מדובר כמה פעמים שדרכו של רש\"י בפירושו על התורה. The Rabbi says, I said many times that the derech, the way of Rashi is to explain כל דבר הקשה על דרך הפשט בפירוש הכתובים. Anything that's not clear in Chumash, in the pasuk, Rashi explains it. ובוודאי אם יש קושיא בכתוב ואין רש\"י מתרצו, if there is a kushya in the pasuk and Rashi doesn't explain, doesn't answer it, הרי זה גופא הוכחה, that's a proof שהתירוץ מובן ופשוט, that the answer is very simple, עד כדי כך שאין רש\"י צריך לפרש, רש\"י doesn't even have to explain it. אי שהתירוץ מובן על פי מה שכתב רש\"י לפני זה, or it's already understood based on what Rashi wrote someplace before. But if not, he would have answered it. Rashi basically took upon himself that any pasuk that is not clear, he will explain. The ראיה the Rabbi brings is from the fact that there are certain, very few, but a few places in Chumash where Rashi says I have a kushya and I don't know the answer. Why did he have to write it? If Rashi didn't answer every question, so don't answer this one either. A siman that every other question he answers, and if there's a question in Chumash that he doesn't answer, min hasetam it's not a question. Okay.

והנה בפרשתנו מסופר What does it mean it's not a question? What do you mean it's not a question? The answer is very simple. Or because Rashi said it already something Yeah, for a five-year-old. So why can't If he brings something, he just also doesn't understand. So he writes, \"I don't understand.\" But to show that it's not just something that should be self-understood? No, there, right. But wherever he doesn't say that, A siman it's understood. והנה בפרשתנו מסופר מסופר פרשת נח it says שנוח ידע לאחר המבול כי כלו המים מעל הארץ, after the מבול, he knew that it became the water receded and it's dry, על ידי ששילח את היונה מן התיבה, he sent the dove out of the תיבה, out of the ark. ותבוא אליו, it came back to him, והנה עלה זית טרף בפיה, and it had a leaf of a of a olive tree that was pulled off, and it was in its mouth. From that he saw that it's already all over, because there is a tree. לכאורה בפשוטו של מקרא אינו מובן, it's not understood in simple pshat. ומסופר בכתובים הקודמים, it says in the previous פסוקים, על דבר המבול, when it talks about the מבול, שנבקעו כל מעיינות תהום רבה וארובות השמים נפתחו, all the underground wells opened up, the heavens opened up, ויהי הגשם על הארץ ארבעים יום וארבעים לילה, it rained for 40 days and 40 nights, ויגברו המים על הארץ חמישים ומאת יום, and besides that, from underground, the wells of underground came up for 150 days. ועל ידי זה ויגווע כל בשר הרומש על הארץ, all flesh that was in the ground, earth, died, בעוף ובבהמה ובחיה, birds, animals, וימח את כל היקום אשר על פני האדמה, and it erased all things that were on the ground, וימחו מן הארץ, and they got erased, taken away from the ground. שלאחר mabul כזה, after such a מבול, בוודאי לא נשאר שום אילן ועשב בציורו, certainly not a tree, no grass and no tree remained. ואם כן מאין לקחה היונה עלה זית? Where did the bird take the the this this leaf? It must have grown someplace. There were no trees, all the trees were broken and knocked down. ולא נמצא בפירוש Rashi ביאור בזה. We don't find in Rashi an answer. והנה midrash מביא בזה ב' דעות. And midrash asks the question. We're talking about Rashi in simple peshat. Midrash has an answer. Two answers, two opinions.

