Nimrod

“And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man in the land. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord." Genesis 10:8-9

Feb 28, 2024

“And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man in the land. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord." And the beginning of his kingdom was Babylon and Erech and Accad and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. From that land emerged Asshur, and he built Nineveh and Rehoboth ir and Calah. And Resen, between Nineveh and between Calah; that is the great city.” Genesis 10:8-12

Let’s set a few foundational character traits for Nimrod based on his first mention in the Table of Nations. Nimrod was begotten of Cush, in other words a son, and he was a mighty man. In addition, he was a mighty hunter before the lord, repeated twice with a specific intention to signal this string of words as more than saying “Nimrod was powerful” like the previous mighty men.

Contrary to the popular belief, the text simply states that Nimrod’s kingdom began in Babylon, Erech, Accad and Calneh, all neatly wrapped into territories “in the land of Shinar” - presumably southern Mesopotamia, better known as Sumeria. The text follows with not Nimrod, but rather Assur emerging from this land, and then having built Nineveh, Rehoboth ir, and Calah. Resen also appears to have been built “between Nineveh and between Calah”, identifying one of these, possibly this ‘region’ as the ’great city’. The following map depicts the geography of the region around this period.

From this we can pull five primary traits from Nimrod. First, Nimrod was a son of Cush. Second, he was a mighty man, possibly greater than a mere King. Third, he was a mighty hunter, specifically before God implying a spiritual quality to this trait different from the previous quality of being a mighty man. Fourth, his kingdom began in Shinar, roughly corresponding to Sumeria. Fifth, Assur emerged from his land.

There is another reference not directly to Nimrod, but to the “Land of Nimrod” from Micah 5:5 “And they shall break the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod at its gates; and he shall save [us] from Assyria, who comes into our land, and who treads in our border.” Helpfully this text juxtaposes Assyria with the Land of Nimrod, showing effectively Northern and Southern Mesopotamia, placing Assyria in the north and lining up Shinar with the south.

These are the textual baselines we are given in regards to Nimrod. Everything else is presented to us in the form of Oral Torah, with numerous stories passed down in regards to Nimrod that we will cross examine over this investigation. While one might assume “stories” of Nimrod are less plausible, given that we will learn of Abraham’s own battles and wars with Nimrod, it is not entirely impossible such ‘blasphemous’ stories that made a mighty king and father of nations look bad would have been kept secret and turned into secretive material. Let us move onto analyzing the text for deeper clues to understand this relationship with Nimrod before looking through the Rishonim’s commentaries on the subject.

Despite Nimrod’s separate listing from his brothers he is begotten to Cush, with the word ‘begot’ specifically implying Nimrod as a member of the generations of Noah. This contrasts with the term יָצָ֣א meaning “to come forth”, or more simply emerged, used for both Assur - himself a son of Nimrod - and the later Philistines. This is critical because many would typically presume Assur was related to Nimrod, but this is not at all the case.

Chronicles listing of the Table only says “Cush begot Nimrod; he was the first mighty one on earth.” explicitly leaving out any mention of Assur, or the cities and lands they both fight to control from this complete listing of the “Nations” that descend from Noah. This goes a long way to showing that Assur might actually be a different figure, possibly the Assur who is a son of Shem, but we will later look at how this term impacts the Philistines' own origin and leave these theories for their own sections.

In a commentary from Kitzur Baal HaTurim on Genesis discussing a lost mystical text “סֵפֶר מִלְחֲמֹת יהוה” translated as “The Book of the Wars of the Lord” we are given some interesting, possibly lost, information: “It is said in the secret (mystical) tradition: Therefore, it is said 'like Nimrod', therefore it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, and regarding Zion, it is said 'every one that is born in her', which teaches that Nimrod was a man of war who captured cities, as it is written 'And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel'. This is why it is said in the book of the wars of the Lord, and regarding Zion, it is said that every one who is born there should be brave and stand tall like Nimrod, so that it will be noticeable and people will say, 'this one was born in Zion'.”1

The key information given here is nothing really regarding Zion, but actually a confirmation that Nimrod was a man of war, capturing cities, building a grand empire in the region. While most would presume this a fleeting reference, the very obvious name “Book of the Wars of the Lord” would imply this book, of any, would contain information about ancient wars and kingdoms. Another very good reason for this book's quite lofty character is actually a reference to the Israelite travels in Numbers 21:14 “Concerning this it is told in the account of the Wars of the Lord, "What He gave at the [Sea of] Reeds and the streams of Arnon.”

