Introduction
We find ourselves in the chapters detailing the genealogies of the tribes of Israel, and now arrive at the genealogies of Menashe and Ephraim. These verses are among the most difficult in the book, seemingly rife with contradictions to what is written in the Torah - who is a son and who is a grandson, who was born to a wife and who to a concubine, and who is this Tzelofchad mentioned here. We will proceed through the order of the verses and examine the approaches of the Rishonim, particularly the novel approach of the Malbim, who constructs an entire narrative here to resolve the texts.
"The sons of Menashe: Asriel, whom she bore" - Two Difficulties
בְּנֵי מְנַשֶּׁה אַשְׂרִיאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָלָדָה, פִּילַגְשׁוֹ הָאֲרַמִּיָּה יָלְדָה אֶת מָכִיר אֲבִי גִלְעָד׃ - The sons of Menashe: Asriel, whom she bore; his Aramite concubine bore Machir the father of Gilead.
There are two difficulties in this verse. First: why is "she bore" written twice? The verse could have simply stated, "whom his Aramite concubine bore," and that would have sufficed. However, one must note that the first word "she bore" (yaledah) has an etnachta cantillation mark, and an etnachta has the pause-force of a full stop, like the end of a verse. This means that the word "she bore" stands on its own, and cannot be read as connecting directly into the continuation of the verse.
The second difficulty: if the word "she bore" stands on its own without mentioning who bore him - what is Scripture coming to teach us? After all, every person in this world was born to a mother! Had it said "whom Sarah bore" or "whom Rivkah bore," it would be informing us of the mother's identity. But here, the mother is not mentioned at all, so what is added by saying "whom she bore"? Although we find similar phrasing elsewhere in Scripture - mentioning birth without naming the mother, such as "whom her mother bore to Levi in Egypt" or "and his mother bore him after Avshalom" - the difficulty nonetheless remains.
Furthermore, one must ask: why is Asriel specifically mentioned first? One could suggest that he was more distinguished than his brothers and his family was renowned. In addition, Chazal expound that because his name resembles the name of their forefather Yisrael, Scripture mentioned him first to demonstrate his importance - Asriel being akin to Yisrael.
"The Bow of Mighty Men Is Broken"
Regarding this verse, the Malbim remarks that here the bow of the mighty archers was broken - they reached this verse and became stuck. Why? Because it is impossible to say that the Asriel mentioned here is the same Asriel mentioned in the Torah, for there he is counted among the sons of Gilead son of Machir son of Menashe, whereas here Scripture refers to him as a direct son of Menashe. This is a difficulty already noted by the Radak, who therefore explained that "sons" here refers to grandsons, as grandchildren are often called children.
Similarly, regarding what the commentators wrote about the Tzelofchad mentioned in the following verse - that he is the same Tzelofchad who had daughters - Tzelofchad was the son of Chefer, and Chefer was among the descendants of Gilead, whereas here the text speaks of the descendants of Machir. Is he then from the descendants of Gilead or from Machir? This appears to contradict what is written in the Torah. Ultimately, the verses remain difficult to reconcile under all the standard interpretations offered for them.
The Approach of the Malbim: Asriel from the Concubine and Machir from the Wife
The Malbim resolves this as follows: Menashe had a son from his concubine named Asriel. That Asriel, the son born from the concubine, is not mentioned in the Torah - and one must not confuse him with the grandson named Asriel. Why was he not mentioned? Because heads of families did not descend from him. The Torah mentions only those from whom family leaders descended; the "Asrielite family" mentioned in the Torah stems from the grandson, whereas from the son no family line developed at all, which is why he was not mentioned.
