Introduction: Transition from the Descendants of Judah to the Descendants of Simeon
After dealing at great length with the genealogy of the descendants of Judah, the text turns in the final part of the chapter to the genealogy of the descendants of Simeon. Radak explains why it appears specifically here: because in their territorial inheritance, the children of Simeon were adjacent to the children of Judah, and in fact dwelt right in their midst. As stated in Yehoshua: 'Out of the portion of the children of Judah was the inheritance of the children of Simeon, for the part of the children of Judah was too large for them, and the children of Simeon had their inheritance in the midst of their inheritance.' Radak explains: the children of Simeon did not have a separate territory of their own like the other tribes, where each tribe had its own inheritance; rather, their inheritance lay within the territory of the tribe of Judah. This is what was foretold in Yaakov's blessing: 'I will divide them in Yaakov, and scatter them in Yisrael.' Below, in verse 27, we will expand further on this matter.
(כד) בְּנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן נְמוּאֵל וְיָמִין יָרִיב זֶרַח שָׁאוּל׃ - The sons of Simeon: Nemuel, and Yamin, Yariv, Zerach, Shaul.
Radak notes: Nemuel is the same person as Yemuel mentioned in Parashat Vayigash and Parashat Vaeira, and in Parashat Pinchas it likewise states, 'of Nemuel, the family of the Nemuelites' - this is the Nemuel mentioned here. Do not be surprised by the change of a letter: you find this with most Hebrew names, both of people and of cities, where the text is not particular about the exchange of one or two letters, so that at times a person is called by one name and at times by a similar one, as we have seen in numerous examples. Malbim adds that what is written here as 'Yariv' is 'Yachin' in the Torah ('Nemuel, and Yamin, and Ohad, and Yachin, and Tzochar'), and he too explains, like Radak, that the text traces the genealogy of Simeon after Judah because Simeon's inheritance was situated within the inheritance of Judah.
Only the Leaders Are Enumerated
(כה) שַׁלֻּם בְּנוֹ מִבְשָׂם בְּנוֹ מִשְׁמָע בְּנוֹ׃ (כו) וּבְנֵי מִשְׁמָע חַמּוּאֵל בְּנוֹ זַכּוּר בְּנוֹ שִׁמְעִי בְנוֹ׃ - Shallum his son, Mibsam his son, Mishma his son. And the sons of Mishma: Chamuel his son, Zaccur his son, Shimei his son.
According to the plain meaning, as Metzudat David explains, 'Shallum his son' refers to the son of Shaul mentioned in the preceding verse, Mibsam was the son of Shallum, and Mishma was the son of Mibsam, following the pattern we have seen thus far where each instance of 'his son' refers back to the one before him. Malbim, however, says: In my view, the verse enumerates only the leaders (nesi'im) here. That is to say, there were other names in the chain of descent, but the verse did not mention them, because it intended to count only those who served as leader; whoever was not a leader was simply omitted.
According to this, 'Shallum his son' is not the son of Shaul, for Shaul's son was not a leader and is therefore not mentioned at all. Ezra, who copied from the great genealogical record, copied from there up to Shallum - who is Shelumiel son of Tzurishaddai, the first leader of the children of Simeon. In the genealogical record, Tzurishaddai was written followed by 'Shallum his son,' and that is the source of the verse's wording. From then on, the leadership passed down from one to the next until Mishma.
Likewise with 'And the sons of Mishma' - we might have thought that his sons were Chamuel and Zaccur, but that is not the case. The verse does not mention Mishma's actual sons at all, based on this same principle: it lists only leaders, and Mishma's sons were not leaders - until Chamuel, from whom a leader arose, followed by Zaccur and then Shimei. The other sons were not mentioned, for none of them was a leader, and what difference would mentioning their names make? Thus, the verse does not necessarily record so-and-so the son of so-and-so in direct succession, but rather so-and-so who was a leader descended from so-and-so who was a leader.
And who is Shimei, with whom the tribal leadership came to an end? Malbim says: This is Shemayah, whom we will mention below in verse 37; that is why the text traces Ziza the son of Shiphi back to Shemayah. From Shemayah onward, there was no longer a single leader of the entire tribe, but only leaders of individual families - thirteen leaders for thirteen families, as we will see further on. Similarly, in verse 35, 'and Yehu the son of Yoshibiah,' all those listed there were family heads rather than leaders of the whole tribe, which is why the text records them by their lineage. It is a general rule that wherever Scripture traces a person's ancestry upward, it is a sign that these were prominent, distinguished, noble individuals well known by their names, as Malbim has already noted in several places.
