Commento su Genesi 10:33

AND UNTO THEM WERE SONS BORN AFTER THE FLOOD. The intent thereof is to imply that even though they were fit to have children before the flood — for in those generations it was normal to beget children at about sixty years of age²⁵⁹See above, 5:15, 21. — these did not beget children even at the age of a hundred, only until after the flood, for G-d restrained them from having children in order that they should not perish in the flood or that it [not] be necessary to save many persons in the ark. And so also did G-d do to this entire family: Lamech was delayed in begetting Noah until more than twice the age of his ancestors,²⁶⁰Enoch begot Methuselah at the age of sixty-five (above, 5:21), and Lamech begot Noah at the age of 182 (ibid., Verse 28). Noah begot his sons when he was five hundred years old (ibid., Verse 32). and Noah much more. This is already mentioned in the commentary of Rashi²⁶¹Above, 5:32. who quotes from Bereshith Rabbah.²⁶²26:2.

ואלה תולדת בני נח, who were Shem, Cham, and Yaphet. The ones named after this were their offspring, תולדותם.

ויולדו להם בנים אחר המבול, “children were born for them after the deluge.” Although the fathers and mothers were capable of having children already before the onset of the deluge, G’d had deliberately prevented them from having children in order not to have to destroy their offspring as part of the deluge, and in order not to have to save too many people crowding the ark.

Sie selbst waren vor der Sündflut, ihre Kinder aber bereits unter dem Einflusse der neuen Verhältnisse geboren. Es folgt nun eine Reihe von Verzweigungen dieser neuen Menschenfamilie. Wir leisten Verzicht darauf, nachzuweisen, zu welchen bekannten Völkerstämmen und deren Verzweigungen diese Namen etwa in Beziehung stehen dürften. Wir erwähnen, dass sie immer mehr und mehr in ihrer vollständig historischen Wirklichkeit auch denjenigen Forschern hervortreten, die sonst der תורה nicht zu folgen pflegen, und gestatten uns nur einige mehr allgemeine Bemerkungen.

ויולדו להם, we have already seen when these sons of Noach had entered the ark that they had not yet had any children. Why then was it necessary to write the line “children were born to them?” The only reason the Torah wrote this line is to tell us that neither of Noach’s sons engaged in marital intercourse while in the ark so that no children were born in the ark. Even though we have already commented on this in connection with the report of Noach and his family leaving the ark, (8,19) and the manner in which their leaving the ark had been worded, one could err and conclude that the offspring mentioned here under the heading of ויולדו could apply to Noach’s own children, the Torah explains in greater detail that only Shem, Cham, and Yaphet are the sons of Noach, and only they and their wives entered the ark together with him and his wife; (7,13) and by writing that children were born to them after the deluge this makes this crystal clear.

ותירס AND TIRAS — This is Persia (Yoma 10a).

THE SONS OF JAPHETH: GOMER. Scripture begins with Japheth for he was the oldest. After him, it mentions Ham [even though he was the youngest]²⁶³See Ramban above, 6:10. for Scripture wanted to delay the account of the generations of Shem in order to place side by side the two sections dealing with Shem’s children since it is important to dwell at length on the generations of Abraham.

בני יפת גמר, according to Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon, he was the founder of the nation known as Altrach.

בני יפת, “the children of Yephet.” The Torah lists Yephet’s children first as he was the oldest, followed by Cham, as the Torah wanted to list the descendants of Shem in conjunction with those of Avraham who was descended from him in a straight line and whose story follows.

This refers to Persia. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain Tiras any more than the others? The answer is: Rashi said on 9:27 (ד"ה וישכון) that “Cyrus, Yefes’ descendant, built the Second Temple.” And one might ask: How does Rashi know that Cyrus came from Yefes? Thus Rashi explains here that Tiras is Persia, so Persia is from Yefes. And Cyrus, king of Persia, assumedly descended from Tiras. Furthermore, the Re’m says that Rashi [explains Tiras because he] is answering the question: Why here is it written מדי, not פרס? These two nations are always mentioned together! Thus Rashi explains that Tiras is פרס. But Tzeidah L’Derech says that [it is not as the Re’m said. Rather, Rashi explains Tiras because] it is from Yoma 10a: “How do we know that the Persians come from Yefes? Because it is written, ‘The sons of Yefes were: Gomer... and Tiras.’ And Rav Yosef taught: Tiras is Persia.” [Thus, Rashi brings it to prove that Cyrus came from Yefes.]

Es werden zuerst die Söhne Japhets aufgeführt, und von diesen nur die weiteren Verzweigungen von Gomer und Jawan mitgeteilt. In ihnen haben wir somit die bedeutendsten Träger des japhetischen Typus, und gerade sie sind es, in welchen man den größten Teil der das heutige Europa und das westliche Asien bewohnenden Völker zu erkennen glaubt.

'ובני גומר וגו, “and the descendants of Gomer, etc;” the reason why the Torah does not mention by name the sons of Magog, Modai, Tuval Kayin, etc., is because none of them became founders of nations, so that only a single one of them became a founder of a nation. The same pattern is applied by the Torah when describing the offspring of Put son of Cham.

משך, on the other hand, according to Josephus he was the founder of the nation known as Tushchana, a people professing the Christian faith nowadays, and leaders of that faith. Rome itself is within the boundaries of that nation.

ותירס, according to our sages (Yuma 10) this is Persia.

ובני גמר אשכנז, people say that this refers to the people living in Germany.

וריפה according to Rabbeinu Saadyah gaon these are the Gauls living in France; in Chronicles I 1,6 they are called דיפת.

ובני יון, the Torah mentioned only a few of the families descended from the sons of Yaphet; we do not know why not all of them have been listed.

כתים ודודנים; elsewhere the דדנים are called רודנים. (Compare Chronicles I 1,7) This is to teach us that at times in history when the fortunes of the Jewish people as r ascending, these people treat us a “cousins,” in order to benefit from this biological relationship. When the fortunes of the Jewish people’s fortunes are on the decline, these “cousins,” are the first to join those who persecute us.

ודדנים, spelled with a double letter ד, whereas the same people are spelled as רודנים in Chronicles I 1,7. Seeing that the letters ד and ר look so similar to one another, it is quite possible that both spellings are used interchangeably. Someone may have mistaken the letter ד for the letter ר so that this error has been perpetuated. There can be no question that in a situation such as this, the spelling in the Torah must be considered authoritative, as Moses wrote at the dictation of G’d and with a high degree of prophetic insight. According to Josephus, the people concerned lived (in his time) along the river “Rodeno.”

FROM THERE WERE PARTED THE INHABITANTS OF THE MARITIME SETTLEMENT OF THE NATIONS IN THEIR LANDS. The meaning of this is that the children of Japheth are those who dwell on the isles of the sea, and they are separated, each one of his sons residing singly on another isle, and their countries are far from each other. This was indeed the blessing of their father Noah, who said, May G-d enlarge Japheth,²⁶⁴Above, 9:27. meaning that they be numerous in the expanses of the earth. The sons of Ham, however, are all near one another as they dwell on the continents. Therefore Scripture said, And the boundary of the Canaanite was from Sidon…in their lands and in their nations.²⁶⁵Verses 19-20 here. The same is true of the sons of Shem.
Now Scripture narrates all this in order to inform us of Abraham’s lineage from Shem, and Ham’s descendants are mentioned to inform us of those nations whose lands Abraham was favored with on account of the sin of their fathers. Therefore it tells also of Japheth and of the dispersion²⁶⁶Genesis 11:1-9. in order to inform us of the cause of the difference in languages and the scattering of the nations to the ends of the earth in a short period of time after the first man. Moreover, this narration serves to let us know the kindness of G-d and His keeping the covenant He made with Noah that he would not destroy them.
The Rabbi²⁶⁷Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam or Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. said in Moreh Nebuchim²⁶⁸III, 50. that the genealogy of the nations verifies to those that hear it the principle of the creation of the world.²⁶⁹“It is one of the fundamental principles of the Torah that the universe has been created out of nothing, and that of the human race, one individual being, Adam was created. As the time which elapsed from Adam to Moses was not more than about two thousand five hundred years, people would have doubted the truth of that statement if no other information had been added, seeing that the human race was apread over all parts of the earth in different families and with different languages, very unlike the one to the other. In order to remove this doubt the Law gives the genealogy of the nations [Genesis 5 and 10], and the manner how they branched off from a common root. It names those of them who were well known, and tells who their fathers were, how long and where they lived. It describes also the cause that led to the dispersion of men over all parts of the earth, and to the formation of their different languages, after they had lived for a long time in one place, and spoken one language [ibid., 11], as would be natural for descendants of one person.” (Ibid., Friedlander’s translation III, p. 273.) This also is true, for our father Abraham will command his children and his household after him²⁷⁰Genesis 18:19. and will affirm to them the narration concerning Noah and his sons who saw the flood and were in the ark. Thus he, [Abraham, not having seen the flood but hearing of it], was witness from mouth to mouth in the whole matter of the flood, and he was a fourth witness to creation since Noah saw his father Lamech who saw Adam. Isaac and Jacob saw Shem, the witness of the flood, and Jacob told all this to those that went down to Egypt, as well as to Pharaoh and the people of his generation. The people in every generation similarly know from their fathers who tell them the deeds and progeny of the four to five previous generations.

מאלו נפרדו, after the debacle with the Tower, the descendants of Yaphet chose for themselves the various islands in the Aegean as their habitat, resulting in each tribe being separated from the other.

מאלה נפרדו איי הגויים, “from these the various nationalities developed as separate ‘islands of peoples.’” According to Nachmanides, especially the descendants of Yephet took up residence in the islands of the Mediterranean sea around the Greek mainland, each one consisting of a distinct and separate nation-state. The blessing given to Yephet envisioned that his descendants would be scattered over a large area, whereas the descendants of Cham lived in close proximity to one another. This is hinted at by the words מאלה נפרדו, “they separated from these.” This is also why the text (verse 19) continues with: ויהי גבול הכנעני מצידון באכה גררה עד עזה, “the boundaries of the territory belonging to the various clans of the Canaanite extended from Tzidon in the north as far south as Gerar until Gaza.” Significantly, the text adds (verse 20)למשפחותם, ללשונותם, בארצותם בגויהם, “according to their respective families, their different dialects, in their respective countries according to their differing nationalities.” The reason that the Torah went to such length to inform us of all these details is to establish the genealogy of Avraham to Noach via his son Shem. ([importance of being a Semite. Ed.] Through this detailed description of the descendants of both Cham and Shem, the title to the land of Israel by the descendants of Avraham, who had inherited the status of master over Cham due to Noach’s curse of his grandson Canaan, had been established for all future times. The Torah provides details of the development of the descendants of Yephet and the breaking up of a united mankind into clans of different languages, different orientations, in order to provide a logical explanation for the fact that mankind which at one time had all spoken the same language had gradually grown apart from one another both ideologically and geographically, so that international friction can be seen as an act of G’d’s kindness, the G’d Who but for His desire to keep His covenant with Noach would have destroyed the generation who had built the tower meaning thereby to challenge G’d’s supremacy in His own world. Maimonides, in his Moreh Nevuchim comments on this subject that what the Torah writes in our chapter is proof to the readers that the world did not precede G’d, but that G’d preceded the world. The report of these chapters in the Torah establishes a direct link between Noach and Avraham, as the ages given demonstrate that the survivors of the deluge gave eye witness accounts of these events having indeed taken place. Therefore, Avraham was in a position to command his own descendants to adhere to the laws of G’d. Shem was alive when Avraham was born, and Noach’s grandfather Methuselah had still known Adam personally. Even Yitzchok and Yaakov had still known Shem, a survivor of the ark, personally. Important historical data were handed down by eye-witnesses for an average of 3-4 generations due to the relatively long lifespan these people enjoyed.

