Introduction: The Lineage from Adam to the Chiefs of Edom
The first chapter of Divrei HaYamim is one long chain of genealogy: from Adam HaRishon, through Noach and his sons, up to Avraham Avinu and his sons, and from there to Eisav, the sons of Se'ir, and the kings and chiefs of Edom. The text moves swiftly over the nations of the world, keeping their mention very brief, for its entire purpose is to grasp the primary thread - the lineage from which King David would emerge. In this section, we will address the verses from "Avram, who is Avraham" through the end of the chapter, and examine how even the mention of the peripheral branches was ultimately intended for the honor of the Avot and for clarifying the essential line.
"Avram, who is Avraham" - A Name That Testifies to a Mission
עֵבֶר פֶּלֶג רְעוּ׃ שְׂרוּג נָחוֹר תָּרַח׃ אַבְרָם הוּא אַבְרָהָם׃ - Ever, Peleg, Re'u; Serug, Nachor, Terach; Avram, who is Avraham.
The text traces the lineage from Shem to Avraham, and then adds: "Avram, who is Avraham." Why mention this seemingly obvious fact? The Radak explains: he is the renowned Avraham who loved Hashem, and Hashem magnified his name and made him the father of a multitude of nations. And since the text mentions Avraham's descendants, it also mentions the descendants of Yishmael and the sons of Keturah. Radak is resolving an obvious difficulty: once you have reached Avraham, having found the pearl, why return to the other nations? Rather, out of honor to Avraham, the text mentions his other descendants as well, for ultimately the sons of Keturah are his sons, as are the sons of Hagar. Similarly with Eisav - since he is Yitzchak's son, he is mentioned out of honor to Yitzchak.
The Malbim adds: "You chose Avram and placed his name as Avraham" (Nechemiah 9), to teach that he would become the father of a multitude of nations. The name Avraham is itself an expression of being the "father of a multitude of nations," and this is precisely what the text comes to demonstrate here - the multitude of nations born from him. Furthermore, anyone who calls Avraham "Avram" violates a positive commandment; therefore the verse needed to state "who is Avraham." In this, Avraham differs from Yaakov: there is no prohibition against calling Yaakov by that name even after he was renamed Yisrael, whereas regarding Avraham, Chazal said one may no longer call him "Avram," as doing so diminishes his stature and praise. Therefore, Scripture tells us: that same Avram whom you know is indeed Avraham, whose name was changed because he became the father of a multitude of nations.
The Sons of Avraham - The Order of Precedence
בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל׃ - The sons of Avraham: Yitzchak and Yishmael.
The Malbim explains that Yitzchak was placed first because he was the son of the primary wife, the mistress of the house. Yishmael was placed before the rest of the sons - the sons of Keturah - because Yishmael did teshuvah. This also reflects the order found in the Torah.
Thirteen Corresponding to Thirteen
אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹתָם בְּכוֹר יִשְׁמָעֵאל נְבָיוֹת וְקֵדָר וְאַדְבְּאֵל וּמִבְשָׂם׃ - These are their generations: the firstborn of Yishmael, Nevayot; and Kedar, Adbe'el, and Mivsam.
The Malbim notes: "These are their generations" - together with Yishmael, they total thirteen. Likewise among the sons of Keturah, when counting the grandsons who are considered like sons, they reach thirteen as well. Let us count: Nevayot, Kedar, Adbe'el, Mivsam, Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Chadad, Teima, Yetur, Nafish, and Kedmah - that makes twelve; add Yishmael himself, and there are thirteen. And similarly among the sons of Keturah: Zimran, Yokshan, Medan, Midyan, Yishbak, Shuach; and the sons of Yokshan: Sheva and Dedan; and the sons of Midyan: Eifah, Efer, Chanoch, Avida, and Elda'ah - once again, thirteen.