'Did Not Multiply Like the Children of Judah' - And Simeon's Inheritance Within Judah
(כז) וּלְשִׁמְעִי בָּנִים שִׁשָּׁה עָשָׂר וּבָנוֹת שֵׁשׁ, וּלְאֶחָיו אֵין בָּנִים רַבִּים, וְכֹל מִשְׁפַּחְתָּם לֹא הִרְבּוּ עַד בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה׃ - And Shimei had sixteen sons and six daughters, but his brothers did not have many children, nor did all their family multiply as much as the children of Judah.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: they did not multiply children as the children of Yehudah multiplied - they did not reach the numbers that the children of Yehudah reached. And because they were few, while Yehudah's territory was larger than they needed, Yehudah accepted the tribe of Shimon into its territory. In other words, since the tribe of Shimon did not multiply greatly and did not take up much space, whereas Yehudah had many children and a vast territory, there was no problem with Shimon being "hosted" by Yehudah and dwelling in its inheritance - and later we will see until when.
And why did Shimon need favors from others in the first place? Because Shimon did not have an independent territory in Eretz Yisrael, as Radak explained above based on the verse, "I will divide them in Yaakov and scatter them in Yisrael." And we learn in Bereishit Rabbah: "I will divide them" - to establish from them scribes in Israel and in synagogues, as they were the teachers of young children. And from where do we know that they received a dwelling place from the tribe of Yehudah? As stated in Yehoshua 19: "Out of the portion of the children of Yehudah was the inheritance of the children of Shimon, for the part of the children of Yehudah was too much for them; therefore the children of Shimon had their inheritance within the midst of their inheritance" - lest the beasts of the field increase against them.
Yet this still seems difficult, for it says there, "And the lot came out for the children of Shimon" - implying that there were lots cast in the division of the Land, and a lot was drawn for Shimon as well; so how can we say that they had no portion of their own, but merely inherited within the territory of the children of Yehudah? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: this is how it happened - they cast lots to determine which tribe would receive Shimon into its territory. It was not a lottery to decide which portion in the Land Shimon would receive, for they received no independent portion, as it is written, "and scatter them in Yisrael"; rather, the lottery determined which tribe would host Shimon, and the lot fell to Yehudah's portion.
According to this, we can also understand the verse, "And Yehudah said to Shimon his brother: Come up with me into my lot, that we may fight against the Canaanites; and I likewise will go with you into your lot" - which seemingly implies that Shimon possessed a lot and an inheritance of his own. Rather, the meaning is: If you assist me in the area where I settle, I will also go with you to assist you in the area where you settle, even though it is truly mine, so that you may dwell there. Come and help me fight the enemies and conquer what belongs to me, and then I will help you conquer my portion where you will settle.
As an aside, here the text states the total, "sixteen sons and six daughters," without listing their names. There is a general principle: often, when Scripture does not wish to specify names, it provides the total count. But where it details the names, there is no need to state "they were four" - since one can simply count them. To be sure, we also find instances where Scripture gives both the total and the names, and in those cases we must provide specific explanations for it.
It Is Not the Place That Causes It
Metzudat David asks: Why did Scripture need to emphasize that the children of Shimon did not multiply children like the children of Yehudah? He answers: Lest you say that the physical location is what causes fertility and abundance of children. For the children of Shimon and the children of Yehudah lived in the very same place, yet the children of Yehudah multiplied while the children of Shimon did not - teaching that the place is not the factor. It is the blessing of Hashem that enriches and grants children, not the location; rather, this was their lot as decreed for them by Hashem.
The Cities of the Children of Shimon "Until the Reign of David"
Radak adds based on this same principle: Because the children of Shimon lived alongside the tribe of Yehudah, you will find that the same cities mentioned in the Book of Yehoshua among the cities of Yehudah are also mentioned as part of the inheritance of the children of Shimon. And this is why the passage concludes, "These were their cities until the reign of David."
(כח) וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בִּבְאֵר שֶׁבַע וּמוֹלָדָה וַחֲצַר שׁוּעָל׃ (כט) וּבְבִלְהָה וּבְעֶצֶם וּבְתוֹלָד׃ (ל) וּבִבְתוּאֵל וּבְחָרְמָה וּבְצִיקְלָג׃ (לא) וּבְבֵית מַרְכָּבוֹת וּבַחֲצַר סוּסִים וּבְבֵית בִּרְאִי וּבְשַׁעֲרָיִם, אֵלֶּה עָרֵיהֶם עַד מְלֹךְ דָּוִיד׃ - (28) And they dwelt at Be'er Sheva, and Moladah, and Chatzar Shual; (29) and at Bilhah, and at Etzem, and at Tolad; (30) and at Betuel, and at Chormah, and at Ziklag; (31) and at Beit Markavot, and Chatzar Susim, and at Beit Biri, and at Sha'arayim. These were their cities until the reign of David.
