Chapter 6 of I Chronicles is the chapter of the tribe of Levi: first, the genealogy of the three Levite families - Gershom, Kehat, and Merari; then, the appointment of the singers whom David placed over the song in the House of Hashem; and afterward, the genealogy of the sons of Aharon and the list of the cities of the Kohanim and Levites given to them by Israel from their inheritance. In our study, we will address the section from verse 16 onward, following the order of the verses in the light of the Malbim, the Radak, and Pseudo-Rashi.
וְאֵ֗לֶּה אֲשֶׁ֨ר הֶעֱמִ֥יד דָּוִ֛יד עַל־יְדֵי־שִׁ֖יר בֵּ֣ית יְהֹוָ֑ה מִמְּנ֖וֹחַ הָאָרֽוֹן׃ - And these are they whom David set over the service of song in the House of Hashem, from the resting of the Ark.
"And these are they whom David set" - as we saw earlier, when they brought the Ark back from the house of Oved-Edom the Gittite, it is stated there: "So he left there, before the Ark of the Covenant of Hashem, Asaf and his brethren, to minister before the Ark," as well as "and Oved-Edom the son of Yedutun and Hosah to be gatekeepers." There David appointed those who would be singers over the Ark of the House of Hashem.
And what is the meaning of "from the resting of the Ark" (mimenoch ha'aron)? The Radak explains: it is like min menoch ha'aron, just as one says min makom - mimakom, where the letter nun is assimilated. That is to say: from the time the Ark came to rest, from the moment David brought it from Kiryat Ye'arim to Jerusalem and set it in the tent. From that time onward, they no longer moved it from place to place, and therefore this was called "the resting of the Ark" - the point at which the Ark reached rest and wandered no more, until it was permanently transferred to the eternal House, the Beit HaMikdash.
וַיִּֽהְי֨וּ מְשָֽׁרְתִ֜ים לִפְנֵ֨י מִשְׁכַּ֤ן אֹֽהֶל־מוֹעֵד֙ בַּשִּׁ֔יר עַד־בְּנ֧וֹת שְׁלֹמֹ֛ה אֶת־בֵּ֥ית יְהֹוָ֖ה בִּירוּשָׁלָ֑͏ִם וַיַּעַמְד֥וּ כְמִשְׁפָּטָ֖ם עַל־עֲבוֹדָתָֽם׃ - And they ministered before the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting with song, until Shlomo built the House of Hashem in Jerusalem; and they stood according to their order for their service.
"Before the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting" - this refers to the high place (bamah) that was in Giv'on. Later, when Shlomo built the House in Jerusalem, he stationed them in the Beit HaMikdash. "And they stood according to their order for their service" - Pseudo-Rashi explains: according to the ordinance established for them by David, that is, according to the very order David set for them. And the Radak explains: "their service" is the specific labor designated for them, the service of song, just as it is written in the Torah, "to serve the service of the ministry" (la'avod avodat avodah) - and Chazal expounded: what is a service that is adjacent to another service? This is the service of song, which accompanies the service of the sacrifices.
The Malbim notes precisely: later in the chapter, it is explained that some of them served before the Ark - namely Asaf and his brethren, regarding whom it is said, "over the service of song in the House of Hashem"; while some served before the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting - namely Heiman and Eitan, who were in Giv'on, regarding whom it is said, "And they ministered before the tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting." Thus, there were two distinct groups, and only "until Shlomo built" - once the Temple was constructed - did they all unite in one place.
וְאֵ֥לֶּה הָעֹמְדִ֖ים וּבְנֵיהֶ֑ם מִבְּנֵי֙ הַקְּהָתִ֔י הֵימָן֙ הַמְשׁוֹרֵ֔ר בֶּן־יוֹאֵ֖ל בֶּן־שְׁמוּאֵֽל׃ - And these are they who served with their sons: of the sons of the Kehatites, Heiman the singer, the son of Yoel, the son of Shemuel.