One is שהביאה העלה מש- מ- שושין אי מהר המשחה שבארץ ישראל, from different areas of Eretz Yisrael. כי בארץ ישראל לא ירד המבול, in Israel, in Eretz Yisrael the mabul didn't come down. מה שכתוב, like it says, ארץ לא מטוהרה ולא גושמה ביום זעם, it's a pasuk, it's a land that ה''s anger wasn't there, it didn't get the mabul. Okay, so there it had the trees. And the second answer is שנפתחו לה שערי גן עדן והביאה העלה משם. The gates of גן עדן were opened up and the bird came into גן עדן and tore a leaf, took a leaf from there. These are two terutzim. What about the animals that were left on the uh were left on the earth, how did Noach choose which which animals he took? They came themselves. Sure it was more than They came themselves. There was only seven pairs of of a kasher animal in the entire No, that's only seven came. What about the the tall mountain? I don't know if this is this is the same or somewhere else because we learned there's a tall mountain and and then the water receded, and so there was a certain amount of time that the uh the olive It went 15 אמה over the top mountain. Yeah, I also thought, right. But then No, that's let's let's let's see. So, okay. I don't know if it's this So this is the two terutzim that the midrash gives. So maybe that's what Rashi feels, that that's what Rashi is going to learn also. אבל

אין לומר ששיטת רש״י בפשוטו של מקרא כאחד מב' דעות אלו, you can't say Rashi holds any of these two, because Rashi is going in peshat. Number one, הוה ליה Rashi לפרש, Rashi should have said it. This is not simple. It's not self-understood it came from גן עדן, from Eretz Yisrael. And second thing, פירושים אלו אינם על דרך הפשט, these two פירושים don't fit to the simple peshat. Why? הפירוש שהביאה אותו מגן עדן, the peshat that it came from גן עדן, הנה אף שגם על דרך הפשט מובן שלא ירד המבול בגן עדן, it's true, according to Peshat it's self-understood that the mabul did wasn't in Gan Eden. שסיבת המבול היתה, the reason for the mabul was כי רבה רעת האדם בארץ, because the people are bad, וכל יצר מחשבות לבו רק רע כל היום, people's minds are always bad. Therefore, ותשחת הארץ לפני האלקים ותמלא הארץ חמס, the people were not behaving good. And גן עדן, לא שייך כל זה, in Gan Eden this is not shayach. So, obviously there is no mabul in Gan Eden. Mikol makom, how could it be, איך אפשר לומר שנכנסה היונה לגן עדן, that the bird, the dove went into גן עדן, והביאה משם עלה זית, and brought this leaf from there? הרי מפורש בכתוב, it says clearly in Chumash, that after Adam Harishon and Chava were chased out of גן עדן, וישכן מקדם לגן עדן את הכרובים ואת להט החרב המתהפכת לשמור הכניסה לגן עדן. The Aibishter made the, the revolving the sword to watch the entrance to גן עדן, ואי אפשר להיכנס לשם, and you can't get in there, so how did that bird get in there? והעיקר, and the main thing is, this won't prove anything. כוונת נח היתה לראות הקלו המים מעל פני האדמה. Why did he send the bird? To see if the earth that was under the mabul became dry. ומה ראיה על ידי זה שהביא עלה זית מגן עדן? So what kind of proof would this? She brought it from גן עדן, הרי שם לא היה מבול מעיקרא, there was no mabul. So על דרך הפשט makes no sense to answer she brought it from Gan Eden, so what does that prove? ומטעם זה אי אפשר לומר גם כפירוש הב', that's why you can't say the other Peshat either. Wasn't the revolving sword only just blocking the Tree of Life? Huh? Wasn't the revolving sword just The entrance to Gan Eden. That's what it says. So, you can't say the other Peshat either, that they brought it from Eretz Yisrael, because Eretz Yisrael had no mabul. The same problem. מה ראיה שכלו המים מעל הארץ על ידי זה שהביאה עלה של זית מארץ ישראל שלא ירד בה מבול? You want to prove that they dried up, the place that had the mabul now is finished, if it brought it from a place that had no mabul to begin with, so what does that prove? ואף שגם לדעה זו, הנה על פי טבע, even though according to this opinion, even according to this opinion, naturally, אף שבארץ ישראל לא ירד המבול, even though the mabul didn't come down in ארץ ישראל, הרי המים שירדו בארצות שסביבה בוודאי זרמו ונכנסו גם לארץ ישראל. Taking Peshat, if you have a country, and there was water all over the world, and in one area the water didn't rain, but for sure the water streamed and came there, too, so there was water there. מכל מקום מובן שבמקום שלא היתה ירידת המבול, וגם לא בקיעת מעינות תהום רבה, לא היו מים רבים כל כך. But still, it's Pashut that even if the water entered Eretz Yisrael, but because the מבול wasn't there, it wasn't that strong. וגם לא תגבורת המים, the water wasn't so strong, ממילא לא חדרו המים כל כך לתוך עומק האדמה. So it didn't penetrate deep. ובוודאי ששם כלו המים קודם לשאר