Machir was also born from this very same concubine, but with one difference: Asriel was born to her while she was still a concubine, whereas Machir was born to her after she had already been married to Menasheh as a full wife. A concubine (pilegesh) is without kiddushin and without a ketubah, but here Menasheh took her as a wife, and only afterward was Machir born. This explains what is written: "The sons of Menasheh: Asriel" - he was the firstborn, and was therefore mentioned first. This resolves the difficulty of why he precedes Machir. Radak had to explain that Machir came from the concubine and was therefore listed later, but according to the Malbim it is the reverse: Machir came from the concubine after she had already become a wife, and Asriel was mentioned first because he was the firstborn.
According to this, the question of what is meant by "whom she bore" is also resolved. The Malbim explains: "whom she bore" - who bore him? His Aramite concubine. "His Aramite concubine," which appears later in the verse, also refers back to the beginning of the verse. And what is meant by "HaAramiyyah"? Either that was her personal name, just as the Malbim noted earlier that there are names beginning with the letter Heh, or that she was from the land of Aram. And she herself bore Machir the father of Gilad. Thus, this same concubine bore Asriel while she was a concubine, and bore Machir when she was already married. Therefore, the verse repeats the word "bore" a second time, to inform you that this was an additional birth of a different status: the first was a birth from a concubine, and the second was a birth from a full wife.
"And Machir took a wife for Huppim and for Shuppim"
וּמָכִיר לָקַח אִשָּׁה לְחֻפִּים וּלְשֻׁפִּים, וְשֵׁם אֲחֹתוֹ מַעֲכָה, וְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁנִי צְלָפְחָד, וַתִּהְיֶנָה לִצְלָפְחָד בָּנוֹת׃ - "And Machir took a wife for Huppim and for Shuppim, and the name of his sister was Maachah, and the name of the second was Tzelofchad; and Tzelofchad had daughters."
The Malbim explains: having mentioned the sons of Menasheh, Scripture now mentions the sons of Machir. "Machir took a wife for Huppim and for Shuppim" - he took two wives, and these women were the sisters of Huppim and Shuppim the sons of Ir, who were already mentioned earlier ("the sons of Ir" refers to the sons of Iri, as Radak explains). Each of them had a maternal half-sister, and Machir took both of them as wives: one the maternal sister of Huppim, and one the maternal sister of Shuppim. The names of the two women were Maachah and Tzelofchad.
And how were they maternal sisters only? Maachah's mother had been married to another man and bore Maachah from him, and likewise Tzelofchad's mother bore Tzelofchad from another man. It follows that according to this, Tzelofchad here is a woman, not a man, and "the name of the second was Tzelofchad" refers to the second woman. These two mothers were later married to Ir the son of Bela mentioned in verse 12, and from them were born Shuppim to Maachah's mother, and Huppim to Tzelofchad's mother.
According to this, the verse is interpreted: "And Machir took a wife for Huppim" - a woman who was Huppim's sister, "and for Shuppim" - a woman who was Shuppim's sister. "And the name of his sister" - Huppim's sister - "was Maachah," "and the name of the second" - the sister of the second brother, Shuppim - "was Tzelofchad." The word "his sister" applies to both of them. "And Tzelofchad had daughters" - the woman Tzelofchad did not bear sons to Machir, but daughters only.
It must be acknowledged from the outset that this is difficult to grasp, for the Tzelofchad familiar to us from the Torah is a man who had daughters and no sons, and here we see the exact same phrase, "and Tzelofchad had daughters," so simple intuition immediately connects the two. Furthermore, the verse says, "the name of the second [hasheni]" - in the masculine, which seemingly does not fit a woman. However, the Malbim explains that "the second" refers to the second brother, and "the name of the sister" of the second is Tzelofchad. Even so, as noted, there is an element of derashah here in the verse rather than its straightforward meaning. According to the plain sense, the early commentators explain that this Tzelofchad is indeed the Tzelofchad mentioned in the Torah, and the remaining difficulties are resolved through one of the standard approaches used to address apparent contradictions in the genealogies of Divrei HaYamim.
