Cursing Canaan/1/en
Cursing Canaan
Introduction
A Misdirected Curse
After recounting the details of the Flood, Sefer Bereshit shares a concluding story about Noach. In this episode, Noach gets drunk and reveals himself in his tent. His son Cham sees him in his nakedness, while Shem and Yefet cover him up. The latter are blessed, but surprisingly, it is not Cham who is cursed, but rather his son, Canaan. Bereshit Rabbah asks the obvious question, "חָם חָטָא וּכְנַעַן נִתְקַלֵּל, אֶתְמָהָא"? If Cham sinned, why is it Canaan who is punished?!
Who is the "Youngest Son"?
Two other phrases in the story raise further questions about the connection between Cham and Canaan's role in the deed. The story opens by stating that Cham is "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", and when Cham acts against his father, the point is repeated. Why does the narrator find it necessary to share this fact? Does the pairing of father and son suggest that the two acted in concert, or is the verse simply sharing technical information?
Second, after Noach awakens from his stupor, the text states:
(כד) וַיִּיקֶץ נֹחַ מִיֵּינוֹ וַיֵּדַע אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן.
(24) And Noach awakened form his wine and he knew what his youngest son had done to him.
On first read, it is natural to assume that the text refers to Cham, the antagonist previously mentioned. However, based on the order given in the lists of Noach's sons,1 Cham would appear not to be the youngest son, but rather the middle child. If so, who is referred to by the phrase "בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן"? Interestingly, Canaan is listed last among Cham's sons,2 suggesting that he was the youngest of them. It is possible that the text refers to him? Why, though, would he be referred to as Noach's son?
What Was the Sin?
Verse 22 speaks of the deed that was done to Noach, but it is not clear why the action deserved such a harsh curse:
(כב) וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי אֶחָיו בַּחוּץ.
The literal translation of "וַיַּרְא... אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו" is "and he saw... his father's nakedness", an improper act, surely, but perhaps not so heinous as to be deserving of eternal damnation. However, throughout Tanakh, the similar phrase "גילוי ערוה" has sexual connotations. Did Cham merely look at his father, or were his deeds much more sinister?