המקומות. So in Eretz Yisrael, for sure, it got dry much faster than it got dry all over. ועל פי זה, מהעלה זית שבפי היונה, ידע נח כי כלו המים בארץ ישראל. So if it brought it from Eretz Yisrael, he knew that in Eretz Yisrael, which was not so, so much, so strong, it got dry. אבל מנין ידע שכלו המים מכל הארץ? How did that prove that all over the world, where the water came from the bottom, and from underground, and came from the top, and how do you know that that, how did he know that? And obviously he brought, he sent the bird to find out about the whole world, if it's dry or not. And he said after he saw the leaf, oh, it's dry. How did that proof, so Rashi cannot learn in peshat that he brought it from Eretz Yisrael or brought it from the Gan Eden. Okay, so the question is, where did it bring it from, how do they get this? נוסף על זה, besides that, על פי פשוטו של מקרא צריך לומר שירד המבול בארץ ישראל. Besides that, in simple peshat, it seems like the מבול did come in Eretz Yisrael. ומה גם, where do we see it? Cuz Midrash מביא ב' דעות בפירוש הכתוב,

חמש עשרה אמה מלמעלה גברו המים ויכסו ההרים. The pasuk says like this, that the water was 15 amah, amah is about a foot and a half, 15 amah on top, above the top, the highest mountains. And there's a machloket. Rabbi' יהודה אומר חמש עשרה אמה בהר וחמש עשרה אמה בבקעה. He says, it's an interesting thing, that all over the world, whether it was a valley or a mountain, it was 15 amah. Make any sense? In peshat? In other words, the water was over the mountain, and when it was a valley, it was always 15 amah over. Rabbi' נחמיה אומר לא, ט״ו אמה בהר, 15 amah over the mountains, אבל בבקעה, כל ש, in the valley depends. לפי עומק הבקעה, הרי אדרבה, if the valley was deeper, so it was 25 amah over there. In other words, the water always levels out. So if It's 15 amah over here, it should be, and here it's lower, it should be 25 amah, or 50, whatever. Now, that's a Midrash. How does Rashi learn? Rashi בפירושו על Torah מפרש, Rashi learns 15 אמה מלמעלה, למעלה מכל גבי ההרים, לאחר שהושוו המים לראשי ההרים, דאס רבי נחמיה. Rashi learns like the second peshat, that it was 15 amah on top of the mountain, which was much more on the other places if it was lower. והטעם, also why does Rashi learn like that? Pashut, if you learn the other way, it was a special miracle. כשאין הכרח לומר שעשה הקב\"ה נס, if there is no reason to say that it was a special miracle, הרי זה היפך פשטות הכתובים, לא נזכר שום נס במקרא בכתוב, so why would we say there was a nes and the Torah never mentioned? The whole thing was a miracle! Yeah, but the details also, there was a miracle of this, but why make an extra miracle? Where do we get to say an extra miracle? ובנדון דידן, because here, לדעת רבי יהודה, היה כאן נס גדול. According to Rabbi Yehuda, you know what kind of nes it was? Such a big נס, שלא ירדו המים מגבעה גבוהה לנמוך והלאה לבקעה, that water did not come down from a mountain to the bottom and level out. ובמשך זמן רב, and for such a long time, היפך הטבע לגמרי, completely against nature. So number one, the Torah never mentioned there was a miracle, why would we say it's a miracle? נוסף על זה, הרי זה נס שלא לצורך וכולי. It's a miracle for no reason. Why do we need such a miracle? What's the purpose of the miracle? Hashem' makes a miracle where he needs to, but why would he make a miracle that the water should not level out, for what reason? So therefore, Rashi in peshat doesn't learn like that. Another thing, פשטות לשון הכתוב, חמש עשרה אמה מלמעלה משמע, מלמעלה דגבי כל ההרים, from the pasuk it says that it was 15 amot on top, is mashma that 15 amot on top of all the mountains, on top of everything, from the lashon is mashma. And the third thing is, it's התוכן הענין. Look into the whole story, you'll see. לדעת רבי נחמיה, according to Rabbi Nechemia, who says that it was leveled out, it was 15 amot on top of the highest mountain, and then it was all over the world at that high, which means some places it was 25 amah, 50 amah. According to that, מובן למה נחה התיבה על הרי אררט. We understand why the the תיבה ended up on top of of the mountains of Ararat. Now, אף שעל ידי זה נתווספה טרחה יתירה לנח בירידתו מן ההר, because of that, it was such a high mountain that now when he stopped there, to get down from the mountain was a big job. Why did it stop there? Why is it over there? וכיון שהיו מההרים הכי גבוהים, פשוט, it was from the highest mountains, הרי כשהתחילו המים לחסור, so when the water started receding, so where did it recede first? נחסרו לראשונה במקומות הכי גבוהים. So which pieces of land was first dry? The highest! ושם היה המקום הראשון שהיה אפשר לתיבה לנוח, was the first place where the תיבה could rest.

