Introduction: A Book of Genealogy - and Its Purpose
Chapter 2 of I Chronicles opens the genealogical record of the Children of Israel, and the overarching theme of the entire book immediately becomes apparent. The Radak notes that the author begins tracing the genealogies specifically with Judah, even though the chronological birth order of the tribes is Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah. Why not start with Reuben? Because the primary focus of the book is on the kings of Judah, as we will see further on, and as Pseudo-Rashi writes, the main purpose of the book is to praise the Davidic dynasty. This serves as a key that will accompany us throughout the entire chapter.
אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל: רְאוּבֵן שִׁמְעוֹן לֵוִי וִיהוּדָה, יִשָּׂשכָר וּזְבֻלוּן. - These are the sons of Israel: Reuben, Simeon, Levi, and Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun.
Why Dan Precedes Joseph and Benjamin
דָּן יוֹסֵף וּבִנְיָמִן, נַפְתָּלִי גָּד וְאָשֵׁר. - Dan, Joseph, and Benjamin, Naphtali, Gad, and Asher.
The Malbim addresses the fact that Dan is placed before Joseph, as we also find in another place in Parashat Masei. Our Sages explain: because in the merit of Dan, Joseph and Benjamin were born. How so? Rachel said, "Here is my maid Bilhah; come to her, that she may bear on my knees, that I too may be built up through her." She gave him Bilhah her maidservant as a wife, Jacob came to her, Bilhah conceived and bore Jacob a son, and Rachel said, "God has judged me and also heard my voice, and given me a son; therefore she called his name Dan." It turns out that the opening of Rachel's womb - her fortune, as it were - came about through the power of Dan, and for this reason the Midrash states that Joseph and Benjamin were born in the merit of Dan.
Seemingly, what is the difficulty here in the first place? After all, chronologically Dan was born before them. Rather, the difficulty is different: here, the son of a maidservant is listed before the sons of the primary matriarch. To this comes the explanation - the son of the maidservant was placed first because it was through his merit that Joseph and Benjamin were subsequently born.
The Sons of Judah: "Three Were Born to Him"
בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה: עֵר וְאוֹנָן וְשֵׁלָה, שְׁלוֹשָׁה נוֹלַד לוֹ מִבַּת שׁוּעַ הַכְּנַעֲנִית; וַיְהִי עֵר בְּכוֹר יְהוּדָה רַע בְּעֵינֵי ה' וַיְמִיתֵהוּ. - The sons of Judah: Er, Onan, and Shelah; three were born to him from Bath-shua the Canaanitess. But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the eyes of Hashem, and He put him to death.
"Wicked in the eyes of Hashem" - it is cited that he would "plow in gardens and spill in the rubbish." This is a Rabbinic euphemism meaning that he wasted his seed and engaged in unnatural intercourse.
The Malbim notes a precise detail in the wording: Scripture says "three was born to him" in the singular (nolad lo), rather than "were born to him" in the plural (noledu lo), to teach us that each one was born singly. Why might one have thought otherwise? According to the calculation in Seder Olam, each of them fathered children when he was eight years old, so one might have thought they were born as twins. Scripture therefore comes to tell you: not so, but rather each one was born individually.
"The Canaanitess" - Peshat and Derash
From the word "ha-Kena'anit" (the Canaanitess), the Malbim deduces that what the Torah wrote, "the daughter of a Canaanite man," is not meant solely according to the Midrash of Chazal, who expounded "Canaanite" as a merchant. For here it says "the daughter of Shua the Canaanitess," and "the Canaanitess" does not mean "the merchant," but rather that she was of the daughters of Canaan. Even so, Chazal's Midrash can also be reconciled: the Midrash interprets "Canaanite" as meaning a merchant, noting that Scripture does not say "Tamar the Canaanitess" - this title was not mentioned regarding Tamar, indicating that the term "Canaanite" can refer to a merchant. Yet this derash does not contradict the peshat, which is that they were indeed descendants of Canaan.
Why Onan's Deed Was Not Mentioned
Notice that the verse mentions only that "Er, Yehudah's firstborn, was wicked," whereas in the Torah both are mentioned, Er and Onan. The reason is that Onan did what he did because he knew that the seed would not be his - that is, out of self-interest; whereas Er's intention was purely evil, out of sheer malice. Moreover, the Malbim explains, it is not the style of this Book to record every single detail, as he will note in several places, and therefore it mentioned one of them here and not both.
