לקוטי שיחות חלק ל״ה - נח ג

Parshas Noach

1. "And G‑d said: This is the sign of the covenant… for everlasting generations." The Midrash Rabbah states: "L'doros is written [defectively, l'doros without the letter vav], to exclude two generations [in which the sign of the rainbow was not seen in the world]: the generation of Chizkiyahu and the generation of the Men of the Great Assembly. Rabbi Chizkiyah removes the generation of the Men of the Great Assembly and includes the generation of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai."

Rashi on the verse cites this exposition, as follows: "For everlasting generations — it is written defectively, for there are generations that did not need the sign because they were completely righteous, such as the generation of Chizkiyahu king of Yehudah and the generation of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai."

The commentators have already noted that in the Midrash only these two generations are excluded — "to exclude two generations" — meaning that only in them was there no need for the sign of the rainbow [as is also understood from the fact that "Rabbi Chizkiyah removes the generation of the Men of the Great Assembly and includes the generation of Rashbi": simply understood, the reason Rabbi Chizkiyah needed to remove the generation of the Men of the Great Assembly (and not simply add the generation of Rashbi as well) is that there would then be more than two generations]. Rashi, however, writes "for there are generations that did not need, etc." (and does not write "two generations"), because according to the plain meaning of Scripture — which is Rashi's approach — it is not compelling how many generations did not need the sign [and what Rashi writes afterward, "the generation of Chizkiyahu… Rashbi" (citing only two generations), he gives as examples; but according to the plain meaning it can be said that there were more, as indicated by his precise wording, "such as the generation of Chizkiyahu… Rashbi"].

They explain that this difference depends on the way the exposition from "l'doros" is made: the Midrash expounds the absence of the two vavs, and therefore writes "to exclude two generations"; whereas according to Rashi this is derived from the fact that "it is written defectively," meaning that the overall defectiveness of the word comes to teach us that there is a "lack" in "everlasting generations" — that not all the generations are included, for several generations are lacking, which did not need the sign of the rainbow.

At first glance it would seem reasonable to say that in addition to their dispute regarding the manner of expounding the verses — whether "l'doros" excludes only two generations or an unspecified number of generations ("there are generations") — there is also a difference between these two approaches in the content of the matter, as will be explained.

2. It may be said that the Midrash and Rashi differ as to the reason these generations did not need the sign, which can be explained in two ways: a) that it is on account of the merit of the tzaddikim of the generation, which protects the world; b) on account of the state of all the people of the generation, who, because of their righteousness, etc., do not need the sign of the rainbow, since to begin with they do not deserve punishment.

Rashi states explicitly: "there are generations that did not need the sign because they were completely righteous." The word "they were" refers back to the word "generations" before it: the generations themselves were completely righteous. It is understood from this that by the examples Rashi then cites, "such as the generation of Chizkiyahu king of Yehudah and the generation of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai," he does not intend to emphasize the greatness of the righteousness of these two tzaddikim, but rather that the people of the generation of Chizkiyahu and the people of the generation of Rashbi were completely righteous. As we find explicitly in the words of our Sages regarding the generation of Chizkiyahu, that in his days "they searched from Dan to Be'er Sheva and did not find an ignoramus, etc., and they did not find a boy or girl, man or woman, who was not expert in the laws of ritual impurity and purity; and of that generation it says, etc." — and this is the reason they did not need the sign.

[And although this came about through King Chizkiyahu (as related by our Sages there), nevertheless what is relevant here (to the reason they did not need the sign) is not the greatness of Chizkiyahu's merit in this, but the fact that the people of his generation actually were completely righteous.]

The Midrash, however, holds that the reason these two generations were excluded from the sign of the rainbow is the greatness of the righteousness of Chizkiyahu and of (the Men of the Great Assembly, or) Rashbi themselves. This is also understood from the continuation of the Midrash, which relates Rashbi's words to Eliyahu the Prophet concerning Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: since the rainbow had been seen in his days, he was not worthy to see his face. From this it is understood that the distinction of the rainbow not being seen in the days of Rashbi pertains to Rashbi himself (and not to the people of his generation): because of the greatness of Rashbi's righteousness the rainbow was not seen in his days. This is likewise understood from the fact that the Midrash goes on to explain several more distinctions and praises of Rashbi, for these praises add further explanation of the reason the rainbow was not seen in his days.

