In this part of Chapter 2, we continue tracing the genealogy of the tribe of Yehudah, focusing particularly on the branches of the family of Kalev. This is one of the most intricate passages in the book, as the question of Kalev's identity - who he is and how he relates to Chetzron, Yerachme'el, and Kalev ben Yefuneh - occupies all the commentators. We will proceed through the verses in order, examining the approaches of the commentary attributed to Rashi, Radak, and the Malbim, and conclude with the final verse of the chapter, which deals with the families of the scribes.
וּבְנֵי כָלֵב אֲחִי יְרַחְמְאֵל מֵישָׁע בְּכֹרוֹ הוּא אֲבִי זִיף וּבְנֵי מָרֵשָׁה אֲבִי חֶבְרוֹן׃ (מב) - And the sons of Kalev the brother of Yerachme'el were Meisha his firstborn, who was the father of Ziph, and the sons of Mareshah the father of Chevron. (42)
We have already mentioned earlier that the subject of Kalev creates great complexity among the commentators. We have seen several genealogies concerning Kalev, and the question arises whether these all refer to the same Kalev, and whether "sons" means grandsons - along with several other ways to resolve the apparent contradictions. On the one hand, Scripture states, "the sons of Ram, the firstborn of Yerachme'el," and then speaks of "Kalev, the brother of Yerachme'el," implying that he was a brother of Yerachme'el. On the other hand, we find Kalev ben Yefuneh. And on a third front, we saw him connected to Chetzron. Who, then, is this Kalev?
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: since the text had already traced part of Kalev's family earlier and then interrupted to trace Yerachme'el, it was necessary to state here "Kalev the brother of Yerachme'el" - so that you would not assume Scripture had finished detailing Kalev's family; rather, this is the same Kalev discussed previously, and the text returns to him to provide further lineage. From here stems the principle articulated by the commentary attributed to Rashi: "And so is the manner of this entire genealogical record: it does not trace lineages in order, but traces a bit of so-and-so's family, takes up another family, and once it has traced that family, returns to trace the first family as at the beginning, and then another again; thus this entire genealogical book is interwoven." In other words, according to his approach, the author did not maintain a chronological order: he touches upon one family, moves to another, and returns to the first.
The Malbim explains that according to the literal commentators (pashtanim), what we saw earlier - "And Kalev son of Chetzron fathered Azuvah" - refers to Keluvai son of Chetzron mentioned before that. At first, Scripture mentioned the sons of Ram son of Chetzron out of honor for Dovid, since the royal dynasty descended from Ram. It then mentioned the sons of Keluvai - not all of them, but only the most prominent: Chur, Uri, and Betzalel, those mentioned in the Torah. After that, it recorded the sons of Yerachme'el, Chetzron's firstborn, and now it returns to Kalev son of Chetzron to record the rest of his sons, who were born to him even before the sons of Azuvah and Ephrat. The Malbim adds: Chur was not Kalev's firstborn. Kalev's firstborn was Meisha. Chur was the firstborn of Ephratah - the firstborn to his mother, but not Kalev's firstborn, as Kalev had already fathered Meisha earlier by another wife.
Chazal derive regarding verse 18, "And Kalev ben Chetzron fathered Azuvah," that this refers to Kalev ben Yefuneh. The Malbim notes, as he already mentioned earlier: according to their view, it is clear that he was not the biological son of Chetzron, for he was the son of Yefuneh. What, then, is the meaning of "ben Chetzron"? A descendant (grandson or great-grandson) of Chetzron. As we have seen many times throughout this book, Scripture refers to a grandfather or great-grandfather as "father," and to grandsons and great-grandsons as "sons" - he was a descendant, and therefore Scripture calls him his son.
In particular, says the Malbim, it is impossible that Kalev was the literal son of Chetzron. The text implies that the three sons born to Chetzron were born before he married the daughter of Machir, when he was not yet sixty years old, as we saw in verse 21. Chetzron was among those who came to Egypt, among those who descended into Egypt. Yet Kalev, when Moshe sent him with the spies 210 years later, said of himself that he was forty years old. Could this be possible? If Chetzron fathered children around the age of sixty at the time of the descent into Egypt, and 210 years passed, how could his son be only forty years old? Where did all the intervening years go? You are forced to conclude that "son of Chetzron" does not mean a literal father and son, but rather lineage - a descendant of Chetzron, much like "Achan ben Zerach" and other examples.
