Parshat Noach chronicles the transition between two worlds - the era of creation and the refashioned post-mabul epoch. The need to reiterate and somewhat reformulate man's charge to populate the world and to exercise sovereignty and jurisdiction over it (Bereshit 6:9) in the aftermath of the mabul underscores the scope and significance of this refashioning. The changed parameters of man's relationship with the animal kingdom reflected also in his dietary norms reinforces this conclusion that the post-mabul history constitutes a different world, notwithstanding important dimensions of continuity that also prevailed. (See Parshas Noach: A New Creation?).
Noach did not simply preside over and facilitate these changes, but also significantly shaped this transition. The fact that the Torah employs the plural "bedorotav" (Bereshit 6:9 -"Noach ish tzaddik, tamim hayah bedorotav"), to depict his persona perhaps attests to his singular character and particularly authenticates his qualifications to oversee and to serve as the architect of this crucial development. Ibn Ezra comments: "ve-taam be-dorotav: bedoro be-eit ha-mabul, ubedorot shehayhu acharav", Noach was a multigenerational figure, someone who spanned and bridged generations, indeed worlds. This quality that signifies and tests consistency is impressive in its own right. Meshech Chochmah (based on Avoda Zara 6a - "tamim bederachav; tzaddik bemaasav") further posits that Noach's diverse qualities impacted each epoch differently. Before the mabul, he personified righteousness in a corrupt society; in the newly fashioned world, he was perceived as the exemplar of humility. Thus, Noach's credentials were extensive, and he possessed the wisdom, character, and capacity to deploy his values and to adapt his focus to address the spiritual challenges of the age. Undoubtedly, this also qualified his association with the seven core laws that define minimum human spirituality, known as the seven Noachide laws, though most preceded his actual involvement.
Yet, despite his admirable consistency and versatility, Noach was evidently not fully integrated into or emblematic of the new order. As noted by some of the parshanim on Avot and others, while Adam and Noach are both included in the list of ten generations from Adam to Noach (Avot 5:2), Noach is excluded from the parallel ten-generation list from Noach to Avraham, though explicitly defining the range! Some (see Chidushei ha-Grim, Bereishit 11:26) have suggested that the Torah itself subtly hints at Noach's primary identification with the pre-mabul world. Seforno (Bereishit 11:11) notes that the Torah subtly changes the manner in which it lists the generations before and after the mabul. Prior to the mabul, the Torah (Bereishit 5:3-35 - Adam till Lemech) consistently focuses initially on the age in which the primary heir was born, and subsequently counts the remaining years of a generational representative, also alluding to his other progeny - "vayoled banim u-banot ", and finally his total lifespan, concluding tersely with a statement of his death - "va-yamot ", as if these data points, by chronicling the quantitative continuity of the period, capture the significance of the generational representative. Following the mabul, typically the Torah alters its generational census (beginning with Sheim-Bereishit 11:10-32) by bypassing the final age and by omitting the terse, self-evident- "vayamot", that perhaps convey a less dynamic continuity and a restricted cumulative impact. [The treatment of Terah differs due to the narrative need to introduce his broader family. His full age and the notice of his demise are explicated several pesukim later - "vayihyu yemei Terach hamesh shanim u-matayim shanah; vayamat Terach be-Haran"- albeit in a form that also differs from pre-mabul census. The emphasis on his age and where he died are viewed by Chazal and the mefarshim as significant to the relationship with and background of Avraham. See, for example, Rashi, Seforno, and Radak 11:32.] [The final accounts of the avot and imahot are more extensive and highlight the singular quality of their lives, as well as their ongoing legacy notwithstanding their demise. See, for example, Bereishit 23:1-2, 25:7-8, 25:17 etc. Sarah's death is elaborated in some detail, and is integrated with Avraham's hesped and ultimately with the acquisition of mearat ha-machpelah. Avraham's death notice - "vayigva vayamot be-seivah tovah, va-yeasef el amav" particularly communicates his accomplishments, his unique life, and his enormous legacy. I hope to elaborate on this theme with respect to the obituaries of the other seminal preeminent spiritual figures elsewhere.] Seforno accounts for the differences in presentation by attributing them to the very different frames of reference. The earliest census focused on that which preceded (and contributed) to the mabul - "ki heim kulam meitu kodem shehayah inyan ha-sipur hamechuvan az, vehu hamabul", while the subsequent list emphasizes a more meaningful and flourishing existence in a spiritually more aspirational world that would be defined by the colossal impact of Avraham Avinu- "aval heim hayu kulam chayim bezeman shehitchil inyan hasipur hamechuvan vehu hishtadlut Avraham Avinu...ulemashcham beavotot ahvat chesed leavdo shechem echad". Perhaps, as noted, while the mabul era accentuates the dry and doomed history of prominent personalities that preceded the catastrophic end of a corrupt and failed world, the more cumulative and less morbid post-mabul count emphasizes only the dynamism of life, perhaps also implying a progression toward the Avraham Avinu ideal. In any case, it is particularly striking that the Torah's presentation of Noach's obituary (Bereishit 9:28-29)- "vayehi Noach achar hamabul shalosh meot shanah vehamishim shanah' vayihiyu kol yemei Noach tesha meot shanah vechamishim shanah, vayamot" - mostly conforms to the pattern of the pre-mabul census! Chidushei ha-Grim suggests that this intriguing affinity underpins Noach's exclusion from the Avot chronicle of post-mabul generations till Avraham. [Seforno does not address this anomaly. The Chidushei ha-Grim acknowledges that he is puzzled by this conclusion.]
