Chapter 3 of I Chronicles is the chapter of the genealogy of the House of David. After listing the sons of David born in Hebron and Jerusalem, Scripture proceeds to enumerate, generation by generation, the dynasty of the kings of Judah from Solomon down to Josiah and his sons, continuing from there to the generations of the exile - Jeconiah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, and their descendants, down to the final generations mentioned at the end of the chapter. In this section, we will explore the reckoning of the kings, the complex names of Josiah's sons, and the chain of generations following the exile. Before us lies a chapter that may appear to be a dry list of names, yet hidden within it are secrets of prayer, repentance, and the continuity of the Davidic dynasty until Melech HaMashiach.
וּבֶן־שְׁלֹמֹה רְחַבְעָם אֲבִיָּה בְנוֹ אָסָא בְנוֹ יְהוֹשָׁפָט בְּנוֹ׃ יוֹרָם בְּנוֹ אֲחַזְיָהוּ בְנוֹ יוֹאָשׁ בְּנוֹ׃ - And Solomon's son was Rehoboam, Abijah his son, Asa his son, Jehoshaphat his son. Joram his son, Ahaziah his son, Joash his son.
Here Scripture enumerates the kings of Judah generation after generation: Rehoboam, Abijah, Asa, Jehoshaphat, Joram, Ahaziah, Joash. The commentary attributed to Rashi asks: from Solomon to Joash is eight generations, so why are these specifically enumerated? The answer: King David saw through Ruach HaKodesh that his seed was destined to be wiped out in the days of Joash by Athaliah, as it says in II Chronicles 22, "she arose and destroyed (va-tedabber)" - and Chazal expound this as related to dever (pestilence/destruction), meaning annihilation, that she put them to death with deadly poison. David arose and pleaded that the dynasty of the House of David not be extinguished, reciting the psalm "To the Chief Musician, upon the Sheminis." What is "Sheminis"? An eight-stringed instrument, or according to some, eight in number - meaning he was praying concerning the eighth generation: "Save, Hashem, for the pious man ceases" - Master of the Universe, the seed of the pious man is coming to an end, Athaliah is killing them all! And then Joash escaped, being seven years old when he became king, and they hid him in the Holy of Holies; from there salvation came, preserving the remnant of the House of David.
Furthermore, from Joash to Josiah is once again eight generations. David saw that Josiah and his sons were again headed for destruction - one was killed and one had his eyes gouged out - and he prayed once more "upon the Sheminis": "Hashem, rebuke me not in Your anger, nor chasten me in Your wrath," in order to preserve the generations that would follow him. In the entire Book of Tehillim, there are only two psalms that mention "upon the Sheminis," and both were said for this reason.
A thought suggests itself as to why the danger arrived specifically in cycles of eight: King David himself ruled in the parable of the poor man's ewe, "he shall restore the lamb fourfold (arba'atayim)," and this was fulfilled against him through the suffering of his children. "Arba'atayim" means four and another four. Therefore, once every eight generations - twice four - a threat of annihilation loomed over David's seed; and after another eight generations, the danger recurred. Through the merit of his prayer, writes the commentary attributed to Rashi, the sons of Jehoiakim survived.
The commentary attributed to Rashi further notes: from Jeconiah - and some say from Jehoiakim - until Anani there were seven generations, and Anani is Melech HaMashiach, as it says, "and behold, with the clouds (ananei) of heaven." And he counts thirty-eight sons here, including both direct sons and grandsons. Why specifically thirty-eight? Because he offered thirty-eight praises to the Holy One, Blessed be He, in the Book of Chronicles, from "Blessed be Hashem, the God of Israel" until "ve-hachzek" - thirty-eight words. Corresponding to them, thirty-eight sons and descendants are enumerated here.
אֲמַצְיָהוּ בְנוֹ עֲזַרְיָה בְנוֹ יוֹתָם בְּנוֹ׃ אָחָז בְּנוֹ חִזְקִיָּהוּ בְנוֹ מְנַשֶּׁה בְנוֹ׃ אָמוֹן בְּנוֹ יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ בְנוֹ׃ - Amaziah his son, Azariah his son, Jotham his son. Ahaz his son, Hezekiah his son, Manasseh his son. Amon his son, Josiah his son.
The Azariah mentioned here is King Uzziah, who, as is well known, was afflicted with tzara'as.