נפרדו. Von der eigentlichen Zerstreuung und Sprachenzerfällung wird erst später gesprochen. Gleichwohl sehen wir hier schon ein Auseinandergehen der Völker nach Sprachen und Ländern. Das, was später in Folge eines ganz besonderen Einschreitens der göttlichen, die Menschheit erziehenden Waltung geschah, ist von dem hier Mitgeteilten verschieden. Das hier Mitgeteilte war vielmehr etwas ganz Natürliches, war nichts anderes, als was nach allen den neugestalteten Vorbedingungen geschehen mußte. Durch die Verschiedenheit des Bodens, der Temperatur, des Klimas usw. war ja eine Mannigfaltigkeit der Völker bei ihrer natürlichen Verbreitung über die Erde so gegeben als beabsichtigt. Und dies, und nur dies ist auch hier gesagt. Denn פרד, das hier wiederholt von dieser Sonderung der Völker gebraucht wird, ist sehr von dem פוץ und הפיץ zu unterscheiden, das die spätere Begebenheit charakterisiert und ein gewaltsames Zerstreuen bedeutet. הפרד hingegen heißt auch ein ganz naturgemäßes oder freiwilliges Auseinandergehen. So bei den Strömen, so bei Abraham und Lot. —

איש ללשונו, the people on each of those islands developed a different language or dialect. The word הגויים implies that although all these tribes were offspring of Yaphet, they were in fact as if separate nations. Seeing that the descendants of Noach listed comprise a total of 70, the concept of mankind comprising “seventy nations” not including the Jewish people, was born. [If, nowadays, in the United Nations, for instance, we have far more than 70 nations represented, this in no way contradicts the sages’ reference to “the 70 nations of the world.” Ed.]

אי rad. איה. So wie איה und אי die Frage nach dem unbekannten Orte ist, an welchem sich irgend ein Gegenstand befindet, so ist אי überhaupt der isolierende Raum, in welchem sich eine Menge befindet, daher: Insel und ein abgeschlossenes Land, dann auch die in solcher Weise von andern abgeschlossenen Bewohner. — איש ללשנו, nicht בלשנו. Ihre besondere Mundart war nicht Ursache ihrer Trennung, sondern Folge. Sie gingen in Folge ihrer Vermehrung auseinander in verschiedene Gegenden, und unter dem Einfluss des Bodens usw. modifizierte sich ihre Sprache. Es dürfte ein bedeutender Unterschied zwischen dem שפה der späteren Begebenheit und dem לשון des hier Berichteten sein und שפה: die Sprache, z. B. die deutsche, französische usw. לשון aber die Sprachweise, die Mundart, den Dialekt bezeichnen. (S. Kapitel ,kneten (לוץ von לצון ,זוד von זרון analog. wie) לוש wahrscheinlich von 11, 1.) לשון d.i.a. eine getrennte Masse zu einer einheitlichen Masse bringen und zugleich b. sie gestalten und formen. So die Zunge. Sie formt den Bissen zur Aufnahme in den Magen und sie gestaltet auch den Hauch und den Laut. Durch sie wird die Luftsäule, die in ihren feinen Vibrierungen die unendliche Mannigfaltigkeit der menschlichen Sprachlaute erzeugt, gestaltet und modifiziert. So wie לוש Gestaltung der Stimme zu Lauten und Worten, so ist לוץ der künstliche Gebrauch der Worte לָצוֹן לֵץ ;מליצה מליץ: der Zungenkünstler, die Dialektik. — Es heißt also: Indem die Nachkommen Noas anwuchsen, gingen sie natürlich auseinander, wurden אִיִים, räumlich getrennt, die eine ארץ zerfiel in verschiedene ארצות, das eine גוי ging in verschiedene Völkergruppen auseinander, und da die Persönlichkeit durch die äußeren Verhältnisse beherrscht und umwandelt wird, so wurde die eine Sprache zu verschiedenen Mundarten. Sie gingen also jeder ללשונו auseinander. Während aber so die Verschiedenheit der Dialekte ein Trennungsmittel nach außen war und verschiedene גוים bildete, so war sie ein um so innigeres Bindemittel nach innen, sie war das Verbindungsmittel der משפחות בגויהם. Es gibt keine Einigung ohne Trennung. So כדל, trennen; בתולה ,בתל, die mit noch keinem Verbundene. Sofort springt der Begriff über und heißt in פתיל ,פתל, fest und innig verbunden. Wer es mit allen hält, hält es mit niemandem. — Bemerken wir noch: auch bei Chams und Schems Nachkommen stehen dieselben Trennungs- und Verbindungs momente: אִיִיִ הגוים ;למשפחתם ללשנתם בארצתם בגויהם, die noch größere Parzellierung, steht aber nur bei den japhetischen Stämmen; und müssen diese somit in eine noch größere Mannigfaltigkeit sondernder Eigentümlichkeiten auseinander gegangen sein. Von den בני יון, den Griechen, ist uns dies bekannt. Und sollte — wie sehr wahrscheinlich — der populären Überlieferung, die in אשכנו die germanischen Stämme, Deutschland, findet, eine Wirklichkeit zu Grunde liegen, so hätten wir in אשכנו das zweite eklatante Beispiel nationaler Zersplitterung, eine Dezentralisierung, die aber der japhetischen Sendung den entschiedensten Vorschub geleistet haben dürfte. In kleinen Staaten hat stets die Bildung die größte Pflege gefunden. —

ופוט וכנען, the sons of Put are not mentioned separately, as they all formed a single nation retaining the name of their founding father. Proof of this is found in Ezekiel 38,5 פרס, כוש, ופוט אתם, i.e. even in the days of the pre-messianic wars of Gog and Magog, Put will still have its original name.

ובני חם, Cham is mentioned after Yaphet; if Yaphet was the junior of the three sons, he was mentioned ahead of Cham because of his superior character qualities. If he was older than Cham, he would qualify for earlier mention on that account alone. The Torah left the list of the descendants of Shem last, in order to preserve the continuity of the report which continues with the lives of the patriarchs who are all descendants of Shem.

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.

ובני כוש סבא וחוילה, each one of these sons became a nation in its own right. This was in addition to those of his sons who continued to bear their founding father’s name. (compare Isaiah 43,3)

ובני...ודדן, Rav Saadyah gaon has supplied us with a commentary on all these.

ובני כוש סבא וחוילה “and the sons of Cush, Seva and Chavila.” All of thee people named here became founders of different clans which developed into nations. The sons of Raamah developed into two distinct nations, this is why their father’s name was repeated. On the other hand, Nimrod did not develop into being founder of a nation. We know this because the Torah describes his exploits in a different manner in verse 9. We would have expected the Torah to write: ובני כוש נמרד, following the pattern established since the beginning of the chapter. Put did not found a separate nation. This is why his name does not appear again after verse 6. All the ones whose children are not mentioned by name founded nations.

להיות גבור TO BE A MIGHTY ONE — Mighty in causing the whole world to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He, by the plan he devised for the generation that witnessed the separation of the races (דור הפלגה) to build the Tower of Babel (Genesis Rabbah 23:7).

HE BEGAN TO BE A MIGHTY ONE IN THE EARTH. Rashi wrote, “Mighty in causing the entire world to rebel against the Holy One, blessed by He, by the plan he devised for the generation that witnessed the dispersion of the races.” But if so, he began means that he began after the flood [for it could not mean that he was the first ever to begin to rebel against G-d] since in the days of the generation of Enosh, such rebellion had already begun.²⁸⁰See above, 4:26, Rashi. See also Rambam in the beginning of “Laws of Idolatry,” wherein he describes the process of how mankind was misled into the worship of the idols during the generation of Enosh. It is possible that we should say that rebellion against G-d began in the generation of the dispersion while in the days of Enosh, people were not yet among those that rebel against the light;²⁸¹Job 24:13. rather, they also worshipped other gods.

וכוש ילד את נמרד, among all the others who were called by their father’s name “Kushites,” there was one special individual who rose to become a world renowned hero, warrior, king.

וכוש ילד את נמרד, he was accorded prominence, i.e. separate mention, seeing that Nimrod developed into such a historic personality. הוא החל להיות גבור בארץ, this does not mean that there had not been warriors, brave heroes, before his time. Clearly, amongst the antediluvian giants, נפילים, there had been such men. Besides, the expression החל is never used to describe that some phenomenon occurred for the fist time. The word החל describes an act that was performed for the first time, not the existence of something or someone for the first time. Nimrod displayed his power and bravery either vis a vis one nation, or even vis a vis numerous nations by conquering them and being appointed or appointing himself as their ruler, their king. Until the time of Nimrod no one had possessed the effrontery to lord it wholesale over his fellow man. Nimrod invented the concept of “dictator.” These developments were a by-product of mankind having dispersed over different areas of the globe after the collapse of their attempt to “conquer” heaven.

הוא החל להיות גבור חיל בארץ, “he became the first hero on earth.” According to Rashi the meaning of the verse is that he became the first man who dared oppose G’d after the deluge and to incite man against G’d, although he had been preceded by Enosh doing the same in the antediluvian period. (Seeing that Rashi did not mention Enosh, Nachmanides adds that what is meant by Rashi is that he was the first human being to do so after the deluge.)

