Chapter 2 of Divrei HaYamim deals with the genealogies of the tribe of Yehudah, and particularly with the lineage that brings forth the Davidic monarchy. In the passage before us, we continue tracing the family of Chetzron and his sons - Calev, Yerachme'el, and Ram - and learn through these genealogical records fundamental principles: how a son born of a concubine is reckoned in the lineage, the significance of "taking" versus "coming unto her," and whether the genealogies in Divrei HaYamim are identical to those in the Torah. As is our custom, we will proceed verse by verse with the commentaries of the Malbim, the commentary attributed to Rashi, the Radak, and the teachings of Chazal.
The Death of Azuvah and the Taking of Efrat
וַתָּמָת עֲזוּבָה וַיִּקַּח־לוֹ כָלֵב אֶת־אֶפְרָת וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת־חוּר׃ - "And Azuvah died, and Calev took to himself Efrat, and she bore him Chur."
Up to this point, Calev had only a daughter - "and Yeriot" - and that daughter's sons: Yesher, Shovav, and Ardon. Now, after his wife Azuvah died, he took Efrat, and from her a son was born to him: Chur.
וְחוּר הוֹלִיד אֶת־אוּרִי וְאוּרִי הוֹלִיד אֶת־בְּצַלְאֵל׃ - "And Chur begot Uri, and Uri begot Betzalel."
This is the familiar verse from the Torah: "Betzalel son of Uri son of Chur." And on this, Rashi points out something astonishing: "Go and calculate" - that each of them was less than eight years old when he fathered a child. How so? Calev was forty years old at the time of the Spies, as it is said, "Forty years old was I when Moshe the servant of the Lord sent me to spy out the land," and at that time all of them had already been born, for when the Mishkan built by Betzalel was erected, they were all already living. Do the calculation: Calev was eight when he fathered his wife Azuvah, and nine when he fathered Yeriot (according to the approach that both were his daughters); after the death of Azuvah, he took Efrat and she bore Chur in another year - that makes him ten. Chur was eight when he begot Uri, and Uri was eight when he begot Betzalel - ten plus eight plus eight equals twenty-six. And it is written, "and to every wise-hearted man," and "man" (ish) is not less than thirteen years of age; thus Betzalel was thirteen years old when he built the Mishkan. Twenty-six plus thirteen equals thirty-nine, one shy of forty. It turns out that each of them must have fathered a child at less than eight years of age.
And this is indeed stated explicitly in the chapter of Ben Sorer U'Moreh (Sanhedrin 69b), and there is a Midrash that says they fathered children at the age of six. If we wish to stretch the calculation to the latest possible age, we reach eight; but the Midrash says they truly fathered children at age six. Nor should one be surprised by this: if we see that a three-year-old girl (or five-year-old, however one explains it) was capable of drawing water from a well and watering an entire caravan of camels, clearly their physical capacities and rate of maturation were not at the pace of ours today, and it is certainly plausible that at such an age they were capable of begetting children.
"Came Unto" and "Took Her" - A Concubine Who Became a Wife
וְאַחַר בָּא חֶצְרוֹן אֶל־בַּת־מָכִיר אֲבִי גִלְעָד וְהוּא לְקָחָהּ וְהוּא בֶּן־שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת־שְׂגוּב׃ - "And afterward Chetzron came unto the daughter of Machir the father of Gil'ad, and he took her when he was sixty years old, and she bore him Seguv."
וּשְׂגוּב הוֹלִיד אֶת־יָאִיר וַיְהִי־לוֹ עֶשְׂרִים וְשָׁלוֹשׁ עָרִים בְּאֶרֶץ הַגִּלְעָד׃ - "And Seguv begot Yair, and he had twenty-three cities in the land of Gil'ad."
Earlier we saw "And Calev son of Chetzron" - Calev is the son of Chetzron; now the text returns to Chetzron the father and relates that afterward he came unto the daughter of Machir, the father of Gil'ad. The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that all of this is written out of deference to David's honor: the expression "came unto" (ba) indicates that he took her as a concubine and not for formal matrimony, similar to what is said concerning King David, "when he came unto Batsheva," where the union was likewise not through formal marriage. It emerges, then, that there were two disadvantages from the perspective of Machir's daughter: first, that he did not take her in full marriage; and second, that he took her when he was already elderly, sixty years of age. Why, then, did they give her to him? Because of the prestige of the house of Yehudah - to marry into the royal lineage. And when he begot Yair, the descendants of Machir gave him twenty-three cities so that he would take one of their daughters as a wife, so that they could intermarry with him.