According to this, adds the Malbim, following Chazal's view, we had not yet discussed the descendants of Keluvai ben Chetzron, the brother of Yerachme'el, at all. For initially, Scripture recorded the descendants of Ram, and among them mentioned the lineage of Kalev ben Yefuneh, who was also among Ram's descendants and traced back to Chetzron, his forefather; afterward it recorded the sons of Yerachme'el the firstborn; and now it turns to Keluvai. Thus, this Keluvai is not the same Kalev: Kalev ben Yefuneh was called "ben Chetzron" as a great-grandson, whereas the Kalev mentioned here, "And the sons of Kalev the brother of Yerachme'el," is Keluvai himself, the literal son of Chetzron.
What is the meaning of "he was the father of Ziph"? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: the prince of Ziph. Here we should note a general rule that we will encounter on many occasions: when Scripture refers to a person as the "father" of a place, the commentators follow one of two approaches. Either he was the governor of that place - just as one might refer to someone as the "father of Ramat Gan," meaning he was the ruler in Ramat Gan; or, alternatively, all the residents of that place are his descendants, and "father of Ramat Gan" means the forefather of the city's inhabitants. The commentary attributed to Rashi takes the first approach: "the father of Ziph" means the ruler of the city of Ziph, and likewise the ruler of the people of Mareshah and of Chevron. Indeed, the names of these cities appear in Yehoshua 15: "Ziph, and Telem, and Bealoth... Keilah, and Achzib, and Mareshah."
The Malbim, by contrast, follows the second approach: "the father of Ziph" means that the people of Ziph and the people of Mareshah descended from his loins; it does not mean that he ruled there, but rather that the inhabitants of the city are his offspring. However, the Malbim encounters a difficulty: in chapter 4, verse 21, Scripture states, "to Ladah the father of Mareshah," whereas here it states that Meisha his firstborn is the father of Mareshah. He resolves this: there were two places named Mareshah. Alternatively, one could say that from Adah came the inhabitants of the villages surrounding Mareshah, while Mareshah itself came from Meisha his firstborn, and Adah fathered the residents of the surrounding villages. "And the sons of Mareshah the father of Chevron" - Meisha had a son named Chevron, and from his sons large families also emerged, as Scripture goes on to relate.
וּבְנֵי חֶבְרוֹן קֹרַח וְתַפֻּחַ וְרֶקֶם וָשָׁמַע׃ (מג) וְשֶׁמַע הוֹלִיד אֶת־רַחַם אֲבִי יׇרְקְעָם וְרֶקֶם הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׁמָּי׃ (מד) וּבֶן־שַׁמַּי מָעוֹן וּמָעוֹן אֲבִי בֵית־צוּר׃ (מה) - And the sons of Chevron: Korach, and Tapuach, and Rekem, and Shema. (43) And Shema fathered Racham, the father of Jorkeam; and Rekem fathered Shammai. (44) And the son of Shammai was Maon; and Maon was the father of Beth-zur. (45)
"The father of Jorkeam" - the inhabitants of the city of Jorkeam descended from his loins. The Malbim remains consistent with his approach that every "father" of a place denotes biological lineage rather than rulership. And from Rekem son of Chevron came Maon, who was his grandson, and to him the people of Beth-zur traced their lineage.
וְעֵיפָה פִּילֶגֶשׁ כָּלֵב יָלְדָה אֶת־חָרָן וְאֶת־מוֹצָא וְאֶת־גָּזֵז וְחָרָן הֹלִיד אֶת־גָּזֵז׃ (מו) וּבְנֵי יׇהְדָּי רֶגֶם וְיוֹתָם וְגֵישָׁן וָפֶלֶט וְעֵיפָה וָשָׁעַף׃ (מז) - And Ephah, Calev's concubine, bore Charan, and Motza, and Gazez; and Charan fathered Gazez. (46) And the sons of Jahdai: Regem, and Jotham, and Geshan, and Pelet, and Ephah, and Shaaph. (47)
The difficulty here is apparent: in verse 47, Scripture details the sons of Jahdai as though he had already been mentioned - yet in the preceding verse, Jahdai is not mentioned at all. How can the sons of a person be enumerated when he has not previously appeared in the genealogy? Where did he come from?
