Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

Category

Back to Home -> Noach ->


“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

“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

“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

“Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations.” (6:9)

Chazal offer a number of interpretations for the phrase “in his generations.” Some commentators interpret this as praise for Noach, who was able to transcend the evil even of his generation. Indeed, had he lived in a generation in which righteousness was the way of life, he would have been even greater. Others contend that he could stand out only in his own generation, in which evil was the standard. Horav Shlomo Margolis, Shlita, feels that “b’dorosov,” “in his generations,” reflects the limited effect of Noach’s righteousness – it lasted only during his generations. He was not able to inspire…

Continue Reading

“Noach was a righteous man, perfect in his generations.” (6:9)

Chazal offer a number of interpretations for the phrase “in his generations.” Some commentators interpret this as praise for Noach, who was able to transcend the evil even of his generation. Indeed, had he lived in a generation in which righteousness was the way of life, he would have been even greater. Others contend that he could stand out only in his own generation, in which evil was the standard. Horav Shlomo Margolis, Shlita, feels that “b’dorosov,” “in his generations,” reflects the limited effect of Noach’s righteousness – it lasted only during his generations. He was not able to inspire…

Continue Reading

Subscribe To Our Newsletter

Join our weekly Peninim on the Torah list!

You have Successfully Subscribed!