Chapter 1 of Divrei HaYamim is a chapter of names: a long chain of generations from Adam HaRishon to the House of Israel. Yet this is no dry list. Scripture meticulously chooses whom to mention and whom to skip, when to elaborate and when to be brief, and from each such choice the commentators derive a fundamental principle. One guiding rule accompanies the entire chapter: sometimes Scripture enumerates names from the perspective of the nations that descended from them, and sometimes it enumerates them from the perspective of lineage - a chain of person to person leading to Avraham Avinu. Through this principle, most of the questions in the chapter are resolved.
וּבְנֵי יָוָן אֱלִישָׁה וְתַרְשִׁישָׁה כִּתִּים וְרוֹדָנִים׃ - And the sons of Yavan: Elishah and Tarshishah, Kittim and Rodanim.
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes a striking omission: Scripture listed "The sons of Yepheth: Gomer, Magog, Madai, and Yavan," and immediately detailed the sons of Gomer, and here it details the sons of Yavan - but it simply skipped the sons of Magog and Madai, who are listed between them. The explanation is that it did not mention them because heads of nations did not descend from them. As we explained regarding Gomer - Gomer himself is a nation, and continued to exist as a nation, and the reason Scripture listed his additional sons (Ashkenaz, Diphath, and Togarmah) is that heads of nations descended from them. Magog and Madai, however, did not produce heads of new nations; they remained a single nation that perpetuated itself and did not establish additional nations.
The commentary attributed to Rashi also notes the variation between what is written here, "Rodanim," and what is written in the Torah, "Dodanim." His approach is to cite the words of Chazal that expound upon the difference - not always, but when a derash exists. Here, Chazal expound: Which is correct, Dodanim or Rodanim? When Israel sins, they come and subjugate (rodim) them; but when the hand of Israel is dominant, they say, "You are our cousins (bnei dodenu)." When it is convenient for them, they are Dodanim; when they have the upper hand over us, they are Rodanim. They appear as friends when it benefits them, and ultimately subjugate them.
Radak explains the omission in his own way: Scripture was concise regarding Magog, Madai, Tuval, Meshech, and Tiras, not wishing to elaborate, because their genealogy is not the primary focus. Furthermore, it is very possible that Gomer and Yavan were the heads of the prominent families, which is why it elaborated on them and not on the rest.
Regarding the variation between the letters Dalet and Reish - "Dodanim" and "Rodanim" - Radak explains that these letters are similar in their script. Among those who examined the genealogical records written in ancient times, some read it with a Dalet and some with a Reish. The name was pronounced either way, and both forms persisted among people. Therefore, it was written in Sefer Bereishit with one reading and in Divrei HaYamim with the other, to show that they are both one and the same name. So too with Rivlah and Divlah, and with Reuel and Deuel: it is all one name, even though it appears in Scripture in two different forms.
Similarly, the reading varies between a Vav and a Yud - and we will see such variations later as well - because they are similar in script, a Vav being merely a slightly lengthened Yud. So too, it varies between an Aleph and a Hei: sometimes a name appears with a quiescent Aleph at the end and sometimes with a Hei, such as Sabta and Sabtecha, because Hei and Aleph are cognates among the guttural letters (the letters א-ה-ח-ע), produced by exhaling breath.
From here stems an extensive discussion among the Poskim in Hilchot Gittin: How should names ending in an "ah" sound be written - with an Aleph or with a Hei? For example, one's place of residence: "America" spelled with an Aleph or a Hei, "Germanya" with an Aleph or a Hei? And likewise with personal names: some write "Yehuda" with an Aleph and some "Yehudah" with a Hei, and with women's names, "Perla" or "Perlah." The Poskim tend to rule that a name originating from the nations is typically written with an Aleph at the end, while a Jewish name is written with a Hei at the end: Hadassah with a Hei, and Charvona with an Aleph (though there is a derashah and a vort that in the end, because he was remembered for good, his name was written with a Hei). In any case, for our purposes, there is no substantive difference between Aleph and Hei, between Dalet and Reish, or between Vav and Yud.
And Radak concludes: All these names, even though there are homiletic interpretations (derashot) regarding them, I did not see fit to record, so as not to overly lengthen the task. This principle that he mentioned will serve us for all the names and variations we will encounter going forward.