וּבְנֵי יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ הַבְּכוֹר יוֹחָנָן הַשֵּׁנִי יְהוֹיָקִים הַשְּׁלִשִׁי צִדְקִיָּהוּ הָרְבִיעִי שַׁלּוּם׃ - And the sons of Josiah: the firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum.
Here we encounter considerable complexity, for elsewhere the sons appear in a different order and under different names. Let us begin with Radak. Radak explains that Johanan is Jehoahaz, whom Pharaoh Necho exiled to Egypt, and he had two names. However, he raises a difficulty: how can he be called "the firstborn," when Jehoiakim was two years older than he - as Scripture states, "Jehoahaz was twenty-three years old when he became king" and "Jehoiakim was twenty-five years old when he became king"? Rather, it is because he reigned first, and therefore Scripture calls him firstborn - not biologically firstborn, but firstborn with respect to the monarchy.
And regarding "the fourth, Shallum," Radak cites the words of Chazal that Shallum is Tzidkiyahu. Why was he called Shallum? Because he was complete (mushlam) in his deeds, for he was righteous. Furthermore, because the kingdom of the House of David was completed (shalmah) - that is, ended and brought to completion - in his days; Tzidkiyahu, who was blinded and exiled, was called Shallum because the kingdom of the House of David was completed with him. And why does the verse call him "the fourth"? Because he was the fourth king after the reign of Yoshiyahu. But Radak raises a difficulty: If Tzidkiyahu is Shallum, this is contradicted by the wording of the verse itself - "the third, Tzidkiyahu; the fourth, Shallum" - so how could they be one and the same? He answers that "the fourth" means fourth in the succession of the monarchy. Nevertheless, Radak concedes that this is a Midrashic homily (derash), whereas the plain meaning (peshat) is not so.
According to the plain meaning, Radak explains that Shallum is Yehoyachin, the son of Yehoyakim son of Yoshiyahu. It is impossible to say that Yoshiyahu had another son named Shallum, for in the Book of Kings we find no kings after Yoshiyahu other than Yehoachaz, Yehoyakim, Yehoyachin, and Tzidkiyahu. And in Yirmiyahu it is stated, "concerning Shallum the son of Yoshiyahu... who reigned instead of Yoshiyahu" - who is this Shallum? Perforce he must be Yehoyachin, and he is called the son of Yoshiyahu because grandchildren are regarded as children.
The Malbim also cites various opinions regarding the order of the sons. In the view of Abarbanel, King Tzidkiyahu was not the son of Yoshiyahu but the son of Yehoyakim, and the Shallum mentioned here is Yehoachaz - unlike Radak, who holds that Yehoachaz is Yochanan. Thus, according to Radak, Shallum is either Tzidkiyahu (by way of derash) or Yehoyachin (by way of peshat), whereas according to Abarbanel, Shallum is Yehoachaz. However, the Malbim writes that he has already elaborated his view at length in II Kings 24:17, that King Tzidkiyahu was Yoshiyahu's third son, and Yochanan is Yehoachaz - thereby adopting Radak's approach. And why was he called the firstborn even though he was two years younger than Yehoyakim? He was the firstborn to the monarchy, and Scripture lists them according to the order of their reigns: Yochanan, who is Yehoachaz, reigned first, followed by Yehoyakim, and then Tzidkiyahu. As for Shallum the son of Yoshiyahu - he was exiled to Babylon together with Yehoyakim so that he would not dispute Tzidkiyahu's kingship; for once his brothers reigned, there was concern that he too would rise up to reign and rebel, which is why they exiled him. It is concerning him that the prophet prophesies in Yirmiyahu, "concerning Shallum the son of Yoshiyahu who reigned instead of Yoshiyahu."
