Chapter 8 of I Chronicles returns to trace the genealogy of the tribe of Binyamin. Pseudo-Rashi remarks: We have already seen the genealogy of Binyamin earlier in Chapter 7, so why does Scripture repeat it? Rather, here it seeks to trace down to King Shaul, and therefore begins anew from Binyamin. This is the approach of the author of Divrei HaYamim throughout the book - to trace the genealogy of prominent figures: first King David, who is the central focus of the book, then Yehoshua bin Nun, and here King Shaul, who descended from Binyamin.
וּבִנְיָמִן הוֹלִיד אֶת־בֶּלַע בְּכֹרוֹ אַשְׁבֵּל הַשֵּׁנִי וְאַחְרַח הַשְּׁלִישִׁי׃ נוֹחָה הָרְבִיעִי וְרָפָא הַחֲמִישִׁי׃ - And Binyamin begot Bela his firstborn, Ashbel the second, and Acharach the third. Nochah the fourth, and Rapha the fifth.
In the Torah, the family heads of the sons of Binyamin are enumerated: Bela, Ashbel, Achiram, Shefufam, and Chufam. The Malbim explains that in the days of Ezra, some of their names changed, which is why we find different names here: Achiram is called Acharach here, in place of Shefufam we find Nochah, and in place of Chufam - Rapha. This aligns with what was noted earlier: the Malbim himself maintains in several places that names indeed shifted over time. According to this, the difficulty he raised earlier against the Radak - that the names are not identical - is not so insurmountable.
And what about Becher, Gera, and Rosh, who are mentioned in Parashat Vayigash among Binyamin's sons? They did not establish families of their own, and therefore Scripture does not count them here, as it focuses on what is primary - the heads of the families.
וַיִּהְיוּ בָנִים לְבָלַע אַדָּר וְגֵרָא וַאֲבִיהוּד׃ וַאֲבִישׁוּעַ וְנַעֲמָן וַאֲחוֹחַ׃ - And Bela had sons: Addar, Gera, and Avihud. And Avishua, Naaman, and Achoach.
In the Torah, two family heads are mentioned for Bela - Ard and Naaman - who are listed in Parashat Vayigash among the sons of Binyamin, though they were actually his grandsons. Here they are written as Addar and Naaman, which is very close: Addar and Ard are essentially the same name, and Naaman is the same Naaman. The Malbim explains that as time went on, additional family heads emerged: to the family of Addar son of Bela were added Gera, Avihud, and Avishua; and to the family of Naaman son of Bela were added Achoach, Gera, Shefufan, and Churam, as we will see in the subsequent verses.
וְגֵרָא וּשְׁפוּפָן וְחוּרָם׃ וְאֵלֶּה בְּנֵי אֵחוּד אֵלֶּה הֵם רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת לְיוֹשְׁבֵי גֶבַע וַיַּגְלוּם אֶל־מָנָחַת׃ - And Gera, Shefufan, and Churam. And these are the sons of Ehud; these are the heads of the fathers' houses of the inhabitants of Geva, and they exiled them to Manachath.
The last ones listed - Shefufan and Churam - were the sons of Ehud; that is, there was a man named Ehud from the family of Naaman, and he fathered them. And they, Shefufan and Churam, were the heads of fathers' houses for the inhabitants of Geva. What is the significance of the inhabitants of Geva? The Malbim connects this to the episode of the concubine in Givah (Pilegesh be-Givah): they were the leaders at that time. Accordingly, "and they exiled them to Manachath" becomes clear: after the war waged by the tribes of Israel against the tribe of Binyamin, which left only six hundred men surviving, Israel exiled the leaders - Shefufan and Churam - to Manachath. They did not allow them to live among them because they were the leaders who failed to protest against the perpetrators of the crime; and as a form of banishment and distancing, they exiled them to the place called Manachath.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that Manachath is the name of a region, and we have already seen something similar earlier in I Chronicles chapter 2: "the Haroeh, half of the Menuhoth," and it is written "half of the Manahethites." Thus we see that such a place name exists - Manachath or Menuhoth.
וְנַעֲמָן וַאֲחִיָּה וְגֵרָא הוּא הֶגְלָם וְהוֹלִיד אֶת־עֻזָּא וְאֶת־אֲחִיחֻד׃ - "And Naaman, and Ahijah, and Gera - he exiled them, and he begot Uzza and Ahihud."
