Chapter 2 of Divrei HaYamim continues the chain of genealogies, focusing primarily on the lineage of the tribe of Judah leading up to King David. In the section before us, we will examine the sons of Chetzron, the lineage from Ram to David, the count of Yishai's sons, David's sisters and their sons, and the sons and wives of Calev son of Chetzron. We will follow the order of the verses following the commentaries of the Malbim, the commentary attributed to Rashi, the Radak, and the Targum.
וּבְנֵי חֶצְרוֹן אֲשֶׁר נוֹלַד־לוֹ אֶת־יְרַחְמְאֵל וְאֶת־רָם וְאֶת־כְּלוּבָי׃ - And the sons of Chetzron that were born to him: Yerachme'el, and Ram, and Keluvai.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that Keluvai is Calev, as we see later in the verse: "And Calev the son of Chetzron." In the Book of Shmuel as well, it says regarding Naval, "and he was of the house of Calev," and the Targum translates there: "from the house of Calev." The commentary attributed to Rashi adds that this person boasted of his lineage, asserting that no one among all the tribes of Israel possessed pedigree like his, and that he was the one fit for kingship. He prided himself on this, and therefore when he saw the kingship drawn to David, it bothered him deeply. Thus he spoke out against David: "Who is David, and who is the son of Yishai? Today there are many servants who break away from their masters." What bothered him so much? Why did the monarchy not come to me? Why was David anointed? And why did he disparage him? Because David was descended from Ruth the Moabitess. As if to say: there must be a mistake here, someone went to the wrong address, but everyone should know that I am the one who is supposed to be king. This is why he is called Keluvai - because he came from the royal lineage.
The Malbim analyzes the phrasing: the verse should have simply said, "And the sons of Chetzron were Yerachme'el, Ram, and Keluvai." What is meant by "that were born to him"? In the first explanation: in verse 21 we will see that Chetzron had sons born to him by the daughter of Machir, and those sons traced their lineage not after Chetzron, but after Menasheh. Therefore it says "that were born to him" - meaning those who are genealogically attributed to him and called by his name, as opposed to those who were reckoned after the house of Menasheh.
A second explanation: in verse 24 we see that sons were born to him even after his death, for his wife was pregnant at the time of his passing. The verse therefore specifies "that were born to him" - those who were born to him during his lifetime; the others are not counted here, since they were born only after he passed away.
A third explanation: the phrasing "born to him et Yerachme'el" comes to include his grandsons as well, whom he fathered through his sons. Had the verse meant merely that Yerachme'el was born to him, it would have written "and the sons of Chetzron were Yerachme'el"; but "born to him et Yerachme'el" implies born to him together with Yerachme'el, through him and by his means. For this reason, the text first enumerates what he fathered through Ram, then what he fathered through Calev (verse 18), and then what he fathered through Yerachme'el (verse 25) - because grandchildren are considered like children, and Scripture therefore counts them as though they were his own sons.
וְרָם הוֹלִיד אֶת־עַמִּינָדָב וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת־נַחְשׁוֹן נְשִׂיא בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה׃ - And Ram begot Amminadav, and Amminadav begot Nachshon, prince of the children of Judah.
Scripture gave precedence to Ram because it sought to trace the lineage of the House of David, which descended from the root of Ram. In the words of the Radak: Scripture wrote this out of honor for David, to make known that his ancestor Nachshon was also a prince - in David's praise, demonstrating that already in the lineage of his ancestors he came from a line of princes. From each generation, the text mentions only one individual, the one through whom Yishai, father of David, descended. Do not be surprised: as the Malbim notes, Scripture sees no need to enumerate all the brothers, but rather father and son, father and son, until we arrive at King David.
וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׂלְמָא וְשַׂלְמָא הוֹלִיד אֶת־בֹּעַז׃ - And Nachshon fathered Salma, and Salma fathered Boaz.