This is what the Midrash meant when it said that tribes were worthy of emerging from Avraham: for Avraham fathered thirteen through Yishmael and thirteen through the children of Keturah, so it was appropriate that thirteen should emerge from him. And if you ask, are there not twelve tribes? The Malbim answers: Add Levi. For the division of the Land they were counted as twelve, as Yosef was split into two - Efraim and Menasheh, "like Reuven and Shimon they shall be mine" - and Levi did not take an inheritance in the Land. But in reality, there are thirteen tribes. And just as thirteen descended from Yishmael and thirteen from Keturah, so it was fitting that they emerge from Avraham, and these are indeed the tribes that later emerged from Yaakov, from the seed of Sarah.
מִשְׁמָע וְדוּמָה מַשָּׂא חֲדַד וְתֵימָא׃ יְטוּר נָפִישׁ וָקֵדְמָה אֵלֶּה הֵם בְּנֵי יִשְׁמָעֵאל׃ - Mishma, Dumah, Massa, Hadad, and Teima, Yetur, Nafish, and Kedemah; these are the sons of Yishmael.
It is worth noting that Chazal offer many expositions on each of these names and how each name characterizes that nation, and the Midrashim on Sefer Bereishit have already discussed this at length. Due to the length of the subject, it will not be explored here.
Keturah - A Concubine, Not a Wife
וּבְנֵי קְטוּרָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ אַבְרָהָם יָלְדָה אֶת־זִמְרָן וְיׇקְשָׁן וּמְדָן וּמִדְיָן וְיִשְׁבָּק וְשׁוּחַ וּבְנֵי יׇקְשָׁן שְׁבָא וּדְדָן׃ - And the sons of Keturah, Avraham's concubine: she bore Zimran, Yokshan, Medan, Midyan, Yishbak, and Shuach; and the sons of Yokshan: Sheba and Dedan.
The Radak emphasizes: Here Scripture refers to her as "Avraham's concubine," whereas in the Torah it says, "And Avraham took another wife, and her name was Keturah." Scripture comes here to inform you that this "wife" was merely a concubine - lest you think there was full kiddushin here like other wives; rather, he took a woman as a concubine. And Chazal explained the difference between a wife and a concubine: wives are taken with a ketubah and kiddushin, while concubines are without a ketubah and without kiddushin. Some say with kiddushin but without a ketubah, but the prevailing view is without a ketubah and without kiddushin, simply designated for him. Scripture comes to tell you that the only true wife was Sarah Imeinu, and the rest were concubines. Therefore, the Torah also emphasized, "And to the sons of the concubines whom Avraham had, Avraham gave gifts" - meaning they were not part of the primary sons who came from Sarah.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains why it emphasizes here "Avraham's concubine": Scripture mentions any disparagement it can about them, for the honor of Yitzchak. All the others were the sons of concubines, and only Yitzchak was primary and the master of the house, as it is said, "For in Yitzchak shall seed be called to you" - only Yitzchak is considered Avraham's true seed. This stands in contrast to the descendants of Yishmael today, who come and steal everything, even seeking to steal the succession. Thieves they are: they not only stole the Temple Mount, but even the stories - they feature the "binding of Yishmael," a story plagiarized from our midst, internally forged. In any case, to our point: Scripture wished to state their disparagement, and therefore called them the children of concubines.
The Malbim explains: Since Keturah was a concubine, and it is said, "And to the sons of the concubines whom Avraham had," it therefore attributes the sons to her - "And the sons of Keturah" - as though they are not considered his sons, but her sons. This was not the case with Hagar, regarding whom it is said, "and gave her to Avram as a wife" - an actual wife, and not merely a concubine. Furthermore, the Malbim follows the view that Keturah and Hagar were two separate women. There is a derashah of Chazal that Hagar is Keturah, who bound her opening in chastity, and who, after straying among the idols of her father's house, returned to her holiness; but according to the plain meaning of Scripture and other explanations, they were two distinct women. Scripture therefore comes to tell you: Keturah was a concubine, whereas Hagar was given to Avraham as a wife.
