Introduction: Continuing the Tribal Genealogies
In this section of the chapter, we continue tracing the genealogies of the tribes. Within the lineage of the sons of Ephraim, an entire narrative unfolds before us - the story of the sons of Ephraim who departed Egypt prematurely and were killed by the men of Gath. From these verses, we will also learn the lineage of Yehoshua bin Nun, and finally proceed to the genealogy of the sons of Asher.
"And the Men of Gath Killed Them" - When Did This Occur?
וְזָבָד בְּנוֹ וְשׁוּתֶלַח בְּנוֹ וְעֵזֶר וְאֶלְעָד וַהֲרָגוּם אַנְשֵׁי־גַת הַנּוֹלָדִים בָּאָרֶץ כִּי יָרְדוּ לָקַחַת אֶת־מִקְנֵיהֶם׃ - And Zavad his son, and Shuthelach his son, and Ezer and El'ad; and the men of Gath who were born in the land killed them, because they went down to take their livestock.
The Malbim notes that some commentators explain the verse according to its plain meaning: the sons of Ephraim went down to Gath to take their livestock that was there, and therefore the men of the land killed them. However, the Malbim's primary novel insight lies in establishing the timeline: this incident took place while they were still in Egypt. One should not think that Ezra is recounting something that happened to them once they were in the Land of Israel - rather, it occurred while they were still in Egypt. The proof for this is from the following verse, where Ephraim mourns for them, indicating that Ephraim was still alive. This aligns with what Chazal taught, that members of the tribe of Ephraim left before the designated time, were struck down, and a substantial number of them died - and this is what Ezra is describing here.
Three Interpretations of "Born in the Land"
Why does the verse specify, "the men of Gath who were born in the land"? The Radak provides three explanations. First: they were thoroughly familiar with all the paths and entryways of the land, and were therefore able to ambush and strike them down. Second: since Gath later belonged to the Jewish people when we inherited it, the verse clarifies so that one should not mistakenly think this refers to Israelites who had settled in Gath - rather, it refers to those native-born, the Philistines who had lived there beforehand. Third, and this is the Radak's own opinion: "who were born in the land" refers back to the sons of Ephraim. The text had previously mentioned those among Ephraim's descendants who were born in Egypt - his sons and grandsons, as it is said, "And Yosef saw third-generation children of Ephraim" - and here it comes to say that the descendants of Ephraim who were born in the Land of Israel were the ones who went down to Gath to take their livestock, and the men of Gath killed them.
According to this interpretation, the incident occurred while the Jewish people were in the wilderness, which raises a difficulty in understanding "born in the land," since this could not have happened within the Land of Israel, as Ephraim never entered the Land. None of the brothers left Egypt - "And Yosef died, and all his brothers, and all that generation." Ephraim and Menashe did leave Egypt, as they were the next generation rather than the generation of the brothers themselves, even though they were tribal leaders; yet they certainly did not enter the Land. Therefore, the Radak explains that the incident took place in the wilderness or in the land of Gilead, while Ephraim was still alive. Nor should one be surprised by his longevity, for Machir the son of Menashe was among the conquerors of the land of Gilead, and the children of Machir the son of Menashe were born upon Yosef's knees - meaning they were already alive during Yosef's lifetime.
The Radak brings proof for this from the numbers: the census of the sons of Ephraim at the Exodus was forty thousand five hundred, whereas in their census before entering the Land they numbered thirty-two thousand five hundred. Where did those eight thousand men disappear? They were the ones killed by the men of Gath. According to this, while they were in the wilderness, there were those who said, "We will go up and possess it" - among those who brazenly attempted to enter - and the men of Gath struck them down.
One Does Not Force the End
However, Chazal expounded that this did not occur while they were in the wilderness, but prior to the Exodus from Egypt: they calculated the appointed time of redemption and erred, thinking that the time had arrived and that they had to take action - so they arose and acted, and in the end only suffered harm. From here we learn a great principle: one does not force the end. It will not help to take a rocket launcher and fire at the Al-Aqsa mosque; you might bring an end upon the people dwelling in Zion, but you will not bring the end that is redemption. Redemption is brought about through other means - through diligence in Torah, through the fulfillment of mitzvos, not through forceful measures.
We must identify what is broken, and from that understand what will repair it. The rectification will not come from holding marches to the Temple Mount - the remedy is not there; that may only amass transgressions punishable by kares, and may also provoke and defy the nations among whom, whether we like it or not, we are still in exile. But if we understand that the way forward is to return in teshuvah, to rectify our deeds, to pray with true sincerity - rest assured, a single Tikkun Chatzos is far greater than ascending the Temple Mount a thousand times, even if one claims to ascend only to permitted areas; it has far greater power to bring the redemption. This is without even touching upon all the spiritual pitfalls that the leading Torah authorities forbade entirely.