The commentary attributed to Rashi cites our Sages' teaching: Ivtzan - that is, Ivtzan the Judge - is Boaz. Yet he raises a difficulty: Nachshon died in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, and his son Salmon had already passed away after being among those who entered the Land, while his son Boaz - identified as Ivtzan - was born around the time of the entry into the Land; and from the Exodus until Yiftach was three hundred years. Ivtzan judged Israel after Yiftach's death, as it says, "And after him, Ivtzan of Beit Lechem judged Israel." Furthermore, our Sages stated that as soon as Boaz married Ruth and she conceived, he immediately died. How, then, is it possible that Boaz, who lived near the time of the entry into the Land, could be the Ivtzan who lived after Yiftach?
He further questioned: we find regarding Avraham that once his bodily vigor had cooled, he exclaimed, "Shall a child be born to a man of a hundred years?" - regarding it as wondrous. How, then, can one say here that someone fathered children after hundreds of years? There is an opinion in the Midrash that Boaz was four hundred years old at the time, in order to reconcile the timeline. Yet when we seek the plain meaning of the text, it is very difficult to explain it this way, unless we say that it occurred through a miracle - and through a miracle, everything can be resolved. According to the plain sense, the chronology does not allow one to say that Ivtzan is Boaz: how could a three-hundred-year-old Boaz father children? Therefore, one must explain that the verse states, "and Hashem gave her conception" - meaning this was supernatural. Naturally, she could not conceive and a man of three hundred cannot father children; rather, Hashem granted her conception, and by that divine power she gave birth, even though it was beyond nature.
Furthermore: why was he called Ivtzan? He was the "father of all the cool-tempered" (tzenunim) - in the sense that his passions cooled, for an unmarried woman lay beside him and he cooled himself and did not touch her. Now, if you say he was three hundred years old, this would hardly present a great challenge or warrant such high praise; but if you say he was still young, this serves as tremendous praise for Boaz.
Incidentally, the common pronunciation is "BÓ-az" (stressed on the first syllable), but here one can see clearly and explicitly that this is not so: the cantillation mark is not on the beit but on the final syllable [Bo-ÁZ], and that is how it should be read. This is unlike other names, such as Shlomo, Avraham, Moshe, Yosef, and David. Many make this mistake because they have never seen the name written in the Prophets with its cantillation marks. A child once said "BÓ-az" as taught from Megillat Ruth in school, and was told: "Tell the teacher that it is read differently." The teacher asked for proof! But what proof is needed? Open a Chumash, open a Tanach, and see where the cantillation mark is placed - wherever the mark lies, that is how it must be read. Notice: in Salma (שַׂלְמָא), the accent is under the mem, so it is pronounced Sal-MÁ; had it been under the shin, it would be SÁL-ma. In Nachshon (נַחְשׁוֹן), the accent is on the vav, hence Nach-SHÓN; had it been on the nun, it would be NÁCH-shon. And so on; the matter is plainly indicated in the text.
וּבֹעַז הוֹלִיד אֶת־עוֹבֵד וְעוֹבֵד הוֹלִיד אֶת־יִשָׁי׃ - And Boaz fathered Oved, and Oved fathered Yishai.
וְאִישַׁי הוֹלִיד אֶת־בְּכֹרוֹ אֶת־אֱלִיאָב וַאֲבִינָדָב הַשֵּׁנִי וְשִׁמְעָא הַשְּׁלִשִׁי׃ - And Ishai fathered his firstborn Eliab, and Avinadav the second, and Shimea the third.
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes precisely: "Ve-Ishai" is spelled plene with an alef, indicating a man of valor (ish gibor chayil). The verse did not write "ve-Yishai" as in the preceding verse, but rather "Ishai," from the word ish (man) - as in "be strong and show yourself a man" (ve-chazakta ve-hayita le-ish), denoting strength and fortitude. Radak, however, explains that Yishai with an alef and with a yud are one and the same, and one should not be surprised, for the letters alef, hei, vav, and yud interchange. Radak follows his consistent approach explained earlier: sometimes a name appears in two forms - such as Akan and Yaakan, where vav and yud interchange, or with an alef at the end versus a hei at the end. Examples of this kind are numerous in this book, and one should not find it problematic.
