Komentarz do Rodzaju 9:23

ויקח שם ויפת AND SHEM AND JAPHETH TOOK — (literally, “And Shem took and Japheth”) It is not written here ויקחו ‘‘And they took”, but ויקח “And he took”, in order to teach regarding Shem that he devoted himself to this duty with more eagerness than Japheth. Therefore have Shem’s sons received the privilege of wearing the cloak that has fringes, and the sons of Japheth were privileged to receive honorable burial, as it is said, (Ezekiel 39:11) “I will give unto Gog (a descendant of Japheth) a place fit for burial [in Israel]”. But as for Ham who despised his father — of his descendants it is said (Isaiah 20:4) “So shall the king of Assyria lead away the captives of Egypt, and the exiles of Ethiopia (these were peopled by the children of Ham) young and old, naked and barefoot and with buttocks uncovered etc.” (Genesis Rabbah 36:6 and Tanchuma 1:2:15).

ופניהם אחורנית, even when only covering their father they walked with their faces averting their eyes from him. It would have caused them additional grief to behold their father in such a state.

ויקח שם ויפת, this formulation is similar to ויבא משה ואהרון in Exodus 6,10, where it describes the promptness and dedication of Moses and Aaron. Here two of the brothers not only covered their father’s private parts, but made sure that he was completely covered.

ויקח שם ויפת את השמלה, “Shem and Yaphet took the garment, etc.” According to Rashi the positive commandment of the tallit is a compensation for the Jewish people for what their forefather Shem [the Torah wrote ויקח, “he took,” not ויקחו, “they took” Rashi] had done with that simlah, when he used it to cover his father’s nudity. Rashi picks up this thread when he explains that as a compensation for Avraham refusing the king of Sodom’s offer to keep the spoils of war, his descendants were rewarded with both the phylacteries and the commandment of fringes, tzitziyot. (Genesis 14,23) In other words, although it was clear that Shem had acquired the merit of the commandment of tallit, it was not clear to which of his children this commandment would be bestowed until Avraham refused to be enriched by the King of Sodom.

And their backsides bare. חשופי means exposed and שת means loins, so it is saying their loins were exposed since they were naked and had no clothing to cover themselves. But Yefes, who covered [his father’s nakedness], merited a covering for himself: burial. And Sheim who exerted himself more for the mitzvah — and covered Noach with a cloak — merited a tallis with tzitzis. [You might ask:] It says in Maseches Sotah 17a that Avraham’s descendants were rewarded with techeiles strings and tefillin straps for his saying [to the King of Sedom], “Neither a thread nor a shoelace” (14:23). Does this not imply that the mitzvah of tzitzis was given to Avraham for saying, “Neither a thread,” rather than for Sheim’s covering his father? The answer is: A tallis with tzitzis is one thing, and techeiles is another. Due to Sheim, they merited a tallis with white tzitzis strings. And due to what Avraham said, they merited techeiles. (Re’m)

Schem nahm׳s zuerst, Japhet schloss sich ihm an, Cham kam nicht einmal zur Besinnung, als er sah, was die Brüder taten. In diesen drei Abstufungen charakterisieren sich die Brüder. — שכם, Schulter, auch rad. von השכם: sich vom Schlaf erheben, aufstehen. Wenn ein liegender Mensch sich zum Aufstehen entschließt, hebt er von selbst zuerst die Schulter.

ויקח שם ויפת, “Shem and Yephet took the bedcloth, etc;“ according to Rashi, Shem’s initiative in this instance resulted in the Jewish people, a nation descended from him, being rewarded with the commandment to wear fringes, ציציות on four cornered garments. (Numbers 15,37) According to the statement in the Talmud Sotah 17, the origin of that commandment had been when Avraham refused to accept as much as a thread or shoelace from the loot of the war against Kedorloomer, (Genesis 15,23) this refers to the specific kind of “threads” used in the tzitzit.

ופניהם אחורנית AND THEIR FACES WERE BACKWARD — Wherefore is it written a second time (that they turned themselves backward)? It is to tell us that when they came near to him and it was necessary for them to turn round in order to cover him they kept their faces turned away (Genesis Rabbah 36:6).

אחרנית. Eigentümlich heißt אחר sowohl ein Anderer, als auch אחר: hinten und אחרית: das Ende. Vielleicht ist אחר ebenso wie אכל usw. von חר mit vorgesetztem א׳ gebildet. ארר ,ערר ,חרר sprechen alle die Verneinung einer vorhandenen Kraft usw. aus: חרר, Säfte ausdorren, ערר, vereinsamen, ארר: vollste Negierung der Möglichkeit, sich weiter zu entwickeln. Auch חרה: glühen und חרה ל־ einem Andern gegenüberstehen, Verdruss machen, eigentlich: die betreffende Sache stellt das dar, was der Andere nicht haben will, verwirklicht das ihm zuwider Seiende. Liegt so in חר die Verneinung, so ist אחר: das, was eben durch diese Verneinung charakterisiert wird. אחר: jeder Gegenstand, der das ist, was der andere nicht ist. Es ist immer ein, wenn auch relativer, Gegensatz, selbst wenn der andere demselben Begriff angehört, nur ein anderes Exemplar derselben Gattung ist. Daher auch räumlicher und zeitlicher Gegensatz: אָחר, räumlich, die dem פנים entgegengesetzte Seite. אחר, zeitlich, derjenige Moment, der dann eintritt, wenn ein anderer zu Ende ist. Während פנים, räumlich, die Vorderseite und אחר die Rückseite ist, heißt (der Vermutung entgegengesetzt) לפנים die Vergangenheit; denn אחרית, die Zukunft, ist dasjenige, was אחר הפנים was eintritt, wenn das Vorhergehende gewesen ist. אחרית Ende, Ziel, Gegensatz von ראשית, ist dasjenige, was im ראשית noch nicht vorhanden war, das immer erst zuletzt kommt, während קץ ,קצה nur einfach Grenze und daher ebenso Anfang als Ende bedeutet. אחרית ist sehr oft der gerade Gegensatz von Anfang: והיה ראשיתך מצער ואחריתך ישגה מאור (Job 8,7). Daher: אחרית לאיש שלום (Psalm 37, 37). Dem איש שלום ist anfangs viel versagt, aber er findet ein אחרית, er hat eine Zukunft; der רשע hingegen hat nur ein קץ.