ולכן ותנח התיבה על הרי אררט, that's why it rested there. אבל אם בכל מקום היה גבוה המים בשווה 15 amah מלמעלה, but if we're going to say the other peshat, it was all over 15 amot above ground, ונחסרו המים 60 יום, היינו בכל מקום בשווה, and for 60 days it went down. So if it went down, it went down all over equally. למה נחה התיבה דווקא בהרי אררט? Why did it rest on the mountains of Ararat, which is some place in Turkey? על כרחך פירוש רש\"י הוא כדעת רבי נחמיה. So Rashi learns like Rabbi Nechemiah, that it takeh was on the top of the highest mountain 15, and when the water receded and there was an availability to rest, so where did the teivah rest? The mountains of Ararat. Okay. So that's what, so it comes out that Rashi learns that it was 15 amah on top of everything. לפי זה, אם נאמר שבארץ ישראל לא ירד המבול, if we're going to say, you mean the nes? No. No, not a nes. No, that it was 15 per, on top of everything. No, 15 on top of the highest. According to this, if we're going to say that in Eretz Yisrael there was no מבול, גם אם זרמו ובאו לשם המים מארצות סביבותיה, even though the water probably came from streamed there down from the other places, בפשטות כלו שם המים לפני שאר הארצות, פשוט is if if there there was no Mabul and it just came from other places, as we said before, so the earth didn't didn't absorb so much water, so where did it dry up first? In Eretz Yisrael. אם כן למה לא נחה התיבה בהרי אררט דווקא, why did it go, why did it rest in Ararat ולא Eretz Yisrael? Should have rested in Eretz Yisrael, because that's the first place that dried up, so the first place it was able to rest. So lichorah is a ra'ayah from all these things that Rashi learns that in Eretz Yisrael there was a Mabul. So besides the fact that we said before you can't say Rashi learns that where did he get that the leaf from, from Eretz Yisrael, because that wouldn't prove that the whole world is dry, because over there it wasn't, besides that, Rashi learns that the Mabul was there too. So the same kushya as we had, where did he bring the leaf from when there was nothing left, no trees left? You can't answer it came from Eretz Yisrael because the Mabul was there too. Did he make a chiluk between בקיעה and מעיינות תהום רבה in Eretz Yisrael and not geshem? No, Rashi didn't do it. No. Cause that's the way they reconciled it. There wasn't a Mabul. So it would not have, so it would not have Chamei Teveriah was one of the things that was left from the Mabul. Right, right. And So evidently, Rashi subscribes to the view that there was a Mabul in Eretz Yisrael. Let's see in here. Part of Part of 45 speaks about it. Going to whether the Mabul was was a hot water or not. And that's תהום רבה, that's בקיעת מעיינות תהום רבה, that's not from the from the geshem. Yeah. Okay, so על כרחך צריך לומר שעל דרך הפשט גם ארץ ישראל ירד המבול, so we have to say Eretz Yisrael had a מבול, too. So now we're back to the question, where did they get the leaf from? ויובן בהקדם איזה דברים בלתי מובנים בפירוש הפשוט של הכתוב הזה,

first the Rebbe explained it by a few more questions in the pasuk. Number one, מבואר בכתוב שעל ידי שהביאה עלי זית, פסוק says that because the bird brought this leaf, this olive leaf, ידע נח שקלו המים מעל הארץ, נח knew that the water on the earth became lighter, easier. שהכוונה בזה, what does it mean? שידע לא רק שהמים הולכים וחסר, not only he knew that the water is receding, כי זה התחיל זמן הרבה לפני זה, that started much before, ובוודאי ידע נח על דבר זה שעל ידי נח התיבה, and he knew that, how did he know it? Because the תיבה rested, obviously the water was going down, וכמפורש בכתוב שיבשו המים מעל הארץ קודם שילוח היונה, before he sent it, he knew that the water is receding. What did he want to find out? כי אם גם כלו המים עד כל כך, he wanted to know did the water go down so much שכבר יש מקום שכעבור זמן קצר יהיה מונח לנוח על הארץ, that is it soon that