"And Shimea the third" - Shimea is the Shammah mentioned in the Book of Shmuel. As noted previously, he either had two names and went by both, or in a later period the name came to be known by a different pronunciation.
נְתַנְאֵל הָרְבִיעִי רַדַּי הַחֲמִישִׁי׃ - Netanel the fourth, Radai the fifth.
אֹצֶם הַשִּׁשִּׁי דָּוִיד הַשְּׁבִעִי׃ - Otzem the sixth, David the seventh.
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes: "David" is spelled plene with a yud out of honor for David. As we noted, Pseudo-Rashi maintains that the Book of Divrei HaYamim was written in honor of David, which is why his name is spelled plene here. For when a name is spelled defectively, it indicates some sort of deficiency - like Ephron, whose name is normally written plene, but when it is written without a vav, he is essentially diminished. In David's case, his name is usually spelled defectively, but when Scripture comes to add to his praise, it spells it with a yud.
And here is the question that everyone discusses and grapples with: How can Scripture count seven sons for Yishai when he actually had eight? And the greater difficulty is that David was the eighth, not the seventh! The Radak cites Rabbeinu Yonah, who suggests that it means "as the eighth," for he had seven sons besides David, as it is written, "And Yishai passed his seven sons before Shmuel," and he asked, "Are these all the youths?" and he answered, "There remains yet the youngest," and it is written, "and he had eight sons" - proving that David was the eighth. If so, "David the seventh" was intended to mean the eighth. But the Radak expresses astonishment at this, stating that it is impossible - it is the exact opposite, and one cannot invert the verse in this way.
The Midrash cites that the eighth son was named Elihu, the one mentioned among the leaders David appointed over Yehudah - "Elihu, of the brothers of David" - and that he was younger than David. If so, why is David called "the youngest" (hakatan)? Because he would humble himself (maktin et atzmo) as a shepherd. According to this, there really were eight sons, but when Scripture reached David, it stopped and did not mention Elihu, having arrived at its intended destination. David truly was the seventh and Elihu the eighth; and when it says "the smallest/youngest," it means that he humbled himself, not that he was the youngest in years. This is one approach by which the Midrash resolves the difficulty. The Malbim also addresses this difficulty, which seemingly contradicts what is stated in Sefer Shmuel: eight sons, with David being the youngest.
וְאַחְיֹתֵיהֶם צְרוּיָה וַאֲבִיגָיִל וּבְנֵי צְרוּיָה אַבְשַׁי וְיוֹאָב וַעֲשָׂהאֵל שְׁלֹשָׁה׃ - And their sisters were Tzeruyah and Avigayil; and the sons of Tzeruyah were Avshai, Yoav, and Asahel, three.
The Radak explains that Elihu was David's brother from his father but not from his mother, which is why he was not mentioned here. The Malbim explains that Tzeruyah and Avigayil were sisters to the sons from their mother, but not from their father. It turns out, then, that Elihu was David's brother on his father's side, while Tzeruyah and Avigayil were David's sisters on his mother's side; consequently, they were not Elihu's sisters at all, neither from the father nor from the mother.
