Black and Beautiful?

“Rabbi Yishmael says: ‘bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel)—I (God) am their
atonement. They are like the eshkroa tree, not black, not white, but in the
middle.” (Mishna Negaim 2:1)

This article grew out of conversations about what the Torah has to say about
“blackness”—dark colored skin. I noticed several things. One, each of the
conversations or statements focused on one aspect, a snippet, of the whole
picture. People would often quote one source and try to mold the “Torah”
outlook around it. This is not to say that these people didn’t grasp anything. For
each snippet captures some aspect of the whole. Each snippet is associated with
a kernel or spark of truth enlivening it, giving it existence and sustenance. Each
piece has something. What I did find, however, is that people would often ignore
certain teachings and statements of the Sages. In approaching the issue some
would simply leave out the un-politically correct sources, the difficult ones, or the
ones which would seem to cast “blackness” in a negative light. Instead they
would quote and emphasize the sources that equate blackness with beauty, the
sources which strongly imply that the ancient Israelites were really quite dark-
skinned, the prophetic sources which draw parallels between the Jewish people
and the Kushim. On the other hand, others would ignore (or not even be aware
of in the first place) sources which quite clearly indicate that the early Israelites
were rather dark skinned and that seem to put blackness in a positive light.

For me, such an approach was never really satisfactory. I was driven to
understand what the real story is, the whole story. What is the sod of
“blackness”, of different skin colors? In order to do this, as difficult as it may be,
one must examine all the teachings of the Sages pertaining to the topic at hand.
As it says in Psalms, “the statutes of Hashem are true; they are correct together.”
When I tried to ignore the less “complimentary” sources, it’s as if there was a dark

1
apparition behind a curtain, beckoning me. You must understand, because of my
education and conditioning, these sources were certainly difficult to deal with! It
was much more convenient, when confronted by a certain “difficult” teaching to
ignore it. It is certainly more convenient to ignore the account of Ham in the Ark
and what happened afterwards, and the repercussions of this, what it means for
the condition of humanity. I myself did this for a long time. This journey was
made doubly difficult because there indeed exists fertile ground to warp the
picture and use is as a justification for racism and all the cruelty associated with it,
G-d forbid. In certain conversations, it would have been taboo to even raise the
possibility that the account of Ham has anything to do which the story of Africans
and black people. And so people ignore it, pretend it doesn’t exist and have any
bearing on the story.

But the seeker of truth must be willing to extract the kernel of truth and integrate
it into the picture. Because without all the puzzle pieces, the picture will not be
complete.

On the other hand, there are the sources that portray blackness as something
beautiful. I read about how Shem was blessed “black and beautiful,” and how
Ham was blessed “black like a crow.” I saw how the Mishnah itself clearly and
emphatically declares that the Children of Israel are not “white” or “black” but in
the middle. There are others. Significantly, that attribute of Malchut (Kingship)
itself is connected to the color black.

The point is, I saw sources which seemed to go both ways. I couldn’t ignore any
of the sources. But, how to put them together, weave them together into a
tapestry? Could this be done? From my training in Kaballah, I knew it must be
possible. This is the true meaning of “these and those are the words of the Living
G-d.” Each teaching has a piece of the picture, a fragment. And, even if it hasn’t
been revealed, even if it hasn’t been brought down to a conscious level, there
must be an integrative, overall picture of which all the pieces are components.
Each teaching is saying something, although it must be understood in its proper
place, in relation to everything else. “The statutes of Hashem are all true, correct
together.”

2
So this is exactly what I sought to do: to integrate all the pieces into one fabric, to
bring them together in the context of one “partsuf”, a composite, unified body.

It is a basic axiom that the midrashic teachings of the Sages are multifaceted and
multidimensional. They very often “reveal a handbreadth and hide a mile”, using
language in a veiled way to allude to deep messages.

Thank G-d, I believe I’ve found the hidden code.

