NOACH - TENTS

October 24, 2001

“May Yaphet live in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27)

The only men saved after the great flood were Noah and his sons Shem, Yaphet, and Cham.  Therefore, all people are descended from one or a combination of these sons, especially in terms of culture and philosophy.  These sons had unique personalities, and it is interesting to speculate how different peoples today reflect a combination of these personalities. 

Shem was spiritual, and the Jewish people descend from him.  The word ‘semite’ is derived from his name, and perhaps also the word ‘shame’. Yaphet is the father of the Greeks and is the progenitor of the aesthetic and logical underpinnings of Western Civilization.  Some say that the Chinese also come from Yaphet.  Cham’s descendants occupied Canaan and Egypt, and he was noted for his passion and depravity.  

Noah made an interesting prophecy regarding his sons:  “May Yaphet live in the tents of Shem” (Genesis 9:27).  This is often interpreted that Shem should develop the spiritual aspect of the world to such an extent that it becomes an enveloping environment for civilization.  Certainly this is the grand vision of the mission of the Jews, to be a “Kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”   In order to accomplish this mission, Shem's descendents were given communication skills to help them build this tent, as evidenced by their being the "people of the Book" Today, many are in the media business, helping to build a "virtual tent", creating what Marshall McLuhan calls the "global village".

Has American media been used to create a tent of spirituality for civilization?  Though American media has many good aspects, there is an underside that has unfortunately packaged the spirit of Cham into a popular culture characterized by sex and violence in movies, television, music, books, magazines, and newspapers.  As we enter the 21^st century, a portion of the media provides an environment in which Yaphet is living in the tents - not of Shem - but of Cham.

A strange consequence of this is the effect it has on Yishmael, the father of the Arabs.  Yishmael is an amalgam of two of these personalities - he is the child of Abraham (from Shem) and Hagar, the daughter of Pharoah (from Cham).  Yishmael is a fusion of Shem’s spirituality and Cham’s passion and wildness.  Perhaps the strictures of Islam are meant to give assistance to Yishmael’s Shem-side in order to help him keep in check his Cham-side.  What outsiders may see as ‘extreme’ measures may be an effort by Yishmael to keep his Cham within acceptable bounds.  Yishmael feels these opposite forces within him, and tries to tame the Cham with the uplift of Shem.

That may be why some Moslems respond so negatively to the portion of American popular culture that exemplifies and even glorifies ‘Cham’.  After devoting so much effort to controlling the Cham inside him, he finds that American media exported around the world arouses and inflames his internal Cham.  He finds that his effort to make his Cham subordinate to his Shem is undercut by the tent of Cham built by American media.   He feels betrayed and threatened.  His excessive reaction may also be attributable to his Cham-side.

One solution to this problem is for Shem to fulfil his mission, and build a tent of spirituality to uplift the world.   Packaging Cham’s nature for the world, with media that glorifies violence and physical passion, has had many negative consequences.  For example it makes it harder for the world to reach its spiritual potential, and it also has the effect of arousing Yishmael's Cham and anger.

A religious Jew, who is already sensitized to the negative aspects of American popular culture, may understand that American culture needs to be cleaned up and raised to a higher level of modesty and spirituality.  But he may say, “What can I do about it? I don’t have any influence on the media conglomerates, why would they listen to me?”

There’s a relevant section from the Talmud (Shabbos 55a) that speaks to this point.   The Almighty is about to do away with some who are sinning in Jerusalem when the Attribute of Judgement (midas ha din) suggests that the righteous people of Jerusalem should be done away with first.  Why?  Because they didn’t try to reach out those who were guilty.  The Almighty points out that such ‘reaching out’ would not have worked.  Quite true, says the Attribute of Judgement, but the righteous didn’t know that.  The Almighty acquiesces, and begins by doing away with the righteous.  The moral is that we must do what we can to try to make things right, even when we’re quite sure that our efforts will be to no avail.