"And Maachah the wife of Machir bore a son"
וַתֵּלֶד מַעֲכָה אֵשֶׁת מָכִיר בֵּן, וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פֶּרֶשׁ, וְשֵׁם אָחִיו שָׁרֶשׁ, וּבָנָיו אוּלָם וָרָקֶם׃ - "And Maachah the wife of Machir bore a son, and she called his name Peresh; and the name of his brother was Sheresh; and his sons were Ulam and Rakem."
"And his sons" - whose sons? Radak says that this can be interpreted as referring to Peresh or to Sheresh. The Malbim explains: Maachah the wife of Machir bore a son named Peresh and a son named Sheresh, and the sons of Sheresh were Ulam and Rakem. Metzudat David, however, explains that these were the sons of Peresh. Thus, we have three approaches: some say Peresh, some say Sheresh, and Radak presents both possibilities.
"These are the sons of Gilad the son of Machir the son of Menasheh"
וּבְנֵי אוּלָם בְּדָן, אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי גִלְעָד בֶּן מָכִיר בֶּן מְנַשֶּׁה׃ - And the sons of Ulam: Bedan. These were the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh.
Radak explains that this refers back to Asriel and Zelophehad mentioned earlier, to teach you: even though I mentioned them among the sons of Manasseh, know that they were among his grandsons, descending from Gilead.
The Malbim explains in his characteristic way: having concluded the account of the descendants of Machir, Scripture comes to share new information that was not known from the genealogy in the Torah, which Ezra seeks to disclose to us. Here Ezra copied from the genealogical record of the sons of Gilead, in which it was written, "These are the sons of Gilead" - Iezer, Helek, Asriel, Shechem, Shemida, and Hepher. Ezra omitted the full details of their descendants, because what is already known from the Torah Ezra sees no need to elaborate upon; they are recorded there, so go and read them. What Ezra finds necessary to detail is specifically that which is not explicit in the Torah. In the lineage of these sons, he found nothing extraordinary to note, and therefore he recorded only the general headings, as if to say: "These are the sons of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh," and so forth - continue on your own. We have already seen this interpretation in the Malbim several times above. In the genealogical register itself there was indeed a detailed list of the heads of the ancestral houses of Gilead, and we saw them above in Chapter 5, verse 24 - "Epher, and Ishi, and Eliel, and Azriel," etc., who were the heads of the fathers' houses of the children of Manasseh who dwelt in Gilead. Ezra did not recopy them here either, since he had already mentioned them earlier.
"And His Sister Hamolechet"
וַאֲחֹתוֹ הַמֹּלֶכֶת יָלְדָה אֶת אִישְׁהוֹד וְאֶת אֲבִיעֶזֶר וְאֶת מַחְלָה׃ - And his sister Hamolechet bore Ishhod, and Abiezer, and Mahlah.
Who is "his sister Hamolechet"? Radak explains: the sister of Gilead, who ruled over a portion of the land of Gilead. Although it is not mentioned in the Torah or the Prophets that a woman reigned, this was known to them through tradition. This clarifies why she is mentioned, for generally women are not listed in genealogies unless they possess unique importance and are worthy of mention in their own right. Just as we find Avishai and Yoav designated as "the sons of Zeruiah" - when is the mother's name mentioned? When the mother is David's sister. Since Zeruiah was known as the sister of David, and David was our king, she held great stature, and they were named after her rather than their father. So too here: his sister who reigned was a prominent woman, which is why Scripture records her lineage, even though its standard practice is to trace the lineage of males rather than females.