[It is also precise that one of Rashbi's distinctions cited in the Midrash there is Rashbi's statement that his merit was so great that he could sustain all the generations "until King Moshiach" (and in Rashbi's words cited in the Gemara: "I can exempt the entire world from judgment"). This accords with the fact that in his generation the rainbow was not seen: even if they deserved punishment, Rashbi's merit protects them and exempts them from judgment, and consequently they do not need the sign of the rainbow.]

3. Accordingly, it may be said that this is also the content of the difference between the view of the Midrash and the view of Rashi's commentary on the Torah as to whether only two generations were excluded, or more:

According to the Midrash, only two generations were excluded. This follows its own view that the exclusion from the sign of the rainbow comes on account of the greatness of the righteousness of the tzaddik of the generation, who is able to protect the entire world — and a tzaddik of such a level is not ordinarily found. This is understood from the very fact that only Rashbi said of himself, "I can exempt the entire world from judgment," meaning that this was something novel even relative to other Tanna'im and tzaddikim.

The Midrash intends the same with regard to Chizkiyahu, for in him, too, we find a special wonder, as our Sages say that the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to make Chizkiyahu Moshiach. Since he was fit to be the redeemer of Israel, it is understood that his merit was great enough to protect the entire world.

According to Rashi's view, however, the intent is that the generation as a whole was completely righteous (for they were not liable to the punishment of a flood, as will be explained). This is not something unique to the generation of Chizkiyahu and the generation of Rashbi, for there were other such generations (as is also cited by our Sages on the verse "Grace is false… a woman who fears G‑d, she shall be praised" regarding the generation of Rabbi Yehudah bar Il'ai, and elsewhere).

4. The basis of the dispute between the Midrash and Rashi (whether these generations did not need the sign because of the merit of the tzaddik or because of the distinction of the people of the generation) may be explained as depending on the definition of the need for the sign of the rainbow.

This follows an introductory question, a seemingly enormous difficulty in this statement of our Sages that only in a few generations was the sign of the rainbow not needed: the "sign" of the rainbow is, as the verse states explicitly, to recall the covenant that "the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh." Simply understood, the need for the sign exists only when there is room for the punishment of a flood (because of evil conduct, etc.), yet nevertheless there will be no flood — because of the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He.

This is puzzling: how can one say that only when there are "completely righteous" people (in Rashi's words) is the sign of the rainbow not needed? Even if they are not completely righteous, and even if they are wicked, so long as they are not in the state of the people of the generation of the Flood — when the world was at the lowest possible level, "the wickedness of man was great on the earth…," to the point that "the earth was corrupt… all flesh had corrupted its way upon the earth" — there is no room for the punishment of a flood [as we see that before the Flood, although all the earlier generations "kept on provoking Him," and already in the generation of Enosh (the son of Shes) they worshipped idols, there was nevertheless no such punishment of destroying the entire world]. If so, how can one say that only in the generations that "were completely righteous" did they not need the sign of the rainbow?

5. Now, by way of derush one may answer that it does not mean that every time a rainbow is seen it is a sign that the world is in a state deserving the punishment of a flood, and the world is saved only by virtue of the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He (which is recalled by the sign of the rainbow). Rather, the Holy One, blessed be He, set the sign of the rainbow into the nature of creation permanently, as an everlasting reminder that even if the world should be in such a low state that it deserves the punishment of a flood, we are assured (by the oath "I will not again…" "nor will I again…") that "there shall never again be a flood to destroy the earth." Therefore the rainbow is seen even in generations that do not deserve the punishment of a flood.

This is also the basis for the view of the Midrash that the generations in which the rainbow was not seen were so on account of the merit of the tzaddikim of the generation (the merit of King Chizkiyahu and the merit of Rashbi) — and not because of the great righteousness of the people of the generation:

The reason the rainbow was not seen in these generations is not that only these generations were not in a state deserving the punishment of a flood — that is certainly not so; on the contrary, the vast majority of generations do not deserve the punishment of a flood, G‑d forbid. Rather, the fact that the rainbow was not seen in their days comes to indicate the greatness of the merit of the tzaddik present in that generation: even if one could imagine that his generation was at the lowest level, like the state of the generation of the Flood, and even if there were no promise that "there shall never again be a flood," they would nevertheless not be punished in his merit (as in Rashbi's statement cited above, "I can exempt the entire world from judgment").

