Same root, different branches

There are a number of rather common topics to discuss for each and every one of us. Regardless of our education level, country of residence and many other subjective things, we are concerned about the natural resources, our consumption and different priorities, to name a few. Our views on these topics will be formed by often heavily filtered data and driven by our emotion if we admit to it or not.

Thus, we always value and welcome discussion. It has to be respectful and allow room for the exchange of ideas, as long as we can back up our ideas with some source of information. The question that we should be asking ourselves is the source of this data, which is shaping our views. And we know that the only objective truth is in the Bible. Make no mistakes, true followers of the Bible are very welcoming of science and progress, however there are some red lines which we are not ready to cross.

These are the lines that are outlined in what we call the 7 Noahide Laws – laws for our humanity. They are not denying anything, but rather showing us when our humble human mind comes to the wrong conclusion, making us rethink and review our own life choices.

You might ask me how it relates to the story of Noah. Let’s look into the story a little bit closer. We know that men are often compared to a tree. Every one of us has roots (where we came from), and we produce something which is compared to branches. In this part, we can talk about Noah as a tree and his sons as branches of it in a similar format to the family tree. Let us see what we know about sons.

Actually, we seem to have very limited information about Noah’s sons. We know that they were born to Noah and his wife. This is clearly written in the Bible. Additionally, we see them having wives at the time of the flood, going to the ark together, so their lives can be saved. We know that there is a clear description of the Almighty speaking to Noah and his sons when placing the rainbow as a sign of the covenant. Therefore, we know for sure that the covenant of a rainbow is with all humanity and intergenerational.

Knowing that our Torah provides us with the information on what can be called a need-to-know basis, we have to note the description of disembarkment from the ark, not just mentioning sons, but brings the name of Canaan as Ham’s child. Obviously, it sets the scene for something bigger. We have to press on with the story to see the significance of it.

Up to this point, we are not clearly told if any of the sons or their wives were helpful or supportive of any of the actions. From the building of the ark to looking after the animals to helping in rebuilding this world, it is not so clear. Our sages are discussing this matter, including a very low chance of seeing our parents work on the project for years and getting involved in it in one way or another. However, their input or impact was not significant enough to mention.

And here we are, at the point where we left Noah last time – drunk and uncovered in his tent. One would think that the matter would not be known easily, yet we are reading that Ham saw his father’s nakedness and told his brothers. And again, there is a reference to Ham as the father of Canaan. So many questions at this point, but let us ask the most obvious one – what do you mean he saw his father inside of Noah’s tent? They were not living in the same tent, so it is only clear to assume that Ham had a habit of getting in and out of other tents. Does not sound like a bad thing, however in the state of drunkenness, Noah could not have given consent for the action.

So now we see a complete disrespect for the property of others and definitely not allowing any privacy, combined with disrespect for the parent. To take it further, we notice that the reaction was to tell his brothers about their father’s embarrassing situation. What was the urgency? Probably just could not help himself with the juicy gossip. Did Ham not understand or did not care about the implications of the gossip on his own character?

Additionally, we notice the description of seeing nakedness, not a naked body. In the Biblical stories, nakedness has a connotation of some sexual activity. This makes the story even stranger. And you may ask why Canaan is mentioned at this stage as the son of Ham? It is because it reads like Canaan saw what his father was doing, yet failed to do anything about it. Even if we can argue that it was hard to stop Ham, Canaan did not even try. After all, he is described as Ham’s son.

Now compare it to the actions of the other two of Noah’s sons. Shem does not take any time to confront Ham about his unacceptable attitude. He takes a garment and asks his brother Japheth to help him. Both of them put the garment on their shoulders and walked backwards so as not to see their father’s embarrassment to cover Noah up. There is not much more that could be done.

Once Noah wakes up, he realises what has happened. Let us just stop there to see the lessons we have learnt so far. We have to learn to be responsible consumers and realise that overuse of even permissible resources often comes with negative consequences. We notice that the way we talk will impact our actions, especially so in the case of gossip. This is extremely relevant to what we call technically correct stories, which will tell you bits and pieces to trigger an emotional response. Additionally, we have to be responsible for the examples we set.

Same family and so different attitudes, ranging from help to preserve dignity to full-on slanderous gossip and passive reaction in between. Same root, different branches.