In causing the entire world to rebel. [Rashi explains החל as “rebel”] because otherwise, [if it meant “began,”] why should it say החל? Nimrod was not the first to rebel against Hashem. Back in the days of Enosh it already says (4:26), אז הוחל לקרא. Perforce, החל is related to the word חילול. I.e., Nimrod publicly desecrated Hashem’s Name [by rebelling against Him]. (Kitzur Mizrachi) But it seems to me that החל must mean “began”. For if meant “rebel”, why does it say [גבור] twice? It should [combine the verses and] say, הוא החל להיות גבור ציד לפני ה'. But if it means “began,” the verse is understandable as is. Scripture is saying: “He was the first one who began to be powerful in causing rebellion, and he was a mighty hunter before Hashem, intentionally provoking Him.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

Bis jetzt waren die Söhne Stammväter von Völkern; hier folgt ein Sohn, der kein Volk gegründet, mit dem jedoch eine ganz neue Potenz in die Entwicklung der Völker eintrat. Er fing an, ein גבור auf Erden zu sein. Es gab schon vor ihm גבורים, wir erinnern nur an die Nefilim (Kap.6, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 10: 4); allein er fing an להיות גבור בארץ, er fing an im ־i^tum seinen Charakter, seinen Beruf, seine Existenz und seine ganze Lebensstellung zu finden, etwas, was mit ihm ins Völkerleben eintrat und seitdem fortgesetzt wurde. Wir haben schon bei dem עבד עבדים, welches dem chamitischen Geschlecht als künftiges Geschick verkündet worden, bemerkt, wie durch die sittliche Gebundenheit auch die soziale Freiheit zu Grunde geht, und höchst bedeutsam ist es nun, dass schon in Chams Enkel der Schöpfer des גבור Berufes auftritt. גבר setzt stets voraus, dass durch bedeutende, zunächst körperliche Kraft, etwas anderes bewältigt wird. .קבר ,כפר ,גבר ,גור גור ein junger Löwe, der dann כפיר der Anführer wird. כפר: zudecken, קבר: völlig begraben. גבר steht in der Mitte, ist nicht decken und nicht begraben, sondern eine solche Überwältigung mit seiner Kraft, dass die andere Persönlichkeit nicht aufkommen kann. Nun ist auch גבורה eine מתנה von Gott wie die anderen in dem Verse (Jirm. 9, 22) genannten Gaben, הכמה und עושר. Alle diese dem Menschen von Gott verliehenen Gaben schaffen das höchste Heil, wenn sie den ebendaselbst genannten Zwecken zugewendet werden, wenn הכמה der גבורה ,הסד dem משפט und עושר der צדקה dient, wenn חכמה nicht den eigenen Vorteil berechnende Klugheit, sondern aufopfernde Liebe predigende Weisheit, Stärke Vertreter des Rechts, und Reichtum Schöpfer der Wohltat wird. גבור בארץ, Mut und Kraft, ist an sich nichts Böses auf Erden; allein es wird dieses גבור im.

וכוש ילד את נמרוד, “and Cush sired Nimrod.” The reason why Nimrod has not been enumerated together with his other brothers is to draw attention to his accomplishments.

,הוא החל להיות גבור “he began to be outstanding amongst the people who had survived the deluge."

גבור ציד A MIGHTY HUNTER — He ensnared the minds of people by his words, misleading them to rebel against the Omnipresent (Genesis Rabbah 37:2).

HE WAS A MIGHTY HUNTER BEFORE THE ETERNAL. He ensnared the minds of people by his words, misleading them to rebel against the Omnipresent. Therefore it is said regarding any man who brazenly acts wickedly, knowing his Master and yet intentionally rebelling against Him — it is said, “This man is like Nimrod.” Thus the language of Rashi, and so is the opinion of our Rabbis.²⁸²Bereshith Rabbah 37:2.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the matter in the opposite way, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, for he interpreted the verses thus: He began to be a mighty one over the animals in hunting them. Before the Eternal, Ibn Ezra explained, means that he would build altars and offer the animals as whole-offerings before G-d. But Ibn Ezra’s words do not appear to be correct, and lo he justifieth the wicked,²⁸³Proverbs 17:15. for our Rabbis knew by tradition of Nimrod’s wickedness.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Nimrod began to be a ruler by force over people, and he was the first monarch. Until his era there were no wars and no reigning monarchs; it was he who first prevailed over the people of Babylon until they crowned him.²⁸⁴Verse 10 here. After that he went to Assyria,²⁸⁵Verse 11. and he did according to his will, and magnified himself,²⁸⁶Daniel 8:4. and there he built fortified cities with his power and with his might. This is what Scripture intended when it said, And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel…and Accad…and Shinar.²⁸⁴Verse 10 here.

'לפני ה, on the whole globe, (seeing that G’d is omnipresent) Jonah 3,3 also means that there was no other city as populous as Nineveh on earth.

לפני ה, this does not mean that he was on the same wavelength as G’d; on the contrary, such expressions are used when someone equates himself and his illusion of power with that of G’d. Compare Jonah 3,3 עיר גדולה לאלוהים, “a great city, G’d-like.” [they were G’d-like in their arrogance. Ed.]

'הוא היה גבור ציד לפני ה, the word ציד tells us that Nimrod was also a mighty hunter, i.e. that the beasts were in awe of him, too. He both shot and trapped them. People wondered how he managed this. His fame became proverbial. When one encountered an exceptionally powerful individual either then or in the future, one would compare him to Nimrod, saying that he was as great a hero as Nimrod. The meaning of the words לפני ה', is a figure of speech, i.e. if one uses this simile one pays the subject described as such a supreme compliment. Expressions such as עיר גדולה לאלוקים, (Jonah 3,3) or הררי א-ל (Psalms 36,7) and numerous other examples, all use the name of G’d to describe something as outstanding in its category, i.e. as almost divine in nature. Some scholars understand the words לפני ה'' as meaning that Nimrod offered some of the animals he had hunted to G’d as a sacrifice, acknowledging His help. Onkelos is closer to our interpretation when he writes גבר תקיף, an aggressive and powerful man.

הוא היה גבור ציד, “he was a ferocious hunter.” Rashi interprets the words גבור ציד to mean that Nimrod was clever in brainwashing people to rebel against the rule of G’d on earth. Ibn Ezra approaches the verse by stressing the plain meaning, saying that Nimrod began to display prowess as a hunter of wild beasts. He adds that the meaning of the words לפני ה' is that he built altars on which he offered some of the animals he had hunted successfully as offerings to G’d. Nachmanides writes that Ibn Ezra’s approach does not appeal to him as Ibn Ezra justifies the actions of a wicked person by what he writes in his commentary. He adds that when our sages described Nimrod as a wicked individual they had reliable traditions to base themselves on. The correct interpretation of our verse (author’s words) is that he was the first individual to assert his power over his fellow human beings, making them subject to his will. He introduced organized warfare, commencing with his capture of Babylon. He followed this up by subjecting Assyria to his rule. When the Torah describes how he extended his rule to Ashur (verse 11) this is noteworthy, as Ashur was one of the descendants of Shem. He proceeded to build fortified cities there. The meaning of the words לפני ה' is meant to draw our attention to the extent of his achievements, something unparalleled by anyone except G’d. The Torah had described such unparalleled actions in similar terms once before when it wrote (Genesis 6,11) ותשחת הארץ לפני האלוקים.

He intentionally provoked Him. Rashi is answering the question: Wherever Nimrod is, he is “before Hashem.” [So what is the meaning of “before Hashem”?]

näher durch ציד präzisiert, und hierdurch wird die Erscheinung eines גבור= Berufes so verhängnisvoll. Obgleich ציד gewöhnlich von der Tierjagd gebraucht wird, so kommt doch der Begriff צוד sehr häufig von der Menschenjagd vor; so חמד רשע מצוד רעים (Pro12,12.) und sonst. מצורה, die Festung, dient ja ganz nur der Einhegung und Einschließung von Menschen. Verwandt sind die Wurzeln זוד, ist der versteckte Vorsatz zur Tat, nicht die Tat selbst, der Entschluss זוד .צוד ,סוד dazu, der bis zur Ausführung verborgen bleibt. Ist überhaupt nur erst der Vorsatz gefasst, der noch lange an sich gehalten werden, oder der in seinen Motiven nie offenbar werden soll, so wird סור, das Geheimnis, daraus. — סוד, das Geheimnis, ist eigentlich im Menschenkreise nichts Gehöriges. Nur Gottes סור ist gut. Muss beim Menschen etwas בסור gehalten werden, so ist entweder er, oder das zu Verheimlichende, oder seine Umgebung schlecht. Insbesondere das öffentliche Leben, das Walten der Regierenden — und wir stehen ja hier an der Wiege des Königtums — ehrt sich nimmer durch סור. Geheime Politik ist nach jüdischem Begriff schlechte Politik. כבוד מלכים, heißt es G(ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 10: 25, 2), die Ehre der Könige ists הקור דבר, wenn jede ihrer Handlungen so klar und durchsichtig ist, dass jeder sie ergründen könne. Öffentlichkeit ist der Probierstein der Regentenhandlungen. Nur von Gott heißt es כבוד אלקי׳ הסתר דבר, das Unerforschliche seines Waltens ist dem Menschen gegenüber das Siegel seiner Größe. — צור ist nun ein זוד, das בזרון gefasst, בסוד gehalten, im rechten Augenblick mit Gewalt (צ) hervorbricht. Das ist auch מצודה, Burgen, ursprünglich Raub- und Fangnester, isolierte Räume, in welchen sich der Gewaltherr sicher einpferchte und zu gelegener Zeit hervorbrach, um seinen Raub zu vollbringen.

'גבור ציד לפני ה, “a great hunter before the Lord, i.e. throughout the earth. “ We find a similar use of the expression when in the Book of Jonah (Jonah 3,3) the city of Nineveh is described as עיר גדולה לאלוקים, “a great city before G-d,” where the expression means that on the whole globe there was no city comparable in size of population. A different interpretation of the expression: 'לפני ה“as predicted in the name of the Lord.” Compare: Joshua 6,26 where Joshua predicts that anyone who would dare to rebuild the city of Jericho would pay the price in the eyes of G-d by losing his oldest son when commencing that enterprise, and that he would wind up by losing his last son by the time he would affix the gates to the city wall. His prediction came true in the time of the prophet Elijah when a man by the name of Chiel son of Eli, did exactly this, and wound up by losing all his sons in that order. (Kings I 16,34.) The Torah tells us that G-d decreed that a person of the type of Nimrod had to arise in order for Avraham to demonstrate that one could prevail even against such mighty warriors who defied the Lord.