בְּנֵי חָם כּוּשׁ וּמִצְרַיִם פּוּט וּכְנָעַן׃ וּבְנֵי כוּשׁ סְבָא וַחֲוִילָה וְסַבְתָּא וְרַעְמָא וְסַבְתְּכָא וּבְנֵי רַעְמָא שְׁבָא וּדְדָן׃ - The sons of Cham: Kush, Mitzrayim, Put, and Canaan. And the sons of Kush: Seva, Chavilah, Savta, Ra'mah, and Savtecha. And the sons of Ra'mah: Sheva and Dedan.
The Malbim explains: There were thirty nations here, and Kush had additional sons beyond those mentioned here. From where does he deduce this? From that very same principle: Kush himself was an existing nation, and if he had only the sons mentioned here who branched out and established nations of their own - who carried on his line? Perforce, he must have had other sons who continued his line, while the sons mentioned here are the ones who established new nations.
וְכוּשׁ יָלַד אֶת־נִמְרוֹד הוּא הֵחֵל לִהְיוֹת גִּבּוֹר בָּאָרֶץ׃ - And Kush fathered Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man on the earth.
Nimrod was the most prominent of all the sons of Kush, which is why Scripture mentions him separately rather than together with the rest of Kush's sons. "He began to be a mighty man on the earth" - the Metzudat David explains: Until his days, all people were equal, and no one overpowered others to rule over his fellow man. Nimrod began to overpower others and rule over the land, and began waging wars and displaying acts of might on the earth, in the phrasing of the commentary attributed to Rashi.
Rashi in the Torah brings down that Nimrod was given this name because he incited the world to rebel (himrid) against Hashem, Blessed be He - saying: 'Arise, and let us rebel against Hashem.' Therefore his name was called Nimrod, because he aroused everyone to rebel. Because of this, Nimrod is the antithesis of Avraham: Avraham said, 'Come, let us accept upon ourselves the Kingdom of Heaven,' while Nimrod said, 'Come, let us rebel against Him.' Therefore, it was specifically Nimrod who sought to undo all of Avraham's efforts and cast him into the fiery furnace - because he saw him as a direct threat: he incited rebellion, while Avraham came along, rebelled against him, and inspired people to serve Hashem.
וּמִצְרַיִם יָלַד אֶת־לוּדִים וְאֶת־עֲנָמִים וְאֶת־לְהָבִים וְאֶת־נַפְתֻּחִים׃ - And Mitzrayim fathered the Ludim, the Anamim, the Lehavim, and the Naftuchim.
Notice: The written text (ketiv) is "Ludiyim" with two yuds, while it is read (keri) as "Ludim". The commentary attributed to Rashi cites from Bereishit Rabbah: Rabbi Abba bar Kahana said, all the monigna of Egypt is solely in the sea (some versions read moneta, meaning coinage - indicating their reputation and defining characteristic; others explain monigna as craftiness, as the Yefeh To'ar writes: all their cunning and wisdom). Egypt's wisdom and expertise lay in the sea.
Therefore, it is written "Ludiyim" with two yuds - as if it were written "Ludei Yam", the Ludites of the sea. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Karchah said: In Divrei HaYamim, "Ludiyim" is written with two yuds to tell you: Ludei Yam, Anamei Yam, Lehavei Yam, Naftechei Yam - all these are the sons of Mitzrayim. This was Egypt's defining trait, for they loved the sea; and indeed, the Torah already states, "and Egypt dead on the seashore." We see how deeply connected they were to the sea.
Incidentally, this fits very well, for "Mitzrayim" can be read as metzar yam (the strait or confines of the sea). What is a sea (yam)? The Maharal explains: water is pure matter (chomer). All physical matter has a form (tzurah) - take a cup, even of the simplest material, clay or plastic, it has a form. There is matter, and there is form. But water has no inherent form at all: place it in a round vessel, it becomes round; in a square one, it becomes square; in an elongated one, it becomes elongated. It is matter devoid of form.
