the plural mode) is a reference to Torah academies in addition to the Temple.

יפת אלוקים, this expression is appropriately translated as “may He expand,” the root of the word יפת being פתח, an opening. It is in the transitive mode, as for instance Isaiah 41,2 ומלכים ירד, from the root רדה “to rule.” Noach prays that Yaphet’s share of the earth will be enlarged. Even though Noach promises quantity to Yaphet, he reserves quality for Shem, saying that G’d will make His home in the portion of the earth allocated to Shem’s descendants. (see Exodus 29,45) Moses also specifically prays for a renewal of this blessing after the sin of the golden calf in Exodus 33,16) when he pleads for the Jewish people to enjoy this distinction.

Even after... will be exiled. [Rashi knows this] because if it referred to the time when they ruled, it is already written, “Blessed is Adonoy, Elokei Sheim; may Canaan be his slave.” Why does it say a second time, “Canaan will be their slave”? Perforce, it means even in exile. You might ask: [Perhaps it means Canaan will be a slave] for Yefes? [The answer is:] If so, it should say, “Elohim will enlarge Yefes, and Canaan will be their slave.” And only then it should say, “But He will dwell in the tents of Sheim.” Perforce, it means even in exile.

יַפְתְ וגו׳, gewöhnlich: Gott wird Japhet ausbreiten, in der Bedeutung des chaldäischen פתה. Allein wir glauben als Prinzip einer jeden Erklärung festhalten zu müssen, man dürfe zur Erklärung eines Wortes aus einer anderen, wenn gleich verwandten Sprache nur dann seine Zuflucht nehmen, wenn das eigene Sprachbereich des Textes keinen Aufschluß gewährt. Die Wurzel פתה ist jedoch im Hebräischen eine durchaus bekannte und von durchaus unzweifelhafter Bedeutung. פתה bezeichnet das Offenstehen des Gemütes für alle äußeren Eindrücke und Einflüsse; daher פתי: der leicht zu Be- redende und zu Täuschende. Auch פתאום: was unser Gemüt ganz offen, d. i. ganz unvorbereitet, unverwahrt und unverschlossen trifft. Ebenso פתע. Verwandt ist פתה mit פדע ,פדה ,פתח, die öffnen bedeuten. יַפְתְ ist Hiphil und heißt daher: Gemüter öffnen. Gott wird dem Japhet die Gemüter öffnen, ihm Einfluß auf die Gemüter gewähren.

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.

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.

עבד למו, both to Yaphet and to Shem, even at times when the Temple will not stand.

ויהי כנען עבד למו, also to the descendants of Yaphet.

Wir haben also die Repräsentanten der drei Hauptrichtungen vor uns, die das Wesen der Menschen und der Völker in der Erscheinung charakterisieren. שֵם, der Inhaber des Namens und des Begriffes der Dinge und der Verhältnisse, repräsentiert den Geist; demgegenüber: המם ,חמם) חם), die höchste Potenz glühender Sinnlichkeit. Während in שם das Geistige hervortritt, das den Dingen möglichst objektiv entgegentritt, wozu die Ruhe gehört, die nichts von המם, geschweige von חמם wissen darf, ist in חם das Geistige auf ein Minimum reduziert. יפת repräsentiert das, was in der Mitte liegt, jenen Mittelpunkt, in welchem sich Geist und Sinnlichkeit begegnen; es ist dies das Gemüt, die Empfindung. Aus diesen drei Potenzen besteht der innere Mensch: Geist, Sinnlichkeit, Gemüt, und diese Potenzen treten auch charakterisierend bei Völkern hervor. Nicht als ob es einseitige Völker gäbe, die entweder nur Geist, nur Gemüt usw. hätten. Sondern wie bei allen Individuen alle drei Seiten vorhanden sind, jedoch bei jedem eine derselben vorherrschend, tonangebend ist, und diese vorherrschende Seite des Wesens den Mann kennzeichnet: also auch bei Völkern. Uns, die wir nicht wie Noa an dem allerersten Anfang der Geschichte stehen, sondern bereits auf eine viertausendjährige Geschichte zurückblicken können, dürfte es leicht werden, rückschauend die Wirksamkeit dieser verschiedenen Völkerpotenzen in den Gestalten der Geschichte zu erblicken.

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.

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).

Das meiste Lärmen in der Weltgeschichte macht חם, jene Sinnlichkeit, die das dem Geiste und dem Gemüte Angehörige in dem Fonds der Völker an ihren Ruhmeswagen spannt und das Geistige nur als Vehikel des Sinnlichen gelten lässt. Nationen, die erobern, zerstören und genießen. Es ziehen Völker über die Bühne, die fast nichts als rohe Gewalt, Sinnlichkeit, Tierheit vergegenwärtigen.

