THE ELUSIVE FOURTH SON

…Cham did not want his father (Noah) to have another child. His reason was: “Adam had only two sons yet one killed the other because of the inheritance of the world and our father has three sons yet he still seeks a fourth son!”  In truth, Cain and Abel were not concerned solely about material possessions…

ANOTHER SON?

In the aftermath of the Great Flood that destroyed the world, the Torah records the rather strange story of how Noah planted a vineyard and became inebriated. His son Cham (usually rendered Ham) reported his father’s disgraceful condition to his brothers, who hastened to have him covered. When Noah discovered what his son Cham did to him he cursed him.

The Talmud (Sanhedrin 70a), cited by Rashi, explains that Noah’s extreme response to his son’s uncovering his nakedness was due to the fact that Cham was not just disrespectful to his father by seeing him in his compromised state and reporting it to his brothers rather than covering his father himself. Cham actually committed a horrible crime by castrating his father. One of the proofs that support this oral tradition, as recorded in the Talmud, that it was a more serious crime than just seeing his father exposed, is the use of the phrase “when Noah saw what his younger son did to him.” The words “did to him” imply that he did not just gaze on him but that he actually did something to him.

What was Cham’s rationale for committing this appalling act?

The Midrash, cited in a subsequent comment by Rashi, explains that Cham did not want his father to have another child. His reason was: “Adam had only two sons yet one killed the other because of the inheritance of the world and our father has three sons yet he still seeks a fourth son!”

There are several questions that arise here.

First, in the Biblical text the dispute between Cain and Abel revolved around Cain’s jealousy of Abel, whose offering G-d accepted while rejecting his brother’s offering. How does that reconcile with the Midrash’s contention that they were divided about inheriting the world?

Second, why would two people be so concerned about who owns a greater share of the world? After all, there were only four people alive at that time. Was the world not big enough for the two of them?

Third, what use to Cham would it be for Noah to be prevented from having another son? In a few generations, the world would once again be populated by multitudes of people who would have to divide it among far more than four people. What, then, did he gain by preventing his father from siring another child?

THE IDEOLOGICAL DEBATE BETWEEN CAIN AND ABEL

The following is based partly on a contemporary work, Avir Yosef.

In truth, Cain and Abel were not concerned solely about material possessions. Theirs was not just a turf war as to who would control more territory. Obviously neither felt a need to be called the owner of the entire world when there were only four people in existence at that time. Rather, Cain and Abel knew that they were to be the progenitors of humanity. They were also sophisticated enough to recognize that G-d placed them in this world for a purpose which would be transmitted to future generations. If G-d did not confer a universal mission on them, why did he create just Adam and Eve, who would, in turn, have just two children? This was unlike all the other creatures, which were created in prolific numbers. It was obvious to them that they, the heirs of Adam and Eve, were destined to chart the course of humanity for all posterity. It was thus their responsibility to establish societal norms and direction for the future.

It was also clear that Cain and Abel knew that their Creator wanted certain things from humanity as a quid pro quo for their continued existence. What precisely did G-d want from humanity? To what degree does a person have to recognize G-d’s role? These questions were the real crux of their ideological differences.

In response to the challenge of these two questions, Cain inaugurated the idea of making an offering to G-d. In a crude sense, Cain’s notion was like paying “protection money” demanded by organized crime. Cain believed that if he could “pay G-d off” with a meager offering of produce (according to Rashi it was flax), that would suffice to keep G-d off the backs of humanity so it could grow independently of G-d.

In truth, Cain’s idea was not as outrageous as it seems. His calculation can be restated in a more sophisticated, but no less misguided, fashion. Cain knew that existence was to be a balance between our obligations to G-d and our own personal independence. Cain, however, believed that it sufficed to pay homage to G-d only on special occasions through special offerings. The rest of the time, he theorized, G-d would allow us to pursue our own separate interests. This, indeed, was and continues to be the belief of many people who relegate religion to holy days, holy places and holy people.

Abel, on the other hand, did not emulate Cain’s attempt to give a modest offering to G-d. It was his belief that one must be mindful of one’s obligation to G-d in every moment of life, in whichever place or situation one finds oneself. G-d, and our relationship with Him, ought not to be viewed as a burden. G-d is not simply trying to get something from us in return for granting us our lives. G-d is our very life. Our recognition of Him is what makes our lives meaningful and joyful. Abel rejected the notion of compartmentalizing his relationship with G-d.

