In the final section of the chapter, we transition between two entirely different topics: on the one hand, the conclusion of the matter of the Transjordanian tribes - Reuven, Gad, and half the tribe of Menashe - who acted unfaithfully against the God of their fathers and were therefore exiled by the kings of Assyria; and on the other hand, the opening of the genealogy of the tribe of Levi, headed by the priestly dynasty from Aharon until Yehotzadak who went into the Babylonian exile. Regarding this dynasty, the Malbim presents an independent and novel approach that differs from all the commentators, and with which we will deal primarily.
וַיִּמְעֲלוּ בֵּאלֹהֵי אֲבֹתֵיהֶם וַיִּזְנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵי עַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר הִשְׁמִיד אֱלֹהִים מִפְּנֵיהֶם׃ - "And they acted unfaithfully against the God of their fathers, and strayed after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God had destroyed before them."
The commentary attributed to Rashi highlights the sharp irony of this passage: they strayed after the gods of the peoples of the land - and after the gods of which nation? Of those very nations whom "God had destroyed before them," meaning that their gods could not help them at all. This is an astounding phenomenon that recurs multiple times throughout Tanach: we fight a nation, conquer it, it is trampled underfoot, and its god has been proven powerless - after all, we succeeded in conquering them. And then we turn around, see that defeated god, adopt it for ourselves, and begin to worship it.
Who can comprehend such intellectual folly? Your God has just defeated them in a supernatural manner, and yet you go there, see a vanquished god, and take it as your own god. Regarding this, the verse comes to say: look at what a wonder - "and strayed after the gods of the peoples of the land, whom God had destroyed before them." It could not help them, so will it help you?
All of this proves what has been noted more than once: the issue of idolatry was not in the realm of the rational, but rather in the realm of lust - they craved idolatry. Just as today, if one tries to convince a person that illicit desires are fundamentally repulsive: intellectually he will say, "You have convinced me completely." The Chazon Ish presents many rational arguments to show how repulsive it is, "a vessel full of filth" and the like - and indeed, intellectually there is total agreement. But because the realm is not the rational but the emotional, the realm of feeling and lust, the intellect does not govern. It is exactly the same here: intellectually there is no logic in adopting such a god, but the intellect does not rule, and therefore we see them going and worshipping an idol that the Holy One, blessed be He, cast down before them.
וַיָּעַר אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת רוּחַ פּוּל מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וְאֶת רוּחַ תִּלְּגַת פִּלְנֶסֶר מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וַיַּגְלֵם לָראוּבֵנִי וְלַגָּדִי וְלַחֲצִי שֵׁבֶט מְנַשֶּׁה וַיְבִיאֵם לַחְלַח וְחָבוֹר וְהָרָא וּנְהַר גּוֹזָן עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃ - "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, and the spirit of Tilgath-Pilneser king of Assyria, and he exiled them - the Reuvenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Menashe - and brought them to Chalach, Chavor, Hara, and the Gozan River, unto this day."
The Malbim explains: Pul attacked them during the time of Menachem ben Gadi, and regarding him it is not mentioned that he exiled Israel. Tilgath-Pilneser - or Tiglath-Pileser, as we have seen that both names are valid - came during the time of Pekach, and regarding him it is written that he took Iyon, Gilad, the Galil, all the land of Naftali, and exiled them to Assyria; there it is explicitly stated that he both conquered and exiled. And from the phrase "and Gilad," it is implied that he exiled the inhabitants of the Transjordan along with Zevulun and Naftali.
Furthermore, from what is written in Yeshayahu (8:23), "As in the first time He dealt lightly with the land of Zevulun and the land of Naftali, and in the latter he dealt heavily, by way of the sea, beyond the Jordan, Galil of the nations" - it implies that first he exiled Zevulun and Naftali who dwelt by the sea, and afterward the Transjordan, and afterward the Galil of the nations, which was the final exile that took place in the days of Hoshea ben Elah. This is how it appears in Seder Olam, and this is how the Malbim explains the verses in his commentary there according to this order.