Es erscheinen aber auch Nationen, die im Dienste des Schönen ihre Kräfte üben, die in der Pflege der Kunst, des ästhetisch Schönen sich charakterisieren. In ihnen lebte das Bewusstsein von einem höheren Ideale, zu dem sich der Mensch aus seiner Roheit emporarbeiten solle. Diese Richtung lehrte den Menschen das rohe Sinnliche in das Gewand der Anmut hüllen, an der Hand des Anmutigen und Schönen auch die Tätigkeit des Geistes pflegen: Poesie, Musik, bildende Künste. Alle diese Völker, die dasjenige gepflegt, was das Gemüt anspricht, verwirklichen den ?^׳-Charakter

Allein die Bildung des rohen Menschen an der Hand des Schönheitssinnes ist nicht das Höchste. Schwankend ist die Kultur, die dem Menschen nur das höhere Selbstwohlgefallen als Maßstab seiner Lebenstätigkeit bietet, ihm aber kein außer ihm liegendes, in eigenem Lichte glänzendes Ideal als Ziel und Maßstab gibt. Erst was seinen Geist zur Erkenntnis und sein Gemüt zur Anerkenntnis des Wahren und Guten an sich zu erheben vermag, führt ihn auf den Weg zur Höhe seiner Bestimmung. Völker, die im Symposion der Menschheit ihren Beitrag durch Pflege des Geistes zur Erkenntnis der Wahrheit geliefert, haben im שם-Charakter für das Heil der Menschheit gewirkt.

Sehen wir uns in der geschichtlichen Wirklichkeit um, so dürfen wir uns sagen: die höchste Blüte des japhetischen Stammes war יון die Griechen; die höchste Blüte der semitischen Menschheit ist עבר, ist das ebräische Volk, Israel, das den ׳שם ה, als seinen Gott durch die Welt der Völker trug und trägt. Bis auf den heutigen Tag sind nur diese beiden Menschenstämme, der japhetische und semitische, das Griechen- tum und Judentum, die eigentlichen Bildner und Lehrmeister der Mensch- heit geworden. Alles, was an geistigen Schätzen die Erde gewonnen, verdankt sie diesen beiden, und alles, was noch heute heilbringend an der Bildung und Erziehung der Menschheit arbeitet, knüpft an das an, was Japhet und Schem der Menschheit gebracht. Die geistige Spende des Römers war auch nur ein Geschenk der Hellenen. Japhet hat die Welt ästhetisch veredelt, Schem sie geistig und sittlich erleuchtet. Griechentum und Judentum sind die gewaltigsten aktiven Mächte in dem Bildungswerke der Menschheit geworden, denen gegenüber die übrige Welt wie passiver Bildungsstoff sich verhält. — Wir haben diese Sätze in dem Artikel ,"der Hellenismus und das Judentum" im Jeschurun, III. Jahrgang. (S. 109 ff.) ausführlicher zu entwickeln versucht, und verweisen auf ihn. — In diesem Sinne schaut Noa׳s gewecktes Auge ein Dreifaches:

Er sieht: ארור כנען! sieht, wie die Roheit und die rücksichtslos glühende Sinnlichkeit nicht die Zukunftsblüte der Menschheit im Keime trägt; sieht diejenigen Völker, die sich der Sinnlichkeit hingeben und in deren Charakter die niedere Natur die vorherrschende bleibt, statt frei, unabhängig und die mächtigsten zu werden, als עבדים, zu Knechten hinabsinken. Ja, er sieht Jahrhunderte, in welchen das Bewusstsein von der freien Würde des Menschen ganz zu Grunde gegangen: Kenaan ist עבד עבדים, allein auch die Andern sind עכדים. Nur selber geknechtete Völker haben andere geknechtet. Wer als Welteroberer, Völkerbezwinger auszieht, muß erst die eigenen Völker zu blinden Werkzeugen seiner Herrschergelüste knechtend herabgewürdigt haben. Aus Cham׳s Geschlecht gehen Tyrannen, gewaltige Willkürherrscher und "Menschenjäger" hervor. Nicht die Freiheit, die Knechtschaft wird von Leidenschaft geboren. Freiheit, חֵרות, wohnt nur im Gesetze, blüht nur da, wo unantastbar hoch über alle ein Sittengesetz gebietet. Frei bleibt, wer dem Sittengesetz gehorchen lernt. Sinnliche Völker sind die Brutstätte der Knechtschaft, חם zeugt עברים, und wo die Sinnlichkeit wie in כנען gipfelt, da sinken sie zu .banih םירבע רבע