There were those who convened a beit din to decree that the Mashiach must come. But setting matters for generations and forcing the end of days - this is not the way. And this is what happened to the sons of Ephraim: they calculated and erred, and sought to force the end. When struck with a blow, one must repent, rather than think we can issue decrees upon the Holy One, blessed be He, and convene a beit din that compels the Master of the Universe to bring the Mashiach. It does not work that way. They went out before the appointed time - and we saw how it ended for them.
"And his brothers came to comfort him"
וַיִּתְאַבֵּל אֶפְרַיִם אֲבִיהֶם יָמִים רַבִּים וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶחָיו לְנַחֲמוֹ׃ - "And Ephraim their father mourned many days, and his brothers came to comfort him."
Ephraim mourns for many days, and his brothers come to comfort him. One cannot interpret "his brothers" literally, since Ephraim had only one brother - Menashe. Now, Chazal do deduce that Yosef fathered additional sons, based on Yaakov's words: "And your issue that you beget after them shall be yours," meaning the other sons "shall be called by the name of their brothers in their inheritance" - implying that he had other sons not mentioned in the Torah. According to this, it fits beautifully: "and his brothers came" refers to these additional sons not recorded in the Torah. However, we have no clear record or definitive knowledge of this, and therefore Radak explains "and his brothers came to comfort him" as referring to his relatives and acquaintances, for "brothers" often appears in the sense of companions and associates, as in the story of Yaakov and Lavan.
The Malbim explains that the account here comes to show that all of this occurred while Ephraim was still alive, and "his brothers came to comfort him" was said regarding Shuthelach - who was the one who actually lost his sons. His brothers came to comfort him, since all the slain were his sons and grandsons, and no offspring remained to him, as they had all been killed.
Beriah - "Because it went evil in his house"
וַיָּבֹא אֶל־אִשְׁתּוֹ וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ בְּרִיעָה כִּי בְרָעָה הָיְתָה בְּבֵיתוֹ׃ - "And he went in to his wife, and she conceived and bore a son, and he named him Beriah, because it went evil in his house."
According to the simple meaning, "and he went in to his wife" refers to Ephraim: since his sons died, he went in to his wife and she bore him a son, naming him Beriah after the misfortune (ra'ah) and disaster that struck his house. However, the Malbim explains that this refers to Shuthelach, whose sons had all died - Shuthelach went in to his wife, and she bore a son named Beriah.
Through this, what is written in the Torah is resolved: "And these are the sons of Shuthelach: of Eran, the family of the Eranites." Seemingly, this is difficult to understand: Shuthelach had a brother Becher and a brother Tachan, so why does the verse enumerate only the sons of Shuthelach and not his brothers and their sons? Rather, Eran is Beriah - whose original name was after misfortune (ra'ah), and they transformed it for good and called him Eran through an anagram of the letters. And why did they not simply call him "Er"? So as not to associate him with Er and Onan, who died prematurely. And since the previous sons perished in horrors - in the language of Scripture - meaning they died young, the Torah comes and says: know that these are the sons of Shuthelach - Eran, and not the former ones. "These" (eileh) adds to the former ones, whereas "and these" (ve'eileh) disqualifies the former ones - telling you that the former ones had already died when they went up before the appointed end, while still in Egypt, and only these are reckoned as the sons of Shuthelach.
She'erah builds Beit Choron
וּבִתּוֹ שֶׁאֱרָה וַתִּבֶן אֶת־בֵּית־חוֹרוֹן הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְאֶת־הָעֶלְיוֹן וְאֵת אֻזֵּן שֶׁאֱרָה׃ - "And his daughter was She'erah, who built the lower and the upper Beit Choron, and Uzzen She'erah."
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that she was the one who built Beit Choron and Uzzen She'erah, and the town was named after her - as was their custom, to build a city and name it after themselves. Radak explains that these are the towns mentioned in the Book of Yehoshua within the inheritance of the children of Ephraim: Lower Beit Choron and Upper Beit Choron. The name of the town was "Uzzen," so why does it say "Uzzen She'erah"? It is very possible that there were two - Uzzen and Uzzen She'erah, much like Beitar and Beitar Illit, where names were added to distinguish one town from another; and this town was called Uzzen She'erah after the woman who built it. The Malbim adds that She'erah was the daughter of Beriah, who was the son of Shuthelach.
