Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

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 age — 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,, 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 Rashi who quotes from Bereshith Rabbah.

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] 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.

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, 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. 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 dispersion 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 Rabbi, Note 139. said in Moreh Nebuchim that the genealogy of the nations verifies to those that hear it the principle of the creation of the world., 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 him 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.

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, 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 Ham became only one people, and not various nations as was the case with Mitzraim and Canaan, the sons of Ham. 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: “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,’” 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, — 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, and Lud, 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.

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. 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; rather, they also worshipped other gods.

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. 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, 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. After that he went to Assyria, and he did according to his will, and magnified himself, 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.

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. This usage is similar to that found in the verses: And it shall go forth Hazar-addar, and pass along to Azmon, [which means that it shall go forth to Hazzar-addar]; And Og the king of Bashan came out against us Edrei, [which means at Edrei]; And he shall return his own land with great substance, [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, alluding to Nineveh, and the city of Rehoboth, and Calah. Scripture tells yet more about Nimrod’s prowess — i.e., that he was a mighty hunter, prevailing also over the animals and ensnaring them. Scripture said, Before the Eternal, to suggest wonderment for there was no one under the heaven like him in strength. Similarly, And the earth was corrupt before G-d, means that everything before Him on the earth was corrupt. This is like the verse, That soul shall be cut off from before Me, since every place is “before Him.”

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, with the sons of Cush it mentioned the land of Shinar and Asshur, and with the sons of Canaan it mentioned the boundaries of their land, and likewise with the sons of Shem. 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, [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; Into the land of their origin., 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 Arabians, 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, for this word misham alludes to a place. In the opinion of the commentators, 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. 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.” 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, 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, the Caphtorim being of the sons of Casluhim, dwellers of the land of Caphtor.

AND CANAAN BEGOT ZIDON HIS FIRST-BORN. These were the ten 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. Perhaps they were called by the names of the land in which they settled, as we have explained. Likewise, Se’ir the Horite 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 Sinite did beget families but were cut off from them, and their children were, for example, the Kenite, and the Kenizzite. 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., 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 here is not mentioned in the gift to Abraham,, 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. 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,… . Further, 15:21. but only ten are counted [there, Verses 19-21. — while eleven children of Canaan are mentioned 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 lands — 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, 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 Gaza yet we find that these were Philistine cities, since Abimelech, king of the Philistines, was king of Gerar, and Gaza belonged to the Gazites. Similarly, For Gaza one. 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; and again, And also what are ye to Me, O Tyre, and Zidon, and all the regions of Philistia? Perhaps the rest of the land of the Philistines, excluding that of these five of their lords, was not given to Israel. Know that the land of Canaan with its boundaries, since it became a nation, 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. 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 yet, 2:23. with the help of G-d, exalted be He.

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. 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 Peleg for why would Scripture connect the children of Eber with Shem [moreso than with any of his other offspring]? 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., rather than “the elder brother of Ham.” And similarly, we find the verse, Miriam the prophetess, the sister of Aaron. 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, 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, [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, [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.