English translation — נח ג

Sicha 3<pg>31</pg>

A.

"And the bow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and between every living soul of all flesh that is upon the earth"<sup>1</sup>.

In his commentary Rashi quotes the words "between God and between every living soul" and explains: "between the attribute of justice above and between you,

for it should have written 'between Me and between every living soul,'

but this is its midrashic interpretation,

when the attribute of justice comes to accuse you to hold you liable, I see the sign and remember."

At first glance it appears that Rashi's intention is to answer the question

(that he brings in his commentary)

"that he should have written 'between' etc."

(since all this is part of the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He,

"And God said"²),

And on this he explains that the intention of "Elokim" here is to "the attribute of judgment above".

But it requires examination,

for we find that "the way of the verses is to speak thus",

as Rashi himself explains in Parshat Vayeira on the verse³

"And the Lord rained upon Sodom etc. from the Lord from heaven",

that "he said 'from the Lord' and did not say 'from Him'" — because "the way of the verses is to speak thus",

and he brings on this several examples,

including an example from Parshat Bereishit⁴

"like 'the wives of Lemech' and he did not say 'my wives'",

behold that already in Parshat Bereishit the language of the verse is fine on the grounds that "the way of the verses is to speak thus".

[In its place in Parshat Bereishit there Rashi did not comment at all.

And one can say the reason,

because from there there is no proof that "it is the way of the verses to speak thus",

since there it is the words of Lemech quoted in the verse and not the language of the text itself,

therefore there is no proof from this that this is also "the way of the verses".

But not so in Parshat Vayeira,

that this is the language of the verse — "And Hashem caused to rain etc. from Hashem" — a clear proof that "it is the way of the verses to speak thus"].

And since "it is the way of the verses to speak thus"

(and as we find in several places),

what is Rashi's compulsion to explain the verse here according to "its midrash"

(that "between Elokim" means "between the attribute of judgment"),

and not according to its simple meaning,

that what is not said "between me" is because "it is the way of the verses to speak thus"⁵.

2.

Also one must understand the lengthiness in the language of Rashi:

a)

It is known that it is not Rashi's way to write his commentary in the manner of question and answer,

rather he writes the explanation of the verse in a style that the question resolves itself — and if so,

also in our case it would seemingly have been sufficient that he write "between the attribute of judgment above etc.",

and why was Rashi compelled to elaborate and explain the question "that he should have written between Me and between every living soul"?

b)

At first glance, Rashi's innovation is only regarding the word

("between

Elokim",

whose meaning is "the attribute of judgment on high" — and if so, why

(a)

does he copy from the verse also the words "and between every living soul";

(b)

and also in his commentary itself he details "and between you..

and between every living soul" —<pg>32</pg>

And he should have said briefly: "between Elokim — between the attribute of judgment on high..

when the attribute of judgment comes to prosecute etc.'"

(and the like)?

3)

All the lengthiness at the end of Rashi's commentary — "When the attribute of justice comes to prosecute you to obligate you, I see the sign and remember" — is seemingly superfluous language,

that has in it no novelty: both regarding the matter of the prosecution — that it is simple that the attribute of justice its matter is "to prosecute you",

and also regarding the benefit of the sign of the covenant — that its matter is already known from the verses before this<sup>6</sup>,

"And it shall be when I bring a cloud over the earth

(when it rises in thought before Me to bring darkness and destruction to the world — Rashi)

and the bow will be seen etc. and I will remember My covenant etc. and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh".

3.

In addition to the lengthiness — one must also understand several precise expressions of Rashi,

and among them:

a)

The order in Rashi's commentary is puzzling,

that at first he writes the explanation of the verse briefly

("between the attribute of justice above and between you"),

and afterwards he explains the difficulty in the verse

("it should have written etc.'"),

and afterwards he returns again to explain the explanation of the verse — "rather this is its midrash when the attribute of justice comes etc.'"! And it would have been more appropriate to begin with the question<sup>7</sup>

"it should have written etc.'",

and afterwards to resolve it<sup>7</sup>

in his explanation "rather this is its midrash,

between the attribute of justice etc. when the attribute of justice comes to accuse etc.'".

b)

"Rather this is its midrash" — but that "Elokim" is the attribute of justice has already been brought above in Rashi's commentaries according to the simple meaning of the verse

[beginning from the start of Parshat Bereishit,

"In the beginning Elokim created",

and Rashi explains<sup>8</sup>

"and He did not say 'Hashem created',

that at first it arose in thought to create it with the attribute of justice etc.'",

and likewise in our parshah on the verse<sup>9</sup>

"And Elokim remembered Noach" Rashi explains "this name is the attribute of justice etc.'"]

— and what is different here that Rashi emphasizes that "this is its midrash"?