In Rashi's commentary on the Torah, however, one cannot explain it this way. For on the verse "And it shall be, when I bring clouds over the earth, and the rainbow will be seen in the cloud," he explains: "When I bring clouds — when it shall arise in My thought to bring darkness and destruction to the world." From this it is understood that according to the plain meaning of the verse, "the rainbow will be seen in the cloud" is a result of its having arisen in His thought "to bring darkness and destruction to the world."

[Granted, what is said afterward, "And the rainbow shall be in the cloud, and I will see it to remember the everlasting covenant," could be interpreted to mean that the rainbow in the cloud is a constant phenomenon, but that when it arises in His thought to bring darkness and destruction to the world, the sight of the rainbow ("and I will see it") will be effective, so that the Holy One, blessed be He, will, so to speak, remember the everlasting covenant. This is not so, however, in the verse "And it shall be, when I bring clouds…," where it says "and the rainbow will be seen in the cloud" (and not "and I will see it…").]

So the question returns to its place: how is it possible to say that throughout all the generations (except for the few generations in whose days the rainbow was not seen) the world was in such a state that there was a thought before Him, may He be blessed, "to bring darkness and destruction to the world" (as in the generation of the Flood)?!

6. It appears that the explanation is as follows: according to the plain meaning of Scripture, the definition of the punishment of the Flood that was negated by the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not only the negation of bringing a flood upon the entire earth, but even upon part of the earth [and the meaning of "all flesh shall not be cut off" and "the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh" is not all flesh together ("all" in the sense of the totality), but "all flesh" meaning even one of the "flesh" ("all" in the sense of "any," as in "you shall not do any work," "and any man shall not be in the Tent of Meeting," and elsewhere)].

For the punishment of the Flood differs from the other punishments related in the Torah. Regarding the Flood it is said, "And He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the earth," which indicates utter destruction. The reason for this is stated explicitly in the verse: the Flood came not merely to punish the people of the generation of the Flood, but because "G‑d regretted that He had made man… and G‑d said: I will blot out man… for I regret that I have made them." That is, the Holy One, blessed be He, regretted, so to speak, the very creation of man (and the other creatures), and therefore came to blot out and destroy the creation that He had made.

This punishment is a punishment of a special kind. There are severe punishments, even punishments of annihilation, and even in a manner in which not only the human species is destroyed but also the animals (such as the punishment of the condemned city), and even to the point that the land itself was destroyed, as with the overturning of Sedom and Amorah. Nevertheless, all of this is only by way of punishment: the people of the place sinned so greatly in the eyes of G‑d that they incurred annihilation in that place (to the point that it was necessary to destroy their place of dwelling). But in none of these is the expression "and He blotted out" used regarding them, nor regret over their very creation, as we find with the Flood.

This is also the reason for the essential difference between the Flood and the overturning of Sedom. Regarding the overturning of Sedom we find that had there been tzaddikim in it they would have been saved, as Avraham argued: "Will You also destroy the righteous with the wicked… Far be it from You… to slay the righteous with the wicked"; it was only that in actual fact all the people of Sedom were "wicked and sinful toward G‑d exceedingly." With the Flood, however, there was no such limitation, for the entire world (except for Noach and his family) was destroyed; and one certainly cannot say that every single person of the generation of the Flood, even the youngest children (except for Noach and his family), were so bad that they incurred annihilation.

That is, because the Flood was not by way of punishment (a death sentence, etc.), but regret over the very creation of man. Therefore it made no difference whether one was completely wicked or not completely wicked (having some good deeds as well), etc., for when there is no desire for the creation of man, everything is automatically destroyed [and the rescue of Noach and his family was in order to build from them a "new world"].

From this it is understood that the difference between the definition of the Flood and that of other punishments applies even when speaking of a single nation and country, or a single city and the like: it is possible for there to be a state in which their conduct is so bad that, according to the strict letter of the law, the Holy One, blessed be He, would regret their creation, etc., and "and He blotted out" would have to apply to them.

This is the novelty of the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, "And I will establish My covenant with you, and all flesh shall never again be cut off… and there shall never again be a flood to destroy the earth": it negates even the possibility of destroying part of the world in a manner similar to the destruction of the world by the Flood, that is, with the intent to blot out and utterly destroy that part of the world.

