## Tur HaArokh, Genesis

###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:2:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:2:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:2:1)

**ומוראכם וחתכם יהיה על כל חית הארץ.**לפי שכבר הורגלו החיות עמהם בתיבה ולא היה להם מורא מבני האדם הוצרכו לזה ומוראכם וחתכם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:3:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:3:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:3:1)

**כל רמש אשר הוא חי.**בכלל זה בהמה חיה ועוף ודגים שכלם בכלל רמש:

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


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:4:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:4:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:4:1)

**אך בשר בנפשו דמו.**פירש"י בשר בעוד נפשו בו לא תאכלו הבשר הרי אבר מן החי ואף דמו לא תאכלו הרי דם מן החי ופי' הפסוק אך בנפשו וגם דמו לא תאכלו. וכ' הרמ"בן כפי הפשט אינו נכון ולפי המדרש אינו אמת שלא נצטוו בני נח על אבר מן החי כדברי חכמים ולא על דם מן החי כדברי ר' חנינא בן גמליאל. ופי' אך בשר בנפשו שהוא דמו לא תאכלו כי נפש כל בשר דמו הוא:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:5:1)

**דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש.**פי' דמכם שהוא נפשותיכם אדרוש כי דם בשר בנפשו הוא וכמהו וכל דם לא תאכלו לעוף ולבהמה שפירושו בעוף ובבהמה. א"נ דם שהוא לנפש בכם אדרוש כי הדם הוא הנפש ורמז כי על שופך דם האדם חייב מיתה ולא על דם האיברים שאין הנשמה תלוי' בהם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:5:2)

**מיד כל חיה אדרשנו.**תמה הרמב"ן מה שייך דרישה בחיה והלא אין בה דעת ליענש וכתב אולי יהיה כן בענין דם האדם לבדו שכל חיה שתטרוף אותו תטרף כי גזרת מלך היא וזה טעם סקל יסקל כי איננו להעניש בעליו כי אפילו שור של הפקר חייב מיתה וצוה כן בבני נח כבני ישראל ויהיה פי' שופך דם האדם כל מי ששופך דם האדם בין חיה בין אדם שדמו נדרש או בב"ד או בדיני שמים. ויתכן עוד כי יהיה פי' מיד כל חי' אדרשנו כמו כי לקחה מיד ה' שפי' כמו ביד ה' כלומר אף דמכם אדרוש ואנקום אותו ביד כל חיה כי אשלח ברוצח כל חית הארץ וגם אנקום אותו ביד כל אדם שאשלח בו גם האדם ולא ינצל מהם ואולי הדרישה ביד החיה שתטרוף האדם כי כן שם טבעם. וסוד הענין כי בעת היצירה נתן לאדם את כל ירק עשב לאכלה ואמר הכתוב ויהי כן כי הוא טבעם ומנהגם ועתה כאשר אמר באדם שישחוט בעלי החיים והושם בטבע או במנהג שיהיו בעלי חיים זה לזה לאכלה הוצרך לצוות שיהיו שאר בעלי החיים לבני האדם טרף לשיניהם והם יראו מהם ולא יטרופו. ואמר ואך דמכם לנפשותיכם לרמוז כי לא ידרוש דם חיה מיד חבירתה א"כ נשאר בהם לטרוף זו את זו וזה טעם הזכירו איסור שפיכות דמים בכאן מפני היתר השחיטה שהיה מנהג לישפוך דם כי על דעת רבותינו כבר הוזהר אדה"ר בזה אבל מפני השחיטה הוצרך לומר התרתי לכם לשפוך דם כל חי זולתי דמכם שיהיה אסור לכם ולכל החיים שלא יהיה להם טבע לשפוך אותו. ומה שכתב כאן איסור שפיכות דמים מפני שהתיר כאן לשחוט בהמה וחיה יכול יהא מותר גם לשפוך דם האדם ת"ל כי בצלם אלהים עשה את האדם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:3
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:3](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:5:3)

**ואך את דמכם לנפשותיכם אדרוש.**שלא תאמר כמו שמותר לשפוך דם בהמה מפני שהיא חיה על ידי האדם א"כ אדם נמי שחיה ע"י עצמו יהא מותר להרוג את עצמו ת"ל אך את דמכ' לנפשותיכם אדרוש. ושמא תאמר כמו שמותר להרג את הבהמה כך אנו מותרים להם ת"ל מיד כל חיה אדרשנו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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).