The Malbim brings proof for this from what is written: "And Amasa was the son of a man whose name was Yitra the Yisraeli, who had come to Avigayil daughter of Nachash, sister of Tzeruyah, mother of Yoav." Now, there is a major difficulty here: Tzeruyah is David's sister, so how could she be the daughter of Nachash when David is the son of Yishai? Chazal expounded that Yishai was called Nachash because he died solely due to the instigation of the primordial snake (be'etyo shel nachash); but we must always remember that while the homiletical exposition of Chazal stands, nevertheless a verse never loses its plain meaning (ein mikra yotzei midei peshuto), and we must understand why Scripture calls her the daughter of Nachash. According to our approach, this is well understood: Avigayil was the daughter of Nachash and not the daughter of Yishai, yet she was still David's sister - a maternal half-sister, sharing the same mother but not the same father. That is why she is called "the sister of Tzeruyah" rather than "the sister of David," because with respect to Tzeruyah she was a full sister from both father and mother, as Tzeruyah too was the daughter of Nachash. Their mother, whose name is mentioned by Chazal, married Yishai after she was widowed. It turns out, therefore, that while they were sisters, they were not full sisters from both father and mother.
Regarding the name of that mother - Nitzevet, Nitzavt, Nitzvet - the truth is that there is no definitive knowledge on this, since we do not have a tradition of vocalization (nikkud) for the Talmud. In the time of Chazal, the Shas was not vocalized; nowadays, of course, anything can be printed with vowel marks, but who can say the vocalization is correct? We have a tradition of vocalization for the biblical text, but not for the Shas, as has been noted several times during Daf Yomi study. Therefore, a single word can be pronounced in several ways, and this also accounts for the differences: Moroccan Jews are accustomed to reading one way, Iraqi Jews another, and Yemenite Jews have different vocalizations for certain words. Thus, whichever way one pronounces it, no one can claim it is incorrect.
Here is an example: How does one say "wine" in Aramaic, and how does one say "donkey"? Both are spelled chamra (חמרא), but in the Targum - where we do have vocalization, and among the Yemenite community it is certainly precise, having been recited meticulously for centuries, just as the biblical text remained unchanged among them, so too the Targum - there is a difference in vocalization between "wine" and "donkey." Yet who ever heard a Gemara learner make this distinction and pronounce hahu chamra with the precise vocalization? One does not hear that. Similarly, in Kabbalah there is the concept of a parsa - a curtain; kabbalists pronounce it one way, which is inaccurate, since the word for "curtain" appears in the Targum with vocalization, and from there we learn the proper pronunciation. It follows that one cannot prove anything from colloquial pronunciation, for people make mistakes with chamra, they make mistakes with parsa, and in many other places as well. Furthermore, people make mistakes even in Tanach: "For God made man straight, but they sought out many cheshbonot (reckonings)" - it is actually written chishvonot (חִשְּׁבֹנוֹת), there is no variant reading and no textual change here, yet many people misread it otherwise. There are other such examples of misreadings in the biblical text that people say purely out of habit.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: "And their sisters were Zeruiah and Abigail" - out of honor to David, for his sister's sons were mighty warriors, men of valor, and ministers, which is why Scripture enumerates them. As we noted several times when studying the Book of Shemuel, Scripture refers to him as "Yoav ben Zeruiah," which is astonishing - where do we ever hear of a person being called by his mother's name? A person is always called by his father's name. Rather, here the lineage came through the mother: their mother was David's sister, and when one says "ben Zeruiah," it is great praise - I am the son of David's sister. True, they also had a father, but the father did not possess such a pedigree connected to royalty. Therefore they were called Avishai ben Zeruiah, Asahel ben Zeruiah, and Yoav ben Zeruiah - after their mother.
וַאֲבִיגַיִל יָלְדָה אֶת־עֲמָשָׂא וַאֲבִי עֲמָשָׂא יֶתֶר הַיִּשְׁמְעֵאלִי׃ - And Abigail bore Amasa; and the father of Amasa was Jether the Ishmaelite.