All these cities were cities of the children of Shimon within the inheritance of the children of Yehudah - until the reign of David. And what does "until the reign of David" mean? Radak explains: When David became king, the children of Yehudah grew stronger and expelled the children of Shimon from their inheritance, whereupon the children of Shimon had to seek an inheritance for themselves, as written later, "And they went to the entrance of Gedor, as far as the east side of the valley," and similarly, "And some of them, of the children of Shimon, went to Mount Se'ir" - they went here and there to seek an inheritance for themselves after the children of Yehudah ousted them from their midst.
And the commentary attributed to Rashi explains: When the children of Yehudah multiplied, they began to complain about the children of Shimon, since their living space suddenly felt cramped - and who was occupying their space? Guests whom it was high time should vacate. There is a story of a guest who stayed in a house and found rest that it was good and the land that it was pleasant: laundry done, food served, a bed made, everything wonderful. The hosts decided to hint to him, dropping hints here and there - but the man took no notice. They said: Let us stage an argument between ourselves, and he will take a side, and then the other party can say to him, "You take sides against me? Get out of here." They began to argue, he shouting from one side and she shouting from the other, while the guest remained as silent as a fish. The host turned to him and said: "Do you have nothing to say about this?" He replied: "Look, I only have four months left here anyway, why should I get involved in your quarrel?" Another person had a guest who sat and sat until the late hours of the night, and the host saw he had no intention of leaving. He said to him: "Excuse me, I am going to sleep because I have a guest - but you, why don't you go to sleep?"
And here the people of Yehudah sought to expel them from their land. The dispute between them had already existed since the days of Shaul, and they had wanted to expel them since then, but Shaul could not expel them, especially since all his days were occupied with wars. Nor could David, who was from Yehudah - since he himself was pursued by Shaul and certainly was not free to expel the people of Shimon from the area. Afterwards, when David became king, the members of the tribe of Yehudah came and said: The time has come to dismantle this arrangement and remove the people of Shimon from our midst, from the land we loaned them. And this is the meaning of "These were their cities until the reign of David" - that when David became king, there was finally a king who could take action and remove the people of Shimon from there, and when he reigned, he expelled them.
(לב) וְחַצְרֵיהֶם עֵיטָם וָעַיִן רִמּוֹן וְתֹכֶן וְעָשָׁן, עָרִים חָמֵשׁ׃ - "And their villages were Eitam, and Ayin, Rimmon, and Tochen, and Ashan, five cities."
The Metzudat Tzion explains that chatzerim (villages) are settlements adjacent to cities, smaller than them and unwalled. The Malbim notes that in Sefer Yehoshua only four are mentioned, and explains that after Tziklag was given to the kings of Yehudah, they gave them Eitam in its place; and it was not a fortified city but an open village, which is why it is the fifth one listed here.
"This was their settlement, and their genealogical record"
(לג) וְכָל חַצְרֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבוֹת הֶעָרִים הָאֵלֶּה עַד בָּעַל, זֹאת מוֹשְׁבֹתָם וְהִתְיַחְשָׂם לָהֶם׃ - "And all their villages that were around these cities as far as Baal. This was their settlement, and their genealogical record."
"This was their settlement, and their genealogical record" - even though the text traced their lineage here only partially, do not say that these were the only ones, for there is a genealogical book in which all the names of the tribes appear, each and every one in great detail. The verse refers only to what was explicitly detailed here, and this is not the complete genealogy.
The Malbim offers an interesting explanation: "and their genealogical record" (vehityachsam lahem) means their identification with their settlements. The heads of the families traced their lineage to the cities: each family chose a city for itself and was identified with that city. For example, "Ashchur father of Tekoa," "Meisha father of Ziph," "Shoval father of Kiryat Yearim" - where a person is designated by the name of the place, just as they would say "the Ziphites." Thus, "This was their settlement, and their genealogical record" means that the families traced their identity to the settlements and were called by their names.