To begin making sense of these teachings, we must embark on a journey into one
of the most esoteric and yet all-embracing doctrines of the Kabbalah: the
paradigm of hasadim and gevurot (called HuG for short). It is no exaggeration to
say that this concept underlies the entire Kabbalistic system of the Ari and is the
key to its application. Put another way, the system of hasadim and gevurot is a
meta-system informing all of reality. The deeper nature of all phenomena, all
aspects of manifest reality short of the Ein Sof, the “Infinite Beyond”, can be
illuminated in the framework of these tools, and once one becomes familiar with
their principles, one can perceive them manifesting everywhere.

So, what are the hasadim and gevurot? In short, the hasadim are an expansive
force, associated with the masculine quality. The gevurot, conversely, are a
constrictive force, associated with the feminine. Every phenomenon incorporates
these two forces, these two elements. They are everywhere. To some degree
they parallel the yin and yang of eastern philosophy, the complementary and yet
opposite forces or tendencies of creation. All of created reality is structured
according to HuG.

When examining any reality, content comes from the hasadim, yet structure
comes from the gevurot. The hasadim, by their instrinsic nature, are a unifying
force. That is, by their very nature they are unified, and even if their tendency is
to spread, in and of themselves they know no divisions and distinctions. In fact, it
is this very quality of unity which makes the hasadim, by themselves, utterly
unknowable. It’s a little like imagining a picture without a frame. I don’t mean a
physical frame, of course, but rather the very essence of what a frame is. A frame
binds and defines the picture, literally giving it reality. As far as we’re concerned,

3
without a “frame” a picture doesn’t exist at all. Thus the hasadim in and of
themselves are essentially inert and inoperative. They need a mechanism beyond
themselves to be revealed, to be made known. By themselves their very unity
renders them inaccessible.

On the other hand, the gevurot are what “draw out” the hasadim, what take
them beyond themselves and allow them to be revealed. They are the reductive
and constricting mechanism which takes the ineffable quality of the hasadim and
allows them to be expressed. All manifestation and expression by definition
requires gevurot. This is actually the secret of why the account of Creation in the
Torah uses the name Elohim, which is connected to gevurot. Thus the gevurot are
the frame of the picture which give the picture reality as far as the viewer is
concerned. In the words of Rabbi Sholomo Elyashiv (called the Leshem), the
master Kabbalist who more than anyone developed the doctrine of HuG:

The explanation of the matter is that the lights of the hasadim and gevurot
were ascribed by the Creator with unique qualities; that is, the quality of
the hasadim is to connect and to self-unify, and the quality of the gevurot is
to split up and to separate….

As such they are the aspects of water and fire—the way of water is to cause
to coagulate. We see, for example, that flour coagulates with water in
order to make dough. On the other hand, the way of fire is to spread apart;
the constituent material of anything which is burnt comes apart and
unravels…

We see that all activity and action, whether on a mental or physical plane,
comes into being only through an arousal. And all arousal involves motion.
In other words, the forces involved, whether mental or physical, become
excited. Furthermore, all motion or activity involves removal or separation,
meaning that the forces involved go from a state of potential to one of
greater self-realization. When this occurs, the forces involved become
active and aroused, each operating distinctly from the other, mutually
igniting each other and illuminating outwards. Through this exponential
increase of activity, in effect, a new reality is “born”. This process happens
4
 only through the quality of the gevurot, since the quality of the gevurot is
action and arousal, affecting a transition from potential to actual and
revealing hidden potential outwards. The essential quality of hesed, on the
other hand, is to unify, and thus it is inert and sublimely still and concealed.
That is to say, all its qualities are completely bound up in itself. Because of
this, hesed by itself can not reveal itself because of its very inertness. This
is why, in the sources, we find hesed described in terms of simplicity
(“hesed pashut”) –something we never find in relation to gevura. This is
because hesed’s qualities are, without the effect of gevura, inextricably
bound up in themselves, precluding any development of true distinctions
and preventing any revelation outwards. The gevurot work in a
diametrically opposite way; without the mitigating influence of hasadim,
gevura reveals its powers indeterminately to the greatest possible extent
and is always in a state of frenzied activity. For this reason, the term
simple (pashut) is inappropriate for gevura. What we derive from all this is
that we can not perceive any action of any sort from pure hesed because in
and of itself there is nothing to arouse it and cause it to go from a state of
potential to a state of greater realization. As such the essence of the
hasadim is utterly and completely hidden. The quality of gevura is the
opposite because it is constantly in a state of self-arousal, constantly
revealing all its aspects in all their distinctiveness, each individual quality
expressing itself to the very utmost. Thus all actions are effected only by
gevurot. This is the reason why in the account of creation we find thirty
two instances of the name Elokim (which is a manifestation of gevurot).