This indicates that the defining characteristic of Egypt is the pinnacle of physical materialism. Therefore, it is "the nakedness of the land," the most abominable and impure place, lower and more degraded than any other. This was discussed at length in Mishnat HaGilgulim regarding the connection between Egypt and the exile, why the exile took place specifically there, and what the characteristics of Egypt are. And here we see this clearly: all of their descendants are named after the sea (yam), after water - an attachment to the coarsest, most physical reality.
וְאֶת־פַּתְרֻסִים וְאֶת־כַּסְלֻחִים אֲשֶׁר יָצְאוּ מִשָּׁם פְּלִשְׁתִּים וְאֶת־כַּפְתֹּרִים׃ - "And Pathrusim and Casluchim, from whence came the Philistines, and Caphtorim."
The homiletic teaching of Chazal continues: Patrosei yam, Casluchei yam, Pelishtei yam, Kaftorei yam - this is why it is written with two yuds, to expound upon it, and so too with all of them. One might wonder: after all, the only name written with two yuds is "Ludim" (Ludiym); how can this be expounded regarding all of them? Indeed, this question was posed to Rabbi Chaim Kanievsky, who answered that the first one was written with a double yud to teach about all the rest. The double yud in Ludiym comes to inform us of all the others, and that is the basis for Chazal's homily.
Metzudat David explains: "From whence came the Philistines" - from the descendants of Casluchim. For the text lists Pathrusim, Casluchim, Ludim, Anamim, Lehavim, and Naphtuchim; from which of them did the Philistines descend? Scripture informs you: from the descendants of Casluchim. They are called Casluchim because they cut down (mekaslechim) anyone who enters their vicinity - a mortal danger. These are the Philistines, and their wickedness is evident: they went and burned down the house of the father of Samson's wife, and for what? Because Samson had burned their fields, so they went and burned his wife and her father with fire. We see that they are utterly reckless, corrupt beyond measure, and they have not changed - they remain the same today.
"And Caphtorim" - the Metzudot note that this refers back to Mitzrayim: Mitzrayim fathered Caphtorim. Do not mistakenly think that Caphtorim also descended from Casluchim like the Philistines did; rather, Caphtorim was the direct son of the father, Mitzrayim. Commentators explain the lesson Scripture teaches us here: From which root did Goliath the Philistine emerge? From Mitzrayim, since Mitzrayim fathered Casluchim, Casluchim fathered the Philistines, and from them descended Goliath. One might have thought: this nation produces giants, for brothers do not usually exhibit such drastic physical disparities, and thus it must be in their nature to breed giants. To counter this, Scripture states otherwise: they also fathered Caphtorim, whom Chazal describe as a nation of dwarfs, an exceptionally diminutive people. They brought forth both the greatest giants and the smallest dwarfs.
וּכְנַעַן יָלַד אֶת־צִידוֹן בְּכֹרוֹ וְאֶת־חֵת׃ - "And Canaan fathered Zidon, his firstborn, and Heth."
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes: they are eleven, and together with Canaan they make twelve. If we count - Ludim, Anamim, Lehavim, Naphtuchim, Pathrusim, Casluchim, and so forth - we arrive at eleven, and together with Canaan, twelve. The Philistines and Caphtorim are not counted in this tally, since it is said of them, "from whence came."
Why is it significant to reach the number twelve? Rashi explains that this corresponds to the verse, "He set the borders of the nations according to the number of the children of Israel" (Devarim 32:8). The borders of the nations were established parallel to the tribes of Israel, who also number twelve. The Holy One, blessed be He, set the boundaries of the nations just as in the phrase "which you have set by themselves" - He separated the Jewish people and set them apart, contrasted against the borders of the nations. We observe the very same principle regarding the number seventy: the seventy nations of the kelipah (the forces of impurity) parallel the seventy souls of our ancestors who went down to Egypt (a concept we will explore further on). Corresponding to the number of the Children of Israel, the Holy One, blessed be He, established the borders of the kelipah. The Radak explains this in the same manner.
בְּנֵי שֵׁם עֵילָם וְאַשּׁוּר וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד וְלוּד וַאֲרָם וְעוּץ וְחוּל וְגֶתֶר וָמֶשֶׁךְ׃ - The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, Arpachshad, Lud, and Aram; and Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech.