‘לפני ה BEFORE THE LORD — intending purposely to provoke Him to His face

Nimrod fing an, ein גבור ציד zu sein, ein Held der Menschenjagd, ein Gewaltiger, der seine Gewalt mit List vermählte, Menschen für seine Pläne zu fangen. Nichts sollte einen solchen Gegensatz bilden, wie גבורה und סוד. Die Macht im Dienste des Rechts und des Rechten verschmäht Geheimnis und List, bedarf ihrer nicht. Dazu kommt noch, dass ציד selbst den Begriff des Selbstsüchtigen eines Zweckes involvieren muß, denn צידה heißt Mundvorrat. Während לחם das zum sofortigen Gebrauch Errungene bedeutet, ist צידה das klug vorbereitete Nahrungsmittel, das man gleichsam einfängt, um es zur bestimmten Zeit zur Hand zu haben. צוד und ציד ist somit nicht ein Fangen zur Vernichtung (צד נחש ist daher auch am שבת פטור), sondern zum Gebrauche, es ist also die Ausführung eines egoistischen Planes im eigenen Interesse. Hierin liegt die Gefahr der mit ציד gepaarten Gewalt, oder vielmehr der in den Dienst des ציד getretenen Macht, die den גבור ציד schafft. Denn dass גבורים, die ,"Überlegenen" voranstehen und die anderen sich ihnen fügen, ist eine Naturordnung des Heiles. Wie? Wenn der Starke seine Stärke im Interesse des andern betätigt, Beschützer und Vertheidiger des Rechts der Schwächeren ist. Das diametrale Gegenteil hiervon aber ist: גבורת ציד, die Macht des Mächtigen, der seine Macht mißbraucht, Menschen für seine egoistischen Zwecke zu umgarnen und zu fangen. Und eben Nimrod war der erste, der im Gefühle seiner materiellen, vielleicht auch geistigen, seine Zeitgenossen überragenden Überlegenheit, die minder Starken und Einsichtsvollen unterjochte und sie gleichsam gefangen hielt, bis zur Zeit, wo er sie für seine Zwecke gebrauchen wollte. Hier wird somit die schlimme Seite der Gewaltherrschaft gezeigt, die sich fortan in der Geschichte der Völker so unheilvoll bewährte, und zwar wird hier gezeigt, dass sie ihrem Ursprung nach durch Gewalt und List von oben und nicht durch freiwillige Unterordnung von unten eingeführt worden. Dass aber hier überhaupt von Menschenjagd, und nicht, wie man gewöhnlich meint, von einem gewaltigen Tierjäger die Rede ist, beweist das unmittelbar darauf folgende: ותהי ראשית ממלכתו, woraus evident, dass ein גבור ציד eine ממלכה gehabt haben müsse, oder überhaupt dass גבור ציד hier identisch mit מלך ist; נמרד war der erste Dynast. —

על כן יאמר כנמרוד, “this is why people would use Nimrod as an example, saying: ‘just like Nimrod, a mighty hunter by the grace of the Lord.’” According to tradition no ferocious beast ever escaped alive in an encounter with Nimrod. He was aided by G-d in attaining such a reputation so that G-d could demonstrate in due course that such apparently invincible warriors could not prevail against Him.

על כן יאמר WHEREFORE IT IS SAID — Regarding any man who brazenly acts wickedly — knowing his Master and yet of set purpose rebelling against Him — it is said. “This man is like Nimrod a mighty hunter” (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 2 1-2).

Nun folgen noch zwei bedeutungsvolle Worte: ׳לפני ד׳ .גבור ציד לפני ה bezeichnet in תנ"ך nie, dass etwas gegen Gottes Willen geschehen sei, vielmehr drückt es gerade dasjenige aus, was zur Erfüllung des göttlichen Willens geschieht; so wiederholt in der (viertes B. M. 32, 20 ff.) פרשת בני ראובן ובני גד zur Bezeichnung der im5 Dienste Gottes zu entwickelnden kriegsbereiten Tapferkeit, אם תחלצו לפני ד׳ למלחמה usw. Es dürfte daher auch hier das ׳לפני ד nichts anderes, als "im Namen Gottes", in ganz "frommer", Gott wohlgefälliger Weise bedeuten, und hierin das Verderbliche dieser Erscheinung gipfeln. Der Name ׳ד war noch nicht entschwunden, der Name, der, recht begriffen, alle Menschen gleich und frei macht, und Barmherzigkeit und Liebe in dem Verhältnis aller zu allen walten lässt. נמרד fing nun an, "im Namen Gottes" seine Mitmenschen zu unterdrücken, er war der erste, der den Namen Gottes missbrauchte, die Gewalt durch den heiligen Schein des göttlichen Wohlgefallens zu verhüllen, oder vielmehr die Anerkennung der Gewalt im Namen Gottes zu fordern. Ging dies doch dann später im Altertume so weit, dass die Könige nicht bloß im Namen Gottes dastanden und die Nimrode sich mit dem Abglanz der göttlichen Majestät schmückten, sie wurden vielmehr selbst Götter, und gerade in Chams Geschlecht sehen wir vor ihrem eigenen Götterbilde knieende Pharaone. Dadurch ward Nimrod das Prototyp aller sich mit dem Heiligenschein verschlagen krönenden Dynasten, deren Macht, Politik und Heiligenschein man mit dem Worte kennzeichnete: כנמרד גבור ציד לפני ד׳.

ותהי ראשית, first he conquered Babylon, and established himself as king there. Subsequently, he conquered ארך, אכד, and כלנה, all of which are part of the land known as the land of Shinor. After that he went on to conquer many more and more distant lands.

ותהי ראשית ממלכתו בבל, the Torah mentions this to explain that because of Nimrod’s powerful and relatively civilised kingdom all the people moved to the valley of Shinor to be within the orbit of his power and influence. The illusion of great power, augmented by unity of purpose, led to their insurrection against G’d, and to their downfall. Central symbols always exercised a gravitational pull on people’s minds, as we see even among the Jewish people in the efforts by Jerobam to counteract the centrality of the Temple in Jerusalem. (Kings I 12,26)

מלך .ממלכתו. hat weiter keine Verwandtschaft im Hebräischen als mit מלק das mit dem verstärkten p-Laut: gewaltsam den Kopf abdrücken heißt. Vielleicht heißt מלך demnach: an die Stelle des Kopfes für andere treten, Kopf für andere sein, daher auch Chaldäisch נמלך, sich des Kopfes des andern bedienen, sich Rat bei jemandem holen. Dürften wir die Behauptung wagen, dass in den hebräischen Sprachwurzeln jeder Buchstabe ein Merkmal des auszudrückenden Begriffes bezeichnet, eine Annahme, die um so weniger unwahrscheinlich sein dürfte, da die Hälfte der hebräischen Buchstaben in der Tat ganz offenkundig ihre besondere begriffliche Bedeutung hat, so böte dafür das Wort מלך einen eklatanten Beleg. Der Begriff מלך in reinster Auffassung ist erschöpft durch die Merkmale מ .מ ,ל ,ך: derjenige, von dem alles ausgehen soll, ל: zu dem alles zurückkehren und כ: der das Vorbild, das Ideal für alle sein soll. Darin unterscheidet er sich von משל, wo nicht das geistige Vorbild in כ ausgedrückt ist. מלך, der Edelste, Weiseste, Voranleuchtendste, das ist׳s, was den jüdischen König zum Könige machen soll; denn im jüdischen Schrifttum ist das Königtum durchaus nicht aus dem auf Erden zu gründenden Gottesreiche verwiesen. Auch unsere und der Menschheit Zukunft erfüllt sich durch einen מלך המשיח. Dieses persönlich voranleuchtende Sittliche fehlt im Begriffe משל, in welchem mehr das Herrschende, Gebietende ausgedrückt ist, wovon die Bestimmung ausgeht, was etwas sei oder sein soll (ש). Daher ja auch מָשָל, ein Spruch, der ausspricht, was Menschen oder Dinge sind oder sollen — und ebenso ein Symbol, welches beides veranschaulicht.

'ותהי ראשית ממלכתו וגו, “at the beginning his kingdom extended only to Babylonia and Accadia, extending eventually throughout the whole region of Shinor. Eventually he even conquered the region of Ashur. (northeast) Ashur had emigrated as he could not stand Nimrod’s antiG-d attitude.

‘מן הארץ וגו OUT OF THAT LAND WENT FORTH ASSHUR — As soon as Asshur saw that his sons listened to Nimrod, rebelling against the Omnipresent by building the Tower, he went forth out of their midst (Genesis Rabbah 37:4).

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.”

מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור, he emigrated from there because he disagreed with Nimrod politically, i.e. he opposed the building of the Tower (fearing that G’d would punish the people including his children who were associating themselves with rebellious project)

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)

מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור, “from that land Ashur went forth, etc.” He was one of the sons of Shem as we are told in verse 22 that Shem’s sons were Eylam, Ashur, Arpachshad Lud and Aram. Seeing that most of the people alive during the generation of the Tower were descendants of Shem, the Torah mentioned that Ashur had left that land (the valley including Babel). He had not had part in the uprising against G’d that those people were planning in accordance with the statement by our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 37,4. the words מן הארץ ההיא mean that Ashur dissociated himself from these people and their land as he realised they were preparing to rebel against G’d. This also explains Psalms 83,9 גם אשור נלוה עמם, “also Ashur made common cause with them,” Seeing that on this occasion Ashur was on the side of G’d, the psalmist had to contrast this with a future occasion when also Ashur joined the forces of evil planning to wipe out the Jewish people.

אשור finden wir als Nachkommen ׳שם. Nimrod scheint nur innerhalb seines Kreises גבור ציד haben sein können. Es ist dies ja auch zunächst nur da möglich. wo die sittliche Unfreiheit den Menschen fähig macht, עבד עבדים zu werden. Nimrods Streben scheint daher zunächst nur in Chams Geschlecht einen Boden gefunden zu haben, אשור aber ging ihm aus dem Wege, war weggezogen; und während Nimrod in politisch gewaltthätiger Herrschaft seine Größe fand, fand אשור seine Größe in dem Städtebauen und im Anlegen von Straßen zur Stadt (רחובות עיר). Nimrod eroberte, Aschur baute. Doch sind dies alles nur Vermutungen.

אשור, as if the Torah had written: לאשור, “to Ashur.” [According to this interpretation Ashur here was not the name of a person but of the city he had founded. Ed.]

ויבן את נינוה, because he had distanced himself from the plans undertaken by the four countries under the rule of Nimrod in the land of Shinor, G’d rewarded him to let him build the four cities mentioned here. This is an instance of אל פניו ישלם לו, of G’d recompensing someone for a good deed “to his face,” i.e. so that he can realise that this is what G’d has done for him. (Deuteronomy 7,10)

העיר הגדלה THE GREAT CITY — This refers to Nineveh (not to Calah the last mentioned city nor to Resen), as it is said (Jonah 3:3) “Now Nineveh was an exceeding great city” (Yoma 10a).

