Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Noach ->


“Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk.” (9:20-21)

In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated  himself  and  became  unholy.”  Why?  Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…

Continue Reading

“Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk.” (9:20-21)

In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated  himself  and  became  unholy.”  Why?  Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…

Continue Reading

“Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk.” (9:20-21)

In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated  himself  and  became  unholy.”  Why?  Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…

Continue Reading

“Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk.” (9:20-21)

In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated  himself  and  became  unholy.”  Why?  Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…

Continue Reading

“Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk.” (9:20-21)

In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated  himself  and  became  unholy.”  Why?  Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…

Continue Reading

“Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk.” (9:20-21)

In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated  himself  and  became  unholy.”  Why?  Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…

Continue Reading

“Noach, the man of the earth, debased himself and planted a vineyard. He drank of the wine and became drunk.” (9:20-21)

In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated  himself  and  became  unholy.”  Why?  Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…

Continue Reading

“And Cham being the father of Canaan.” (9:18)

It would have been sufficient to say, “And Cham was the father of Canaan.” Why does the Torah emphasize “hu” – “he,” as if there were something unique to be derived from the fact that Cham was Canaan’s father. Horav Sholom Schwadron, z.l., attributes Canaan’s inappropriate behavior to the way he was raised by Cham, his father. Indeed, the apple did not fall far from the tree. Cham – he – is the father of Canaan. He is responsible for the way Canaan acted. The son inherited his father’s genes, his base nature, his contemptible character, his repulsive behavior. Cham…

Continue Reading

“And Cham being the father of Canaan.” (9:18)

It would have been sufficient to say, “And Cham was the father of Canaan.” Why does the Torah emphasize “hu” – “he,” as if there were something unique to be derived from the fact that Cham was Canaan’s father. Horav Sholom Schwadron, z.l., attributes Canaan’s inappropriate behavior to the way he was raised by Cham, his father. Indeed, the apple did not fall far from the tree. Cham – he – is the father of Canaan. He is responsible for the way Canaan acted. The son inherited his father’s genes, his base nature, his contemptible character, his repulsive behavior. Cham…

Continue Reading

“And Cham being the father of Canaan.” (9:18)

It would have been sufficient to say, “And Cham was the father of Canaan.” Why does the Torah emphasize “hu” – “he,” as if there were something unique to be derived from the fact that Cham was Canaan’s father. Horav Sholom Schwadron, z.l., attributes Canaan’s inappropriate behavior to the way he was raised by Cham, his father. Indeed, the apple did not fall far from the tree. Cham – he – is the father of Canaan. He is responsible for the way Canaan acted. The son inherited his father’s genes, his base nature, his contemptible character, his repulsive behavior. Cham…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!