Radak explains that Jahdai is one of the sons mentioned previously: "And Ephah, Calev's concubine, bore Charan, and Motza, and Gazez" - one of them also had a second name, Jahdai, and here Scripture refers to him by his other name. This must be the case, for otherwise, how do we arrive at Jahdai?
The Malbim explains differently: from Gazez came the descendants of Jahdai. "And Charan fathered Gazez," and from Gazez came Jahdai, to whom were attributed his grandsons - Regem, Jotham, Geshan, Pelet, Ephah, and Shaaph mentioned in verse 47. Scripture does not record the line of descent from father to son in continuous order, as it was written in the comprehensive genealogical record, where it was explicitly stated that he fathered Gazez, tracing the lineage down to Jahdai, and from there to the sons of Jahdai. Here, Scripture skipped several intermediary generations - the third and fourth generations - which Ezra saw no need to mention. This follows the principle that the Malbim repeatedly emphasizes: Ezra included what was essential to his purpose, and omitted whatever was not necessary for his book.
פִּילֶגֶשׁ כָּלֵב מַעֲכָה יָלַד שֶׁבֶר וְאֶת־תִּרְחֲנָה׃ (מח) וַתֵּלֶד שַׁעַף אֲבִי מַדְמַנָּה אֶת־שְׁוָא אֲבִי מַכְבֵּנָה וַאֲבִי גִבְעָא וּבַת־כָּלֵב עַכְסָה׃ (מט) - As for Maachah, Calev's concubine, he fathered Sheber and Tirhanah. (48) And she bore Shaaph the father of Madmannah, Sheva the father of Machbenah and the father of Gibea; and the daughter of Calev was Achsah. (49)
All the commentators struggle here: "Caleb's concubine, Maacah, bore [yalad]" - why is "yalad" in the masculine? Malbim notes that the commentators were forced into strained explanations, suggesting that "yalad" appears in place of "yaldah" [she bore]. Yet even this does not resolve everything, for in the next verse it says again "and she bore" [vateled] - and if it already stated that she gave birth, what reason is there to repeat "and she bore"?
Therefore, Malbim explains in an entirely different way: Sheber was the name of a man, and Tirhanah was his wife, and the two of them gave birth to Maacah, Caleb's concubine. That is, it does not mean that Maacah bore Sheber and Tirhanah, but that Sheber and Tirhanah fathered Maacah. This resolves the masculine phrasing "yalad" - it refers back to Sheber, who was a man. Malbim adds: Sheber and his wife Tirhanah were prominent figures in those days, and the daughter born to them became a concubine to Caleb because of his great stature - they agreed to let their daughter be a concubine to a man as esteemed and distinguished as Caleb. And what is stated, "and Tirhanah," comes to indicate that Maacah came from noble lineage through both her father Sheber and her mother Tirhanah, descendants of illustrious pedigree.
According to this, the phrase "and she bore" in verse 49 is also nicely resolved: it is not repetitive, for the previous verse spoke of the birth of Maacah herself, and now the verse recounts whom she bore - Shaaph father of Madmannah, and Sheva father of Machbenah and father of Gibea. Malbim further adds, following the line he mentioned earlier, that the word "et" is often part of the name itself, as in "Et-Sheva" and "Ve'et-Yerioth." Accordingly, one could say that "Et-Tirhanah" was her very name: Et-Tirhanah. Thus, Sheber and his wife Et-Tirhanah gave birth to Maacah, Caleb's concubine, and she also bore Achsah, daughter of Caleb.
Malbim observes: We find in Joshua 15:16 that Caleb son of Jephunneh had a daughter named Achsah, whom he gave in marriage to Othniel son of Kenaz. This supports the words of Chazal that the text here refers to Caleb son of Jephunneh, since the details correspond. According to this, from verse 46 onward the verse returns to Caleb son of Jephunneh, who was discussed in verse 18, and continues with his lineage. However, Malbim adds that the plain meaning of the text suggests that this refers to Caleb brother of Jerahmeel mentioned in verse 42, who also had a daughter named Achsah - and Caleb son of Jephunneh later named his own daughter Achsah after her. The commentary attributed to Rashi remains consistent with its approach that "father of Madmannah," "father of Machbenah," and "father of Gibea" are names of cities, over which he ruled.