Thus, his idea of an offering was to designate the best of his sheep and offer it to G-d. It was his way of expressing the sentiment that it was his greatest joy to serve G-d all the time. Moreover, he did not set aside the moment of making his offering as the exclusive time for his service to G-d; it was a time for added emphasis and devotion, much like the way we observe Shabbos and Jewish Holidays in our own lives.

It was this divergence of views regarding the way humanity was to understand one’s relationship with G-d that shaped their dispute about dividing up the world. Each brother sought to ensure that the future course of humanity would follow his own philosophy.

THREE IDEOLOGIES

Let us return now to Cham. He saw how the ideological dispute between Cain and Abel about the future direction of humanity had proved so catastrophic. He was thus genuinely concerned about the future of the world now that three different philosophies of life were evolving.

Shem, also known as Malkitzedek, the ancestor of Abraham, was a Kohen; a man who dedicated his life to G-d and who therefore merited that his descendants would receive the Torah and build the Holy Temple where G-d would dwell.

Yafes—whose name means “beauty”—emphasized aesthetic beauty and the secular knowledge which uncovers the beauty that exists within nature. He was the progenitor of the Greeks and, by extension, Western Civilization as we know it today.

Cham —whose name means “heat”— was an advocate for hedonism, devoted to allowing one’s passions for material and sensual pleasures to dominate. Cham was the ancestor of Nimrod, who rebelled against G-d and instituted idolatry. In truth, hedonism and idolatry often go together. Pagan gods were frequently used as projections of, and justifications for, sybaritic desires and depraved morals.

Cham was convinced that these three competing philosophies would power many struggles for supremacy in the future, as indeed they have. How could the world tolerate a fourth philosophical approach?

In truth, Cham committed a crime every bit as egregious as Cain’s transgression. In the interest of preventing dissent and struggle they perpetrated extreme acts of cruelty. Even if they were correct in their attempt to limit the ideologies that would vie for supremacy, the end did not justify the means.

Moreover, the very premise upon which Cain and Cham acted was flawed. They were correct in concluding that G-d’s initial creation of so few humans was indeed a way of establishing societal norms for the future. They were also correct in concluding that humankind would inevitably divide into many groups with competing ideologies. They missed a crucial point, however. G-d began by creating one human being—Adam—and only later did he create Eve. This was an indication, directly from G-d, that there is only one overarching ideology that must permeate the diversity and complexity of the human race and its multifarious ideas.

There is nothing wrong with having diverse ways as long as they all lead to one overarching goal. That overarching goal is at the heart of the Torah, which celebrates diversity but harnesses it to the engine that leads the world forward to its inexorable goal—the Final Redemption.

PREVENTING MOSHIACH

The Kabbalists and Chassidic literature describe the three sons of Noah as representing the three primary emotional traits of chesed-kindness, g’vura-severity and tiferes-beauty/harmony. These three traits are embroiled in eternal conflict when they are not under the direction of a Higher unifying power. When one has a clear vision of his or her destination, he or she knows when to turn right (chesed), when to turn left (g’vura) and when to go straight (tiferes).

The Tzemach Tzedek (Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneersohn, the third Lubavitcher Rebbe and great-great-great grandfather and namesake of our Rebbe) explains that the fourth son that Cham denied his father would have corresponded to the Divine attribute of Malchus (royalty). It was Noah’s ardent wish that by drinking the Messianic “Preserved Wine,” he would introduce the soul of Moshiach into the world. Contrary to Cham’s fearful belief, Noach’s fourth child would not have introduced yet another direction, leading to even more confusion and discord. On the contrary, Moshiach, who is characterized as the “fourth leg of the Divine chariot” would have absorbed the powerful spiritual energies symbolized by the wine and would have reversed the sin of the Tree of Knowledge (which, according to an opinion in the Talmud, was actually a grapevine).

Noah would have succeeded, but alas his overindulgence allowed Cham’s heated aggression to frustrate the emergence of that fourth leg. The rest, as they say, is history.

The task before us in the present day is to drink that wine figuratively by studying the “Wine of Torah,” in other words, those parts of Torah that demonstrate its depth and joy and lead to Mitzvos. These are the teachings of Chassidus, which are a taste of the “Preserved Wine” that we will all drink from deeply upon the imminent arrival of the “fourth leg”: Moshiach and the true and complete Redemption in his wake.