The Vilna Gaon (Gra) explains this in an original and magnificent manner. He asks: What compelled Chazal to expound that Tzidkiyahu is Shallum, especially since the verse explicitly counts "the third, Tzidkiyahu; the fourth, Shallum"? Rather, Rabbi Yochanan is not speaking of the Shallum in our verse, but of what is written in Yirmiyahu 52:11, "Shallum the son of Yoshiyahu, king of Judah" - for in Kings we find no king named Shallum, and Tzidkiyahu was the last king. Therefore, Chazal stated that the Shallum mentioned in Yirmiyahu is Tzidkiyahu of the Book of Kings. However, Yoshiyahu certainly had a fourth son named Shallum who never reigned - these are two separate individuals named Shallum, and there is no difficulty in our verse at all. However, Chazal were troubled: if this Shallum did not reign, why is he listed here among the kings and called "the fourth"? Therefore they explained that the word "the fourth" applies both upward and downward: Tzidkiyahu was both the third among the sons and fourth in the succession of kings, since Yechanyah son of Yehoyakim preceded him on the throne. Thus, "the fourth" actually refers to Tzidkiyahu, and does not refer to Shallum at all.
וּבְנֵי יְהוֹיָקִים יְכָנְיָה בְנוֹ צִדְקִיָּה בְנוֹ׃ - "The sons of Yehoyakim: his son Yechanyah, his son Tzidkiyah."
Metzudat David explains: This Tzidkiyah is not King Tzidkiyahu, for this one was the son of Yechanyah, whereas King Tzidkiyahu was his uncle, the son of Yoshiyahu. And Radak adds a reason for the name: Yechanyah named his son Tzidkiyahu after his uncle Tzidkiyahu.
וּבְנֵי יְכָנְיָה אַסִּר שְׁאַלְתִּיאֵל בְּנוֹ׃ - "And the sons of Yechanyah: Assir, his son Shealtiel."
The wording of the verse is difficult: it does not say "Assir and Shealtiel" with a vav ("and"), nor does it say "his sons," but rather "Assir, his son Shealtiel." Radak says that according to the plain sense, both were his sons. And why did he name his son Assir? One who is born in prison (beit ha'assurim) is named Assir ("captive" or "prisoner"). For concerning Yechanyah the prophet wrote, "Inscribe this man as childless, a man who will not succeed in his days," but he repented with all his heart, and because of this, Hashem relented to him, granted him sons, and he was released from prison.
And regarding the name Shealtiel, several reasons are offered. Some say that the kingship of the House of David was borrowed from him, as though the monarchy was lent out and taken away from him. Furthermore, Chazal said, Rabbi Yochanan says: Exile atones for everything - as it is said, "Inscribe this man as childless," that was before he was exiled; and after he was exiled, it is written, "Assir, his son Shealtiel." Assir - because his mother conceived him in prison. Shealtiel - because God planted him unlike the way ordinary plants are planted, Shealtiel being like Shetaliel ("planted by God"). And what is the meaning of "planted him unlike the way plants are planted"? It is an established tradition that a woman does not conceive while standing, yet she conceived while standing: they brought his wife into the prison, and since he was in a dungeon - a cell where it was impossible to lie down, but only to stand - and he wished for her to conceive by him, he engaged in marital relations with her while standing; naturally, a woman does not conceive while standing, yet she conceived while standing.
Another explanation: Shealtiel - because God had His oath annulled (nish'al al alato), as if saying "I asked concerning the oath" (she'alti alah). And this is Zerubbabel, who was sown (nizra) in Babylon (Bavel); and what was his name? Nechemyah son of Chachalyah was his name. And what is the meaning of "He asked concerning His oath"? The Razah cites in the name of the Midrash, in the words of Rabbi Tanchum: Yechanyah was called Assir Shealtiel because the Holy One, Blessed is He, bound Himself with an oath and asked the Heavenly Court to release Him. That is, the Holy One, Blessed is He, as it were, swore and bound Himself with an oath that Yechanyah would have no children, and afterward He requested release from His oath - "Shealtiel," God asked (sha'al Ha'El) for release. And this is why one might wonder at the words "And the sons of Yechanyah" - from where did he have sons? Rather, "Assir" means that He bound a binding prohibition upon Himself with an oath, as in the rabbinic idiom, "an oath to bind a prohibition upon oneself"; and afterward "Shealtiel," for He asked to be released from it. The meaning is that the Holy One, Blessed is He, argued against the Attribute of Justice, which prosecuted and said: "How can You grant children to Yechanyah when You swore otherwise?" He replied: "He repented, and by virtue of this, the decree is annulled." According to this, Shealtiel also carries the meaning that he asked of God (sha'al min Ha'El) to grant him children, since he had repented.