אֵלֶּה הָיוּ בְּנֵי כָלֵב בֶּן־חוּר בְּכוֹר אֶפְרָתָה שׁוֹבָל אֲבִי קִרְיַת יְעָרִים׃ (נ) שַׂלְמָא אֲבִי בֵית־לָחֶם חָרֵף אֲבִי בֵית־גָּדֵר׃ (נא) - These were the sons of Caleb son of Hur, the firstborn of Ephrathah: Shobal father of Kiriath-jearim, (50) Salma father of Bethlehem, Hareph father of Beth-gader. (51)
The commentary attributed to Rashi interprets "son of Hur" as meaning "his son was Hur" - his son is Hur, which fits what we saw above, that Ephrath bore him a son named Hur. Radak explains: All those enumerated here, headed by Shobal father of Kiriath-jearim, were the sons of Caleb son of Hur, who was the grandson of Caleb son of Jephunneh. And since the text earlier traced the lineage through Uri son of Hur, it comes here to teach that Hur had another son named Caleb, and these were his sons.
Malbim cites the commentators in agreement with Radak: Hur son of Caleb, mentioned in verses 19-20 as fathering Uri, fathered an additional son named Caleb. And if you ask why the text above mentioned only "and Hur fathered Uri" and did not mention Caleb as well - Malbim explains that, as noted earlier, Scripture did not list all the descendants there, only the most prominent ones, which is why it listed only Uri.
Malbim also offers an alternative interpretation: "These were the sons of Caleb" refers back to the earlier Caleb, Caleb son of Hezron, and the verse is saying that these too were his sons; while the son of Hur, firstborn of Ephrathah, was Shobal. This also seems evident from chapter 4, verse 1, where Scripture mentions Hur and Shobal without mentioning Caleb the father of Shobal, because Shobal was in fact the son of Hur, as stated there, "these were the sons of Hur." According to this, with "These were the sons of Caleb; the son of Hur the firstborn of Ephrathah [was] Shobal" - one should not understand that Shobal was among Caleb's sons, but rather that Shobal was the son of Hur. However, Malbim concludes that the cantillation marks prove against this latter interpretation.
Radak presents two explanations here for the word "father of" [avi], and it can be taken literally: "father of Kiriath-jearim" - meaning that all the inhabitants of Kiriath-jearim were his sons and grandsons, and that entire city traced its lineage to his descendants, which is why the verse subsumed them under the name "Kiriath-jearim." The same applies to "father of Bethlehem" and "father of Beth-gader."
וַיִּהְיוּ בָנִים לְשׁוֹבָל אֲבִי קִרְיַת יְעָרִים הָרֹאֶה חֲצִי הַמְּנֻחוֹת׃ (נב) - And Shobal father of Kiriath-jearim had sons: Haroeh, half of the Menuhoth. (52)
Here the commentators grapple: who is "Haroeh chatzi ha-Menuchot" (the seer of half of Menuchot), and why did he see only half - if he already sees, let him see it all?
Pseudo-Rashi explains: there was a province in the land named Menuchot, and it appears with a different vocalization in the phrase "and they exiled them to Manachat." "Haroeh" means a ruler, and he was ruler over half the city of Menuchot; and there was another who ruled over the second half, as we will see later in the verses who he was.
Radak first cites the explanation of Pseudo-Rashi, that "Haroeh" means one who oversees its affairs, meaning its ruler. Another explanation: he was ruler over half the city of Jerusalem, as Jerusalem is called a "Beit Menuchah" (house of rest) or "Menuchah." And some explain that he was appointed over half the meal-offerings (menachot) that were brought to Jerusalem from all the nations, and Shoval was the director and overseer in charge of them, which is why he was called "the overseer of half the menuchot" - though one still needs to understand what "half" means. Radak concludes: there are further explanations, but I did not see fit to write them down, and even those I wrote did not find favor in my eyes. What seems correct to me is that Haroeh and Chatzi-HaMenuchot are the names of Shoval's sons, other sons besides those who settled in Kiryat Ye'arim: the name of the one was Roeh, and the name of the second was Chatzi-HaMenuchot - and these were his two sons.
