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…
Back to Home -> Noach ->
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…
Interestingly, in recounting the ten generations from Adam until Noach, the Torah writes the word, “va’yamos”, “and he died,” after each person that is mentioned. Upon mentioning the ten generations from Noach until Avraham however, the Torah uses the word, “ve’yechi,” and he lived,” referring to how long the individual lived. Why does the Torah make this distinction between the generations? Horav Yaakov Moshe Charlap, z.l., cites the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos 5:2, wherein it is stated: “There were ten generations from Adam to Noach which informs (us) how great is His (Hashem’s) patience, for all these generations continued to…
Upon perusing the commentaries, we note contrasting opinions concerning the true nature of Noach’s tzidkus, righteousness. The Torah begins by stating that Noach was righteous – in his generations. This leads to a debate among the commentators concerning Noach’s status had he lived in a generation blessed with such a saint as Avraham Avinu. Was Noach a relative tzaddik, in relation to the wicked of his generation, or could he have passed the litmus test even in Avraham’s generation? In the next chapter, the Torah tells us that Noach entered the Teivah, Ark, “because of the waters of the Flood.” This…
Rashi cites a debate among the Sages concerning Noach’s true spiritual plateau. Some maintain that Noach’s ability to sustain his righteous achievement, despite being surrounded by a generation of corruption, is to his credit. Indeed, had he lived in Avraham Avinu’s time, he would have achieved much more. Others maintain that Noach’s righteousness was relative to a generation that was morally and ethically corrupt. Had he lived in Avraham Avinu’s time, he would have paled in comparison. Veritably, a person should be judged in accordance with his environment, his challenges, his generation. Apples should be compared to apples. There is one…
The generation of the Flood did it all. Their behavior deteriorated to the point that immorality and idolatry had become a way of life. Their immoral conduct extended even to animals, whereby they completely disregarded the parameters of human decency and the separation between species. Yet, Chazal note that it was neither idolatry nor sexual perversion that catalyzed the final decree for their total extinction. It was chamas, gezel, robbery and thievery that brought them down. The commentators present a number of explanations why robbery was the ultimate factor that sealed their punishment. Ramban comments that robbery is a common-sense…
The Teivah which transported Noach, his family and the multitude of creations on board is the symbol of salvation. Noach’s Ark personifies an island of calm in a sea of storm. The Chidushei HaRim, cited by his grandson, the Sefas Emes, translates teivah alternatively as “word.” The Teivah of old refers to the words of the Torah and tefillah, prayer, which are contemporary man’s salvation. The Talmud Makkos 10a compares the Torah to the Arei Miklat, Cities of Refuge, detailed at the end of Sefer Bamidbar (35:9-34). When we immerse ourselves in the words of the Torah, and when we…
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…
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…
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…