The Targum renders: "And Abigail bore Amasa, and the father of Amasa was Jether the Israelite, and they called him Jether the Ishmaelite" - they gave him this nickname and called him Jether the Ishmaelite. And why? "Because he girded his loins with a sword to assist David in his trial" - because he readied his loins and girded a sword at his waist to assist David in his legal dispute. And what case was this? "When Avner sought to distance David" - when Avner sought to distance David and the entire family of Yishai, arguing: before you ask whether he is fit for royalty, ask whether he is even fit to enter the congregation, for he descends from Ruth the Moabitess, and an Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem; "that they should not be permitted to enter the congregation of Hashem" - that they should not be eligible to enter the congregation, on account of Ruth the Moabitess. And this is the exposition of Chazal: Why was he called the Ishmaelite? Because he girded a sword at his waist to fight, saying: Thus have I received as a tradition from the court of Samuel of Ramah: an Ammonite male, but not an Ammonite female; a Moabite male, but not a Moabite female; and anyone who says otherwise shall be stabbed with a sword.
Radak notes that "Jether the Ishmaelite" is identical with "Ithra the Israelite." You might ask: make up your mind, is he an Ishmaelite or an Israelite? Radak explains: he was called an Ishmaelite after his place of residence, just as one might refer to someone as Moroccan, Iraqi, or Yemenite, when they are all Jews - he came from the land of Yemen, Morocco, or Iraq, so he is named after his geographic origin. Yet lest you mistakenly think, just as there are gentiles who are Iraqi, Yemenite, or Moroccan, that he too was a gentile, Scripture emphasizes "the Israelite" - when I told you he was an Ishmaelite, it was only by virtue of his location, but know that he was an Israelite who lived in the land of Ishmael.
The Malbim adds another possibility: that he was an Ishmaelite convert, and after he converted, his name was changed from "Jether" to "Ithra." This resolves why the name appears in both forms, and also why he is called "an Israelite" - because after converting, he was considered an Israelite. This is likewise found in Midrash Ruth and cited in Yalkut Shimoni, that he converted and Yishai gave him his daughter.
And according to what the commentary attributed to Rashi writes on verse 21, that the expression "and afterward Hezron came" does not denote marriage and matrimony but rather cohabitation outside of marriage - as we will see further on - the Malbim explains that here, too, Scripture writes "who came in to Abigail" rather than "who took Abigail," as is typically said of marriage. The implication is that he came to her before converting, and the halachah is that when a gentile cohabits with a Jewish woman before converting, the offspring is kosher; only afterward did he convert. Through this we understand why it says "who came in to Abigail" and not "who took."
וְכָלֵב בֶּן־חֶצְרוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־עֲזוּבָה אִשָּׁה וְאֶת־יְרִיעוֹת וְאֵלֶּה בָנֶיהָ יֵשֶׁר וְשׁוֹבָב וְאַרְדּוֹן׃ - And Caleb the son of Hezron begot children of Azubah his wife, and of Jerioth; and these were her sons: Jesher, Shobab, and Ardon.
וַתָּמׇת עֲזוּבָה וַיִּקַּח־לוֹ כָלֵב אֶת־אֶפְרָת וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת־חוּר׃ - And Azubah died, and Caleb took unto him Ephrath, who bore him Hur.
There is a difficulty here: on the one hand, it implies that Azubah and Jerioth were his daughters, for it says, "he begot Azubah"; on the other hand, verse 19 states, "And Azubah died, and Caleb took to him Ephrath," implying that his wife died and he took another wife. If so, make up your mind: was Azubah his daughter or his wife?
The Targum translates: "And Calev son of Chetzron fathered [children] from Azuvah his wife" - meaning he fathered with Azuvah his wife; that is, "et Azuvah" means "with Azuvah," not that he fathered her, but that he fathered children through her. The Targum adds: And why was she named Azuvah? Because she was barren and despised (abandoned, *azuvah*), having no children, and her humiliation was revealed before Hashem, and she was granted relief and gave birth. She was also praised for her wisdom, as she knew through her wisdom how to spin the goat hair directly upon the backs of the goats, as Chazal expounded that they spun the wool while it was still on the goats to avoid any concern of theft, all for the curtains of the Mishkan. "And these were her sons: Yesher, Shovav, and Ardon." According to this homiletical interpretation, she was called Azuvah because she originally had no children, and according to Chazal's derashah, she was Miriam.
