Introduction to Chapter 6: A Recapitulation of the Genealogy of the Tribe of Levi
Chapter 6 of I Chronicles opens with the genealogy of the tribe of Levi, and from the very first verse we are faced with a puzzle: at the end of the previous chapter, in verse 27, it was already stated, "The sons of Levi: Gershon, Kehat, and Merari." Two questions immediately arise: first, there he is called Gershon while here he is called Gershom; and second, which is the more difficult question - why repeat what was already stated?
בְּנֵי לֵוִי גֵּרְשֹׁם קְהָת וּמְרָרִי׃ (א) - The sons of Levi: Gershom, Kehat, and Merari. (1)
Gershon and Gershom: The Interchange of Mem and Nun
To the first question, Radak answers: Gershon is Gershom, as the final letters mem and nun are interchangeable in names. We have already seen examples of this: Chimham and Chimhan - the son of Barzillai the Gileadite. David asked Barzillai to join his royal table, but Barzillai replied that he was already old and gray, and could no longer appreciate the singing voices of men and women; in short, he had lost the zest for life. He said to him: take my son, who still has a taste for life, and let him dine at your table. In the text, he appears once as Chimham and once as Chimhan - proof that Scripture makes no strict distinction between a final mem and a final nun. Similarly, tanin and tanim - "the great sea-monster" (tanim) is the tanin. So too, "the end of days" (ketz hayamim) and "the end of days" (ketz hayamin).
In fact, the answer itself highlights the point: this is precisely what Scripture comes to teach us. If you encounter Gershom in one place and Gershon in another, you will know that both refer to the very same person. Therefore, on this second occasion, when the narrative returns to list the sons, it specifically employs the alternative name, so that you will know they are one and the same. On the contrary, Scripture intentionally highlights this variation.
We find this same approach in Rashi: in many places, Rashi offers two different explanations for the very same matter across two different tractates, which many commentators have questioned. One resolution is that Rashi comes to teach that both this understanding and that understanding are viable; therefore, in this sugya he offers one explanation, and in that sugya, another.
Why the Genealogy Is Repeated
This leaves the second question: why repeat what was already stated in Chapter 5, verse 27? To this, Metzudat David answers: in order to trace the genealogy of the remaining descendants, the text went back and mentioned them all. Since the author intended to trace the subsequent generations as well, he begins from the head of the lineage so that everything is presented in an orderly fashion. Malbim explains that earlier the genealogy was presented from the perspective of the descendants of Aharon - there the focus was on the preeminence of the Kohanim, the sons of Aharon; here, however, Scripture returns to trace all of them, not focusing specifically on the sons of Aharon, but detailing the tribe of Levi in its entirety.
וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹת בְּנֵי־גֵרְשׁוֹם לִבְנִי וְשִׁמְעִי׃ (ב) - And these are the names of the sons of Gershom: Livni and Shimei. (2)
Metzudat Tzion notes that Livni is the same as Ladan mentioned later in the division of the priestly watches, explaining that both names refer to the same individual.
וּבְנֵי קְהָת עַמְרָם וְיִצְהָר וְחֶבְרוֹן וְעֻזִּיאֵל׃ (ג) בְּנֵי מְרָרִי מַחְלִי וּמֻשִׁי וְאֵלֶּה מִשְׁפְּחוֹת הַלֵּוִי לַאֲבֹתֵיהֶם׃ (ד) - And the sons of Kehat: Amram, Yitzhar, Chevron, and Uzziel. (3) The sons of Merari: Machli and Mushi. And these are the families of the Levites according to their fathers' houses. (4)
"According to their fathers" - meaning that their lineage is traced through their paternal descent, from son to father.
לְגֵרְשׁוֹם לִבְנִי בְנוֹ יַחַת בְּנוֹ זִמָּה בְנוֹ׃ (ה) - Of Gershom: Libni his son, Yachat his son, Zimmah his son.
It is surprising how someone could name his son "Zimmah," which would seem to be a derogatory name. Originally, however, the word zimmah derives from the root zamam - that which one devises or plans; nonetheless, the term "zimmah" took on a negative connotation, which is why this is puzzling.