The Malbim raises the difficulty: If "came unto" means as a concubine and not a full marriage, how can Scripture immediately say, "and he took her"? "Taking" (lekichah) denotes formal marriage. So which was it - a union of concubinage or a marriage? The Malbim explains: According to the plain meaning, Chetzron initially came unto her without formal kiddushin and fathered Seguv through her - and this is also how the commentary attributed to Rashi explains, that it means without kiddushin. Later, when he was sixty years old, he took her as a wife through chuppah and kiddushin; he elevated her status from a concubine to a full wife. Thus we can understand "and he took her when he was sixty years old" - until then she had been like a concubine, and now he formally married her upon reaching sixty years of age. And when did she bear Seguv, before the marriage or after it? The Malbim explains that the birth of Seguv resulted from the initial union, while she was still a concubine. "And afterward" - after he came unto the daughter of Machir without kiddushin, he then took her with kiddushin, and at the time of the formal marriage he was sixty years old; and she had already borne him Seguv prior to that.
Yair Son of Seguv or Yair Son of Menasheh
The Torah states that Moshe gave the Gilad to Machir son of Menasheh, and "Yair son of Menasheh went and captured their villages, and called them Chavot Yair." Yet here it is written, "And Seguv fathered Yair." Did Menasheh father Yair, or did Seguv father Yair? This is one of the classic difficulties in Divrei HaYamim: discrepancies between the genealogies in the Torah and those in Divrei HaYamim. In every such instance, one of two explanations applies: either these are different people, which is why the names differ; or they are the same individuals, but Scripture mentions the father in one place and the grandfather in another, or traces the lineage through the father in one place and through the mother in another - resulting in two different names for the parent, as one follows the paternal line and the other the maternal line. This latter approach is the path the Malbim takes here.
Notice that the verses here are discussing the exact same matters: twenty-three cities in the land of Gilad belonging to Yair, "Geshur and Aram took Chavot Yair from them," "Kenat and its villages, sixty cities" - the name "Chavot Yair" appears in the Torah as well. Seemingly, then, this is the very same narrative familiar to us from the Torah, with the identical places and names; only the genealogies appear problematic, and that is what the Malbim addresses.
The Malbim explains: according to the simple meaning of the text, this is indeed the Yair son of Seguv mentioned here, thus ruling out the interpretation that he was a different person. Why, then, does Scripture call him "Yair son of Menasheh"? Because his father, Seguv, was traced back to Menasheh - his mother's tribe - rather than to the tribe of Yehudah. Seguv was considered a member of the tribe of Menasheh, and therefore his son was called "son of Menasheh." The reason for this: one born through formal marriage (kiddushin) was traced to the father's family - if the father was from the tribe of Menasheh, his descendants were from Menasheh; if from the tribe of Dan, from Dan. However, when a man had children through a concubine (pilegesh) - even though the children are completely kosher and have no blemish, Heaven forbid - they did not trace them through the father, as there was no formal marriage, but rather to the mother's tribe. Even though lineage is generally not traced through the mother, this was their custom.
Where do we see this? The Malbim brings a wonderful proof from Yiftach: his brothers drove him away, saying, "You shall not inherit in our father's house, for you are the son of another woman." What does "the son of a woman" mean - are we not all born of a woman? Rather, since his mother was a pilegesh, they did not count him through the father, but followed the mother. That was their custom, and it conveyed a lesser status: he was not considered worthy of tracing lineage through the father, since the father had not taken his mother in a standard marriage, so the son was traced through his mother. We find a similar example in Ezra regarding the one "who took a wife from the daughters of Barzillai the Giladite and was called by their name" - why mention "the daughters of Barzillai," when lineage is always named after the father? Because it was not a formal marriage but through concubinage, so they traced him through the mother.
According to this, the Malbim says, verse 23 becomes clear: "All these were the sons of Machir." When Moshe gave the Gilad to Machir, Yair son of Seguv - who was also called the son of Menasheh after his mother's tribe - captured Chavot Yair. Chazal state that Seguv or Yair married a woman from the daughters of Menasheh and received the cities through inheritance. The Malbim explains that this, too, is correct and not contradictory: since he was regarded as being of the children of Menasheh through his mother, the members of Menasheh saw him as suitable to marry into their family - to them he was "one of our own," even though in truth he belonged to the tribe of Yehudah. After all, strictly speaking according to the paternal family, Chetzron, Ram, and all the rest belong to the families of Yehudah, and our book primarily traces the families of Yehudah and the Davidic dynasty. Because the people of Menasheh were accustomed to marrying within their own families, they gave him a daughter of their own so that she would marry someone considered a son of their tribe, and the cities were given to him as a dowry or inheritance. Thus, the narrative here and the one in the Torah are one and the same.