The Radak cites that some of our Sages of blessed memory said that the Calev mentioned here is Calev ben Yefuneh. If so, how did "ben Yefuneh" become "ben Chetzron"? These are the difficulties we encounter in the Book of Divrei HaYamim, where details do not seem to align completely, and we must examine how to reconcile them. Chazal explain that "ben Yefuneh" is not his father's name, but an epithet - that he turned away (*panah*) from the counsel of the spies, whereas in truth he was the son of Chetzron.
Yet there is another verse from which an entirely different father is implied: "Otniel ben Kenaz, brother of Calev" - which indicates that Calev's father was Kenaz. If so, which was it: Chetzron, Yefuneh, or Kenaz? To this they answer that Otniel was his maternal brother, a stepbrother from his mother's previous marriage. That is, they did not share the same father: Otniel was born to a father named Kenaz, and Calev to a father named Chetzron, while "Yefuneh" was an epithet because he turned away from the counsel of the spies. This is also why the commentators note that Scripture calls him "the Kenizzite" and not "the son of Kenaz," because in truth he was not Kenaz's biological son.
However, the Radak notes that this does not appear to be the plain meaning of the verses. While we accept it as a derashah of Chazal, it does not seem to fit the peshat. For according to the simple reading of the text, it appears that Calev was among the firstborn sons of Chetzron, and later it states that Chetzron married the daughter of Machir when he was sixty years old. If you suggest that this is Calev ben Yefuneh, it turns out that when Chetzron fathered Calev, Chetzron was one hundred and seventy years old! How is this calculated? Calev says, "I was forty years old when Moshe, the servant of Hashem, sent me," and that was in the second year after the Exodus from Egypt. Chetzron was among those who originally descended to Egypt; from their descent to Egypt until the Exodus was two hundred and ten years; subtract forty years, since Calev was already forty years old at the Exodus, and you arrive at one hundred and seventy years. Did Chetzron father Calev at the age of one hundred and seventy? In terms of the plain narrative, this is astonishing. Although we do find rare and supernatural miracles, wherever Scripture does not reveal one to us, claiming that he fathered a child at one hundred and seventy is exceedingly difficult. Therefore, the Radak says that according to peshat, it is difficult to maintain that Calev ben Chetzron was the son of that same Chetzron who descended to Egypt.
The Radak addresses the fundamental question: was she his wife or his daughter? From what is stated afterward, "and Azuvah died," it would seem that these were his wives; yet from the word "fathered" (*holid*), it sounds as though they were his daughters. Chazal have already asked: does a person father his own wives? Among the nations of the world such depravity has been seen, where a man fathers a daughter and later marries her, but here we are dealing with righteous individuals, and reason certainly rejects such an idea. Therefore, the Radak suggests explaining it like the Targum: "fathered *et* Azuvah" means he fathered children *with* Azuvah. The word "et" here is not the direct object marker, but means "with," as in the verse "et Yaakov ish uveito bau," which means with Yaakov; or like "ketzeiti et ha'ir," which means when I leave from the city. Thus it makes good sense that the text states afterward, "And Azuvah died, and Calev took for himself Efrat" - another wife, since Azuvah had indeed been his wife.
According to this, the verse is interpreted: Calev son of Chetzron fathered children from Azuvah his wife and from Yeriot - for Yeriot was also his wife; both were his wives, and from both he had children. If you ask: why does it say "and these were *her* sons" (*v'eleh vaneha*) in the singular, rather than "their sons," seeing that two wives are mentioned here? The answer is that the text did not enumerate the sons of the second wife at all; it spoke only of Azuvah and counted her sons, whereas regarding Yeriot, it did not mention who was born from her. And when Azuvah died, Calev took another wife named Efrat, as stated in the following verse.