Why Entire Families Were Omitted
Radak notes that here the text does not mention the family of Shimei, just as Shimei is not mentioned in Parashat Pinchas, and just as it omits the families of Amram, Chevron, and Uzziel. The reason, according to Radak, is that those mentioned here were the ones appointed over the song - from the family of Kehat, the family of Yitzhar; from Gershom, the family of Libni; and from Merari, the family of Mushi. Later, when David is mentioned, the text does mention the family of Shimei. It emerges that the primary names listed here are those who were responsible for the song in the Beit HaMikdash.
"Yachat his son" - the son of Libni. That is, Libni was the son of Gershom, Yachat the son of Libni, and Zimmah the son of Yachat. Among the descendants of Shimei, the text later mentions another Yachat as well - both had sons with the same name. Later, the text refers to Yachat son of Libni by the name Yechiel, and Radak explains that Yachat and Yechiel are linguistically related. We have already seen earlier that Radak cites numerous instances where similar names are treated as interchangeable, and there are countless such examples. Later we will see further illustrations: Nachat and Toach are the same name, and Tzofai and Tzuf are the same name.
The analogy is simple: if someone is asked what a person's name is, they might say he is called Yanki, Yankele, Yaakov, or Kobi. One might object, "Make up your mind what he is called! I have already seen his name five different ways!" But the question itself is absurd: all of these are his names, referring to the exact same person. So too here: someone might be called Tzofai or Tzuf, Nachat or Tochu, and it is all the same name in different forms.
The Malbim's Principle: Two Complementary Lists
The Malbim notes that in verse 25 the text traces their lineage back to Levi, and when comparing what is written there with what is written here, we find that omissions occur in both places - here it omits part of what is recorded there, and there it omits part of what is recorded here. Here the Malbim introduces a guiding approach that he will follow later as well: when the text records the same lists twice and omits names here and there, one must cross-reference them and supply the missing links, thereby arriving at the complete list.
The order here is: Libni his son, Yachat his son, Shimei his son (added from the other list), Zimmah his son, Eitan his son (added from the other list), Yoach his son. The Malbim explains that the text did not want to omit Yachat here and write "Libni and Shimei," because that could be confused with the sons of Merari, where Libni and Shimei also appear, which is why it does not list them that way here. In the other list, however, the order ascends: son of Etnai, son of Ye'aterai - which was not mentioned there; son of Zerach, son of Adayah, son of Yoach - not mentioned there; son of Eitan, son of Zimmah, son of Shimei, son of Yachat, son of Libni - not mentioned there; son of Gershon.
Furthermore, here the lineage is traced only as far as Ye'aterai, whereas there it ascends all the way to Levi. The Malbim explains: do not be surprised, for Ye'aterai was an outstanding figure in his generation - distinguished, famous, and renowned - and tracing the lineage up to him was sufficient, as everyone already recognized him by it.
יוֹאָח בְּנוֹ עִדּוֹ בְנוֹ זֶרַח בְּנוֹ יְאָתְרַי בְּנוֹ׃ (ו) - Yoach his son, Iddo his son, Zerach his son, Ye'aterai his son.
Precision in Reading: Adjacent Ehevi Letters and Matres Lectionis
According to the standard rules of grammar, one would expect "בְּנוֹ" (his son) to have a dagesh in the beit, since a beged-kefet letter at the beginning of a word takes a dagesh. Indeed, in the following verse: "The sons of Kehas: Amminadav his son [בְּנוֹ], Korach his son [בְּנוֹ], Assir his son [בְּנוֹ]" - each appears with a dagesh in the beit. However, when the preceding word ends with one of the letters of Ehevi (aleph, hei, vav, yud) - a rule known as Ehevi samuch (adjacent Ehevi) - the dagesh drops. Therefore, "Elkanah his son" [בְנוֹ] in verse 8 has no dagesh, because Elkanah ends with a hei; while in verse 9 "Tachath his son" [בְּנוֹ] has a dagesh, because it ends with a tav, whereas "Uzziah his son" [בְנוֹ] has no dagesh, because it ends with a hei.
If so, a difficulty arises: why in verse 6 is "Ye'aterai his son" [בְּנוֹ] vocalized with a dagesh? After all, the yud is one of the Ehevi letters! The answer is that there are several rules regarding Ehevi samuch, and one of them is that the Ehevi letters must not be consonantal, but rather matres lectionis (vowel letters). Matres lectionis are Ehevi letters that function as vowels, which are not sounded as distinct consonants; whereas a consonantal letter is one that you actively articulate. For example, when you say "Reuven," there is a vav that is not pronounced as a consonant; in "Flee [נוּדִי, nudi] to your mountain like a bird," there is a vav and it is not heard as a consonant; by contrast, in "navad" (wanderer) you hear the vav, and in "nayad" (mobile) you hear the yud.