Radak explains: he mentioned the grandsons alongside the sons in order to be brief. This is something we will also see later on: the text lists a lineage as if everyone were the son of a particular person, but when you check, you find that in the Torah he appears as his grandson. Here, he made everything into a single package, mentioning sons and grandsons together. And the reason, says Radak, is that Ezra, who authored the book of Divrei HaYamim, chose not to elaborate; therefore, in many places he wrote concisely - instead of stating that so-and-so fathered so-and-so and that one fathered that one, he lists all the names in one continuous lineage, grouping them together.
Therefore, here too: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech were the sons of Aram, not the sons of Shem, and the verse should have stated, "and Lud, and Aram; and the sons of Aram: Uz, Hul, Gether, and Meshech" - but he wished to be concise, and therefore did not elaborate.
The Malbim explains that altogether there were twenty-six nations here, because Shelah and Ever were also separate nations. He mentions them here from the perspective of the nations that emerged from them - it is important to him to enumerate those who arose and became nations. Later, in verses 24-25, we will see a difficulty: why does he repeat and count names he has already listed? After all, here he enumerated "The sons of Shem: Elam, Asshur, and Arpachshad," and there he will list again: "Shem, Arpachshad, Shelah." The answer is: here he mentioned them as nations, whereas there he speaks in genealogical terms - a concise chain of A fathered B, who fathered C. Here he tells you which nations came forth from each one, whereas there he traces the lineage one after another. That is why he lists them twice.
Regarding "and Meshech": The Malbim notes that in the Torah it is written "and Mash" - "and Uz, and Hul, and Gether, and Mash" - whereas here it is written "and Meshech." He explains that there, the Torah abbreviated the name so that one would not confuse him with the Meshech mentioned among the sons of Yapheth ("and Meshech, and Tiras"); whereas here, he wrote the name in full.
וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד יָלַד אֶת־שָׁלַח וְשֶׁלַח יָלַד אֶת־עֵבֶר׃ וּלְעֵבֶר יֻלַּד שְׁנֵי בָנִים שֵׁם הָאֶחָד פֶּלֶג כִּי בְיָמָיו נִפְלְגָה הָאָרֶץ וְשֵׁם אָחִיו יׇקְטָן׃ - And Arpachshad fathered Shelah, and Shelah fathered Ever. And to Ever were born two sons: the name of the one was Peleg, for in his days the earth was divided, and his brother's name was Yoktan.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: "for in his days the earth was divided" - that the lifespans of mankind were split and diminished. How so? Initially, people lived nine hundred years and more; their lifespans were halved in the days of Arpachshad to about four hundred and fifty, and from then on to four hundred and more, and from Peleg onward they were halved again to around two hundred. Therefore his name was called Peleg, because their years were divided (nitpalgu) and their lifespans cut in half. Terach, for example, lived two hundred and five years. True, they still enjoyed long lives - Avraham lived one hundred and seventy-five years - but their longevity was already about half that of the generations before them, which were around four hundred years, whereas here it was already in the area of two hundred.
Metzudat David explains that "the earth was divided" means that mankind was split apart and dispersed far from one another.
The Malbim explains that "in his days the earth was divided" refers to the Generation of Dispersion (Dor HaFlagah): initially, everyone had one language and common speech, the Hebrew language (sefat Ever), and after the dispersion of languages, the Hebrew tongue remained only with the descendants of Peleg. For we see that Avraham, who descended from Peleg, spoke Hebrew. Therefore he was named Peleg, because all were separated from him in their language. Likewise with "Ever" - that he was on one side, separated from everyone else. It turns out that he was the only one who continued and held onto the Hebrew tongue, while the rest already spoke other languages.
Some suggest interpreting "the earth was divided" based on what is known in geology regarding continental drift: that originally the dry land of the earth was a single landmass, and after mankind spread out across it, a stage arrived when the continents began drifting apart. Even today, we see tectonic changes and such phenomena - places that were well-known a century ago and became submerged under water, or places where the waters receded and revealed land. These things result from geological changes: volcanoes, earthquakes, and the like. Anyone who takes the continents on a globe and attempts to fit them together will see that they match like puzzle pieces, indicating that they were originally one and split apart.