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: who exiled those of whom it was said, "and they exiled them to Manachath"? Naaman, Ahijah, and Gera - they were the ones who exiled them.
However, the Malbim explains differently: Ehud, their father, went and exiled Naaman, Ahijah, and Gera there as well - meaning the remaining ancestral heads descended from Naaman the son of Bela. And why did he exile them? After all, the first group had been exiled by the tribes of Israel to distance them, and now their father comes and exiles these brothers as well - what was his purpose in doing this? Family reunification. Perhaps that is why his name is called Ehud: "And these are the sons of Ehud" - he brought about a union of families, exiling the rest as well so that they would all be gathered together in one place.
According to this, the phrasing "he exiled them" is very understandable: when Scripture emphasizes "he" and not another, it implies that the previous ones were exiled by someone else - the tribes of Israel, who exiled the leaders of the tribe of Benjamin for failing to protest; and now Ehud, a member of their family, comes and exiles the rest of the family as well, so that they would all be together.
"And he begot Uzza and Ahihud" - Ehud begot Uzza and Ahihud, and after them, Shaharaim.
וְשַׁחֲרַיִם הוֹלִיד בִּשְׂדֵה מוֹאָב מִן־שִׁלְחוֹ אֹתָם חוּשִׁים וְאֶת־בַּעֲרָא נָשָׁיו׃ - "And Shaharaim begot in the field of Moab, from Shilho Otam, Hushim, and Baara his wives."
Why does it say "begot in the field of Moab"? Because the previous two sons were born to him in the place called Manachath, whereas by the time he begot Shaharaim, he was already in the field of Moab.
And what is meant by "from Shilho Otam, Hushim, and Baara his wives"? The Malbim explains: Ehud had three wives. The name of the first was "Shilho Otam," the name of the second was "Hushim," and the name of the third was "Baara," and from these three he fathered the three sons mentioned here. This is why it says "begot from Shilho Otam" - from the woman named Shilho Otam, and from Hushim, and from Baara. Do not mistakenly interpret that he fathered Hushim and Baara from Shilho Otam, for it is written at the end of the verse, "his wives" - they were all his wives, and from them he fathered his sons.
And do not wonder at "Baara" being a person's name preceded by the word "et," for we have already seen above "ve'et Yerioth." Likewise, do not wonder at the name "Shilho Otam" being the name of a woman - the Radak here also writes that "Shilho Otam" was the name of his wife. We thus have a scriptural precedent for such names, names that appear preceded by "et" or with a vav, and that is the complete name. Nor is it two separate names, in the way we say that Yaakov and Yisrael are two names; here "Shilho Otam" is a single name, just as "Bat-El" is not two names, but one.
In contrast, the commentary attributed to Rashi interprets "after he sent them away" (min shilcho otam) literally, rather than as a woman's name: he was one of the exiles, and from the time that they were sent away from the exile he fathered these children. And Chushim and Baara were the wives through whom he fathered them.
וַיּוֹלֶד מִן־חֹדֶשׁ אִשְׁתּוֹ אֶת־יוֹבָב וְאֶת־צִבְיָא וְאֶת־מֵישָׁא וְאֶת־מַלְכָּם׃ וְאֶת־יְעוּץ וְאֶת־שָׂכְיָה וְאֶת־מִרְמָה אֵלֶּה בָנָיו רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת׃ - "And he fathered from Chodesh his wife Yovav, and Tzivya, and Mesha, and Malkam; and Yeutz, and Sachya, and Mirmah. These were his sons, heads of father's houses."
The Radak explains that "Shilcho Otam" was also called by the name "Chodesh." He also brings another explanation similar to the approach of the commentary attributed to Rashi: "min shilcho otam" - from the time that he sent them away, meaning those whom he had exiled to Manachath; and from the time he sent them, he went to the field of Moab, and there he fathered children from Chushim and Baara, his wives.
The Malbim presents two interpretations here. The first: "from chodesh his wife" - afterwards he married a new wife (ishah chadashah), and this is not "Shilcho Otam" as the Radak maintained, but another, new wife whom he married. The second interpretation: her personal name was Chodesh; perhaps she was born on Rosh Chodesh and was named accordingly. And from her he fathered Yovav, Tzivya, Yeutz, and the rest of the sons, "these were his sons, heads of father's houses."