The Malbim adds further explanation: the sister of Gilead, Hamolechet, was the one who bore Ishhod, and she was the wife of Yair son of Segub, mentioned above in Chapter 2, verses 21-23. There we explained that Segub was born to Chetzron son of Peretz from the daughter of Machir, who was taken without chuppah and kiddushin; therefore, he is not reckoned among the tribe of Judah, but solely to Machir, his mother's father. For when one fathered children outside of formal marriage, the lineage is not attributed to him, but as it were to the mother - since it brought him no honor, and it was as though the woman held little standing in his eyes, so he himself would not have wanted them traced to him. Segub fathered Yair, and they gave him a wife from the tribe of Manasseh, and as a dowry he received twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead. Here Ezra informs us that this woman given to Yair was the daughter of Machir, the sister of Gilead. Thus, in relation to Yair, she was the sister of his father's mother - what we call a great-aunt. This degree of kinship is forbidden rabbinically under the category of secondary forbidden unions (sheniyot l'arayot), but at that time the Rabbis had not yet decreed these extensions. She received a dowry of twenty-three cities from her father Machir - and once she possessed twenty-three cities, she had a territory over which to reign, which is why she was called "his sister Hamolechet" ("his sister the queen"). She bore to Yair Ishhod and Abiezer. The Malbim adds that it is also possible Scripture refers here to the daughter of Machir whom Chetzron took and from whom he fathered Segub, and that from another man she bore these three additional sons.
The Sons of Shemida
וַיִּהְיוּ בְּנֵי שְׁמִידָע: אַחְיָן וָשֶׁכֶם וְלִקְחִי וַאֲנִיעָם׃ - And the sons of Shemida were: Ahian, and Shechem, and Likhi, and Aniam.
Radak notes: Shemida son of Gilead himself did not need to be mentioned, for he is already known from the Torah; rather, Scripture records his sons here - Ahian, Shechem, Likhi, and Aniam. This Shechem is not the Shechem mentioned in the Torah, since the one in the Torah was Shemida's brother, whereas here the text refers to Shechem the son of Shemida. The Malbim explains: the sons of Shemida son of Gilead mentioned in the Torah are Ahian and Shechem, and they too were heads of families, which is why Scripture lists them here in detail.
The Sons of Ephraim and Their Slaying by the Men of Gath
וּבְנֵי אֶפְרַיִם שׁוּתָלַח, וּבֶרֶד בְּנוֹ וְתַחַת בְּנוֹ וְאֶלְעָדָה בְנוֹ וְתַחַת בְּנוֹ׃ - And the sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son, and Eleadah his son, and Tahath his son.
וְזָבָד בְּנוֹ וְשׁוּתֶלַח בְּנוֹ וְעֵזֶר וְאֶלְעָד, וַהֲרָגוּם אַנְשֵׁי גַת הַנּוֹלָדִים בָּאָרֶץ, כִּי יָרְדוּ לָקַחַת אֶת מִקְנֵיהֶם׃ - And Zabad his son, and Shuthelach his son, and Ezer and Elad; and the men of Gath who were born in the land killed them, because they came down to take their livestock.
וַיִּתְאַבֵּל אֶפְרַיִם אֲבִיהֶם יָמִים רַבִּים, וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶחָיו לְנַחֲמוֹ׃ - And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him.
The commentary attributed to Rashi notes the precise wording, "the men of Gath who were born in the land": the sons of Ephraim were unfamiliar with the terrain, the paths, and the secret routes of the land, whereas the men of Gath had been born there and knew its ins and outs thoroughly. They were therefore able to lie in ambush for them, strike them, and flee. This was why they were able to overpower them, and the sons of Ephraim died at the hands of the men of Gath.
Radak explains: "And the sons of Ephraim: Shuthelach" - as mentioned in the Torah. And Bered, who is not mentioned in the Torah, is Becher who is mentioned there; and we find in many places changes in names, where a person is initially called by one name and later by another, yet they are one and the same. And Tahath is Tahan mentioned in the Torah. From that point on, all the additional names - Eleadah, Tahath, Zabad, and Shuthelach - are all already grandchildren. Thus, the verse is not speaking of the sons of Ephraim, but rather of his grandsons and descendants.
