The passage in Genesis (9:24) tells us, "Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his youngest son had done to him." Now, Bereshit Rabbah, that incredible collection of rabbinic interpretations of Genesis, delves into this verse, unpacking its layers of meaning.
First, the Midrash clarifies that "Noah awoke from his wine" means simply that the wine's effects wore off. Okay, makes sense. But then it gets interesting: "And knew what his youngest [hakatan] son had done to him" – his disqualified son." The text cleverly links the word "youngest" (katan) to the description of the bronze altar in the Temple as "too small" (also katan) in I Kings 8:64. The altar, being too small, was disqualified for service. So, too, was Ḥam.
Then comes the pronouncement: "Cursed be Canaan; a slave of slaves he shall be to his brothers" (Genesis 9:25). This is where it gets really tricky. Why curse Canaan when it seems like Ḥam was the one who committed the offense? Isn't that astonishing?
Rabbi Yehuda offers one explanation. He points out that Genesis 9:1 states "God blessed Noah and his sons." If there's already a blessing, a curse can't land there. So, Noah couldn't directly curse Ḥam. Instead, he cursed Canaan.
But Rabbi Neḥemya has another idea. He suggests that Canaan saw what happened and told Ḥam. Canaan, in other words, was instrumental in bringing about Noah's disgrace. Therefore, the curse falls on the corrupt one, Canaan.
Rabbi Berekhya gives us a rather visceral reason. He says Noah suffered greatly in the ark because he didn’t have a young son to care for him. So, when Ḥam acted against Noah, he effectively prevented Noah from having that comfort in the future. As a result, Noah cursed Canaan to be a slave to his brothers, who would then be servants to Noah.
Rav Huna, citing Rav Yosef, adds another layer. He suggests that Ḥam's actions prevented Noah from "an act that is done in darkness," perhaps alluding to procreation. Therefore, Canaan is cursed to be "ugly and darkened." Then, again in the name of Rav Yosef, Rav Huna says Noah cursed Canaan because Ham had prevented him from having a fourth son.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba introduces a rather shocking element: that both Ḥam and a dog engaged in sexual relations in the ark! That's why Ḥam emerged darkened, and why the dog is exposed during mating, he claims.
Finally, Rabbi Levi offers a striking analogy. It’s like someone imprinting their own coinage with their image inside the king’s tent. A direct affront to the king! So, the king decrees that the person’s face should be blackened and their image defaced.
According to Rabbi Levi, Ḥam and the dog sought to reproduce their image within the ark – the king’s palace, so to speak. Therefore, their descendants should suffer humiliation. That’s why Ḥam emerged darkened and the dog is exposed during mating.
So what does it all mean? This passage from Bereshit Rabbah, as retold by Ginzberg in Legends of the Jews, isn't just a simple explanation of a biblical verse. It's a complex exploration of justice, responsibility, and the lasting consequences of our actions. It's a reminder that even within the ark, even after the flood, human nature – with all its flaws and complexities – persists. And perhaps, it's a warning about the power of our choices and how they ripple through generations.