לקוטי שיחות חלק ל׳ - נח ג

Parshas Noach

1. "And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between G‑d (Elokim) and every living soul of all flesh that is upon the earth." In his commentary, Rashi quotes the words "between G‑d and every living soul" and explains: "Between the Attribute of Judgment above and you; for it should have written 'between Me and every living soul.' But this is its midrashic interpretation: when the Attribute of Judgment comes to accuse you, to find you guilty, I see the sign and remember."

At first glance it seems that Rashi intends to answer the question (which he cites in his commentary), "for it should have written 'between Me…'" (since all this is part of what the Holy One, blessed be He, said — "And G‑d said"), and on this he explains that the meaning of "Elokim" here is "the Attribute of Judgment above."

But this requires examination, for we find that "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus," as Rashi himself explains in Parshas Vayeira on the verse, "And G‑d rained upon Sedom… from G‑d out of heaven," that "it says 'from G‑d' and does not say 'from Him'" — because "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus." He cites several examples of this, including an example from Parshas Bereishis: "like 'the wives of Lemech,' and it does not say 'my wives.'" Thus already in Parshas Bereishis the wording of the verse is accounted for by the fact that "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus."

[In its own place in Parshas Bereishis, Rashi explains nothing. It may be said that the reason is that from there it is not compelling that "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus," since there these are the words of Lemech quoted in Scripture and not the wording of the verse itself; therefore it is no proof that this is also "the way of Scripture." In Parshas Vayeira, by contrast, this is the wording of Scripture — "And G‑d rained… from G‑d" — a clear proof that "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus."]

Since "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus" (as we find in several places), what compels Rashi to explain the verse here according to "its midrashic interpretation" ("between G‑d" meaning "between the Attribute of Judgment") rather than according to its plain meaning — that it does not say "between Me" because "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus"?

2. We also need to understand the length of Rashi's wording:

a) It is well known that it is not Rashi's way to write his commentary in the form of question and answer; rather, he writes the explanation of the verse in a style through which the question disappears of itself. If so, in our case too it would seemingly have sufficed for him to write "between the Attribute of Judgment above…"; why did Rashi need to elaborate and spell out the question, "for it should have written 'between Me and every living soul'"?

b) Rashi's novel point would seem to concern only the word ("between) G‑d," which means "the Attribute of Judgment above." If so, why does he (a) quote from the verse also the words "and every living soul"; (b) and likewise, in the body of his commentary, go back and specify "and you… and every living soul" —

He should have said briefly: "Between G‑d — between the Attribute of Judgment above… when the Attribute of Judgment comes to accuse…" (or the like)?

c) The entire elaboration at the conclusion of Rashi's commentary — "when the Attribute of Judgment comes to accuse you, to find you guilty, I see the sign and remember" — would seem to be superfluous, containing nothing new: both regarding the accusation — for it is obvious that the function of the Attribute of Judgment is "to accuse you" — and regarding the benefit of the sign of the covenant, whose function is already known from the preceding verses, "And it shall be, when I bring clouds over the earth (when it arises in My thought to bring darkness and destruction upon the world — Rashi), that the rainbow shall be seen… and I will remember My covenant… and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh."

3. In addition to the length, several fine points of Rashi's wording also need to be understood, among them:

a) The order in Rashi's commentary is puzzling: first he writes the explanation of the verse briefly ("between the Attribute of Judgment above and you"), then he explains the difficulty in the verse ("for it should have written…"), and then he goes back again to explain the meaning of the verse — "But this is its midrashic interpretation: when the Attribute of Judgment comes…"! It would have been more fitting to begin with the question, "it should have written…," and then resolve it with his explanation, "But this is its midrashic interpretation: between the Attribute of Judgment… when the Attribute of Judgment comes to accuse…."

b) "But this is its midrashic interpretation" — the fact that "Elokim" is the Attribute of Judgment has already been brought earlier in Rashi's commentary as the plain meaning of Scripture [beginning with the opening of Parshas Bereishis, "In the beginning G‑d (Elokim) created," where Rashi explains, "It does not say 'Havayah created,' for at first it arose in His thought to create it with the Attribute of Judgment…"; and likewise in our parshah on the verse "And G‑d remembered Noach," Rashi explains, "This Name is the Attribute of Judgment…"]. Why, then, is it different here, that Rashi emphasizes "this is its midrashic interpretation"?

c) "The Attribute of Judgment above" — why did Rashi not write (as in the other places) simply "the Attribute of Judgment" (for it is self-evident that the reference is to the Attribute of Judgment of the Holy One, blessed be He)?