The verse mentions the three patriarchal heads of the Levites - Heiman, Asaf, and Eitan - and for their honor, it traces each of their genealogies back to Levi, to proclaim their stature. The Radak adds: Heiman was more distinguished and greater than the other two, which is why his lineage is traced all the way back to Yaakov Avinu - "the son of Levi, the son of Israel" - whereas with the other two, the lineage concludes with "the son of Levi." Another proof of his preeminence: during the song, Heiman stood in the center, with Asaf on his right and Eitan on his left.
And Chazal explain: why is "the son of Israel" mentioned in the lineage of Heiman? Because he was from the descendants of Korach. Korach had claimed, "For all the congregation are holy" - do not take away my honor; that is to say, when they assemble on their own initiative, let my name not be mentioned. Indeed, in Parashat Korach it is stated, "Now Korach, the son of Yitzhar, the son of Kehat, the son of Levi, took..." and assembled the entire congregation - they assembled of their own accord, and there "the son of Israel" is omitted, Yaakov's name is not mentioned. But here, where they assembled for the service of Hashem by the direction of David, here Yaakov desires that his name be remembered, and therefore it is stated: "the son of Levi, the son of Israel."
בֶּן־אֶלְקָנָה֙ בֶּן־יְרֹחָ֔ם בֶּן־אֱלִיאֵ֖ל בֶּן־תּֽוֹחַ׃ - Son of Elkanah, son of Yerocham, son of Eliel, son of Toach.
The Radak adds: In the genealogy of Heiman, you see that the names vary from how they were mentioned above. This is customary in many places - sometimes a person had two names, being called by one at times and by another at other times; and sometimes the name varies slightly, with one letter interchangeable with another, and they were not particular about this. For example, "Toach" mentioned here is called "Tachath" above, and in the Book of Shemuel "Tochu"; similarly, Tzuf and Tzofai, Eliel, Eliab, and Elihu.
In general, when going through the entire lineage - Heiman son of Yoel, son of Shemuel, son of Elkanah, son of Yerocham, son of Eliel, son of Toach, son of Tzuf, son of Elkanah, son of Machath, son of Amasai, son of Elkanah, son of Yoel, son of Azaryah, son of Tzephanyah, son of Tachath, son of Assir, son of Ebyasaph, son of Korach, son of Yitzhar, son of Kehath, son of Levi, son of Yisrael - it is interesting to see that "Elkanah" appears three times: son of Shemuel, son of Elkanah; son of Tzuf, son of Elkanah; son of Amasai, son of Elkanah. From here we see that it was their common practice to name children after fathers and grandfathers.
וְאָחִ֣יו אָסָ֔ף הָעֹמֵ֖ד עַל־יְמִינ֑וֹ אָסָ֥ף בֶּן־בֶּרֶכְיָ֖הוּ בֶּן־שִׁמְעָֽא׃ - And his brother Asaph, who stood at his right hand: Asaph son of Berechyahu, son of Shimea.
The Malbim, as well as the Metzudath David, explain that "his brother" here does not mean a biological brother, but rather his partner - that he was his companion in the service of song, as both were among the singers. "Asaph son of Berechyahu" - the verse emphasizes that this Asaph is Asaph son of Berechyahu, so that one should not think this refers to another person. He was also a leader, which is why he is mentioned. "Who stood at his right hand" - at the right hand of Heiman the singer mentioned in verse 18, for Asaph was also a singer.
Regarding the genealogy of Asaph ("son of Eithan, son of Zimmah, son of Shimei, son of Yachath, son of Gershom, son of Levi"), the Radak asks: here it mentions Shimei and does not mention Libni, while above it mentioned Libni and did not mention Shimei - and he found no reason for this. The Metzudath David writes that this was done for brevity: above it omitted Shimei, and here it omitted Libni. Yet it remains puzzling why the text would choose to abbreviate specifically by omitting just one name; and some suggest that these are two names for the same person.