The Lineage of Yehoshua bin Nun
וְרֶפַח בְּנוֹ וְרֶשֶׁף וְתֶלַח בְּנוֹ וְתַחַן בְּנוֹ׃ לַעְדָּן בְּנוֹ עַמִּיהוּד בְּנוֹ אֱלִישָׁמָע בְּנוֹ׃ נוֹן בְּנוֹ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בְּנוֹ׃ - And Rephach was his son, and Resheph, and Telach his son, and Tahan his son; Ladan his son, Ammihud his son, Elishama his son; Non his son, Yehoshua his son.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that Rephach was the son of Beriah, and Resheph and Telach were the sons of Rephach, and so forth, each generation descending directly from father to son. The Malbim explains differently: all four mentioned here - Rephach, Resheph, Telach, and Tahan - were the sons of Beriah, rather than successive generations. His proof comes from the letter vav prefixed to each name: "And Rephach his son, and Resheph, and Telach his son, and Tahan his son." If the verse intended to say that each fathered the next, the vav would not be necessary; adding the vav links them together to indicate that they were all brothers.
From this point onward, in verse 26, the text speaks of successive generations rather than brothers: Ladan was the son of Tahan, and Ammihud was the son of Ladan - notice that here there is no conjunctive vav. From this we know the lineage of Yehoshua bin Nun: Nun son of Elishama son of Ammihud, the prince of the children of Ephraim, and Ammihud descended from Beriah son of Shuthelah son of Ephraim.
The Malbim's Question from Sefer HaYashar and His Resolution
The Malbim observes: Everything we have written does not align with the view of Sefer HaYashar, according to which the sons of Ephraim left thirty years before the appointed time. How could they have left thirty years early, and within such a short timeframe this entire lengthy lineage - one son after another - could have developed, culminating in Yehoshua, who was already forty years old at the time of the Exodus and leading the Jewish people? That is impossible.
However, in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer (chapter 48), the view is that this incident occurred before the enslavement began, which supports the Malbim's explanation. If they miscalculated the end of the exile and thought they needed to ascend even before the bondage began, this was a very early period, and during the eighty-six years of enslavement it is entirely plausible that all these generations were born leading up to Yehoshua bin Nun - since people matured at a young age, and by age thirteen each one was already fathering his successor. But if this took place only thirty years before the Exodus, there is no way to explain how Yehoshua was already forty years old at the time of the Exodus itself.
Their Possession and Settlements
וַאֲחֻזָּתָם וּמֹשְׁבוֹתָם בֵּית־אֵל וּבְנֹתֶיהָ וְלַמִּזְרָח נַעֲרָן וְלַמַּעֲרָב גֶּזֶר וּבְנֹתֶיהָ וּשְׁכֶם וּבְנֹתֶיהָ עַד־עַיָּה וּבְנֹתֶיהָ׃ - And their possession and their settlements were Beit-el and its towns, and to the east Naaran, and to the west Gezer and its towns, and Shechem and its towns, as far as Ayyah and its towns.
Beit-el was on the southern border of the descendants of Yosef; Naaran, which also appears as Naarah, was in the east; Gezer was in the west, as it says, "and it went down westward to Gezer," and yamah means westward; and Shechem was in the north. And in the following verse: "And by the borders of the children of Menashe: Beit-shean and its towns, Taanach and its towns, Megiddo and its towns, Dor and its towns; in these dwelt the children of Yosef the son of Yisrael" - meaning that adjacent to the cities of the children of Menashe, the children of Ephraim also settled.
The Sons of Asher and "Avi Birzayit"
בְּנֵי אָשֵׁר יִמְנָה וְיִשְׁוָה וְיִשְׁוִי וּבְרִיעָה וְשֶׂרַח אֲחוֹתָם׃ וּבְנֵי בְרִיעָה חֶבֶר וּמַלְכִּיאֵל הוּא אֲבִי בִרְזָיִת׃ - The sons of Asher: Yimnah, and Yishvah, and Yishvi, and Beriah, and Serach their sister. And the sons of Beriah: Heber, and Malkiel, who was the father of Birzayit.
What is "he is the father of Birzayit"? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that the ruler of that city was called Birzayit - "father" means the ruler of that city, like a mayor. The Midrash cites a dispute between Rabbi Levi and Rabbi Simon: Rabbi Levi says that his daughters were beautiful and married Kohanim who were anointed with olive oil - "Birzayit" like "ben zayit" (a son of olive oil); while Rabbi Simon says that his daughters were beautiful and married kings who were anointed with the anointing oil, meaning this refers to a royal dynasty. Since they had an abundance of oil, they would anoint themselves with it, which made their skin delicate and made them beautiful, as it says regarding the tribe of Asher: "and dips his foot in oil." And Rabbi Chananya said: "The warm water and the oil with which my mother anointed me in my youth restored me to my youth"; this shows that it has the power to refine the skin and restore youthfulness. The Malbim explains that the residents of the city of Birzayit were descendants of Malkiel, and this is the meaning of "and Malkiel, he was the father of Birzayit" - that the people of the city were his descendants.
Chever and His Sons
וְחֶבֶר הוֹלִיד אֶת־יַפְלֵט וְאֶת־שׁוֹמֵר וְאֶת־חוֹתָם וְאֵת שׁוּעָא אֲחוֹתָם׃ - And Chever fathered Yaflet, Shomer, Chotam, and Shua their sister.
