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

And it shall be, when I bring clouds over the earth, that the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud. Regarding the rainbow, there are many opinions, and great commentators have pondered this matter, as have many others. For at first glance, it seems that the rainbow was created anew at this time and indicates the new covenant that God made with all living things. Yet our eyes see that the rainbow is a natural phenomenon born from the sun when it strikes the moist air. Mahariya [Abarbanel] explained that even before this the rainbow emerged from the sun’s rays, but it wasn’t visible to creatures at all, neither in clouds nor in the air. This was because from the beginning of creation, the vapors rising from the earth were very thick and dense due to the earth’s strength, as it is written, and a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground (Genesis 2:6). Even a single mist rising from the earth was sufficient to water all the ground, and due to the great abundance of water in the air, the sun’s rays could not pass through it to the extent that the rainbow could not be reflected, neither in clouds nor in air. This was the cause of the flood — meaning, the abundance of water within the vapors. Through God’s mercy, after the flood He diminished the vapors and purified the air until the sun’s rays could pass through it. Then the rainbow became visible to creatures in the cloud, and this served as a sign for them of the reduction of water in the air, such that there would not come another flood to destroy all flesh. And regarding what was said, and I will see it to remember the eternal covenant, the explanation is like “and I will show it,” similar to now I know that you fear God, which Rambam explained as meaning “now I have made known.” Ramban also inclined toward this view, except that he wrote that initially the rainbow was visible in the air but not in clouds, and after the flood it became visible in clouds as well. However, their interpretation is difficult to accept given what our Sages said (Jerusalem Talmud Berakhot 65a, Babylonian Talmud Ketubot 77b) that in the days of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi the rainbow was not seen. If so, the air returned to its original state, and after their deaths it returned to being pure and thin as before. These are matters that are strange for the intellect to accept — that the air would change during different time periods.

What seems most correct to me in resolving this question is based on what they said about these pious ones — that the rainbow was not seen in their days. They didn’t say there was no rainbow at all, rather certainly there was a rainbow, but it wasn’t seen because people weren’t searching for it and didn’t make an effort to see it; therefore it wasn’t seen. For in every generation where people were afraid of punishment due to the evil of its inhabitants, because their divine protection had departed and there weren’t righteous people in the generation to protect them — in those generations people would fix their eyes upon the sign of the rainbow and would look for it to see if the vapors hadn’t changed due to their sins to return to how they were before the flood. They would constantly raise their eyes to this sign, trusting in the sign that He would not bring punishment to the world. But these pious ones — Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi — who protected the people of their generation to the extent that everyone relied on the power of these elders, that their merit would stand for them to protect them — therefore they didn’t need to look for the rainbow because they were confident that the covenant that God made with all flesh after the flood would not be altered for them.

And it shall be, when I bring clouds over the earth. Rashi explains: When I consider bringing darkness and destruction to the world, etc. What did Rashi see to interpret when I bring clouds as referring to darkness and destruction? Perhaps it simply means rain clouds, as per the plain meaning? Rather, it must have been difficult for Rashi: if this refers to rain clouds, it would imply that the rainbow appears in every rain cloud, but this is not the case, as in generations of righteous people, the rainbow does not appear. Rather, this is the interpretation: when I consider bringing darkness and destruction to the world — and this is specifically at times when righteous people are scarce in the world — then the rainbow will appear in the cloud, so that people will look at the rainbow and raise their eyes to this sign, for through it they are assured that He will not bring a flood to the world. This is what it means And I will see it, to remember the eternal covenant. I will set My eyes upon the covenant sign that I gave to all flesh, not to bring a flood even in a generation entirely guilty that deserves darkness and destruction. However, when I am not considering bringing darkness and destruction — meaning when righteous people are present in the generation — then the rainbow does not appear in the cloud, because people need not look for it, and I also see the deeds of the righteous and withhold the attribute of justice from bringing darkness and destruction, and I need not set My eyes upon the covenant sign of the rainbow. Perhaps this follows what our Sages said (Chagigah 16a): Anyone who gazes at the rainbow shows no concern for his Creator’s honor, because in every generation there are many common people who do not care for their Creator’s honor and gaze at the rainbow, except in the days of these righteous ones who merited and brought merit to their generation and prevented them from gazing at the rainbow. Therefore, the rainbow was not seen in their days because they did not look at it out of respect for their Creator’s honor, even though the rainbow actually existed in every generation, since nature does not change. This interpretation is also correct. The matter of the refinement of vapors that I mentioned serves as somewhat of a proof to what I wrote above: that through the flood the earth’s hardness and strength were softened. This is the reason for the weakening and diminishing of the vapors.