With this, we can distill some basic axioms regarding Chug.

1) Hasadim and gevurot underlie all of reality.

2) Hasadim and gevurot are forces with opposite tendencies. Hasadim are
expansive, whereas gevurot are constrictive.

3) Hasadim and gevurot are symbiotic. Ultimately there must be an exquisite

balance of both. Hasadim without enough gevurot are inert, inactive, and

5
 gevurot without enough hasadim are so frenetically active that they consume
everything, including themselves.

Let’s expand on this theme. When we say that the Chug are symbiotic we are
saying that really you can’t have a pure manifestation of one without the other
and obtain a viable, sustainable reality. For altogether opposite reasons, when
there exists one without enough of a mitigating presence of the other, reality
breaks down. Following this principle to its extreme, an undistilled manifestation
of just one of them precludes anything from existing at all. That is, with just one
without the other nothing at all can even begin to exist. Why is this? Because,
without gevurot, the hasadim would just expand indeterminably, without bounds
or borders. Their very unified essence would make them entirely ineffable,
unknowable, inaccessible. A reality based on pure hasadim could be said not to
exist at all because there is no way for it to be known beyond itself. That is, it
would have no frame or reference beyond itself for it to be known.

On the other hand, a world of pure gevurot would not “get off the ground” for the
diametrically opposite reason. Remember, the gevurot essentially want to
constrict. That is their nature. But, what is the “goal” of constricting? If you think
about it for a moment, you may find we have already mentioned it. The goal or
purpose of constricting is really to reveal. It is to make known, to draw out. That
is, essentially, the ultimate function of a framework, of structure. But what
happens when you take the very content that is being revealed and strip it away?
The answer is, reality breaks down.

The gevurot, as opposed to the hasadim, are by their very nature volatile and
active. Their tendency is to “grab” an aspect of the content and draw it out to the
maximum possible extent; by concealing, they paradoxically reveal some aspect
supplied by the hasadim to the greatest possible extent. The gevurot “splinter”
the substance of the hasadim into recognizable chunks, draw it beyond itself.
And yet, without enough “glue” provided by the hasadim, without a proper
infusion of content, this dual concealing-revealing aspect of the gevurot caves in
upon itself. Taken to the extreme, the gevurot become the very essence of
concealment Nothing, not even themselves, can be seen at all! Thus without

6
enough hasadim, the gevurot in all their frenetic activity self-destruct. It’s a little
like firing up an engine without any fuel and thereby causing the whole thing to
burn up. It is the hasadim that keep the gevurot together. The hasadim are really
the “glue” of the gevurot; without hasadim, the gevurot splinter indefinitely, and,
like a display of fireworks, burn themselves to oblivion. In the words of the
Leshem:

However, when the gevurot are expressed by themselves, because of their

relentlessly frantic nature, it is impossible to arrive at any coherent, viable
reality. This is in effect what happened in the world of “Tohu” which
preceded the account of creation; that is, the unbridled nature of the
gevurot caused a cosmic disintegration….