3)

"Attribute of judgment of above" — and Rashi did not write

(as in the other places)

"Attribute of judgment" simply

(for it is understood by itself that the intention is to the attribute of judgment of the Holy One, blessed be He)?

[The source of this language is in the Midrash Rabbah on this verse<sup>10</sup>,

but there the reason for the addition is understood,

because this language in the Midrash there: "Between God and between every living soul,

between God — this is the attribute of judgment of above,

and between every living soul — this is the attribute of judgment of below,

the attribute of judgment of above is harsh and the attribute of judgment of below is lenient"<sup>11</sup>.

But not so according to Rashi's commentary, for it is impossible to say that "and between every living soul" means "the attribute of judgment of below"<sup>12</sup>

(for this is completely opposite to the plain meaning<sup>13</sup>),

rather its meaning is according to its simple sense,

as Rashi's language "between the attribute of judgment etc. and between you."

And if so, the explanation of the words "

(attribute of judgment)

of above" is not understood?

And especially that the explanation in this that it is "harsh" is missing, and specifically in the Midrash it exists even though the student is greater].

<pg>33</pg>

4)

"between you" — why did Rashi change from the verse's wording "and between every living soul"?

And one cannot say that it is the same thing except that he used a shortened language — for this is not a change only in language,

but also in content,

for "between you" and "between every living soul" refer to two different types,

as explained in the verse before this "and I will remember My covenant etc. between Me and between you and between every living soul of all flesh"

(and according to the plain sense of the matter,

that "between you" refers to human beings,

and "every living soul" refers to every living creature).

And even more perplexing: immediately afterwards Rashi continues "it should have written between Me and between every living soul"

(and he did not write "and between you")

!

4.

And one must say the explanation in all this:

The main difficulty in the verse

(which Rashi comes to resolve in his commentary)

is not "that it should have written between"

(and not "between God")

— for according to the plain sense, indeed "it is the way of the verses to speak thus" — rather Rashi comes

(mainly)

to resolve a general question in this verse — and it is:

This entire verse,

"And the bow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it to remember the everlasting covenant between God and between every living soul, etc.,"

on the surface is superfluous¹⁴

— because all the details in it,

were already stated in the preceding verses¹⁵

: "I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a sign of a covenant, etc. And it shall come to pass when I bring clouds, etc., and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and between you and between every living soul, etc., and the waters shall no more, etc."

And it must therefore be said that this text comes to teach us a new matter that was not yet stated¹⁶.

And this is the intention of Rashi in his quoting from the verse the words "between God and between every living soul" — because in these words is hinted the novelty that was not known until now,

and Rashi explains what the novelty is — "between the attribute of justice above and between you."

That is: the "covenant" in the previous verses is between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the world

("between Me and the earth"¹⁷),

and its meaning,

that "when it arises in thought before Me to bring darkness and destruction to the world"¹⁸,

then "the bow will be seen in the cloud,

and I will remember My covenant etc. and there will no longer be waters for a flood etc."

But here an additional aspect of covenant is added — "between the attribute of judgment..

and between you",

meaning that not only will the Holy One, blessed be He, then have mercy on the world and not bring a flood,

but that the attribute of judgment itself will cease from prosecuting and will even be transformed into mercy

[and according to the simple language

(of the verse and)

Rashi,

that the "covenant" is between the attribute of judgment and between you].

And it can be said that this matter is a continuation of what was said previously⁹

"And God remembered Noah",

and Rashi explains there that "this name is the attribute of judgment and it was transformed into the attribute of mercy through the prayer of the righteous",

that in continuation of Noah's prayer which transformed the attribute of judgment into the attribute of mercy,

there is a special covenant with the attribute of judgment above,

that through the bow the attribute of judgment will be transformed into mercy.

And based on this, Rashi's wording is precise: "between the attribute of justice on high and between you":

(a)

Since the discussion is about an additional covenant beyond the covenant between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the earth,

there is room for error that the intention in the covenant "between the attribute of justice and between you" is a covenant with the court

("attribute of justice")

below

(which is also called "Elokim"<pg>34</pg>

in the verse<sup>19</sup>)

— for there already exists a covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He — and therefore Rashi emphasizes that even this second covenant is with "the attribute of justice on high"<sup>20</sup>.

(b)

Rashi writes "and between you"

(and not "and between every living soul"),

which simply refers to human beings — for the primary need for a "covenant" with the attribute of justice is regarding human beings,

upon whom is the main accusation of the attribute of justice

(as per the precise wording of Rashi later in his commentary "to accuse you to hold you guilty"<sup>21</sup>),

unlike "every living soul" which does not apply to them

(so much)

the accusation of the attribute of justice because they are not possessors of free will<sup>22</sup>.

5.

But still it is difficult: how can I say that the novelty in this verse is that here it speaks of a covenant that is "between Elokim etc."

