Commentary for Genesis 9:24

בנו הקטן HIS YOUNGER SON — The unworthy and despicable one, as (Jeremiah 49:15) “For, behold, I make thee small (קטן) among the nations, and despised among men" (Genesis Rabbah 36:7).

ויקץ נח, drunkenness makes a person as insensitive to what goes on around him as does sleep. Therefore, the Torah describes his becoming sober as “waking up.”

וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “he realized what his younger son had done to him.” The Torah has a habit of associating misdemeanors with people who had already previously been guilty of other misdemeanors. In this instance, Cham, who reportedly did not obey the commandment of sexual continence while in the ark, is now accused of a misdemeanor actually perpetrated by his son. The term וידע had first been used in the Torah to describe marital intimacy between Adam and Chavah. (Genesis 4,1) In Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer the words וירא חם, are understood to describe Cham’s inactivity; although he observed his father in the nude, he did not bother to cover his nudity.

וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן , “he became aware of what his younger son had done to him.” Cham was the youngest of Noach’s sons. Why then did Noach curse Canaan, Cham’s son instead of Cham? Actually, there were two reasons why Noach did not curse Cham himself 1) He was not able to curse Cham effectively seeing G’d had already blessed him as we read in 9,1 “G’d blessed Noach and his sons.” 2) Had Noach cursed Cham he would have only be able to make such a curse apply to his body but not his descendants (seeing that any offspring of Cham which had already been born would not have been included in he curse). This is why he chose to curse Canaan who as Cham’s firstborn so that even if he were to father a thousand children hey would all be included in the curse. When the verse tells us that Cham’s offspring were: Cush, Mitzrayim, and Put, and Canaan, in that order (10,6) which at first glance gives the impression that Canaan was the youngest of the four, the Torah enumerated these sons after the curse, at a time when Canaan had already been demoted from his rank as the firstborn. Proof that Canaan was indeed Cham’s firstborn son is when the Torah said in 9,21 “He (Cham) the father of Canaan saw his father’s nakedness, etc. If Cham had already had other sons at the time, why would the Torah describe him as the father of Canaan rather than as the father of his older brothers. No doubt at the time when this occurred Canaan was the only son whom Cham had fathered.

The worthless and contemptible one. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise why does it call Cham קטן? He was older than Yefes, for Scripture (5:32) counts him before Yefes. And we cannot say Cham was counted before Yefes because of his importance, although Rashi writes (ibid.) that Sheim was counted first of all due to his importance. For Cham was the lowliest of them all. (Re’m) But the Maharshal [writes that the Re’m was mistaken, and Cham surely was not older than Yefes. He] explains that Rashi is rather answering the question: [Why is Cham called קטן?] Sheim was the youngest! For it is written (ibid.), “Noach was 500 years old, and Noach produced Sheim, Cham, and Yafes.” And it is written (7:6), “Noach was 600 years old when the flood waters were on the earth,” [thus his oldest child was then 100]. Additionally, it is written (11:10): “Sheim was 100 years old... two years after the Flood.” Since Sheim was born when his father was 502, he [was not the oldest. Rather he] was the youngest son, [for if Cham was youngest, then in 5:32 the order should be: “Shem, Yefes, and Cham.” See entry there, citing Maharshal.]

קוץ und יקץ: erwachen: ebenso wie קוץ in קיץ die Zeit ausdrückt, wenn die Früchte "genug" gesogen haben, nicht mehr mögen, ebenso קוץ vom Menschen in Beziehung zum Schlafe. Im Schlafe liegen wir an der Brust des Schlafes, der uns nährt: wir erwachen, wenn wir uns satt gesogen haben.

אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן , “what his youngest son had done for him;” a reference to the kind deed done by Shem and his brother Yephet. This is why he gave Shem a greater blessing than the one he gave to Yephet his older brother. [a totally different interpretation from the commonly accepted one, including Rashi. Ed.]

ויקץ, the reason why this is spelled with a single letter י so that the letter י which is part of the root is missing, is because this was not a true “awakening:” from sleep. [The fact is that in all the Torah scrolls nowadays the word is spelled with two letters י, so that there is no need to justify a “missing” letter, seeing it is not missing. Ed.]