7. This resolves Rashi's comment on the verse "when I bring clouds" — "when it shall arise in My thought to bring darkness and destruction to the world" — which implies that every time a rainbow is seen it is because there was a thought before Him to bring darkness and destruction to the world:

Rashi's precise wording is "darkness and destruction to the world," that is, not the destruction of the entire world, but "darkness and destruction to the world," meaning "darkness and destruction" in a particular part of the world. If it should arise in His thought to bring annihilation and destruction (not by way of punishment, but) as "darkness and destruction," to blot out the existence that He created (regret over its very creation) — even in only a particular part of the world — then through the sight of the rainbow this thought is negated.

This applies throughout all the generations: even if the state of the world as a whole is as it should be, it is nevertheless possible that there are places in the world where conduct is at the lowest level, like the conduct of the people of the generation of the Flood. Therefore a rainbow is seen there, in order to negate "darkness and destruction" in that place where conduct is undesirable.

8. Based on all of the above, the basis for Rashi's interpretation is understood — that the generations in which the rainbow was not seen were so because "they were completely righteous" (the generation as a whole). For the absence of the rainbow indicates that there is not even one place in the world (that is, among the Jewish people, for whose sake the world was created, as Rashi explains at the beginning of Parshas Bereishis) where there is undesirable conduct (of a kind deserving "darkness and destruction").

This is Rashi's reason for interpreting that the generation as a whole "were completely righteous," for only on this account can one say "that they did not need the sign." We find this explicitly regarding King Chizkiyahu, as mentioned above, that in his days "they searched from Dan to Be'er Sheva and did not find an ignoramus, etc., and they did not find a boy or girl, man or woman, who was not expert in the laws of ritual impurity and purity; and of that generation it says, etc." — that is, in all the places where Jews lived they were as they should be, etc. From this it is understood that such was also the state of the generation of Rashbi (as Rashi states explicitly here, that "they were completely righteous").

Accordingly, we can further understand Rashi's words, "there are generations… such as the generation of Chizkiyahu, etc.," which imply that there were more than two generations (as mentioned above in section 1). For so long as the conduct of the Jewish people is not like the conduct of the people of the generation of the Flood, the sign of the rainbow is not needed. And there were certainly many generations in which the conduct of all of Israel, in all their dwelling places, was as it should be — at any rate much better than the conduct of the generation of the Flood — such that there was not even one place in the world (among the Jewish people) that deserved, G‑d forbid, the punishment of the Flood.

9. Now, the inner reason that according to the Midrash the rainbow was not seen only in the two generations of King Chizkiyahu and Rashbi [and Rashi, too, chose specifically these two generations (although according to Rashi's view there were other such generations)] may be explained as follows:

It is explained in several places that the Flood came "to purify the earth." This is also the intent of our Sages' statement that Noach "saw a new world," for through the Flood a renewal was effected in the work of creation: the world was purified and elevated to a new level, to the point that it is called "a new world."

This is the meaning of the sign of the rainbow, that "there shall never again be a flood to destroy the earth" — to indicate that through the Flood the earth was purified in such a way that it is no longer possible for the world to be in such a low state that it would deserve a flood.

Now, such a renewal of creation will take place with the coming of our righteous Moshiach, when there will be "the new heavens and the new earth."

This is also the allusion in the fact that specifically regarding King Chizkiyahu and Rashbi we find that they did not need the sign of the rainbow, for both of them are connected with the coming of Moshiach: regarding Chizkiyahu it is said that the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to make him Moshiach (as mentioned above); and Rashbi composed the Zohar, through which "they will go out of exile with mercy."

It follows that through their service they were fit to bring about a renewal of creation. Therefore "they did not need the sign" of the rainbow, since they could bring about the renewal of creation (similar to the renewal brought about through the Flood) through their own service.

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Noach, 5745)

Key Lesson

The rainbow is a reminder that G‑d will never again destroy any part of the world because He regrets having created it — and it appears wherever conduct sinks toward the level of the generation of the Flood. For Rashi, it was absent only when an entire generation, in every place Jews lived, was completely righteous; for the Midrash, it was absent when one tzaddik's merit was great enough to protect the entire world. Chizkiyahu and Rashbi, both bound up with Moshiach, could themselves bring about the renewal of creation that the Flood once accomplished, and their example teaches that our own service, too, can prepare the "new heavens and new earth" of the Redemption.