In the Midrash, however, there is a dispute regarding this. In the introduction to Eichah Rabbah, the Sages ask: How were they exiled? Rebbe says, the tribe of Reuven was exiled first; Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani says, Zevulun and Naftali were exiled first. The Malbim states that the verse here points more toward the opinion of Rebbe, since Pul preceded Tiglath, implying that the tribe of Reuven was exiled first. However, from the fact that it says "the spirit of Pul and the spirit of Tilgath" - where the verse mentions both of them together rather than stating that one came and then the other, but as if both of them came - it implies that the exile of the Transjordanian tribes came about through the power of both of them.
With this, the Malbim explains, we can resolve the contradiction and uphold both opinions: Pul exiled part of them when he came in the days of Menachem ben Gadi, and Tiglath-pileser exiled part of them in the days of Pekach, when he exiled Zevulun and Naftali. That is to say, regarding the tribe of Reuven - part of it was exiled in the days of Menachem by Pul, and part of it in the days of Pekach by Tiglath. It emerges that the tribe of Reuven and some of the tribe of Gad were exiled by Pul, while those remaining of the descendants of Gad and the half-tribe of Menasheh who settled in Gil'ad were exiled later, which is why it is said that Tiglath-pileser took Gil'ad.
This also explains what is written above, "And the children of the half-tribe of Menasheh dwelt in the land" - what is meant by "dwelt"? That they were the ones who still remained dwelling there: even though Reuven and the tribe of Gad were exiled, they remained and multiplied in the land, until Tiglath came and exiled Gil'ad. According to this, all of Reuven was already exiled initially. And this is what Chazal say in Erachin, that once Reuven and Gad were exiled, the Yovel cycles ceased - since Reuven and part of Gad were exiled first in the days of Pul, the Yovel necessarily ceased, for it requires that "all its inhabitants be upon it," and here not all of its inhabitants were upon it; therefore, from that point on, the Yovel ceased.
And as for what is written that they were exiled "unto this day" - the Malbim, as well as the other commentators, explains that this means that even in the time of Ezra, when they returned from the exile, they did not return, for the Ten Tribes never came back. Those who returned from the exile were only Yehudah, Binyamin, and part of the tribe of Levi - and from the tribe of Levi itself, Ezra found no Levites, though Kohanim certainly went up. These were the ones who returned, whereas the Ten Tribes have not returned to this day. There is a dispute among Chazal as to whether they are destined to return or not, and we follow the opinions holding that they are destined to return.
בְּנֵי לֵוִי גֵּרְשׁוֹן קְהָת וּמְרָרִי׃ - The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kehat, and Merari.
From here, Scripture records the genealogy of the sons of Levi and the cities they received. The reason for this is that David also appointed singers and attendants before Hashem from among them; therefore, as part of the focus on David, Scripture also records his accomplishments and those he appointed.
It traces the lineage of Aharon down to the exile - until Yehotzadak, who went into the exile of Yehudah by the hand of Nevuchadnetzar. Afterward, during the Second Temple era, Yehoshua his son ascended from Babylon with the exile. It turns out, then, that we have here a lineage from Aharon until the destruction of the First Temple and through to their entry into the Second Temple.
The Radak adds that in the Book of Ezra this lineage is traced back to Aharon because Ezra was the son of Serayah, tracing him back to Aharon just as it traces his brother Yehotzadak back to Aharon here. That is, Scripture shows us that Ezra was also a Kohen, possessing pedigree going back to Aharon. Later on, we will examine why Ezra, who was a Kohen, did not serve as Kohen Gadol - something that would seemingly be expected; it appears he was not Kohen Gadol, and we will discuss this further. The Radak also adds there that in Ezra five ancestral houses are omitted: here Scripture mentions Avishua and Azaryah, down to Merayot, while there it skips them, and the purpose was to be concise.
The Malbim explains: Scripture details the lineage of Elazar and omits the family of Itamar, which it does not trace. Why? Because the High Priests were to come from the descendants of Elazar forever, which was not the case with the descendants of Itamar. For so it was said to Pinchas when he displayed his zeal at Shittim, that he and his seed after him would possess "the covenant of an everlasting priesthood" - and this refers to the High Priesthood. For if you say it means ordinary priesthood, the sons of Itamar were also Kohanim; rather, the intent is that from the descendants of Pinchas there would be High Priests forever, which was their special distinction. Therefore, the lineage of Elazar produced High Priests, whereas the lineage of Itamar did not.
