Chapter 3 of I Chronicles returns to the primary focus of the book - the lineage of King David. Radak notes that earlier the text traced the family of Ram down to David, yet it did not complete the genealogy there, but instead turned to the lineage of Calev. Once it finished tracing Calev, it returned to continue David's lineage, which is the heart of the book. This is the method of the book, as we have seen: it first sifts out all those lines it wishes to conclude quickly, until it reaches David, where it elaborates in detail.
וְאֵלֶּה הָיוּ בְּנֵי דָוִיד אֲשֶׁר נוֹלַד־לוֹ בְּחֶבְרוֹן, הַבְּכוֹר אַמְנֹן לַאֲחִינֹעַם הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִית, שֵׁנִי דָּנִיֵּאל לַאֲבִיגַיִל הַכַּרְמְלִית׃ - "And these were the sons of David who were born to him in Hebron: the firstborn Amnon, of Achinoam the Yizre'elit; the second, Daniel, of Avigayil the Carmelit."
As an aside, let us note: throughout Scripture, the name is vocalized "Daniyeil" - with a tzeirei under the yud, and not under the alef as people commonly pronounce it today. This is true everywhere, including throughout the Book of Daniel. We have already explained the reason for this when studying the Book of Daniel: all names ending in "el" - Raphael, Michael, Uriel - have the accent and vowel on the alef, but here the accent falls on the yud, so that it should not sound, Heaven forbid, like "dani El" - as though God is judging me. Therefore, it is pronounced Daniyeil.
Radak notes: in the Book of Shmuel we do not find "Daniel" but rather "Kil'av," and Chazal expound that Daniel is indeed Kil'av. Why was his name changed? This son was born to David after Avigayil left Naval the Carmelite. Recall the incident where David asked Naval to give him provisions from their celebration - "for we protected your flock" - and Naval insulted him, after which "it came to pass after ten days that the Lord smote Naval." Avigayil, the wife of Naval the Carmelite, ultimately married David. The Holy One, Blessed be He, formed the facial features of the son born to them in the likeness of David's face to remove suspicion, as people were saying: she was pregnant from Naval, and therefore this is not David's son at all.
His primary name was therefore Daniel, named because "God judged me (danani) from Naval" - the Holy One, Blessed be He, took retribution from Naval for humiliating the servants David had sent to him. The Malbim likewise cites the teaching of Chazal that Hashem formed his facial features to resemble his father's, and he was therefore called "Kil'av" - meaning "kulo av" (entirely like his father). Furthermore, it is said of Naval that he was "Kalibi"; some say he came from the family of Calev, while others say he had the nature of a dog (kelev). According to the explanation that he was from the family of Calev, she called him "Kil'av" - do not come and say that he belongs to Calev; rather, he is entirely his father's (kulo av), belonging wholly to King David and not to Naval the Carmelite.
From this the Malbim deduces that the entire requirement of the months of distinction (havchanah) is a rabbinic decree: Chazal enacted that a man may not marry a widow or a divorcée until after three months of waiting to establish paternity. In their time, this decree had not yet been instituted, for had it already existed, why would people have gossiped about him? There would certainly be no room for gossip had he married her only after three months. Rather, he must have married her immediately, as the decree was not yet enacted at that time, and immediately after the days of mourning and the counting of the seven clean days, she conceived and gave birth.
Based on this, the Malbim notes a fascinating insight: we can now understand why Adoniyah the son of Chagit "exalted himself, saying: I will reign." Seemingly, Daniel, the son of Avigayil the Carmelit, was older than him and preceded him - so why would Adoniyah push ahead? But since people cast doubt upon Daniel, claiming he was not certainly David's son, this suited Adoniyah perfectly: Daniel is before me? Who is to say he is even David's son? If so, the one worthy of the throne is me. Furthermore, Chazal state that Adoniyah exalted himself to reign because Daniel was immersed in Torah study - "Kil'av," who put the face of Mefivoshet to shame in Halachah; we see that he was entirely devoted to Torah, and Adoniyah knew he was not seeking the monarchy. Thus there are two reasons why Adoniyah exalted himself even though someone preceded him: first, that Daniel's lineage was supposedly under a cloud of doubt, and second, that he was entirely immersed in Torah and had no interest in kingship.