"All the Sons of Yehudah Were Five"
וְתָמָר כַּלָּתוֹ יָלְדָה לּוֹ אֶת פֶּרֶץ וְאֶת זָרַח, כָּל בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה חֲמִשָּׁה. - And Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him Peretz and Zerach; all the sons of Yehudah were five.
The commentary attributed to Rashi writes: I wonder, how could it mention a disparagement of David's ancestress? For this statement, "Tamar his daughter-in-law bore him," carries a degree of reproach, since according to the laws of forbidden relations, a man's daughter-in-law is forbidden to him. This astonishment stems precisely from the approach taken by the commentary attributed to Rashi: that this Book was intended to recount the praise of David. Indeed, throughout the entire Book, we see that it highlights David's virtues and conceals his flaws, as the central theme of the Book is the praise of David.
The Malbim asks: What is the need for stating, "All the sons of Yehudah were five"? After all, it already listed them by name - Er, Onan, Shelah, and then Peretz and Zerach - and we can count on our own! Rather, in many places throughout the Book, it turns out there were other sons who were not mentioned, and it lists only some of the children (and the Malbim will explain further on Ezra's approach in writing the Book, why he omitted other sons). Therefore, the verse comes here to say: Know that here I have mentioned all of them. Do not think that here, too, I am following the practice in other places of mentioning some and omitting others; here there were five in total, and he had no other sons. For generally, it does not mention the others because they were not prominent, but here, since all of his sons were significant, it mentions all five.
The Malbim further explains: Scripture wished to hint here that Er and Onan returned through the mystery of reincarnation (gilgul) via the yibbum in Peretz and Zerach - Peretz and Zerach were the gilgulim of Er and Onan. Accordingly, the verse tells you that all of them existed simultaneously in reality: "All the sons of Yehudah were five," as though all five were present. And if you ask, did not Er and Onan die? Indeed, but they returned through reincarnation, and as it were, all five are present here.
The Sons of Peretz - And Why Chamul Was Omitted
בְּנֵי פֶרֶץ: חֶצְרוֹן וְחָמוּל. - The sons of Peretz: Chetzron and Chamul.
The Malbim notes that the family of Chamul is not mentioned subsequently, but only the family of Chetzron, and this was out of deference to the House of David. Royalty emerged from Peretz - but specifically through Chetzron, not through Chamul. For this reason, from here on, the Book no longer deals with Chamul, but with Chetzron alone, through whom the monarchy passed.
The Sons of Zerach - Were They the Sages of Shlomo's Era?
וּבְנֵי זֶרַח: זִמְרִי וְאֵיתָן וְהֵימָן וְכַלְכֹּל וָדָרַע, כֻּלָּם חֲמִשָּׁה. - And the sons of Zerach: Zimri, Ethan, Heman, Calcol, and Dara - five in all.
The commentary attributed to Rashi writes that all of them lived in the days of David and Solomon and were exceptionally wise, based on what is written regarding the wisdom of Solomon in Melachim I 5: "And he was wiser than all men, than Ethan the Ezrachite, and Heman, and Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Machol" - from which we see that Solomon was wiser than all of them.
Yet this is very puzzling. We are speaking here of ancient eras: Peretz is the son of Judah, Chetzron is the son of Peretz and grandson of Judah, and likewise Zimri, Ethan, and Heman are Judah's grandsons - even before the descent into Egypt. How can it be said that they lived in the days of David and Solomon? Did they live for hundreds of years? While we have seen such phenomena, naturally it is exceedingly rare. Furthermore, how can these two groups be equated in the first place? Although the names are similar, there it says "Heman, Calcol, and Darda, the sons of Machol," whereas here it speaks of the sons of Zerach - completely unrelated lineages.