The truth is that the essence and root of all existence is solely supplied by
the light of hesed, for even the reality and revelation of the gevurot
ultimately comes from the light of hesed, as it is written, “a world is built on
hesed”…. Now, the root of all gevurot is the self-contraction (tsimtsum) [of
G-d’s Infinite Light]. However, on that level, the original self-contraction is
entirely unrevealed…. The reason for this stems from the power of
gevurah, namely, two seemingly contradictory properties of the gevurot.
That is, when gevurah exists by itself, it is the ultimate agents of
concealment, to the degree that it becomes concealed from itself and is
thus called darkness. But when it receives an illumination from hesed is
erupts and shines without limit. This is why the Divine self-contraction,
once the ray of the Infinite Light enters the cleared-out space, is called
Supernal Brilliance, which is the most potent and sublime revelation of
Divine Light imaginable…. This is how the gevurot function when they are
without hasadim at all—they are utterly concealed and hidden; they are
called “darkness.” Earlier, when we said that the gevurot are perpetually in
a state of action and arousal, with no cease to their frantic activity (as
existed in the World of Tohu), we were talking about the gevurot without
the proper degree of hasadim to mitigate and sweeten them. But, if there
had been no illumination from the hasadim at all in the World of Tohu, the
[primordial “kings”] would not have “ruled” at all and that reality would
7
have remained completely concealed. For the main essence of all of
existence comes from the light of hesed, yet its manifestation, the
revelation and transition of its hidden qualities from a state of potential to
actuality comes from the light of gevurah.

However, it should be emphasized that the reason for the concealment

derived from hesed alone does not resemble that of gevurah alone. For
hesed, the reason is that hesed is still and inert, united with its own
essence, and does not reveal itself except through some sort of activity. On
the other hand, the reason for gevurah is that is distances itself from
everything else and conceals itself, its self-concealment brought about
paradoxically through action! We see then that the reasons for the
concealment of both (when they are not balanced by the other) are almost
opposites.

Thus there are three properties to the hasadim and gevurot. One: when
they exist by themselves, both are concealed completely—hesed, because
of its stillness and the inert nature of its qualities, existing in a state of
undifferentiated unity; and gevurah, because of its tendency to distance
itself, leading to a state of self-concealment. Two: if each contains from the
other a bare minimum, then if the prime ingredient is hesed, it will expand
without limit. If the prime ingredient is gevurah, on the other hand, it will
vibrate and stir without limit, all its myriad qualities becoming aroused and
bringing it from one state to another, shining and splintering up into
limitless sparks without any coherent order and viability. Three: if they are
properly balanced, then through both together we can obtain a structured,
orderly, and viable existence. The essence (i.e. content) of existence comes
from hesed, yet its function, order, and framework in all its details is from
the light of gevurah, for it is gevurah which arouses the light of hesed to
reveal its aspects, bringing it from a state of potential to actuality. In this
way, the light of hesed illuminates by virtue of the light of gevurah in all its
beneficence, thereby creating a complete, viable reality.

8
So, let’s now return to the basic axioms of HuG and develop them further. We
already mentioned that every system includes HuG. Every system can be viewed
according to the principles of HuG. Now, to be more exact, the hasadim manifest
conceptually on the right side, and the hasadim on the left of any given system.
The paradigm for this, of course, is the human brain. It can be said that the right
brain operates according to the logic of the hasadim and left brain according to
that of the gevurot, and the middle brain- the corpus collosum, joins the two
together. Really, the two brains—right and left, operate according to different
languages, different modes of perception, and the middle brain not only acts as a
conduit connecting the two but produces a language which incorporates the
vocabulary and syntax of both. So, what are these two vastly different modes of
consciousness of the two sides of the brain?

The right brain perceives things in their wholeness, nonlinearly. On the other
hand, the left brain “breaks up” the seamless reality of the right brain into
snippets, which are then digested one after the other. The left brain is therefore
linear. All linear thinking is essentially a left-brain process. In the left brain,
reality is compartmentalized and split up, each piece existing within a certain self-
contained frame of reference. Interestingly, certain forms of autism in effect
“paralyze” mechanisms of the left brain, wiring perception directly to the right
brain. If I spill a box of matches on the floor, if I want to know how many there
are I must approach the task linearly. I must count one, two, three, and so on. To
be sure, I can see a pile of three matches and readily perceive, in a flash of
information, that there are three matches there. But an autistic person may be
able to glance at a much bigger pile and say, automatically, “fifty three.” How
does he do this? Because certain aspects of his left brain are inert; they don’t act
as filters for his right brain. He sees the pile of matches with right-brain
consciousness, perceiving the whole all at once.

