After the devastation of the flood, Noah experiences a moment of profound vulnerability and lowliness in his tent. His emergence from a drunken slumber is not merely a physical awakening, but a shocking realization of what transpired during his helpless state, events that would culminate in a historic curse and ultimately reshape the nations. Because intoxication numbs the senses much like sleep, waking is the natural way to describe this transition [רד״ק, מחוקקי יהודה]. As the effects of the wine wore off, Noah's mind returned to a state of complete clarity [העמק דבר, קאסוטו].
How Noah discovered what had occurred during his stupor is a matter of varied interpretation. Some suggest that he did not need anyone to tell him; upon waking, he physically felt what had been done to his body, perhaps deducing the culprit based on a familiarity with his son's previous immoral behavior while still in the ark [כלי יקר, מלבי״ם, שטיינזלץ]. Others propose that the moment his cognitive clarity returned, the spirit of God rested upon him, allowing him to know the events through prophecy [העמק דבר, ביאור יש״ר]. It is also possible that his sons remained silent out of respect for his dignity [צרור המור], or that the specific method of his discovery is simply omitted because it is secondary to the narrative [קאסוטו].
The primary approach among commentators is that the narrative employs a euphemism to describe a severe sexual assault, such as castration or a homosexual act [תורה תמימה, מחוקקי יהודה, קאסוטו]. Conversely, another perspective contends that no physical violation took place. Instead, the offense consisted entirely of gazing upon a father's nakedness, lingering rather than covering him, and speaking of the disgrace to the other brothers, with such speech itself being considered a grave act [רד״ק, ביאור יש״ר, מחוקקי יהודה]. In a striking departure from these views, a unique interpretation suggests that the act in question was actually a positive one. According to this reading, Noah recognized and appreciated the kindness of the son who respectfully covered him [בכור שור, חזקוני].
The identity of the son involved sparks considerable discussion, particularly because the subsequent curse falls upon Noah's grandson, Canaan, rather than his son Ham. One group of commentators identifies the son as Ham. Some maintain that Ham was indeed chronologically the youngest of Noah's children [רש ר הירש, ביאור יש״ר, קאסוטו, רבנו בחיי]. Others argue that the description of him as the youngest does not refer to his age, but rather to his moral inferiority, marking him as the most despicable and lowly of the brothers [רש״י, מזרחי, שפתי חכמים, גור אריה]. A second group interprets the reference as pointing to Canaan, Noah's grandson, operating on the principle that grandchildren are considered like children, and Canaan was the youngest of Ham's sons [אבן עזרא, ספורנו, רד״ק, רלב״ג, פענח רזא]. Following the unique interpretation that a positive deed is being described, one view identifies this son as Shem, who performed the noble act of covering his father [בכור שור].
If Ham was the primary transgressor, the question remains as to why the curse was directed at Canaan. Commentators offer a tapestry of explanations. There may have been a division of guilt, where Ham merely witnessed the disgrace, while Canaan either committed the physical assault or was the first to see it and report it to his father, Ham [אבן עזרא, רד״ק, כלי יקר, מחוקקי יהודה]. A deeper spiritual dynamic is also at play. God had already bestowed a blessing upon Noah and his three sons when they exited the ark. Since a curse cannot take effect where God has already granted a blessing, the punishment was transferred to the next generation [רד״ק, כלי יקר, רבנו בחיי]. Additionally, a principle of measure for measure is evident. Because the perpetrator destroyed Noah's ability to father a fourth child, the curse was appropriately levied upon the perpetrator's own fourth son, Canaan [תורה תמימה, מחוקקי יהודה].
Beyond these reasons lies a profound educational and historical truth. The most devastating blow to a father is the cursing of his offspring. One who degrades his parents and tramples upon the honor of the previous generation is ultimately punished by having his own descendants bear the curse; Ham sinned against his father, and therefore the punishment struck him through his son [רש ר הירש, צרור המור]. The specific curse of slavery imposed on Canaan perfectly reflects the nature of the sin. An individual who surrenders to evil inclinations and base physical desires loses his dignity, degrades himself, and ultimately becomes an absolute slave [כלי יקר, צרור המור]. This servitude would manifest in Canaan becoming an absolute slave to his brothers, the other sons of Ham, and a regular slave to Shem and Japheth [כלי יקר].