This refers to Persia. You might ask: Why does Rashi explain Tiras any more than the others? The answer is: Rashi said on 9:27 (ד"ה וישכון) that “Cyrus, Yefes’ descendant, built the Second Temple.” And one might ask: How does Rashi know that Cyrus came from Yefes? Thus Rashi explains here that Tiras is Persia, so Persia is from Yefes. And Cyrus, king of Persia, assumedly descended from Tiras. Furthermore, the Re’m says that Rashi [explains Tiras because he] is answering the question: Why here is it written מדי, not פרס? These two nations are always mentioned together! Thus Rashi explains that Tiras is פרס. But Tzeidah L’Derech says that [it is not as the Re’msaid. Rather, Rashi explains Tiras because] it is from Yoma 10a: “How do we know that the Persians come from Yefes? Because it is written, ‘The sons of Yefes were: Gomer... and Tiras.’ And Rav Yosef taught: Tiras is Persia.” [Thus, Rashi brings it to prove that Cyrus came from Yefes.]

In causing the entire world to rebel. [Rashi explains החל as “rebel”] because otherwise, [if it meant “began,”] why should it say החל? Nimrod was not the first to rebel against Hashem. Back in the days of Enosh it already says (4:26), אז הוחל לקרא. Perforce, החל is related to the word חילול. I.e., Nimrod publicly desecrated Hashem’s Name [by rebelling against Him]. (Kitzur Mizrachi) But it seems to me that החל must mean “began”. For if meant “rebel”, why does it say [גבור] twice? It should [combine the verses and] say, הוא החל להיות גבור ציד לפני ה'. But if it means “began,” the verse is understandable as is. Scripture is saying: “He was the first one who began to be powerful in causing rebellion, and he was a mighty hunter before Hashem, intentionally provoking Him.” (Nachalas Yaakov)

He intentionally provoked Him. Rashi is answering the question: Wherever Nimrod is, he is “before Hashem.” [So what is the meaning of “before Hashem”?]

This refers to Nineveh. [Rashi explains this] because we do not know if “the great city” refers to Nineveh or to Kalach. [And Rashi knows it is Nineveh] because if Kalach was “the great city,” it should say, ובין כלח העיר הגדולה. Why does it say היא? (Nachalas Yaakov, citing Tosfos Yoma 10a, ד"ה איני)

Because of their fiery faces. Wherever the name is a Hebrew word, Rashi explains why that name is used, telling us what it signifies. But if the name is not a Hebrew word, Rashi does not comment.

And the Plishtim descended from them. For if the Plishtim descended from the Kasluchim alone, it should say: “And the Kasluchim produced the Plishtim,” and omit, “From whom came.” Furthermore, Scripture cannot be identifying which Kasluchim it speaks of — i.e., they are the ones from which the Plishtim came — as no other mention of Kasluchim appears in Scripture. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Many families. ואחר נפצו cannot refer to the above-mentioned descendants of Canaan, [saying that they spread across the earth,] for then it should say just ואחר נפצו and omit משפחות הכנעני. For it clearly would refer back to those above. Perforce, it says משפחות הכנעני to tell us that “from these, many other families branched out.” This is similar to Noach’s three sons [from whom many families branched out]. (Re’m)

Of the river. The simple reading of the verse is that Eiver is the name of a man [who was a greatgrandson of Sheim]. But if so, why does it say that Sheim was “father of the children of Eiver”? Was Sheim the forefather only of Eiver’s descendants? Sheim had other sons as well! Thus Rashi explains that Eiver is not a name of a person, but it means עבר הנהר, the other side of the river. This is preferable to the Re’m’sexplanation, that it cannot refer to Eiver the great-grandson of Sheim because then what would it come to teach us? Everyone is the forefather of the families he produced! Perforce, עבר means the other side of the river.

Consequently, his oldest child was 100 years old. [The *Re’m,*who holds that Cham was the oldest son of Noach (see entry on 9:24, citing Re’m) writes as follows:] You might ask: How does this prove [that Yefes was older than Sheim]? Perhaps Cham was 100 years old when the Flood came, Sheim was 100 at two years after the Flood, and Yefes was 100 at three or four years after the Flood. The answer is: In the early generations, sons were born at intervals of one year, as it says in Sanhedrin 69b. Once Scripture tells us that Sheim was born when Noach was 502, which is [deduced from the fact that Sheim turned 100] “two years after the Flood,” we may infer that Sheim was the last [to be born. This is because “Noach was 500 years old when he had his first child.” [We may therefore deduce that] Yefes was born when Noach was 501, and Cham was born when Noach was 500.

Towards the end of Eiver’s life they became dispersed. If so, how did Eiver know [to name his son Peleg]? Perforce, he was a prophet.

Early in his life. And thus Eiver was not a prophet. Perhaps, the dispersion happened early on, and he named [his son Peleg] after a past event. [This is not so,] because “Yokton... had propagated many families before this.”

**And if you will claim that [the dispersion took place] in his mid-life.**Meaning: Peleg had a different name before the dispersion, and when it occurred, Eiver renamed him. [To this Rashi counters:] “Scripture does not come to obfuscate, but to clarify. Hence, you may conclude that in the year of Peleg’s death they were dispersed.” This eliminates the possibility that Peleg had another name beforehand, and Eiver renamed him after the dispersion occurred. For it occurred at the end of Peleg’s life, and a deceased person is not renamed on account of an event that took place at the time of or shortly before his death. Surely, Eiver named him Peleg early in Eiver’s life, on account of a future event.

And thought little of himself. Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture change the style of its text when telling about the birth of Eiver’s sons? For it is written: “Two sons were born to Eiver.” This is unlike other births, where it says, for instance, “Arpachshad produced Shelach,” and, “Yaktan produced Almodad, Shelef...” Perforce Scripture changed the style of its text and writes, “Two sons were born to Eiver,” [because] he named them on account of an event. But the question is: Indeed, Scripture gave a reason for naming Peleg so. But why was Yaktan named so? It must be because he thought little of himself. Eiver saw all this prophetically. But the Re’mwrites that Rashi specially explains Yaktan because it is derived from קטן [which is a Hebrew word].

He was so called because of his city. [The Aggadah explains that] the people of that city awaited death [מות] every day, because they [were very poor] and ate animal fodder.