Chapter 5 of I Chronicles returns to Reuven, the firstborn of Israel, after the book opened with Yehudah and Shimon. The chapter deals with the tribes of the eastern bank of the Jordan - Reuven, Gad, and the half-tribe of Menashe - their genealogy, their inheritances, their war against the Hagrites, and the redivision of territories that resulted from it. We will follow the order of the pesukim and examine the commentary attributed to Rashi, Radak, and especially the explanations of the Malbim, who offers profound insights here.
וּבְנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר־יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי הוּא הַבְּכוֹר וּבְחַלְּלוֹ יְצוּעֵי אָבִיו נִתְּנָה בְּכֹרָתוֹ לִבְנֵי יוֹסֵף בֶּן־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא לְהִתְיַחֵשׂ לַבְּכֹרָה׃ - And the sons of Reuven the firstborn of Israel, for he was the firstborn; but when he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Israel, yet not to be reckoned genealogically according to the birthright.
The commentary attributed to Rashi asks: If Reuven was the firstborn of Israel, why did the monarchy not descend from him? To this the verse responds: "but when he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef." And if the sons of Yosef received the birthright, why do they not reign themselves? Therefore the verse immediately adds: "yet not to be reckoned genealogically according to the birthright." Yosef received the portion of the firstborn - meaning a double share in the inheritance - but not the status of the firstborn. The status of the firstborn signifies sovereignty, and that was not given to him. Why, then, did the kingdom pass to Yehudah? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that even had Reuven not defiled his father's bed and the birthright had not been taken from him, Yehudah was already fitting for kingship. Therefore, the moment the birthright was taken from Reuven, the one who inherited the leadership by default was Yehudah, who from the very beginning was most worthy and fitting to be king.
Radak explains why Reuven is enumerated specifically here. The text placed Yehudah at the beginning of the book, as we have already explained, because the primary purpose of the book is to recount the lineage of King David. After Yehudah came Shimon, as explained at the end of the previous chapter, because Shimon dwelt within Yehudah's territory and was his neighbor. Now, having concluded with Shimon, the text returns to Reuven. Yet a question remains: the order of birth was Reuven, Shimon, Levi, Yehudah - Yehudah was the fourth! It would have been fitting to open with Reuven, the firstborn. To this the verse responds: "but when he defiled his father's bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef the son of Israel" - since he lost the birthright and the kingship, he is not mentioned first, but only later. And the birthright was given to Yosef, who was a beloved and cherished son to his father. What, then, is the meaning of "yet not to be reckoned genealogically according to the birthright"? So that one should not say that the birthright was given to him completely, such that Yosef would be called the firstborn of Israel and would consequently also receive the monarchy. Rather, it was only regarding the double portion - that he would receive twice as much, so that two tribes emerged from Yosef while only one tribe came from Reuven.
The Malbim explains in line with the commentary attributed to Rashi and Radak, but adds that in the Midrash there is a dispute on this between Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Simon: one said, "The genealogy is reckoned to Yosef and not to Reuven," while the other said, "The genealogy is not reckoned to Yosef, but to Reuven." According to the first opinion, "yet not to be reckoned" refers to Reuven: his birthright was given to the sons of Yosef, and Reuven is no longer genealogically reckoned as the firstborn at all - and according to this, Yosef received the birthright entirely. According to the second opinion, which is that of the commentary attributed to Rashi and Radak, although the birthright was given to Yosef, it was not given so that he would be reckoned as the firstborn and receive the monarchy, but only regarding the double portion. Thus, the very question of whether Yosef is regarded as a full firstborn or not is subject to a dispute in the Midrash.