Sein Blick aber hebt sich, und er sieht, dem gegenüber: ברוך ד׳ אלקי שם, sieht die Rettung und Erlösung der Menschheit aus einem anderen Stamme hervorgehen. Auch Cham hat Götter; allein es sind Götter der rohen Gewalt, Mächte, die ihre "Göttlichkeit" nur in niederschmetternder Vergewaltigung äußern, Götter, vor denen der Mensch nur zittern kann und denen die Menschengewalten Altäre bauen, damit die Völker in ihnen selbst den Abglanz dieser Götter verehren, und vor ihnen wie vor ihren Göttern als Sklaven in den Staub sinken. Da tritt Schem בשם השם, mit dem Namen ׳ה in den Kreis der Menschen, eines Gottes, vor dem die den Menschen knechtenden Götter verschwinden, eines Gottes, der die Menschen frei macht, der sie über die Göttergewalten der Natur alle in gleicher Würdigkeit zu sich erhebt, der jedem Menschen mit dem in ihm lebenden Gotteshauche das Bewusstsein von der eigenen unverlierbaren Menschenwürde gibt, der jedem Menschen in seiner Barmherzigkeit und erziehenden Liebe nahe ist, jeden in seinen Dienst beruft, in seinem Dienste frei macht, in seinem Dienste adelt und in seinem Dienste beseligt, — und die Lehre dieses Gottes sieht er ברוך, sieht er gesegnet, sieht sie, die nicht mit dem Schwerte und der Macht, und nicht mit den verlockenden Reizen der Sinnlichkeit gerüstet in die Reihen der Völker eintritt, sie sieht er immer mehr Boden, immer mehr Blüte, immer mehr Macht, und endlich die siegende Herrschaft gewinnen, und er wünscht, — (es heißt nicht והיה, auch nicht יהיה, sondern וִיְהִי der gewöhnliche Ausdruck des Wunsches) — dass Kenaan Schem׳s עבר werde, sieht eine Rettung Cham׳s darin, dass das ihm entgegengesetzte Prinzip zur Herrschaft gelange und wünscht, da doch immer Kenaan עבר sein wird, dass er Schem׳s עבר werden möge, und so selbst כנען, die höchste Stufe der entartetsten Sinnlichkeit, zuletzt durch Schem sich Gott zu Füßen lege und in dieser Unterordnung für das göttliche Menschendasein gewonnen werde. —

Dies Ziel sieht er aber nicht sofort erreicht. Zwischen Cham und Schem steht Japhet. Ein Cham ist nicht sogleich empfänglich für die Lehre des Gottes Schem׳s. Erst muß aus dem rohen Menschen ein gebildeter Mensch werden. Die Forderung des Gottes Schem׳s ist keine geringe, sie fordert die volle Hingebung und Unterordnung des ganzen Menschen unter Gott. Erst muß der Mensch "Geschmack" bekommen an etwas Höherem als er in seiner rohen Natur ist, und wäre dieses Höhere vor der Hand auch nur etwas Sinnliches. Der Wilde, der sich bemalt, seine äußere Erscheinung also umgestaltet, betritt damit den ersten Anfang der Selbstbearbeitung, die Schwelle der Kultur, die sich mit der Unterordnung des Menschen, in seiner äußeren Erscheinung, seiner Umgebung, seinem Benehmen unter das Gesetz des Schönen und Wohlanständigen vollendet. Diese Kultur der Anmut, dieses Beugen des rohen Menschen unter das Maß des "Schön-Guten" des καλοκαγαθόν der japhetischen Bildung ist ein Vorbote der semitischen Sendung, ist eine Vorschule für die einstige Gewinnung des Menschen zur Unterordnung seines ganzen Wesens unter das noch höhere Maß der noch höheren Schönheit einer harmonischen Gestaltung des ganzen mannigfaltigen Lebens unter den einen Gedanken der Hingebung an den Willen des einen einzigen Gottes. Er sieht daher יפת אלקים ליפת, wie Gott dem "Schönen" des Japhet die Gemüter der Menschen öffnet und Japhets Geist zuerst seine Sendung in der Bildung der Völker vollbringt, auf dass dann das der Sendung Schem׳s anvertraute Ziel der Menschheit seine Verwirklichung auf Erden erreiche, וישכון באהלי שם, dass die Menschen von Schem die Weisheit lernen, "ihre Hütten auf Erden also zu bauen, dass Gott bei ihnen wohne" das ganze Menschenleben auf Erden also zu gestalten, dass Gottes Herrlichkeit wieder auf Erden zu den Menschen einkehre, ויהי כנען עבר למו, und dann selbst Kenaan durch Hingebung an Schem seine Rettung für das Göttlich-Menschliche finde. —

