“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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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

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.

“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”?

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.

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)

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

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)

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].

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)

**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.

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 techeilesstrings 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 techeilesis another. Due to Sheim, they merited a tallis with white tzitzis strings. And due to what Avraham said, they merited techeiles. (Re’m)

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’mwas 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.]

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 yourfourth 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)

**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.

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)

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.