ויבן את נינוה היא העיר הגדולה, most commentators believe that the words העיר הגדולה refer to the city Nineveh, seeing that this city has been described in similar terms in Jonah 3,3. I believe that actually, these words refer to רסן, seeing that our verse speaks about this city in the first place. The entire story, as we mentioned previously, has as its objective to demonstrate how ownership of even a sizable land or city is subject to rapid change. Even though Ashur established a great empire, this empire was crushed by the Babylonians who replaced them, and who, in turn were replaced in short order by the Persians and the Medes.

This refers to Nineveh. [Rashi explains this] because we do not know if “the great city” refers to Nineveh or to Kalach. [And Rashi knows it is Nineveh] because if Kalach was “the great city,” it should say, ובין כלח העיר הגדולה. Why does it say היא? (Nachalas Yaakov, citing Tosfos Yoma 10a, ד"ה איני)

ואת רסן בין נינוה , “and the great city of Nineveh situated between Ressen and Kolach”. He linked all three cities into one great metropolis. This is the reason why subsequently we find Nineveh referred to as: “the great city.”A different interpretation of the phrase: “and from this land Ashur emigrated.” The word Ashur is the name of a man, as suggested by Rashi, who described Ashur as being disgusted with his own children acclaiming Nimrod as deity, so much so that he decided to move far north east. In a Midrash, the source of which our author does not quote, the question is raised why G-d appointed a special prophet to warn the city of Nineveh of impending destruction if its people did not mend its ways. The answer given is that that this was in recognition of the courageous conduct of its founder Ashur, who had dissociated himself from Nimrod’s pantheistic kingdom. That Midrash cites our verse as the source for G-d’s special consideration for Nineveh’s people. The Midrash interprets the words: מן הארץ ההיא יצא אשור, as if the Torah had written: ‘the plan that prompted Ashur to move far away from the domain of Ni rod, eventually paid dividends by the inhabitants of their capital being given 40 days during which to reform heir lifestyle.” In Psalms 83,9, we are told that eventually also the Kingdom of Ashur turned anti Israel, as when they conquered the territories of the northern kingdom of the ten tribes and exiled its inhabitants in 722 B. C and that is why the Babylonians not long afterwards conquered the Kingdom of Ashur that had been predominant in that region. Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish explains that the error made by the people of Ashur was that they thought the family of Put (verse 7) had become extinct, until we find in the Book of Ezekiel 30,5 that “both Put, Lud, and a mixed multitude of non pure ancestry,” is mentioned by the prophet as among the nations falling victim to conquerors together with the Egyptians whom they had supported. The reason that these details have not been spelled out in the Torah is that if you enumerate all these tribes we would think that there had been more than the 70 nations of which the Torah speaks after the fall of the Tower.

להבים LEHABIM — So called because their faces were fiery as a flame.

AND MITZRAIM BEGOT. Scripture mentions the descendants of Mitzraim but does not specify their habitation as it does concerning the others. With the sons of Japheth it mentioned the isles,²⁹⁴Verse 5 here. with the sons of Cush it mentioned the land of Shinar²⁸⁴Verse 10 here. and Asshur,²⁸⁵Verse 11. and with the sons of Canaan it mentioned the boundaries of their land,²⁹⁵Verse 19. and likewise with the sons of Shem.²⁹⁶Verse 30. This was because Mitzraim (Egypt), the land of his habitation, was known for it was called by his name, and all his children lived around Egypt, and the names of their countries were also like their names. Thus we find for Pathrusim,²⁹⁷Verse 14. [one of the children of Mitzraim], the land of Pathrus, which is part of the land of Egypt, as it says, And I will put a fear in the land of Egypt. And I will make Pathros desolate;²⁹⁸Ezekiel 30:13-14. Into the land of their origin.²⁹⁹Ibid., 29:14. The verse reads: And I turn the captivity of Egypt, and will cause them to return into the land of Pathros, into the land of their origin. This shows that the land of Pathros is near Egypt. Similarly, Lud and all the Arabians³⁰⁰Ibid., 30:5. were also around Egypt, and the names of their countries were like their names. So also the land of the Philistines was called Philistia, and so it is written [in Exodus 15:14], the inhabitants of Philistia.
But Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that these [names — Ludim, and Anamim, etc., in Verses 13-14] — are names of countries, and in each and every country there dwelled one family. This is why the names are all in the plural form, [that is, on account of the persons in the family, hence Ludim and not “Lud”]. And the real proof [that these are names of countries is the expression], ‘misham’ (whence) went forth,²⁹⁷Verse 14. for this word misham alludes to a place. In the opinion of the commentators,³⁰¹Rashi and Ibn Ezra. the meaning of the expression, that went forth, is that they begot them, just as in the expression, And kings shall come out of thy loins.³⁰²Genesis 35:11. Now Rashi wrote: “They [the Philistines] were descended from both of them [the Pathrusim and the Casluhim], for the Pathrusim and Casluhim used to live together in promiscuous intercourse, and the Philistines were their offspring. Thus in Bereshith Rabbah.”³⁰³37:8.
In my opinion, by way of the plain meaning of Scripture, the Casluhim dwelled in a city of that name — which was part of the land of Caphtor where the Caphtorim their brethren were — and they went forth from there, meaning from the Caphtorim who were of the seed of Casluhim. And they went in order to look for a resting-place for themselves,³⁰⁴Numbers 10:33. and they left the land to their brethren and conquered for themselves a land by the name of Philistia, after which they came to be called Philistines. This is why Scripture says, The Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead,³⁰⁵Deuteronomy 2:22. the Caphtorim being of the sons of Casluhim, dwellers of the land of Caphtor.

ומצרים, we do not know why Cham called the name of his son מצרים with the letter י, and the letter ם at the end. We do not find a parallel to this except amongst the sons of יון in verse 4, who was a descendant of Yaphet, where we encounter כתים and דודנים. (plural mode) Perhaps, the spelling of the name מצרים is related to something that happened at the time he was born. Most names in those days were related to some incident of which the father had foreknowledge and wanted to be remembered. According to Bereshit Rabbah 37 all the offspring of מצרים listed are spelled with the ending ים. This ending, which also means yam, sea, is an allusion to the Egyptians being drowned in the sea.

ומצרים ילד, “and Mitzrayim sired, etc.” The Torah, though mentioning Mitzrayim’s offspring, fails to mention where Mitzrayim lived, as it had done with the people mentioned previously. (Nachmanides) The reason is that as opposed to the various hardly known islands over which the descendants of Yephet were scattered, and the shifting lands occupied at different times by the Canaanites, Semites, etc., the boundaries of Egypt not only have remained pretty stationary and are well known, but the land itself bears the name of its founder. There was therefore no need to duplicate this information. Furthermore, all the sons of Mitzrayim took up residence within or adjacent to the land of Egypt. (compare Ezekiel 30,4-5 where the prophet lists the names of the brothers of the original Mitzrayim as being in the proximity of the land of Egypt.) According to Ibn Ezra all the names mentioned in our verses here are names of countries, nations, each nation having evolved out of a small family. This is the reason why all these names end in the plural mode. As proof for his argument he cites the phrase אשר יצאו משם, which he translated as “from where they had emerged, evolved.” In other words, the founders had come from some other location. The word משם clearly alludes to a location. Nachmanides views the כסלוחים as the inhabitants of a city called by that name, a city which was part of the land known as כפתור in which their brothers the כפתורים resided. The כסלוחים had left the land of כפתור, conquering a nation named פלשת, (Palestine). They subsequently changed their name to פלשתים, Philistines. This is what is meant when the Torah spoke about the כפתורים היוצאים מכפתור, “the Cypriots who had originated in Cyprus.” (Deut. 2,23) These people had originally been כסלוחים.

Because of their fiery faces. Wherever the name is a Hebrew word, Rashi explains why that name is used, telling us what it signifies. But if the name is not a Hebrew word, Rashi does not comment.

ואת פתרסים ואת כסלחים אשר יצאו משם פלשתים AND PATHRUSIM AND CASLUHIM OUT OF WHOM CAME PHILISTIM — They (the Philistines) were descended from both of them for the Pathrusim and the Casluhim used to live together in promiscuous intercourse, and the Philistines were their offspring (Genesis Rabbah 37:5).

ואת...אשר יצאו משם פלשתים, it is not clear if the Philistines are the offspring of only the Kassluchim or from both the Patrussim and the Kassluchim who had intermarried among themselves so that the Philistines had genetic input from both these families. It is interesting that the expression שם or משם, i.e. expressions used to describe physical locations, origins, are also used elsewhere in a genetic sense such as in Genesis 49,24 משם רועה אבן ישראל, “from there he became the shepherd of Israel.”

ואת פתרוסים ואת כסלוחים אשר יצאו משם פלשתים, “and the Pathrusim and the Casluhim, whence the Philistines came forth.” The Torah stresses this in order to tell us that the nation of the Philistines have their origin in bastardy The two above-mentioned nations engaged in wife-swapping and the Philistines emerged as a result of this incest (compare Bereshit Rabbah 37,5). You will find that all these descendants of Mitzrayim have names which end with the letters ים, “sea,” an allusion to their eventual demise in the sea (Pessikta Zutrata). The first of these nations was called לודים, since they were both born in the sea and drowned in the sea.

And the Plishtim descended from them. For if the Plishtim descended from the Kasluchim alone, it should say: “And the Kasluchim produced the Plishtim,” and omit, “From whom came.” Furthermore, Scripture cannot be identifying which Kasluchim it speaks of — i.e., they are the ones from which the Plishtim came — as no other mention of Kasluchim appears in Scripture. (Nachalas Yaakov)

כפתרים, according to Rav Saadyah gaon, a tribe that used to live in the neighbourhood of Port Said in Eastern Egypt. The reason they are mentioned here separately is that although the Philistines, basically, are descended from the offspring of מצרים, the land of Egypt did not belong to them, so that the Israelites were entitled to take over the parts of the land of Canaan then inhabited by the Philistines.