The Malbim cites this explanation and observes: The commentators felt forced to equate the names here with those recorded in the Torah, and this created a difficulty for them. The Torah states, "The sons of Ephraim: Shuthelach, and Becher, and Tahan," so they said that Bered is Becher and Tahath is Tahan, while the remaining ones were additional sons born to Ephraim. But aside from the difficulty of interchanging the name Becher with Bered - and it seems puzzling that the Malbim raises this objection here, given that he himself notes multiple times that people often went by different names! Rather, we must say that his intention is: when there is no alternative, one has no choice; but here, where we have another approach available to us, there is no need to interchange names.
The Malbim raises another difficulty: later in the verse it is written that the men of Gath killed them, whereas in the Torah they are listed as heads of families, meaning that they fathered families that survived! And here we are dealing with an episode that took place before the Exodus from Egypt - how could they have fathered enduring families if they all died? Surely we cannot say that these are the very same individuals mentioned in the Torah, for there they established surviving families, while here they died childless. Furthermore, we see later that only afterward did Ephraim come to his wife and she bore a son whom he named Beriah, from whom the lineage begins anew - because the previous sons had died. And if you wish to suggest that "and they killed them" refers only to the grandchildren, whereas the sons survived and continued to father children, this too is difficult, as it is not the plain reading of the text; the simple meaning indicates that they killed all of them, not just the grandchildren.
The Malbim's Explanation: All Descendants of Shuthelach
Therefore, the Malbim returns to the principle he has explained several times: it is not the author's way to repeat well-known details already recorded in the Torah. When Ezra authored his book, he recorded the novel details, not what is already known and familiar from the Torah. Thus, here he comes to tell us what befell the descendants of Shuthelach, Ephraim's firstborn son, and the core purpose is that from him descended Yehoshua bin Nun, as we will see further on in verse 27; this is why he details his lineage. As for Becher and Tahan, he did not mention them at all, for our narrative has no need of them: Yehoshua did not descend from them, and Yehoshua is the central figure the text seeks to reach. And if you ask why he did not mention them, as we explained, it is because they were already mentioned in the Torah, and here he does not come to recount things already written there.
If so, regarding the verse "And the sons of Ephraim: Shuthelach, and Bered his son, and Tahath his son," you must read it as if it said, "And the sons of Ephraim: Shuthelach, etc.," with the rest of the list omitted. As we have explained, Ezra transcribed from the genealogical register and did not copy everything in its entirety; he therefore skipped the rest, as though writing "etc." And who was Bered? He was not a son of Ephraim at all, but rather the son of Shuthelach. So too Tahath his son, and likewise all those mentioned further on - all of them are sons and descendants of Shuthelach. And it was them whom the men of Gath killed: they killed all the descendants of Shuthelach. By contrast, the sons of Becher and the sons of Tahan were not killed at all, which is why you see in the Torah that they appear as heads of enduring families. For everything the text speaks of here concerns only Shuthelach and his descendants, not Becher and Tahan.
Summary:
In the genealogies of Menashe and Ephraim in our chapter, the commentators face apparent contradictions to what is written in the Torah. The Malbim resolves them in an innovative way: Asriel was born to Menashe from his concubine while she was still a concubine, and Machir was born from that same woman after she became a full wife - which is why the word "she bore" is repeated, to distinguish between the two births. "Machir took a wife for Huppim and Shuppim" refers to their two maternal sisters, Maacah and Zelophehad, and the Zelophehad mentioned in this verse is a woman. "These are the sons of Gilead" is merely an opening heading, as if to say "etc.", since Ezra does not repeat what is explicitly detailed in the Torah. "His sister the queen" is mentioned because of her prominence - she received twenty-three cities as her dowry and ruled over them. And regarding the sons of Ephraim, the text teaches us that all those enumerated here are descendants of Shuthelach who were killed by the men of Gath, who were intimately familiar with the terrain of the land, whereas Becher and Tahan were not killed and their families endured - and all this elaboration comes to teach us the chain of lineage leading to Yehoshua bin Nun.