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:4
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:5:4](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:5:4)

**ואך את דמכם וגו'.**יכול כשאול שהרג את עצמו לשם שמים ת"ל אך יכול כחנני' מישאל ועזריה ת"ל אך. ומקשים מה צריך קרא לחנני' מישאל ועזריה והלא מק"ו נפקא כדאמרינן מצפרדעים ומתרצים דמק"ו לחוד לא נפקא דפריכא הוא דאיכא למיפרך מה לצפרדעים שאינן מצווים שלא לחבול בעצמם ומאך לחוד בלא ק"ו נמי לא נפקא אלא שאינו נענש אם מוסר עצמו למות לכך צריך ק"ו לומר שהוא חייב למסור עצמו על קדוש השם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:6:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:6:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:6:1)

**שופך דם האדם באדם דמו ישפך.**י"מ באדם פי' בשביל האדם ששפך דמו ישפך גם דם השופך:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:7:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:7:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:7:1)

**ואתם פרו ורבו ושרצו בארץ.**ולא בתיבה מגיד שאף הבהמות נאסרו בתשמיש בתיבה ולכך לקו כלב ועורב וחם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:8:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:8:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:8:1)

**ויאמר אלהים אל נח ואל בניו אתו.**פי' ע"י אביהם דבר להם כי הם לא הגיעו למעלת הנבואה שידבר עמהם:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:12:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:12:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:12:1)

**זאת אות הברית.**פי' הרמ"בן לכאורה משמע מן האות הזה שלא היה קשת בענן במעשה בראשית ועתה ברא השם חדשה לעשות קשת בשמים ביום הענן אבל כאשר תדקדק בלשון הפסוק שאומר את קשתי נתתי בענן ולא אמר אני נותן בענן קשת כאשר אמר זאת אות הברית אשר אני נותן משמע שכבר היה הקשת מששת ימי בראשית ועתה אמר שיהיה לאות וה"ק את קשתי אשר נתתי בענן מיום הבריאה תהיה מעתה לאות ביני וביניכם שכל זמן שאראנה אזכור כי ברית שלי ביני וביניכם ומלת קשתי תורה שהיתה לו קשת תחלה. ואם תשאל מה טעם בקשת להיותו אות הנה הוא כטעם עד הגל הזה וכן את שבע כבשות תקח מידי בעבור תהיה לי לעדה. כי כל דבר הנראה שיושם לפני שנים להזכירם ענין נדור ביניהם נקרא אות וכל הסכמה נקרא ברית וכן במילה אמר והיה לאות ברית ביני וביניכם בעבור ההסכמה שימולו כל זרע אברהם לעבדו שכם אחד. ועוד טעם באות הזה כי הקשת לא עשאו שיהיה רגליו למעלה שיראה כאלו מן השמים מורים בו וישלח חציו ויפיצם בארץ אלא עשאו בהפך מזה להראות שלא יורו בו מן השמים וכן דרך הנלחמים להפך אותם בידם ככה כאשר יקראו לשלום למי שכנגדם. ועוד שאין לקשת יתר לכונן חצים אליו. ועל כרחנו נאמין לדברי היוונים שאומרים כשמלהט השמש באויר הלח יהיה הקשת בתולדה כי בכלי מים לפני השמש יראה כמראה קשת. ויש מפרשים טעם לאות מראה הקשת משום דכתיב ממראה מתניו ולמטה ראיתי כמראה אש ונוגה לו סביב כמראה הקשת:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.”


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:14:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:14:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:14:1)

**והיה בענני ענן.**מכאן שהשטן מקטרג בשעת הסכנה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:18:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:18:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:18:1)

**וחם אבי כנען.**פירש"י לפי שהפרשה עסוקה בשכרותו של נח שקלל חם ועל ידו נתקלל כנען ועדיין לא כתב תולדות חם הוצרך לומר שחם הוא אבי כנען. ור' אברהם פי' כי חם ראה והגיד לאחיו וכנען עשה לו רעה לא גילה אותה הכתוב וזה טעם אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן כי כנען הוא הקטן לחם כאשר ימנה אותם ובני חם כוש ומצרים ופוט וכנען. וכתב עליו הרמ"בן הנה עזב ר' אברהם דרכו בפשטי המקר' והתחיל להנבא שקרים והנכון בעיני כי חם הוא הקטן לנח וכנען הוא הבן הגדול לחם ומה שהזכיר אותו באחרונה לפי שנמכר לעבד נתן לכל אחיו מעלה עליו וכשאירע המעשה הזה לנח לא היה לחם בן זולתי כנען ולכך נאמר וירא חם אבי כנען שלא היה לו בן אחר וכאשר חטא חם לאביו קלל זרעו שאם אמר ארור חם עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו לא היה מקלל רק גופו כי הזרע שכבר נולד לו אינו בכללו ואולי לא יוליד ומה שלא לקח ממנו נקמתו כי מי יודע מה אחריו ע"כ קלל הבן שהיה לו ואם יוליד מאה די היה שיקלל בנו הבכור וכל זרעו אתו וחטאו של חם שראה ערות אביו ולא נהג בו כבוד לכסות ערותו ולא עוד אלא שהגיד לשני אחיו בחוץ כ"ז כיון לפרסם הדבר בפני רבים להלעיג עליו ורבותינו ז"ל הוסיפו עליו בחטא. וי"מ לכך לא קלל חם לפי שהיה בכלל ברכה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:20:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:20:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:20:1)