Therefore, the explanation of the Malbim is far more plausible: those wise men mentioned in Melachim lived in Solomon's time, and their father's name was Machol, who named his four sons after the sons of Zerach, and they themselves were great sages. In other words, Machol named his sons after the sons of Zerach because the original sons of Zerach were renowned sages. This is similar to what we see today: a person who names his sons Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Judah, Issachar, and Zebulun after the sons of Jacob. The original sons of Jacob belong to early history, and these are that person's children. So too here: the names in our verse are Judah's grandsons from ancient history, and generations later, Machol named his sons after them. The verse in Melachim comes to emphasize that Solomon was wiser than they were.
Zimri or Zabdi?
Zerach is familiar to us as the progenitor of Achan's lineage, as we will see immediately. However, there, in the Book of Joshua (chapter 7), his grandfather is called "Zabdi" - "Achan the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerach" - while here he is called "Zimri." How can this be? The Malbim explains: it is possible that he had two names, Zimri and Zabdi. Since the name Zabdi was mentioned in Joshua in a derogatory context, the genealogical record from which Ezra copied his text referred to him by his second name, Zimri, rather than by the tainted name.
Here too, the rule applies: "five in all" - to teach that there were no more than five, for in many places Scripture enumerates only some of the sons, whereas here it informs us that it has counted them all. Our Sages state that the sons of Zerach prophesied in Egypt; thus, the verse "And the sons of Zerach: Zimri, Ethan, and Heman..." refers to Zerach's actual sons, who were prophets and sages.
Nevertheless, the Malbim cautions: do not confuse them with the psalms in Tehillim 88 and 89, where "Heman the Ezrachite" and "Ethan the Ezrachite" are mentioned, and assume they are the Ethan and Heman, sons of Zerach, before us. They cannot be identified with these figures for a simple reason - the vast span of time between the eras. For it is clear from those psalms that they were composed after the destruction of the Temple and after the cessation of the Davidic dynasty, which was when those poets lived, just as other descendants of Korach lived in the Babylonian exile and are referred to as the sons of Korach. Thus, the Ethan and Heman whom we will see later among the Levite singers were entirely different people, and they were not even brothers; one must not conflate them. It was very common to name people after ancient sages.
Achan - The "Troubler of Israel"
וּבְנֵי כַּרְמִי: עָכָר עוֹכֵר יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר מָעַל בַּחֵרֶם. - And the sons of Carmi: Achar, the troubler of Israel, who transgressed regarding the banned property.
Carmi was the son of Zabdi, who is Zimri, who was the son of Zerach. At first glance, a question arises: Carmi had only one son, Achan, so why does the verse say "And the sons of" (Uvenei) in the plural? There are two ways to resolve this. The first approach is that of Radak, Metzudot, and others: the phrase "and the sons of" does not necessarily denote a plural, as in "And the sons of Dan: Chushim" (Bereishit 46:23), and many similar instances that we will encounter further on. Therefore, when Scripture comes to tell you that he had an only son, it can still say "and the sons of," and there is no difficulty here. Radak brings another example from verse 8 - "And the sons of Pallu: Eliab" - where only one son is mentioned, yet the verse nonetheless uses "and the sons of."
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes the change of name: why is he called "Achar" here, when his name was "Achan"? Because he troubled (akar) Israel by violating the ban, and through his actions thirty-six men fell in battle. And once again, as the commentary attributed to Rashi explains, whatever disparagement Scripture can recount, it recounts regarding those from whom kingship did not descend, in order to highlight David's praise - showing that those from whom kingship did descend were of exemplary character.
A Major Principle Throughout the Book: Ezra Copied from the Great Genealogical Record
Here the Malbim sets forth his principle in detail: Keep this rule in hand throughout the entire book - that Ezra copied his book from the great genealogical record. This was a genealogical scroll in which all the names from ancient times were recorded, containing the lineages of every single family with all their branches and offshoots from beginning to end: the family tree of each family, who fathered whom, whom one married, which sons were from this wife and which from another - the entire genealogy of all the names that existed up to that time. However, Ezra copied only what was necessary, and only specific individuals. He did not come to compile a new book of genealogies, but rather to copy only those who held significance for the chronology leading to the House of David.