הַשְּׁלִשִׁי לְאַבְשָׁלוֹם בֶּן־מַעֲכָה בַּת־תַּלְמַי מֶלֶךְ גְּשׁוּר, הָרְבִיעִי אֲדֹנִיָּה בֶן־חַגִּית׃ - The third, Avshalom the son of Maacah daughter of Talmai king of Geshur; the fourth, Adonijah the son of Haggith.
The phrasing of the verse is unusual: if the third was Avshalom, it should have simply said, "The third, Avshalom son of Maacah." What is the meaning of "le'Avshalom" (to Avshalom), as if asking who was born to Avshalom? Radak resolves this by noting that we find the letter lamed used in place of the accusative direct-object marker "et", as in "they killed Avner" (hargu le'Avner, meaning et Avner). Here too, it means "the third was Avshalom," and he cites further grammatical examples where a lamed serves in place of the word "et."
However, the Malbim explains differently: the name Avshalom signifies "father of peace" (avi ha-shalom), a very noble and positive name, yet this Avshalom was far from being a man of peace. Therefore, the verse prefixes the letter lamed: "Le'Avshalom" - lo Avshalom, "not Avshalom." He acted in direct contradiction to his name; he was not a father of peace but a father of war, who instigated rebellion against his father David and sought to reign during his lifetime.
"The son of Maacah" - why this emphasis? The Malbim explains that Maacah was the source of his corruption, for she was a captive woman taken in war (eshet yefat to'ar), and from an eshet yefat to'ar emerges a wayward and rebellious son (ben sorer u-moreh). Likewise, with the fourth son, Adonijah, the verse mentions his mother's name, because she caused his downfall by raising him poorly, as it says in I Kings 1:6: "And his mother bore him after Avshalom." Rashi questions this: what does Avshalom have to do with Adonijah, when each was born to a different mother - Avshalom was the son of Maacah and Adonijah was the son of Haggith? Rashi explains: Haggith raised him in the very same corrupt culture in which Avshalom's mother raised her son, so one should not wonder that he turned out just like Avshalom, becoming a rebellious and wicked son as well.
The Vilna Gaon offers a fascinating explanation here: why does it say "le'Avshalom" rather than simply "Avshalom"? The verse teaches that because David married a captive woman, he produced a son who was killed for rebelling against his father, and such a son is unworthy of having his lineage recorded; he is mentioned only for the sake of tracing the lineage of his own children. Therefore it says "le'Avshalom" - as if to say: who was born to Avshalom. That is, Scripture does not trace his descent for his own sake, but only with respect to those who descended from him, for Avshalom himself is unworthy of genealogical mention.
If so, why is it not also stated "le-Chaggit"? After all, Adonijah also rose up and exalted himself, saying, "I will reign" - a son who rose to rebel against his father - so by the same logic, Scripture should have indicated regarding him as well: I do not mention you for your own sake, but only for the sake of the children born to you. The Vilna Gaon resolves this: since he was universally known by the title "Adonijah son of Haggith," Scripture did not wish to alter his familiar name, and therefore stated "Adonijah son of Haggith" rather than "le-Chaggit." And as for the verse stating "and his mother bore him after Avshalom," even though he was born to a different mother, this comes to teach that the timing of his birth was after the birth of Avshalom - a purely chronological detail, not meaning that they shared the same mother.