וּבְנֵ֧י מְרָרִ֛י אֲחֵיהֶ֖ם עַֽל־הַשְּׂמֹ֑אול אֵיתָן֙ בֶּן־קִישִׁ֔י בֶּן־עַבְדִּ֖י בֶּן־מַלּֽוּךְ׃ - And their brethren the sons of Merari were on the left: Eithan son of Kishi, son of Abdi, son of Malluch.
After seeing that Asaph stood at Heiman's right hand, here it is explained that the sons of Merari stood at his left. The Malbim explains: Heiman and the sons of Kehath were the most prominent, and therefore stood in the center; Asaph and the sons of Gershon were on the right; and the sons of Merari, being of lesser prominence, were on the left. The Radak identifies names from the lineages mentioned above: Eithan is Yoach mentioned above, Adayah is Iddo, and Ethni is Yeathrai - those mentioned in verse 6: "Yoach his son, Iddo his son, Zerach his son, Yeathrai his son."
וַאֲחֵיהֶ֖ם הַלְוִיִּ֑ם נְתוּנִ֕ים לְכׇ֨ל־עֲבוֹדַ֔ת מִשְׁכַּ֖ן בֵּ֥ית הָאֱלֹהִֽים׃ - And their brethren the Levi'im were appointed for all the service of the Tabernacle of the House of God.
After enumerating the three lineages - Kehas, Gershon, and Merari - Scripture arrives at the rest of the Levi'im. The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: "Assigned to all the service of the Tabernacle of the House of God" - that they were gatekeepers, and it was also their duty to flay the animals, as mentioned later that the Levi'im flayed the sacrifices. Radak explains: these three we mentioned were heads of ancestral houses who sang before the Tabernacle of the Tent of Meeting, and they had no burden-bearing duty whatsoever - they were exclusively singers. Their brethren were designated for the rest of the Tabernacle's duties, being the bearers of the Tabernacle - until the resting of the Ark, for once the Ark rested in its place, there was no longer a need to dismantle, assemble, and carry it. From then on, they served as gatekeepers and guards, as well as singers; and they also engaged in slaughtering and flaying, for slaughtering is valid even when performed by a non-Kohen, although usually the Kohanim slaughtered the sacrifices themselves.
וְֽאַהֲרֹ֨ן וּבָנָ֜יו מַקְטִירִ֨ים עַל־מִזְבַּ֤ח הָעוֹלָה֙ וְעַל־מִזְבַּ֣ח הַקְּטֹ֔רֶת לְכֹ֕ל מְלֶ֖אכֶת קֹ֣דֶשׁ הַקֳּדָשִׁ֑ים וּלְכַפֵּר֙ עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל כְּכֹל֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר צִוָּ֔ה מֹשֶׁ֖ה עֶ֥בֶד הָאֱלֹהִֽים׃ - But Aharon and his sons offered upon the altar of the burnt-offering and upon the incense altar, for all the work of the Holy of Holies, and to make atonement for Israel, according to all that Moshe the servant of God had commanded.
This seems puzzling at first: we are already far down the lineage, among the distant descendants of Aharon - why does Scripture suddenly revert to "And Aharon and his sons made offerings"? Radak explains that it mentions Aharon because he was the head of the priesthood, according him honor and citing him as the head of the entire tribe. Malbim explains: "Aharon" here does not mean Aharon himself, but rather whoever succeeded him, for every High Priest in each and every generation is like Aharon - the Kohen Gadol standing in Aharon's place. And what is stated, "for all the work of the Holy of Holies," refers to a task that only the High Priest can perform - entering the inner sanctum on Yom Kippur; it emerges that Scripture is specifically referring to those who continued Aharon's lineage in the High Priesthood.
וְאֵ֖לֶּה בְּנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹ֑ן אֶלְעָזָ֥ר בְּנ֛וֹ פִּֽינְחָ֥ס בְּנ֖וֹ אֲבִישׁ֥וּעַ בְּנֽוֹ׃ - And these are the sons of Aharon: Elazar his son, Pinchas his son, Avishua his son.