And from when did this blessing take effect? The Radak explains that this blessing began with Tzadok and continued through Yehotzadak. For there were indeed High Priests from the descendants of Itamar as well - Eli was a Kohen Gadol and was from the descendants of Itamar, as were Achimelech and his son Evyatar. Yet the primary line of High Priests was from the descendants of Elazar, and therefore Scripture specifically recounts their lineage.
וּבְנֵי קְהָת עַמְרָם יִצְהָר וְחֶבְרוֹן וְעֻזִּיאֵל׃ - And the sons of Kohath: Amram, Yitzhar, and Hebron, and Uzziel.
Metzudat David writes: out of honor for Moshe and Aharon, the text gave him precedence over Gershon. That is to say, in the previous verse we saw "The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kohath, and Merari," so it should have begun with Gershon, who was the firstborn; yet the verse skips over Gershon and proceeds to Kohath - out of honor for Moshe and Aharon, who descended from Kohath, and therefore it begins with his lineage first.
וּבְנֵי עַמְרָם אַהֲרֹן וּמֹשֶׁה וּמִרְיָם וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא אֶלְעָזָר וְאִיתָמָר׃ - And the children of Amram: Aharon, and Moshe, and Miriam; and the sons of Aharon: Nadav, and Avihu, Elazar, and Itamar.
אֶלְעָזָר הוֹלִיד אֶת פִּינְחָס פִּינְחָס הֹלִיד אֶת אֲבִישׁוּעַ׃ - Elazar fathered Pinchas, Pinchas fathered Avishua.
The Malbim explains that from here, the text traces the genealogy of the descendants of Elazar until Yehotzadak, who went into exile alongside Tzidkiyahu, as Radak notes. However, here the Malbim takes an approach distinctly different from all the other commentators. There is an entire series of names here: Avishua fathered Bukki, Bukki fathered Uzzi, Uzzi fathered Zerachiah, Zerachiah fathered Merayot, Merayot fathered Amariah, Amariah fathered Achituv, Achituv fathered Tzadok, Tzadok fathered Achima'atz, and so forth. The commentators understood that all these names represent successive Kohanim Gedolim, one after the other - as implied by Radak further on, and likewise by the other commentators - and they were greatly perplexed by this, meaning they faced several difficult questions with this assumption.
Yet the Malbim states: I hold a different view, and the truth testifies for itself - I do not even need to bring outside proofs, for the truth bears witness to itself: here the text is not enumerating Kohanim Gedolim at all. He proves this from the fact that in Seder Olam Zuta and in Yosippon, eighteen Kohanim Gedolim are enumerated from Achima'atz son of Tzadok, and they are: Achima'atz, Azariah, Yoachaz, Yariv, Yehoshaphat, Yehoyada, Pedayah, Tzidkiyah, Yoel, Yotam, Uriah, Neriah, Hoshayah, Shallum, Chilkiyah, Azariah, Serayah, Yehotzadak.
And if you try to draw comparisons between those eighteen names and the ones listed here, you will find only a few matches, with many missing. If so, if one were to claim that those listed here were all Kohanim Gedolim, how could a completely different list appear in Seder Olam and Yosippon? This proves that those recorded here were not all Kohanim Gedolim. The Malbim explains: of those counted here, you find only Achima'atz, who lived in the time of Rechavam; Azariah, who served in the days of Aviyah; Shallum, Chilkiyah, Azariah, Serayah, and Yehotzadak - in total, merely seven names. Yet here the text lists many names, while there eighteen were enumerated, with an overlap of only seven. Perforce, many of those mentioned here were not Kohanim Gedolim at all.
If so, who are those mentioned here? The Malbim explains: it is clear that here the text is merely tracing the genealogical line of generations. That is, the text records the chronological succession of fathers and sons, not that every father and son listed was a Kohen Gadol; rather, some of them were Kohanim Gedolim, while others were fathers of Kohanim Gedolim who did not themselves serve in the High Priesthood.