Thus the right brain perceives reality intuitively, seamlessly. It is holistic, looking
at the whole and not focusing on the parts. The left brain, on the other hand, is
rational and analytical; it focuses on parts. It perceives things sequentially. The
right brain has been said to be subjective, meaning essentially that from the right
brain’s perspective there is no separation from the subject and object of
9
perception. The left brain, on the other hand, is objective (or, rather, operates
under the premises of objectivity).

In a most remarkable presentation of right brain as opposed to left brain

consciousness, Harvard neuroscientist Jill ----- described her experience when she
had a massive brain hemorrhage which in effect shut off her left brain. She
relates how right after her stroke, it look her many long minutes to realize what
the numbers on her credit card meant, since there was no self-evident divider
between the numbers in the foreground and the rest of the card in the
background. The two formed one seamless picture, and the context or
mechanism separating one from the other and imbuing one with meaning in and
of itself had been severely damanged.

By now, we should recognize the hasadim-gevurot dynamics as they manifest in

the right and left brains. The right brain is the source of hasadim in our
perception, and the left brain the source of gevurot. But we must be more exact.
In the Kaballah, the right and left brains are called hochmah and binah
respectively, not hasadim and gevurot. It is the “third” aspect of the brain, the
corpus collosum, which can be called our “daat.” There are three aspects of the
mind, hochmah, binah, and daat, and it is the third one—daat, which is comprised
of hasadim and gevurot. i What this implies is that we cannot access a pure
consciousness of hochmah or binah, for the simple reason that there would be no
existence were they to exist by themselves, and all existence is predicated upon
their union and symbiosis. Daat itself is both and means and product of this
union, and thus all consciousness really takes place in daat and involves some
combination of HuG.

According to the Ari, the creation of a viable reality is predicated upon daat,
which is the correct combination of hasadim and gevurot. Although, as we just
mentioned, hasadim and gevurot—together daat, correspond to the central
column (corpus collosum), really the right brain and the right side the central
column form one unified, integrated unit, as do the left brain and the left side of
the central column. True union, then, which is the basis of reality, is the link

10
between right and left through the middle they both share. Thus the Torah refers
to relations between man and woman as daat, as in “Adam knew Hava (Eve).

It is this symbiosis between hasadim and gevurot which, perhaps, is the deeper
level of the Mishnah which deals with “blackness” and “whiteness”:

“Rabbi Yishmael says: ‘bnei Yisrael (the Children of Israel)—I (God) am their
atonement. They are like the eshkroa tree, not black, not white, but in the
middle.” (Mishnah Negaim 2:1)

The context of this passage is how to gauge whether or not a skin affliction is a
bright enough shade of white to be tsaraat (a skin legion which renders the
person impure; see Vayikra-Leviticus 13); should we apply an absolute scale, or
should we gauge it according to how it looks relative to the skin shade of the
person afflicted? Rabbi Yishmael is saying that we should gauge it according to
the “medium” skin tone characteristic of Bnei Yisrael, that the medium tone
defines the absolute scale.

As we have seen, hasadim correspond to whiteness and gevurot to blackness. In

this Mishnah, the Jewish people are praised for being in the middle; that is,
exemplifying the proper balance and synthesis of hasadim and gevurot. The
Mishnah here makes clear that the most praiseworthy quality is neither
unmitigated blackness nor unmitigated whiteness, but rather a union of the two.
In the language of sod (the deeper level of Torah), this means that the proper
balance of hasadim and gevurot is fundamental.

It is also noteworthy that Rabbi Yishmael uses the somewhat unusual phrase:
“bnei Yisrael—I am their kapara (atonement)”. On a deeper level this seems to
harken back to the Ari’s doctrine of the shattering of the vessels and their
subsequent rectification, which took place because a balance and syntheses of
hasadim and gevurot occurred. The vessels originally fell because of a
preponderance of gevurot; therefore they were unstable and volatile. In the
world of tikun (rectification), these vessels were resurrected and formed part of a
viable reality which was based on hasadim and gevurot coming together in
harmony. The new illumination (of shem M”A), which corresponds to hasadim,

11
“atoned” for the vessels, lifting them out of their fallen state and joining together
with them to form the basis of a stable universe. Or, conversely, the “fuel” for
the union (Ma”N) which brought forth the new illumination can be seen as
atoning for the world of Tohu (chaos, disorder, lack of viable existence) which
ensued after the vessels fell.

