창세기 9:18의 주석

וחם הוא אבי כנען AND HAM IS THE FATHER OF CANAAN — Why is it necessary to mention this here? Because this section goes on to deal with the account of Noah’s drunkenness when Ham sinned and through him Canaan was cursed. Now as the generations of Ham have not yet been mentioned and we therefore would not know that Canaan was his son, it was necessary to state here that “Ham is the father of Canaan”.

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.

Cham was the father of Canaan. Canaan infamous for his wickedness and Cham was similar in character, thus he was the father of Canaan in the spiritual as well as the biological sense.

ויהיו בני נח, a reminder that when Noach’s sons came out of the ark they did not have any offspring as yet. They begat offspring only afterwards, and from their children mankind as we know it is descended.

וחם אבי כנען, “and Cham the father of Canaan.” According to Rashi seeing that this paragraph describes the matter of Noach becoming drunk, which led to his cursing his grandson Canaan, through his cursing his son Cham, and through him his grandson Canaan, the Torah had to first tell us who this Canaan was, although Noach’s children’s offspring had not yet been discussed. Ibn Ezra explains that Cham had seen Noach’s drunkenness and his nudity and had told his brothers of it, whereas during that time Canaan had harmed his grandfather when he was defenseless, something the Torah did not spell out. This had only been alluded to by the words אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן, “what his youngest son (grandson) had done to him.” (verse 24) Seeing that Canaan was the youngest of Noach’s offspring at that time, the wording of the Torah is justified. According to Nachmanides, Ibn Ezra departed here from the norms of interpreting the plain meaning of the text and began to invent lies. According to the opinion of Nachmanides, the words “his youngest son,” refer to Cham, Noach’s youngest son, whose oldest son was Canaan. The reason he was mentioned last was that he had been demoted to be a slave to his brothers. The Torah (Noach) by mentioning him last here, stressed the fact that he had been demoted. At the time when Noach’s drunkenness had occurred, Cham had only the one son, and this is why the Torah had to phrase what happened with the words: “Cham, Canaan’s father saw, etc.” When Cham committed the sin against his father, Noach cursed Cham’s offspring by cursing Canaan. Had he cursed Cham instead, saying he would be a lowly servant to his brothers, the curse would have been restricted to Cham personally only; now it applied to all of Cham’s children and offspring throughout the ages. [Seeing that G’d had already blessed all of Noach’s children, Noach could not cancel G’d’s blessing. [This was also why Bileam could not curse Israel, seeing they had been blessed by G’d Himself. Ed.] According to Nachmanides, cursing Cham might have resulted in Cham’s no longer being able to sire children, whereas the one born to him already would not be affected by the curse. [if Cham or Canaan had been guilty of castrating Noach, one view expressed in the Midrash- revenge would have been just this kind of a curse, punishment fitting the crime. Ed.] According to Nachmanides Cham’s sin consisted primarily of publicizing that he had seen his father in a drunken stupor when he had disrobed completely. This constituted publicly making fun of one’s father.

Wir haben schon früher auf die Bedeutsamkeit der Tatsache hingewiesen, dass Schem, Cham und Japhet schon mit zu den in die Arche Geretteten gehörten, haben gesehen, wie wichtig es sei, dass sie schon vor der Sündflut in ihrer Verschiedenartigkeit dagestanden, und trotz dieser Verschiedenartigkeit gewürdigt wurden, mit Noa gerettet zu werden. Also kann auch noch heute, selbst bei einer fast bis zur Entartung schreitenden Verschiedenheit der Typen, in welchen wir die Völker finden, diese Verschiedenheit doch kein Hindernis sein, "Mensch" zu sein und zu werden. Alle waren sie יוצאי התבה alle sind sie צלם אלקי, keiner kann zu dem andern sprechen: du bist weniger Mensch als ich, gehörst eigentlich nicht zu dem Begriff der Menschheit. Dieser Gedanke wird seiner Wichtigkeit halber am Eingang dieses Kapitels nochmals wiederholt. —

וחם הוא אבי כנען “and Cham is the one who is Canaan’s father.” He is singled out for mention as he was conceived while his parents were still in the ark. He was born immediately after his parents left the ark.

וחם הוא אבי כנען, this is mentioned as background to the story of Noach and the, wine.

וחם הוא אבי כנען. Wie wir hinsichtlich des gesetzlichen Teiles der תורה uns immer zu vergegenwärtigen haben, dass die תשביפ der תשביכ vorangegangen, das ganze Gesetz bereits vollständig in mündlicher Mitteilung bekannt gewesen, als das Schriftliche als kurze Erinnerungsnotizen überantwortet wurde, und daher bei diesen schriftlichen Notizen überall das vollständigere Mündliche vorausgesetzt und darauf Rücksicht genommen ist: so müssen wir uns bei dem geschichtlichen Teile erinnern, dass z. B. dies hier nicht zur Zeit Noas sondern zu einer Zeit niedergeschrieben ist, wo Israel bereits den kanaaniti- schen Völkerstamm vollständig kannte. Das kanaanitische Volk war bereits bis zur höchsten Blüte sittlicher Entartung ausgewachsen, das "Land duldete seine Bewohner" schon nicht mehr, und Israel sollte an ihre Stelle als Erbe eintreten. Denn wenn gleich der oben geschlossene Gottesbund die Wiederkehr eines allgemeinen Untergangs des Menschengeschlechts beseitigt, so ist doch damit der sittlichen Entartung der Völker kein Freibrief erteilt. Vielmehr sind Nationen nach Nationen von der Bühne der Geschichte geschwunden, wenn ihr "Maß voll war" und andere, frischere, sind an ihre Stelle getreten. Obenan in dieser Entartung stand aber Kanaan, und war Israel, dem diese Geschichte eingehändigt wurde, vor Augen. Nun wird hier gesagt: וחם, mit eine der geretteten Stammwurzeln der künftigen Völker, war der Vater dieses entarteten Volkes. Dieses entartete Volk, das der Boden nicht mehr duldet, hat seinen Stammvater in Cham. Es war für Israel und ist für uns ungemein belehrend, aus Gottes Munde zu hören, in welchen kleinen, leisen Ausschreitungen des Stammvaters der Keim zu der späteren Entartung des Volkes zu finden sei.