Here it is worth recalling what we learned at length in Nefesh HaChaim: before the Torah was given, the Patriarchs were able to perceive where a spiritual rectification (tikkun) lay and act upon it, even if it ran contrary to the Torah, since the Torah had not yet been given to them as a binding document. This is why Yaakov married two sisters, Amram married his aunt, and from Adam onward they married their sisters - "the world is built on lovingkindness." Throughout that era of history, we see that wherever they perceived a rectification, they acted accordingly. But after the Torah was given - there is no wisdom, no understanding, and no counsel against Hashem. Even for the greatest rectifications, one may not transgress even a single iota of the Torah's words. When ill reports emerge about certain individuals, some respond that he was performing rectifications and saving souls, Heaven forbid, through the sins he committed. Such an idea is unthinkable! What was the Sabbatean sect? What was Shabbetai Tzvi? We have already seen people in our history who committed sins and claimed they were performing rectifications, and even today there are various "rectifiers." One must know: after the giving of the Torah, even if it seems that rectifications of this sort would ostensibly bring the Mashiach - cease your rectifications, and do not violate a single dot written in the Torah.
It is told of the Bach (Rabbi Yoel Sirkis) that he sent his son-in-law, the Taz (Rabbi David HaLevi Segal), to examine Shabbetai Tzvi in his day, to see whether he was indeed the Mashiach. The Taz recounted wondrous things, but mentioned that he saw one thing that astonished him: he saw him lying flat on his back (aperkedan). The Bach told him: That is not the Mashiach. The Taz asked: Just because of that? He replied: It is completely impossible that the Mashiach would violate a single halachah in the Shulchan Aruch. There is no such thing. Some say he told him that he saw Shabbetai Tzvi pluck a blade of grass and utter a sentence, and at that very moment the local governor died - that by plucking the grass he cursed him and caused his death. They recounted this with great marvel, but the Bach said: If so, he is not the Mashiach. When they asked him why, he answered: Regarding the Mashiach it is stated, "and with the breath of his lips he shall slay the wicked" - he does not need to pluck grass; he speaks, and it is done. And his words proved true: he was neither the Mashiach nor anything resembling the Mashiach. Returning to our subject: what Yaakov did in transferring the birthright took place before the giving of the Torah.
כִּי יְהוּדָה גָּבַר בְּאֶחָיו וּלְנָגִיד מִמֶּנּוּ וְהַבְּכֹרָה לְיוֹסֵף׃ - For Yehudah prevailed above his brothers, and of him came the ruler; but the birthright was Yosef's.
"For Yehudah prevailed above his brothers" - Yehudah is a lion's whelp. "And of him came the ruler" - the commentary attributed to Rashi explains that royalty descended from him, and the king is called a nagid (ruler) because he is the one who leads the people out and brings them in. The birthright and the kingship were taken from Reuven: the kingship was given to Yehudah, and the birthright of receiving a double portion was given to Yosef. Radak explains: "For Yehudah prevailed above his brothers" - Yaakov gave him the monarchy, while the other aspect of the birthright, taking a double portion in the land, was received by Yosef. "And of him came the ruler" - whoever would be a ruler in Israel would descend from him, as in "The scepter shall not depart from Yehudah"; if there is to be a ruler and sovereign, it will only be from him. The Malbim adds that the word gavar ("prevailed") applies to both parts of the verse: Yehudah prevailed above his brothers, and he also prevailed regarding rulership. He prevailed over Yosef in the matter of rulership, which is why it says u-lenagid with a lamed ("and as for a ruler") rather than ve-nagid - in the realm of rulership and kingship he prevailed over him; and only the birthright in terms of a double portion, not kingship, remained with Yosef.
Here the Malbim offers a wonderful explanation by way of derush, in the style of pilpul. The Holy Avot, as elaborated in the sefer Parashat Derachim, were uncertain as to their legal status: did they have the status of a Ben Noach (Noahide) or that of a Yisrael? The sefer Parashat Derachim expounds upon this at great length, citing many practical halachic ramifications and resolving various disputes among the Shevatim based on this question. For example: Did the Shevatim eat ever min hachai (a limb torn from a living animal)? Yosef saw them tearing off a limb and eating it. In his view, they had the status of Bnei Noach, and Bnei Noach are forbidden to eat ever min hachai - and a gentile has no concept of ritual slaughter (shechitah); thus, in order for an animal not to be considered ever min hachai, it must be completely dead; shechitah alone does not suffice. But if they have the status of a Yisrael, once the animal has been properly slaughtered, one may sever a limb even while it is still convulsing - not that this is recommended, but halachically it is not ever min hachai. They held that they had the status of Bnei Yisrael, while he held that they had the status of Bnei Noach. The same applies to a ben peku'ah (an unborn calf found inside a slaughtered cow): for Bnei Noach it is considered ever min hachai, whereas for Bnei Yisrael, since the mother was slaughtered, it is permitted along with her.