The Malbim cites the view attributed to Rashi, that Calev's daughter was named "Azuvah-Ishah." That is, "ishah" does not mean his wife, but is part of the proper name: he named his daughter "Azuvah-Ishah." Why? Because she was born after the death of Azuvah his wife, and he named her after his late wife - as if to say, "Azuvah my wife." Likewise, he fathered Yeriot, and the sons of Yeriot were Yesher, Shovav, and Ardon. Thus, according to Rashi, the verse is not speaking of his wives at all, but of his daughters.
According to the Radak, as we have seen, the verse refers to his wives: "et Azuvah" means from Azuvah, and "v'et Yeriot" means and from Yeriot. The Malbim observes that according to the Radak, one must apparently say that Yeriot was his concubine (*pilegesh*) and Azuvah was his full wife, which resolves why the verse says "et Azuvah ishah v'et Yeriot" - for one of them the text used the term "ishah" (wife) to distinguish her from the second, who was not a full wife but a concubine. A *pilegesh* does not carry the negative connotation often associated with the term today, but was a category of wife whose legal rights were lesser - *pilegesh* related to *peleg* (a half or division), as she was taken without *kiddushin* and without a *ketubah*, though designated exclusively to him (and some say with *kiddushin* but without a *ketubah*). Either way, it was considered a recognized form of marriage in their time, though the woman's contractual rights were reduced.
The Malbim himself introduces a third interpretation. Until now we have had two approaches: either Azuvah and Yeriot were his daughters, or both were his wives. The Malbim suggests that the first was his wife and the second was his daughter: "fathered *et* Azuvah" means he fathered children with Azuvah, his wife; and whom did he father? "Ishah" - a daughter whose name was "V'et Yeriot." That was her name. Do not wonder: where do we ever find the word "v'et" as part of a proper noun, when it is normally a conjunction? After all, we find "Et Vahev beSufah," which Chazal expounded as the proper names of two individuals - one named "Et" and the other "Vahev." And if you argue: we have found "Et," but where have we found it with a *vav*, since a conjunctive *vav* seemingly proves that it is merely a conjunction? To this the Malbim responds: do not wonder at this either, for we find "benei Elah u'Kenaz" - which Chazal expounded to mean that his name was actually "U'Kenaz." If we find a person named "Et," do not be surprised to find a name like "V'et."
Thus, according to the Malbim, what is written as "fathered *et* Azuvah" means that he fathered children with Azuvah, who was his wife, and whom did he father - a daughter named "V'et Yeriot." The word "ishah" (a female child) refers back to this daughter, and so that we would know that "v'et" is not a conjunction but part of the proper name, Scripture placed the word "ishah" before it. According to this, "and these were her sons" refers to the sons of "V'et Yeriot," and not of Azuvah as the other commentators explained, and they were Yesher, Shovav, and Ardon.
In this part of the chapter, we saw how Scripture leads us directly toward the House of David: "who were born to him" - those genealogically ascribed to Chetzron, including grandsons; prioritizing Ram in order to open the royal chain through Nachshon the prince; and the lineage of Salma, Boaz, Oved, Yishai, and David. We examined the question raised by the commentary attributed to Rashi as to whether Ibtzan is Boaz, and the correct reading of the name; the count of Yishai's seven sons and the place of Elihu, the eighth; Tzeruyah and Avigayil, who were sisters only through their mother, and the sons of Tzeruyah who were named after their mother out of deference to their lineage through David; Yeter the Ishmaelite, who is Yitra the Israelite, who girded his sword to validate Ruth the Moabitess; and finally, the three ways of explaining "begot Azuvah, a wife, and Yeriot" - his daughters, his wives, or a wife and her daughter. Above all, we learned that we must expound and embrace the derashot of Chazal while also maintaining the literal sense of Scripture, for a verse never departs from its plain meaning.