וְיוֹחָנָן הוֹלִיד אֶת עֲזַרְיָה הוּא אֲשֶׁר כִּהֵן בַּבַּיִת אֲשֶׁר בָּנָה שְׁלֹמֹה בִּירוּשָׁלִָם׃ - And Yochanan fathered Azariah; he is the one who served as priest in the House that Solomon built in Jerusalem.
The Malbim adds: The Azaryah who is counted in Seder Olam during the days of Aviyah is Azaryah son of Yochanan, not Azaryah son of Achimaatz, for there are two Azaryahs here: Azaryah son of Yochanan and Azaryah son of Achimaatz. And it was regarding the son of Yochanan that it was said, "he is the one who served in the House that Shlomo built," and not regarding his grandfather Azaryah son of Achimaatz.
And in Sifrei Zuta, regarding what is written, "And Azaryah the priest went in after him... and they stood up against Uziyahu the king," and regarding "and Yochanan begot Azaryah, he is the one who served in the House," the Sifrei asks: Did he alone serve? What does this expression mean? Rather, through him the mitzvah of priesthood was fulfilled. And what is the mitzvah of priesthood? As we will see later, he was the one who rebuked King Uziyahu when he came to offer incense. It was of him that it was said, "he is the one who served in the House" - that he fulfilled the mitzvah of priesthood: he saw someone thrusting himself forward to act as a Kohen, and he was the only one who had the courage to stand up against him and protest.
The Malbim brings an additional proof: It is impossible to say that Azaryah was the Kohen Gadol in the days of Uziyahu, for in Sefer Yosippon and Seder Olam it is written that the Kohen Gadol in the days of Uziyahu was named Yoel. If so, how can one say that Azaryah was the Kohen Gadol? Rather, some assumed that the title "Kohen HaRosh" means Kohen Gadol, but this is a misunderstanding. "Kohen HaRosh" is the appointed Kohen who was the head over the Kohanim in the Beit HaMikdash - a chief priest, if you will - and not the Kohen Gadol. For if one wishes to place Azaryah in the era of Uziyahu, there was already another Kohen Gadol during Uziyahu's reign; here is further proof that the Kohanim listed here are not necessarily Kohanim Gedolim.
So too with "Amaryahu the chief priest [Kohen HaRosh]" in the days of Yehoshaphat, and "Azaryahu the chief priest of the house of Tzadok" in the days of Chizkiyahu - they were supervisors over the Temple, not Kohanim Gedolim; the Kohanim Gedolim in the days of Uziyahu and Chizkiyahu were named Yoachaz and Neryah. And this is the meaning of "he who served in the House of the Lord" - in the administrative affairs of the Temple. The High Priest is designated by the title Kohen Gadol and not Kohen HaRosh, meaning that "Kohen HaRosh" and "Kohen Gadol" are two distinct positions. Unless, the Malbim explains, the Kohen Gadol was also appointed over the Temple - in which case he was also called Kohen HaRosh, having two functions, two hats; but ordinarily, the Kohen HaRosh was the Kohen HaRosh and the Kohen Gadol was the Kohen Gadol, and the title of one was not used for the other.
And this is evident regarding "Yehoyada Kohen HaRosh": indeed, there were two Kohanim Gedolim in the days of Yoash, Yehoyada and Pedayah - there you see that there were two. The Malbim makes a wonderful observation: Yehoyada could no longer serve in the high priesthood later on, and therefore he became "Kohen HaRosh." And why could he not serve? Through this, the puzzle over the verse "And Yehoyada took for himself two wives" is resolved.
This is truly astonishing: anyone who has studied even just Daf Yomi knows that regarding a Kohen Gadol, "and he shall atone for himself and for his household" - he must have one household, not two households. A Kohen Gadol is forbidden to have two wives at once; he may only have one wife at any given time, yet he must be married - he must have a wife. Therefore, the Sages devised various legal mechanisms for how another woman could be designated in case the first died, ensuring the marriages would not overlap: so that if one dies the other immediately takes her place, but under no circumstances may he have two wives simultaneously.
