Comentario citado sobre Génesis 9:24

It is well known that drinking wine induces three phenomena, sleep, grossness of the spirit and a confused mind. If one falls victim to even a single one of these phenomena one cannot perform one’s duty as a judge or expert in Torah rulings.
Our Parshah actually contains allusions to all three of these phenomena. The fact that drinking wine induces sleep is such a well known phenomenon that it does not need to be proven by examples; the alcohol in the wine rises to the brain in the form of moist and warm vapor. This in turn induces sleep; hence the words “when you enter the Tent of Meeting” are also a warning not to go to sleep inside the holy precincts, especially within the Sanctuary. This is why Yaakov was so upset when he awoke after his dream with the ladder, exclaiming: “how dreadful! This must be the gateway to heaven and I was unaware of it” (Genesis 28,16). Yaakov clearly implied that had he been aware of the sanctity of the site, he would never have gone to sleep in that place. He would not even have lain down there. This is also the meaning of Samuel I 3,3 ונר אלו-הים טרם יכבה ושמואל שוכב בהיכל ה'. The meaning of this line is: “Samuel lay down to sleep before the light went out in the Sanctuary.“ [The author means that this verse most certainly does not mean that Samuel lay down to sleep in the Sanctuary before the lamp went out.] If proof were needed for our interpretation it is found in the separating tone-sign etnachta under the word שוכב.
It is also not appropriate to sit down in the Sanctuary. The Priest is to perform all procedures standing up. We know this from Deuteronomy 18,7:ושרת בשם ה' אלוהיו ככל אחיו הלוים העומדים שם לפני ה'; “he is to minister in the name of Hashem, his G’d, like all his brethren the Levites who stand there in the presence of the Lord.” The word לעמוד לשרת in verse 5 of that same chapter in Deuteronomy further underlines the fact that the Priests had to be standing when performing service in the Temple.
The fact that drinking wine results in grossness of spirit is due to the heating up of the powers residing in the heart which results in grossness. This is alluded to when the Torah refers to the need to distinguish between the sacred and the profane. When one is in a state of spiritual grossness one does not consider that some things are holy whereas others are not but treats all of them as being on a comparable spiritual level, making no distinctions.
The fact that drinking wine may result in one’s mind becoming confused is because the vapors or fumes generated by the wine rise to the brain. They create a barrier between the area where the independent intelligence is located and the area activating other bodily functions. The comparable example would be clouds in the sky forming a barrier between the light of the sun and our terrestrial world. Just as the surface of the earth is darkened by the failure of the rays of the sun to break through the clouds, so the power of the intelligence is prevented from making itself felt when blocked by the vapor or fumes created by the wine one has drunk.
When the Torah speaks about the Priests having the task to instruct the Children of Israel in the statutes, etc., these words were added because such instructions presuppose that the instructor is of sound mind at the time he lectures. Drinking wine might interfere with that.
Solomon roundly condemned the intake of too much wine as he wrote in Proverbs 23,31: “do not look at wine because it is red.” Our sages explain Solomon’s warning there to mean that too much wine results in one’s inhibitions becoming loosened, one’s libido becoming aroused (compare Vayikra Rabbah 12,1 [The reading of the words כי יתאדם would be emended to כי יתאוה דם, it arouses the libido in one’s blood. Ed.].
The balance of the verse we quoted from Proverbs concludes with Solomon saying כי יתן בכוס עינו יתהלך במישרים, “when he (only) looks at the cup he will walk upright,” are understood as follows: the word עינו is similar in meaning to the word עין in עין הבדולח, “like the colour of crystal” (compare Numbers 12,7 where the Torah describes the appearance of the manna). The word for cup, כוס, in that verse is spelled כיס, “pocket,” instead of in the usual way. Solomon may hint that he who is seduced by the attractive looking cup of wine will experience financial loss because of the folly which the wine-intake will lead to.
The matter is not unlike the seduction of Chavah by the serpent who also relied on the exterior eye appeal of the fruit of the tree of knowledge. It induced overpowering curiosity in Chavah to taste that fruit. The Torah had described the tree as “good to eat, a desire-arousing phenomenon for the eyes, and lovely as a source of enlightenment” (Genesis 3,6). As a result, It brought death in its wake. Similarly, wine, though alluring at first both in appearance and taste eventually causes the death of those who indulge.
Our sages (Tanchuma Shemini 5) state that “just as the earth was cursed on account of the serpent, seeing that the Torah writes; (Genesis 3,17) “the earth is cursed because of you,” so a third of the earth was cursed on account of wine as the Torah writes: “Noach awoke from his sleep” (Genesis 9,24), followed by “cursed be Canaan,” [Noach’s first grandson from his third son (Genesis 9,25)].