The rule is therefore: an adjacent Ehevi letter drops the dagesh only when it serves as a mater lectionis, a vowel letter; but when the letter is consonantal and pronounced, it does not cause the dagesh to drop. Here, in "Ye'aterai" [יְאָתְרַי], the yud is distinctly pronounced and articulated. Had "Ye'ateri" been vocalized with a chirik under the resh, it could have been read without the consonantal sound of the yud, and the yud would have served merely as a vowel letter; but here the yud is pronounced as a consonant, and therefore it does not remove the dagesh from "בְּנוֹ".
בְּנֵי קְהָת עַמִּינָדָב בְּנוֹ קֹרַח בְּנוֹ אַסִּיר בְּנוֹ׃ (ז) אֶלְקָנָה בְנוֹ וְאֶבְיָסָף בְּנוֹ וְאַסִּיר בְּנוֹ׃ (ח) תַּחַת בְּנוֹ אוּרִיאֵל בְּנוֹ עֻזִּיָּה בְנוֹ וְשָׁאוּל בְּנוֹ׃ (ט) - The sons of Kehas: Amminadav his son, Korach his son, Assir his son; (7) Elkanah his son, and Ebyasaph his son, and Assir his son; (8) Tachath his son, Uriel his son, Uzziah his son, and Shaul his son. (9)
When reading "וְאֶבְיָסָף" (and Ebyasaph), one must be precise: the segol is a short vowel, and a short vowel does not cause the sheva in the beit to be vocal; therefore, it is a sheva nach (a quiescent sheva) - not "ve-Eveyasaph" with a sheva na, but "ve-Evyasaph".
Amminadav Is Yitzhar, and the Sons of Korach
The Radak explains: Here the text returns to describe the sons of Kehas, because it intended to detail the genealogy of his sons and grandsons at length, which is why it revisits them now. And Amminadav is Yitzhar - he had two names: earlier he was called Yitzhar, and here Amminadav. Moreover, Assir, Elkanah, and Ebyasaph are not successive generations (father to son) as one might have assumed until now; rather, for all three of them, "his son" refers back to Korach. That is: the sons of Kehas were Amminadav his son, Korach his son, and then Assir, Elkanah, and Ebyasaph - all three were sons of Korach.
The Malbim explains: Amminadav, as Radak noted, is Yitzhar, and Assir, Elkanah, and Ebyasaph were all sons of Korach. And as for what is written next, "and Assir his son" - this second Assir was the son of Ebyasaph. Thus, Ebyasaph named his son after his brother, so there was both an uncle and a nephew with the same name. This is corroborated by verse 22: "the son of Assir, the son of Ebyasaph, the son of Korach" - clearly showing that Assir was the son of Ebyasaph, in addition to Assir the son of Korach.
Later on verses 21-23, the Malbim notes that there too the genealogy appears with additions and omissions, and the general rule applies as mentioned: take the two lists and supply the omissions of one from the other, thereby reconstructing the complete lineage. Here the order is: Tachath his son, Zephaniah his son (not mentioned here), Uriel his son, Uzziah his son, Joel his son (not mentioned here), Shaul his son, Elkanah his son (not mentioned here), and the sons of Elkanah, etc. By contrast, the order there is: the son of Elkanah, the son of Shaul (not mentioned there), the son of Joel, the son of Azariah, the son of Uriel (not mentioned there), the son of Zephaniah, the son of Tachath. Thus, the two lists complement each other.