And why are Ashurim, Letushim, and Le'ummim not mentioned here? The Malbim explains: Because these are not the names of nations, but the names of their occupations, as Rashi explains in his commentary on the Torah - that they were sharpeners (lotshim) and engaged in sword-making and the like. And in Bereishit Rabbah they expounded: Rami bar Yechezkel said - Zimran, because they made music (mezamrin) in the world; Yokshan, because they were harsh (mitkashin) in the world. And the Rabbis say - Zimran, because they sang hymns to idolatry; Yokshan, because they beat (mekishin) the drum for idolatrous worship.
The Sons of Midyan and the Five Kings
וּבְנֵי מִדְיָן עֵיפָה וָעֵפֶר וַחֲנוֹךְ וַאֲבִידָע וְאֶלְדָּעָה כׇּל־אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי קְטוּרָה׃ - And the sons of Midyan: Eifah, Efer, Chanoch, Avida, and Elda'ah. All these were the sons of Keturah.
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes: There are five heads of idolaters here, and they established five kings, a king for each nation - Evi, Rekem, Tzur, and Chur, the five kings of Midyan. And why did Scripture mention them at all? Out of respect for Avraham, since ultimately they are among his descendants, and not on their own account.
As for the statement "All these were the children of Keturah," when in fact these include grandchildren - Ephah and Epher are sons of Midian, who was the son of Keturah? To this, the Metzudos explains, as we have already seen several times: grandchildren are considered like children, and Scripture sometimes counts grandchildren as children. And as we have already mentioned, the author - Ezra the Scribe - abridged things in Divrei HaYamim in many places, as we will see further on; instead of detailing who is whose son, he sometimes enumerates them all in a single list.
"The sons of Yitzchak: Esav and Yisrael"
וַיּוֹלֶד אַבְרָהָם אֶת־יִצְחָק בְּנֵי יִצְחָק עֵשָׂו וְיִשְׂרָאֵל׃ - Avraham fathered Yitzchak. The sons of Yitzchak: Esav and Yisrael.
Even though he already mentioned above, "The sons of Avraham: Yitzchak and Yishmael," he returns and says, "Avraham fathered Yitzchak," because he wants to hold onto the main branch - "for through Yitzchak shall your offspring be named." And Yishmael is not mentioned here, for he represents the shell (kelipah) and the dross.
"The sons of Yitzchak: Esav and Yisrael" - and it does not say Yaakov, because Yaakov is always a name indicating diminishment and lowliness, from the root *akev* (heel), whereas Yisrael is a name of dominion and nobility. And the commentary attributed to Rashi says: it says Yisrael rather than Yaakov out of respect for David, for in his view the entire book of Divrei HaYamim was written in honor of King David.
One should consider: above, he listed Yitzchak before Yishmael even though Yishmael was the firstborn, yet here he listed Esav first. It is understandable here - Esav was the firstborn, and even though he sold his birthright, he was nonetheless the firstborn. The Malbim wrote above: he gave precedence to Yitzchak because he was the son of the primary wife, and Yishmael repented so he gave him precedence initially, unlike Esav (in verse 34), and likewise in the Torah. That is, above he gave precedence to Yitzchak because he was the son of the primary wife; but here, among the sons of Yitzchak, he listed Esav first because Esav - unlike Yishmael - was also the son of the primary wife, for both were born of Rivkah from the same womb, and therefore the order of birth applies to them. Above, however, he could not say "The sons of Avraham: Yishmael and Yitzchak," because Yishmael was the son of the maidservant, and in any case Yitzchak takes precedence.
The Sons of Esav - Finishing Quickly with the Dross
בְּנֵי עֵשָׂו אֱלִיפַז רְעוּאֵל וִיעוּשׁ וְיַעְלָם וְקֹרַח׃ - The sons of Esav: Elifaz, Reuel, Ye'ush, Ya'lam, and Korach.
Why mention the lineage of Esav at all? First of all, in honor of Yitzchak, just as he mentioned the genealogies of Avraham - Midian and Yishmael - in honor of Avraham, since after all they are his sons; here too, they are ultimately the descendants of Yitzchak. And why does he open with them? In order to be brief, cast him aside, and finish with him quickly, as we have seen several times: first he finishes with the dross, so that afterward he can address the main line at length - the lineage of Yitzchak through Yaakov.