The Radak takes a different view, citing a midrash of Chazal that this is not the Yair mentioned in the Torah; rather, Yair son of Seguv took a wife in the land of Gilad, she passed away, he inherited her estate, and through his wife's inheritance he possessed twenty-three cities. And if you ask: Why is the story so similar to what is written in the Torah? The Metzudot adds that since the Yair son of Menasheh mentioned in the Torah had named his towns "Chavot Yair," Yair son of Seguv - who was an entirely different person - likewise called his "Chavot Yair." According to Chazal, these are two different individuals named Yair: Yair son of Menasheh and Yair son of Seguv. The fact that both are associated with "Chavot Yair" is in honor of the earlier one. This is comparable to someone asking about a certain Rebbe by name; he is told, "This is a Rebbe who lived fifty years ago." He responds, "But I read that he lived a hundred and fifty years ago!" Who is correct? Both are correct - this Rebbe was named after that earlier Rebbe, as is customary for the son or grandson of a tzaddik to be named after the earlier tzaddik. So too here: Yair son of Seguv lived at a later time, and he named his settlements "Chavot Yair" after the settlements of the earlier Yair from the time of the Torah. This is how Chazal explain it, and Hashem knows the truth; it may well be that "these and those are the words of the living God" - both perspectives contain truth.
Geshur and Aram Captured Them - and David Recovered Them
וַיִּקַּח גְּשׁוּר־וַאֲרָם אֶת־חַוֺּת יָאִיר מֵאִתָּם אֶת־קְנָת וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֶיהָ שִׁשִּׁים עִיר כׇּל־אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי מָכִיר אֲבִי־גִלְעָד׃ - And Geshur and Aram took Chavot Yair from them, with Kenat and its villages, sixty cities; all these belonged to the sons of Machir, the father of Gilad.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: "Geshur" refers to the Geshurite and the Maachathite, who were close to the Arameans, since they dwelt in the east of the Land of Israel, and Aram also dwelt in the east, as it is said, "Aram in the east and the Philistines in the west." In the days of the Judges, when Israel sinned, the Holy One, blessed be He, delivered them into the hand of Aram, and they took these cities from them - Chavot Yair, Kenat, and its surrounding villages, sixty cities. Later, when David arose, he recovered them. This matter is mentioned here because it redounds to the praise of the House of David, showing that David restored the cities that the Geshurites and Arameans had captured.
At the end of the verse there is a difficulty: Scripture is speaking of cities - Kenat and its villages, sixty cities - and suddenly says, "all these were the sons of Machir, the father of Gilad." Are cities "the sons of Machir"? (Incidentally, "its daughters" does not mean literal daughters, but the satellite towns and surrounding villages, as in "the daughters of Yehudah," and as the Targum translates, "its villages"; Kenat is the central city, and its "daughters" are the surrounding villages.) To this the Radak explains: the meaning is that all these cities belonged to the sons of Machir, the father of Gilad, and the prepositional letter lamed is missing, meaning "to the sons of Machir." He provides other examples: "And the son of Shaul had two captains of bands" - literally "were the son of Shaul"; were they the son of Shaul? Rather, they belonged to the son of Shaul, and the prepositional lamed is omitted. So too here, "the sons of Machir" means "belonged to the sons of Machir."
"In Kalev Ephrathah" - The Letter Beit in the Sense of "With"
וְאַחַר מוֹת־חֶצְרוֹן בְּכָלֵב אֶפְרָתָה וְאֵשֶׁת חֶצְרוֹן אֲבִיָּה וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת־אַשְׁחוּר אֲבִי תְקוֹעַ׃ - And after the death of Chetzron in Kalev-Ephrathah, Chetzron's wife Aviyah bore him Ashchur the father of Tekoa.
The meaning is that Aviyah gave birth to Ashchur, but the ones who raised him were Kalev and his wife Ephrath, as though she had borne him together with them. "Be-Chalev Ephrathah" - the letter beit here carries the meaning of "with": although she physically gave birth to him, they were the ones who raised him.