We may propose that while Noach lived in both eras, indeed, he was the indispensable bridge between them, he did not extricate himself completely from his origins and fully integrate into and embrace the potential of what was destined to be Avraham's world. In previous presentations (Rav Rosensweig on parsha), I have argued that Noach did not merely oversee the bridging of the worlds; he was an inherently transitional persona. His immense contribution was manifest in his capacity to survive and adapt, thereby enabling continuity, but he did not epitomize the principled ideals of a visionary world view, or a builder of worlds. Chazal, commenting on "tamim hayah bedorotav", debate ("yesh dorshin leshevach, veyeish dorshim legenai") Noach's spiritual stature with reference to the impact living in Avraham Avinu's world may have had. The common denominator of their opposing views, however, is that Noach's prominence was relative, dictated by the impact- in one direction or the other- of the surrounding social milieu. In sharp contrast, Avraham was labeled "ha-ivri" because of his tenacity (kol haolam beiver ehad vehu beeiver acher), he was entrusted with and introduced by the ultimate cultural challenge of "lech lecha", and was the architect of a transformative movement that would establish Hashem as both Elokei ha-shamayim and Elokei ha-aretz. Avraham was the archetype of an idealistic religious personality who shaped his environment but was inured to social pressures. Noach's admirable persona is more qualified. Chazal perceive that, notwithstanding his temimut and zidkut in each and both epochs in which he lived, his belief and commitment could be reticent and hesitant. Occasionally he was "miketanei emunah", incomplete in the purity and absoluteness of his faith. At crucial junctures, he could sometimes lack spiritual initiative, a prerequisite for a more spiritually aspirational movement and world. [See Bereishit 8:16, 17- "tzei min ha-tevah" and the keri of "chayzei" according to various mefarshim ad loc.] His questionable conduct In the aftermath of the brit (Bereshit 9:9-17) symbolizing a new world foundation (9:20-21 "vayachel Noach ish haadamah vayita karem"...) confirms his limitations that one suspects are an undesirable throwback to his origins, In this one respect, his otherwise incredibly admirable "bedorotav" persona betrayed a flaw, an obstacle to the kind of religious leadership required for a new world foundation. Thus, he is ultimately located in the mishneh Avot lists as a pre-mabul persona exclusively. The record of his death in terms reminiscent of that previous epoch does not diminish his instrumental role in enabling a refashioned world.
Avraham Avinu alone emerged as the single focal point of the new epoch that was characterized not by Noach's initiation, but by Avraham's attainment and his dedicated program. His idealism, spiritual consistency, and religious loyalty qualified him as the exclusive exemplar of a new world order, notwithstanding the indispensable transition that was orchestrated and enabled only by Noach. Rav Hayyim Volozhiner (Ruah Hayyim, Avot 5:3, the mishneh that immediately follows the chronicling of generations previously discussed), commenting on the subtle addition of the word "avinu" in the mishneh in Avot that enumerates the ten trials (nisyonot) that personified Avraham's spiritual odyssey and his singular commitment to Hashem, explains that Avraham's intense internalization of halachic values and his absolute dedication to avodat Hashem so defined his persona that they became the equivalent to spiritual DNA, that he transmitted, even implanted as a legacy for his descendants for all generations. [See Rambam, Hilchos Matnot Aniyim, 10:1-3.] The contrast to Noach, despite and because of his multigenerational - "bedorotav" status is self-evident.