As another example, consider an interesting inquiry: Avraham Avinu observed Shabbat, and it is even written of him that he kept eruvei tavshilin, and some say eruvei techumin. Yet seemingly, a gentile who observes Shabbat is liable to death - so on the premise that he was a Ben Noach, he would have been liable to death! On the other hand, if he were to desecrate Shabbat in some way to fulfill his obligation as a Ben Noach, then on the premise that he was a Yisrael, he would have desecrated Shabbat! How does one resolve this dilemma? There are many answers, and one ingenious solution is: he went out into the public domain on Shabbat wearing a garment with tzitzit. For us, as Bnei Yisrael, this is not carrying, because the tzitzit is considered an adornment to the garment and an integral part of it; but for a gentile, who is not obligated in tzitzit, the strings are a burden, like one who goes out wearing invalid tzitzit, which constitutes carrying. Thus, on the side that he was a Ben Noach, he desecrated Shabbat, and on the side that he was a Yisrael, he did not desecrate it. This topic has generated a great deal of pilpul.
Now back to our subject. The Malbim explains: If the Avot had the status of a Yisrael, the birthright belonged to Yosef. Why? Because Yaakov betrothed Rachel with money - by stating, "I will serve you seven years for Rachel your younger daughter," and each day he worked was like providing money for kiddushin. It turns out that Rachel preceded Leah in marriage, and the marriage to Leah was unlawful, since he was already married to Rachel. But if they are judged as Bnei Noach, a Ben Noach does not betroth his wife with money, but acquires her through marital relations (bi'ah). If so, the relations with Leah came first, for he took Leah in marriage first and only afterward Rachel; thus Leah's betrothal came first. If Leah's betrothal was first, the birthright belongs to Reuven, who was the firstborn. But if Rachel's betrothal was first, Reuven was born of an unlawful marriage and does not have the legal status of a firstborn, making Yosef, who was born of the valid marriage, the firstborn. Thus, the question of who was the firstborn depends entirely on whose kiddushin took precedence.
And now observe the Malbim's profound insight. On the premise that they had the status of Bnei Noach, the birthright belonged to Reuven, since Leah came first through relations. And then, when Reuven came and defiled his father's bed, he lost his birthright. But there is a tremendous defense for Reuven here: If they are judged as Bnei Noach, and Rachel was betrothed only through relations after Leah, then Bilhah was truly his father's lawful wife, and he would have transgressed a grave prohibition. However, if they are judged as Yisrael, the original wife was Rachel, whom Yaakov betrothed with money, and the marriage to Leah was not a valid marriage but rather had the status of a concubine, his father's raped or seduced woman - and according to Jewish law, one's father's raped woman, seduced woman, or concubine is not forbidden to him; the prohibition applies only to a woman his father took in lawful marriage. It emerges that the very fact that the birthright was taken from Reuven and given to Yosef proves they are judged as Yisrael - for the birthright rightfully belonged to Yosef from the outset, as the son of Rachel whose kiddushin took precedence! And if they are judged as Yisrael, this is in Reuven's defense, for he did not sin with his father's lawful wife. Whereas if we were to say they are judged as Bnei Noach, making Reuven the rightful firstborn, then the birthright was taken from him because he sinned, for she would have been his father's actual wife, and he would be held accountable for that. How graceful are the words of a wise man's mouth! Chazal teach that Reuven merely rearranged his father's couches, but even if we were to understand the verse literally, any claim against him would apply only if he is judged as a Ben Noach; whereas when judged under the law of Yisrael, the birthright was not actually revoked from him at all, since it rightfully belonged to Yosef from the very beginning, and he committed no severe prohibition in rearranging his father's bed.