בנו הקטן, wir sind nicht berechtigt, hierin etwas anderes als: "sein jüngster Sohn" zu erblicken und haben Cham für den jüngsten der Söhne zu halten, obgleich er in der Aufzählung der Söhne als der zweite erscheint. Heißt ja auch Japhet der älteste יפת הגדול obgleich er zuletzt genannt wird. Dem Alter nach folgten sie (B. M. 10, 21 .1) demnach also: Japhet, Schem, Cham. Die Nennung Schem, Cham, Japhet erklärt sich, wenn wir bedenken, dass alle diese geschichtlichen Offenbarungen zunächst für Israel bestimmt sind. Für Israel ist aber Schem, als der eigene Urstammvater, der wichtigste, und ihm zunächst Cham, dessen Völker — Ägypten und Kanaan — die hauptsächlichsten Gegensätze bildeten, in deren Überwindung Israel fortgesetzt seine geschichtliche Entwicklung fand. Mit Japhet׳s Völkern kam es erst später in Berührung. Ohnehin sind Schem und Cham völkergeschichtliche Gegensätze und Japhet die Vermittlung. dass aber im Verfolg Noa von Kenaan und nicht von Cham spricht, das kann uns nicht befremden. Dem Cham wird so wenig geflucht, wie Schem der Segen wird. Nicht Cham und Schem für ihre Person, sondern dem, was sie durch ihre Nachkommen der Menschheit werden, wird Fluch und Segen erteilt, nicht ברוך שם, sondern ברוך אלקי שם - Dabei ist es tief erschütternd, dass Noa dem Cham in seinem Kinde den Fluch ausspricht, und spricht dies die inhaltsschwere Warnung aus: "Wer nicht in seinem Kinde bestraft werden will, der ehre seine Eltern!" Will Cham nicht einst in Kenaan bestraft werden, so versündige er sich nicht an Noa! Die Sünde, die die Kinder an ihren Eltern geübt, bestraft sich in den eigenen Kindern! Und wie in der einzelnen Familie, so gilt dies Gesetz von der Entwicklung ganzer Menschengeschlechter. Nur wo das jüngere Geschlecht ehrfurchtsvoll auf dem Grabe der Vergangenen steht, über die "Blöße der Vergangenheit das Gewand deckt", ihr Edles, Wahres und Großes aber als teure Hinterlassenschaft zum Weiterbau des eigenen Lebens hinnimmt, da ist die Entwicklung der Geschlechter ein in fortschreitender Blüte sich entfaltender Baum. Sobald aber das jüngere Geschlecht, Cham gleich, sich an den Blößen der Ahnen weidet, und über deren menschliche Blößen ihre geistig großen Überlieferungen verlacht, sobald die Zukunst das Band mit der Vergangenheit hohnlachend zerreißt, ist auch ihre Zukunft ein Traum, und hohnlachend, wie sie bei dem Andenken ihrer Ahnen, stehen einst ihre Enkel bei dem ihren — Cham ist immer der Vater von Kenaan!

אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, if we were to understand these words as referring to what Cham had done, we would have to understand the word הקטן as “the inferior one.” We have explained already on 5,32 as well as on 6,10 that Cham was not the youngest of Noach’s sons as he was never mentioned last in the list of Noach’s sons. If what he did was to only tell his brothers about his father’s nakedness instead of first covering up his private parts, why did Noach cause Canaan, Cham’s son, instead of Cham himself? He foresaw in prophetic vision that both Cham and his offspring would forever be evil people. Actually, he could not effectively curse Cham, as G’d had already blessed him. (compare verse 1 in our chapter) Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 36,7) therefore say that “Cham saw and Canaan was cursed,” the reason being that once G’d has blessed someone, man cannot annul G’d’s blessing. Other sages are of the opinion that Canaan castrated Noach, and that the words בנו הקטן refer to Canaan, seeing that he was the youngest of Cham’s sons. There is nothing unusual in a grandson being referred to as a “son.”