According to this, in the genealogical record it was written, "And the sons of Zimri," and all of his many sons were listed there, including Carmi. Now we understand why the text says "And the sons of" [plural]: because the original source said "And the sons of" and listed a row of ten, yet Ezra saw no need to list all ten, but only the one who was relevant to him - and consequently, the wording "And the sons of" remained even though only one is enumerated. Thus, there is no need to claim that "and the sons of" can also refer to an only child; "and the sons of" is always plural, but Ezra quoted from the source and included only the one he needed out of the many. This is what the Malbim explains: Ezra skipped the unnecessary details, copying only "And the sons of Carmi," and skipped ahead to Achan, copying "Achar, the troubler of Israel" - named so because he troubled Israel. And do not wonder at the change of name, for resh and nun can interchange, just like Nevuchadnetzar and Nevuchadretzar - sometimes with a nun and sometimes with a resh.
"And the sons of Eitan: Azaryah" - And Why Did He Abbreviate the Lineage of Zerach?
וּבְנֵי אֵיתָן: עֲזַרְיָה. - And the sons of Eitan: Azaryah.
Radak resolves this in his usual manner: it is like "And the sons of Dan: Chushim" (Bereishit 46:23), where only one is mentioned, so one should not wonder at it. But there is another point to notice: above, we enumerated the sons of Zerach - Zimri, Eitan, Heiman, Calcol, and Dara - yet out of all of them, Scripture details only one, Eitan. Where are his brothers? Radak offers two possibilities. First: perhaps Ezra did not find their genealogy, and could not write detailed and explicit accounts of who fathered whom (which certainly does not align with the Malbim's view, since everything was recorded in the great genealogical record, but according to Radak's approach it is plausible). The second explanation, which is more readily accepted: he abbreviated the genealogy of Zerach because the monarchy did not descend from him. The monarchy did not come from Zerach but from Peretz; therefore, he shortens Zerach's lineage, and then returns to trace the lineage of Chetzron son of Peretz, from whom the monarchy emerged. "A king breaks down (poreitz) a fence and no one may protest against him" (Pesachim 110a); "How have you breached (paratzta) a breach for yourself?" (Bereishit 38:29) - this is the allusion to the source of the monarchy. From Zerach came princes and dignitaries, but not kings.
The Malbim explains here as well according to the same principle: In the great genealogical record, all the sons of Eitan were recorded, and they were numerous, followed by the lineages of Eitan's subsequent descendants - and Ezra skipped over all of them, recording only the first one, Azaryah, and omitting the rest. Therefore, it is written "And the sons of" in the plural, just as it was phrased in the genealogical record where the many were enumerated. It is as if it were written, "And the sons of Eitan: Azaryah, etc.," meaning "and so forth."
And do not be surprised by this, says the Malbim, for we find this very practice in the Book of Ezra: when he wanted to say "etc.", he used the word "shelim" or "gemir" - meaning "and so forth." "Shelim" means: complete it yourself; "gemir" means: and so on, finish it yourself. Thus, Ezra did not copy the entire genealogical record, but only the key points he needed; therefore, the expression "and the sons of" sometimes appears before only a single individual, because in truth there were many whom he did not mention. And when he does mention all of them, he explicitly informs you: "there were five."
And likewise with "And the sons of Dan: Chushim" and "And the sons of Palu: Eliav" - they had other sons, but Scripture mentioned only those relevant to its purpose: Chushim because he was among those who came to Egypt, and Eliav because Scripture wanted to mention Datan. Similarly, "And the sons of Anah: Dishon" - he had other sons who were not prominent, and Scripture mentions only one of them. The Malbim will explain this similarly below on verse 31, and in several other places throughout the book.
In Summary:
Chapter 2 opens with the genealogy of the sons of Israel and immediately focuses on Yehudah, because the primary theme of the book is the dynasty of the House of David. We saw the reason for placing Dan earlier, the precise phrasing of "three were born to him," the relationship between the literal meaning of "the Canaanitess" and the exposition of Chazal, and the reason Er alone is singled out. We learned why it says "all the sons of Yehudah were five," why the family of Chamul was omitted here, and how the Malbim reconciles the sons of Zerach with the wise men of Shlomo's era, the sons of Machol, and with Eitan and Heiman the Ezrachites in Tehillim. Above all, we received a key to the entire book: Ezra copied from the great genealogical record and skipped what was nonessential, explaining the plural wording "and the sons of" even when only one son is listed - and when he did enumerate them all, he stated so explicitly with a tally.