Another interesting thing to note in relation to all this is that the verses seem to
place the surroundings of the original Eden in Africa, or, at least spanning several
lands, some of which included Africa. Thus the Torah speaks of the four rivers
which flowed from Eden: “A river flows from Eden to water the garden, and from
there it split to become four head rivers. The name of the first is Pishon, that
encircles the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. The gold of that land is
good, the bedolach is there, as is the shoham stone. The name of the second
river is Gihon, which encircles the whole land of Kush (a land in Africa, perhaps
Ethiopia). The name of the third river is Hidekel, the one that flows to the east of
Assyria, and forth river is Prat (the Euphrates).” (Genesis 2:10-14)

It seems clear that the environs of Eden the Torah speaks about is not a small
expanse of land at all, but rather a huge swath of land spanning the Middle East
and Africa. It is also interesting to note that the equatorial belt retains the
climate and plant-life which seems to be most reminiscent of the ancient garden
of Eden, as if it is a kind of Eden like state fallen into the kelipot (realms of
temporarily unredeemed reality). Also of note, perhaps, is the fact that there still
exist tribes in the equatorial regions of South American and Africa who live in
some ways in a kind of pseudo-Edenic state—for instance, living without clothes
and “not being ashamed” (see Genesis 2:25). In fact, the Rashash (Rabbi Shalom
Sharabi) equates Eden with the equatorial region! [cite source]

The last issue to touch upon is the story of Ham and Ham’s son. Here also, the
Midrashim, taken as a whole within the context of the Torah’s account, are more
nuanced than once might expect. We find that:

G-d blessed Noah and his sons, as it is said, “and G-d blessed them”
(Genesis 9:1), with their respective gifts, and gave them the whole world.
He blessed Shem and his sons to be black and beautiful, and gave them all
12
 the livable areas. He blessed Ham and his sons to be black like the raven,
and gave them the coast. He blessed Yefet and his sons to be [all of them]
white and fair, and gave them the wilderness and fields; these are the lands
that he bequeathed them. (Pirke Rabbi Eliezer Chap. 24)

To be sure, some commentators on this passage (see Radal) try to distinguish the
beautiful blackness of Shem with the blackness of Ham, even suggested that the
correct version of the text should not be “black as a crow” (shechorim k’orev) but
rather “black and ugly” (shechorim keurim). Yet this is curious given the fact that
the entire passage, as is made clear by its opening phrase, is talking about God
blessing Noach and his sons! While perhaps the blackness of Shem is exemplified
as being beautiful, the context of blessing doesn’t make it very plausible that Ham
and his sons are being called ugly here. Rather, it seems that the author of the
Midrash saw very dark skin as something not as desirable as a somewhat ligher
shade still within the parameters of what we would call dark skin (if we can even
speak in these terms).

What we find here resonates elegantly with the hasadim-gevurot paradigm as

well as the Mishnah cited earlier! Shem is in the middle, representing the
synthesis of hasadim and gevurot. His blackness is beautiful because it represents
the sweetened, rectified gevurot.

Nevertheless, in the eyes of the sages who authored some Midrashim and
Talmudic teachings, dark or very dark skin is presented in a less than
complementary light. Says the Midrash Rabba (Parasha 36):

Rabbi Hiya bar Abba said, “Ham and the dog both had relations in the ark,
therefore Ham came out black as coal (mefuham) and the dog has relations
openly without shame.” Rabbi Levi said, “[this is like] one who set up his
coin mintage in the abode of the king. The king said, ‘I decree that his face
become black as coal and he should be disqualified (yifasel) and his nature
changed. Similarly, Ham came out black as coal and the dog has his
relations in the open.