Wir gestatten uns noch eine Bemerkung über zwei Ausdrücke, denen wir hier in dem Munde des ältesten Vaters der neuen Menschheit begegnen, und in denen das ganze .ישכן und ,ברוך ה׳ jüdische Bewusstsein zusammengefasst ist. Wir meinen die Ausdrücke

ברוך. Man hat das Verständnis getrübt, indem man Anstand nahm, dieses Wort in der Beziehung des Menschen zu Gott ganz in demselben Sinne: segnen zu nehmen, wie es dies in Beziehung Gottes zum Menschen bedeutet. Man hat geglaubt, es sei dann adjektivisch wie חנון ,רחום, so, dass es dann gleichfalls den aktiven Quell, den Inhaber des Segens wie dort den der Gnade und des Erbarmens bezeichne. Allein man hat wenig damit gewonnen; unzählige Mal werden wir aufgefordert ׳לברך את ד, und spricht das Gemüt des Begeisterten, dass er ׳מברך את ד. Ist der Mensch aktiv ׳מברך את ד, so ist Gott ברוך im passiven Sinne, dem entgeht man nicht. Und warum sollte man auch dem entgehen müssen! In dem Moment, in welchem Gott die Er- füllung seines Willens auf Erden von dem freien Entschlusse des Menschen abhängig machte, sprach er zu ihm: !ברכני, segne mich, fördere meine Zwecke, erfülle meine Wünsche, verwirkliche meinen Willen, segne mein Werk, dessen Vollendung auf Erden ich in deine Hand gelegt! Und wie מלאכיו, wie כל צבאיו משרתיו עושי רצונו, wie כל מעשיו בכל מקומות ממשלתו, wie seine Engel, wie alle seine ihm dienenden, seinen Willen vollstreckenden Weltenheere, wie alle seine Geschöpfe an jeglicher Stätte seines Reiches מברכים את ד׳ — nicht Gott loben — sondern Gott segnen, mitarbeiten an Seinem einen großen Weltenzweck: so spricht jedes jüdische Gemüt zu seiner Seele: ברכי נפשי את ד׳, segne auch du meine Seele, Gott! und wenn der Jude ברוך spricht, so spricht er Gott das Gelöbnis zu, alle seine Kräste der Erfüllung des אתה ד׳ göttlichen Willens zu weihen. So begriffen, ist ברכה der Grundgedanke, den das ganze jüdische Leben verwirklichen soll. Die ganze תורה lehrt uns nichts, als wie wir מברך את ד׳ sein können und sollen. Gott loben und preisen, wozu man den wahren Begriff verwischend ברך את ד׳ gemacht hat, wird nur dann ברכה, wenn es zunächst seine Wirkung an uns vollbringt, wenn es unseren Geist berichtigt, unser Herz veredelt und an beiden das Werk fördert, dessen Vollbringung an uns selber Gott von uns erwartet. ברכה ist in Wortausdruck was עבורה in Tatausdruck ist, ברכה ist Wortausdruck für das, was קרבנות in Handlung ausdrücken, und nicht die in der ש"ע aus- gesprochenen Bitten, sondern die ברכות, mit denen sie schließen, das ברוך, in welchem jeder von uns das Gelöbnis ausspricht, alle seine von Gott verliehenen und zu verleihenden großen und geringen Kräfte und Güter dem Dienste Gottes zu weihen, לחם אשה ד׳, "Nahrung, Erhaltung, Pflege des Göttlichen zu werden", nur dies ברוך macht unsere תפלה במקום קרבן. Höchst bedeutsam ist es aber, dass wir diesem Begriffe schon in diesem Geistesausspruch des ältesten Vaters der neuen Menschheit begegnen. Indem wir ברוך sprechen, setzen wir nur das Werk fort, das hier ursprünglich und endlich von der ganzen Menschheit erwartet wird, sprechen das älteste Wort aus, das uns überhaupt als von des Menschen Beziehungen zu Gott gesprochen bekannt ist.