וּבְנֵי אֶלְקָנָה עֲמָשַׂי וַאֲחִימוֹת׃ (י) אֶלְקָנָה בְּנֵי אֶלְקָנָה צוֹפַי בְּנוֹ וְנַחַת בְּנוֹ׃ (יא) אֱלִיאָב בְּנוֹ יְרֹחָם בְּנוֹ אֶלְקָנָה בְנוֹ׃ (יב) - And the sons of Elkanah: Amasai and Achimoth. (10) Elkanah: the sons of Elkanah; Tzophai his son, and Nachath his son. (11) Eliab his son, Yerocham his son, Elkanah his son. (12)
The Radak explains: "And the sons of Elkanah: Amasai and Achimoth, Elkanah" - all three are father to son successively. Elkanah is the son of Achimoth, Achimoth the son of Amasai, and Amasai the son of Elkanah. In simple terms: the father is Elkanah, who fathered Amasai, who fathered Achimoth, who fathered Elkanah. Thus, both the great-grandfather and the great-grandson were named Elkanah.
The Malbim's Explanation: Yibbum and Two Fathers for One Son
The Malbim explains differently. Later, in verses 20-21, we see: "the son of Tzof, the son of Elkanah, the son of Machath, the son of Amasai, the son of Elkanah." Seemingly, the order there does not match the order here, which leads the commentators to strain for answers. Therefore, the Malbim embarks on a wonderful explanation: it appears to him that Amasai died childless, and his brother Machath performed yibbum (levirate marriage) with his widow, as the Torah requires a brother to marry the deceased's wife. From then on, his name became "Achimoth" - denoting that he was achi hamet, the brother of the deceased who performed yibbum. And whom did he father? Elkanah, whom he named after his deceased brother.
Notice carefully: Elkanah was not the name of the deceased, for the deceased was Amasai. We have already explained several times that when the child born of yibbum is named after the deceased brother, it does not mean he must bear the exact same name. Rather, as we learned from the Peleh Yo'etz, he is essentially his gilgul (reincarnation), his spiritual rectification, his continuation. Therefore, "he shall succeed in the name of his brother" does not mean he must be given his literal name. Thus, do not wonder how he fathered Elkanah when the deceased brother was named Amasai.
How wonderful this is: Elkanah was the biological son of Machath, who is Achimoth - the name he took after his brother died - since he was the one who fathered him physically; yet he was also called the son of Amasai, for he came to establish his name in Israel and was considered his son spiritually, not biologically. Through this, we can understand why the verse states "the sons of Elkanah: Amasai and Achimoth," followed by "Elkanah" - for he was the son of both of them, of Amasai and of Achimoth. This is the meaning of "Elkanah his son" - teaching that he was truly the son of Achimoth, who fathered him, while Amasai was, as it were, his spiritual father, for the newborn came in his stead and was his gilgul, the son being named after his deceased father. (Incidentally, the Malbim here repeatedly writes "Amasa", but this is a printing error; the name appearing in our verse is Amasai.)
According to the Malbim, this also clarifies "Elkanah the sons of Elkanah" - Elkanah was the son of both of them, as we noted. Regarding "Tzophai his son, and Nachath his son" - Radak explains that they were father and son, meaning Tzophai fathered Nachath. And the Eliab mentioned here, Radak says, is the Elihu mentioned at the beginning of Sefer Shmuel; Nachath is To'ach, and Tzophai is Tzoph. The Malbim adds that Eliab is the Eliel mentioned later on. It seems all of these views are true: Eliab, Eliel, and Elihu were all the very same person, based on the principle we established that individuals in Tanach often bore multiple related names.
וּבְנֵי שְׁמוּאֵל הַבְּכֹר וַשְׁנִי וַאֲבִיָּה׃ (יג) - And the sons of Shmuel: the firstborn Vashni, and Aviyah. (13)
"The Firstborn Vashni, and Aviyah" - Two Interpretations
Radak presents a first interpretation: some explain vashni as meaning vehasheini ("and the second"), as though the verse meant: "and the second was Aviyah." According to this, Scripture wrote "the firstborn" without mentioning his name, and who was the second? Aviyah. Who, then, was the firstborn? There was no need to name him, Radak explains according to this approach, because he was well-known - he was Yoel. It is as if the verse said: the firstborn, the famous and renowned one whose name need not be mentioned, and his second was Aviyah, just as it says in Shmuel, "and the name of his second was Aviyah."