13
There are other such teachings, such as what’s found in tractate Sotah, that if a
woman is exonerated by the bitter waters she will conceive. The sages pick up on
anomalies in the language to expound that not only will she conveive as before
but that she will be blessed. What will be here blessing? If her children before
were born painfully, they will be born easily; if they were dark-skinned, they will
now be light-skinned. [cite page]

Earlier we elaborated on the system of HuG. What we must round off our
discussion with is the fact that the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, while
incorporating both hasadim and gevuot, is especially volatile on the left side, that
of gevurot. We can picture the arena into which Adam and Hava were placed as a
wound which had been sutured and healed to a large extent (ie. the shattering of
the vessels and their tikun). Yet the wound wasn’t healed completely, and the
possibility remained for the wound to be opened up along its original contours.
The “handle” that could be grabbed to open up the wound was the gevurot. Thus
as a result of Adam and Hava’s sin, the main rupture was on the side of gevorut.
Subsequently, the sins and failings of later generations had the effect of
perverting and warping the gevutot, and “mutating” them into the malevolent
form of concentrated forces of judgement (dinim kashim) which would them have
to run their due course.

Now, black is the color which according to the Kabalah is associated with Malchut,
the attribute or “partsuf” which is essentially formed by gevurot. We also quoted
from the Leshem earlier who explained the connection between gevurot and
blackness. Perhaps it can be said that a deeper level of meaning behind the
blackness of Ham and his sons we find in these Midrashic teachings is the saga of
the perverted gevurot. In other words, this kind of blackness is the gevurot
getting trapped in the kelipot. Significantly, this sort of blackness is spoken about
in exaggerated terms such as “black as a raven” or “like coal”. The Radal, in
commenting on the Pirke Rabbi Eliezer quoted above, mentions that “black as a
raven” is even more dark than a very dark color (black like heret) mentioned
elsewhere (in tractate Nidah), and certainly most of the descendents of Ham are
not that dark! Based on this he suggests amending the text, but according to our
analysis we need not be overly concerned with the historical veracity of these
14
Midrashim. Rather, we must ask ourselves what profound teachings they garb
and at the same time express. Such drastic descriptions of dark skin seem to
imply “blackness” gone awry. Blackness carried beyond its proper borders,
similar to how the gevurot, when unmitigated by hasadim, are carried beyond
their proper borders.

Paralleling this, the Ari correlated the three sons of Noah with Netzach, Hod, and
Yesod (of the Malchut of Nukva). It comes as little surprise that Ham is associated
with Yesod, which corresponds to the male sexual organ. While speaking about
the blemish of Yesod is beyond the scope of this article, suffice it to say here that
according to the Kaballah, sins of a sexual nature have a great capacity to pervert
the gevurot.

With all this introductory information we can perhaps glean a better

understanding of the unique history of Africa and black people in general. Many
people have conjured up notions of the “curse of Ham”, sometimes as a rationale
for many great evils which have been perpetuated over the centuries. However,
one finds in the Torah that it was Ham’s son Knaan who was cursed, and not Ham.
Thus the curse itself is not the curse of Ham but the curse of Knaan. Significantly,
we find that perhaps the greatest of the very ancient civilizations was a Hamitic
civilization—Egypt. Ancient Egypt was a most wealthy and technologically
advanced civilization, hardly the product of what one would think of as a curse.

Perhaps a more correct and useful paradigm in understanding the history of

African peoples, including their enslavement and travails in the countries they
were taken to, is that of the gevurot. Perhaps the great suffering which black
people experienced was a cosmic process of lifting up fallen gevurot. And
perhaps the overall state of Africa in general is due to the fact that it is the
physical manifestation of these gevurot. It may be significant that those elements
which have kept Africa from modernizing like, say, Asia or India are primarilly
characterisctics of gevurot, such as the sort of tribalism which impedes embarking
on collective endeavors effectively.

15
However, we find that it is exactly the “toughest” gevurot which have the greatest
potiential to reveal the Divine. It may yet be that the continent which seems the
most dysfunctional will one day be the highest in revealing the Divine!