These are the sons of Aharon who offered upon the altar of the burnt-offering and upon the incense altar, for the Levi'im did not offer sacrifices - offering sacrifices was permitted only to the sons of Aharon, the Kohanim. Malbim notes: we have already seen above in chapter 5 that he traced their genealogy up until the destruction of the Temple, but the scroll from which Ezra quotes here was written in the days of David and Shlomo; therefore, here he traces the genealogy only up to Achima'atz, who lived in David's time - and no further.
וְאֵ֙לֶּה֙ מֽוֹשְׁבוֹתָ֔ם לְטִירוֹתָ֖ם בִּגְבוּלָ֑ם לִבְנֵ֤י אַֽהֲרֹן֙ לְמִשְׁפַּ֣חַת הַקְּהָתִ֔י כִּ֥י לָהֶ֖ם הָיָ֥ה הַגּוֹרָֽל׃ - And these are their dwelling places according to their settlements in their territory: to the sons of Aharon, of the family of the Kehasi, for theirs was the first lot.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: since the Kohanim and Levi'im had no tribal inheritance of land, the people of Israel gave them from their own inheritance. They cast lots over Eretz Yisrael as to how many of the land's cities would be assigned to the Kohanim and Levi'im, and the lot fell first to the tribe of Yehudah. Each and every tribe gave a portion of its territory as a dwelling place for the Kohanim and Levi'im, and these places also served as cities of refuge to absorb unintentional murderers. Forty-two cities were given to the Levi'im, in addition to the six original cities of refuge set aside by Moshe Rabbeinu - three in Eretz Yisrael and three in Ever HaYarden - totaling forty-eight cities scattered among the cities of Israel, of which forty-two were the cities that the people apportioned by lot from their shares and gave to the Kohanim and Levi'im.
And why was this so? Radak explains: the tribe of Levi had no portion in the land, Hashem is their inheritance, and they were dedicated to the service of Hashem - the Levi'im to sing and the Kohanim to offer sacrifices; therefore, Scripture details the cities they received from the people in exchange for their service.
And this is not without reason, as we have also learned regarding tithes: in truth, the Temple service originally rested upon all of Israel, as all the firstborn were intended to serve in the Beis HaMikdash, and the Kohanim are essentially performing our work - stepping in on our behalf. Therefore, it is our obligation to provide for them: terumos and ma'asros, the foreleg, cheeks, and abomasum, the twenty-four priestly gifts - and also to give them a portion of our cities in which to dwell. They had no need for fields, as they did not cultivate land but received terumos and ma'asros from the people, and they were not laborers. On the contrary, "For the lips of a priest shall preserve knowledge, and they shall seek the Torah from his mouth, for he is an angel of the Lord of Hosts" - the Kohanim were the tribe of Torah scholars, they were the kollel scholars, they preserved the Torah, and people sought Torah from their mouths. Because of this, all of Israel is commanded to support those who engage in Torah study.
The Radak already noted here that in the account of the Levite cities, one finds names that differ from what we find in the Book of Yehoshua - some correspond and some differ. He explains: just as I mentioned regarding people's names, the same places were known by two names. This is true in every generation: if someone asks you the name of a town, you might say "Kiryat Ye'arim" - and they will say to you, "But it says Telz-Stone!" Which is correct? Both are correct, two names for one town. Similarly, one country is called England and also Britain; and Modi'in Illit is also called Kiryat Sefer - the same place by two names. And so it is with people: the same person can have multiple names, like Yaakov and Yankel, and it refers to the exact same person.
The Radak also brings another explanation: some commentators explain that all these variations stem from the fact that when the lot fell to distribute the cities in the days of Yehoshua, some of the cities were still held by the Canaanites, so other cities were given in their place. That is, the lot may have designated a certain city for the Levites, but because it had not yet been conquered, another city was given in its stead until it was captured. In our list, which was written after the cities had already been conquered, the cities are recorded as they were ultimately established.
