Noah’s Nakedness: How the Canaan-Ham Curse Conundrum Came to Be

Ham Is the Culprit But Canaan Is Cursed

After the flood, Noah gets drunk and exposes himself in his tent:

^{בראשית ט:כ} וַיָּ֥חֶל נֹ֖חַ אִ֣ישׁ הָֽאֲדָמָ֑ה וַיִּטַּ֖ע כָּֽרֶם: ^ט:כא וַיֵּ֥שְׁתְּ מִן־הַיַּ֖יִן וַיִּשְׁכָּ֑ר וַיִּתְגַּ֖ל בְּת֥וֹךְ אָהֳלֹֽה:

^{Gen 9:20} Noah, the tiller of the soil, was the first to plant a vineyard. ^9:21 He drank of the wine and became drunk, and he uncovered himself within his tent.^[1]

At this point, Ham sees what is happening with his father and goes and tells his brothers, who cover their father.

^{בראשית ט:כב} וַיַּ֗רְא חָ֚ם אֲבִ֣י כְנַ֔עַן אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אָבִ֑יו וַיַּגֵּ֥ד לִשְׁנֵֽי־אֶחָ֖יו בַּחֽוּץ: ^ט:כג וַיִּקַּח֩ שֵׁ֨ם וָיֶ֜פֶת אֶת־הַשִּׂמְלָ֗ה וַיָּשִׂ֙ימוּ֙ עַל־שְׁכֶ֣ם שְׁנֵיהֶ֔ם וַיֵּֽלְכוּ֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וַיְכַסּ֕וּ אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אֲבִיהֶ֑ם וּפְנֵיהֶם֙ אֲחֹ֣רַנִּ֔ית וְעֶרְוַ֥ת אֲבִיהֶ֖ם לֹ֥א רָאֽוּ:

^{Gen 9:22} Ham, the father of Canaan, saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside. ^9:23 But Shem and Japheth took a cloth, placed it against both their backs and, walking backward, they covered their father’s nakedness; their faces were turned the other way, so that they did not see their father’s nakedness.

It is unclear if Ham is envisioned as having done something worse than just seeing his father and not covering him, but when Noah sobers up, he somehow knows what happened:

^{בראשית ט:כד} וַיִּ֥יקֶץ נֹ֖חַ מִיֵּינ֑וֹ וַיֵּ֕דַע אֵ֛ת אֲשֶׁר־עָ֥שָׂה־ל֖וֹ בְּנ֥וֹ הַקָּטָֽן:

^{Gen 9:24} When Noah woke up from his wine and knew what his youngest son had done to him.

At this point, the reader is expecting Noah to respond to Ham in some way, but instead, Noah curses Ham’s son, Canaan:

^{בראשית ט:כה} וַיֹּ֖אמֶר אָר֣וּר כְּנָ֑עַן עֶ֥בֶד עֲבָדִ֖ים יִֽהְיֶ֥ה לְאֶחָֽיו: ^ט:כו וַיֹּ֕אמֶר בָּר֥וּךְ יְ־הֹוָ֖ה אֱלֹ֣הֵי שֵׁ֑ם וִיהִ֥י כְנַ֖עַן עֶ֥בֶד לָֽמוֹ: ^ט:כז יַ֤פְתְּ אֱלֹהִים֙ לְיֶ֔פֶת וְיִשְׁכֹּ֖ן בְּאָֽהֳלֵי־שֵׁ֑ם וִיהִ֥י כְנַ֖עַן עֶ֥בֶד לָֽמוֹ:

^{Gen 9:25} He said, “Cursed be Canaan; the lowest of slaves shall he be to his brothers.” ^9:26 And he said, “Blessed be YHWH, the God of Shem; let Canaan be a slave to them. ^9:27 May God enlarge Japheth, and let him dwell in the tents of Shem; and let Canaan be a slave to them.”

The problem is as stark as it is simple. If Ham violated his father’s privacy and dignity, why should Ham’s son, Canaan, be punished? Moreover, the phrase “slave to his brothers” (v. 25) is odd in this context: Shem and Japhet are not Canaan’s brothers; those would be the other sons of Ham: Egypt, Kush, and Put.