Returning to Yerachmeel the Firstborn
וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי־יְרַחְמְאֵל בְּכוֹר חֶצְרוֹן הַבְּכוֹר רָם וּבוּנָה וָאֹרֶן וָאֹצֶם אֲחִיָּה׃ - The sons of Yerachmeel the firstborn of Chetzron were: the firstborn Ram, and Bunah, and Oren, and Otzem, and Achiyah.
The Radak explains: At first, Scripture recorded the lineage of Ram the son of Chetzron, which is the primary focus, in order to recount the dynasty of the House of David; afterward, it recorded the lineage of Kalev the son of Chetzron; and now it returns to record the genealogy of the firstborn, who is Yerachmeel. And what is meant by "the firstborn Ram"? The intention is that Yerachmeel's firstborn was Ram. That is to say: Chetzron had a firstborn son, Yerachmeel, and Yerachmeel had a firstborn son, Ram.
Atarah - "Do Not Trust a Convert"
וַתְּהִי אִשָּׁה אַחֶרֶת לִירַחְמְאֵל וּשְׁמָהּ עֲטָרָה הִיא אֵם אוֹנָם׃ - And Yerachmeel had another wife whose name was Atarah; she was the mother of Onam.
The Radak brings two plain-sense interpretations. According to the simple reading of the verse, she was an Israelite woman. Why, then, does Scripture refer to her as "another" (acheret)? One explanation: since Scripture already mentioned his first wife, it refers to this one as another wife. A second explanation: it is possible that she was a concubine (pilegesh), as in the phrase, "you are the son of another woman" (Shoftim 11:2), which refers to a concubine, and that is why she is called "another" - yet even if she was a concubine, she was of Israelite descent. Our Sages, however, expounded that this refers to a gentile woman who converted, which is why Scripture mentions her name "Atarah" (crown) - because he took her in order to crown himself with her, as she was the daughter of noble lineage. From this the Sages stated: Do not trust a convert until twenty-four generations. The Radak here enumerates the twenty-four generations from her era down to Yishmael ben Netanyah, who ultimately brought about the extinguishing of the remaining ember of Israel when he murdered Gedalyah ben Achikam.
The Malbim adds a further insight that will be seen later: Yerachmeel also had a descendant named Sheshan, who gave his daughter to his Egyptian servant Yarcha; and from them as well - fifteen generations after Yarcha - descended Yishmael ben Netanyah ben Elishama, who murdered Gedalyah ben Achikam. Concerning him Scripture states that he was "of royal seed," which refers to his maternal lineage; therefore it does not say "of the sons of royalty," but rather "of royal seed," because it came exclusively through the mother. We will mention this again later when we examine the episode of Sheshan.
Names and Expressions in the Lineage of Onam
וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי־רָם בְּכוֹר יְרַחְמְאֵל מַעַץ וְיָמִין וָעֵקֶר׃ - The sons of Ram, the firstborn of Yerachmeel, were Maatz, Yamin, and Eker.
וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי־אוֹנָם שַׁמַּי וְיָדָע וּבְנֵי שַׁמַּי נָדָב וַאֲבִישׁוּר׃ - The sons of Onam were Shammai and Yada; and the sons of Shammai were Nadav and Avishur.
Anyone who thinks that "Shammai" is a name found only in the Mishnah and Talmud should know that Shammai appears in Scripture as well. Here it appears without an aleph, but it is the very same name.
וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת אֲבִישׁוּר אֲבִיהָיִל וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת־אַחְבָּן וְאֶת־מוֹלִיד׃ - And the name of Avishur's wife was Avihayil, and she bore him Achban and Molid.
Until now we knew "Avichayil" only as a man's name; from here we learn that Avihayil is also a woman's name - "And the name of Avishur's wife was Avihayil."
וּבְנֵי נָדָב סֶלֶד וְאַפָּיִם וַיָּמׇת סֶלֶד לֹא בָנִים׃ - And the sons of Nadav were Seled and Appayim, and Seled died without children.
"Without children" (lo vanim) - the Radak explains that it is as though it were written "belo vanim" (without children). And just as the Malbim cites examples such as "lo chasid" (not pious), which indicates that something is lacking, so too here, "lo vanim" means that he lacked children.
וּבְנֵי אַפַּיִם יִשְׁעִי וּבְנֵי יִשְׁעִי שֵׁשָׁן וּבְנֵי שֵׁשָׁן אַחְלָי׃ - And the sons of Appayim were Yishi, and the sons of Yishi were Sheshan, and the sons of Sheshan were Achlai.
