וַיִּבְרַ֣ח אֲדַ֡ד הוּא֩ וַאֲנָשִׁ֨ים אֲדֹמִיִּ֜ים מֵעַבְדֵ֥י אָבִ֛יו אִתּ֖וֹ לָב֣וֹא מִצְרָ֑יִם וַהֲדַ֖ד נַ֥עַר קָטָֽן׃
Allora Hadad fuggì, lui e uomini Edomiti, dei servitori di suo padre, con lui, per andare in Egitto; e Hadad era un ragazzo piccolo.
Rashi
Dovid was in Edom. Then Hadad fled from Dovid and Yoav.4Below v. 17.
Rabbeinu Bahya
ומזרעך לא תתן להעביר למולך, “You shall not present any of your children to pass through for the Moloch;” There was a pagan cult called Moloch; part of the form of worship required was that the father make his son walk through two piles of wood set afire until he would be burned to death. The assumption underlying this cruel form of worship was that if he fire-god had been given one member of the family as a sacrifice the remaining members of that family would no longer be in any danger from that god. Not only that, but the surviving children would all grow up and be successful, aided by the power of that god. (Compare our comments on Genesis 12,3). The reason the letter ל at the beginning of the word למולך has the patach vowel indicating that this is an already familiar phenomenon (definitive article), is because the Israelites were familiar with that deity from their many years in Egypt. The reason it was known by the name מולך, similar to מלך, “king,” is that it was identical with a deity worshipped by the Ammonites, (compare Kings I 11,17) also known as מלכום. This deity also appears with the name “Adramelech or Anamelech the god of the Sefaryam” (Kings II 17,31). The word “adar” means “honour,” the word “An” means עונה in Hebrew, “affliction, suffering.” Each of these words has the word מלך appended to it. One single cult was known by so many different names.
According to Rabbeinu Chananel each of these names represents a different cult as he explains in his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa. He writes: there are many different forms of idolatrous cults. Some consist of making the idol have the likeness of a human being or at least the face of a human being. Other cults worship a symbol resembling the appearance of a cherub, angel-like figure. Still others worship a force symbolized by the image of certain domestic beasts, free-roaming animals or birds. This is what we read in Kings II 17,30-31: “The Babylonians made Sukoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nirgal, and the men of Chamath made Ashima; and the Avvites made Nivchaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvides burned their children to Adramelech and Anamelech, the gods of the Sepharvaim.” All of these names are different gods. The expression Sukoth-benoth refers to a hen and her chicks; the name Nirgal refers to the male chicken, the rooster. The name Ashima describes a cat, whereas the name Nivchaz describes a dog. The name Tartak describes a donkey, Adramelech an ape, and Anamelech refers to the peacock.
According to Rabbeinu Chananel each of these names represents a different cult as he explains in his commentary on Parshat Ki Tissa. He writes: there are many different forms of idolatrous cults. Some consist of making the idol have the likeness of a human being or at least the face of a human being. Other cults worship a symbol resembling the appearance of a cherub, angel-like figure. Still others worship a force symbolized by the image of certain domestic beasts, free-roaming animals or birds. This is what we read in Kings II 17,30-31: “The Babylonians made Sukoth-benoth, and the men of Cuth made Nirgal, and the men of Chamath made Ashima; and the Avvites made Nivchaz and Tartak; and the Sepharvides burned their children to Adramelech and Anamelech, the gods of the Sepharvaim.” All of these names are different gods. The expression Sukoth-benoth refers to a hen and her chicks; the name Nirgal refers to the male chicken, the rooster. The name Ashima describes a cat, whereas the name Nivchaz describes a dog. The name Tartak describes a donkey, Adramelech an ape, and Anamelech refers to the peacock.