The merit that they did not corrupt... This implies that the other animals corrupted their ways on their own, not due to demons. Otherwise, what was the merit of these animals? The same is implied by, “They did not cohabit in the ark,” meaning, on their own. (Kitzur Mizrachi) Both merits were needed, since “not corrupting their ways” was not an active mitzvah; it was merely refraining from sin. (Although it says in Makkos 23b that he who passively refrains from a sin is rewarded as if he did a mitzvah, but it says in Kiddushin 39b that this applies only when a chance to sin presented itself but he held back.) Therefore the animals needed also the merit of not cohabiting in the ark, which was self-imposed abstinence from permitted behavior. But this merit alone was insufficient, as it somewhat resembled doing a mitzvah without being commanded, [which is a lesser merit]. For we have no source to indicate that the animals were forbidden to cohabit in the ark. Hashem forbade only Noach and his sons. Although Rashi later says that, “Let them spread over the earth” (v. 17), teaches that the animals had a prohibition to propagate in the ark, they accepted this upon themselves without Hashem’s command. Why does the verse not say that Hashem remembered also the birds and Noach’s sons? It seems the answer is: Cham, and the raven, sinned by cohabiting in the ark. That is why Noach’s sons and the birds are not mentioned. [If so, why are beasts and animals mentioned, when the dog cohabited in the ark (Bereishis Rabba 36:7)? The answer is:] There is an uncertainty about dogs. Perhaps they are in the category of “beasts”; perhaps in that of “animals.” Although Heaven surely knows, still, the Sages disagreed about it. Thus we see that Hashem’s will is not to resolve it, and therefore, Scripture does not omit either beasts or animals [although dogs are included in one of these two categories]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

A spirit of comforting. Rashi is answering the question: If it was an actual wind, why is written afterwards, “And the water subsided”? On the contrary, it is written (Tehillim 147:8), “He blows His wind; water runs.” [I.e., wind does not calm the waters.] (Devek Tov) Alternatively, Rashi knows this because it says, “Over the earth.” How could a wind blow over the earth’s surface when the water covered the earth? But if it was “a spirit of comforting,” it is understandable. “Over the earth” then means, “On account of the matters of the earth.” In other words, for the sake of man who dwells on the earth.

For which the world had need. You might ask: If the world has need of them, why were they not created at the time of Creation? The answer is: Before the Flood they were not needed, as people were healthy and robust. After the Flood, people became weak [and there was a need for them].

They began to diminish. We cannot say they were completely diminished on Sivan 1, as the waters continued diminishing until the 27th of the second month, when the earth became dry (v. 14). Rather, they now began to diminish.

On Kislev 27 the rains ceased. You might ask: Did Rashi not say before (7:12) that they ceased on Kislev 28? The answer is: There, Rashi explained that they ceased on Kislev 28 because the first day did not count in the forty days of rain. It did not count because its [preceding] night did not have rain. For it says (7:11), “On that day, all the wellsprings... burst open.” This means at daytime, not at night. Nevertheless, it was considered a [half] day. Thus, Marcheshvan counted for twelve full days and one [half] day, and Kislev counted for twenty-seven full days. And the rain did not cease until the morning of the 28th. So the last night, when added to the first day, completed the forty full days. Thus it could be said that the rains ceased on Kislev 28, as they still fell on its [preceding] night. And it could be said that the rains ceased on Kislev 27, because in the daytime of the 28th there was no rain.

Which accounts for three days in Kislev. This counts the following night. Also the 29 days of Teves counts the following night.

Which is the seventh month from Kislev, in which the rain stopped. The counting cannot start from the rainfall, as it is not logical that the count of 150 days includes forty of rain and [110] of powerful waters. It must be either rain alone or powerful waters alone. Since it cannot be rain alone [see 7:17], it must be powerful waters alone. Thus they were two separate periods and did not finish until Sivan 1.

