Difference between revisions of "Cursing Canaan/2/en"
m |
|||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Saw Noach's nakedness</b> – Ramban reads the verse literally and asserts that Cham was disrespectful in looking at his father's nakedness.</li> | <li><b>Saw Noach's nakedness</b> – Ramban reads the verse literally and asserts that Cham was disrespectful in looking at his father's nakedness.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Castrated or sodomized Noach</b>  – The Bavli, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi, in contrast, understand the term "גילוי ערוה" to have a sexual connotation and assume that Cham must have performed an actual act, either castration<fn>One opinion in the Bavli, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan and Rashi all suggest this.</fn> or sodomizing.  This is supported by the language of "אֲשֶׁר <b>עָשָׂה</b> לוֹ" in verse 24 which suggests that Cham did more than merely look.</li> | + | <li><b>Castrated or sodomized Noach</b>  – The Bavli, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi, in contrast, understand the term "גילוי ערוה" to have a sexual connotation and assume that Cham must have performed an actual act, either castration<fn>One opinion in the Bavli, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi all suggest this.</fn> or sodomizing.  This is supported by the language of "אֲשֶׁר <b>עָשָׂה</b> לוֹ" in verse 24 which suggests that Cham did more than merely look.</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי אֶחָיו בַּחוּץ"</b> – Ramban posits that what made Cham's action so disrespectful was not just that he shared what he saw with his brothers, but that he did so "בַּחוּץ", in front of others.  It was this public shaming that is referred to when the verse says that Noach knew "what his son had done to him".</point> | <point><b>"וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי אֶחָיו בַּחוּץ"</b> – Ramban posits that what made Cham's action so disrespectful was not just that he shared what he saw with his brothers, but that he did so "בַּחוּץ", in front of others.  It was this public shaming that is referred to when the verse says that Noach knew "what his son had done to him".</point> | ||
<point><b>"וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן"</b><ul> | <point><b>"וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן"</b><ul> | ||
<li><b>Introduction</b> – Rashi asserts that the verse is simply an introduction so the reader can understand who Canaan is when he is cursed.</li> | <li><b>Introduction</b> – Rashi asserts that the verse is simply an introduction so the reader can understand who Canaan is when he is cursed.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Canaan the oldest</b> - According to Ramban, the verse teaches that at the time of the story, Canaan was the only son of Cham.<fn> | + | <li><b>Canaan the oldest</b> - According to Ramban, the verse teaches that at the time of the story, Canaan was the only son of Cham.<fn>According to Ramban, although Canaan is listed as the fourth son of Cham in <a href="Bereshit10-1-26-721-22" data-aht="source">Bereshit 10:6</a>, this is only because of his downgraded status.  In reality, he was the oldest of the four.</fn>  As such, Cham was known as "the father of Canaan".</li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>If Cham sinned, why curse Canaan?</b> These sources offer a variety of possibilities:<br/> | <point><b>If Cham sinned, why curse Canaan?</b> These sources offer a variety of possibilities:<br/> | ||
<ul> | <ul> | ||
<li><b>Curses don't fall on the blessed</b> – R. Yehuda in Bereshit Rabbah asserts that since Hashem had already blessed Noach's sons, cursing Cham would have been ineffective, and so Noach cursed his son instead.  It is not clear, though, why Canaan, and not Cham's other children, was cursed.</li> | <li><b>Curses don't fall on the blessed</b> – R. Yehuda in Bereshit Rabbah asserts that since Hashem had already blessed Noach's sons, cursing Cham would have been ineffective, and so Noach cursed his son instead.  It is not clear, though, why Canaan, and not Cham's other children, was cursed.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Measure for measure</b> – The Bavli suggests that this was a "measure for measure" punishment of Cham.