ישכן. Ein das Judentum nicht minder wesentlich charakterisierender Begriff ist der zweite, שכינה dem wir hier schon im Munde des Altvaters der neuen Menschheit begegnen. Andere Religionen lehren, was man zu tun habe, dass man jenseits zu Gott komme. Das Judentum lehrt, was wir zu tun haben, dass Gott schon diesseits zu uns komme. Das Judentum lehrt: עיקר שכינה בתחתונים, Gott will zunächst auf Erden bei dem Menschen wohnen; spricht von Menschen: ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם, mögen sie mir auf Erden ihr Leben zum Heiligtum gestalten, so werde ich in ihrer Mitte wohnen. Die Zeit vorzubereiten, dass nicht erst im Himmel, sondern hier auf Erden wieder Gottes Reich beginne, das ist Israel׳s, der semitischen Blütensprosse, Sendung und das ist seines Gottesgesetzes Ziel. Darum sind alle Verheißungen dieses Gottesgesetzes irdisch. Wechsel aufs Jenseits ausstellen, jenseitige Himmel und Hölle verheißen, vermag auch der erste Impostor. Allein das sich vor den Augen der Menschen erfüllen sollende Diesseits für sein Wort einsetzen, das vermag nur ד׳ אלקים אמת ומלך עולם. Dieser Begriff: שכינה, dass überall, wo der schwächste, unscheinbarste Mensch seinen kleinen, unscheinbaren Kreis auf Erden heiligt, sein "Lager heilig" werde, und dann Gott מתהלך בקרב מחניך, ihn schon hier auf Erden "selig" mache, ihn schon hier und heute מעין עה״ב finden lasse, das ists, was die תורה im Reiche der jüdischen Menschenfamilie verwirklicht sehen will, auf dass es dann wieder Gemeingut der Gesamtmenschheit werde und sie den "Weg wieder zurückfinden zum Baume des Lebens". — Indem aber so der Begriff שכינה die innigste Verbindung des Menschen mit Gott in dem hieniedigen Leben lehrt, liegt in diesem Worte selbst der mächtigste Schutz vor jeder Schwärmerei, von welcher eben daher keine Religion also wie das Judentum frei geblieben. Eigentümlich heißt nämlich שכן zugleich wohnen und Nachbarsein. Es liegt darin der höchste soziale Begriff. Wohnen heißt dem jüdischen Gedanken: Nachbar sein. Indem der jüdische Mensch eine Stätte auf Erden zu seinem Wohnen ergreift, muß er zugleich einem anderen Menschen Raum und Bereich zu gleicher Wohnstätte einräumen. Ohne den Nachbar ist sein eigenes Dortsein kein שכון, kein menschliches Wohnen. Der jüdische Mensch spricht zum andern: צר לי המקום גשה לי ואשבה, "eng ist mir zwar der Ort, aber nur wenn du zu mir trittst, lasse ich mich nieder!" (Jesaias 49, 20). Und nun, unter demselben Begriff שכינה das Niederlassen der göttlichen Herrlichkeit in den menschlichen Kreis gedacht, lehrt die innige Annäherung des Göttlichen an das Menschliche ohne im Geringsten in die Sphäre des Menschlichen hinüberzugreifen, sondern eben mit der Voraussetzung und unter der Voraussetzung der ganz freien, irdisch-menschlichen Entwicklung, und das ists, worin wir die Abwehr aller Schwärmerei erblicken zu dürfen glaubten. Das Göttliche wird שכן des Menschlichen, das Menschliche שכן des Göttlichen, aber Beide gehen nicht in einander auf. Dieselbe jüdische Weisheit, die lehrt עיקר שכינה בתחתונים, dieselbe lehrt: מעולם לא ירדה שכינה למטה מעשרה. Der echte jüdische Geist bildet keine Schwärmer, die maß- und ziellos über die Grenze des Wirklichen hinausgehen, in ihren Anschauungen der Wahrheit entrückt — und verrückt werden. Indem das Judentum uns die innigste Nähe Gottes zu dem Menschen lehrt, will es uns stets in klarster, verständiger, wir möchten sagen, nüchterner Anschauung erhalten. Nicht durch ein schwärmerisches Hinüberströmen ins Göttliche, nicht durch ein sogenanntes Aufgehen in Gott werden wir Gottesdiener, dass wir etwa zuletzt alle freie Selbstbestimmung verlören, und alles, was wir täten, eigentlich Gott in uns und durch uns täte, sondern nur indem wir den Geist und die Freiheit, die uns Gott gegeben, in dem irdischen Kreise, den er uns angewiesen, in vollster Gottestreue, mit klarster menschlicher Umsicht und Einsicht betätigen, erreichen wir selber die höchste menschliche Vollendung, und gewinnt unser irdisches Walten die der Gottesnähe würdig machende Heiligung. Nur wo die zehn טפחים des menschlichen Wirkens enden, beginnt das Walten der beseligenden Gottesnähe.

ויחי נח, the principal reason why the Torah lists the ages of these antediluvian people is only to enable us to count back to when human history started with the creation of Adam. All such basic historical data are provided both in the Torah and in the Books of the prophets.

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.