And some say this is the meaning of "for in his days the earth was divided" - that the division of the continents occurred at that time. This also explains how human populations came to exist on distant continents, where it is very hard to imagine that in ancient times they arrived there by boat - reaching all the way to Australia, at the other end of the globe - settling and forming entire nations there. Therefore, the likelihood is that everything was a single continent that gradually broke apart. These ideas reflect the scientific, academic perspective; within Jewish thought, we explain the verse "the earth was divided" according to the commentators, and the concept of continental drift remains a scientific angle in the exploration of the subject.
וְיׇקְטָן יָלַד אֶת־אַלְמוֹדָד וְאֶת־שָׁלֶף וְאֶת־חֲצַרְמָוֶת וְאֶת־יָרַח׃ - And Yoktan begot Almodad, Sheleph, Chatzarmaveth, and Yerach.
Radak notes that "Chatzarmaveth" is a single word, not written as two separate words.
The Targum to Divrei HaYamim - authored by Rav Yosef - brings a fascinating exposition here. He translates: "And Yoktan begot Almodad, who measured and apportioned the land and divisions of the land with measuring cords; and Sheleph, who drew out rivers into his domain; and Chatzarmaveth, who prepared ambush sites to kill wayfarers; and Yerach, who set up inns, and whenever anyone entered to eat and drink, he would feed him deadly poison, kill him, and take whatever was in his possession."
In short, the Targum places all these figures into a single category that we might call the "underworld" - all his sons represented a terrifying breed of murderers. Almodad - from the language of measuring (medidah); he would divide the land with cords and measure it out, presumably to seize it for himself. Sheleph - for he "drew" (shalaf) rivers into his own territory: if a river flowed through a neighboring land or district, he would divert and draw it into his own property (engineering feats practiced today were already known to Sheleph). Chatzarmaveth - his very name testifies to his deeds: he would construct enclosures (chatzerot) and places of ambush ("an ambush site" - a hiding place), lying in wait to murder travelers on the road, which is why he was called Chatzarmaveth ("courtyard of death"). Yerach - he would establish inns, and whoever came inside to eat and drink, he would feed lethal poison, murder him, and take everything he had. And why "Yerach"? From the language of hospitality (eiru'ach): he would "host" people, except it was their final stay, their last meal. Apparently, right beside him was an entire cemetery filled with his guests.
In contrast, in Bereishit Rabbah (parashah 37), Chazal expounded differently: Chatzarmaveth - Rav Huna said, it is a place named Chatzarmaveth, whose inhabitants eat leeks (or vetches) and wear garments of papeir. "Eat kerishin" - this refers to vetch (karshina), extremely coarse food fit for animals. "Garments of papeir" - the Aruch explains that this refers to garments made from grass, while the Rambam and the Rosh explain garments fashioned from vine branches or twigs. One might also simply understand that papeir refers to paper, as in the English "paper" and the Yiddish "papir." This is also the origin of the word papyrus: ancient paper produced by pressing reeds together - for parchment, made from animal hide, was expensive to manufacture, whereas reeds were far cheaper. Thus, their clothing was of the poorest quality, as though made of paper, fashioned from rough plant fibers.
The Midrash concludes: "And they await death every day" - meaning, their lives are so wretched that they ask themselves: When will we finally leave this place? When will we depart? This is the meaning of "Chatzarmaveth" - one constantly stands in the courtyard of death, waiting for the Angel of Death to come and take him. Rabbi Shmuel said: They do not even possess garments of papeir - they are so impoverished that they do not even have garments made of grass. Indeed, in various places, such as the jungles of Africa, there are people who walk about completely naked, lacking even basic clothing - living in the most destitute state.
וְאֶת־הֲדוֹרָם וְאֶת־אוּזָל וְאֶת־דִּקְלָה׃ וְאֶת־עֵיבָל וְאֶת־אֲבִימָאֵל וְאֶת־שְׁבָא׃ וְאֶת־אוֹפִיר וְאֶת־חֲוִילָה וְאֶת־יוֹבָב כׇּל־אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי יׇקְטָן׃ - And Hadoram, Uzal, and Diklah; and Ebal, Abimael, and Sheba; and Ophir, Chavilah, and Yovav. All these were the sons of Yoktan.