The Gra explains that "his son, Assir" also applies to what is written below, "and Malkiram," etc., meaning that all of these were the sons of Shealtiel. According to this, Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, son of Shealtiel; and even though he is called "Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel" - grandchildren are considered like children. Our Sages also expounded: Why is there no vav between Assir and Shealtiel? Because he was one person with two names - for the Holy One, blessed be He, imprisoned (asar) and asked (sha'al), as explained earlier.
וּמַלְכִירָם וּפְדָיָה וְשֶׁנְאַצַּר יְקַמְיָה הוֹשָׁמָע וּנְדַבְיָה׃ - "And Malkiram, Pedaiah, Shenazzar, Jekamiah, Hoshama, and Nedabiah."
Our Sages say that it had been decreed upon him to be childless, and through repentance the decree was annulled. The Malbim, however, takes a different approach: based on what he explained in Jeremiah 22, the decree was not that he would be childless, but rather that none of his sons would reign - he would have sons, but no son would continue the monarchy. Yet even this decree was annulled, for we see that Zerubbabel rose to greatness through his lineage and ruled in Judah, which is the opposite of what was written of Jeconiah: that no man of his seed would prosper, ruling any more in Judah.
The Malbim further cites opinions that "Assir" is a title describing Jeconiah himself, who was confined in prison and fathered these sons there - rather than the name of his son. In the view of Chazal, he had two sons, Assir and Shealtiel, while Malkiram, Pedaiah, and all those listed here are the sons of Shealtiel and not of Jeconiah. There is also the possibility that all of them were the sons of Jeconiah himself. Radak, according to the approach that they were all sons of Shealtiel, resolves this by explaining that just as the author of the Book of Chronicles typically condenses, he took a concise approach here as well and omitted "and the sons of Shealtiel," since his standard pattern is to mention the father followed by his sons.
וּבְנֵי פְדָיָה זְרֻבָּבֶל וְשִׁמְעִי וּבֶן־זְרֻבָּבֶל מְשֻׁלָּם וַחֲנַנְיָה וּשְׁלֹמִית אֲחוֹתָם׃ - "And the sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei; and the son of Zerubbabel: Meshullam, Hananiah, and Shelomith their sister."
Radak raises a difficulty: in Haggai, Zechariah, and Ezra, he is called "Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel," yet here he is the son of Pedaiah. He resolves this as we have already seen: he was his grandson - Pedaiah was the son of Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah, and grandchildren are considered like children. And as for what is written, "and the son of Zerubbabel," the meaning is "and the sons of," following the observation we have noted multiple times.
The Malbim cites the opinion of Ibn Ezra (on Ezra 3) that Pedaiah was the brother of Shealtiel. According to him, when Scripture says "Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel," he is actually his nephew, since his father was Pedaiah. Why, then, was he named after his uncle? Because Shealtiel died childless, and Pedaiah performed yibum (levirate marriage) with his widow, and the son born stood in the name of the deceased - thus Zerubbabel served as the continuity of Shealtiel. A very original and wonderful explanation.
"And Shelomith their sister" - the Malbim explains that they were all born to one woman, and we will soon see why it is important for him to emphasize this. The Gra asks: Why does it mention a woman here, when Scripture generally does not mention women unless there is a specific reason? He answers: Because she was distinguished. And another reason: there is a division between this verse and the next. According to the Gra, this verse speaks of all those who were in Babylonia and remained there, while the next verse speaks of those who came to the Land of Israel. Therefore, when counting all those who remained in Babylonia, Scripture also mentioned the daughter named Shelomith.
וַחֲשֻׁבָה וָאֹהֶל וּבֶרֶכְיָה וַחֲסַדְיָה יוּשַׁב חֶסֶד חָמֵשׁ׃ - "And Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed: five."
This verse is very puzzling. If it is a continuation of the tally of children from the previous verse - Meshullam, Hananiah, Shelomith, and those listed here - they total eight; why, then, does it say "five"? According to the Gra's explanation, this is understood: the previous verse is concluded and sealed, and those counted in it were born in Babylonia; whereas those enumerated here - Hashubah, Ohel, Berechiah, Hasadiah, and Jushab-hesed (which is a single compound name, as Metzudat David notes) - are five who were born in the Land of Israel, and therefore Scripture separated them into a verse of their own.
