Parshat Noach4 min read

The Curse Fell on Canaan, Not on Ham Who Sinned

Ham came out of the tent and told his brothers what he had seen. They took a garment and walked in without looking. The curse missed him.

Curated by Arthur · Told by Maggid ·
Table of Contents
  1. They Walked Backward With a Garment
  2. Noah Woke and Knew What Had Been Done
  3. Ham Heard His Son's Name, Not His Own
  4. The Naked Line and the Covered Line

Noah lay in the tent uncovered, the wine still working in him. Ham went in, looked, and came back out to his brothers with the news in his mouth.

The Curse Fell on Canaan, Not on Ham Who Sinned Click for full size

He did not cover his father. He did not turn his face. He told Shem and Japheth what he had seen, and the telling had a laugh in it.

They Walked Backward With a Garment

Shem took his own garment and rose. Japheth rose with him. They laid the cloth on both their shoulders and walked into the tent backward, faces turned to the door they had come through. They did not look. They let the garment fall over Noah's shame and they left the way they had entered, still backward, still not looking.

Ham had already used his eyes. The two who covered their father refused theirs. The tent held both kinds of son at once.

Noah Woke and Knew What Had Been Done

Noah woke from his sleep and knew what his younger son had done to him. Not only the looking. Ham had cut him so he could father no fourth son. The line that might have come after Japheth, Shem, and Ham was stopped in the body.

Noah opened his mouth for Ham. The name did not come. God had already blessed Noah and his sons after the flood (Genesis 9:1). A mouth that had been blessed could not be cursed from that tent. Noah's curse needed a body that the blessing had not already covered.

Ham had a fourth son. Canaan.

Noah said, "Cursed be Canaan. An enslaved servant shall he be unto his brethren." Then he blessed Shem. "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant."

Ham Heard His Son's Name, Not His Own

Ham stood there and waited for the blow to land on him. It landed on the boy.

Father and son were not two separate crookednesses in that hour. They were one heat in two bodies, the same turn away from what is covered and what is due. Canaan had not walked into the tent. The disposition had. God looked at them as one piece and still chose the name that would reach Ham where his own pain would not have reached him.

A man can make a story out of his own punishment. He knows what he did. He can hold it. Watch him when the suffering falls on the person he loves. Ham might have shaken off a curse aimed at his own head. He could not shake off Canaan made a servant of servants (Genesis 9:25).

The leader of the two took the punishment through the one who could still be named. Ham's counsels, words, and acts sat on a son who had not yet spoken them out loud.

The Naked Line and the Covered Line

Shem and Japheth received what the backward walk had bought. Naked, the descendants of Ham, Egyptians and Ethiopians, were later led away captive by the king of Assyria. The descendants of Shem, even when the angel of the Lord burnt them in the camp, kept their garments. The cloth did not singe on the corpses.

In time to come, when Gog falls, God will provide shrouds and a burial place for him and all his multitude, the posterity of Japheth. The garment Shem and Japheth carried on their shoulders outlasted the tent. Ham's eyes outlasted it too, in the other direction.

Noah did not take the curse back. Canaan remained the name spoken in the doorway. Ham remained the man who had walked out laughing and then had to listen.

Divine JusticeSinHamCanaanCurse
← All myths

From the tradition

Sources

4 sources

The texts behind this telling. Some cards carry a translation of the source; others are our own retelling of it, and each card says which. Every card links out to the original.

The Midrash of Philo 27:9The Midrash of Philo

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Works of Philo Judaeus, trans. C. D. Yonge, London, H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890 · Public Domain

Take the story of Noah and his sons after the flood, specifically Ham and his son Canaan. We read in (Genesis 9:27) that Canaan, not Ham, is cursed to be a servant. Why? What's going on there?

The Midrash of Philo, a fascinating exploration of the Hebrew Bible attributed to the Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria, wrestles with this very question. It offers some compelling insights.

Firstly, the Midrash (rabbinic interpretive commentary) suggests that God saw a shared wickedness in both Ham and Canaan. They weren't separate entities, but rather two parts of a unified whole, driven by the same corrupt inclinations. It's like a family business of bad behavior, unfortunately.

There's more to it than that. The text goes on to say that God knew Ham would suffer deeply seeing his son cursed. The punishment of Canaan becomes, in a way, a punishment for Ham. Ouch. He is suffering not so much for his own sake, but for that of his father. The father, as the "leader and master", suffers the punishment of his wicked counsels, words, and actions.

Now, this is where it gets really interesting. Philo, or the author of this Midrash (authorship is debated!), wasn’t just interested in the literal story. He was looking for deeper meaning. He invites us to consider that Ham and Canaan aren't just two individuals, but two dispositions. And the names themselves hold a clue.

The Midrash of Philo tells us that Ham, in Hebrew, means "heat" or "hot." And Canaan means "merchants of causes." What does that mean? It's up for interpretation, but it suggests something about the nature of their sin, a kind of fiery, self-serving drive that leads to exploitation. Maybe the heat of passion and the pursuit of self-interest without moral compass.

So, maybe the curse on Canaan isn't just about literal servitude. Perhaps it's about the consequences of that "hot" disposition, that unchecked desire. Maybe it's about the legacy of that behavior, passed down through generations. The Midrash invites us to think about how our actions, and even our inner dispositions, can have ripple effects, impacting those closest to us and shaping the world around us.