בְּנֵי רְאוּבֵן בְּכוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲנוֹךְ וּפַלּוּא חֶצְרוֹן וְכַרְמִי׃ - "The sons of Reuven, the firstborn of Yisrael: Chanoch and Pallu, Chetzron and Carmi."
At first glance, this is puzzling: verse 1 already stated, "And the sons of Reuven, the firstborn of Yisrael," so why repeat it? Rather, because the text interrupted to discuss the matters of the birthright and the monarchy, it now returns and states once again, "The sons of Reuven, the firstborn of Yisrael" - and who are they? Chanoch, Pallu, Chetzron, and Carmi.
בְּנֵי יוֹאֵל שְׁמַעְיָה בְנוֹ גּוֹג בְּנוֹ שִׁמְעִי בְנוֹ׃ - "The sons of Yoel: Shemayah his son, Gog his son, Shimi his son."
Incidentally, we can learn from here that if someone names his son "Gog," it is not so terrible, for Gog is indeed a Jewish name - "Shemayah his son, Gog his son." However, "Magog" is not written here, and with that name he would certainly have a problem!
Radak asks: Where did Yoel suddenly come from, seeing as he was not mentioned previously in the genealogical line? He answers that although he was not mentioned in the earlier lineage, the text mentions him now in order to trace the lineage of his descendants after him, as is found in many places throughout genealogical accounts. Furthermore: "Shemayah his son, Gog his son" - each was a son of the previous; and while each surely had other sons as well, the text mentions only the prominent leaders, the most important and the one who carried on the lineage. The Malbim likewise notes the difficulty of where Yoel suddenly appears from, and explains that Yoel was one of the princes, and with him the princely line began, passing down through inheritance generation after generation until Be'erah, who was the final prince at the time of the exile by the king of Assyria during the days of Pekach ben Remalyahu.
מִיכָה בְנוֹ רְאָיָה בְנוֹ בַּעַל בְּנוֹ׃ - "Michah his son, Re'ayah his son, Baal his son."
בְּאֵרָה בְנוֹ אֲשֶׁר הֶגְלָה תִּלְּגַת פִּלְנְאֶסֶר מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר הוּא נָשִׂיא לָראוּבֵנִי׃ - Be'erah his son, whom Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria exiled; he was prince of the Reubenites.
Regarding the reading: the rule is that when two shvas appear consecutively, the second is vocal (na) - hence "Tilgath Pilneser." Similarly, in "la-Re'uveni," the aleph is quiescent. All these names are descendants of Yoel, generation after generation. The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that Tilgath-pilneser preceded Sancheriv, and this was their historical sequence: Pul came when Menachem ben Gadi reigned; in the days of Pekach ben Remalyahu came Tiglath-pileser king of Assyria; in the days of Hoshea ben Elah came Shalmaneser king of Assyria; and in the days of Chizkiyahu came Sancheriv. Chazal, however, explained that they were all one and the same person, that Pul and all those mentioned here were all Sancheriv. At that time, when Tilgath-pilneser exiled them, Be'erah was prince of the Reubenites. Radak adds that he was prince over the tribe of Reuben, and that "Tilgath" mentioned here is the same as "Tiglath" mentioned in the Book of Kings; transposing letters in names is standard linguistic practice, as seen in many places. Radak repeated this point several times: it is common for names to appear with transposed letters, or with the addition or omission of a letter, such as Chizkiyah, Yechizkiyah, Chizkiyahu, and so forth.
וְאֶחָיו לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָיו בְּהִתְיַחֵשׂ לְתֹלְדוֹתָם הָרֹאשׁ יְעִיאֵל וּזְכַרְיָהוּ׃ - And his brethren by their families, when the genealogy of their generations was recorded: the chief, Ye'iel, and Zecharyahu.