It turns out that Adonijah was the fourth of David's sons: the firstborn Amnon was dead, Daniel was devoted exclusively to Torah and had no desire to reign, and Avshalom was killed - so Adonijah assumed that since he was fourth, the monarchy naturally fell to him. Furthermore, the Vilna Gaon adds a beautiful insight: why did he exalt himself, saying, "I will reign"? Because his very name seemed to testify to kingship. "Adonijah" denotes master and lordship (adon and adnut), indicating that he is master over all. And what of the letter heh at the end of his name? It is the lower heh (heh tata'ah), the final heh of the Four-Letter Name of Hashem, which alludes to Malchut (Kingship). For the sefirot correspond to the Divine Name as follows: the yud corresponds to primordial Chochmah; the first heh to Binah; the vav to the six extremities - Chesed, Gevurah, Tiferet, Netzach, Hod, and Yesod, the six dimensions of the body; and the final heh to Malchut. And where is Keter represented? In the upper point (kotz) of the yud; for the body of the yud is already Chochmah, while Keter is hidden and exalted. Hence, "Wisdom is found from nothingness" (ve-ha-chochmah me'ayin timatzei) - Keter is the realm of "nothingness" (ayin), and Chochmah flows from it. Just as a physical crown (keter) rests above a person's head and is not part of his body, so too the point of the yud is above the body of the letter and is not part of it. If so, since he was named "Adon" (master) and concluded with the letter heh which hints at Malchut, Adonijah concluded: clearly, the kingship belongs to me.
הַחֲמִישִׁי שְׁפַטְיָה לַאֲבִיטָל, הַשִּׁשִּׁי יִתְרְעָם לְעֶגְלָה אִשְׁתּוֹ׃ - The fifth, Shephatiah of Avital; the sixth, Ithream, by his wife Eglah.
The Midrash asks: Was she his only wife? Were not all those enumerated until now his wives? Why, then, does Scripture specifically mention "his wife" here? Rather, she cried out like a heifer (eglah) when giving birth to him - hence her name; when she gave birth, she bleated like a heifer, as apparently her labor was difficult. Furthermore, she was beloved to him like a heifer, as Shimshon said in Shoftim, "Had you not plowed with my heifer, you would not have found my riddle" - there we see that "heifer" is an expression of endearment, and a beloved wife is called a heifer. Therefore, on account of Michal's endearment, Scripture calls her "his wife" - the one most beloved to him.
The Radak explains that Eglah is Michal daughter of Shaul, and the verse calls her "his wife" because she was the first. For through the foreskins of the Pelishtim, David acquired Merav, yet Merav was given to Adriel the Mecholathite; afterward, Scripture states that Michal loved David, and Shaul said: On the contrary, let us give him Michal so that she will cause his downfall - and thus ultimately David received Michal. And should you ask, is it not written, "And Michal the daughter of Shaul had no child to the day of her death," so how could she have borne a son? The Radak answers: From that day forward she had no child, as a punishment for disparaging David when he was leaping and dancing before the Ark of Hashem, saying that in her father's house they did not behave in such a manner but with dignity, to which he replied, "And I will make myself even more dishonored than this" - from that day on she had no child, but prior to that, she did.
Metzudas David resolves the question at its core: "his wife" refers back to all of them. "The fifth, Shefatyah, of Avital; the sixth, Yitre'am, of Eglah - his wife" is as if it said "his wives": each of those mentioned up to this point was one of his wives. And what does this teach us? One might have thought that these were his concubines; therefore, the verse tells us that there are no concubines here, but rather they were all truly his full wives.
The Malbim explains based on what we learned in Shmuel II, where Chazal expound that Michal is called Eglah as an expression of endearment, which is why Scripture calls her "David's wife" - the one most beloved to him. Here in Divrei HaYamim, the Malbim adds: "Eglah his wife" - she was fitting for him by virtue of being a king's daughter. That is, her special distinction was that she was truly worthy of being his wife, for Michal was the daughter of Shaul, a king's daughter, and David was a king - and she was the most fitting and worthy match for him.
