Commentaire de citation sur La Genèse 10:22

AND THE SONS OF CUSH: SEBA AND HAVILAH, ETC. These sons became the heads of nations, and the two sons of Raamah [namely, Sheba and Dedan] became two nations. Nimrod the son of Cush, however, did not become the head of a nation. Therefore, Scripture wrote afterward, And Cush begot Nimrod,²⁷¹Verse 8. and did not say, “and the sons of Cush: Nimrod, and Seba, and Havilah” [which would have indicated that Nimrod, like Seba and Havilah, also became the head of a nation]. But Phut the son of Ham²⁷²Verse 6. became only one people, and not various nations as was the case with Mitzraim²⁷³Verses 13-14. and Canaan,²⁷⁴Verses 15-18. the sons of Ham.²⁷²Verse 6. Therefore, Scripture did not return [to tell of the progeny of Phut, as it did with the other sons of Ham, namely, Cush, Mitzraim and Canaan]. In Bereshith Rabbah we find:²⁷⁵37:2. “Said Resh Lakish, ‘We might have thought that the family of Phut was swallowed up, but Ezekiel came and explained, Phut, and Lud, and all the Arabians,’”²⁷⁶Ezekiel 30:5. The meaning of the Midrash is that because Scripture did not return to tell about Phut, we might have thought that his seed intermingled with the children of Canaan and they neither became a nation, nor did they inherit a land called by their name. [The prophet Ezekiel thus clarified that the children of Phut existed as a separate nation in their own land.] However, in the case of Magog, and Madai…and Tubal, and Meshech, and Tiras,²⁷⁷Verse 2. — the children of Japheth — Scripture also did not mention the families of their progeny: And so also with the sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad,²⁷⁸“Arpachshad.” In this case Scripture does record his progeny (Verses 24-29). The Tur in quoting the language of Ramban rightly omits Arpachshad. Neither is it found in Ramban Mss. and Lud,²⁷⁹Verse 22. who became heads of nations; Scripture did not mention their progeny since each one just became one people inhabiting one country, and they did not give rise to various nationalities.

מן הארץ, from the land of Ashur he went forth in the direction of Assyria. The Torah fails to tell us if Ashur belonged to the descendants of Cham or of Shem. In verse 22 we are told that Eylam and Ashur were sons of Shem, so that it is unlikely that here we speak of a descendant of Shem, the subject matter being the descendants of Cham, i.e. Kush. However, seeing the Torah did not mention another Ashur, it is most probable that he was a descendant of Shem. Perhaps he had made his home for a while in the land of Shinor, i.e. regions populated by the descendants of Cham, so that the words מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור gain added significance, seeing that this was the first example of someone migrating from one region to another. Perhaps Ashur had even overcome Nimrod or his successor in the land of Shinor and founded a rival kingdom in Nineveh. His kingdom, as distinct from its capital, may have been named after its founder, Ashur. We definitely have evidence that the King of Ashur ruled over Babylon and its surrounding region. The various descendants of Cham were expelled from that entire region, being supplanted by the Chaldeans, כשדים, in the time of Avraham. These people were descended from Shem, [else how could Avraham have been at home there? Ed.]
This whole story is only meant to remind us that the entire universe belongs to G’d, no matter how great the conquerors on earth, (Psalms 24,1 and Samuel I 2,9) and if He decides to take away a country from its ruler and to substitute new inhabitants and rulers, He will do so at will. This is what the prophet Jeremiah 27,5 spoke about when he said ונתתיה לאשר ישר בעיני “I will give it (the land) to whoever is right in My eyes.” Ownership of a part of the earth is totally dependent on the deeds or misdeeds of the people living on that land. (Deuteronomy, 32,4). We are not sure if the word Ashur refers only to a city or to an entire kingdom. The verses (25,18 in Genesis, or Kings II 15,19), speaking of מלך אשור, or Kings II 19,11, speaking of מלכי אשור, do not give clear guidance on that point. According to Yuma 10, in the name of Rabbi Yossi, Ashur is equivalent to סלוק, (Silikia? in Iraq, on the banks of the Tigris)

OUT OF THAT LAND — when Nimrod reigned over it — WENT FORTH ASSHUR, meaning he went forth to Asshur for Asshur was one of the sons of Shem.²⁷⁹Verse 22. This usage is similar to that found in the verses: And it shall go forth Hazar-addar, and pass along to Azmon,²⁸⁷Numbers 34:4. [which means that it shall go forth to Hazzar-addar]; And Og the king of Bashan came out against us Edrei,²⁸⁸Deuteronomy 3:1. [which means at Edrei]; And he shall return his own land with great substance,²⁸⁹Daniel 11:28. [which means that he shall return to his own land]; and many other similar verses. This is why the land of Assyria is called the land of Nimrod, just as it is said, And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod with the keen-edge sword,²⁹⁰Micah 5:5. alluding to Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah.²⁸⁵Verse 11. Scripture tells yet more about Nimrod’s prowess — i.e., that he was a mighty hunter,²⁹¹Verse 9 here. prevailing also over the animals and ensnaring them. Scripture said, Before the Eternal,²⁹¹Verse 9 here. to suggest wonderment for there was no one under the heaven like him in strength. Similarly, And the earth was corrupt before G-d,²⁹²Above 6:11. means that everything before Him on the earth was corrupt. This is like the verse, That soul shall be cut off from before Me,²⁹³Leviticus 22:3. since every place is “before Him.”