AND CANAAN BEGOT ZIDON HIS FIRST-BORN. These were the ten³⁰⁶“Ten.” There are eleven children of Canaan mentioned here. Ramban will explain later in the text that one did not develop into a separate nation. nations, sons of Canaan, whose lands were given to our father Abraham since all seed of Canaan were sold into servitude forever. These were the ones that were given to Abraham. Their names, however, changed for the most part in the days of Abraham; here they were inscribed according to the names their father called them on the days of their birth, but after they parted according to their lands and their nations, they were called by other names.³⁰⁷Compare Verses 15-18 here with Verses 19-21 in Chapter 15. Perhaps they were called by the names of the land in which they settled, as we have explained.³⁰⁸Above, at the end of Verse 13 concerning the origin of the name Philistines. Likewise, Se’ir the Horite³⁰⁹Genesis 36:20. was so called because the name of the city was Se’ira. And there are many similar names. It may be that the Arkite and the Sinite³¹⁰Verse 17 here. did beget families but were cut off from them, and their children were, for example, the Kenite, and the Kenizzite.³¹¹Further, 15:19. These became the heads of families, the entire nation being called by their name as was customary among the tribes of Israel. Now in His gift [of the land of Abraham, G-d] called the ten nations by the names by which they were known in the time of Abraham.³¹²Ibid., Verses 19-21.
Proof of this, [namely, that some of the names of the sons of Canaan changed in the time of Abraham], is that the Hivite mentioned here³¹⁰Verse 17 here. is not mentioned in the gift to Abraham,³¹²Ibid., Verses 19-21. and yet he was among them, as it is said, And He shall cast out many nations before thee, the Hittite, and the Girgashite, and the Amorite, and the Canaanite, and the Perizzite, and the Hivite, and the Jebusite, seven nations.³¹³Deuteronomy 7:1. So also in every place [Scripture counts the Hivite among the nations that inhabited the land of Canaan]. Now the Canaanite is counted in the gift to Abraham among his [Canaan’s] children,³¹⁴As the verse states: And the Amorite and the Canaanite… . Further, 15:21. but only ten are counted [there³¹²Ibid., Verses 19-21. — while eleven children of Canaan are mentioned here] —³¹⁵Verses 15-18 here. because one of his sons did not prevail like his other brothers, and so he was called together with his brother [the Hivite] by the name of his father, [thus bringing to a total of ten the number of nations whose lands were given to Abraham]. It is possible also that it was Zidon, Canaan’s first-born who was called the Canaanite together with his brother, [the eleventh son of Canaan], who did not become a nation, [thus making ten the total number of lands given to Abraham].
Do not find it difficult that the land of the Philistines was also given to Abraham — as it is written, Sojourn in this land … for unto thee, and unto thy seed, I will give all these lands³¹⁶Genesis 26:3. — and yet the Philistines were of the sons of Mitzraim [and not of Canaan]! Scripture said, Counted to the Canaanites were the five lords of the Philistines,³¹⁷Joshua 13:3. Hence their lands were also given to Abraham even though the Philistines themselves were not of the seed of Canaan. because the Philistines conquered part of the land of the Canaanites and settled thereon. And here in Scripture you will see [that the Philistines captured part of the Canaanite land], for the boundary of the Canaanite was from Sidon, as thou comest to Gerar, unto Gaza³¹⁸Verse 19 here. yet we find that these were Philistine cities, since Abimelech, king of the Philistines, was king of Gerar,³¹⁹Genesis 20:2. and Gaza belonged to the Gazites. Similarly, For Gaza one.³²⁰I Samuel 6:17. This is counted among the guilt-offerings the five Philistine cities sent along with the Ark of G-d which they were returning. Sidon also belonged to the Philistines, for it is written, All the Zidonians will I drive out from before the children of Israel; only allot thou it unto Israel for an inheritance;³²¹Joshua 13:6. and again, And also what are ye to Me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the regions of Philistia?³²²Joel 4:4. Perhaps the rest of the land of the Philistines, excluding that of these five of their lords,³²³Joshua 13:3. was not given to Israel.
Know that the land of Canaan with its boundaries, since it became a nation,³²⁴Exodus 9:24. was qualified for Israel, and this was the lot of their inheritance, as it is said, When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when He separated the children of men, He set the borders of the peoples according to the number of the children of Israel.³²⁵Deuteronomy 32:8. But at the time of the dispersion of the nations, the Holy One, blessed be He, gave it to Canaan, on account of his being a servant, to keep it for Israel. This is just as a man who deposits for safe-keeping the belongings of the master’s son with his servant until such time as the son will grow up and acquire the belongings as well as the servant. I will explain this yet³²⁶Ibid., 2:23. with the help of G-d, exalted be He.

וכנען ילד, Put (Cham’s third son) is not mentioned as having had any offspring. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 37,2 say that the offspring of Put was “swallowed,” (remained unidentified) until the time of the prophet Ezekiel who made mention of it in Ezekiel 30,5 where we read כוש ופוט ולוד (compare also Ezekiel 27,10) Rabbi Yoseph Kara asked Rabbi Shemuel, seeing that the family of Put was not “swallowed” (i.e. that he was not sterile) why did the Torah not mention the fact that Put did beget offspring? The answer given to Rabbi Kara was that the Torah here wanted to list 70 “sons,” i.e. descendants of Noach. We learn from the number 70 that the nations that resulted from the confusion of the languages mentioned in the next paragraph (10,32) amounted to 70. Put, including all his sons are only considered as one of these 70 nations. If the Torah had written: “Put begat so and so,” how could the Torah have written afterwards in 10,32 ומאלה נפרדו הגוים בארץ וגו', “and from these the nations on earth emerged separately, etc.?” The impression that would have been created then would have been that all these nations are offspring of the sons of Noach and not of Noach himself, as the total then would have amounted to 71 and we would have had to deduct Noach in order to arrive at the correct count. In other words, Put’s offspring’s names not being listed means that it was lumped together with the father as founder of one of the nations.

וכנען ילד, I have found one commentator who writes that Canaan had 11 sons so that his nation, including the founding father Canaan, comprised 12 tribes This is supposedly what is meant in Deuteronomy 32,8 יצב גבולות עמים למספר בני ישראל, “He sets the borders of the people in a manner corresponding to the number (of tribes) of the Children of Israel.” וכנען, Put’s offspring is not mentioned as there is no need to report on this.

וכנען ילד את צידון בכורו, “and Canaan sired Tzidon his firstborn.” These (following) ten nations (Canaanites) are all the ones that G’d promised Avraham that his descendants would inherit or dispossess. (Genesis 15,19-21) This is all based on the fact that all of Canaan’s descendants had been condemned to be slaves, forever. However, some of them had changed their names by the time Avraham appeared on the scene of history. At this point the Torah called them by the names given to them by their father at the time they were born. Once they had grown up, moved away from home and founded nations their names changed. Perhaps they adopted the name of the country in which they dwelled, just as the Egyptians called themselves Mitzrim, a derivative of the name Mitzrayim, the land they lived in. It is also possible that those sons that did not become founders of separate nations retained the names given to them at birth, whereas the others changed their names, or their descendants changed their names. Tzidon would be a case in point. He is called a Canaanite as he did not develop into a separate nation and adopted the name of his country. When the Torah had clearly described the land of the Philistines as being part of the land of Israel, although the Philistines had descended from Mitzrayim and not from Canaan, this is no counter argument. At the time when G’d described the land of the Philistines as part of the land He would give to his descendants, (Genesis 26,3 where G’d referred in his prophecy to Yitzchok that He had already sworn that land to his father‘s descendants) the Canaanites had already conquered that part of the land from their original owners. It is quite possible that the Israelites did not inherit more than the 5 principalities that had been inhabited by the 5 Philistine cities mentioned in Joshua It is important to realize that the land of Canaan, ever since the people on it became a nation, had been slated to become Israel’s. This is the חבל נחלתם of which Moses had spoken already in Deuteronomy At the time when G’d scattered the people of the earth, at the time when the tower was destroyed, He allocated that strip of land to the Canaanites on a “temporary” lease. The Canaanites’ function during the hundreds of years before the Israelites conquered that land had been to serve as caretakers on behalf of the Israelites, a task not uncommon for slaves to perform for absentee owners. The Israelites during that period need to be viewed as not yet having come of age to take over their inheritance. [although the author does not mention it, this commentary has been almost literally copied from Nachmanides. Ed.]

וכנען ילד את צידון, “Canaan sired Tzidon;” Canaan sired a total of 11 sons. After having listed all their names, the Torah continues with describing how they dispersed over different regions, and that one of them split into two nations, thus making a total of 12 Canaanite tribes. This is comparable in Jewish history to the tribe of Joseph being made up of Menashe and Ephrayim, who on most occasions appear independently whenever the tribe of Levi is not included in the count of the Jewish tribes. Moses refers only to seven Canaanite tribes; the six which were historically significant he names separately, attributing their genealogy to their founding father Canaan. The reason why they deserved this honorable mention is that when the brotherstook their father Yaakov to be buried in the cave of Machpelah, these Canaanite kings all paid honour to Yaakov the descendant of Avraham. (Genesis 50,11)

את צדון בכורו, I have not been able to find a good reason for the Torah describing צדון as a firstborn, seeing that no other firstborn son of these people is described as such. Normally, the first named son is presumed to be the firstborn, so that there is no need for adding that attribute, unless we are to assume that the Torah, in naming someone as the first in a list of sons, does so because he possessed superior qualities to those of his brothers. One such example would be the mention of Shem ahead of his brothers, although he was not the oldest (5,32), according to those commentators who believe that Yaphet was Noach’s oldest son. It is possible that Tzidon did possess superior qualities when compared to his brothers, so that by describing him as the firstborn the Torah wanted to draw attention to both of these distinctions. We find something parallel in Genesis 25,13 where Nevayot is described as the firstborn son of Ishmael. We have reason to believe that he possessed outstanding qualities because his sister Machalat is not described only as the daughter of her father Ishmael, and her grandfather Avraham, but also as the sister of Nevayot, her brother. (Genesis 28,9)

ואת היבוסי, all of these [after Tzidon and Chet, Ed.] have the letter י at the end, signifying who they belong to. The families emanating from them carried the name of their respective forbear. This is also why they have the letter ה at the beginning of their names, signifying that they were a known entity. i.e. the letter ה as definitive article. The הפריזי is not mentioned here seeing that the definitive article is not applied to an individual person. Perhaps he was one of the sons of Canaan about whom G’d had not spoken to Avraham, seeing He spoke to him only about ten of these sons (Genesis 15,19-21) Tzidon may be excluded here as not being included in the list of Canaanite tribes even though the territory of Tzidon was adjacent to the other Canaanite territories, just north of them. We have this on the authority of Yaakov who said (Genesis 49,13) that the territory of Zevulun would border on Tzidon. We also have the borders of the Canaanite tribes described as extending southwards from Tzidon in verse 19 of our chapter. The fact is that G’d gave to Avraham, i.e. his descendants, the land of the Canaanites i.e. all their territory, everything within its original borders. [Tzidon never became part of the land of Israel.] On different occasions in the Torah when the subject came up, only some of the names of the tribes are listed, sometimes 7, sometimes 6, and in chapter 15 ten such names are mentioned. It is possible that one or another of these sons of Canaan was known by more than one name. Still, they all had the family name “Canaanite” in common tracing themselves to their ancestor by that name.

ואחר נפוצו AND AFTERWARDS WERE SPREAD ABROAD — From these many families were spread abroad (besides those already mentioned. 5:15—18).