The commentary attributed to Rashi follows a similar line, that these are daughters - five additional daughters aside from Shelomith their sister. However, according to his approach, it is not clear why Scripture separated them from Shelomith and counted them as five rather than six. As for the very need for the word "five," the Gra offers a wonderful answer: were it not for the word "five," I might have thought that "Jushab" and "Hesed" were two separate names, bringing the count to six. Therefore, Scripture tells you "five" - from which you learn that "Jushab-hesed" is a single name. Metzudat David resolves this differently: "five" refers to the five mentioned in this verse, and it is possible that the earlier ones were not from the same wife, which is why Scripture counted these separately. The Malbim follows this view as well, that these five were from another wife. According to their approach, it is very possible that some of them were sons, since "Ohel" can be a son's name; it is only implied in the commentary attributed to Rashi, and stated explicitly by the Gra, that these were all daughters.
וּבֶן־חֲנַנְיָה פְּלַטְיָה וִישַׁעְיָה בְּנֵי רְפָיָה בְּנֵי אַרְנָן בְּנֵי עֹבַדְיָה בְּנֵי שְׁכַנְיָה׃ - And the son of Hananiah: Pelatiah and Jeshaiah; the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah, the sons of Shecaniah.
Metzudas David explains that "the sons of" (benei) here means "the son of" (ben), just as we have seen several times that even though a plural form is written, the intention is singular. Thus the verse forms a chain: the son of Hananiah - Pelatiah and Jeshaiah; the son of Jeshaiah - Rephaiah; the son of Rephaiah - Arnan; the son of Arnan - Obadiah; the son of Obadiah - Shecaniah. In order to be concise, the text relied on the discerning reader.
Malbim also struggles with the wording of the verse, and one can understand why Metzudas David was forced into this interpretation. After all, this is not standard phrasing: saying "the sons of Rephaiah, the sons of Arnan, the sons of Obadiah" - who are they? Until now, whenever the text mentioned sons, it listed their names; and if it did not intend to list them, why mention at all that they had sons? Therefore, Malbim explains, following the approach he maintained from the beginning of the book, that Ezra copied from the master genealogical record, where everything was recorded in great detail: there it was written "and the sons of Rephaiah were so-and-so," and then "and the sons of Arnan were so-and-so," and so forth. Since Ezra took a concise approach and did not elaborate where he saw no need, he recorded an outline of sorts - as if saying "the sons of Rephaiah, etc.; the sons of Arnan, etc.; the sons of Obadiah, etc." Whoever wants the full details should consult the master genealogical record; here, he merely excerpted from it.
וּבְנֵי שְׁכַנְיָה שְׁמַעְיָה וּבְנֵי שְׁמַעְיָה חַטּוּשׁ וְיִגְאָל וּבָרִיחַ וּנְעַרְיָה וְשָׁפָט שִׁשָּׁה׃ - And the sons of Shecaniah: Shemaiah; and the sons of Shemaiah: Hattush, and Igal, and Bariah, and Neariah, and Shaphat, six.
Let us count them: Hattush, Igal, Bariah, Neariah, Shaphat - that is five, yet the verse says six. The commentary attributed to Rashi writes that there is a reason for this, just as it says later in chapter 25 regarding the Levitical divisions: "Of Jeduthun: the sons of Jeduthun: Gedaliah, and Zeri, and Jeshaiah..." etc. - six, yet there are only five named. Metzudas David makes it easier for us and provides the explanation: his wife was pregnant, and he foresaw through Ruach HaKodesh that she would give birth to a boy, so he already included him in the tally. He did not yet have a name, which is why he is not mentioned by name; and how did he know it would be a boy? Through Ruach HaKodesh he saw this. One could have suggested that he conceived with his wife according to the guidelines stated by Chazal to ensure a male child, but Chazal apparently did not favor this explanation, since there are always exceptions to such guidelines, as is well known, and therefore they said that he foresaw it through Ruach HaKodesh.
Another explanation: the "six" refers back to Shecaniah. That is, Shecaniah had six descendants - one son, Shemaiah, and five grandsons, the sons of Shemaiah; and grandchildren are considered like children, so they are all counted as six to Shecaniah. Malbim explains that this is not merely a technical tally, but rather that they were raised by Shecaniah, their paternal grandfather, and were considered his sons - for whoever raises someone else's child is considered as if he gave birth to him, all the more so here, where they were his own grandchildren.
