Difference between revisions of "Cursing Canaan/2/he"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
(Copy from /en) |
|||
| Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
<page type="Approaches"> | <page type="Approaches"> | ||
| − | <h1></h1> | + | <h1>קללת כנען</h1> |
<div class="overview"> | <div class="overview"> | ||
| − | <h2> | + | <h2>סקירה</h2> |
<p>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.</p> | <p>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.</p> | ||
<p>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.</p></div> | <p>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.</p></div> | ||
Version as of 11:36, 27 August 2019
קללת כנען
גישות פרשניות
סקירה
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.
מקורות:R. Nehemiah in Bereshit Rabbah, R. Yosef Kara, Rashbam, Ibn Ezra, R. Yosef Bekhor Shor, Ralbag, Seforno
"אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן" – All of these sources assume that the verse cannot be speaking of the action done by Cham, since he was not the youngest of Noach's sons.1 They disagree, though, regarding the subject of the phrase "בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן":
- Canaan – Most of these commentators maintain that the term refers to Canaan, the youngest son of Cham,2 and that this verse proves that Canaan 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.
What did Canaan do?
- 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
"וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן"
- 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
"וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו" – Seforno posits that the word "עֶרְוַת" here means shame, pointing to such usage in Ezra 4:14. Thus, the verse is saying that, unlike his brothers who covered their father, Cham gawked at his father's castration and disgrace.14
Contrast to Shem and Yefet – According to most of these commentators,15 there is a vast divide between Canaan and Shem/Yefet. While the former committed an egregious sexual crime, the latter were so modest as to not even look at their father. Canaan therefore merited punishment, while Shem and Yefet received blessings.
Measure for measure punishment – Ralbag posits that Canaan purposefully prevented Noach from having additional children so as to maximize his inheritance portion. Noach thus punished him that he would be enslaved to his brothers and receive less.
Canaan Born from Cham's Sin
Canaan was the cursed offspring, born from the illicit relations between Cham and Noach's wife.
"וַיַּרְא חָם אֲבִי כְנַעַן אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו" – These sources compare this phrase to the similar one in Vayikra 20:11, "וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו עֶרְוַת אָבִיו גִּלָּה".18 There, "revealing a father's nakedness" is equivalent to "sleeping with the wife of your father".19 As such, in our verse, too, Cham is not simply viewing his father nakedness, but rather having intercourse with his father's wife. His son, Canaan, was the offspring produced by that encounter.
"אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן" – This approach understands the verse as referring to Cham, and it would likely suggest that the word "הַקָּטָן" refers to lowly stature, rather than young age.20 When Noach awoke from his stupor, he realized what his deprecated son had done to him by sleeping with his wife.
"וַיִּתְגַּל בְּתוֹךְ אׇהֳלֹה" – The Hoil Moshe explains that in his drunken state, Noach had relations with his wife in public, without any regard to modesty. Cham, thus, saw his father's act, and was filled with desire. R"I Elitzur suggests that the unusual spelling of "אׇהֳלֹה"21 is Tanakh's euphemistic way of hinting to the fact that this took place in the bedroom tent of Noach's wife ("her" tent).22
"וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן" – Since outsiders might mistake Canaan for Noach's son, the verse goes out of its way to emphasize that Cham, not Noach, was the father of Canaan. Similarly, the following verse repeats the already known fact, "שְׁלֹשָׁה אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי נֹחַ", to highlight that these three alone (and not four) were the sons of Noach.
Shem and Yefet – R"I Elitzur suggests that Shem and Yefet covered not their father, but their mother, and that the phrase "עֶרְוַת אֲבִיהֶם" consistently refers to Noach's wife. It was she whom they turned their faces from and made sure not to view or touch.
Punishment - "עֶבֶד עֲבָדִים יִהְיֶה לְאֶחָיו" – Canaan, who was the disgrace of Noach, was cursed to be a scorned slave. This position might further suggest that when Noach says that Canaan will be enslaved to "his brothers" (verse 25), he is referring not to the other sons of Cham, but to Shem and Yefet themselves (Canaan's half-brothers).23 Noach is declaring that despite his being their half brother, Canaan is not to be on equal footing with them, but rather to serve them.
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.
מקורות:Josephus, Bavli Sanhedrin, opinions in Bereshit Rabbah, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan), Rashi, Ramban
"אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן" – These sources maintain that the verse is speaking of an action done by Cham, but they differ regarding why he is called "הַקָּטָן":
- 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.24 Shem, the middle child, is consistently listed first only due to his loftier stature.25
- Lowly stature – Bereshit Rabbah, Targum Yerushalmi (Yonatan), 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.
"וַיַּרְא... אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו" – What did Cham do? These sources disagree regarding what it was that Cham did:
- 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 Yerushalmi (Yonatan), 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 or sodomizing. This is supported by the language of "אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ" in verse 24 which suggests that Cham did more than merely look.
"וַיַּגֵּד לִשְׁנֵי אֶחָיו בַּחוּץ" – 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".
"וְחָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן"
- Introduction – Rashi asserts that the verse is simply an introduction so that 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".
If Cham sinned, why curse Canaan? These sources offer a variety of possibilities:
- 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.
מקורות:R. Saadia Gaon
"חָם הוּא אֲבִי כְנָעַן" – R. Saadia asserts that "אֲבִי כְנָעַן" is Cham's moniker; he was known to all as "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", after his oldest child, Canaan.30 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".
"Cursed be Canaan" – R. Saadia asserts that Noach was actually cursing "אֲבִי כְנָעַן", using Cham's epithet.31 The verse is missing the word "אֲבִי", as is the case in many verses which skip the titles "son", "father", or "brother".32
"בְּנוֹ הַקָּטָן" – 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.
"וַיַּרְא חָם... אֵת עֶרְוַת אָבִיו" – What did Cham do? 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.
"וַיֵּדַע אֵת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ" – R. Saadia responds to those that argue that seeing and telling do not constitute actions ("אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה לוֹ"), by asserting that defaming another is considered an action in Tanakh. As support, he points to Shelomo saying to Shimi, "אַתָּה יָדַעְתָּ אֵת כׇּל הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר... עָשִׂיתָ לְדָוִד אָבִי" referring to his cursing of David.
Contrast to Shem and Yefet – R. Saadia further supports his claim that Cham's action was limited to revealing his father's nakedness from the contrast drawn between him and his brothers. Just as Shem and Yefet are praised for covering their father, Cham was condemned for doing the opposite.