Immersed eleven amohs in the water. Meaning: at least eleven amohs were immersed, maybe more. For there might be mountains higher than those of Ararat, and the ark did not come to a rest earlier because it did not reach those mountains. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

If you might say... Elul. Furthermore, we could not learn that the ark was immersed eleven amohs if “In the tenth, on the first of the month” means Elul. For from Sivan 1 until Elul 1 there are ninety days, thus the water receded one amoh every five or six days. Accordingly, the ark would have been immersed twelve and a third amohs.

“The tenth” can only be counted... For the ark did not come to rest until after the 40 days of rain and the 150 days of powerful waters were finished. And this was in Sivan, not in Iyar.

A total of sixty days from when the mountain peaks appeared...[You might ask: Why does it not total sixty-one? The answer is] that the forty days after [the mountains appeared] is counted from the very beginning of the forty days, producing thirty-nine full days [since one night is missing. See entries on v. 3]. With the twenty-one days of sending the dove, it makes sixty. Since Av and Elul together are only fifty-nine days, Rosh Chodesh Tishrei must be counted in the twenty-one days [of sending the dove.]

From when the mountain peaks appeared. We cannot count from when the ark rested, and say that “the tenth” means the tenth month from the rain’s ceasing, just as “the seventh” is the seventh month from when they ceased — and accordingly, the ark would be immersed twelve and a third amohs. [Because] if so, this verse should come earlier, rather than following: “The mountaintops became visible.” The Re’m asks: Why did the dove not find a place to rest, if it was sent forty-seven days after the mountain peaks appeared? This was only fourteen days before the water began to dry, and assumedly, all the high and low mountain peaks had appeared, as well as some tall trees, etc. It seems the answer is: Although the mountain peaks had appeared, the dove could not rest on the ground because the water had not begun to dry. And the high trees were uprooted and wiped out by the flood waters, as the Midrash implies.

To the window. Meaning, this window was their light source.

And not the door... Rashi is answering the question: Why did it say before (6:16) “opening,” and here, “window?” He answers: “This is not the door...” Although Rashi on 6:16 brought two meanings for צוהר — “window” and “precious stone” — as he was in doubt, this verse implies it was a window. Some say that לצוהר means “for illumination,” similar to צהרים. Thus, Rashi is explaining that Noach opened the window which he had made for light, and not for entry and exit. You might ask: If so, [that the window provided light], why did he need the light of the precious stone? The answer is: It was needed for nights, and for the days when the window was closed. For it says, “Noach opened the window...” [implying that some days the window was closed]. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Because it suspected him concerning his mate. Meaning: [Its suspicion was] concerning Noach’s mate — that [Noach and] his wife were having marital relations in the ark. This is because the raven cohabited in the ark, and one accuses another of his own flaw (Kiddushin 70b). Thus the raven, too, did not want to be separated from its mate. And this is the explanation in Sanhedrin 108b as well. (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

**During the time of Eliyahu.**A hint to this [Midrashic explanation] is that the word יבֹשת is written without the ו, yielding the letters תשבי — a hint to אליהו התשבי. Furthermore, it is written “the water dried up” rather than “the earth dried up,” alluding to [the drought in] Eliyahu’s days. (Maharshal)

**This does not refer to sending it on an errand...**For שליחות is only [sending] someone with intelligence. Earlier (v. 7), [regarding the raven,] Rashi saw no need to explain this. For there it is written, “Going to and fro,” on which Rashi comments, “It flew around, circling the ark.” Clearly, this is not שליחות, therefore Rashi did not comment when Noach sent the raven. [The Kitzur Mizrachi explains differently:] Rashi did not [make this] comment regarding the raven because Rashi had the following question: Why did it not say about sending the raven, “To see if the water had subsided,” as it says about sending the dove? Apparently, because Noach did not send the raven to see if the water subsided! Rather, he drove it out to seek its own place because it [sinned and] cohabited in the ark. But Noach did not do this right after its misdeed, since the water still covered the earth, and driving it out then would make its species extinct. This also explains why Noach waited seven days before sending the dove. He should have sent it immediately, if the raven did not fulfill its errand! Perforce, Noach did not send the raven “to see” [if there still was water]. Accordingly, “He sent out the raven” is similar in meaning to, “Moshe sent his father-in-law off” (Shemos 18:27), and other verses, which do not mean sending to bring back a response. That is why Rashi did not make this comment [regarding the raven]. But with sending the dove, which Noach indeed sent “to see” [if there still was water], it appeared like a שליחות. [Thus, Rashi needed to comment.] (Kitzur Mizrachi) [Rashi knows that Noach sent the dove on its way] because it says מאתו, implying that it will no longer be “with him.” (Divrei Dovid)

