Rashi on Gen 9:20-25

While studying Chumash & Rashi, I came across the comments of Rashi on Noah’s experience when planting his vineyard. Several things stood out:

 

Rashi translates ויחל as “debased”, instead of “and he began”, Rashi’s comment on the verse that reads instead of:

And Noah, the man of the earth, began and planted a vineyard.

As:

And Noah, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard.

He made himself profane for he should have first engaged in a different sort of planting[1]

When I read it, I had always thought that Noah did it out of ignorance, not knowing that this fruit would get him drunk In fact I taught a friend during Bible-study that Noah was the first drunkard in this world But maybe there were people before him and he knew, well thats at least what Rashi seems to imply.

Another interesting thing is the fact that Rashi, apart from the above comment, does not comment on the fact that Noah was drunk. This is my own theory, not really based on any supercommentary on Rashi but I think he does so with a reason, and the reason for this is that he holds Noah to an extent that he doesnt want to dwell too long on his shortcomings. This can be seen in other works as well, where the Avot are generally shown as lacking any shortcomings, this btw is also prevalent among the biographies of Gedolim, especially of the Artscroll-type where people get the idea that these Gedolim were born as saints. But Im sidetracking.

When coming to verse 22, Rashi provides yet another insight, I hadnt thought of; the verse reads:

And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.

On which Rashi comments:

There are those among our Rabbis who say that Canaan saw, and told his father, and this is why [Canaan] was mentioned with regard to the matter and cursed.[2]

Although the verse says told his two brothers, which can only be used in reference to Ham, it is worth the thought when considering the curse uttered by Noah:

Cursed is Canaan: a slave of slaves shall he be to his brothers

Maybe this (i.e. the seeming explicit reference to Ham) explains the hesistance in Rashi’s comment which seems to be present when saying יש מרבותינו אומרים instead of just giving the explanation.

The comment on the last part of verse 22: “saw his father’s nakedness…” basically sickens me:

There are those who say he emasculated him, and there are those who say he had relations with him.[3]

This sounds so messed up, especially the second idea. Im aware that for Noah to curse Ham and his offspring, something very bad must have taken place and as such understand that the Sages z”l look for an explanation but why in the world would he wanted to have relations with him? If I had to choose, I’d say the first explanation, emasculation, sounds more credible, and it seems as if Rashi thinks so too as he goes on to explain:

What did Ham see that he emasculated him, i.e., why did Ham emasculate him? He said to his brothers, “Adam, the first man, had only two sons, yet one killed the other because of the inheritance of the world, and our father has three sons, yet he seeks still a fourth son!”[4]

Another comment in support of the idea that Ham emasculated him:

Noah said to Ham, “You caused me that I should not father a fourth son, another one, to serve me. May your fourth son be cursed…”[5]

Obviously it cannot be said with certainty that this took place but it is at least a possiblity that would be grounded in the text (as with most midrashim).

All in all as someone whose fairly new to Chumash & Rashi, I must say that his comments make the text come alive and make it more readable, also he gives thoughts to ponder and scenarios to consider, which usually have a moral undertone as he seeks to draw his reader closer to G’d and His Torah.

————————————————————————-

[1]R. Herczeg, Rashi (New York: Mesorah Publications ltd., 2007)p.95

[2]Ibid. p.96

[3]Ibid.

[4]Ibid. p.98

[5]Ibid.