Not only within Numbers, but in Exodus 17:14 we are given a reference to a book that God asks Moses to inscribe with an account of his battles saying “The Lord said to Moses, Inscribe this [as] a memorial in the book, and recite it into Joshua's ears, that I will surely obliterate the remembrance of Amalek from beneath the heavens”. Given that we don’t have any record of such a book, it’s quite possible this was a reference to the ‘Book of the Wars of the Lord’ which has now been lost.

Considering these two references to such a book come from the Torah itself, it’s presumably a fairly solid source on wars, and the political events of the region. It’s very possible the knowledge of many geopolitical rivalries and wars were lost when this book was also lost. Without the book we cannot know further what it says regarding Nimrod, but we are critically given this confirmation that he was a military leader - a fact we don’t just need to assume.

Continuing with the text it goes on to say “he began to be a mighty man” which Rashi takes to mean that “he caused the entire world to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He, with the plan of the Generation of the Dispersion.”2 Rashi goes on to say “a mighty hunter: He ensnared people’s minds with his speech and misled them to rebel against the Omnipresent.”3 Simply put, during the Generation of the Dispersion, Nimrod caused the world to be misled into idolatry.

Specifically, according to the text, and Rashi’s commentary “before the Lord: He intended to provoke Him to His face.”4 Whether intentional, or not, the word used here is לִפְנֵ֣י which translates to the Hebrew word for ‘face’. Seemingly unimportant, the deeper meaning to the word face is a direct implication of the Torah which is often referred to as having “seventy panim” or faces - a convenient number possibly mirroring the seventy nations that “fly in the face of god” and build the Tower with Nimrod. This word helps clue us in that Nimrod was acting in the face of the Lord through directly corrupting what was effectively the Torah.

Continuing “therefore it is said: About any man who is brazenly wicked, who recognizes his Master and intends to rebel [לִמְרֹד] against Him, it is said, “This one is like Nimrod [נִמְרֹד], a mighty hunter.” There is an interpretation by Ibn Ezra that views “mighty hunter before the lord” as a sort of metaphor for Nimrod’s offering of animal sacrifices to what would theoretically be polytheistic idols.5 While this is the most literal interpretation, it squares away with more metaphoric, or allegorical readings of the text.

An interesting illusion is the term “mighty hunter” which many might pick up is the term used to refer to Esau, who begat the Edomites - themselves a nation of mighty idolatry. In fact in Bereshit Rabbah “He was a mighty hunter before the Lord” connects the word ‘he’ (hu in Hebrew) with five instances of good ‘he’ and five instances of bad ‘he’. “[These are the bad ones:] “He was a mighty hunter before the Lord”; “He is Esau, father of Edom” (Genesis 36:43); “He was Datan, and Aviram” (Numbers 26:9); “He was King Aḥaz” (II Chronicles 28:22); “He was Aḥashverosh” (Esther 1:1). And five are in a good sense: “Abram, he is Abraham” (I Chronicles 1:27); “He was Moses, and Aaron” (Exodus 6:27); “He is Aaron, and Moses” (Exodus 6:26); “He was King Hezekiah” (II Chronicles 32:30); “He was Ezra, ascended from Babylon” (Ezra 7:6). Rabbi Berekhya in the name of Rabbi Ḥanin: We have one that is even better than them all: “He is the Lord our God” (Psalms 105:7), meaning that His attribute of mercy is eternal.”6

From Bereshit Rabbah we are given ten figures, corresponding to the ten Sefirot which are connected to God’s attributes of mercy. While for our purposes this mostly shows how Esau is connected to Nimrod, this also perhaps shows a connection to other leaders, all five of which are military rulers of sorts alluding to this “He who was a mighty hunter” as a term for rulers. Important is that the Midrash doesn’t mean that the entire term is connected with all ten, but merely the term ‘he’, showing how being a “mighty hunter before the lord” who misleads others into idolatry is a choice of will. Like Esau, who could have turned from sin and was given numerous opportunities, Nimrod and the other figures could just have easily avoided sin like the great leaders of the Jewish people also referred to with the epithet ‘he’.