How do we break the cycle? How do we ensure that our "heat" doesn't scorch those around us?

Full source
Legends of the Jews 4:77Legends of the Jews

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.The Legends of the Jews by Louis Ginzberg (1909) · Public Domain

The familiar story is this: Noah gets a little too happy with the grape juice after the flood, and..well, let's just say he wasn't dressed for the occasion. His son Ham sees him this way, and instead of helping, he makes fun of his father.

His other two sons, Shem and Japheth? They react completely differently. They grab a garment, and, walking backward so as not to gaze upon their father's nakedness, they respectfully cover him.

So, what happens next? According to Legends of the Jews, as retold by Rabbi Louis Ginzberg, Ham pays a price for his disrespect. His descendants, the Egyptians and Ethiopians, are led away captive and into exile, naked and exposed. Ouch.

Shem and Japheth? They get rewarded. The descendants of Shem, the Assyrians, receive divine protection. Even when an angel of the Lord burns them in their camp, their garments remain unsinged.

And the blessings don't stop there. The story doesn’t end with just the immediate aftermath of Noah's... unfortunate episode. It stretches out into the future, even into the messianic age.

We're told that when Gog – a figure often associated with the end times and a great battle – suffers his defeat, God Himself will provide shrouds and burial places for him and his multitude, who are considered the posterity of Japheth. for a second. Even in defeat, even for the "bad guys," there's a measure of divine compassion and respect offered because of an ancestor’s act of kindness.

It's a powerful reminder that our actions, even the seemingly small ones, have ripples. They affect not only ourselves but also our descendants. And while punishment might seem harsh, the reward for respect and kindness can be incredibly far-reaching.

So, the next time you're faced with a choice – to mock or to help, to disrespect or to honor – remember the story of Noah and his sons. Remember the nakedness, the averted faces, and the unsinged garments. It might just give you the nudge you need to do the right thing. What do you think?

Full source
Midrash Aggadah, Genesis 9:25Midrash Aggadah

Translation of the source text.Midrash Aggadah (Buber), Public Domain, on Sefaria · CC-BY-SA

"And he said, 'Cursed be Canaan'" (Genesis 9:25). According to the opinion of the one who says that he [Noah] was injured in his own body: Noah was destined to raise up a fourth son who would serve him, and this one [Ham] prevented that from him, because he castrated him. Therefore he cursed his [Ham's] fourth son. And why did he not curse Ham, who did the evil? Because the Holy One, blessed be He, had blessed him, as it is said, "And God blessed Noah and his sons" (Genesis 9:1).

Full source
Book of Jubilees 7:14Book of Jubilees

Retold in our words. Read the original at the link below.Sefaria Community Translation · CC-BY

The Book of Jubilees pauses in chapter 7 on one of the strangest scenes in Torah, a small but potent episode that centers on an embarrassing incident involving Noah, his sons Shem, Ham, and Japheth, and a curse that echoes through generations.

Noah, the righteous man who saved humanity and the animals, is… well, he's naked. The Book of Jubilees 7:1 says, "And Ham saw Noah his father naked, and went forth and told his two brethren without." Yikes.

What’s the big deal? Why is this such a pivotal moment? The text doesn't explicitly say why Ham's action was wrong, but it's implied that he disrespected his father, violating a fundamental principle of honor within the family structure. He didn't just see his father; he went and told his brothers about it, potentially mocking him, certainly not showing him honor.

Shem and Japheth, however, react differently. "And Shem took his garment and arose, he and Japheth, and they placed the garment on their shoulders and went backward and covered the shame of their father, and their faces were backward." (Jubilees 7:2) They take swift action to protect their father's dignity, even averting their gaze as they do so. It's a powerful image of respect and filial piety.

Then comes the aftermath. "And Noah awoke from his sleep and knew all that his younger son had done unto him, and he cursed his son and said: 'Cursed be Canaan; an enslaved servant shall he be unto his brethren.'" (Jubilees 7:3). Boom.

Whoa. That’s heavy. Noah, upon waking, curses not Ham directly, but his son Canaan. Why Canaan? Well, that's a question that has plagued readers for centuries. Some commentators suggest that Canaan was somehow involved in the initial act, perhaps even instigating it. Others believe Canaan is cursed as a symbolic representation of Ham's lineage.

And the curse itself? "An enslaved servant shall he be unto his brethren." This verse is often interpreted as a justification for the subjugation of the Canaanites by the Israelites in later biblical narratives. It's a problematic verse, to say the least, and one that has been used to justify terrible acts throughout history.

Finally, Noah blesses Shem, stating, "Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant" (Jubilees 7:4). This blessing establishes Shem as the favored son, linking his lineage to the divine and reinforcing the hierarchical structure within the family. It also reiterates the subjugation of Canaan’s descendants.

So, what do we make of this short but powerful passage? It's a story about respect, shame, and the lasting consequences of our actions. It raises difficult questions about divine justice, generational curses, and the interpretation of scripture. It's a stark reminder that even after a world-altering event like the flood, human flaws and failings persist. And perhaps, it’s an invitation to confront the complex and often uncomfortable legacy of our sacred texts. What do you think it all means?

Full source