Jubilees: Ham Is Angry at the Injustice

The book of Jubilees (2^nd cent. B.C.E.) acknowledges the problem. It reads the phrase “his youngest son” as Ham’s youngest, and adds how angry Ham felt about Noah cursing him:

^{Jub 7:13} And Ham knew that his father cursed his youngest son, and it was disgusting to him that he cursed his son. And he separated from his father, he and his sons with him: Cush and Mizraim and Put and Canaan.^[2]

While Jubilees here leans into the problem of Noah’s inexplicable unfairness, Genesis Rabbah, a 4^th/5^th century midrashic commentary on Genesis, leads with an explicit question:

^{בראשית רבה לו (תיאודור-אלבק) פרשת נח} חם חוטא וכנען מתקלל אתמהא

^{Genesis Rabbah §36} Ham sinned but Canaan is cursed?!^[3]

Many traditional commentators try to solve the problem by modifying the story in some way:

1. Punishing Ham’s Fourth Son

Genesis Rabbah suggests that Ham was worried about the dilution of his inheritance if Noah were to have a fourth son, and castrates Noah to ensure that this cannot happen:

^{בראשית רבה לו (תיאודור-אלבק)} אמר לאחיו אדם הראשון שנים בנים היו לו ועמד אחד והרג חבירו וזה יש לו שלשה ומבקש לעשותן ארבעה...

^{Gen Rab §36} He (Ham) said to his brothers: “Adam, the original [human], had two sons, and one killed his fellow. And this one (Noah) has three sons and he wants to add a fourth!”...

אמר ר' ברכיה: ”הרבה נצטער נח בתיבה שלא היה לו בן קטן לשמשו. אמר: ’לכשאצא אעמיד בן קטן שישמשני.‘ כיון שעשה לו חם אותו המעשה אמר: ’אתה מנעת אותי מלהעמיד בן קטן שישמשני לפיכך יהיה אותו האיש עבד לאחיו.‘“

R. Berechiah said: “Noah suffered greatly on the ark, since he didn’t have a young son to serve him. He said: ‘When I get out, I will produce a young son to serve me.’ When Ham did to him what he did, [Noah] said: ‘You stopped me from producing a young son to serve me, therefore, you (lit. “that man”) will be a servant to his brothers.’”

Genesis Rabbah then suggests that Noah curses Canaan, Ham’s fourth son, specifically, as a quid pro quo for taking away Noah’s fourth son, as it were:

ר' הונא בשם ר' יוסף: ”אתה מנעתני מלהעמיד בן רביעי לפיכך אני מארר בן רביעי שלך.“

R. Huna said in the name of R. Joseph: “[Noah said:] You prevented me from producing a fourth child, therefore, I am cursing your fourth child.”^[4]

The Babylonian Talmud quotes the same interpretation:

^{בבלי סנהדרין ע.} רב ושמואל, חד אמר: סרסו, וחד אמר: רבעו. מאן דאמר סרסו – מתוך שקלקלו ברביעי קללו ברביעי…

^{b. Sanhedrin 70a} Rav and Samuel, one said: “He had intercourse with him.” The other said: “He castrated him.” The one who said that he castrated him, since [Ham] ruined [Noah’s] ability to have a fourth son, [Noah] cursed [Ham’s] fourth son...

In this reading, the curse of Canaan is meant as a quid pro quo against Ham, and has nothing to do with Canaan himself as a person.

2. Ham was already blessed

R. Judah in Genesis Rabbah suggests that Noah wished to curse Ham, but since Ham had already been blessed by God, Noah had no choice but to drop down a generation and curse Ham’s son:

^{בראשית רבה לו (תיאודור-אלבק)} ר' יהודה א[מר]: ”לפי שכתוב (בראשית ט:א) ’ויברך אלהים את נח ואת בניו‘ ואין קללה במקום ברכה לפיכך (בראשית ט:כה) ’ויאמר ”ארור כנען...“‘“

^{Genesis Rabbah §36} R. Judah said: “Because it is written (Gen 9:1) ‘God blessed Noah and his sons,’ and a curse cannot stand in the place of a blessing, therefore (Gen 9:25) ‘he said: “Cursed be Canaan...”’”