we'll be able to walk out and come on the ground? That's what he wanted to find out, not whether it was going down, for sure it was going down. ולכאורה מה היא ההוכחה על זה על ידי עלה של זית? How does the bringing the leaf of the זית prove that? הרי אפשר שעלה זה לוקח מאילן שעל הר גבוה, maybe this leaf came from a tree that's on top of a high mountain? ובפרט שהתיבה היתה בהר גבוה, especially that the תיבה was on a high mountain. So it makes sense that they brought she brought the leaf from the high mountain. A 15 אמה tree? He said it was 15 אמות above the No, it receded. The water receded, he knew. The water came down. The question is, is it still damp, still wet? So he brought the leaf. What does the leaf prove? That it probably dried up, otherwise how would he get the leaf? But maybe the leaf came from a tree that's on top of of the highest mountain? It would have been destroyed either way. One second. That's another kashya, it destroyed. But some reason, it didn't destroyed. He's asking another kashya now. נניח it didn't destroy, but what's the re'aya from the fact that he brought the leaf that it came that the whole world is is dry? The higher parts are dry already! Because there it started receding and it came down, so there it's being already without water for two months. Here, it's without water for two days. So what was the re'aya? It could have grown. He's asking so He's asking a different she'elah. The she'elah is how did this prove that the whole He wanted to know not whether the water receded, he wanted to know that whether now we are able to go down and live on the earth. Is it already dry? So, he brought a leaf. But the it dried up in a high mountain much earlier. So, all it proves is that on top of the mountain it dried up. ובגובה זה כבר לא היו מים זמן רב, on such a high place and there was no water for a long time, לפני הזמן שבידע נח, before even when Noach figured it out. So then what was the re'ayah? Number two, למה הביאה עלה של זית דווקא ולא של אילן אחר? Why did he bring from an olive davka, an olive tree? ובפרט שמדייק הכתוב לומר, the Torah makes point of mentioning, לא עלה סתם, תורה could have said he brought a leaf, and that proves that it that it's dry, אלא עלה זית. מה נפקא מינה איזה עלה הביא? What difference does it make which leaf it brought? הביאור בזה בדרך הפשט is like this: בכמה מקומות בדברי חז\"ל מבואר שזית הוא אילן חזק ביותר, in Gemara, we find, in Midrash, many places that the olive tree is a very strong tree. וגם על דרך הפשט כן הוא. Pshat is like that. I, maybe it's only in the Gemara, but in pshat not? Because דבר שבמציאות אין לחלק בין הלכה ולפשט, when it comes to a fact, you can't say there's a chiluk in halachah and pshat. That's a fact is a fact. וכשתלמיד בחומש למקרא יראה זית, not only that, if a child who's learning Chumash would actually see an olive tree, תכף יבחין שהוא חזק, you could see, it's a physical thing that it's very strong. ולכן מקום לומר על דרך הפשט, so therefore, it makes sense to say according to פשט, שאף שהיה מבול חזק, even though it was a strong מבול, מכל מקום מכל אילני זית שבעולם נשארו על כל פנים אחדים מהם. So because a zayit is the strongest tree, so for sure many of them were destroyed, but some of them could be left over even after such a strong mabul. אולם מאידך גיסא, on the other hand, אין מסתבר כלל, it doesn't make sense at all, שהעלים של אילן אף שגם אף שגם הם חזקים נשארו במציאות בציור של עלי זית לאחר כל משך זמן המבול, ושהיה באופן דגברו המים. To