The Gra offers an approach similar to what we have seen before, and Malbim even cites it in his name, noting that Rabbenu Eliyahu explains this way in several places: sometimes a single name is repeated both above and below. According to this, "and the sons of Shecaniah: Shemaiah; and the sons of Shemaiah - Shemaiah, Hattush, Igal," etc. - Shemaiah is read twice, once as the name of the father and once as the name of a son. We have already seen a son named after his father, and we have seen a father give identical names to more than one of his sons. According to this, "six" is well understood, for there was an additional son named Shemaiah. Moreover, according to the Gra, the text had to emphasize "six," for otherwise we would not have known to count Shemaiah twice. One might wonder: why write "six" instead of just writing Shemaiah twice, since nothing is saved? In fact, something was gained, for "Shemaiah" has five letters (in Hebrew) while "six" (shishah) has only three letters.
וּבֶן־נְעַרְיָה אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי וְחִזְקִיָּה וְעַזְרִיקָם שְׁלֹשָׁה׃ - And the sons of Neariah: Elioenai, and Hizkiah, and Azrikam, three.
The Gra states: from Elioenai began the Exilarchs until Hillel, and from Hillel began the Nesi'im. Interestingly, here the Gra does not address the word "three," and did not explain why the verse needed to emphasize it - for here there is no possibility of error in the count, so it is unclear why it was emphasized.
וּבְנֵי אֶלְיוֹעֵינַי הוֹדַוְיָהוּ וְאֶלְיָשִׁיב וּפְלָיָה וְעַקּוּב וְיוֹחָנָן וּדְלָיָה וַעֲנָנִי שִׁבְעָה׃ - And the sons of Elyoenai were Hodavyahu, Elyashiv, Pelayah, Akkuv, Yochanan, Delayah, and Anani - seven.
Here the Malbim writes: "Behold, the latter-day critics have walked here in 'gloom without any order'." He refers to the biblical critics, those German scholars who merely dropped in for a brief "visit" [bikur] rather than delving deeply into its understanding, offering critiques based on all sorts of bizarre theories - that books were composed on multiple occasions, that a particular book had two separate authors, and so on. For us, "vanity of vanities," said Kohelet; we do not live by their words, the teachings of Chazal are sufficient for us, and we believe with complete and pure faith. Yet, the Holy One, blessed be He, raised up in every generation defenders of the breach who responded to those critics, demonstrating their lack of understanding and the emptiness of their questions. Foremost among them was the Malbim, who set out to compose his monumental commentary on the Torah and the entire Tanach primarily for this purpose.
It is told that when the Chafetz Chaim visited him and asked why he was not continuing his work Artzot HaChaim - for he had authored halachic works on the festivals and had begun on the morning laws before stopping in the middle, and the Chafetz Chaim would cite him wherever he saw an excerpt in his name - the Malbim apologized and explained that a tremendous task lay upon him: to explain the Scriptures against all the detractors who had arisen in his time. The Chafetz Chaim said to him: "Yet this [halachah] is also important!" The Malbim replied: "If you take upon yourself the commentary on Scripture, I will undertake to continue composing halachic works." The Chafetz Chaim responded: "That I cannot do - what you have accomplished for Scripture, I am unable to do." The Malbim was deeply broken at the time, for all his life he was persecuted by the Maskilim and opponents of his approach, to whom he gave fiery responses, and he was forced to wander from community to community because of these persecutions. The Chafetz Chaim encouraged him, saying: "All those who persecute you - a wind shall carry them away; who will remember them, and who will know who they were? But you will be remembered forever, you are leaving behind masterworks, and your merits endure for eternity. You have no reason to fear transient men compared to the monumental deeds you are performing."
And so it always is: whenever something is truly powerful, the Sitra Achra (the "other side") does not concede easily. Who today can believe that the Rambam was persecuted, placed under ban, and had some of his books burned? And who can believe that a Beit Din was convened against the Ramchal, forbidding him to speak in Kabbalah and subjecting him to severe persecutions - when he was holy of holies, about whom the Vilna Gaon said that had he lived in his generation, he would have taken his staff and knapsack and walked by foot to learn Torah from him! When there is great spiritual power waging war against the Sitra Achra, the Sitra Achra fights back: accusers, adversaries, and slanderers arise. And when it was Avraham Avinu, they cast him into the fiery furnace.