The meaning is: this was the prince, and his brethren, when their genealogical lineages were recorded, were likewise heads of their families, prominent and well-known men, and the foremost among them were Ye'iel and Zecharyahu. Malbim explains "when the genealogy was recorded" - at the time they were enrolled in genealogical records, and when was that? In the days of Yeravam and in the days of Yosam, as we will see in verse 17. Note carefully: this does not refer to Yeravam ben Nevat; rather, every mention of Yeravam from here on refers to Yeravam ben Yoash, who lived toward the period of the exile. At that time, the heads of the family were Ye'iel and Zecharyah.
וּבֶלַע בֶּן־עָזָז בֶּן־שֶׁמַע בֶּן־יוֹאֵל הוּא יוֹשֵׁב בַּעֲרֹעֵר וְעַד־נְבוֹ וּבַעַל מְעוֹן׃ - And Bela the son of Azaz, the son of Shema, the son of Yoel, who dwelt in Aroer, as far as Nevo and Baal-meon.
Malbim explains that "the son of Shema, the son of Yoel" refers to Shim'i the son of Gog, who was the grandson of Yoel. Why was he called earlier "Shim'i the son of Gog" and here "Shema the son of Yoel"? Because, as we have seen repeatedly, Scripture frequently omits intermediate names: it could have said "the son of Shema, the son of Gog, the son of Yoel," but instead stated "the son of Shema, the son of Yoel," meaning the grandson of Yoel.
However, Malbim raises a question: all that is recorded here seems seemingly superfluous, for the inheritance of Reuben and the inheritance of Gad are already detailed in the Torah and in the Book of Yehoshua - what is Scripture coming to teach us? Furthermore, the commentators were perplexed: Aroer lay within the territory of Gad, and they were the ones who rebuilt it, as stated explicitly in Parashas Matos; so how can it state here that Reuben dwelt there? Malbim also asks that further on it states that the children of Gad dwelt in the land of Bashan, which is astonishing, since Bashan belonged to the inheritance of the children of Menasheh, as explicitly stated in Devarim chapter 3. It appears, then, that there is an apparent disorder in the territories and an inconsistency with what appears in the Torah.
Therefore, Malbim introduces an original thesis: the author of the book comes to inform us of new developments, that is, to recount matters that changed over time. In the days of Shaul, they waged war against the Hagrites, as we will see in the verses below, and the Hagrites are the descendants of Hagar, namely the Ishmaelites. Following their victory, they expanded their border eastward, and consequently redistributed the territories. At that time, the children of Gad gave Aroer, which had been part of their allotment, to the children of Reuben, because the children of Reuben could not expand significantly beyond their border, as the Euphrates River halted them; and since the children of Gad gained a surplus, they gave them part of their territory.
The children of Menasheh likewise expanded beyond their borders following the war, as far as Senir, which is Mount Chermon. Initially, their boundary reached only the foot of Mount Chermon, but after they multiplied, they extended their territory outward toward Damascus, to the east. After all, the Gilad on the eastern bank of the Jordan belonged to the children of Menasheh - "and unto Machir I gave Gilad" - and the Hagrites dwelt to the east of Gilad: "and they dwelt in their tents throughout all the land east of Gilad." Thus, most of the newly conquered territory in the east fell to the children of Menasheh, who were adjacent to it, and it naturally became annexed to their portion. And since the children of Menasheh now possessed vast new lands, they were able to display loyalty to their neighbors, the children of Gad, and grant them a portion of their land - so the children of Menasheh gave their portion in the Bashan to the children of Gad, and the children of Gad gave part of their portion to the children of Reuben. This is what Scripture comes to teach us: see how the boundaries familiar to us from the Torah evolved. Even though Reuben dwelt in the east "as far as the entrance of the wilderness" because their livestock had multiplied in the land of Gilad, this was insufficient under the new division, so each tribe ceded part of its territory to its neighbor to balance the holdings in light of the new conquest. This is what the following verses will demonstrate, where we see that Bashan no longer belongs to Menasheh, and that Aroer is held by Reuben even though it was originally part of Gad's inheritance. Malbim's explanation resolves the difficulty beautifully.