<fn>See also R. Berechiah in Bereshit Rabbah, Targum Pseudo Jonathan, and Rashi who follow the Bavli.  R. Berechiah adds that as Noach had wanted a fourth son to serve him in his old age | + | <li><b>Measure for measure</b> – The Bavli suggests that this was a "measure for measure" punishment of Cham.<fn>See also R. Berechiah in Bereshit Rabbah, Targum Pseudo Jonathan, and Rashi who follow the Bavli.  R. Berechiah adds that as Noach had wanted a fourth son to serve him in his old age and Cham prevented this, Noach ordained that Canaan would become a slave to the other sons.</fn>  Since Cham had prevented Noach from having a fourth child, Noach decided to curse Cham's fourth son.</li> |
<li><b>Cham too close to Noach</b> – According to Josephus, Noach did not want to curse Cham as he was his son, and thus he moved the curse onto Cham's progeny.</li> | <li><b>Cham too close to Noach</b> – According to Josephus, Noach did not want to curse Cham as he was his son, and thus he moved the curse onto Cham's progeny.</li> | ||
− | <li><b>Not enough to punish Cham</b> – In contrast to Josephus, Ramban asserts that Noach felt that cursing Cham would not be enough; his progeny needed to suffer as well.<fn>Ramban might see a certain poetic justice in punishing Cham's son; Noach had suffered via his son, so it was right that Cham should suffer through his child.</fn>  Since Canaan was the only son who was alive at the time, he was the one cursed.<fn>Cf.  <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit9-18-27" data-aht="source">R"Y Aryeh Osimo</a><a href="ShadalBereshit9-18-27" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:18-27</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> (a student of Shadal cited in his commentary) that | + | <li><b>Not enough to punish Cham</b> – In contrast to Josephus, Ramban asserts that Noach felt that cursing Cham would not be enough; his progeny needed to suffer as well.<fn>Ramban might see a certain poetic justice in punishing Cham's son.  Just as Noach had suffered via his son, so it was right that Cham should suffer through his child.</fn>  Since Canaan was the only son who was alive at the time, he was the one cursed.<fn>Cf.  <multilink><a href="ShadalBereshit9-18-27" data-aht="source">R"Y Aryeh Osimo</a><a href="ShadalBereshit9-18-27" data-aht="source">Bereshit 9:18-27</a><a href="R. Shemuel David Luzzatto (Shadal)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shemuel David Luzzatto</a></multilink> (a student of Shadal cited in his commentary) that perhaps Canaan, being the youngest of Cham's sons, was his most beloved, and thus Noach chose to curse him.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
</category> | </category> | ||
Line 70: | Line 70: | ||
<p>It was really Cham who was cursed, not Canaan.</p> | <p>It was really Cham who was cursed, not Canaan.</p> | ||
<mekorot><multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonTafsirBereshit9" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonTafsirBereshit9" data-aht="source">Tafsir Bereshit 9</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink></mekorot> | <mekorot><multilink><a href="RSaadiaGaonTafsirBereshit9" data-aht="source">R. Saadia Gaon</a><a href="RSaadiaGaonTafsirBereshit9" data-aht="source">Tafsir Bereshit 9</a><a href="R. Saadia Gaon" data-aht="parshan">About R. Saadia Gaon</a></multilink></mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>"חָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן"</b> – R. Saadia asserts that "אֲבִי כְנָעַן" is Cham's moniker; he was known to all as "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", after his oldest child, Canaan.<fn>He presumably assumes that the list in 10:6 does not preserve birth order.  He does not explain, though why | + | <point><b>"חָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן"</b> – R. Saadia asserts that "אֲבִי כְנָעַן" is Cham's moniker; he was known to all as "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", after his oldest child, Canaan.<fn>He presumably assumes that the list in 10:6 does not preserve birth order.  He does not explain, though why Canaan would be listed last if he was the firstborn, especially since according to this position, Canaan was not cursed and thus should not have been placed in a lower position than the other sons.</fn>  R. Saadia compares this to the custom in his own time of referring to a person as the father of a specific child, using names such as "Abu Yitzchak" or "Abu Alhasan".</point> |