The Riddle of Timna
בְּנֵי אֱלִיפָז תֵּימָן וְאוֹמָר צְפִי וְגַעְתָּם קְנַז וְתִמְנָע וַעֲמָלֵק׃ - The sons of Elifaz: Teiman, Omar, Tzefi, Ga'tam, Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek.
"Tzefi" - in the Torah it is written "Tzefo", without a *yud*. And here there is a major difficulty that all the commentators grapple with, and it is twofold: First, you are listing sons, and Timna is among them, yet Timna was a woman. Second, you are listing Timna as a child of Elifaz, whereas in the Torah it says, "And Timna was a concubine to Elifaz... and she bore to Elifaz Amalek" - so how did Timna become Amalek's sister?
The Radak says: It is difficult to say that this refers to a daughter, for had she been a daughter, Scripture would not have listed her among the sons, just as we find in the verses: "and Dinah his daughter," "and Serach their sister" - Scripture explicitly notes when someone is a daughter. Rather, it seems to me that Scripture takes a concise approach: Ezra did not need to elaborate, since the matter is already explicit in the Torah, and he abbreviates the genealogies, just as he abbreviated the descendants of Shem and listed grandsons among the sons. Here, he could have been even more concise and said "Gatam, Kenaz, and Amalek," skipping Timna altogether. However, Amalek was not equal to the other sons - for they were the sons of the primary wife, whereas he was the son of a concubine. Therefore, to indicate his inferiority, he separated them and mentioned his mother: "Timna and Amalek" means Timna, from whom Amalek was born. All this is to teach you that Amalek stands apart, born of a concubine, from a blemished origin; and even if she was a concubine, she was still of lesser status and not like a full wife. And as we will soon see, there was an even greater blemish here.
The Malbim cites the Rashbam, as well as the Vilna Gaon, that the word "Timna" in the Torah connects both to what precedes it and to what follows it: "and Gatam, and Kenaz, and Timna" - period, and then again, "and Timna was a concubine." That is to say, there are two distinct individuals here: the first is male, and the second is female. We find similar instances in Tanach where a single word serves both the clause before it and the clause after it. According to this, the count of Eliphaz's sons in our verse is neatly resolved. Yet it is very surprising, the Malbim notes: if Timna is a male, why is he not mentioned among the chiefs of Eliphaz? After all, if he is counted among the sons, how could he have been omitted from the chiefs?
The Malbim raises another difficulty: Among the chiefs of Eliphaz, we find "Chief Korah," yet when you look for him among the sons of Eliphaz, you do not find him. Thus, someone appears among the sons who is missing among the chiefs, and someone appears among the chiefs who is missing among the sons. Logic dictates that both are likely the same person, referred to at times by one name and at times by the other - for it is difficult to understand how he could have a chief whom we never saw listed as a son, and how he could have a son who is not among the chiefs. If so, the extra chief corresponds to the extra son, and in this way both difficulties are resolved at once: Chief Korah is none other than Timna the son.
The Malbim explains how this came to be: Eliphaz cohabited with Oholibamah, Esau's wife, and fathered Korah. Therefore, Korah is counted both among the sons of Oholibamah and among the chiefs of Eliphaz - since ultimately he was his son, albeit a mamzer, born of union with his father's wife. This Korah was given two names: his mother called him Korah, while Eliphaz named him Timna after his concubine, for out of love for his concubine he gave her name to his son as well. Therefore, initially, when Scripture lists the sons of Eliphaz, it did not mention Timna explicitly, but in a concealed manner - "and Gatam, and Kenaz, and Timna," which can be read both ways - because he was a mamzer, and when he was born, people assumed he was Esau's son, since Oholibamah the wife of Esau had borne him. But as he grew up, his illegitimacy became known, and it was revealed that he was not Esau's son, but rather his grandson, since Eliphaz had cohabited with his father's wife. Therefore, when Scripture lists the chiefs of Eliphaz, it mentions him by the name "Korah," for by then it was widely known that he was Eliphaz's son; and here, Scripture mentions him by the name "Timna," the name Eliphaz gave him. Ezra teaches us all this, says the Malbim, by listing Timna among the sons of Eliphaz, who is the Korah counted among Esau's sons.