R. David Kimchi and R. Bahya ben Asher each quote this position as one possible interpretation (ad loc.). In contrast, R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) writes this approach off as midrashic:

^{אבן עזרא בראשית ט:כד} והאומרים: שקילל נח את בן בנו בעבור שבירך אלהים את בניו (בראשית רבה לו),⁠ זה דרך דרש.

^{Ibn Ezra Gen 9:24} And those who say that Noah cursed his grandson because God had already blessed his sons (Gen Rab §36), this is a midrashic approach.^[5]

3. A Punishment That Will Last

R. Bahya ben Asher ibn Halawa (ca. 1255–ca, 1340), after quoting the possibility that Ham was already blessed, further suggests that cursing Ham would have been insufficient.

^{ר' בחיי בראשית ט:כד} והשני, שאילו קלל את חם לא היה מזיק כי אם לגופו אבל לא היה מזיק לזרעו, וע[ל] כ[ן] רצה לקלל כנען שהיה בנו בכורו של חם שאם יוליד אחר כן אלף בנים כל זרעו יהיה בכלל הקללה.

^{R. Bahya Gen 9:24} The second reason is that if [Noah] had cursed Ham, he would only have been damaging him personally, but it would not have extended to his offspring. Therefore, he decided to curse Canaan, who was Ham’s firstborn son, since if he (Canaan) were to have a thousand sons after this, all of them would be included in the curse.

In other words, since Ham’s children had already been born, it would only have affected him personally, and Noah wished to damn Ham and his descendants for all time.

4. Canaan Was the Culprit

Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer (7^th cent.) adds a scene before Ham sees his father naked in which Canaan castrates his grandfather:

^{פרקי דרבי אליעזר (היגר) כג} ונכנס כנען וראה את ערות נח וקשר חוט בבריתו וסרסו, ויצא לחוץ והגיד לאחיו, ונכנס חם וראה ערותו ולא שם על לבו לכסותו אלא ויגד לשני אחיו בחוץ כמצחק באביו, וגערו בו שני אחיו...

^{Pirkei deRabbi Eliezer §23} Canaan went in and saw Noah’s nudity and he tied a thread around his circumcision and castrated him, and he went out and told his brother. Then Ham entered and saw his (father’s) nudity and didn’t pay heed to cover him rather he told his two brothers outside, as if he were mocking his father, and his two brothers were vexed with him...

והקיץ נח מיינו וידע את אשר עשה לו בנו הקטן של חם ואררו.

And Noah awoke from his wine and he knew what the younger son of Ham had done to him and he cursed him.

R. Joseph Kara (11^th cent.) agrees with this approach in principle, albeit without speculating on Canaan’s sin:

^{יוסף קרא בראשית ט:כד} מי בנו הקטן? ואם תאמר חם, והלא לעולם אמצעי במניין... אלא זה כנען בן חם, שהוא קטן שבאחיו... וזהו בנו הקטן – בן האיש הנזכר למעלה דהיינו חם.

^{Kara Gen 9:24} Who is “his youngest son”? If one were to say Ham, but isn’t he always mentioned as the middle son?... Rather it is Canaan the son of Ham, who is the youngest of his brothers... And this is what it means by “his youngest son,” the youngest sons of the person just mentioned, namely Ham.

וא"ת כיון שחם לא חטא, אמאי לא בירכו נח כמו שבירך שם ויפת? וי"ל לפי שלא נהג בו כבוד לכסותו כמו אחיו.

And if you say since Ham didn’t sin, why doesn’t Noah bless him like he blesses Shem and Japhet? One can suggest it is because [Ham] did not treat [his father] with respect by covering him, like his brothers did.^[6]

R. Abraham Ibn Ezra (1089–1164) also reads this way, stating that the Torah simply doesn’t tell us what Canaan did but that, whatever it was, it must have been him and not Ham:

^{אבן עזרא בראשית ט:כד} הכתוב לא גלה מה נעשה. והעושה היה כנען.

^{Ibn Ezra Gen 9:24} Scripture does not reveal what happened, but the one who did it was Canaan.

^{אבן עזרא [שיטה ב] בראשית ט:כד} והנכון בעיני: שחם ראה ולא חדש מעשה, רק כנען עשה דבר, והכתוב הסתירו, ואין לנו לפרש ולחפש בדרך סברא לדבר דברים על נביא גדול, אולי אינם אמת.