Malbim explains that "Haroeh" is the son who appears below in chapter 4, verse 2 by the name "Re'ayah the son of Shoval" - Re'ayah and Haroeh are the same name, and in both places the father is Shoval, which proves that it is the same person. And "Chatzi-HaMenuchot" - he was the father of half of Menuchot. According to Malbim, "the father of Kiryat Ye'arim" also applies to "Haroeh chatzi ha-Menuchot": a ruler over half the city of Menuchot, or that half of its inhabitants descended from him and belonged to his ancestral house.
Malbim further notes that some commentators explain that "Chatzi" and "HaMenuchot" are proper names of individuals, meaning he had three sons: Haroeh, Chatzi, and HaMenuchot. Radak treated them as two sons, while Malbim cites those who treated them as three. And do not be surprised by a proper name that begins with the definite article, "HaMenuchot" - we have already encountered this: "Hassofereth" in Ezra 2, "Hakotz," "Hallohesh," and in this very book we have seen many - "Hatzelelponi," "Ha'achashtari," "Hatzovevah," "Haharum." Such were their names.
וּמִשְׁפְּחוֹת קִרְיַת יְעָרִים הַיִּתְרִי וְהַפּוּתִי וְהַשֻּׁמָתִי וְהַמִּשְׁרָעִי מֵאֵלֶּה יָצְאוּ הַצָּרְעָתִי וְהָאֶשְׁתָּאֻלִי׃ (נג) - And the families of Kiryat Ye'arim: the Yitrite, and the Puthite, and the Shumathite, and the Mishraite; from these came the Tzor'athite and the Eshta'ulite. (53)
Pseudo-Rashi explains that "Kiryat Ye'arim" refers to the inhabitants of Kiryat Ye'arim, and "the Tzor'athite" means the inhabitants of Tzor'ah. Here everyone wonders: regarding Shimshon it is said, "And the spirit of Hashem began to move him between Tzor'ah and Eshta'ol," which implies that this was in the territory of Dan - so how does Scripture attribute these places to the descendants of Yehudah?
Pseudo-Rashi resolves this: the towns themselves, Tzor'ah and Eshta'ol, belonged to the tribe of Yehudah, while the border and the area between them belonged to Dan. Therefore it says "between Tzor'ah and Eshta'ol" - what lay between them belonged to Dan.
Radak resolves it differently: the tribe of Dan encamped in those places until their inheritance fell to them, and they resided there until they received their portion, as it is written, "And they went up and encamped in Kiryat Ye'arim in Yehudah," which is why that place was called "Machaneh Dan unto this day." Thus, the place is Kiryat Ye'arim in Yehudah, and nevertheless it was named after Dan - because the members of Dan dwelt in the territory of the children of Yehudah until they inherited their own land.
Malbim, on the other hand, says that there were two cities named Tzor'ah and two named Eshta'ol: one pair in the territory of Dan and one in the territory of Yehudah, and here Scripture refers to those in the territory of Yehudah. It is somewhat novel to suggest that two cities with the exact same names existed in two different locations, but this is Malbim's explanation.
בְּנֵי שַׂלְמָא בֵּית לֶחֶם וּנְטוֹפָתִי עַטְרוֹת בֵּית יוֹאָב וַחֲצִי הַמָּנַחְתִּי הַצׇּרְעִי׃ (נד) - The sons of Salma: Beit Lechem, and the Netophathites, Atroth Beit Yoav, and half of the Manahathites, the Tzortites.
Pseudo-Rashi explains: The sons of Salma were among the inhabitants of Beit Lechem and the inhabitants of Netophah, as well as the inhabitants of Atroth Beit Yoav. And the sons of Tzor'ah took for themselves half the region of the Manahathites and dwelt in it. These are names of places, as we find among the names of David's mighty warriors: "Maharai the Netophathite," "Baanah the Netophathite." And the place called "Manahathite" is the same place referred to in the verse, "and they were exiled to Manahath," and it is also the "half of Menuchot" mentioned above - for here Scripture is speaking of the second half of that place.
וּמִשְׁפְּחוֹת סֹפְרִים יֹשְׁבֵי יַעְבֵּץ תִּרְעָתִים שִׁמְעָתִים שׂוּכָתִים הֵמָּה הַקִּינִים הַבָּאִים מֵחַמַּת אֲבִי בֵית־רֵכָב׃ (נה) - And the families of scribes who dwelt at Yabetz: the Tir'athites, the Shim'athites, the Suchathites; these are the Kenites who came from Chamat, the father of the house of Rechav.
