ציטירנדיקער פּירוש אויף בראשית 9:22

A Midrashic approach, based on Tanchuma Balak 2: The word וירא, he “saw,” means he foresaw some kind of disaster. We have a rule that whenever wicked people are described by the Bible as having “seen” something, the “something” is invariably some kind of disaster. Compare Genesis 9,22, (where Cham “saw” his father’s nudity, resulting in his offspring being condemned to be slaves). Compare also Genesis 6,2 where the elite of mankind is described as seeing the daughters of man and violating them, resulting eventually in the inevitability of the deluge. Compare also Genesis 12,15 where the Egyptians saw the physical beauty of Sarah and this resulted in her being abducted to Pharaoh’s palace. Still another example is that of Shechem, son of Chamor “seeing” Dinah, which resulted in his raping her and in the whole city of Shechem being destroyed (Genesis 34,2 and subsequent verses).

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.

וכי יכה איש את עין עבדו, “And if a man will injure the eye of his slave, etc.” It is a Biblical law that a Canaanite slave is set free if he lost a tooth or eye through maltreatment by his master. The reason is that they became slaves only due to “tooth and eye.” It is written in connection with Cham the father of Canaan (Genesis 9,22) “Cham the father of Canaan saw the nakedness of his father and he told his two brothers outside.” He was first guilty with his eyes by looking and then with his teeth by telling what he had seen.” This is why he was cursed: “cursed be Canaan, the lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9,25). Once the offending organs had been smitten the rest of the body has been released from that curse.
Our sages (Kidushin 25) say that the word ושחתה, “and destroys it,” in our verse means that there must have been an intent to destroy that eye or tooth. If the master struck the eye in the process of trying to cure it and the treatment failed and resulted in loss of that eye, the slave does not go free. The sequence of these paragraphs commences with verse 20 which speaks of killing one’s slave intentionally, a very severe sin, progressing to the description of two men fighting in the course of which the Torah discloses the legal status of an unborn baby, a death which is due to a lesser sin than that described in verse 20. This is followed by injury inflicted on Jewish people, i.e. the meaning of “an eye for an eye.” There the Torah speaks about injury rather than death. This is followed in turn by injury caused to a Canaanite slave, the least serious misdemeanor of the list commencing in verse 20. After having dealt with injuries and death caused by human beings, the Torah turns its attention to injuries or death caused by beasts or inert objects. The Torah proceeds in a very orderly and logical manner.