Interestingly, in recounting the ten generations from Adam until Noach, the Torah writes the word, “va’yamos”, “and he died,” after each person that is mentioned. Upon mentioning the ten generations from Noach until Avraham however, the Torah uses the word, “ve’yechi,” and he lived,” referring to how long the individual lived. Why does the Torah make this distinction between the generations? Horav Yaakov Moshe Charlap, z.l., cites the Mishnah in Pirkei Avos 5:2, wherein it is stated: “There were ten generations from Adam to Noach which informs (us) how great is His (Hashem’s) patience, for all these generations continued to…
In the Midrash, Chazal comment regarding the word “vayochel,” which is related to “chullin” – “Nischalel v’naaseh chullin,” “he desecrated himself and became unholy.” Why? Because he planted a vineyard. He should have planted something else. We infer from Chazal that the actual planting of the vineyard was in itself a deficiency in Noach’s spiritual stature. His drunken stupor was the result of this deficiency, an offshoot of his previous error – planting the vineyard. We must endeavor to understand the severity of this “sin.” Wine can be–and is–used also for a more lofty purpose. Chazal say: “Ein simcha b’lo…
It would have been sufficient to say, “And Cham was the father of Canaan.” Why does the Torah emphasize “hu” – “he,” as if there were something unique to be derived from the fact that Cham was Canaan’s father. Horav Sholom Schwadron, z.l., attributes Canaan’s inappropriate behavior to the way he was raised by Cham, his father. Indeed, the apple did not fall far from the tree. Cham – he – is the father of Canaan. He is responsible for the way Canaan acted. The son inherited his father’s genes, his base nature, his contemptible character, his repulsive behavior. Cham…
Chazal offer a number of interpretations for the phrase “in his generations.” Some commentators interpret this as praise for Noach, who was able to transcend the evil even of his generation. Indeed, had he lived in a generation in which righteousness was the way of life, he would have been even greater. Others contend that he could stand out only in his own generation, in which evil was the standard. Horav Shlomo Margolis, Shlita, feels that “b’dorosov,” “in his generations,” reflects the limited effect of Noach’s righteousness – it lasted only during his generations. He was not able to inspire…