This is because wherever יונה**...**Meaning: Even had the verse said טריפה בפיה [the more standard form], it still would apply to a male dove. But since the dove was indeed male, Scripture preferred the masculine form, טרף.

**Means: “he seized.”**As opposed to meaning “he killed,” as in, “Like a wolf that preys (יטרוף)” (49:27). Since every preying animal seizes [its victim], one who seizes is called טורף. [You might ask:] Why did Noach send the male [dove]? Was he not concerned that it would suspect him, as the raven did? The answer is: A person accuses another of his own flaw (Kiddushin 70b). Therefore, because the raven cohabited in the ark, it suspected Noach, too, of marital relations. And Noach intended to bring this out into the open: for the dove was also male, yet it went on its errand. Why? Because the dove [unlike the raven] did not cohabit in the ark. Thus he did not suspect that Noach will have relations with his mate. (Maharshal)

**She said, “Better that my food be...”**And the verse reads as follows: עלה זית — “bitter as an olive.” טרף — “my food.” בפיה — “she said.”

וייחל**[means] he had forbearance**. Rashi is saying that [the reflexive form וייחל was used because] the point was easy to understand without analysis: if the waters dried up in seven days, they will dry up more if Noach will wait another seven days. (Maharshal)

But it is read היצא**.** Meaning, even without the ו it may be read הוצא. For the ו is the [sometimes] absent first letter of the three letter root (in place of the י of יצא). Thus, Rashi says it is read with a י, because the י and ו are interchangeable, yielding היוצא. (Maharshal) [Rashi knows this because] היצא means Noach should cause them to leave by themselves, whereas הוצא means he should remove them himself. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

They accepted... Rashi is answering the question: No beast or bird remained in the world. How could they go to their families? Thus Rashi explains that they accepted to keep to their own species, i.e., to be a family. And this is what R. Yochanan meant when he said (Sanhedrin 108b), “According to their families, but not they themselves.” (R. Yaakov Taryosh)

To sacrifice... The Re’m writes that Rashi is explaining how Noach knew he should bring sacrifices, although there was no such command from Hashem. Rashi explains that Noach reasoned: “Hashem would not have commanded me to take in seven of each...” But if it is as the Re’mexplained, Rashi should have explained this on, “Noach built an altar,” or on, “And brought up burnt-offerings on the altar.” Thus it seems to me [to explain differently.] Noach knew on his own to bring offerings to Hashem, just as Hevel brought offerings for the goodness he received from Hashem. Surely Noach should bring offerings as thanksgiving, since he was saved from the Flood, and “four people need to offer thanks: Seafarers...” (Berachos 54b) Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why did Noach bring a burntoffering from each and every clean animal and bird? Was it not enough to bring for himself, his wife, his sons and their wives? Why did he bring from all the species? Rashi answers: “He thought: Hashem would not have commanded me to take in seven of each...” This answers the difficulties raised by the Re’m.

The expression is repeated, as an oath. We cannot say that one expression of “Never again” refers to the destroying of three handbreadths’ depth of the ground, and the other expression of “Never again” refers to the smiting of every living thing. For both could be included in one phrase: “Never again will I curse the ground or smite every living thing.” Perforce, “Never again” is repeated to serve as an oath. This seems preferable to Re’m’s explanation, that [one expression of] “Never again will I curse” refers to destroying the three handbreadths’ depth of the ground as well as the smiting of every living thing — and perforce, the expression is repeated to serve as an oath.

