According to Seforno, the rainbow functions not as a source of encouragement, but rather as a warning. But why does Seforno view the rainbow as a sign specifically to the spiritual leaders?  Aren't all men capable of beholding the rainbow and heeding the warning it conveys?

     We read in Parashat Noach that soon after Noach's departure from the ark in which he survived the flood, he took on farming and sowed a vineyard (9:20).  Rashi, citing the Midrash, interprets this verse as presenting a critical assessment of Noach's choice of profession. Rather than involving himself in the production of grapes, Noach should have chosen other, more vital agricultural endeavors as the first step toward rebuilding the earth after the flood.

The phenomenon of the rainbow was symbolic of the ability granted to the “light” of ethical and moral conduct to penetrate even the darkest, thickest “cloud cover,” in times when the forces of evil and corruption prevail. 

       In his commentary to the Migdal Bavel narrative, Rashi (11:1) cites a number of different explanations from the Midrash Bereishit Rabba (38:6).  One view claims that the people of the time sought to ascend to the heavens and wage war against God.  As we discussed, it appears that they resented being confined to the earth, and endeavored to conquer the heavens.  Another famous interpretation that Rashi cites from the Midrash explains that this generation feared th

         The Torah relates in Parashat Bereishit that after the flood, Noach did not leave the ark until ascertaining that the earth had once again become habitable.  He did this by twice dispatching a dove (after his first unsuccessful attempt with a raven), which returned the second time with an olive leaf in its mouth (8:11).  This indicated to Noach that vegetation had become accessible, and that the earth would soon be habitable.

 God responded to Migdal Bavel by forcing the people to conquer the earth, rather than trying to conquer the heavens.  

  The parallel between Adam’s sin and Noach’s intoxication underscores the obvious distinction between the two incidents. Noach violated not a particular prohibition, but the general value of dignified behavior.  He did not commit an offense, but rather failed in his mission of setting an example of productive, dignified activity for his children and future descendants.  Unlike Adam, he did not eat forbidden food, but acted in an unseemly manner.

עיקר התוכחה בפרק ח' עוסקת בעבודה זרה, בעגלים אותם עשה ירבעם בן נבט שהפכו להיות, במשך הדורות, לעבודה זרה של ממש. הושע מצטווה להזהיר את העם מפני הפורענות הקרבה, ולעורר את ישראל לשוב מדרכם הרעה. הוא מוכיח את ישראל על הקרבת הקורבנות בבמות בבית אל ובדן, ועל כך שהמליכו מלכים כנגד רצון ה', מלכים שרק דירדרו את ישראל לעבודה זרה.

 What exactly was the difference between Shem and Yefet’s responses to their father’s embarrassment?  What does Rashi mean when he writes that Shem was “more vigorous” (“nit’ametz yoter”) in performing this mitzva?

According to Rav Hirsch, Noach had gone to to his private chamber, to avoid humiliation. Cham intentionally followed his father inside so that he could see him in his state of inebriation.

            The story of Cham thus teaches the lesson of affording people privacy.  People are entitled to retreat to their “private chamber,” a place where they can keep the less impressive aspects of their characters out of the public eye. Cham’s offense against his father was denying him this basic right, following him into his private room to expose his shame.