If so, how could it say, "And Yehoyada took for himself two wives"? By necessity, during that period he was no longer serving as Kohen Gadol, and now you can understand why it says "Yehoyada Kohen HaRosh" - because at that time he was not Kohen Gadol, and Kohen HaRosh is not Kohen Gadol; they are two distinct offices. Indeed, he was Kohen Gadol during a certain period, but later he could no longer serve in the high priesthood because he had two wives, and another Kohen took over - as we mentioned, there were two Kohanim then, Yehoyada and Pedayah, and later Pedayah served. Yehoyada himself was no longer serving as Kohen Gadol at that time, and therefore there was no impediment to his taking two wives. Similarly, what is written regarding "Serayah Kohen HaRosh" - he too was an overseer of the Temple.
The Malbim concludes: In the Book of Ezra, we find that it traces Ezra's lineage all the way back to Aharon HaKohen, listing the entire genealogy seen here, except that the order there is from top to bottom rather than bottom to top as it is here. However, when it arrives at Amaryah and Azaryah, it states "Azaryah son of Merayot," omitting the intervening names mentioned here - from Merayot to the Azaryah in verse 37. From this there is proof for what the Malbim wrote in his commentary to Sefer Ezra: that Ezra wrote his book after Divrei HaYamim, and therefore could afford to omit details already recorded here, relying on the fact that we can trace the lineage from Divrei HaYamim.
וַאֲבִישׁוּעַ הוֹלִיד אֶת בֻּקִּי וּבֻקִּי הוֹלִיד אֶת עֻזִּי׃ - And Avishua begot Bukki, and Bukki begot Uzzi.
By the way, we see here that the name "Uzzi" is not a modern innovation as many people think, nor is it merely a shepherd's nickname - it turns out to be an authentic biblical name. However, it was not used as a casual diminutive as people use it today; rather, it was a name expressing strength and majesty, in the spirit of "my strength and my might" (kochi ve'uzi), Uzzi.
"And Uzzi begot Zerachiah, and Zerachiah begot Merayot; Merayot begot Amariah, and Amariah begot Achituv; and Achituv begot Tzadok, and Tzadok begot Achima'atz." The Metzudat David comments regarding Tzadok: he was the first Kohen Gadol to serve in the Beit HaMikdash, and from that point the High Priesthood passed from father to son for twelve generations. Yet as noted earlier, the Malbim disagrees with this view, maintaining that the figures enumerated here were not all High Priests.
Regarding the words "And Achima'atz begot Azariah, and Azariah begot Yochanan," the Metzudat David attempts to identify parallels between our text and the account in Divrei HaYamim II 19, suggesting that Azariah may be Amariah, and that Yochanan might be Yehoyada, who is mentioned in Melachim II and Divrei HaYamim II.
On the phrase "he is the one who served as kohen in the House that Shlomo built in Yerushalayim," the Metzudat David cites the explanation mentioned earlier: Did he alone serve there? Rather, he risked his life for the sacred service of the House, courageously protesting against King Uzziah when he entered the Sanctuary to offer incense, as recounted in Divrei HaYamim, whereupon tzara'at broke out on the king's forehead. He was the one who stood up to the king, and therefore scripture says of him that he "served in the House" - he fiercely guarded the priesthood in the Temple, preventing non-kohanim from usurping the sacred duties of the kohanim.
"And Azariah begot Amariah, and Amariah begot Achituv" - Amariah, writes the Metzudat David, may be the Uriah mentioned in Melachim II, and Achituv may be the Azariah mentioned in Divrei HaYamim II 31.
וַאֲחִיטוּב הוֹלִיד אֶת צָדוֹק וְצָדוֹק הוֹלִיד אֶת שַׁלּוּם׃ - And Achituv begot Tzadok, and Tzadok begot Shallum.
On "Achituv begot Tzadok," the Malbim explains that based on what appears later, Achituv actually begot Merayot, and Merayot begot Tzadok - and as is common throughout this book, the text occasionally skips a generation in the lineage, mentioning the forefather and jumping straight to the grandson without explicitly naming the son in between.
וְשַׁלּוּם הוֹלִיד אֶת חִלְקִיָּה וְחִלְקִיָּה הוֹלִיד אֶת עֲזַרְיָה׃ - And Shallum begot Chilkiyah, and Chilkiyah begot Azariah.