[The source of this wording is the Midrash Rabbah on this verse, but there the reason for the addition is understood, for this is the wording of the Midrash there: "'Between G‑d and every living soul' — 'between G‑d': this is the Attribute of Judgment above; 'and every living soul': this is the attribute of judgment below. The Attribute of Judgment above is harsh, and the attribute of judgment below is lenient." According to Rashi's commentary, however, it is impossible to say that "and every living soul" means "the attribute of judgment below" (for that is entirely contrary to the plain meaning); rather, it is meant in its plain sense, as Rashi's wording has it, "between the Attribute of Judgment… and you." If so, the meaning of the words "(the Attribute of Judgment) above" is not understood. This is especially so since the explanation that it is "harsh" is missing here, and it is found specifically in the Midrash, even though the student is greater.]

d) "You" — why did Rashi depart from the verse's wording, "and every living soul"? One cannot say that it is the same thing and he merely used a shorter expression, for this is not merely a change of wording but also of content, since "you" and "every living soul" refer to two different categories, as stated explicitly in the preceding verse, "And I will remember My covenant… between Me and you and every living soul of all flesh" (and as is plain, "you" refers to human beings, and "every living soul" refers to every living creature).

And most puzzling of all: immediately afterwards Rashi continues, "for it should have written 'between Me and every living soul'" (and he did not write "and you")!

4. The explanation of all this may be said to be as follows:

The main difficulty in the verse (which Rashi comes to resolve in his commentary) is not "for it should have written 'between Me'" (rather than "between G‑d") — for according to the plain meaning, "it is the way of Scripture to speak thus." Rather, Rashi comes (mainly) to resolve a general question about this verse, namely:

This entire verse, "And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it, to remember the everlasting covenant between G‑d and every living soul…," would seem to be superfluous, for all its details have already been stated in the preceding verses: "I have set My bow in the cloud, and it shall be a sign of a covenant… and it shall be, when I bring clouds… and I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you and every living soul… and the waters shall no more…."

We must therefore say that this verse comes to teach us something new that has not yet been stated. And this is Rashi's intent in quoting from the verse the words "between G‑d and every living soul" — for these words allude to the new point that was not known until now; and Rashi explains what the new point is: "between the Attribute of Judgment above and you."

That is to say: the "covenant" in the preceding verses is between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the world ("between Me and the earth"), and its content is that "when it arises in My thought to bring darkness and destruction upon the world," then "the rainbow shall be seen in the cloud, and I will remember My covenant… and the waters shall no more become a flood…." But here another covenant is added — "between the Attribute of Judgment… and you"; that is, not only will the Holy One, blessed be He, have mercy on the world at such a time and not bring a flood, but the Attribute of Judgment itself will cease to accuse, to the point that it will be transformed into mercy [as in the plain sense of the wording of (the verse and) Rashi, that the "covenant" is between the Attribute of Judgment and you].

It may be said that this is a continuation of what was said earlier, "And G‑d remembered Noach," where Rashi explains that "this Name is the Attribute of Judgment, and it was transformed into the Attribute of Mercy through the prayer of the righteous." Following on from Noach'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 rainbow the Attribute of Judgment will be transformed into mercy.

Accordingly, Rashi's wording, "between the Attribute of Judgment above and you," is precise: (a) Since the subject is a covenant in addition to the covenant between the Holy One, blessed be He, and the earth, one might mistakenly think that the covenant "between the Attribute of Judgment and you" refers to a covenant with the court ("the attribute of judgment") below (which is also called "Elokim" in Scripture) — since there is already a covenant with the Holy One, blessed be He. Therefore Rashi emphasizes that this second covenant too is with "the Attribute of Judgment above." (b) Rashi writes "and you" (and not "and every living soul"), which plainly refers to human beings — for the main need for a "covenant" with the Attribute of Judgment concerns human beings, against whom the Attribute of Judgment mainly accuses (as is precise in the wording of Rashi later in his commentary, "to accuse you, to find you guilty"), unlike "every living soul," to which the accusation of the Attribute of Judgment does not (so much) apply, since they do not possess free choice.

5. There is still a difficulty, however: How can one say that the novelty of this verse is that it speaks of a covenant "between G‑d…" (the Attribute of Judgment above)? The preceding verses too are words spoken by "Elokim," as the verses begin, "And G‑d (Elokim) said"; if so, the covenant "between Me and the earth" is also "between G‑d…" (who spoke of this covenant), namely the Attribute of Judgment. And the question returns to its place: what is new in this verse?