The Radak also quotes from the Tosefta: even though they designated Shechem in Mount Ephraim, it did not yet provide asylum, so they designated Gimzo in its place until they conquered Kedesh. Thus, they designated another city in place of that city so that the Levites would have a place to live in the meantime.
וְאֶת־שְׂדֵ֥ה הָעִ֖יר וְאֶת־חֲצֵרֶ֑יהָ נָתְנ֖וּ לְכָלֵ֥ב בֶּן־יְפֻנֶּֽה׃ - But the fields of the city and its villages they gave to Calev the son of Yefuneh.
"And they gave them Chevron in the land of Yehudah and its open land around it" - "migrash" (open land) refers to the open area surrounding the city. But the fields of the city and its villages they gave to Calev the son of Yefuneh, as Moshe Rabbeinu had granted him that portion.
וְלִבְנֵ֣י אַהֲרֹ֗ן נָֽתְנוּ֙ אֶת־עָרֵ֣י הַמִּקְלָ֔ט אֶת־חֶבְר֥וֹן וְאֶת־לִבְנָ֖ה וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֑יהָ וְאֶת־יַתִּ֥ר וְאֶֽת־אֶשְׁתְּמֹ֖עַ וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶֽׁיהָ׃ - And to the sons of Aharon they gave the cities of refuge: Chevron, and Livnah with its open land, and Yatir, and Eshtemoa with its open land.
Why does the verse repeat and say, "And to the sons of Aharon," when the entire passage is dealing with the sons of Aharon? Because it interrupted them by mentioning the granting of the city's fields and villages to Calev the son of Yefuneh, who was not from the sons of Aharon. Therefore, it opens anew: "And to the sons of Aharon they gave the cities of refuge." The cities of refuge (arei miklat) were called this, says the Metzudat Tzion, because they absorbed (koltot) the killers; for in any other city, an accidental killer's blood is not protected and it is permitted to kill him - and there is a dispute whether it is a mitzvah to kill him or merely permitted. In any case, even according to the view that it is merely permitted, he is obligated to flee to a city of refuge to be saved.
"And Chilez with its open land, Devir with its open land, and Ashan with its open land, and Beit Shemesh with its open land" - all these were given from the tribe of Yehudah with their open lands. The Malbim initially suggests that Ashan is the city called "Ain" in the Book of Yehoshua, whereas the city of "Yutah" is not mentioned here. (Incidentally, Utah is not only a state in the United States, but also a city in Eretz Yisrael. And in America there is a city called Jerusalem; the Americans, who were initially devout Christians, debated when settling their land whether to adopt Lashon HaKodesh as their national language, but the Holy One, blessed be He, ensured they would choose another language so that Lashon HaKodesh would remain ours - "He did not do so for any other nation," "Who chose us from all tongues." At any rate, many cities there were named after biblical cities.)
However, upon deeper analysis, the Malbim retracts and explains that Ain and Ashan are two distinct cities. The proof is that earlier, regarding the inheritance of the descendants of Shimon, it says: "And they dwelt in Be'er Sheva, and Moladah, and Chatzar Shual... these were their cities until the reign of David, and their villages were Eitam, and Ain, and Ashan." Here we are discussing cities that the descendants of Yehudah gave to the Levites, whereas the Ain mentioned there is within Shimon's inheritance. Perforce, there was another city called Ain in the days of Yehoshua, which is called Ashan in the days of Ezra, and it is not the Ain of Shimon's territory.
Here the Malbim adds something very rare in his commentary: "And behold, the Gaon Rabbi Chaim Berlin, Av Beit Din of the holy community of Moscow, wrote to me." Rabbi Chaim Berlin asked him regarding the Gemara in Sanhedrin 111b that one city may not be divided between two tribes, where the Gemara asks: "Nine cities from these two tribes - does this not mean four and a half from this one, and four and a half from that one?" If so, a city would be divided between two tribes, since nine cities between two tribes would mean four and a half from each! The Gemara answers: No, four from this one and five from that one - one tribe gave four cities and the other gave five. Rabbi Chaim Berlin asked: Scripture explicitly states that Shimon gave only one city, so how can the Gemara say five?