SHEM, HAM, AND JAPHETH. It appears to me that Japheth was the oldest, as it is said, the brother of Japheth the elder,²⁰Genesis 10:21. and so in counting their generations, Scripture mentions the children of Japheth first.²¹Ibid., 10:2. Ham was the youngest of all, as it is said, And [Noah] knew what his youngest son had done unto him.²²Ibid., 9:24. Here, however, Scripture mentions Shem first because of his superiority and then Ham, for they were born in that order. Thus Japheth is left at the end. But Scripture did not want to say, “Shem and Japheth and Ham,” because in that case all of them would have been mentioned out of the order of their birth, and Japheth had no outstanding quality to merit that the order of birth be dispensed with on his account. Shem, however, is mentioned here first because of his superiority even though in the account of the generations he is last.²⁰Genesis 10:21. Similarly, [we find the verses]: The sons of Abraham: Isaac and Ishmael;²³I Chronicles 1:28. Here too Isaac is mentioned first because of his superiority although Ishmael was older. And I gave to Isaac Jacob and Esau.²⁴Joshua 24:4. This also is similar to the above case.

AND HAM IS THE FATHER OF CANAAN. Rashi explained, “Because this section goes on to deal with Noah’s family,²²⁹“Family.” The first edition of Rashi concurs with this quote. In our texts of Rashi: “drunkenness.” relating that Ham sinned and through him Canaan was cursed, and since the generations of Ham have not yet been mentioned [to let us know that Canaan was his son], it was necessary to state here that Ham is the father of Canaan.”
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that Ham only saw the nakedness of his father and informed his brothers while Canaan did him the evil, the nature of which Scripture does not reveal,²³⁰Verse 24 here. and this is the meaning of the verse, And he knew what his youngest son had done unto him,²³⁰Verse 24 here. since Canaan was the youngest of Ham’s sons, as Scripture enumerates them, And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mitzraim, and Phut, and Canaan.²³¹Further, 10:6. [Ibn Ezra thus interprets “son” to mean “grandson.”] Now here Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra abandoned his method of explaining Scripture according to its plain meaning and began to declare statements contrary to the truth.²³²For Scripture in no way ascribes the act of evil done to Noah by Canaan. Instead, it mentions only Ham, (Verse 22). Thus what made Ibn Ezra say that it was Canaan that did it?
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Ham was the youngest of Noah’s sons as I have explained at the beginning of this portion of the Torah, and Canaan was Ham’s oldest son. And as for the verse which states, And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mitzraim, and Phut, and Canaan,²³¹Further, 10:6. [which indicates that Canaan was the youngest son], this was stated after he was sold to be a servant of servants;²³³Verse 25 here. Scripture gave his brothers preference over him. Now when this event happened to Noah, Ham had no other children except Canaan. This explains the verse, And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw,²³⁴Verse 22. for Ham had no other son then, and when he sinned unto his father, he cursed his seed. Now if Noah had said, “cursed be Ham, a servant of servants shall he be,” the punishment would have been only his since the seed already born to him is not part of him, and perhaps Ham would no longer beget children. In that case Noah would not have taken his vengeance of him for who knows what shall be after him.²³⁵See Ecclesiastes 3:22. Therefore, he cursed the son he had. Even if he will later beget a hundred children,²³⁶See ibid., 6:3. it is enough that the oldest son — and all his seed with him — were cursed.
The sin committed was that Ham saw the nakedness of his father²³⁴Verse 22. and did not act respectfully. He should have covered his nakedness and concealed his shame by not telling even his brothers, but he told the matter to his two brothers in the presence of many people in order to deride him [Noah]. This is the meaning of the word outside²³⁷And he told his two brethren outside. (Verse 22.) And so did Onkelos translate it as “in the market-place.” The meaning of the verse, And [Noah] knew what he had done unto him,²³⁰Verse 24 here. is that he knew that Ham had disclosed his disgrace to many, and he was ashamed of the matter. Our Rabbis have mentioned an additional sin that Ham committed.²³⁸Sanhedrin 70a. See Rashi at the end of Verse 22.