Adam, Seth, Enosh. This is an account of one generation after another, as is “Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared; Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; Noah, Shem.” But “Shem,Ham and Japheth” is akin to: “Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah” (Exod 1:2).

The sons of Japheth. The genealogies begin with Japheth as they do in the Torah (Gen 10:2), even though he is the youngest: because the text always refers to them as “Shem, Ham and Japheth,” it seems that this was the order of their births. When it says [that Shem was] “the brother of Japheth the gadol” (Gen 10:21), this does not mean [that Japheth was] older (gadol) in years but that he was greater (gadol) in stature. The fact that it mentions Shem in reference to him lends support to this. The reason that the text begins by presenting the progeny of the youngest is that the only important part of the account concerns Abraham, and it is in connection with him that it will present the genealogies at length. This, then, is why it presents the lines of Shem only at the end. It places Japheth before Ham because he was greater and more honorable than him, even though Japheth was younger in years.

The sons of Gomer. “And Diphath” has a dalet; but in the book of Genesis (10:3) [the name] appears with a resh.

The sons of Javan. The text leaves out Magog, Madai, Tubal, Meshech, and Tiras—as it does in Genesis (10:3–5)—in order to be brief, because their progenies do not amount to anything important. As for Gomer and Javan, tbey might have been the heads of the families that descended from Japheth.

Tarshishah. In the book of Genesis (10:4) the text says “Tarshish.” They are one and the same.

And Rodanim. This appears with a resh at the beginning; but the book of Genesis (10:4) has ve-Dodanim, with two dalets. Because dalet and resh look similar, some readers of ancient genealogical records read it with a dalet, while others read it with a resh. This, then, is how the name remained pronounced by people: with either a dalet or a resh. Therefore, one of the readings was recorded in the book of Genesis and the other in this book, to indicate that it is all one name even though some read it with a dalet and others with a resh. Similarly, “Riblah” (2 Kgs 25:7) has a resh while “Diblah” (Ezek 6:14) has a dalet, and “Deuel” (Num 1:14) has a dalet while “Reuel” (Num 2:14) has a resh. In the case of vav and yod, also, readings interchange because [the two letters] look similar. They also interchange for vowel-letters alef and hei at the end of a word, as in savta (סבתא; 1 Chr 1:9) and savtah (סבתה; Gen 10:7). After all, alef and hei are members of one class, the class of letters that represent [nothing more than] exhalation; so one may write either an alef or a hei, whatever one wishes. This function of the letters alef, hei, vav, and yod applies just the same to verbs, nouns, and particles, as we have explained fully in the grammar book that we have authored (Sefer Mikhlol). Even though there are midrashic expositions concerning the variation in the letters of these names, I did not see fit to record them, so that the task should not become too burdensome for me; for the main explanation is the one that I have provided.

Canaan fathered. I saw that one of the commentators (Pseudo-Rashi) observes that the sons of Canaan total eleven, and that together with him they total twelve, so that when the verse says “He established the borders of nations according to the number of the sons of Israel” (Deut 32:8), it means the borders of Canaan and his sons, who are equal in number to Israel’s sons.

The sons of Shem. The list includes grandsons along with sons; for Uz, Hul, Gesher and Meshech were sons of Aram.

And Meshech. But in the book of Genesis (10:23) it says “and Mash.” They are phonetically similar, and he was called by both.

Joktan fathered. Hazarmaveth is one word.

Shem, Arpachshad. At this point the text restricts the account of the genealogy to one man after another, from Shem to Abraham.

Abram—that is, Abraham. The text says “Abram” consistent with the way [one presents] genealogical lines; and “that is Abraham”—the famous one, whom God loved and whose name He aggrandized (Gen 12:2), making him a father of many nations (Gen 17:5). In the course of presenting the lines of Abraham, the text provides the lines of his son Ishmael and the sons of Keturah, and after that it states “Abraham fathered Isaac” (1 1:34) because he is the essential one.

The sons of Keturah, Abraham’s concubine. Because the Torah says “Abraham took another woman (ishah)” (Gen 25:1), the text indicates here that she was only a concubine. When the Torah says that he took an ishah, it thus means that he took a certain woman (ishah) as a concubine, for he had no wife (ishah) other than our mother Sarah: the others were concubines. Indeed, it says in the Torah, “To Abraham’s sons by concubines …” (Gen 25:6).