However, according to what has been explained, there is no difficulty here at all. The question arose from the assumption that the city of Ain or Ashan belonged to Shimon; but according to our explanation, the city of Ashan did not belong to Shimon, but was part of Yehudah's inheritance, and Shimon did not give it to the Levites at all. The Malbim brings another proof: there it says, "and their villages were Eitam, and Ain, and Ashan," and villages (chatzerim) are small settlements, like a backyard, as the Mishneh LaMelech explains - and Levite cities were never made small, nor could a small settlement serve as a city of refuge. The Malbim concludes: after Yehudah initially received his inheritance, he set aside cities from his territory for Shimon - these are the cities mentioned in Yehoshua 19 and earlier in Chapter 4 - and in addition to those, there were four more cities set aside for Shimon in order to give them to the Levites. It turns out, then, that Shimon set aside five cities. Why are they not listed in the inheritance of Shimon? Because they did not remain in their possession, and there Scripture mentions only the cities they actually inhabited.
וּמִמַּטֵּ֣ה בִנְיָמִ֗ן אֶת־גֶּ֤בַע וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֙יהָ֙ וְאֶת־עָלֶ֣מֶת וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֔יהָ וְאֶת־עֲנָת֖וֹת וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֑יהָ כׇּל־עָרֵיהֶ֛ם שְׁלֹשׁ־עֶשְׂרֵ֥ה עִ֖יר בְּמִשְׁפְּחוֹתֵיהֶֽם׃ - And from the tribe of Benjamin: Geva and its open lands, Alemet and its open lands, and Anatot and its open lands; all their cities throughout their families were thirteen cities.
"And from the tribe of Benjamin" - the lot fell for Benjamin to give these cities. The Malbim notes: In the Book of Yehoshua, both Geva and Giv'on are mentioned, whereas here Giv'on is omitted, yet the tally is exact - thirteen cities. It is very likely that at the time this book was written, these cities lay in ruins, and therefore it mentioned only Geva here and not Giv'on.
וְלִבְנֵ֨י קְהָ֜ת הַנּֽוֹתָרִ֗ים מִמִּשְׁפַּ֣חַת הַמַּטֶּ֡ה מִֽ֠מַּחֲצִ֠ית מַטֵּ֨ה חֲצִ֧י מְנַשֶּׁ֛ה בַּגּוֹרָ֖ל עָרִ֥ים עָֽשֶׂר׃ - And to the remaining sons of Kehat, from the family of the tribe, from half the tribe, the half-tribe of Menasheh, by lot, ten cities.
The Kohanim descended from Kehat, and the text has already mentioned what was given to them; now it speaks of the remaining sons of Kehat from the family of the tribe of Levi. According to Pseudo-Rashi, the lot fell upon the half-tribe of Menasheh to give the Levite sons of Kehat ten cities. The Malbim explains that they received their share from Ephraim, Dan, and the half-tribe of Menasheh, but since Dan had not yet received its inheritance - and what one has not yet received, one cannot give - in practice they took from Ephraim and Menasheh, who shared a common border. This is the meaning of "from the family of the tribe": from Ephraim, which is from the tribe of Yosef, and Ephraim and Menasheh are considered one tribe - the tribe of Yosef. "And from half the tribe" - meaning the half-tribe of Menasheh. "Ten cities" - this is what fell to them by lot, but in practice they took only eight, since they did not take Eltekeh and Gibbeton, as we will see below.
"And to the sons of Gershom according to their families, from the tribe of Yissachar, from the tribe of Asher, from the tribe of Naftali, and from the tribe of Menasheh in Bashan, thirteen cities. To the sons of Merari according to their families, from the tribe of Reuven, from the tribe of Gad, and from the tribe of Zevulun, by lot, twelve cities. And the children of Israel gave to the Levites the cities and their open lands" - since the text goes on to enumerate the specific names of the cities, it repeats what was already stated: that they gave them the cities along with their open lands.