We should also mention the famous comment of Rashi on the Chumash, that the Timna counted here is the concubine of Eliphaz. (In the printed text of the Malbim, it reads "the concubine of Esau," but this is a scribal error and should read "the concubine of Eliphaz," as appears in Rashi on the Chumash and is logically necessary.) This is also explained by the Metzudat David later, on verse 39: Timna was both Eliphaz's concubine and his daughter. How so? Eliphaz cohabited with the wife of Seir, who bore Timna, and he then took his own daughter as a concubine. Thus it is understood why she is called his daughter - for she was indeed his daughter - and why she is called his concubine - for he took her as a concubine, and there is no contradiction between the two. The difficulty remains as to why she is counted among the sons if she was female; to this the Malbim responds that it is not unusual for a daughter to be counted among the sons, and we find precedent where a daughter is included in a single list alongside sons.
The Sons of Seir and the Stature of the Chiefs
בְּנֵי רְעוּאֵל נַחַת זֶרַח שַׁמָּה וּמִזָּה׃ וּבְנֵי שֵׂעִיר לוֹטָן וְשׁוֹבָל וְצִבְעוֹן וַעֲנָה וְדִישֹׁן וְאֵצֶר וְדִישָׁן׃ - The sons of Reuel: Nachath, Zerach, Shammah, and Mizzah. And the sons of Seir: Lotan, and Shobal, and Zibeon, and Anah, and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan.
The Radak explains: Scripture mentions the sons of Seir just as it did in the Torah, because out of Isaac's love, he gave his son Esau the inheritance of these chiefs. Isaac loved Esau, and therefore granted him distinction; and we see that chiefs emerged from Esau, whereas chiefs did not emerge from Ishmael. Herein lies the superiority of Esau's descendants over Ishmael's descendants. This is also the root of Ishmael's great hatred: unlike Esau, he was not the beloved son, but was driven out of the house at Sarah's command by God's word - "Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice," for she was superior to him in prophecy. That same bitterness erupted many years later: hatred toward Israel in particular, and toward the entire Western world in general, for he did not merit to grow up at his father's table but was cast out of the house, nor did he merit that chiefs - leaders of dominion and prestige - descend from him. Therefore, you always find the descendants of Ishmael in an inferior standing, not superior in any essential way; and if their financial situation is good, as people say, one merely pitched a tent peg and oil gushed from the ground making him awash in millions - but intrinsic greatness they possess none at all; there are no chiefs in Ishmael. Esau, on the other hand, was the beloved son, and chiefs descended from him; this is why the Radak states that out of Isaac's love, he gave his son Esau the inheritance of the chiefs.
The Metzudat David notes: Seir himself was not among the descendants of Esau, so why mention him? Because Timna was the daughter of Seir's wife and became the concubine of Eliphaz the son of Esau - for Eliphaz cohabited with Seir's wife and fathered Timna from her - and therefore Scripture mentions the descendants of Seir here.
The Malbim offers a different explanation: Scripture mentions the descendants of Seir because the descendants of Esau destroyed the descendants of Seir and dwelt in their place, as recorded in the Torah, and in place of the chiefs of Seir, new chiefs from the descendants of Esau arose. Therefore, Scripture informs you who the chiefs of Seir were, so that you may know how many chiefs from Esau took their place.
The Malbim tallies them: Ishmael and his sons are thirteen; the sons of Keturah are thirteen; Esau and his sons are sixteen, not counting Timna according to either interpretation; the sons of Seir are twenty-six, whose places were taken by twenty-six descendants of Esau. This totals sixty-eight, and together with Ammon and Moab, who are also of Abraham's family, that makes seventy. This comes to teach you that just as seventy nations arose in the world, so seventy chieftains and rulers arose from the seed of Abraham, and corresponding to them were the seventy souls from the sons of Jacob, who are the root of all Israel. This aligns with what we mentioned in the name of the Arizal in Sefer HaGilgulim: "God has made one corresponding to the other," "He established the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the children of Israel" - the Holy One, blessed be He, set the boundaries of the nations according to the number of the children of Israel, seventy souls corresponding to seventy nations and seventy chiefs, for the number in the kelipah (the unholy shell) corresponds to the number in kedushah (holiness). We have already explained that this is entirely logical: the kelipah has no independent source of vitality and draws solely from holiness; therefore, its structure reflects the tally of holiness, so that it may draw sustenance in proportion to the measure of holy bounty. From this same principle stems idol worship: Israel consists of twelve tribes of God, while the gentiles worship the twelve signs of the zodiac, one corresponding to the other, seeking to draw bounty through the stars and constellations.