That is... the verse: “That I have sworn ... The Re’m asks: Why does Rashi not bring the verse written in this passage as his proof that it was repeated as an oath? For it says (9:11): “I will keep My ברית with you”, implying that Hashem already made a ברית, and now wishes to establish it. Why did Rashi need a verse from the Prophets, “That I have sworn...,” to prove this? The Re’mleft this unanswered, but perhaps the answer is: The term ברית implies only a promise, not an oath. Thus, Rashi had to prove it from, “That I have sworn...,” which clearly implies that the repetition constitutes an oath.

**Half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat is the cold season.**Rashi’s text should read: Half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat is חורף, winter. (Re’m) But the Nachalas Yaakov writes that he sees no need to alter the text; it is indeed as Rashi explained [in the extant text].

קורis half of Shevat, Adar, and half of Nissan.[This version follows the alteration of the *Re’m.*But] the correct version is: קור is half of Kislev, Teves, and half of Shevat.

**The end of the summer is more severe than the summer.**This is because people are still cool all summer, due to the winter’s cold. But at the end of summer they heat up. That is why summer’s end is more severe than its middle. [And according to the *Re’m,*we can say that] the cold season is more severe than winter for a similar reason. Rashi writes in Bava Metzia 106b that winter is “the most chilly part of the fall season; the days of cold.” If so, how could Rashi say here that the cold season is more severe than winter? Perforce, it is the way we explained. And so it is implied by the Re’m as well.

...During all the days of the Flood. I.e., all twelve months of the Flood. The Re’m asks: But how will we explain [verse (8:13), “...He looked, and behold the surface of the ground had dried”]? How could Noach see on the first of Tishrei that the water had dried, if this was during the twelve months [when there was no light]? Furthermore, how could he count the days? For it says (v. 6): “At the end of forty days, Noach opened the window of the ark.” Also (v. 8), “[After 7 days] he sent the dove...” Furthermore, how did the dove fly without light, and how could it see if there was a place to rest? Furthermore, how did the window benefit the ark, if there was no light? The Re’m left the issue unresolved.

The constellations did not function. Although the verse speaks of the six seasons as well, Rashi explains specifically that the constellations ceased functioning — rather than that the seasons ceased — since the seasons obviously depend on the earth’s existence, but the water covered the surface of the earth, [so the seasons obviously ceased]. Thus Rashi explained that even day and night ceased, although they do not depend on the earth’s existence. This was due to the constellations not functioning. It seems the answer is: The constellations “not functioning” means the heavenly spheres did not move. There were no normal daily twelve hours of daylight and twelve hours of darkness. Rather, during all twelve months, one half of the globe had light while the other had darkness — as at the beginning of Creation, before the luminaries were placed in their orbits. And when Noach entered the ark, the sun was shining, as it is written (7:13), “On that very day...” This is why the Midrash says, “The constellations did not function,” rather than saying, “The constellations did not give light.” They gave light, but they did not alternate in their normal daily manner of day and night. And when Rashi says, “Night and day were indistinguishable,” it means that in one place it was always daytime, and in another, darkness. And the earth’s surface dried up from the sun’s heat since it shone on the earth even during these twelve months. This resolves [almost] all the Re’m’s questions. As for his question, “How could he count the days?” perhaps Noach knew the days by measuring the passage of time, as the Akeidah explains in Parshas Bereishis, or through a sun dial. For the sun would shine through the ark’s window. Noach made the window for a purpose, so he would not dwell in darkness, according to the opinion that צהר means window. Or, [Noach counted the days] by observing the animals, as it says in Berachos 3a: “In the first watch the donkey brays...” Or, by observing the ravens or roosters, according the opinion that הנותן לשכוי בינה להבחין בין יום ובין לילה [refers to the rooster]. Or, by observing a special stone or by some other means. Similarly it was asked about Moshe Rabbeinu, “How did he know when it was day and night [when he was in heaven for forty days]?” May Hashem show us the wonders of His Torah.

None of them shall cease. Rashi is saying that we should not understand ישבותו to mean resting. For “rest” can be said only about the performer of the activity, not about the activity itself. Thus for the seasons, we cannot say that they “rested.” We could say only that Hashem rested, as He performs the activity. That is why Rashi explainsישבותו to mean cessation.