The Vilna Gaon explains that "his wife" comes to teach that one should not think she became forbidden to him through Palti ben Laish. After all, she was given to Palti ben Laish, and there was a serious concern: perhaps she was indeed betrothed to David - and we have already seen the matter of betrothal via a loan (mekadesh be-milveh), the dispute between David and Shaul regarding the halachic understanding of the matter - and if Palti ben Laish had subsequently cohabited with her, she would have been forbidden as a married woman betrothed to David. The verse tells us two things: first, that Palti ben Laish never came near her, thrusting a sword between himself and her, as Chazal teach. Second, however that dispute is understood, Scripture testifies, "of Eglah his wife," to inform you that she remained permitted to him.
The Vilna Gaon further adds: The kiddushin took effect upon her, since he married her six months after Merav's death. David had fought the Pelishtim to win Merav, yet when the time came for her to be given to David, she was given to Adriel the Mecholathite; then Shaul was told that Michal loved David, and Shaul said, "I will give him Michal," though ultimately she too was given to Palti ben Laish. But when David married Michal, Merav had already died six months prior - that is one point. Second, the betrothal to Merav had been a betrothal through a loan, which is subject to discussion as to whether it takes effect at all, since one's mind is on the debt rather than the betrothal. Thus, Scripture testifies: Eglah - who is Michal - was his fully lawful wife; do not mistakenly think there was an issue of marrying two sisters or that she became forbidden through Palti ben Laish - she was truly his wife.
שִׁשָּׁה נוֹלַד־לוֹ בְחֶבְרוֹן, וַיִּמְלׇךְ־שָׁם שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים וְשִׁשָּׁה חֳדָשִׁים, וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְשָׁלוֹשׁ שָׁנָה מָלַךְ בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם׃ - Six were born to him in Chevron; and there he reigned seven years and six months, and thirty-three years he reigned in Yerushalayim.
Six sons were born to him in Chevron, where he reigned seven years and six months, and afterward thirty-three years in Yerushalayim - for a total of forty years and six months. Chazal have already addressed the difficulty: Did he reign forty years? In the detailed breakdown you find forty years and six months! Some say that the larger sum absorbs the smaller: when speaking of a total, it is given as a round figure, and therefore it states "forty years" without intending every single detail.
Furthermore, the Gemara cites in the name of Rabbi Yudan: The six months during which he fled from Avshalom, during which time he was stricken with tzara'as and did not reign, are deducted from the tally. Thus, while the overall total was forty years and six months, for six months he did not actually reign as he was fleeing from Avshalom, leaving a net reign of exactly forty years. And as the Vilna Gaon explains, he was afflicted with tzara'as, fled to Se'irah, and brought atonement offerings like a commoner, which is why those months were not counted toward his reign.
וְאֵלֶּה נוּלְּדוּ־לוֹ בִּירוּשָׁלָיִם: שִׁמְעָא וְשׁוֹבָב וְנָתָן וּשְׁלֹמֹה - אַרְבָּעָה לְבַת־שׁוּעַ בַּת־עַמִּיאֵל׃ - And these were born to him in Yerushalayim: Shim'a, and Shovav, and Natan, and Shlomo, four of Bat-shua the daughter of Ammiel.
All the commentators here explain that Bat-shua daughter of Ammiel is Bat-sheva daughter of Eliam. Do not be surprised: "Shua" and "Sheva" are phonetically close, and the letter vav can even be pronounced with a kamatz even though it is written here with a shuruk - names that resemble one another. Likewise, "Ammiel" and "Eliam" are the same name, with an interchange and transposition of the letters.
However, there is a major difficulty here: the verse lists Shimea, Shovav, Natan, and Shlomo - listing Shlomo fourth, whereas we know that Shlomo was the first! For when David came to Bat-sheva, she bore the first son who died, and afterward he came to her again, and after the death of the first son, Shlomo was born - Yedidiah, whom Hashem loved, and who became king. How did he become fourth here? To this Radak answers that these four were not listed in the order of their birth, for Shlomo was the eldest and the firstborn son, as it is written: "And David comforted Bat-sheva his wife, and went in unto her, and lay with her; and she bore a son, and called his name Shlomo."