Variations in Names Relative to the Torah
וּבְנֵי לוֹטָן חֹרִי וְהוֹמָם וַאֲחוֹת לוֹטָן תִּמְנָע׃ - And the sons of Lotan were Hori and Homam, and Lotan's sister was Timna.
"And Homam" - Radak notes that in the Torah it is written "and Hemam" with a yud, and as we have already seen, Scripture is not meticulous about variations in names, and explanations for this were already cited above. "And Lotan's sister was Timna" - she was his maternal sister, and not the daughter of his father Seir, as explained earlier: Eliphaz cohabited with Seir's wife and she bore him Timna, and she later became his concubine, as Rashi explains and as noted in the Malbim.
בְּנֵי שׁוֹבָל עַלְיָן וּמָנַחַת וְעֵיבָל שְׁפִי וְאוֹנָם וּבְנֵי צִבְעוֹן אַיָּה וַעֲנָה׃ - The sons of Shobal: Alyan, and Manahath, and Ebal, Shephi, and Onam. And the sons of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah.
"Alyan" - in the Torah it is "Alvan." "Shephi" with a yud - in the Torah it is written "Shepho."
בְּנֵי עֲנָה דִּישׁוֹן וּבְנֵי דִישׁוֹן חַמְרָן וְאֶשְׁבָּן וְיִתְרָן וּכְרָן׃ - The sons of Anah: Dishon. And the sons of Dishon: Hamran, and Eshban, and Ithran, and Cheran.
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes that in the Torah it is written "Hemdan" and here "Hamran," expounding on the change: at first they were pleasant and delightful (chamudim) like the righteous - "Hemdan" - but in the end they became ugly like a donkey (chamor). Such is the way of a donkey: at first it is cute, but in the end it becomes ugly (whereas a horse is the opposite: at first awkward, and in the end magnificent). This also sheds light on what we see among the Arabs, where many names are variations of "cute/praiseworthy" - Ahmad, Mahmoud, Hamid, Hamoudi, Hamdi - yet how far they are from it; seemingly trying at least through the name, hoping a name change might accomplish something. But it is only "at first delightful" - and in the end becoming ugly.
Furthermore, in the Torah it is written: "And these are the children of Dishan" with a kamatz, whereas here it says "the sons of Dishon." Dishon with a cholam was the fifth of the sons of Seir, and Dishan with a kamatz was the seventh, as they are enumerated: "and Dishon, and Ezer, and Dishan." Yet when mentioning their descendants, Ezra calls both of them "Dishon" with a vav - both the fifth and the seventh. It appears that people were not particular in distinguishing between the names Dishon and Dishan. According to the pronunciation tradition of Ashkenazim and Yemenites, this presents no great difficulty, since in their pronunciation the cholam and the kamatz sound very similar. Among Yemenites it is not quite the same, as their cholam has an intermediate pronunciation; among Ashkenazim it is certainly more closely aligned, though even by their pronunciation there is a distinction - pronouncing the cholam with a diphthong like a yud and the kamatz without one - but nevertheless, they are much closer. In other communities as well, the kamatz is pronounced like an "o": among Persian and Bukharian Jews, who say "Avrohom" rather than "Avraham." Thus we find that communities that did not see one another for thousands of years - the Yemenites, who went into exile during the First Temple period and were not present during the Second Temple, and Ashkenazim on the other side of the globe - share a similar pronunciation. This indicates that there were tribes who pronounced it this way. Indeed, we already find tribal differences in pronunciation when they were still living in the Land of Israel, as some pronounced it "shibboleth" and others "sibboleth." It follows that variations in pronunciation already existed back then.