And Noah, man of the earth, began and planted a vineyard. The word “vayachel” [began] is related to the word “chol” [mundane/profane], which is the opposite of holiness. Wherever you find a fence against sexual immorality, there you will find holiness. However, wine leads to sexual immorality, as it is written: Harlotry, wine and new wine take away the heart (Hosea 4:11), and anyone who witnesses a sotah [suspected adulteress] in her disgrace should abstain from wine. Therefore, the Torah uses the term “vayachel,” because through this planting, Noah became profane and exposed himself within his tent. This will also be explained later, God willing, in the verse And the people began to commit harlotry (Numbers 25:1), and see also in Parshat Naso regarding the nazir and the sotah. He is called man of the earth because this action stemmed from the material aspect which originates from the earth, but the intellect in man, which is a divine portion from above, does not agree with this planting because wine confuses a person’s mind.

Another explanation of why he was called “man of the earth” [adamah]: He followed in the path of Adam who sinned with the grapevine — according to the opinion that the Tree of Knowledge was a grapevine. Another explanation is that wine causes one’s spirit to return to the earth before its time. As it is written: There is a path that seems straight to a man, but its end leads to death (Proverbs 14:12). The final letters of There is a straight path [yesh derekh yashar] spell “intoxicating drink” [shekhar], because every drunkard walks as if on a straight path, and all forbidden sexual relations appear level and straight to him — as they explained in Yoma 75b. And not only sexual transgressions, but every sin and transgression appears straight in his eyes, and he doesn’t realize that it costs him his life, as wine destroys from soul to flesh. Therefore it says “its end” — meaning the final letters of there is a straight path spell out “ways of death,” because intoxicating drink is a path to death. And there is a hint regarding Noah: when you write the letters of “wine” [yayin] — yud and yud and nun — the final letters add up to the numerical value of “Noah” [Noach]. This hints that he was the first to engage in this planting.

And our Sages said (Genesis Rabbah 36:4): And he uncovered himself within his tent — that he caused exile for his children due to the sin of those who drink from wine bowls. And perhaps this is the intention of the Midrash that concludes in the Yalkut (9:20) that Satan encountered Noah when he planted the vineyard, and first slaughtered before him a lamb, then a lion, and then a pig, etc. There is in these hidden matters an allusion to the three well-known exiles: The Egyptian exile, where they worshipped the lamb; and the Babylonian exile, referring to Nebuchadnezzar who was called a lion, as it is said A lion has gone up from his thicket (Jeremiah 4:7); and the third exile by the nation about which it is said The boar from the forest ravages it (Psalms 80:14). And the word anavim [grapes] shares partnership with Samael in the secondary letters of the alphabet [the letters of grapes are all adjacent to the letters of Samael] — a proper hint that Satan encountered him through the planting of the grapes.

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

And he knew what his youngest son had done to him. It is not written in the passage who told Noah what his son had done to him, and whether Noah saw this through prophecy. It seems to me [to be explained] according to what our Sages said (Sanhedrin 108b) that three [beings] engaged in relations in the ark: the raven, the dog, and Ham, etc. According to this, when Noah arose from his sleep, he contemplated within himself who could have done this thing to him. Surely it was one of his sons who was suspect of sexual impropriety who did this to him — who violated him. Through this contemplation, he remembered what had happened and knew what his youngest son had done to him in the ark, for he had defiled it through forbidden relations at a prohibited time. Noah said, “He who did this [in the ark] also did this [now],” and therefore cursed him. As for why he cursed Canaan his son and not Ham himself, there are multiple opinions on this. Some say that Canaan saw and told his father Ham. Others say that since the Holy One, blessed be He, had blessed Noah and his sons, it would not have been proper to curse one of his sons after God had already blessed them. And some say that Canaan engaged in sexual impropriety, and his father learned from his son to act like Canaan.

And regarding the curse of servitude — since one who consorts with prostitutes loses wealth and will inevitably become enslaved for mere bread, as our Sages said (Sotah 4b): Anyone who has relations with a prostitute will eventually seek a loaf of bread and not find it, etc. And regarding what was written a servant of servants shall he be to his brothers and then later repeated saying and Canaan shall be a servant to them without mentioning “servant of servants” — it appears to me that servant of servants shall he be to his brothers means that Canaan would be a servant of servants specifically to his brothers, the sons of Ham, because in any case the younger brother serves his older brothers, and through this curse an additional level of servitude was added — to be their servant of servants. However, to Shem and Yapheth he would be simply a servant to them, as this was sufficient since he wouldn’t otherwise need to be a servant to his uncle.