Shallum was Kohen Gadol during the reign of Amon, as stated in Seder Olam; Chilkiyah served during the reign of Yoshiyahu; and Azariah served during the reign of Yehoyakim. Serayah, the Malbim notes, was later put to death by Nevuchadnetzar.
וִיהוֹצָדָק הָלַךְ בְּהַגְלוֹת ה' אֶת יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִָם בְּיַד נְבֻכַדְנֶאצַּר׃ - And Yehotzadak went into exile when Hashem exiled Yehudah and Yerushalayim by the hand of Nevuchadnetzar.
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes: from what is written in the Book of Chaggai, "Yehoshua son of Yehotzadak, the Kohen Gadol" - it does not mean that Yehotzadak ever served in the High Priesthood, for he was exiled to Babylon in the days of Yechanyah, as it is written, "And Yehotzadak went when [Hashem] exiled..." etc.; rather, his son Yehoshua was the Kohen Gadol when they ascended for the Second Temple.
That is to say, as mentioned above, in the phrase "Yehoshua son of Yehotzadak, the Kohen Gadol," there are two ways to understand who the Kohen Gadol was - Yehoshua or Yehotzadak. In our case, the intention is to Yehoshua the Kohen Gadol, because Yehotzadak went into exile when Yehudah and Yerushalayim were exiled, and he remained in exile, and there is no High Priesthood in exile. Yehoshua was among those who ascended from the exile - his father was among the exiles, while he was among the returnees - and he was able to serve as Kohen Gadol in the Second Temple.
And here the commentary attributed to Rashi concludes with the question mentioned earlier: why was Ezra the Scribe, son of Serayah, not the Kohen Gadol? After all, it is written of Ezra the Scribe that he possessed tremendous spiritual stature, and was worthy that the Torah be given through him; and if we seek "the kohen who is greater than his brothers," it would only be fitting that he be the Kohen Gadol - yet here you see that Ezra was not the Kohen Gadol.
The answer is a very straightforward reason: as is well known, the exiles ascended when Nechemyah went up first - Nechemyah represented the physical redemption, while Ezra was the spiritual redemption, and Ezra ascended later. Since by the time Ezra arrived Yehoshua son of Yehotzadak was already Kohen Gadol, the post was already filled. And because one elevates in sanctity and does not downgrade (ma'alin bakodesh ve'ein moridin), they could not depose him in order to install Ezra as Kohen Gadol.
Imagine if the Chafetz Chaim were to arrive from Radin today, and people immediately wanted to appoint him Kohen Gadol - but there is already a Kohen Gadol serving! Would anyone say to the incumbent, "Step aside, the Chafetz Chaim is now being appointed Kohen Gadol"? There is no such thing. One elevates in sanctity and does not downgrade: once someone has been appointed, he remains. Even if a person greater than he arrives, whose greatness and worthiness surpass all others - nevertheless, there is already a Kohen Gadol, and he is not removed to appoint someone else. (Not that the Chafetz Chaim would have agreed even if it were permitted; the point is simply that in practice, this is not done.) Therefore, here too: Yehoshua ascended with Zerubavel some years before Ezra came up, and so he was the one appointed first as Kohen Gadol, and Ezra was not appointed Kohen Gadol.
The chapter concludes along two major themes. The first is moral: the tribes of Ever HaYarden betrayed the God of their fathers and went after the gods of the nations whom the Holy One, blessed be He, had destroyed before them. This itself proves that idolatry did not stem from intellect but from desire, for where emotion rules, reason does not prevail. Because of this, they were exiled by Pul and Tilgath-pilneser, and their exile continues "to this day," as the Ten Tribes did not return in the days of Ezra. The second theme is the priestly dynasty: Scripture traces the lineage specifically through the descendants of Elazar, from whom High Priests descend forever, while skipping Itamar. The Malbim innovates regarding the long chain before us that this is not a list of High Priests, but purely a generational record, proving this from the records of Seder Olam and Yosippon, and from the distinction between the "Kohen HaRosh" appointed over the Temple and the Kohen Gadol. The lineage extends to Yehotzadak who went into exile, and his son Yehoshua who served in the Second Temple - and because the office was already filled, even Ezra the Scribe, despite all his greatness, was not appointed Kohen Gadol, for one elevates in sanctity and does not downgrade.