^{Ibn Ezra [other commentary] Gen 9:24} What seems correct to me is that Ham saw but didn’t do anything active, only Canaan did something, but scripture is hiding it, and we should not make speculative suggestions and say something [untoward] about a great prophet that may not be true.^[7]

These commentators see Canaan as the perpetrator, which is why he is cursed. While this is the most reasonable interpretation of the curse, it does not explain why the text says that it was Ham who saw Noah, implying that he, and not his son Canaan, was the perpetrator. To explain this, I suggest we need to move to source/redaction critical approach.

Redactional Solution: Canaan Is Noah’s Son

Scholars have long noted that the story of Noah is a composite of two separate stories: that of the Priestly document, P, and that of the Yahwist, J.^[8] The story of Noah’s drunkenness and the curse of Canaan derives from the J source, which is clear from its style and narrative flow, as well as its use of the name YHWH (v. 26).

I suggest that in the original J text, Noah’s three sons were Shem, Japhet, and Canaan. Notably, the (extant) opening of J story does not include the names of Noah’s sons until this story but simply calls them “his sons” (7:7). It is only in the P source that the sons are introduced as Shem, Ham, and Japhet (5:32, 6:10).

When the redactor combined the stories, both his sources had Noah with three sons, but not the same three. He solved this problem with a harmonization, adjusting the J verses 9:18 and 9:22 to fit with P’s tradition.^[9]

Adding Ham into the Story

‍Let’s start with the latter verse, in which the redactor added what is in the parentheses:

^{בראשית ט:כב} וַיַּ֗רְא (חָ֚ם אֲבִ֣י) כְנַ֔עַן אֵ֖ת עֶרְוַ֣ת אָבִ֑יו וַיַּגֵּ֥ד לִשְׁנֵֽי־אֶחָ֖יו בַּחֽוּץ:

^{Gen 9:22} (Ham, the father of) Canaan saw his father’s nakedness and told his two brothers outside.^[10]

When the Torah’s editor decided in favor of P that Canaan wasn’t really Noah’s son but Ham’s son, he redacted the text accordingly by inserting Ham. This suggestion not only solves the main problem, why Canaan is punished for Ham’s sin, but also some smaller issues.

For example, why doesn’t Noah make it clear in his curse that Canaan is being held responsible for his father’s action, perhaps by calling him “Canaan son of Ham”? In addition, Noah says explicitly that Canaan will be a slave to his brothers – but if he is Ham’s son then Shem and Japhet are not his brothers.

BTW! – Ham Is Canaan’s Father

‍The redactor also needed to fix the verses at the end of the J story by added what is in the parentheses:

^{בראשית ט:יח} וַיִּֽהְי֣וּ בְנֵי־נֹ֗חַ הַיֹּֽצְאִים֙ מִן־הַתֵּבָ֔ה שֵׁ֖ם (וְחָ֣ם) וָיָ֑פֶת וְ(חָ֕ם ה֖וּא אֲבִ֥י) כְנָֽעַן: ^ט:יט (שְׁלֹשָׁ֥ה אֵ֖לֶּה בְּנֵי־נֹ֑חַ) וּמֵאֵ֖לֶּה נָֽפְצָ֥ה כָל־הָאָֽרֶץ:

^{Gen 9:18} The sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, (and Ham,) and Japheth—and (Ham is the father of) Canaan. ^9:19 (These three were the sons of Noah), and from these the whole world branched out.

When Noah’s three sons come off the boat,^[11] their names are revealed for the first time in J. The name of Ham, the awkward locution “Ham is Canaan’s father,” as well as the repetitive “these three were the sons of Noah” were added by the redactor, working creatively with the text and the limitations he had.

• The original J text had the three sons as Shem, Japhet, and Canaan.
• P lists the sons as Shem, Ham, and Japhet, and always in that order.^[12]
• According to P, Canaan is the son of Ham.
• Redactors generally added instead erasing.

The redactor added “Ham” into the spot he usually occupied, between Shem and Japhet; he added the phrase, “and Ham is the father of” to neutralize the position of Canaan in the verse; and he added the repetitive phrase “these three are the sons of Noah” to emphasize that there are only three sons here, despite there being four names. And thus, the Canaan-Ham conundrum was born.‍