say, so where did this leaf come from? Maybe the leaf, the tree didn't get broken, a few trees of zayit didn't get broken because they're so strong, and the leaves were left on them also. It makes sense? No. After such a mabul, so many days soaking in water for so long, that doesn't make sense. והעלים היו מכוסים ושרויים במים כמה וכמה חדשים רצופים, they were so... So a tree, you could say maybe stayed. But a leaf should stay the way it's a leaf, he should recognize it as a normal leaf, that for sure couldn't. They have some green... What? They have some green plants that thrive in the ocean. ומוכרח לומר, so you'll have to say, שעלה זית שהביאה היונה היה עלה חדש. Must be a new one. שצמח that grew לאחר המבול. It grew after the mabul. כעבור זמן מספיק מהזמן שאילן זית היה מכוסה היטב במים והתחיל לצמוח עד שצמח עלה שהביאה היונה. Now, if this leaf grew already after the water went away, takes time. So, probably started growing on the tree, on a high tree, true. But you know, when you see a new leaf that grew, which means it took time, that means that when it started growing is already a long time passed. ומובן שידע נח על ידי זה שקלו המים מעל הארץ. Let's say it takes to grow two months, so he knew that when he got this leaf, that at least two months already, for sure, the water is down, because otherwise, how would he get it? And therefore, that's how he knew from this. So where did he... Kashya was, where did he get the עלי זית? He got it from there. He got it from a there's a new tree, an old tree that stayed some because it's a strong zayit, strong tree, and a new one grew, and that shows it's already a while since the water stopped. ומובן גם כן דיוק הכתוב עלי זית. That's why the Torah stresses it was a zayit the tree, a עלה. כי זה מתרץ, that answers, מניין לקחה היונה את זה? Where she where she took the leaf. מאחר שאילן הזית חזק ביותר, since this tree of the zayit is so strong, לכן נשאר קיים. Therefore that stayed. והקדים התחיל לצמוח, and it started growing the first, and it gave fruit it gave a leaf already. So from that he knew it's already a while already. ומתורץ על פי זה גם כן מה שיש להקשות. This answers another kashya. איך ידע נח על ידי זה, עלי זית, שקלו המים? How did he know from this fact that he saw the leaf that the water already is light, it means that it became dry? הרי אפשר שמצאו על פני המים. Maybe it was floating on the water. There was a mabul, there was water, maybe there were some leaves floating around. על פי הנ״ל שהיה עלה שצמח אחר המבול, but now we're saying he knew because it's a new leaf, because he could see that it's something that grew now. הרי פשוט שהיכר גדול יש בין עלה ששרה וכבוש במים קרוב לשנה לעלה שצמח מחדש. It's very obvious, the difference between a leaf that soaked in the water for a year or a tree a leaf that grew. And that's how he knew, because otherwise, if he just knew it from that, he saw a leaf, so maybe the leaf is from the left from the mabul. ולהמתיק הדבר שגם חומש תלמיד בחומש יראה שזה עלי זית יבין שהם חזקים, and to make this even clearer, that even a child when he sees an olive tree should you recognize it as strong, הרי דרך Rashi בפירושו על התורה Torah כל דבר בפירוש. So the Rebbe says בכלל רש״י tries to explain everything clearly. וגם בנדון דידן הוה ליה לפרש שאילן זית חזק הוא. Now, if the whole reason that he figured out that it's dry because it came from an olive tree, and an olive tree is so strong and that's why it lasted, Rashi should have said it. One leaf? No, the tree leaf is a new leaf, so there must have been a tree left. It was all over one leaf? Yeah, all over one leaf, yeah. Why is an olive leaf a symbol for peace? I guess from here, ha? Because it's only one person. It's a dove also, with the with the tree with the olive leaf in its mouth. So the question is, we said before that Rashi makes everything clear. So the answer is a clear answer, but Rashi nevertheless should have mentioned this idea that the olive is strong. יש לומר שלרש״י מפורש הוא בכתוב. According to Rashi, it does say in the Torah. כי רש״י says עלי זית, the pasuk says: עלי זית טרף בפיה. פירוש רש״י טרף חטף. Says there's an olive there's a leaf of a זית in its mouth, but the pasuk says טרף בפיה. What does the word טרף mean? טרף means grabbed, schlepped off, torn off. אין רש״י מפרש תיבת טרף באופן אחר.