ואחר נפוצו, after the languages were confused.

Many families. ואחר נפצו cannot refer to the above-mentioned descendants of Canaan, [saying that they spread across the earth,] for then it should say just ואחר נפצו and omit משפחות הכנעני. For it clearly would refer back to those above. Perforce, it says משפחות הכנעני to tell us that “from these, many other families branched out.” This is similar to Noach’s three sons [from whom many families branched out]. (Re’m)

ואחר נפוצו. Soweit verzweigten sie sich naturgemäß, nachher gingen sie, durch äußere Umstände veranlaßt, weiter auseinander.

משפחות הכנעני, the ones who had been mentioned previously, i.e. the Canaanites, were scattered to a different region, to the land called afterwards ”the land of Canaan.”

גבול הכנעני THE BOUNDARY OF THE CANAANITE means the end of his land: wherever גבול occurs it signifies end and extremity.

ויהי, now the Torah mentions the territorial boundaries extending from Tzidon to Sodom, but fails to list all the boundaries, seeing that these will be mentioned independently on future occasions. The story here has as its function to inform us that it had been G’d’s will that the Canaanites settle permanently in one region until the time came for their destruction in the days of Moses and Joshua, seeing that G’d had chosen the Israelites to dwell in that land. In fact, settlement of the Canaanite tribes in the land later to become the land of Israel was for the sake of the Israelites. When the Israelites would take over that country which had been developed agriculturally, and in which their remained most of the infra structure of a wealthy nation, it saved them the trouble of developing virgin land, [as did the Europeans who settled in America. Ed.] The Torah points that out specifically in Deuteronomy 6,11 writing that G’d is bringing the Jewish people to a land with beautiful cities which they did not have to build, houses full of every good thing that the Jews did not have to accumulate, water cisterns full with supplies of drinking water, etc. It is clear from the verse in Deut. 32,8 to which we referred already, that the sections of territory occupied by the Canaanites had been designed from the outset as the territory that would, when the time was ripe, be allocated to the 12 tribes of the Jewish people. The Canaanites preceded the Israelites, seeing that they had been cursed to be slaves to the descendants of Shem, i.e. Israel. A slave prepares things so that his master can subsequently enjoy them.

'ויהי גבול הכנעני וגו, “and the boundaries of the territory ruled over by the Canaanite were, etc.” The details by the Torah provided here are exceptional, and are listed only because in the future the Israelites would inherit the lands owned by the Canaanites.

באכה AS THOU COMEST - This word is a noun. I think it is a colloquial expression like that used by a person who says to another: This boundary stretches until you come to such and such a boundary.

ללשנתם בארצתם AFTER THEIR TONGUES, IN THEIR LANDS — Although these were of different tongues and lands they are nevertheless all sons of Ham.

אלה, this has been explained already on 10,1.

אבי כל בני עבר THE FATHER OF ALL THE CHILDREN OF EBER — (עבר means the “side” or “ other side” of a river) — The father of all the children of עבר הנהר, the other side of the River (Euphrates), was Shem.

AND UNTO SHEM, TO HIM ALSO WERE CHILDREN BORN. Since Scripture delayed the narration of the generations of Shem and related the generations of his younger brother as if Shem had no children, it therefore says here, to him also.

ולשם יולד, the formulation suggests that the son born to Shem resembled his father in his good qualities, the son in question being עבר.

ולשם, the reason that the descendants of Shem are listed last in this chapter is that the story will continue with the lives of the patriarchs, all of whom are descended from Shem. The Torah is trying to preserve continuity. As to the unusual phrase

ולשם יולד גם הוא, ”also for Shem offspring had been born.” The Torah chose this unusual syntax so that we would not think that seeing Shem’s offspring had not been mentioned up until now that he had been childless during the time Canaan had produced all these nations.

Of the river. The simple reading of the verse is that Eiver is the name of a man [who was a greatgrandson of Sheim]. But if so, why does it say that Sheim was “father of the children of Eiver”? Was Sheim the forefather only of Eiver’s descendants? Sheim had other sons as well! Thus Rashi explains that Eiver is not a name of a person, but it means עבר הנהר, the other side of the river. This is preferable to the Re’m’s explanation, that it cannot refer to Eiver the great-grandson of Sheim because then what would it come to teach us? Everyone is the forefather of the families he produced! Perforce, עבר means the other side of the river.

לשם ילד גם הוא. Auch dem Schem, auf welchem nach dem Propheten spruche des Vaters das letzte Ziel der Menschheit ruhte, wurden Nachkommen geboren. Er wird hier in doppelter Beziehung hervorgehoben. Erstens als Vater aller Kinder יעבר Obgleich עבר Schems Urenkel war, und dessen Kinder ja gerade zuerst den Ausspruch Noas וישכון באהלי שם zu berwirklichen begannen, so war doch Schem zugleich deren geistiger Vater. Selbst יעקב lernte ja noch von Schem. Dass im Hause Therachs ein Abraham geboren werden konnte und dessen Söhne das weiter tragen konnten, was Gott dem Abraham als Kleinod für die Menschheit überantwortet, das haben wir Schem zu verdanken. Es weiß es oft keiner, was er dem זכות seiner Väter und Großväter zu verdanken hat, deren Standpunkt er vielleicht verhöhnt und belächelt, und fragt sich nicht, wie viel solch geistiges und sittliches זכות er seinen Kindern und Enkeln denn vererben werde. Zweitens war er zugleich יפת .אחי יפת הגדול war sein älterer Bruder und ging ihm der Bestimmung nach als Herold voran, der Menschen Herz für die einstige Aufnahme der Lehren Schems empfänglich zu machen. Ganz natürlich, dass auf lange hinaus Schem nicht als der גדול auf Erden anerkannt werden konnte. Für japhetische Kunst und Wissenschaft sind die Menschen leicht empfänglich. Das stille Licht, als dessen Träger Schem zu wandeln, die Wahrheit, die er zu bringen haben sollte, der Begriff, den man nur leugnen kann oder erfüllen muss — einen Mittelweg giebt es nicht — der muß auf lange Zeit hinaus auf Anerkennung im großen verzichten.

'ולשם יולד וגו, “and for Shem were born, etc.” In these verses (221) the three sons are listed in the order of their ages. As to the reference to Yephet as the הגדול, “the big one,” this adjective was used here to ensure that we realise that he was the oldest. If his other brothers were sometimes mentioned ahead of Yephet, this was only in order to underline an important act performed by the one concerned.

אחי יפת הגדול [SHEM …] THE BROTHER OF JAPHETH, THE ELDER — (The Hebrew is ambiguous: “the elder” may refer either to Shem or to Japheth). One cannot from here determine whether Japheth was the elder or Shem. Since, however, it states (10:10) “Shem was a hundred years old … two years after the flood” you must admit that Japheth was the elder. Because Noah was 500 years old when he first had children (5:32), and the Flood happened in the six hundredth year of his life (7:11), consequently the eldest of his sons was then one hundred years old, whereas Shem reached his hundredth year only two years after the Flood (and therefore Japheth was the elder of the two) (Genesis Rabbah 37:7).

גם הוא אבי כל בני עבר, although, as we know from the description of Avraham as an עברי, a Hebrew, (a descendant of Ever) i.e. as someone believing in G’d the Creator being the sole G’d, and it might appear that Ever initiated this adherence to monotheism in his time, Shem, the father too, was a founder of preaching monotheism in his time. Anyone teaching and instructing others, especially in a way of life and philosophy, is called אבי, “father of.” We have come across this term as possessing such meaning already in Genesis 4,21 when Yuval was introduced as the inventor and teacher of how to play musical instruments featuring strings. Just as the teachers, mentors are called “fathers,” so the disciples are called “sons,” בנים, as in Samuel I 10,12 בני הנביאים, “the disciples of the prophets.”

גם הוא, the Torah adds these words as if to say that we should not think that seeing that up to now we heard about Shem always first, that the fact that we had not heard about him in this chapter means that he had not been blessed with offspring. Not only did he have sons, but he became the founding father of all the tribes descended from עבר, who in turn became the ancestor of the patriarchs. In fact, his descendants were even more important than those of his older brother Yaphet, described as הגדול, the great one. The attribute הגדול, when used in conjunction with Yaphet may be understood as Shem sharing his brother Yaphet’s distinction of doing good deeds. The Torah invites you to note that Shem has not been compared to Cham, neither in seniority nor in quality of lifestyle. The word הגדול may equally well be understood as “the great one,” i.e. in deeds.

אבי כל בני עבר, “the founding father of all the “Ivrim.” He was the founder of all the clans settling west of the river Euphrates, the region from which Avraham stemmed.

Consequently, his oldest child was 100 years old. [The Re’m, who holds that Cham was the oldest son of Noach (see entry on 9:24, citing Re’m) writes as follows:] You might ask: How does this prove [that Yefes was older than Sheim]? Perhaps Cham was 100 years old when the Flood came, Sheim was 100 at two years after the Flood, and Yefes was 100 at three or four years after the Flood. The answer is: In the early generations, sons were born at intervals of one year, as it says in Sanhedrin 69b. Once Scripture tells us that Sheim was born when Noach was 502, which is [deduced from the fact that Sheim turned 100] “two years after the Flood,” we may infer that Sheim was the last [to be born. This is because “Noach was 500 years old when he had his first child.” [We may therefore deduce that] Yefes was born when Noach was 501, and Cham was born when Noach was 500.

THE FATHER OF ALL THE CHILDREN OF ‘EBER.’ This means that he was the father of all who dwelled beyond (eber) the Euphrates River, which was the place of Abraham’s family. But it is not possible that Eber in this context be the name of the person who was the father of Peleg³²⁷Verse 25 here. So too the opinion of Ibn Ezra and R’dak. for why would Scripture connect the children of Eber with Shem [moreso than with any of his other offspring]?

אחי יפת THE BROTHER OF JAPHETH — It does not state “brother of Ham”, because those two honoured their father whereas Ham put him to shame.

יולד, a somewhat strange word when we would have expected יולדו in the plural mode, seeing that a number of sons were born to him. The singular is used to cover the subject of progeny being born. It has been use in a similar manner in verse 25, when speaking of Ever’s progeny.

אחי יפת הגדול “the brother of the senior Yephet.” It is the custom of the Torah to relate the younger brother always by comparing him to the oldest, not to the one who had been born immediately after to him. This is why we have the prophetess Miriam described as Aaron’s sister and not as Moses’ sister (Exodus 15,20) The reason why this comparison is mentioned altogether, is to inform us that his distinguished brother was equal to him, and that Shem’s being mentioned last does not suggest that he was less distinguished or worthy of mention. Cham was certainly not more distinguished than Shem. [this too is the commentary by Nachmanides. Ed] Personally, I believe that the word הגדול in our verse is an adjective that applies to Shem, [he was the “great one”] i.e. he was senior to Yephet, Cham being the youngest, although he was listed in an order that suggests otherwise. It is the custom of the Torah to apply the adjective to the party or object that serves as the immediately preceding subject.