The Family Leaders and the Journey to Seek Pasture
(לד) וּמְשׁוֹבָב וְיַמְלֵךְ וְיוֹשָׁה בֶּן אֲמַצְיָה׃ (לה) וְיוֹאֵל וְיֵהוּא בֶּן יוֹשִׁבְיָה בֶּן שְׂרָיָה בֶּן עֲשִׂיאֵל׃ (לו) וְאֶלְיוֹעֵינַי וְיַעֲקֹבָה וִישׁוֹחָיָה וַעֲשָׂיָה וַעֲדִיאֵל וִישִׂימִאֵל וּבְנָיָה׃ (לז) וְזִיזָא בֶן שִׁפְעִי בֶן אַלּוֹן בֶּן יְדָיָה בֶן שִׁמְרִי בֶּן שְׁמַעְיָה׃ - "(34) And Meshovav, and Yamlech, and Yoshah the son of Amatzyah; (35) and Yoel, and Yehu the son of Yoshibyah, the son of Serayah, the son of Asiel; (36) and Elyoenai, and Yaakovah, and Yeshochayah, and Asayah, and Adiel, and Yesimiel, and Benayah; (37) and Ziza the son of Shifi, the son of Allon, the son of Yedayah, the son of Shimri, the son of Shemayah."
The Radak says: All those mentioned here were the family leaders of the tribe of Shimon and heads of their ancestral houses, and all of them - after David reigned - went to seek an inheritance for themselves. The land they took as an inheritance was the land of the descendants of Cham, who had dwelt there from before; and they struck them and inherited their land.
(לח) אֵלֶּה הַבָּאִים בְּשֵׁמוֹת נְשִׂיאִים בְּמִשְׁפְּחוֹתָם, וּבֵית אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם פָּרְצוּ לָרֹב׃ - "These who are mentioned by name were leaders in their families, and their ancestral houses spread abroad abundantly."
The Malbim emphasizes: The cities of the descendants of Shimon numbered thirteen in total, apart from the villages enumerated in verse 32. And here the verse emphasizes "leaders in their families" - since earlier it had listed the leaders of the tribe down to Shimi, and one might have thought that here too it was listing tribal leaders; therefore it tells you that these were the leaders of the families. All those listed here are thirteen leaders corresponding to thirteen families, but not leaders of the entire tribe. "And their ancestral houses spread abroad abundantly" - in the days of Chizkiyahu, they saw that the place was too confined for them, as the inheritance of Shimon was small, and therefore:
(לט) וַיֵּלְכוּ לִמְבוֹא גְדֹר עַד לְמִזְרַח הַגָּיְא לְבַקֵּשׁ מִרְעֶה לְצֹאנָם׃ (מ) וַיִּמְצְאוּ מִרְעֶה שָׁמֵן וָטוֹב, וְהָאָרֶץ רַחֲבַת יָדַיִם וְשֹׁקֶטֶת וּשְׁלֵוָה, כִּי מִן חָם הַיֹּשְׁבִים שָׁם לְפָנִים׃ - "(39) And they went to the entrance of Gedor, as far as the east side of the valley, to seek pasture for their flocks. (40) And they found rich and good pasture, and the land was spacious, quiet, and peaceful, for those who lived there formerly were of Ham."
What is meant by "quiet and peaceful"? The Malbim explains: they faced neither war from without nor rebellion from within. When there is war from without, the land is not quiet, and when there is rebellion from within, it is not peaceful. This very condition led to its conquest: countries like Switzerland are relatively easy to conquer, as they have an army for parades and ceremonies rather than an army trained to go out and fight. The more accustomed a country is to war, the more skilled its army becomes. Here, the land was quiet and peaceful and they had no need for an army at all. This serves as an introduction to explain why they were so easy to conquer - they were not prepared for war. Moreover, they were descendants of Ham who had lived there formerly and held the land from ancient times, in the words of the Malbim, which made it easy to come and fight them.
An example of this is cited by the commentary attributed to Rashi from the Book of Shoftim: "And they came to Layish, to a people quiet and secure, and they had no dealings with any man" - because they were quiet, they feared no nation, and therefore they did not forge an alliance with any nation to come to their aid. In those days, it was very common to make treaties between nations: if someone attacks me, you help me, and if someone attacks you, I will help you. These people had no need to forge a treaty with anyone, for they had no wars at all - and therefore, five hundred men were able to defeat them. Similarly, it says there, "after the manner of the Tzidonim, quiet and secure," showing that there was another precedent of this sort among those people who went seeking a place of rest.