The Malbim reiterates here the principle he mentioned earlier: Ezra was transcribing from the master genealogical register, where many sons were listed for Appayim, which is why it says "And the sons of Appayim" in the plural. However, Ezra was not concerned with all the sons, but only with one of them, and therefore transcribed only him. The same applies to "and the sons of Yishi" - there were many sons there, but our focus is Sheshan. Likewise with "and the sons of Sheshan" - there were many descendants, but it was important to mention only Achlai.
וּבְנֵי יָדָע אֲחִי שַׁמַּי יֶתֶר וְיוֹנָתָן וַיָּמׇת יֶתֶר לֹא בָנִים׃ - And the sons of Yada, the brother of Shammai, were Yeter and Yonatan; and Yeter died without children.
וּבְנֵי יוֹנָתָן פֶּלֶת וְזָזָא אֵלֶּה הָיוּ בְּנֵי יְרַחְמְאֵל׃ - And the sons of Yonatan were Pelet and Zaza. These were the descendants of Yerachmeel.
Here too, "without children" (lo vanim) means without children, as we saw with Seled. And "These were the descendants of Yerachmeel" - the Malbim explains that this means they traced their lineage to him. Why are specifically these called the descendants of Yerachmeel? Because with Atarah the mother of Onam, whom we saw was a gentile who converted, her children nevertheless traced their lineage after him - and from that line came Yishmael ben Netanyah, since she still retained some of her former corruption. In contrast, the children of Yarcha are not traced back to Yerachmeel, as we will see further on, because he was a slave.
Sheshan and His Servant Yarcha
וְלֹא־הָיָה לְשֵׁשָׁן בָּנִים כִּי אִם־בָּנוֹת וּלְשֵׁשָׁן עֶבֶד מִצְרִי וּשְׁמוֹ יַרְחָע׃ - Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters; and Sheshan had an Egyptian servant whose name was Yarcha.
This verse contradicts the verse stated two verses earlier: you said, "And the sons of Sheshan: Achlai," and suddenly you say, "Now Sheshan had no sons, but daughters"! There are several ways to resolve this. Radak explains that Achlai died during his father's lifetime, so it is appropriate to say that he had no sons - initially he had one and later he died, so that subsequently in his life Sheshan had no sons, only daughters. The Malbim explains that the text is speaking of a specific point in time: at that time when Sheshan had an Egyptian servant named Yarcha, whom he gave to his daughter, he had no sons, only daughters, but at a later period he also had sons. This is the opposite explanation of Radak: according to Radak, at first he had a son and later he did not, while according to the Malbim, at first he did not have sons and later he did.
And who was this Yarcha? Radak explains that he was his servant who grew up with him and was a member of his household, like Eliezer the servant of Avraham who was a member of his household, and he gave him his daughter after he was emancipated. And Chazal derived that he emancipated him from his name: Yarcha (יַרְחָע) - the letter ayin symbolizes eved (servant), and the remaining letters form the word chori (a free man). From here Chazal said: If your daughter has matured, emancipate your slave and give her to him. That is, if your daughter has come of age and there is no one to marry her, do not sit and wait until the hair on her head turns white. And even though a servant is not prestigious lineage or a great catch - after all, he is a servant, and even if he converted, what is his pedigree? No one wants to take a former servant as a son-in-law - nevertheless, this is preferable.
And even though by emancipating the servant he transgressed the Torah's command, "You shall keep them as a heritage forever," which was said regarding a Canaanite slave - nevertheless, this is preferable to your daughter waiting until her hair turns white. However, here there was a more significant transgression: "an Egyptian servant whose name was Yarcha" - this was a first-generation Egyptian convert, and Egyptians are forbidden to us for three generations. How, then, could he give his daughter to a first-generation Egyptian? Only after three generations would it be permissible to marry him to his daughter! From here Chazal stated: Do not trust a slave for up to ten generations - and "ten" is not exact, since there were sixteen generations from Yarcha to Yishmael ben Netanyah. Thus, the lineage was not particularly prestigious: both from the maternal side, for Atarah the mother of Onam was a Gentile who converted, and from one of the paternal ancestors over the generations, who was an Egyptian servant who, although emancipated, still falls under the dictum, "Do not trust a slave for up to ten generations."