The Radak explains regarding what is stated later, in verse 40, "All these were the sons of Asher, heads of ancestral houses" - that they were heads over the princes, for even the princes of the tribe had leaders above them due to their great stature; or it means that they themselves were the princes of the tribe.
וּבְנֵי שָׁמֶר אֲחִי וְרׇהְגָּה וְחֻבָּה וַאְרָם׃ וּבֶן־הֵלֶם אָחִיו צוֹפַח וְיִמְנָע וְשֵׁלֶשׁ וְעָמָל׃ - And the sons of Shemer: Achi, Rohgah, Chubbah, and Aram. And the son of Helem his brother: Zophach, Yimna, Shelesh, and Amal.
"Achi" in the verse is a proper name and not a title meaning "my brother." Regarding the phrase "and the son of Helem his brother," Metzudat David notes that it should have said "and the sons of Helem," since Scripture enumerates several of his sons; and "his brother" means as if it said "their brother" - Helem was a brother to each of those mentioned above. The Malbim, however, explains that Ben-Helem was the brother of Aram alone, which is why it says "his brother" in the singular, unlike the view of Metzudat David; he was born as Aram's twin, his name was Ben-Helem, and he too was one of the sons of Shemer. (Where the printed text of the Malbim reads "Shemir," this is an error, and it should read Shemer.)
וּבְנֵי יֶתֶר יְפֻנֶּה וּפִסְפָּה וַאְרָא׃ וּבְנֵי עֻלָּא אָרַח וְחַנִּיאֵל וְרִצְיָא׃ - And the sons of Yeter: Yefuneh, Pispah, and Ara. And the sons of Ulla: Arach, Chaniel, and Rizia.
"Yeter," the Malbim explains, is the Yitran mentioned earlier, following the pattern of alternating names we have seen. Notice also that the name Ulla, familiar from the Talmud, appears here in Nach as well. However, it is not clear: "And the sons of Ulla" - where was Ulla mentioned previously, that Scripture begins speaking directly of his sons? This is a question we have already encountered many times above, and here too we find one of the standard answers: Metzudat David says it is quite likely that he is one of those mentioned just before, having two names - perhaps Yefuneh, Pispah, or Ara was also called Ulla. The Malbim explains that the sons of Ulla were also descendants of Yeter - meaning Ulla and his sons Arach and Chaniel were descendants of Yeter. Why then was Ulla not mentioned in his own right? Because he himself was not the head of an ancestral house, whereas his sons were heads of ancestral houses. This is a principle the Malbim has stated many times above: anyone who was not the head of an ancestral house is not listed individually in detail, but only mentioned in passing.
Conclusion of the Genealogy: "Select, Mighty Men of Valor"
כׇּל־אֵלֶּה בְנֵי־אָשֵׁר רָאשֵׁי בֵית־הָאָבוֹת בְּרוּרִים גִּבּוֹרֵי חֲיָלִים רָאשֵׁי הַנְּשִׂיאִים וְהִתְיַחְשָׂם בַּצָּבָא בַּמִּלְחָמָה מִסְפָּרָם אֲנָשִׁים עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה אָלֶף׃ - All these were the sons of Asher, heads of ancestral houses, select, mighty men of valor, heads of the princes; and their enrollment in the army for war, their number was twenty-six thousand men.
"Select" (*berurim*) - the elite chosen from all the members of the tribe; "heads of the princes" - who were leaders even over the princes of the tribe. "And their enrollment," explains Metzudat David, refers to those of recognized lineage among the sons of Asher who would go out in the army for war, numbering twenty-six thousand men of stature. The Malbim is precise regarding the repetition of "heads": the verse means to convey that some of them were heads of ancestral houses, some were select and distinguished for their personal excellence, some were mighty men of valor, and some were heads of the princes. Thus according to the Malbim, this is not a single description applying to everyone, but rather each title describes a distinct group.
In summary: In this section, we studied the account of the sons of Ephraim who went out before the appointed time. The Malbim establishes that this event took place while they were still in Egypt, since Ephraim was still alive and mourned for his sons; the Radak presents three interpretations of "who were born in the land," as well as evidence from the reduced census numbers of the tribe of Ephraim. From there, we saw the birth of Beriah, named after the misfortune, She'erah who built Beit Choron, and the lineage leading down to Yehoshua bin Nun - along with the Malbim's resolution that the incident occurred before the enslavement began. We concluded with the genealogy of the sons of Asher, the city of Birzayit and the homilies of Chazal regarding it, and the description of the sons of Asher as heads of ancestral houses, select men, mighty men of valor, and heads of the princes. Above all remains the great lesson: the redemption cannot be forced ahead of its time by physical might, but only through Torah, mitzvot, and teshuvah.