Pseudo-Rashi explains: "Who dwelt at Yabetz" - the faction of Yabetz, who ruled over them, as is written later, "And Yabetz was more honorable than his brothers." "The Tir'athites, the Shim'athites, the Suchathites" - these are all names of their ancestral house, families of a father's house: the family of the Tir'athites, the family of the Shim'athites, and so on. "These are the Kenites" - named after their place, for they dwelt in Kayin, which is a place name, as it says, "HaKayin, and Giv'ah, and Timnah," cities of the house of Rechav, "and he dwelt in Kayin."
Pseudo-Rashi also brings another explanation: that Yabetz is the name of a city in the territory of Yissachar, as it is written, "and Rabbit, and Kishion, and Ebetz" - and "Ebetz" is the city called Yabetz. According to this explanation, "the Kenites" refers to their profession: a metalsmith was called a kinae, and "the Kenites" are the metalsmiths.
Radak explains: "And the families of scribes who dwelt at Yabetz" - these families were also descendants of Salma. They were scribes, meaning teachers, and inhabitants of a city named Yabetz; it is possible that Yabetz built it and it was named after him. "The Tir'athites, the Shim'athites, the Suchathites" are family names, and there are many homiletic expositions (derashot) on them. Radak notes: If we were to expound on why all the names were called this way, no book could contain it, and we have only what is found written, for all these names were based on matters known to them, as is written regarding some of them, and we ought not to search after those whose reasons were not written. That is to say, there are names whose meaning Chazal expounded, and others they did not expound, and regarding what they did not expound, we should not search and innovate on our own.
Chazal expounded that they were descendants of the Kenite, the father-in-law of Moshe, who became intermingled with the family of Yehudah and were genealogically counted among them. And as for what is written, "who came from Chamat, the father of the house of Rechav" - this is the family of the Rechavites, whom we already learned about in the Book of Yirmiyahu, who were careful to abstain from wine.
The Malbim explains: Since it says, "And the children of the Kenite, Moshe's father-in-law, went up from the city of palm trees with the children of Yehudah... and went and dwelt among the people," Chazal learn that this refers to the descendants of the Kenite, Moshe's father-in-law, who went to Othniel ben Kenaz - who is Yabetz - to learn Torah. There they settled and intermingled with the children of Yehudah. They were scribes and scholars who dwelt in the city of Yabetz, the city that Yabetz built in the wilderness of Yehudah. Afterward, they branched off into the families of Tir'athites, Shim'athites, and Suchathites, according to the names of their ancestral house, or as Chazal homiletically interpret these names in relation to their wisdom.
Therefore, Ezra comes and tells you: know that they were not originally from the family of Yehudah; rather, they are the Kenites, descendants of the Kenite. Although they intermingled with them, know that their origin is not from the family of Yehudah. "Who came from Chamat, the father of the house of Rechav" - Chamat was the head of the family, and he was the father of the house of Rechav, from whom emerged the family of the Rechavites, tent-dwellers who abstained from worldly pleasures, as recounted in Yirmiyahu.
In this part of the chapter, Scripture continued with the genealogy of the house of Calev, and we examined three fundamental approaches: Pseudo-Rashi, who maintains that the genealogical record is not presented in chronological order but skips from family to family, and that whenever someone is called the "father" of a place it means its ruler; Radak, who frequently explains duplicate names and sons' names; and the Malbim, who establishes that "father" means that the inhabitants of the place descended from that person, that Scripture skips generations not needed for its purpose, and that the word "et" is sometimes part of a proper name. We examined the question of the identity of Calev ben Chetzron and Calev ben Yefuneh and the chronological proof that "son" here means grandson; the Malbim's novel insight that Shever and Tirchanah bore Ma'achah, Calev's concubine; the dispute among the commentators regarding "Haroeh Chatzi HaMenuchot" and Tzor'ah and Eshta'ol; and finally the families of scribes - the descendants of the Kenite, Moshe's father-in-law, who came to learn Torah from Yabetz and intermingled with Yehudah, and from whom came the house of Rechav, who were ascetic and abstained from worldly desires. With this, we have completed Chapter 2 of Divrei HaYamim I.