The Malbim also states that Shlomo was born before his three brothers, but Radak merely established the premise without explaining it: if he was born first, why is he mentioned last? The Malbim provides the reason: he is listed last in accordance with the book's method of casting off the pebbles first, because it intends to proceed immediately afterward into the genealogy of Shlomo and his descendants. This is truly wonderful, and just as we have seen so far: it does not list them chronologically, but rather mentions the secondary branches first to dispense with them, so as to reach the central figure and elaborate upon him. Therefore, it first mentions Shimea, Shovav, and Natan, and then Shlomo - and from here on, we will speak of Shlomo, who carries the royal dynasty.
The Gra, on the other hand, finds it difficult to accept that Shlomo was first, for we generally find two kinds of listings: either they are enumerated by birth order, or by their wisdom. Yet here, it fits neither: if by birth order, he was the first, yet listed fourth; and according to wisdom, there is no question at all, for Shlomo was wiser than all men on the face of the earth, so he should still have been first. The Gra notes that this requires further study, noting what he wrote in the chapter of Ben Sorer U'Moreh, that early generations gave birth at the age of eight, inferring this from Shlomo, who was born to Bat-sheva when she was eight years old - whereas here it implies that she bore three sons prior to Shlomo, in addition to the child who died. The Gra leaves this as a difficulty, but we have already seen that the Malbim resolves it: listing him last is neither an indicator of status, nor birth order, nor wisdom, but rather the book's standard method of placing last the primary subject upon which it wishes to elaborate.
וְיִבְחָר וֶאֱלִישָׁמָע וֶאֱלִיפָלֶט׃ וְנֹגַהּ וְנֶפֶג וְיָפִיעַ׃ וֶאֱלִישָׁמָע וְאֶלְיָדָע וֶאֱלִיפֶלֶט תִּשְׁעָה׃ - And Ibhar, and Elishama, and Eliphelet; and Nogah, and Nepheg, and Japhia; and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet, nine.
If you were to pose a riddle: Who in Tanach had two sons with the exact same name? And if they answer, ask a follow-up riddle: Who had four sons with only two names - two sons by one name and two sons by another? The answer to both questions is King David. In verse 6: "Ibhar, and Elishama, and Eliphelet," and in verse 8: "and Elishama, and Eliada, and Eliphelet." Twice Elishama, twice Eliphelet. Where else do we find someone naming two of his sons with the exact same names?
Pseudo-Rashi notes that in Shmuel II, Eliphelet is mentioned only once rather than twice, and only seven sons are listed there, whereas here there are nine. The explanation is that Eliphelet died, and a son was born afterward whom David named after the deceased son. This was evidently unlike the custom today, where if someone passes away prematurely, a child is not named after him for fear, Heaven forbid, that he might share the same fate; yet here we see that David specifically named him after the deceased child. Similarly, Elishama is listed here twice, yielding two additional sons - another Elishama and another Eliphelet - hence nine, as opposed to the seven in the Book of Shmuel.
The Gra explains straightforwardly: since names were mentioned twice, one might come to think that perhaps the text made an error; therefore, it states "nine" - the names you see twice are truly counted twice, and there really were nine. Do not think that the verse is merely repeating the same individuals and that there are actually only seven because Elishama and Eliphelet were already listed; no, Elishama and Eliphelet are counted as distinct sons each time.
Pseudo-Rashi, on the other hand, explains that stating "nine" is to the honor of David. Historically, having many surviving sons was uncommon, as infant mortality was very frequent - there were no vaccines, no healthcare system, no pediatric clinics, nothing. One need not look far back into history: anyone asking about their family fifty or a hundred years ago will hear of children who passed away in infancy; it was a common reality. Therefore, the text tells you: see, David fathered nine sons, and this contributed to the royal honor.