When we speak of three generations for an Egyptian convert, the meaning is that he cannot marry a Jewish woman, nor can his son, and only his grandson may do so. If so, what should he do; whom may he marry? A female convert. For the prohibition is against entering the assembly of Hashem, and "the assembly of converts is not called an assembly" - someone of pure Jewish lineage has a restriction against marrying him, but someone without that status does not have this restriction. So he marries a convert, and afterward, in the third generation, their descendants may enter the congregation of Hashem.
The Malbim adds a point: the very act of giving his daughter to his servant was not a sin in itself, because he was automatically emancipated - for if a person gives a free woman to his servant, the servant thereby goes free. There is no concern here of marrying off one's daughter to a slave, because the moment you marry your daughter to him, you have emancipated him and demonstrated that as far as you are concerned, he is a free man. Rather, as mentioned, the flaw was solely due to his being an Egyptian, who is forbidden to enter the congregation.
וַיִּתֵּן שֵׁשָׁן אֶת־בִּתּוֹ לְיַרְחָע עַבְדּוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת־עַתָּי׃ - "And Sheshan gave his daughter to Yarcha his servant as a wife, and she bore him Attai."
Chazal ask: How is it possible that Yishmael ben Netanyah ben Elishama was "of the royal seed," when Yishmael descended from Yerachmeel and not from Ram? You see that his root was from Yerachmeel, as we mentioned, so how can you say he was from the line of Ram, to whom royalty belonged? The Malbim explains that this was through his maternal lineage, which is why it does not say "from the sons of the king" but rather "of the royal seed." The commentary attributed to Rashi explains according to the homiletic teaching of Chazal, that "of the royal seed" (mizera hameluchah) means he passed his offspring through the fire to Molech. Certainly, one must realize that this is not the literal meaning (peshat) but a midrashic interpretation of Chazal, and therefore we require the other explanations to elucidate the matter of "the royal seed."
וְעַתַּי הֹלִיד אֶת־נָתָן וְנָתָן הוֹלִיד אֶת־זָבָד׃ - "And Attai fathered Nathan, and Nathan fathered Zavad."
וְזָבָד הוֹלִיד אֶת־אֶפְלָל וְאֶפְלָל הוֹלִיד אֶת־עוֹבֵד׃ - "And Zavad fathered Ephlal, and Ephlal fathered Oved."
וְעוֹבֵד הוֹלִיד אֶת־יֵהוּא וְיֵהוּא הֹלִיד אֶת־עֲזַרְיָה׃ - "And Oved fathered Yehu, and Yehu fathered Azaryah."
וַעֲזַרְיָה הֹלִיד אֶת־חָלֶץ וְחֶלֶץ הֹלִיד אֶת־אֶלְעָשָׂה׃ - "And Azaryah fathered Cheletz, and Cheletz fathered Elasah."
וְאֶלְעָשָׂה הֹלִיד אֶת־סִסְמָי וְסִסְמַי הֹלִיד אֶת־שַׁלּוּם׃ - "And Elasah fathered Sismai, and Sismai fathered Shallum."
וְשַׁלּוּם הוֹלִיד אֶת־יְקַמְיָה וִיקַמְיָה הֹלִיד אֶת־אֱלִישָׁמָע׃ - And Shallum begot Jekamiah, and Jekamiah begot Elishama.
In summary: In this section we learned how a seemingly dry genealogical record contains an entire world of Torah: the calculation of the generations from Hur and Uri down to Bezalel, which teaches of the extraordinary vitality of the early generations; the distinction between "came unto" and "took her," showing that Chetzron elevated the daughter of Machir from a concubine to a full wife; the rule that a child born outside of kiddushin is traced after the mother's tribe - which is why Yair son of Segub was called "Yair the son of Manasseh," and why the descendants of Manasseh gave him one of their own daughters and the cities as an inheritance, meaning that the Torah's narrative and the narrative here are one and the same (though according to the Sages there were two individuals named Yair, the second named after the first). We saw the praise of David, who reclaimed the cities taken by Geshur and Aram; we learned that "no sons" means without sons; and we observed Ezra's method of copying from the genealogical record only those individuals relevant to our subject. Finally, we encountered two foundational moral lessons: "Do not trust a convert until twenty-four generations" and "Do not trust a slave until ten generations," for from this lineage - Atarah the gentile woman and Yarcha the Egyptian slave - ultimately arose Yishmael son of Nethaniah, who murdered Gedaliah son of Ahikam; yet on the other hand, "If your daughter has reached maturity, free your slave and give her to him," for there are crucial life matters that must not be delayed until the hair turns gray.