− | <point><b>"Cursed be Canaan"</b> – R. Saadia asserts that Noach was actually cursing "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", using Cham's epithet.<fn>Canaan is the shortened version of "אֲבִי כְנָעַן". See also R. Yonah ibn Janach | + | <point><b>"Cursed be Canaan"</b> – R. Saadia asserts that Noach was actually cursing "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", using Cham's epithet.<fn>Canaan is the shortened version of "אֲבִי כְנָעַן". See also R. Yonah ibn Janach (Sefer HaRikmah, Gate 25) who follows R. Saadia's understanding.  The Karaite commentator, Kirkisani, also brings an opinion that Cham is referred to by the word "כְּנָעַן". However, he suggests that "כְּנָעַן" here is not a proper name, but rather means merchant (cf. Yeshayahu 23:8, Hoshea 12:8 or Mishlei 31:24).</fn>  The verse is missing the word "אֲבִי", as is the case in many verses which skip the titles "son", "father", or "brother".<fn>R. Saadia brings several examples including <a href="ShemuelII21-19" data-aht="source">Shemuel II 21:19</a> (which should read "the brother" of Golyat, as found in the parallel in <a href="DivreiHaYamimI20-5" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim I 20:5</a>), <a href="Yirmeyahu32-7-812" data-aht="source">Yirmeyahu 32:7-8,12</a> (where Chanamel should be called the "son" of my uncle, as he was a few verses earlier; cf. discussion regarding "דֹּדָתוֹ" in  <a href="Duration of the Egyptian Exile/2" data-aht="page">Duration of the Egyptian Exile</a>), and <a href="DivreiHaYamimI4-11-12" data-aht="source">Divrei HaYamim I 4:11-12</a> (which is missing the epithet "the father" when referring to "אבי אשתן").</fn></point> |
<point><b>"בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן"</b> – R. Saadia translates this as "his younger son" rather than "his youngest son".  Cham is referred to in relationship to Shem, being younger than him, though older then Yefet.</point> | <point><b>"בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן"</b> – R. Saadia translates this as "his younger son" rather than "his youngest son".  Cham is referred to in relationship to Shem, being younger than him, though older then Yefet.</point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיַּרְא חָם... אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו" – What did Cham do?</b> R. Saadia reads the verse literally and asserts that Cham viewed his father's nakedness.  The real sin, though, lay in his sharing the fact with his brothers.</point> | <point><b>"וַיַּרְא חָם... אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו" – What did Cham do?</b> R. Saadia reads the verse literally and asserts that Cham viewed his father's nakedness.  The real sin, though, lay in his sharing the fact with his brothers.</point> |
Version as of 09:19, 17 October 2015
Cursing Canaan
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators struggle to understand both why Canaan should be cursed for his father's actions and what was so terrible about his deed that it provoked such a severe punishment. R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ralbag assert that while Cham merely looked at Noach, Canaan committed a much more offensive act, either castrating his grandfather, or at least actively revealing his nakedness.
Others disagree, claiming that Cham was the sole offender. Thus, Rashi asserts that although Cham sinned, for technical reasons, the curse fell upon his son rather than himself. The Hoil Moshe, in contrast, assumes that the choice to curse Canaan was much more fundamental. He suggests that Cham slept with Noach's wife, and that Canaan who was the son born of this union, was naturally considered a cursed offspring, and told that he would never be on equal footing with his half-brothers. Finally, R. Saadia solves the conundrum by maintaining that not only was Cham the only sinner, he was also the only one cursed. When Noach said "אָרוּר כְּנָעַן", this was short for "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", the epithet of Cham.
Canaan Sinned
Canaan was punished because it was he who committed the offense.