A well know verse from the Song of Songs says, “I am and black and beautiful,
daughters of Yerushalim (Jerusalem), like the tents of Kedar, like the curtains of
Shlomo.” And then, right afterwards: “don’t look at me, that I am black
(shcharchoret), for the sun has burnt me; the sons of my mother have treated me
with contempt…” (Song of Songs 1:5-6)

Although some read the first verse as “I am black yet beautiful”, the “vav” before
beautiful being understood as “but”, in my opinion the clear simple meaning of
the verse is black and beautiful. The first verse clearly extols the maiden’s beauty,
comparing it to the tents of Kedar and the royal curtains of Shlomo. The subject
of the verse is her beauty, and it would be most incongruous if the verse read “I
am black but nevertheless beautiful.” Furthermore, the very next verse says
“don’t pay attention to my blackness,” and yet uses a different word than the first
verse. The first verse uses the word “shechora”, and the second one the word
“shcharchoret”, which is clearly related to “shechora” but means something else.
So, the second verse is saying, “don’t pay attention to my being ‘shcharchoret’,
for the sun has burnt me. The second verse is clearly saying something different
than the first one.

A final point to consider is that the sages, unlike what many people believe, were
not immune to cultural influences of the time. It is certainly true that their
teaching garb deep messages and that one can speak of the sages’ endeavors as
being inspired by ruach hakodesh (Divine inspiration). Nevertheless, they were
people who lived in a certain societal context and their teachings must also be
examined in this light. The main goal is, after all, truth, and we should strive to
reveal the deep messages of the sages’ parables and teachings and at the same
time not be naïve, or worse, as many have done, revise or falsify the historical
record by fitting the sages into a kind of mold which transcends all historical
context. When we ignore the historical context and its influence, truth suffers.
That said, we mustn’t forget that the sages of the time of the Mishnah and

16
Talmud lived, to a great extent, in a cultural context of Greco-Roman supremacy.
It has been argued that the Greek ideal of light skin was limited to women [cite
source], but the unassailable fact remains that in the sages’ time and place, black
people were very rare. Thus we can understand how the blessing “he who makes
odd, wondrous creations” (meshane habriot) could have been ordained for seeing
a very dark skinned person. But in our time and place, when black people are all
over the place, one should question whether it is appropriate to say this beracha
(blessing) when seeing a black person. Similarly, the sages included very dark skin
in the attributes which disqualify a person from serving as a kohen. Yet one many
reasonably doubt whether Moses, who drew up among very dark skinned people
and was perhaps very dark skinned himself, would have said such a thing. In this
case the Mishnaic statement need not be understood as a Halacha l’Moshe
miSinai (an unalterable law derived from Sinai) because they saw very dark skin as
an oddity, but rather that the overall category of "mumim" (blemishes
disqualifying a kohen) includes both certain very defined conditions and also a
general injunction to disqualify something considered very odd or unusual.

Likewise, the sages’ description of blackness in the agadeta (non-legalistic

teachings) many have been colored by a cultural context in which blackness was
not very commonplace and seen as something weird.

This brings up a most important point of methodology in examining the teachings

of the sages in general. On the one hand, we must realize that the sages were
holy people possessing Divine inspiration (ruach hakodesh), and their teachings
are meant to convey deep messages. This, I believe, is really the main purpose of
most Midrashim—not to relate a narration of events as they happened, as many
people are wont to believe. One must always ask what profound message a
particular Midrash is “packaging”. On the other hand, we must realize that the
sages lived in a certain cultural context which certainly influenced the way they
thought about and saw things. They were people, after all. And so it behooves
one to ask how a particular teaching may have been influenced by cultural
factors. On the one hand we know the sages were transmitting very profound
truths, lessons, and messages. And on the other hand they were people who
were influenced by their cultural contexts. To join together these two aspects is
17
an endeavor of great challenge, but one which the intellectually mature and
honest person cannot escape from.

18
i
Actually, there is a higher, more concealed aspect to daat which is contained in our pineal gland, located in a
small cave-like cavity tucked in the brain’s hemispheres. This gland is the true “upper daat”, the “daat elyon”
which is concealed within hochmah and binah. It is the link with keter, the supernal “crown”, and thus the seat
and trigger of the true mystical, transcendental experience.