Therefore Rashi continues to explain and prove that indeed the precise wording "between G‑d" is itself the novelty of this verse — "for it should have written 'between Me and every living soul.'" That is to say, Rashi's intent here is not to ask how it fits to write "between G‑d" (since it is a statement that begins "And G‑d said"), but to point out the difference between this verse and the one before it: there it says, "And I will remember My covenant which is between Me and you…"; what is the reason the verse changes here and says "between G‑d"? From this it is proven that this is the novelty of the covenant in this verse relative to the covenant in the previous verse: although the Name Elokim is also mentioned in the preceding verses, this is no proof that "between Me" there means the Attribute of Judgment; in this verse, by contrast, since instead of "between Me" it says "between G‑d," we learn that the reference here is to the Attribute of Judgment.

The explanation of this:

"Elokim" means (as Rashi explained earlier) "ruler and judge" (and elsewhere he writes, "Every Elokim in Scripture denotes authority"). From this it is understood that the Name Elokim does not in every place denote the Attribute of Judgment (as opposed to the Attribute of Mercy); rather, it refers to the Holy One, blessed be He, as Ruler over the earth. So too in our case: what is written earlier, "And G‑d said, This is the sign of the covenant…," means that the Holy One, blessed be He, is the Ruler over the earth, and He established in His world a sign of a covenant — "I have set My bow in the cloud…." In our verse, by contrast, it is as explained above.

Accordingly, the continuation of Rashi's wording, "But this is its midrashic interpretation: when… comes…," is understood. According to the plain meaning of the verse, what is written, "between G‑d," is as though it were written here "between Me" (for, as above, this is the way of Scripture to speak). But according to the Midrash one can explain that where "Elokim" is stated twice in these verses ("And G‑d said… And the rainbow shall be… to remember the everlasting covenant between G‑d and every living soul…"), the first Name refers to the Holy One, blessed be He (the "ruler and judge"), and the second to the Attribute of Judgment above.

[In addition, the very interpretation that the Holy One, blessed be He, made a covenant between His "Attribute of Judgment" and the earth is not a matter of plain meaning but of Midrash and Aggadah.]

6. However, Rashi cannot be satisfied with this, for it is not understood: ultimately, what is new about the second covenant relative to the first? Since every time "it arises in My thought to bring darkness and destruction upon 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 ("between G‑d") add, that the Attribute of Judgment itself is transformed into mercy?

Therefore Rashi concludes, "when the Attribute of Judgment comes to accuse you, to find you guilty, I see the sign and remember." "Accusation" means not only a claim that comes to find a person guilty and to punish him according to his deeds, but a claim and an extra effort to find him more guilty than he is liable according to the strict letter of the law.

Similar to what we find (also in Rashi's commentary), that the Satan accuses in a time of danger. Seemingly, either way: if the person is liable to punishment, why does the Satan not accuse also at a time that is not one of danger? And if he is not liable at all, what will the Satan's accusation accomplish? The explanation is that there are matters for which one is not punished at ordinary times, but when there is danger and extra protection is needed, the Satan's accusation is effective in making a person liable even for these matters.

So too in our case: there are situations in which the conduct of the world is such that it causes a thought before the Holy One, blessed be He, "to bring darkness and destruction upon the world"; for 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 at times there is a situation in which an accusation on the part of "the Attribute of Judgment" is applicable — "to find you guilty" even beyond the strict letter of the law. In order to nullify such a thing from the very outset, the Holy One, blessed be He, made another covenant, "between G‑d and every living soul," that is, "between the Attribute of Judgment above and you," through which the possibility of accusation is negated from the very outset. As is precise in Rashi's wording, "when the Attribute of Judgment comes to accuse…," then immediately "I see the sign and remember," in such a way that from the outset it does not come to an actual accusation —

For the Attribute of Judgment itself is transformed into mercy, and it decrees only good for the Jewish people, with good that is visible and revealed, below ten handbreadths.

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Noach, 5744)

Key Lesson

Rashi reads the verse "between G‑d and every living soul" as a second covenant, beyond G‑d's promise not to bring another flood: a covenant with the Attribute of Judgment itself. The first covenant ensures that G‑d will hold back destruction; the second ensures that the Attribute of Judgment will not even begin to press charges beyond the strict letter of the law, because on seeing the sign it turns into mercy. Following on from Noach's prayer, which turned judgment into mercy, this teaches that G‑d's relationship with the Jewish people is meant to bring not only protection from harm but good that is visible and revealed in this world.