However, Radak rejects this interpretation. First, nowhere else do we find vashni meaning hasheini ("the second"). Second, how could the verse say "the firstborn" without mentioning his name? That is baffling. If Scripture relies on another passage, it should not mention him at all; and if it mentions "the firstborn", it should state his name. We find no precedent for mentioning "the firstborn" while omitting his name. Furthermore, the letter vav of ve-Aviyah ("and Aviyah") would be out of place: if vashni means "and the second", why does it say ve-Aviyah? The vav is completely superfluous. What forced them into such a strained reading? Therefore, Radak explains that Vashni is actually the name of the firstborn - he was Yoel, who had two names: Yoel, and his second name was Vashni. Accordingly, the verse reads smoothly: "And the sons of Shmuel: the firstborn, Vashni" - that is the name of the firstborn - "and Aviyah," who was the second.
The Malbim, on the other hand, upholds the view that vashni does mean vehasheini ("and the second"). Many times we find that the vowel patach of the definite article heh drops away and shifts to the preceding or following letter, as in bashamayim instead of behashamayim, and other examples. Here, too, the pronunciation was altered to avoid a cumbersome phrasing, and so it was shortened to vashni.
However, true to his approach, the Malbim explains that everything Ezra wrote here was transcribed from the master genealogical register. Ezra frequently abridged his transcription when he saw no need to copy everything in full, which creates textual difficulties for us if we fail to realize that this is an abridged excerpt. But once we understand that he was copying selectively, we can appreciate why he used phrasing that does not seem to connect smoothly: he transcribed, cut short, and proceeded with what was more essential to his purpose, yet remained faithful to the wording of the original source.
Therefore, in our case: the genealogical register originally read, "the firstborn and the second, Yoel and Aviyah." Here, Ezra omitted Yoel, leaving "the firstborn and the second, Aviyah." As the Malbim puts it, the author of our book omitted the name of Yoel, as was his practice to skip over well-known facts, leaving the text as "and the second, and Aviyah." Why is Aviyah written with a vav (ve-Aviyah)? Because Ezra transcribed the text as it stood in the original source - "Yoel and Aviyah" - omitting the name Yoel while retaining the conjunction vav attached to Aviyah. The Malbim brings a proof from what we saw earlier: "And the sons of Elah: and Kenaz." If Elah had only one son listed, why does it say "and Kenaz"? In the master genealogical book, "the sons of Elah" was followed by several names, ending with "and Kenaz." Ezra omitted the preceding names that were not relevant to his focus, yet retained "and Kenaz" with its original vav. That is precisely why our verse reads "and Aviyah" with a vav.
בְּנֵי מְרָרִי מַחְלִי לִבְנִי בְנוֹ שִׁמְעִי בְנוֹ עֻזָּה בְנוֹ׃ (יד) שִׁמְעָא בְנוֹ חַגִּיָּה בְנוֹ עֲשָׂיָה בְנוֹ׃ (טו) - The sons of Merari: Machli, Libni his son, Shimei his son, Uzzah his son; (14) Shimea his son, Chaggiah his son, Asayah his son. (15)
The Malbim notes that according to what is explained later in chapter 23, verses 21-22, the sons of Machli were Elazar and Kish, and he had no son named Libni. Therefore, he explains that Libni was actually his grandson - namely, Libni the son of Kish. Another possibility: the phrase "The sons of Merari: Machli" refers to Machli the son of Mushi, tracing the lineage of the descendants of Mushi; and this Machli, son of Mushi son of Merari, had one son named Libni, whom the text traces here, and one son named Shemer, from whom Eitan descended, whose lineage the text traces in verses 29 through 32. As for what is written, "Asayah his son" - this is Asayah the chief mentioned later in chapter 15, verse 6.
In summary: At the opening of the chapter, Scripture returns to trace the lineage of the entire tribe of Levi - not only through the sons of Aharon as in the previous chapter - and substitutes "Gershon" with "Gershom" to teach us that mem and nun interchange in names, just as several similar names refer to a single individual (Yachath and Yechiel, Nachath and Toach, Tzofai and Tzoph, Eliav, Eliel, and Elihu). We have learned two major principles from the Malbim: first, that two genealogical lists that appear with omissions complement each other and must be combined; and second, that our book copies from the master genealogical register and truncates in the middle, which explains disconnected phrasings - such as "And Aviyah" with a conjunctive vav, and "and Kenaz." We also saw his wondrous approach in explaining the descendants of Elkanah through yibum: Amasai died childless, Machath performed yibum and was called Achimoth, and Elkanah who was born was the biological son of Achimoth and the spiritual son of Amasai - the continuation of the deceased's existence and his spiritual rectification.