(the attribute of judgment above)

— and behold, also the verses before this are things that were said by "Elokim",

as the beginning of the verses "And Elokim said",

and if so, also the covenant that is "between Me and the earth" is "between Elokim etc."²³

(who spoke concerning this covenant),

namely the attribute of judgment,

and the difficulty returns to its place,

what is new in this verse?

And therefore Rashi continues to explain and prove,

that indeed the precise wording "between Elokim" is itself the novelty in this verse — "for it should have written between Me and every living soul".

That is,

Rashi's intention here is not to ask how it is fitting to write "between Elokim"

(since it is a speech that begins with "And Elokim said"),

but rather to note the change between this verse and the one preceding it — that there it is said "And I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you etc.",

and for what reason does the verse change here and say "between Elokim"?

And from this it is proven,

that this is the novelty in the covenant in this verse regarding the covenant in the previous verse: even though also in the verses before this the name Elokim is said,

nevertheless there is no proof from this that what is written "between Me" means the attribute of judgment; but in this verse,

since in place of "between Me" it is written "between Elokim",

one learns that the intention here is the attribute of judgment.

And the explanation in this:

"Elokim" means

(as Rashi explains above²⁴)

"ruler and judge"

(and elsewhere²⁵

it says "every Elokim in Scripture is an expression of dominion"),

from this it is understood,

that the name Elokim does not everywhere indicate the attribute of judgment

(as opposed to the attribute of mercy),

but rather the intention is to the Holy One, blessed be He, as ruler over the earth.

And so in our matter,

that which is written above "And Elokim said, This is the sign of the covenant etc.",

the intention is that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the One who rules over the earth,

and He established in His world a sign of the covenant — "I have set My bow in the cloud etc.".

But not so in our verse,

as above.

And based on this, the continuation of Rashi's language is understood: "Rather, this is its midrashic interpretation, when you will come, etc." — because according to the plain sense of the verse,

what is written "between God" is as if it were written here "between Me"

(and as above that it is<pg>35</pg>

the way of the verses to speak),

except that according to the midrash it is possible to explain,

that what is written twice "God" in these verses

("And God said, etc., and the bow shall be, etc., to remember an eternal covenant between God and between every living soul, etc."),

behold, the first name refers to the Holy One, blessed be He

(the "Ruler and Judge"),

and the second refers to the attribute of judgment above.

[In addition to this,

that the explanation itself,

that the Holy One, blessed be He, made a covenant between His "attribute of judgment" and the earth,

is not a matter of simple interpretation but rather Midrash and Aggadah].

6.

However,

it is impossible for Rashi to be satisfied with this,

because it is not understood — after all, what is the novelty of the second covenant relative to the first covenant?

Since every time "it arises in My thought to bring darkness and destruction to the world" the Holy One, blessed be He, will remember His covenant not to "destroy all flesh" — what difference does it make and what does the covenant with the attribute of judgment add

("between Elokim"),

that the attribute of judgment itself is transformed into mercy?

And therefore Rashi concludes "When the attribute of judgment comes to prosecute against you to obligate you, I see the sign and remember": "Prosecution" means not only a claim that comes to obligate the person and punish him according to his deeds,

but it is an excessive claim and effort<sup>26</sup>

to obligate him more than he is obligated according to the strict line of law.

In the manner that we find

(also in Rashi<sup>27</sup>)

that the Satan prosecutes at a time of danger — for seemingly,

from either side: if the person is liable for punishment,

why does the Satan not prosecute also not at a time of danger?

And if he is not liable for anything,

what will the Satan's prosecution avail him?

Rather the explanation in this,

that there are matters that in ordinary times they do not punish for,

but when there is danger and they need extra protection,

then the Satan's prosecution is effective to obligate the person also for these matters.

And so in our matter: there are situations where the conduct of the world is in a manner that causes a thought before the Holy One, blessed be He, "to bring darkness and destruction to the world,"

And about this comes the first covenant "between Me and the earth,"

that the Holy One, blessed be He, will remember the covenant and will no longer destroy the earth.

But sometimes there is a situation where accusation is possible²⁸

from the side of "the attribute of judgment,"

"to condemn you" even more than the line of judgment,

and to nullify such a thing from the outset,

the Holy One, blessed be He, made another covenant "between God and between every living soul,"

that is "between the attribute of judgment above and between you,"

that by this the possibility of accusation is negated from the outset,

and precisely as Rashi's language "when the attribute of judgment comes to accuse etc." then immediately "I see the sign and remember,"

in a manner that from the beginning it does not come to actual accusation,

For the attribute of judgment itself is transformed into mercy,

and it decrees only good for Israel,

in the good that is seen and revealed,

below ten handbreadths.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Noach, 5744)