וְלַמִּזְרָח יָשַׁב עַד־לְבוֹא מִדְבָּרָה לְמִן־הַנָּהָר פְּרָת כִּי מִקְנֵיהֶם רָבוּ בְּאֶרֶץ גִּלְעָד׃ - And eastward he dwelt as far as the entrance of the wilderness from the river Euphrates, because their livestock had multiplied in the land of Gilad.
"And eastward he dwelt" - the meaning is to the east of the land of Gilad, Radak notes, for all their territory lay to the east of Eretz Yisrael; after all, we are discussing the tribe of Reuben residing on the eastern bank of the Jordan. They expanded there as far as the entrance of the wilderness, "from the river Euphrates." Here a difficulty arises: the wording implies from the Euphrates River onward. Rather, the intent is up to the Euphrates River, meaning from the river inward - from the Euphrates inward toward Eretz Yisrael. It does not mean they received land beyond the Euphrates; rather, the Euphrates serves as the border, as stated: "from the river, the river Euphrates, unto the hinder sea shall your border be" - Israel's border extends from the Mediterranean Sea to the Euphrates River. "Because their livestock had multiplied" - this is the reason we find in the Torah, when the children of Gad and the children of Reuben approached Moshe saying they possessed abundant livestock and had nowhere to pasture them. Malbim explains: to the east of Gilad, meaning that their territory was in the east of Eretz Yisrael, and they expanded from the east of their territory all the way to the wilderness.
וּבִימֵי שָׁאוּל עָשׂוּ מִלְחָמָה עִם־הַהַגְרִאִים וַיִּפְּלוּ בְּיָדָם וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בְּאׇהֳלֵיהֶם עַל־כׇּל־פְּנֵי מִזְרָח לַגִּלְעָד׃ - "And in the days of Shaul they made war with the Hagrites, who fell by their hand; and they settled in their tents throughout all the eastern side of Gilead."
This is the war that the Malbim discussed earlier. The Hagrites are the Ishmaelites, descendants of Hagar; in the text, the name appears sometimes with a yud - Hagriyyim - and sometimes Hagri'im. "And they settled in their tents" - the commentary attributed to Rashi notes that this was the way of the Ishmaelites, to live in tents, just as the Bedouins do to this day. The Malbim explains: all this occurred in the days of Shaul, when they waged war against the Hagrites dwelling east of Gilead, conquered them, and settled in their tents, and at that point the division of the territories changed. Through this, the Malbim also resolves the order of the verses: seemingly, Scripture should have recounted the war first and only then described the new division, since the new division was a consequence of the war. Why, then, was the mention of the war delayed? Rather, the author of the book comes to tell us now: everything related to you up to this point occurred in the days of Shaul. It was then that they made war, the enemy fell into their hands, and they settled in their tents, conquering part of the land of the Hagrites; they then redistributed the territories east of the Jordan, and the division was thereby altered.
The chapter opens with the transfer of the birthright from Reuven: the double portion was given to Yosef, the monarchy to Yehudah who was worthy of it from of old, and "the genealogy is not to be reckoned after the birthright" - meaning that Yosef was not designated as the firstborn with regard to the monarchy. In the Midrash, Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Simon dispute the scope of this transfer. The Malbim adds a homiletical gem: the question of who is the firstborn hinges on whether the Patriarchs had the legal status of Bnei Yisrael (in which case Rachel's betrothal through money took precedence, making Yosef the firstborn) or the status of Bnei Noach (in which case Leah's betrothal through relations took precedence, making Reuven the firstborn) - and from the very fact that the birthright was transferred from Reuven to Yosef, a defense of Reuven emerges, for it implies they were judged with the status of Bnei Yisrael, meaning he did not sin with his father's wife. Scripture then lists the lineage of the chieftains of Reuven from Yoel down to Be'erah, who was exiled by Tilgath-pilneser. From there, the text turns to the Malbim's major insight: these verses come to inform us of the shift in tribal territories following the war against the Hagrites in the days of Shaul - Menashe expanded eastward and gave part of its portion in Bashan to Gad, and Gad gave Aroer to Reuven, who was bordered by the Euphrates River. All of this comes to resolve the apparent discrepancies between the tribal boundaries described in the Torah and the division depicted here.