Rashi doesn't טייטש טרף in a different way. Some people טייטש טרף comes from the word of food, הטריפני לחם חוקי. The word טרף could be food. Why doesn't Rashi say it? לפי שפירוש זה מתאים יותר על דרך הפשט. This fits more. היינו שהכתוב מדגיש שחטפו העלה מן... עלה מן האילן. Torah's trying to tell us that how did it get the leaf? It schlepped it off the tree! הוה ליה למימר והנה עלה זית בפיה. It should have said it had an עלה זית in its mouth. What's the נוגע that it grabbed it off a tree? Why is the פרשה so נוגע to say that? אבל ביאורו, so the answer is, הוא עלה נלקח ממקום גידולו, לא שצף על פני המים. Rashi is trying, the pasuk is trying to tell us that it didn't find an olive leaf floating. It schlepped it off the tree. That means it just started growing. לקיחת עלה של זית מן האילן נקרא חטף, and also to tear off that leaf is called חטף. Why? כי על ידי חטיפה, דווקא בחוזק. חטיפה means strong, because אילן חזק הוא, because it's a strong tree. So this idea that the tree is strong and that's the reason, that's how it got the leaf, which is the simple pshat, where does the pasuk say it? In this word. It's חטף. חטף means that it grabbed it off a tree and it had to schlepp it off. Didn't just, because it's not easy, so that shows it's strong. Tree, when it's live and green, it's harder to pull off. When it's live and green, it's harder to pull off than when it's dead, right? But this is even more, because it's a זית. על פי הנ\"ל, יומתק עוד ענין בפירוש רש\"י. This will explain another ענין in Rashi. Okay. על הפסוק וישכו המים, the pasuk

says the water וישכו, how would you taytsh? Calmed down, that's really what this is, calmed down. פירש Rashi: כמו כשך חמת המלך, לשון הנחת החימה. It's a lashon that's used when a person's anger calms down. It says a pasuk in the Megillah: כשך חמת המלך. The same thing here. וישכו המים means it calmed down, like when you calm down from anger, Rashi says. ובפירוש המפרשים, so המפרשים say, שמקורו של רש\"י, where does Rashi get this from? מובא בזבחים. It says in the Gemara Zevachim: ברותחין קלקלו, ברותחין נדונו. That they were punished in hot water. דכתיב הכא וישכו המים, וכתיב חמת המלך שככה. They say that the water of the mabul was hot. That's why it says here like it calmed down, like it says over there, calmed down from anger, from heat. So the fish didn't die, right? Even though the waters were... But we'll see in a second. אבל אם כוונת רש\"י כהנ\"ל, if Rashi means that what does it mean it calmed down? It calmed down from its heat. אינו מובן לשונו. I don't understand, the Rabbi says. בגמרא מפרש שהמים היו רותחין. The Gemara makes it clear that the water was hot. משא\"כ רש\"י משמיט דבר שעל פי זה הוא עיקר שנדונו ברותחין. Rashi doesn't mention it. Now Rashi, which is learning peshat, should have certainly said it. If Rashi learns that the water was hot, he should have said it. אדרבה, אם הש\"ס צריך לפרש כוונתו בפירוש תיבת וישכו, כל שכן שרש\"י היה לו לפרש. If the Gemara has to explain it, Rashi certainly, which is explaining the peshat, should explain it. And the second thing is, רש\"י מוסיף לשון הנחת חמה. Rashi doesn't say it's coming down from heat, coming down from anger. So the Rabbi wants to learn, ומזה מובן שכוונת רש\"י אינה שהמים היו רותחין. Rashi doesn't learn it was hot water. כי אם שוישכו הפירוש הוא הנחת שקיטת חמה, ולא רתיחה. It's coming down, like a person's angry, he calms down, but not coming down calm coming down from heat. היינו הנחת ויגברו המים. The water was cooked up, not as heat, the water was getting stronger and stronger, and then וישכו המים, the water calmed down. ולשיטת רש\"י בפשוטו של מקרא, לא היו מים רותחין. According to Rashi, it wasn't hot. ויש לומר טעמו של רש\"י בזה, so he says, what's Rashi's reason, where does Rashi get it from? Number one, אין הכרח בפשוטו של מקרא להוסיף נס שהיו מים רותחין. If the pasuk doesn't say it was hot, so it's another miracle. So you don't have a ra'ayah in Chumash it was a miracle, so you don't say it. But the second thing is, על פי פשוטו של מקרא איך נתקיימה התיבה במים רותחין? How did the teivah last if it was hot water? Hot water would have burned, would have ruined. Melt the