בְּנֵי־אֵצֶר בִּלְהָן וְזַעֲוָן יַעֲקָן בְּנֵי דִישׁוֹן עוּץ וַאֲרָן׃ - The sons of Ezer: Bilhan, and Zaavan, and Jaakan. The sons of Dishon: Uz and Aran.
"Jaakan" - Radak notes that in the Torah it is "Akan" (or "Vaakan"). The homiletic exposition of Chazal is well known: "Zaavan - tremors and quaking; Akan - affliction and distress, etc." But as mentioned earlier, we will not delve into expounding all the names found in the Midrashim, for to do so would require great elaboration.
The Kings of Edom - "Before Any King Reigned Over the Children of Israel"
וְאֵלֶּה הַמְּלָכִים אֲשֶׁר מָלְכוּ בְּאֶרֶץ אֱדוֹם לִפְנֵי מְלׇךְ־מֶלֶךְ לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בֶּלַע בֶּן־בְּעוֹר וְשֵׁם עִירוֹ דִּנְהָבָה׃ - And these are the kings who reigned in the land of Edom before any king reigned over the children of Israel: Bela the son of Beor, and the name of his city was Dinhabah.
First, it should be mentioned for those familiar with esoteric wisdom: the holy Zohar and the teachings of the holy Ari base a great deal upon this passage, dealing with the sefirot and the beginning of their construction at the dawn of Creation, the concept of the Shattering of the Vessels (Shevirat HaKeilim), and the seven kings who reigned "before any king reigned." These represent the spiritual forces through which the sefirot descended and emanated: beginning with Adam Kadmon and the lights that issued from it - Ozen-Chotem-Peh (AKhaP), and so forth - until reaching those sefirot. All of this is hinted at in these verses, which already appear in the Torah and are repeated here. Thus, at an esoteric level, this passage deals with the reality that preceded the creation of our world, "before any king reigned" - the process of the Shattering of the Vessels, and the lights of the kings that ascended and were rectified until the sefirot were firmly established from them. We, however, will endeavor to study these verses according to their plain meaning (peshat).
The commentary attributed to Rashi cites from Bereishit Rabbah: Rabbi Aibu said - Before a king arose in Israel, a king stood in Edom. Rabbi Yose ben Chanina said - While this one sets up kings, the other sets up judges; while this one sets up chiefs, the other sets up princes. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said - This one established eight and the other established eight. That is to say, during the time Edom established kings, Israel established judges, for we had a lengthy era of "the days when the judges judged." And on this the commentary attributed to Rashi notes: And I have heard that Edom had only these eight kings, and Israel had eight.
וַיָּמׇת חוּשָׁם וַיִּמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו הֲדַד בֶּן־בְּדַד הַמַּכֶּה אֶת־מִדְיָן בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב וְשֵׁם עִירוֹ עֲוִית׃ - And Chusham died, and Hadad son of Bedad, who struck Midian in the field of Moab, reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Avith.
The Malbim emphasizes: In the Torah it does not say "and Hadar died," but only "and Hadar reigned in his place," whereas here it says "and Hadad died" (in our text he is called Hadad, while there he is called Hadar). The Malbim explains two foundational principles regarding the governance of Edom: First, they always chose a king from another nation; there was never a king from among their own people, nor a king who was the son of a king. Second, there were always eleven chiefs among them from the descendants of Esau who governed the country - if you will, like district governors or mayors, with the king over them.
And when Moshe Rabbeinu wrote the Torah, the last king was Hadar and he was still alive, which is why it did not say of him "and he died." The eleven chiefs mentioned there by name also existed then, as it says, "Then the chiefs of Edom were dismayed." Moshe Rabbeinu prophesies that when a king reigns over the Children of Israel, monarchy will cease from Edom - meaning, the kings you see in Edom are only temporary. The reason is: when one rises, the other falls, "and one kingdom shall be stronger than the other" - when one ascends, the other descends; "I will be filled through the ruined one" - Tyre was filled only through the destruction of Jerusalem, and Jerusalem will be filled through the destruction of Tyre. Therefore, when kings arise in Israel, the kings of Edom will be eliminated, and this is why it says that these kings reigned "before any king reigned over the Children of Israel."