- Canaan – Most of these commentators maintain that the term refers to Canaan, the youngest son of Cham,2 and that this verse proves that Cannan was the one who sinned.3 R"Y Kara and Seforno explain that Canaan is called Noach's son, despite being only his grandson, because 'בְּנֵי בָּנִים הֲרֵי הֵם כְּבָנִים', (a person's grandsons are like his sons). Ibn Ezra and Ralbag4 assert, instead, that the possessive letter vav in "בְּנוֹ" refers back to Cham.5
- Shem – R"Y Bekhor Shor, in contrast, suggests that the verse refers to Shem, and that it was Shem who was Noach's youngest son.6 According to him, the verse speaks not of the evil which was done to Noach, but rather the good.7 Its purpose is to emphasize that, of the three sons, Shem acted most appropriately and was thus the most blessed.
- Castrated/sodomized Noach – Most of these sources maintain that Canaan did a heinous act, with Rashbam, Ralbag, and Seforno positing that he castrated his grandfather and the Bavli suggesting that he sodomized him. All of these sources are likely motivated by the language of "אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ",8 and they thus attempt to identify an active crime that Canaan might have committed.9 Moreover, in order to justify Canaan being cursed, they need to attribute to him a deed worthy of such a punishment.
- Revealed Noach's nakedness – In contrast, R"Y Bekhor Shor finds the hint to Canaan's sin in the phrase "וַיִּתְגַּל בְּתוֹךְ אׇהֳלֹה".10 He maintains that the word "וַיִּתְגַּל" is not a reflexive form, but rather means that Noach was exposed by others. As such, he suggests that it was Canaan who did so, while Cham simply saw the nakedness.11
- Introduction – Rashbam and R"Y Bekhor Shor suggest that Cham is introduced as Canaan's father so that the reader will know who Canaan is when he is later cursed.12
- "Like father, like son" – In contrast, according to Ibn Ezra, Ralbag, and Seforno, the text comes to show the similar depraved conduct of father and son.13
Canaan Born from Cham's Sin
Canaan was the cursed offspring, born from the illicit relations between Cham and Noach's wife.
Canaan Cursed for Cham's Sin
Despite the fact that it was Cham who sinned, due to technical reasons, it was Canaan who received the punishment.
- Youngest – Ramban asserts that despite the fact that Cham is named in the middle of the progeny lists, he was in fact Noach's youngest child. He points to Bereshit 10:21 as evidence that Yefet was the oldest, and to our verse that Cham was the youngest.23 Shem, the middle child, is consistently listed first due to his loftier stature.24
- Lowly stature – Bereshit Rabbah, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi, in contrast, suggest that Cham is not the smallest in age, but in stature. He is referred to as the "smallest" because of his behavior.
- Saw Noach's nakedness – Ramban reads the verse literally and asserts that Cham was disrespectful in looking at his father's nakedness.
- Castrated or sodomized Noach – The Bavli, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, and Rashi, in contrast, understand the term "גילוי ערוה" to have a sexual connotation and assume that Cham must have performed an actual act, either castration25 or sodomizing. This is supported by the language of "אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ" in verse 24 which suggests that Cham did more than merely look.
- Introduction – Rashi asserts that the verse is simply an introduction so the reader can understand who Canaan is when he is cursed.
- Canaan the oldest - According to Ramban, the verse teaches that at the time of the story, Canaan was the only son of Cham.26 As such, Cham was known as "the father of Canaan".
- Curses don't fall on the blessed – R. Yehuda in Bereshit Rabbah asserts that since Hashem had already blessed Noach's sons, cursing Cham would have been ineffective, and so Noach cursed his son instead. It is not clear, though, why Canaan, and not Cham's other children, was cursed.
- Measure for measure – The Bavli suggests that this was a "measure for measure" punishment of Cham.27 Since Cham had prevented Noach from having a fourth child, Noach decided to curse Cham's fourth son.
- Cham too close to Noach – According to Josephus, Noach did not want to curse Cham as he was his son, and thus he moved the curse onto Cham's progeny.
- Not enough to punish Cham – In contrast to Josephus, Ramban asserts that Noach felt that cursing Cham would not be enough; his progeny needed to suffer as well.28 Since Canaan was the only son who was alive at the time, he was the one cursed.29
Canaan Not Cursed
It was really Cham who was cursed, not Canaan.