wood. And that fits to what we said before. Would've killed the fish, too. And the fish, they said, just... Yeah, so there's an ha'arah here the Rebbe brings. was the only thing that lived. So he says, lichorah you could prove the same thing from the fact, ha'arah 45, from the fish, אבל ראה Ramban, the Ramban says that's no ra'ayah. That the fish didn't die? So you wouldn't say that the water got hot, because if the water was hot they would have... No, the fish that... I think I think, if I remember correctly what the Ramban says, that even though the water was hot, the water was only hot on top. And the fish, all the fish swam down to the bottom. That's the way it is sometimes. So then that's why it's no ra'ayah. Hot meaning burning hot? Yeah. Burned them, yeah, according to the Gemara. Boiling. Boiling, רותחין is boiling. It's boiling water, but according to Rashi it wasn't boiling. מענינא לענינא באותו ענין. Now based on what we said before, the Rebbe is going to explain it al pi chassidus. מבואר Torah Or, it says in Torah Or, בטעם למה נקרא המבול בנביא מי נח? Why is in Tanach called the Mabul the waters of Noach? הלא לכאורה, אף שענינו של נח היה הצלה מן המבול, נח was saved from the מבול, הפכי, it's the opposite of the Mabul, how do you call the Mabul the waters of Noach? If Noach would be at fault, you call him the waters of Noach. Noach was the savior. So the chassidus says why, כי שבועה היא הוא בחינת מים בכדי לטהר את הטמאים, because the Mabul was like water that purifies a tameidik person, דוגמת המקווה. Like the mikvah. מ\"ס שמטהרת את הטמא. Mikvah 40 סאה makes tahor. מכין היי מבול בא בכדי לטהר את הארץ. Mabul came not just to punish, to purify the earth. וזה נקרא מי נח שנעשה מזה ניחה דרוחא. It's called מי נח, the waters of of of of neicha, of nachas ruach. The water of pleasure, because it brought the world to a level of pleasure. וגם ענינו של נח היה להקים את העולם מחדש באופן טוב וטהור. And Noach's job was also to make the world clean and bring a new world. שזהו בדוגמת המבול טהרת העולם, it's like the mabul to purify the world. So now,

according to this, ועל פי אך, now a כלל, שכל ירידה היא צורך עליה, עליה יתירה. We know any descent is in order to come up even greater. מובן שלא ירק שנטהר העולם מטומאתו הקודמת על ידי המבול, so when we say the mabul was a mikveh to make it clean, it doesn't mean to make it back to clean as it was before, וחזרה לדרגתו הקודמת, and came back to the original state. Because then what's the purpose? כי אם שנתוסף בו תוספת טהרה יתירה על ידי המבול. Through the mabul, it became cleaner than it was ever. וגם זה מצינו דוגמתו בטהרה במקווה. You find that by a mikveh also. Usually, a mikveh is to make you tahor. You were tamei, it make you tahor. So he says, \"No, שלפעמים אין זה רק טהרה מטומאה, it's not only to make you clean from the טומאה, כי אם יש בזה גם ענין של תוספת קדושה וטהרה, you could become more tahor than you were before.\" That's why even a person who's tahor, doesn't have a reason to go to the mikveh, should also go to the mikveh. So the mabul was to make the world even better than before. על פי זה מובן היתרון והמעלה בזה שאומרים שעל פי פשוטו של מקרא ירד המבול גם בארץ ישראל. This explains why על פי חסידות, it's it's better to say that the mabul did go in Eretz Yisrael. Because if we're gonna say the mabul didn't go to Eretz Yisrael, that means Eretz Yisrael, which is the holiest place, didn't get that higher level. כי על פי, כי על ידי שירד שם המבול, because if the mabul did go to ארץ ישראל, נמשכה תוספת קדושה וטהרה גם לארץ ישראל מעל דרגתו הקודמת, that even Eretz Yisrael became holier than before. But if you're gonna say it wasn't there, so Eretz Yisrael didn't gain anything and so it didn't get holier. So the chassidus fits to the way Rashi learns the pshat. Yeah. It's something. So, it's a different sichah where they talked about just the olive branch growing very fastly, fast on top of the mountain and that was a some type of a nes, so that's how we knew. I know we learned this sicha. Right, guys? Must be another sicha, right? Remember that, earlier course? Yish koach. I want to learn all the... Yishar koach. Good.