While more peshat - meaning literal interpretations - might view the term ‘mighty hunter’ to imply they were both skilled at hunting animals, this deeper meaning given to us from Rashi clarifies the Torah’s necessity of using such terms. While indeed they were both incredible hunters, who about Esau it is said “could sever an animal with a single arrow in such a way that it would be rendered kosher for his father Isaac to eat” it was this skill of hunting the minds of people, and trapping them in their egotistical idol worship ultimately derived from their failure to elevate their own God given natural skills for a higher purpose.

Even if we are to take such a phrase at face value and look at near eastern similarities of this term in a pagan context, “mighty hunter”, with the epithet “before the lord” attached isn’t all that strange. In the ancient near east gods such as the Sumerian Ninurta, or Nergal, or the Babylonian Marduk are all renowned as great hunters. Interestingly a King of Uruk (Erech) named Enmerkar has the epithet “-kar” attached as a suffix which means “hunter” with the prefix “En” being similar to the Canaanite Baal meaning lord/master and ‘mer’ being a theosophic god name for the Sumerian deity Mer.7 Effectively this name becomes “The Hunter of Lord Mer” which is nearly the same thing as “Hunter before the Lord”.

Leaving aside possibilities for identifications of Nimrod with specific historical figures for now, this shows a pattern consistent with early near eastern, especially Sumerian era imagery. Viewing this story in context with the Sumerian Epic of Gilgamesh it is impossible not to see Gilgamesh as a hunter of the Humbaba with similar parallels to Nimrod. In fact, it could be said that by slaying the Humbaba, Gilgamesh is on some level connected with the later flood calamity that wipes out the region, from a Jewish perspective due to the people's sin, mirroring Nimrod’s own causing the Generation of the Dispersion to be misled. Gilgamesh might not be Nimrod, but he certainly was a “Nimrod”.

In this context it’s clear Gilgamesh is not the figure we are looking for when it comes to Nimrod, and Nimrod never slays any great beasts such as the Humbaba, but it’s the spiritual parallels and patterns within near eastern myths that provide context to how people saw these texts. Whether, or not the Epic of Gilgamesh accurately depicts anything, it does in some sense depict a competing narrative of history in contrast broadly with the Torah. Where these two texts align often reveals some agreed truth to the events even if there is disagreement on the heavenly causes of said events. Near Eastern Polytheists take events as individualized forces of multiple gods, while Jews would have viewed the same, identical events as a unity acting of the singular and only God.

According to Moses Gaster, the epithet used to describe Nimrod in Genesis 10:8, namely, Gibbor, is rendered by the author of The Asatir as "giant," rather than "mighty one." According to The Asatir, there were several kings, one in succession after the other, whose names were Nimrod.8 While seemingly out of step with mainline Judaism - given that the Asatir is a non-canonical Samaritan Midrashic text - in the Radak’s commentary he discusses how “mighty hunters”, or “great heroes” was a concept that predated Nimrod specifically among the antediluvian giants known as Nephilim.9

Nimrod was not the first mighty hunter, merely the first of the Generation of the Dispersion. From both the Radak and the Asatir we can potentially view the previous mighty heroes of the generation before the flood as “Nimrods” in their own right, with the name serving as more of a title. Is it possible that this original Nimrod, son of Cush, is different from the later Nimrod that existed at the time of Avram? Were there perhaps a series of Nimrods, or Kings, that all misled the world, during the entire generation of the flood, ultimately culminating in God’s dispersion of the languages to prevent sinful collaboration between nations?

We see in this context a story not just of founders, and lands, but a story infused into the Table of Nations of the worlds first, and earliest Empires. We are given a list of cities, corresponding to these King’s succession and from where the center of power thrived and further given the man, Assur, who will succeed them after God wiped out the Empire of Nimrods. Let us move away from the specific qualities that define Nimrod, and turn to the geography of his territory.

Hopefully this section provides you with a broad overview of the traits and qualities associated with Nimrod. Many of them are sources from the Torah itself, while some come from Chazal, and other Midrashic legends. However, we will be digging into each of these traits in depth over the coming sections to pull on every last thread.

Thank you for reading, and I hope you can deepen your connection with Torah to better understand the wisdom it contains.

Nimrod

“And Cush begat Nimrod; he began to be a mighty man in the land. He was a mighty hunter before the Lord; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod, a mighty hunter before the Lord." Genesis 10:8-9

Discussion about this post