**איש האדמה.**פירש"י אדוני האדמה כמו איש נעמי. והרמ"בן כתב כי איש נעמי הוא לשון אישות כמו איש ואשתו וכתב הוא איש האדמה כמו אנשי העיר בשביל שהיה דר בכל האדמה ולא בעיר ומדינה שיתייחס אליה וכן איש שדה העומד שם כל היום תמיד. א"נ בעבור שנתן לבו לעבוד האדמה לזרעה ולנטעה בעבור. שמצאה שממה שכל נבדל לדבר יקרא כן אנשי העיר הם יושביה אנשי דוד עבדיו. וי"מ איש האדמה גדול האדמה וראשה כמו גדעון בן יואש איש ישראל:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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).


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:21:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:21:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:21:1)

**ויתגל.**משמע ע"י אחרים והיינו חם שהגיד לאחיו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:21:2
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:21:2](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:21:2)

**בתוך אהלו.**אהלה כתיב שנתגל בתוך אהל אשתו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:22:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:22:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:22:1)

**ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ.**דרך ליצנות כמשחק באביו לכך בירך חם ולא קללו וכששמע כנען דברי ליצנות אביו נכנס הוא ועשה לו כאשר אמרו רז"ל למר סרסו ולמר רבעו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:23:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:23:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:23:1)

**ויקח שם ויפת.**פירש"י בשביל שנתאמץ במצוה זכו בניו לטלית של מצוה. ולקמן בפ' לך לך פי' על פסוק אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל שבזכות זה זכו בניו לתפילין וציצית. ויש לתרץ בודאי שם זכה לבניו ציצית בשביל השמלה ואינו יודע לאיזה מבניו תהיה וכשבא אברהם זכה בה לבניו בזכות אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:24:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:24:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:24:1)

**וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן.**שתולין את הקלקלה במקולקל שגם הוא שימש בתיבה דמלת וידע משמע שידע מעצמו. ובפרקי ר"א וירא חם שראהו מגולה ולא כסהו וגם לא עשה לו מאומה:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.


###### Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:26:1
[Tur HaArokh, Genesis 9:26:1](https://torahapp.org/share/book/Tur%20HaArokh/s/Genesis/r/9:26:1)

**ויהי כנען עבד למו.**פי' ר' אברהם שיהיה כנען עבד למו לאלהים ולשם אחיו כי הוא יכריחנו לעבוד האל ובשני פי' שיהיה עבד ליפת ולשם. וכתב הרמ"בן א"כ נח בא לקוב אויביו והנה ברך ברך שיהיה כנען עבד לאלהים. ורש"י פי' ברוך ה' אלקי שם שעתיד לשמור הבטחתו כו' והנכון בעיני שמתחלה קלל אותו שיהיה עבד עבדים לכל העולם ופי' עבד עבדים יהיה לאחיו היינו שם ויפת כי אחי אביו יקראו אחיו כמו כי נשבה אחיו ואחרי היותו עבד לאביו ולשם וליפת הרי הוא עבד לכל העולם. ובירך שם תחלה להודיע כי יהיה שם עובד אלהים ויהי כנען עבד למו פי' לזרעו של שם שהם רבים. ויתכן שיהיה למו חוזר גם לאחיו הנזכרים וחזר ובירך יפת בהרחבת הגבול ושם בשכון אלהים ושיהיה כנען עבד לשניהם. והנה העביד כנען לשם שני פעמים רמז שינחול ארצו וכל אשר לו כי מה שקנה עבד קנה רבו. ונכתבה זאת הפרשה להודיע כי בחטאו היה כנען עבד עולם וזכה אברהם בארצו וכתב ענין היין להודיע כמה צריך אדם להתרחק ממנו שנכשל בו נח שהיה צדיק תמים. וי"מ לפי שקלל כנען להיות עבד אמר ברוך ה' אלהי שם כלומר שהוא אדון ואדוני של שם שהוא בן חורין ואין לו אדון אחר זולתו:

**Sefaria Community Translation:**
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.