The commentary attributed to Rashi cites a teaching of Chazal: Why was he called Yoktan? Because he was humble, minimizing his affairs (maktin esakav). The explanation is that Ever was a great prophet, and he therefore named his son Yoktan with foresight of the future - in anticipation of his modesty and the fact that he would conduct his worldly pursuits modestly. Shem and Ever were both great sages who lived before Avraham, and Rivkah went to inquire of Hashem in the beit midrash of Shem and Ever (simply speaking, Shem was likely no longer alive at that time, but Ever was). We see that Ever was a great prophet, which is why she went to inquire of Hashem through him.
However, the remaining names - Yovav, Chavilah, Ophir, and the like - are not expounded homiletically, because their names were not bestowed through prophetic insight. Therefore, Chazal did not expound upon them, but only upon Yoktan, who conducted his affairs with modesty and restraint.
The Malbim notes regarding "All these were the sons of Joktan": concerning Mitzraim, we saw, "And Mitzraim begot Ludim and Anamim" - meaning that these nations emerged from his loins and from his descendants. But with "And Joktan begot" - what is the emphasis? That he himself fathered them. Unlike what we saw earlier, where it does not always mean that he personally begot them but rather refers to a grandson, here Scripture comes to tell you that he personally fathered them - and therefore it states "begot."
שֵׁם אַרְפַּכְשַׁד שָׁלַח׃ עֵבֶר פֶּלֶג רְעוּ׃ שְׂרוּג נָחוֹר תָּרַח׃ אַבְרָם הוּא אַבְרָהָם׃ - Shem, Arpachshad, Shelach; Ever, Peleg, Reu; Serug, Nachor, Terach; Avram - who is Avraham.
Earlier, Scripture already enumerated the sons of Shem, yet here it goes back and begins listing them a second time, which raises the difficulty we mentioned: you have already listed these names, so why repeat them? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: it begins a second time here out of honor for Avraham. This corresponds to the parable cited by Chazal: a person dropped a pearl in the sand and began sifting - gathering and sifting, gathering and sifting - and when he reached the pearl, he discarded all the sand. Until now, we were dealing with the sand - the nations that branched off from them. Now, Scripture wishes to address the primary focus, and the primary focus is Avraham. Therefore, it condenses the genealogy in order to reach Avraham directly.
And in the words of the Radak: it abridged the genealogical account from Shem to Avraham, person after person. Previously, it spoke of a father who begot a son and immediately recounted which nations descended from him; now it sets aside all the nations and counts only: the father begot the son, who begot the grandson, who begot the great-grandson - one after the other in concise succession.
The Malbim explains this based on the principle we mentioned at the beginning of the chapter: there are names that represent the chosen spiritual core (the segulah), there are those who are merely appendages, and there are those who "contained the segulah within them." The men of segulah are people of high spiritual stature: when you speak of Shem, you are speaking of a tzaddik; of Ever, a tzaddik; of Arpachshad, a tzaddik. In contrast, there were those who were not righteous themselves, but were part of the lineage that brought about the house of Avraham; they are called those who contained the segulah within them. They themselves were not worthy, yet they deserve mention because they form a link in the chain, and therefore Scripture mentions them as well.
Therefore, says the Malbim, here it comes to mention the segulah that depended on individual men, tracing from Noach to Avraham: there were those who were themselves the segulah, like Shem and Ever, and there were those who were prepared for the segulah to emerge from them, meaning the carriers of the segulah within them, like Terach - as cited in the Kuzari.
In this chapter, we have seen that the Written Torah does not list names without purpose. Scripture skips over those from whom heads of nations did not descend, abbreviates where the lineage is not essential, and groups sons and grandsons together so as not to elaborate unnecessarily. Letter variations - dalet and reish, alef and hei, vav and yud - are not substantive changes, but two readings of a single name, and at times Chazal expound them directly, such as "Dodanim and Rodanim." We saw Nimrod as the antithesis of Avraham; Mitzraim whose entire military might lay in the sea and who represents the height of materiality; the twelve Canaanite nations paralleling the twelve tribes of Israel in "He set the borders of the peoples"; Peleg, in whose days the generations and languages were divided; and the sons of Joktan as understood in Targum and Midrash. Finally, when Scripture reaches the pearl, it returns to trace the genealogy person by person in honor of Avraham: all the sand is cast away, and the pearl alone remains in hand.