The Malbim adds: Ezra is telling us that after Hadar died - the last king who lived in the days of Moshe - Israel was already conquering the Land and prospering, with Yehoshua functioning over them like a king, and from then on Edom accepted no king over itself; rather, the chiefs governed it, those same eleven chiefs we have seen. This is the meaning of "and the chiefs of Edom were": no king reigned over them as long as there was a ruler in Israel.
And what is the meaning of "who struck Midian in the field of Moab"? The Metzudot explains: When they came to wage war against Moab, Hadad son of Bedad came to Moab's assistance and struck Midian who came out against him.
וַיָּמׇת בַּעַל חָנָן וַיִּמְלֹךְ תַּחְתָּיו הֲדַד וְשֵׁם עִירוֹ פָּעִי וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ מְהֵיטַבְאֵל בַּת־מַטְרֵד בַּת מֵי זָהָב׃ - And Baal-chanan died, and Hadad reigned in his place; and the name of his city was Pai, and his wife's name was Mehetabel daughter of Matred, daughter of Me-zahav.
"Pai" - the Radak notes that in the Torah it is "Pau" with a vav. "Daughter of Me-zahav" - the Metzudot explains that this refers to Matred, that she was the daughter of Me-zahav, and "Me-zahav" is a person's proper name rather than a title; that was his name, that is what he was named at his brit.
The Chiefs of Edom
וַיָּמׇת הֲדָד וַיִּהְיוּ אַלּוּפֵי אֱדוֹם אַלּוּף תִּמְנָע אַלּוּף עַלְוָה אַלּוּף יְתֵת׃ - And Hadad died; and the chiefs of Edom were: Chief Timna, Chief Alvah, Chief Jetheth.
After Hadad died, the monarchy ceased, and they governed themselves through chiefs, as the Malbim explained and as the Metzudot explains here. "Chiefs" (alufim) is an expression of authority, as in "chiefs over our head" or "my companion (alufi) and familiar friend," meaning a person of high rank and authority.
אַלּוּף אׇהֳלִיבָמָה אַלּוּף אֵלָה אַלּוּף פִּינֹן׃ אַלּוּף קְנַז אַלּוּף תֵּימָן אַלּוּף מִבְצָר׃ אַלּוּף מַגְדִּיאֵל אַלּוּף עִירָם אֵלֶּה אַלּוּפֵי אֱדוֹם׃ - Chief Oholibamah, Chief Elah, Chief Pinon; Chief Kenaz, Chief Teman, Chief Mibzar; Chief Magdiel, Chief Iram. These are the chiefs of Edom.
These are the eleven chieftains who continued to lead Edom after the kings died. And with this, we conclude the first chapter.
In summary:
The chapter opens with the chain of generations and arrives at Avraham, immediately emphasizing, "Avram who is Avraham" - a name attesting that he is the father of a multitude of nations, and that he is no longer to be called Avram. From there, Scripture counts Yishmael and the sons of Keturah, thirteen corresponding to thirteen, an allusion to the thirteen tribes that were destined to descend from Avraham and ultimately came forth from Yaakov. Scripture mentions the dross only briefly and sets it aside - recording them solely out of honor for Avraham and Yitzchak - and continues to the essential lineage: "Avraham begot Yitzchak," for "through Yitzchak will your seed be called." Further on, we addressed the riddle of Timna, seeing the Malbim's resolution that chieftain Korach is Timna the son of Elifaz, and the tally of seventy chieftains from the seed of Avraham corresponding to the seventy souls who descended to Egypt - "God has made the one corresponding to the other." Finally, we saw the kings of Edom and its chieftains, who reigned "before any king reigned over the Children of Israel," teaching us that when the kingdom of Israel rises, the kingdom of Edom falls.