Let us return to our subject. Those critics attempted to prove from these verses "that the hand of a later scribe held sway over this book" - claiming that the Book of Divrei HaYamim was not written entirely by Ezra, or that later chroniclers added interpolations to it. And what was their proof? That it is impossible to imagine that Ezra could mention seven generations after Zerubbabel - Zerubbabel, Chananyah, Shechanyah, Shemayah, Nearyah, Elyoenai, and Anani - assuming an average generation of thirty years, which totals 210 years from Zerubbabel to Anani. The Malbim notes that they already raised a similar objection in Nechemiah 12 regarding the lineage of the Kohen Gadol, and he had already demonstrated their error there.
The foundation of his answer is simple: the calculation depends entirely on the age of childbearing. The Gemara mentions a period when "they fathered children at age seven" - meaning that if one fathered a child at seven, and his son at seven, and his son's son at seven, then within twenty-one years there are already three generations! When the age of childbearing is compressed, events unfold far faster than under a model of bearing children at age thirty or forty. And we need not exaggerate with age seven; let us assume they fathered children at age thirteen, which was entirely customary in Eastern lands and Yemen, where they would arrange marriages very early, at age twelve or thirteen. This is especially true of earlier generations, who were vastly more formidable: Rivkah was three years old when she drew water for the camels; Betzalel was thirteen when he directed the entire construction of the Mishkan and knew how to combine the letters through which heaven and earth were created; Shimon and Levi were thirteen when they struck down an entire city of twenty-four thousand men - two young men, not tender schoolboys. Age thirteen in those days was the age of mature, powerful adults.
Now for the calculation: Yechanyah was exiled eighteen years before the destruction of the First Temple. Ezra authored Divrei HaYamim, and Nechemiah after him completed the book, returning to Jerusalem in the thirty-second year of Artaxerxes. If we maintain that Darius is Artaxerxes, Nechemiah lived roughly thirty years after the building of the Second Temple. Seventy years of exile plus thirty years of the Second Temple period equal one hundred years following the destruction of the First Temple, plus the eighteen years preceding the destruction when Yechanyah was exiled - totaling 118 years from the exile of Yechanyah. If Yechanyah, his sons, and his grandsons each fathered children at age thirteen, which was by no means unusual, then within 118 years the tenth generation would already be born! Even if we say that Zerubbabel was the son of Pedayah son of Shealtiel, Anani is the ninth generation - and it is entirely plausible that Ezra and Nechemiah saw him with their own eyes.
And if we wish to expand further: one could say Nechemiah saw Anani even if they fathered children at age fourteen, which is even more readily conceivable. All the more so if we explain, as we did above, that Assir, Shealtiel, and Pedayah were all brothers rather than father and son - in which case we save a generation, and Anani is only the eighth generation. Then, even if they had children at age fifteen, the calculation works out smoothly. "What is all this commotion they raised, and the spiderwebs they wove upon lines of confusion and stones of emptiness?" as the Malbim poetically phrases it. Is fathering children at age fifteen something extraordinary? Thus, Ezra and Nechemiah could easily see those generations before their very eyes; it is not a matter of two hundred years, but of 118 years, and those individuals were already living in their generation.
Chapter 3 leads us from the sons of David, through the dynasty of the kings of Judah generation after generation, to the generations of the exile and the return. We learned that King David prayed "upon the eighth" twice, corresponding to the two dangers of extinction he foresaw for his lineage every eight generations, and in the merit of his prayer a remnant was spared for the House of David. We saw the intricacies in identifying the sons of Yoshiyahu - Yochanan, Yehoyakim, Tzidkiyahu, and Shallum - and the approaches of the Radak, Abarbanel, Malbim, and the Vilna Gaon in resolving them. We saw Yechanyah, who had been decreed to be "childless," yet through the power of his wholehearted repentance the decree was annulled and sons were born to him in prison - Assir and Shealtiel - until Zerubbabel emerged from him and rose to greatness. And we learned the concise style of Divrei HaYamim, which recorded outlines from the great genealogical book, as well as the Malbim's definitive refutation of the biblical critics, whose entire edifice of questions rested on a flawed assumption regarding the length of generations. At the end of the chain stands Anani - who is Melech HaMashiach, "and behold, with the clouds [ananei] of heaven," through whom the kingdom of the House of David will reach eternal fulfillment.