Another son who is not mentioned in Shmuel but is mentioned here is Nogah. Radak explains that these sons died young. And the Malbim seeks to explain that Ezra came to show us how "and he shall pay fourfold for the lamb" was fulfilled in David, in that David paid with four of his sons. Rashi writes who these four were: the first infant born of Batsheva who died, Tamar, Amnon, and Avshalom. But on this the Malbim remarks that this is in the manner of Derash, for the infant who died is not connected to "he shall pay fourfold," but is an entirely separate reckoning - "the child also that is born unto you shall surely die," an independent accounting, and why mix it with "he shall pay fourfold"? Furthermore, Tamar did not actually die. Even though Chazal compared and equated rape to murder - which is why one saves a man or woman from being violated even by taking the perpetrator's life, just as in the case of saving a life, as Chazal derived from "as when a man rises against his neighbor and slays him" - that does not warrant saying that Tamar was considered as though dead, thereby completing the four. That is the way of Derash.
Therefore, the Malbim says: What do you learn from here? That there were two other sons here who died, and they complete the tally - Amnon and Avshalom, together with Nogah and Eliphelet. And Elishama does not complete the tally, even though Elishama is listed here twice, for the Malbim explains that this second Elishama is the one mentioned in Shmuel under the name Elishua. And why was his name changed to Elishama? The Malbim says it is the reverse: because his brother was named Elishama, they changed his name to Elishua. That is, there were originally two named Elishama, and consequently they changed the name of one to Elishua. One could also suggest that the names were given by the mothers, who named their children, and it may be that two wives both wished for the same name, which later created ambiguity, so they changed one Elishama to Elishua. The Gra, on the other hand, says that Nogah is Elishama - not Elishua - for there in Shmuel we are missing Nogah and here we have an extra Elishama; thus the Gra explains that they are one and the same: the Nogah missing there is the Elishama mentioned here.
כֹּל בְּנֵי דָוִיד מִלְּבַד בְּנֵי־פִילַגְשִׁים וְתָמָר אֲחוֹתָם׃ - All these were the sons of David, besides the sons of the concubines, and Tamar was their sister.
"All these were the sons of David" - those who were born to him in Yerushalayim, "and Tamar their sister." The Gra raises a difficulty: Since when are daughters counted? Daughters are never counted in genealogies unless there is a specific reason to mention them; in all lists throughout Scripture, only sons are counted. The Gra answers: Because the incident was widely known, Scripture mentioned her name here - the episode of Amnon and Tamar was notorious, and therefore her name was recorded. That is to say, she became widely known, whereas ordinary daughters whose stories were not famous are typically not mentioned by name.
The chapter returns to the primary theme of the book - the genealogy of the House of David - and it is the manner of this book to dispense with the peripheral branches first and leave the primary lineage for last, to be detailed at length; this is why Shlomo is listed last. Within the list of sons, many allusions emerge: Daniel, who is Kil'av, "entirely like his father" (kulo av), whose facial resemblance to his father dispelled all suspicion, from which it is derived that the three months of discernment (havchanah) are rabbinic; "of Avshalom" (le-Avshalom) - read as lo Avshalom ("not a father of peace"), for he was not a father of peace but a father of strife, and was unworthy of lineage on his own merit; the names of the mothers teach the root causes of their sons' misconduct, and Adoniyah sought the throne by the virtue of his name and the demise of the older brothers before him; "by Eglah his wife" - Michal, the beloved, fitting for him as a king's daughter, and his primary, fully wedded wife; the forty years of his reign, from which the six months of his flight are excluded; and the duplicate names and the count of "nine" which teach of the sons who died in childhood and of royal honor. And Tamar is recorded because of how widely known the tragedy that befell her had become.