The Conquest in the Days of Chizkiyahu
(מא) וַיָּבֹאוּ אֵלֶּה הַכְּתוּבִים בְּשֵׁמוֹת בִּימֵי יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ מֶלֶךְ יְהוּדָה, וַיַּכּוּ אֶת אָהֳלֵיהֶם וְאֶת הַמְּעוּנִים אֲשֶׁר נִמְצְאוּ שָׁמָּה, וַיַּחֲרִימֻם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ תַּחְתֵּיהֶם כִּי מִרְעֶה לְצֹאנָם שָׁם׃ - "(41) And these written by name came in the days of Chizkiyahu king of Yehudah, and struck down their tents and the Me'unim who were found there, and destroyed them utterly to this day, and dwelt in their place, because there was pasture there for their flocks."
"These written by name" refers to those mentioned whom we enumerated earlier. As for the word ha-Me'unim, the commentators disagree. Radak explains that the shuruk here stands in place of a cholam, and it should be read like me'onim, from the word ma'on (dwelling place) - meaning residential dwellings. It cannot be interpreted as deriving from affliction (innui), for if so, it would require a dagesh, and here there is no dagesh. Thus, the meaning is that they struck down their tents and their houses. The Malbim explains differently: "and struck down their tents" - because they were shepherds and tent-dwellers, while "the Me'unim" is the name of a nation, the people of Ma'on.
"To this day" - until the days of Ezra, meaning that even the descendants of the sons of Ham who were expelled from there never returned to these places. There is a novel point here: by the time of Ezra, the tribe of Shimon had already been exiled and people were already returning from the exile, so one might have expected the sons of Ham to return to this land; nonetheless, they did not return, and until the tribe of Shimon returned from exile, the place remained unoccupied.
(מב) וּמֵהֶם מִן בְּנֵי שִׁמְעוֹן הָלְכוּ לְהַר שֵׂעִיר אֲנָשִׁים חֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת, וּפְלַטְיָה וּנְעַרְיָה וּרְפָיָה וְעֻזִּיאֵל בְּנֵי יִשְׁעִי בְּרֹאשָׁם׃ - "(42) And some of them, from the children of Shimon, five hundred men, went to Mount Seir, with Pelatyah, Ne'aryah, Rephayah, and Uzziel, the sons of Yishi, at their head."
The men were from the children of Shimon, while the leaders were from the tribe of Menasheh. With this, the question of who is being discussed here is resolved: the five hundred were from Shimon, whereas the sons of Yishi who led them were from Menasheh.
(מג) וַיַּכּוּ אֶת שְׁאֵרִית הַפְּלֵטָה לַעֲמָלֵק, וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃ - "(43) And they struck down the remnant of the refugees of Amalek, and dwelt there to this day."
What is meant by "the remnant of the refugees," and from where did they escape? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: these were the ones who escaped David's campaign of destruction, concerning whom it is written that he eliminated every male in Edom. And they struck down what remained of those whom David had targeted. Radak adds that this refers not only to the remnant left by David, but also to what was left by Shaul - for concerning David it is said, "until he had cut off every male in Edom," and Shaul likewise fought Amalek and did not finish the task.
And as for what is written, "and dwelt there to this day" - Radak explains: until the day they were exiled. Alternatively, "to this day" can be interpreted as extending even after the children of Shimon were exiled. For we are speaking of the era when Ezra is already here and people have returned from the exile, so one might have thought that Amalek would return there; the verse therefore informs us that Amalek did not return there to this day, and that place remained in the possession of the tribe of Shimon.
In summary:
The conclusion of Chapter 4 is dedicated to the descendants of Shimon, placed alongside the descendants of Yehudah because their territory lay within the inheritance of Yehudah - for Shimon had no separate portion of his own, in fulfillment of 'I will divide them in Yaakov and scatter them in Yisrael,' and the lottery cast was over which tribe would host them. The Malbim teaches us that the list is not a continuous genealogical chain of fathers and sons, but rather an enumeration of leaders: first the tribal princes, from Shelumiel son of Tzurishaddai to Shimi, who is Shemayah, followed by thirteen heads of families corresponding to thirteen cities. The Metzudat David deduces from here that a location does not cause a multitude of children, but rather it depends on Hashem's blessing and a person's mazal. And when David reigned and the children of Yehudah multiplied, the descendants of Shimon were displaced from their inheritance and went out to seek pasture - to the entrance of Gedor and to Mount Seir - where they struck down the descendants of Cham and the remnant of Amalek, dwelling in their place to this day.