THE BROTHER OF JAPHETH THE ELDER. It is the way of Scripture to record a younger brother beside the oldest of his brothers, and not beside a younger one than himself.³²⁸See above, 6:10, that Ramban’s opinion is that Noah’s children were born in this order: Japheth, Shem, and Ham. Ramban thus says here that it is customary for Scripture to record a second son (Shem) beside the oldest (Japheth) even though Shem had a younger brother, Ham. Thus Scripture writes, the brother of Japheth the elder, rather than “the elder brother of Ham.” And similarly, we find the verse, Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron.³²⁹Exodus 15:20. Even though Moses was younger than Miriam, Scripture records the younger Miriam beside the elder Aaron, rather than say, “the older sister of Moses.” The reason for mentioning this altogether is to state that he [Shem] is the brother of the honorable Japheth, comparable to him in distinction. Scripture thus declares that the reason it delayed telling of his genealogy is not because Ham was more distinguished than he.
It appears to me that “the elder” is descriptive of Shem,³³⁰Ramban, in this final paragraph, sets forth his principle that Shem was really the oldest of the three brothers. The order of their birth was thus: Shem, Japheth and Ham. This is completely unlike the theory of Rashi (5:32; 9:24) who holds that they were born in this order: Japheth, Ham and Shem. R’dak here conforms with Ramban’s theory, as is clear from R’dak’s following words: “The word hagadol (the elder) is descriptive either of Japheth or of Shem. If so, the elder refers to age in years for in my opinion Shem was the oldest of the brothers while, in the opinion of most commentators, Japheth was the oldest. It is also possible to explain the elder as referring to distinction, and it may also be descriptive of either of them.” meaning that he was the older brother of Japheth, as Ham was the youngest of all, even though Scripture mentioned Japheth first. So, likewise, in all places in Scripture, the descriptive noun refers to the subject spoken of, such as: Isaiah the son of Amoz the prophet,³³¹II Kings 20:1. [the term “the prophet” refers to Isaiah, who is the subject of the narration]; Unto Hobab, the son of Reuel the Midianite, Moses’ father-in-law,³³²Numbers 10:29. [here, “Moses’ father-in-law” refers back to Hobab]. But Rashi wrote: “The brother of Japheth. It does not state “the brother of Ham” because these two [Shem and Japheth] honored their father whereas Ham put him to shame.” This interpretation also declares that the sense of the verse is that Shem is the brother of the righteous brother, and not the brother of the wicked brother even though he is counted after him.

ובני ארם, the detailed list begins with Aram, the youngest of Shem’s sons, seeing that the previous verse had concluded with the mention of Aram. Perhaps Terach had married one of the daughters or granddaughters of Aram. This may have been the reason why Nachor called his own firstborn Utz, as well as his grandson Aram, to perpetuate the names of his ancestry.

נפלגה [THE EARTH] WAS DIVIDED — The languages became confounded and they (the peoples) were scattered abroad from the plain of Shinar, and were dispersed throughout the whole world. We may learn from this that Eber was a prophet, for he gave his son the name פלג, “division” after an event which was to happen in the future (Genesis Rabbah 37:7). For we learn in Seder Olam that it was during the last of his days that they were dispersed abroad. For if you argue that this happened early in his life (and that therefore he was not anticipating the future in so naming his son, but that the name referred to an event that had already happened), behold, his brother Joktan was younger than he and he had begotten many families previous to the dispersion, as it is said (10:26) “And Joktan begot etc.” and only afterwards is it stated “And the whole earth was etc.” (with reference to the dispersion). If, on the other hand, you argue that the dispersal happened in the middle period of his life, then I reply that the verse surely does not intend to refer to the time when the dispersion took place in an indefinite manner, but to state quite definitely when it was. Hence you may learn that it was in the year of Peleg’s death that they were dispersed.

For in his days the earth was dispersed. Eiver named his son in anticipation of the dispersion (palaga) so that later generations would realize why their life expectancy was drastically reduced from Peleg’s time onward. It was in fact a consequence of the dispersion, since rapid changes of climate have a deleterious affect on human health.

ולעבר יולד שני בנים, here too the Torah wrote the singular mode yulad, was born, instead of “were born,” as it referred to the general subject of providing progeny, just as in verse 21. We find a parallel construction with Joseph, in Genesis 41,50 וליוסף יולד שני בנים. This does not mean that the people mentioned did not have more than the two sons mentioned, seeing that the Torah specifically mentions (11,15) ויולד בנים ובנות, “he fathered sons and daughters.” The names of the two sons whose births were mentioned here must be understood as being linked to some important experience in the life of their father, who commemorated the event by the way he named these sons.

Towards the end of Eiver’s life they became dispersed. If so, how did Eiver know [to name his son Peleg]? Perforce, he was a prophet.

פלג. “Peleg.” Rabbi Joseph Kara explains the reason why this son of Ever was called peleg, “division, segment,” was because in his time when the Tower was built and destroyed, the language of mankind, which as the Torah had reported (Genesis 11,1) was uniform and the basis of their unity, was interfered with by G–d, so that eventually there were 70 nations each with a language all their own. At the same time generation after generation man’s lifespan also became drastically shortened. At the time when Peleg was born it had shrunk to about 300 years.

פלג, כי בימיו נפלגה הארץ, “Peleg,” so called as during his lifetime the population of the earth was split up. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Gamliel, B’reshit Rabbah 37,7, states that former generations who had been endowed with holy spirit were able to name their children in a manner that reflected important acts that they would perform in the future, whereas we who have not been enabled to “make use of holy spirit” and who did not know i.e. we did not witness the deeds which made our forefathers famous, (as the lifespan had been so drastically curtailed) must name our children after our ancestors in order to keep alive at least some knowledge of their importance during their lifetime. [This is how this editor understands the commentary by maharzu on this passage of the Midrash. Ed.]

יקטן JOKTAN — He was so called (“the little one”) because he was so humble and thought little (ומקטין) of himself; therefore he merited the privilege of rearing all these families (Genesis Rabbah 37:7).

שם האחד פלג, the Torah immediately supplies the reason for this strange-sounding name, i.e. hardly a good omen, by writing that the split in the unity of mankind when the languages were confused occurred during his lifetime.

Early in his life. And thus Eiver was not a prophet. Perhaps, the dispersion happened early on, and he named [his son Peleg] after a past event. [This is not so,] because “Yokton... had propagated many families before this.”

נפלגה הארץ, literally: “the earth was divided;” a reference to people’s lifespans having been halved. Careful analysis of the text will show that up until the birth of Peleg, people appear to have lived for 400 years, whereas starting with him they did not live to be much more than 200 year old.

ושם אחיו יקטן. In this instance the Torah does not reveal the reason why Ever called his second son Yokton. Our sages surmise that the reason may have been that starting with Yokton, the average lifespan of people became drastically reduced. (Torah Shleymah 59 on our verse) Whereas Ever himself still lived for 464 years, his son Peleg died at 239 years. Not only did he live only a little more than half the number of years his father had enjoyed on earth, but he died while his father was still alive. The names of Ever’s sons are reminders therefore of both the splitting up of a unified mankind into different languages, followed by differing cultures, and into the shorter lifespan which became the order of the day. Apparently, Ever had been aware of this already at the time his sons were born. Clearly, Yokton, even as a baby had been so much smaller than babies had been before his time, that his father had had a premonition that he would not be able to live that long. We had mentioned earlier that the generations that had lived such long lives had also been blessed with much bigger bodies than was the case during subsequent generations. (compare 5,4 and 6,4) According to the view expressed in Seder Olam, and quoted by Rashi, Ever had been a great prophet, equipped with holy spirit, so that he must have predicted all this long before Yokton had been born, seeing that according to the sequence in which matters are reported in our chapter the Tower was built several generations after Yokton had been born already.

And if you will claim that [the dispersion took place] in his mid-life. Meaning: Peleg had a different name before the dispersion, and when it occurred, Eiver renamed him. [To this Rashi counters:] “Scripture does not come to obfuscate, but to clarify. Hence, you may conclude that in the year of Peleg’s death they were dispersed.” This eliminates the possibility that Peleg had another name beforehand, and Eiver renamed him after the dispersion occurred. For it occurred at the end of Peleg’s life, and a deceased person is not renamed on account of an event that took place at the time of or shortly before his death. Surely, Eiver named him Peleg early in Eiver’s life, on account of a future event.

And thought little of himself. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture change the style of its text when telling about the birth of Eiver’s sons? For it is written: “Two sons were born to Eiver.” This is unlike other births, where it says, for instance, “Arpachshad produced Shelach,” and, “Yaktan produced Almodad, Shelef...” Perforce Scripture changed the style of its text and writes, “Two sons were born to Eiver,” [because] he named them on account of an event. But the question is: Indeed, Scripture gave a reason for naming Peleg so. But why was Yaktan named so? It must be because he thought little of himself. Eiver saw all this prophetically. But the Re’m writes that Rashi specially explains Yaktan because it is derived from קטן [which is a Hebrew word].

חצרמות He was so called (Court of Death) after his city. So is the statement of the Agada (Genesis Rabbah 37:8).

חצרמות, this is one word though it may sound as if it should be two words.

He was so called because of his city. [The Aggadah explains that] the people of that city awaited death [מות] every day, because they [were very poor] and ate animal fodder.

ויהי מושבם ממשא, after the dispersal of mankind, these sons of Yokton chose for themselves the land extending eastward from the valley of the Euphrates and Tigris. Rav Saadyah gaon understands the meaning of the word Mesha as what is known nowadays as Mecca, the city to which the Muslims make their pilgrimage.

אלה..אחר המבול, what does the deluge have to do with this, seeing the people were not dispersed until after they built the Tower [approximately 300 years later. Ed.]? The meaning of this verse is that all these families of Noach’s children were born after the deluge, only to be scattered all over the globe, something which occurred after the building of the Tower.

אלה משפחות בני נח, “these are the families of Noach’s sons;” in this paragraph we find 70 descendants; 14 descendants of Yephet; 30 of Cham, and 26 of Shem. These are the founding fathers of the famous “70 nations” of the earth. All the nations that stem from them bear the names of these founding fathers. For instance: We read already in Genesis 4,17 when the first city was built by Kayin for his son, that he named the city after his son. Compare Psalms: 49,12 בשמותם עלי אדמות, “after the names of those who had been famous on earth.”