וַיִּתְּנ֣וּ בַגּוֹרָ֗ל מִמַּטֵּ֤ה בְנֵֽי־יְהוּדָה֙ וּמִמַּטֵּ֣ה בְנֵֽי־שִׁמְע֔וֹן וּמִמַּטֵּ֖ה בְּנֵ֣י בִנְיָמִ֑ן אֵ֚ת הֶעָרִ֣ים הָאֵ֔לֶּה אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרְא֥וּ אֶתְהֶ֖ם בְּשֵׁמֽוֹת׃ - And they gave by lot from the tribe of the children of Yehudah, and from the tribe of the children of Shimon, and from the tribe of the children of Binyamin, these cities which were designated by name.
Pseudo-Rashi explains: Although Shimon was not mentioned earlier in the giving, Shimon gave his portion from what Yehudah had given him. Everything mentioned above from "And they gave them Chevron" until "And from the tribe of Benjamin" was jointly given by the children of Yehudah and the children of Shimon; and because Shimon was not mentioned earlier, the text mentions them here. "Which were designated by name" - that they called them by name, as we saw above. And because Binyamin joined them in giving to the sons of Aharon, the text mentions him once again as well.
וּמִֽמִּשְׁפְּח֖וֹת בְּנֵ֣י קְהָ֑ת וַֽיְהִי֙ עָרֵ֣י גְבוּלָ֔ם מִמַּטֵּ֖ה אֶפְרָֽיִם׃ - And of the families of the sons of Kehat: the cities of their territory were from the tribe of Ephraim.
Even though they were given cities from the half-tribe of Menasheh, Ephraim also gave to them - for although both are the descendants of Yosef, they are divided into two: Ephraim and Menasheh. The Radak explains: "And of the families of the sons of Kehat" - some of the families of the sons of Kehat, those who did not receive from Yehudah, Shimon, and Binyamin, were the ones who took cities from the tribe of Ephraim: Shechem and its open lands, and Gezer and its open lands. And regarding "Yokmeam" - the Radak, followed by the Malbim, explains that this is the city of Kivtzayim mentioned in Yehoshua.
"And Ayalon and its open lands, and Gat-Rimmon and its open lands" - the Radak notes: Ayalon belonged to the children of Dan, so why was this not mentioned? It is very likely that they bordered those cities taken from Ephraim, and were therefore grouped together with the cities of Ephraim; indeed, in the Book of Yehoshua, Dan is mentioned immediately after Ephraim, whereas here, because the cities were adjacent and it was well known that they belonged to Dan, Scripture grouped them with Ephraim without elaborating.
And the Malbim adds: In Yehoshua it is mentioned that they gave them from the portion of Dan: Elteke and Gibethon, Ayalon and Gat-Rimmon - yet here it omits Elteke and Gibethon, and mentions Ayalon and Gat-Rimmon seemingly as cities of Ephraim. There are two difficulties: why did it skip Elteke and Gibethon, and how does it attribute what is the inheritance of Dan to Ephraim? He resolves this: since the children of Dan had not yet conquered their inheritance, and the children of Ephraim conquered Ayalon and Gat-Rimmon and gave them to the Levites - they are therefore counted in their name, even though according to the tribal boundary they belonged to Dan. From this comes a wonderful answer to the second difficulty as well: Elteke and Gibethon were not conquered, and therefore they are not mentioned at all - for Scripture records only what was actually conquered and given in practice.
וּמִֽמַּחֲצִית֙ מַטֵּ֣ה מְנַשֶּׁ֔ה אֶת־עָנֵר֙ וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֔יהָ וְאֶת־בִּלְעָ֖ם וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֑יהָ לְמִשְׁפַּ֥חַת לִבְנֵֽי־קְהָ֖ת הַנּוֹתָרִֽים׃ - And from the half-tribe of Menasheh: Aner with its pasturelands, and Bileam with its pasturelands, for the family of the remaining sons of Kehat.