The sons of Esau. Just as the text provides the lines of Abraham’s son Ishmael, it also provides the lines of Isaac’s son Esau and the kings who reigned over his nation before any king reigned over the Israelites (v. 43). For afterward they did not have kings, as I have said, because they were under the control of David until the sins of the Judean kings facilitated their rebellion against Judean rule (2 Chr 21:8–11).

The sons of Eliphaz. The text says “Zephi,” with a yod; but in the Torah (Gen 36:11) this appears as “Zepho,” with a vav.

Kenaz, Timna, and Amalek. From this verse it seems that Timna was a son of Eliphaz, but the Torah (Gen 36:12) says that Timna was a concubine of Eliphaz and that she bore him Amalek! Some explain (cf. Rashi ibid.) that Timna is the mother of Amalek as it says in the Torah, and that she was misbegotten. For Eliphaz had relations with Seir’s wife, the mother of Lotan, and she bore him Timna—either during his lifetime or after his death—and Ezra made a subtle observation in the Torah that there is a paseq after “Timna,” so that the intent is: “Gatam, Kenaz, and Timna” (Gen 36:11–12), meaning that she too was his daughter. Afterward, though, she became his concubine and bore him Amalek. It is for this reason, then, that the text says, “and Lotan’s sister was Timna” (Gen 36:22, I Chr 1:39)—not “Seir’s daughter,” but rather “Lotan’s sister.” But this interpretation is midrashic: had Timna been the daughter of Eliphaz, the text would not have included her in the list of sons; for Scripture does not do this without saying so explicitly, as in: “and his daughter Dinah” (Gen 46:15), and: “and their sister Serah” (Gen 46:17). In my view the text adopts an abridged style: because Ezra did not need to be explicit, inasmuch as the matter is explicit in the Torah, he presented the genealogical lines in abridged form. He was similarly brief concerning the sons of Shem, recording Shem’s grandsons in the list of sons for the purpose of brevity, so that when the text says “Aram [and Uz and Hul]” (1 Chr 1:17) it is as though it says, “Aram’s sons were Uz and Hul.” Here too, then, he was brief in writing “Timna.” Indeed, he could have been even briefer and written “Zepho, Gatam, Kenaz, and Amalek”; but because Amalek was not equal to the other sons—for they were sons of wives whereas he was the son of a concubine—he separated them by mentioning his mother. And it was adequate for him just to write “Timna,” because the matter is laid out in the Torah.

The sons of Seir. The text provides the sons of Seir also, just as it provides them in the Torah, because out of love for Isaac, God gave his son Esau the land of these chiefs, the descendants of Seir.

**The sons of Lotan: Hori and Homam—**with a vav; but in the Torah (Gen 36:22) this appears as “Hemam,” with a yod.

The sons of Shobal: Alian. But in the Torah (Gen 36:23) this appears as “Alvan,” with a vav.

**Shephi—**with a yod, but in the Torah (ibid.) this appears as “Shepho,” with a vav.

The sons of Dishon. But it the Torah (Gen 36:26) it says, “These are the sons of Dishan,” with a qameṣ. In truth, they were the sons of Dishon; for Dishon—with a ḥolem—was the fifth of Seir’s sons, whereas Dishan—with a qameṣ—was the seventh of Seir’s sons. This is in fact how the text records them in the Torah: “Dishon, Ezer, and Dishan” (Gen 36:21). But when it records their progeny it calls both of them “Dishan”—with a qameṣ: “The sons of Dishan were Hemdan and Eshban” (Gen 36:26)—then the sons of Ezer—and then: “the sons of Dishan were Uz and Aran” (Gen 36:28). Ezra, however, wrote “Dishon” for both of them. Apparently, concerning their names, they were not particular about the distinction between “Dishan” and “Dishon.”

**The sons of Dishon: Hamran—**with a resh; but in the Torah (Gen 36:26) this appears as “Hemdan,” with a dalet. I have already provided the reasons for such variations (v. 7).

**Zaavan and Jaakan—**with a yod; but in the Torah (Gen 36:27) this appears as “Vaakan,” with a vav.

**These are the kings … When Baal-hanan died, Hadad reigned in his stead—**with a dalet; but in the Torah (Gen 36:39) this appears as “Hadar,” with a resh.

And the name of his city was Pai—with a yod; but in the Torah (ibid.) this appears as “Pau,” with a vav.