1. The term "Kushi" is the adjective of the proper noun "Kush," the name of a region south of Egypt. The word "Kushi" means a person from the land of Kush. The exact identity of that region is subject to discussion, and there indeed may be several places by that name. In the Background to the Daf (Sukah 36), we wrote:

"The land of Kush is identified as 1. Ethiopia (JOSEPHUS) or Arabia (TARGUM YONASAN to Bereishis 10:6, Divrei ha'Yamim I 1:8-9). In this context, Arabia refers to an area in Africa located upon the upper Nile (as described by HERODOTUS, cited by Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan in Bereishis 10:6) or the entire Nile area; 2. an area to the east of Eretz Yisrael (YOVLOS, cited by Rabbi Kaplan ibid.). This may near India (see Megilah 11a; see also, however, Background to Yoma 34:25:b)."

2. The use of the word "Kushis" in reference to Tziporah, the wife of Moshe, is a term of praise for her beauty. Indeed, the Targum Unkelos translates "Kushis" as "Shapirta," or "beautiful." Rashi seems to be bothered with how the descriptive term "Kushis," which literally refers to a nationality or race, comes to be used to mean "beautiful," and he gives an explanation which seems objectively unoffensive.

3. The use of the word "Kushi" in describing an Esrog (Sukah 36a) refers to an Esrog that is black, since natives of the land of Kush are black-skinned. This also seems to be objectively unoffensive.

4. The Gemara in Sanhedrin says that Cham, the son of Noach, violated the tenet not to have relations while on the ark during the flood, and he was punished in that his (or his descendants') skin-color changed. To understand it better, we must ask a basic question: Why was Cham's punishment a change of skin-color? Every punishment must be "Midah k'Neged Midah," measure for measure. How does a change of skin-color relate to the sin which Cham committed, having relations at a time when relations had been proscribed?

A simple explanation may be that, at that time in history, a change in skin-color made him look different from all of the other people alive at the time, and thus it would make it more difficult for him to find a mate. Thus, the very act that he did not control himself to avoid has now become very hard for him to achieve. That is the "measure for measure" element of the punishment. This does not imply that being black is something bad; rather, it was the only way to achieve a proper "measure for measure" punishment in the context of the time he lived in.

5. Rashi, in Parshas Lech Lecha, is not saying his own words but is quoting the words of Avraham Avinu to Sarah Imenu. When Avraham and Sarah went down to Egypt during the famine in Canaan, Avraham was concerned that Sarah would appear to the men of Egypt as extraordinarly beautiful and they would attempt to take her from him. Avraham described the people as you quoted, but his description in no way expresses any racial offense. On the contrary, had repulsiveness automatically been associated with darker skin color, Avraham would have said simply, "We are now traveling among black people," with no need to mention the word "repulsive." (In Hebrew, the word for "black" and the word for "repulsive" are both used as nouns, and thus it is as if the statement reads, "... now we are traveling among black people and repulsive people.") The two descriptors are mentioned (a) in order to show why Avraham was concerned that the men of Egypt would think Sarah was exceptionally beautiful (since they were black and Sarah wasn't), and (b) in order to show why Avaraham was concerned that the men there would take Sarah away from him (had they not had repulsive behavior, he would have had no concern, regardless of their skin-color and how beautiful she appeared to them). In summary, these two descriptive words are mentioned in order to show the two elements of Avraham's concern: (a) Sarah would be viewed as beautiful, and (b) the people had low moral standards and might take her away. They could have well been white and still have been repulsive. In other words, it is not being black that made them repulsive. They were repulsive because that was the accepted way of their society and culture.

Certainly, any person of any skin color who acts in an upright way, with a refined sense of morals, values, and ethics, would never be looked down upon because of skin color. There may be individuals who have unacceptable, intolerable, and irrational prejudices, but I would hope that on your journery into Judaism you have experienced only acceptance, love, warmth, and admiration.

Y. Shaw