"And from the half-tribe of Menasheh" - the commentary attributed to Rashi explains: this refers to the half of Menasheh situated in the Land of Israel proper, on the western side of the Jordan. "For the family of the remaining sons of Kehat" - these are the Levites; Ephraim and Menasheh gave to those remaining ones mentioned above, "to the remaining sons of Kehat from the family of the tribe."
לִבְנֵ֣י מְרָרִי֮ הַנּוֹתָרִים֒ מִמַּטֵּ֣ה זְבֻל֔וּן אֶת־רִמּוֹנ֖וֹ וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֑יהָ אֶת־תָּב֖וֹר וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶֽׁיהָ׃ - To the remaining sons of Merari: from the tribe of Zevulun, Rimmono with its pasturelands, Tavor with its pasturelands.
And here, from the portion of Zevulun, cities were given to the remaining descendants of Merari. The Malbim explains: "Rimmono" and "Tavor" - in Yehoshua, Yokneam, Kartah, Dimnah, and Nahalal are listed instead. Yokneam is indeed located within the territory of the children of Zevulun, and Kartah is "Kattath" mentioned there, which is Kitron in the Book of Shoftim. One can say that Kattath and Nahalal were not dispossessed by the children of Zevulun - that is, they failed to conquer them - and therefore they are not mentioned here. The entire apparent contradiction between what is written there and what is written here is resolved just as the Malbim explained above: Ezra recorded the reality as it unfolded later, and whatever they were unable to dispossess he does not mention at all, but only what they actually dispossessed and settled in practice.
וּמֵעֵ֜בֶר לְיַרְדֵּ֣ן יְרֵחוֹ֮ לְמִזְרַ֣ח הַיַּרְדֵּן֒ מִמַּטֵּ֣ה רְאוּבֵ֔ן אֶת־בֶּ֥צֶר בַּמִּדְבָּ֖ר וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֑יהָ וְאֶת־יַ֖הְצָה וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶֽׁיהָ׃ - And across the Jordan by Jericho, eastward of the Jordan, from the tribe of Reuven: Betzer in the wilderness with its pasturelands, and Yahtzah with its pasturelands.
"Across the Jordan by Jericho" - that is, near the Jordan adjacent to Jericho. Here too, two cities are absent, and they are encompassed - says the Metzudat David - within "its pasturelands," meaning the open surrounding areas include those missing cities. From here Scripture continues: "And Kedemot with its pasturelands, and Mepha'at with its pasturelands; and from the tribe of Gad: Ramot in Gilad with its pasturelands, and Machanayim with its pasturelands."
וְאֶת־חֶשְׁבּוֹן֙ וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶׁ֔יהָ וְאֶת־יַעְזֵ֖יר וְאֶת־מִגְרָשֶֽׁיהָ׃ - And Cheshbon with its pasturelands, and Yazer with its pasturelands.
In this chapter, we have seen the two facets of the sanctity of the tribe of Levi: on the one hand, the service of song - Heman in the center, Asaph to his right, and Eitan to his left, whom David stationed "from the resting of the Ark" until Solomon built the Temple; while the rest of the Levites were assigned to carrying the Mishkan, guarding, serving as gatekeepers, and skinning the sacrificial offerings. On the other hand, the sanctity of the Kehunah - Aharon and his sons burning incense and making atonement, with every Kohen Gadol throughout every generation standing in Aharon's place. And because the tribe of Levi had no territorial inheritance in the Land, Israel allocated forty-eight cities with their pasturelands to them by lot, which also served as cities of refuge - in return for their sacred service. We also learned the principles for reconciling the variations in city names between Yehoshua and Divrei HaYamim: in some cases, a city simply had two names, while in others, Scripture records only what was conquered and given in practice, omitting whatever was not successfully dispossessed. Above all, we gained an enduring moral lesson: the Kohanim and Levites carried out our communal service, and Torah is sought from their mouths - hence our obligation in terumot and ma'asrot, and in sustaining those who labor in Torah.