It is worth noting: "Tzivya" appears here as a man's name, and it is important to emphasize that it ends with an alef. We have already seen a similar man's name - Tziva: "You and Tziva shall divide the field."
וּמֵחֻשִׁים הוֹלִיד אֶת־אֲבִיטוּב וְאֶת־אֶלְפָּעַל׃ - "And from Chushim he fathered Avituv and Elpaal."
There is a meteg under the ayin, so it is pronounced "Elpa'al." And afterwards, he fathered Avituv and Elpaal from his wife Chushim, who was mentioned earlier.
וּבְנֵי אֶלְפַּעַל עֵבֶר וּמִשְׁעָם וָשָׁמֶד הוּא בָּנָה אֶת־אוֹנוֹ וְאֶת־לֹד וּבְנֹתֶיהָ׃ וּבְרִעָה וָשֶׁמַע הֵמָּה רָאשֵׁי הָאָבוֹת לְיוֹשְׁבֵי אַיָּלוֹן הֵמָּה הִבְרִיחוּ אֶת־יוֹשְׁבֵי גַת׃ - "And the sons of Elpaal: Ever, and Misham, and Shemed, who built Ono and Lod with its daughter-towns; and Beriah and Shema, who were heads of father's houses of the inhabitants of Ayalon, who drove away the inhabitants of Gat."
The Malbim notes: "Shemed - he built Ono." Pay attention to the pronunciation: we read it "Ono" [accented on the nun] and not otherwise, because the cantillation accent is placed over the nun; had the accent been over the alef, we would pronounce it differently. "Ono and Lod and its daughter-towns." Likewise, Beriah and Shema were also sons of Elpaal, and they drove away the inhabitants of Gat.
וְאַחְיוֹ שָׁשָׁק וִירֵמוֹת׃ וּזְבַדְיָה וַעֲרָד וָעָדֶר׃ וּמִיכָאֵל וְיִשְׁפָּה וְיוֹחָא בְּנֵי בְרִיעָה׃ - "And Achyo, Shashak, and Yeremoth; and Zevadyah, and Arad, and Eder; and Michael, and Yishpah, and Yocha, the sons of Beriah."
The Malbim outlines the progression for us: in verses 14-16 the sons of Beriah are enumerated; in verses 17-18, the remaining sons of Elpaal; in verses 19-21, the sons of Shimei; and in verses 22-25 Scripture returns to trace the lineage of the sons of Shashak, followed by the sons of Yeroham - who, in the Malbim's view, is apparently identical with the Yeremoth mentioned earlier, both being one and the same person. Regarding Shimei, the Metzudat David writes that he is Shema the son of Elpaal mentioned above.
וְיַעֲרֶשְׁיָה וְאֵלִיָּה וְזִכְרִי בְּנֵי יְרֹחָם׃ - And Jaareshiah, and Elijah, and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham.
The Radak states: I found a Midrash on the verse "And Jaareshiah, and Elijah, and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham" - that this refers to Eliyahu HaNavi, who had four names, and all of these names are expounded homiletically as referring to him. Furthermore, he was from the descendants of Binyamin, since here we are enumerating the genealogy of the descendants of Binyamin. According to this Midrash, Menachem is not Eliyahu, contrary to the opinion in Chazal that Menachem is Eliyahu.
He also cites from Seder Eliyahu Rabbah: Eliyahu said to them, "My masters, how long will you dispute with me? I am from none other than the seed of Rachel." They said to him, "Provide proof for your words." He replied to them, "Is it not written in the Book of Genealogies, 'And Elijah, and Zichri, the sons of Jeroham'?" That is to say, he brought them proof from our book, Divrei HaYamim, which is the Book of Genealogies, where he appears within the lineage of the descendants of Binyamin, and Binyamin was Rachel's son.
This in itself raises a question: Eliyahu comes and testifies about his own lineage, and they demand that he bring proof! As a quip one could ask: were you conscious at the time of your birth to know from whom you were born? But the straightforward explanation is that they requested proof from Scripture, textual support from the verses - and that is the meaning of "Provide proof for your words."
Indeed, the Gemara records a dispute regarding Eliyahu's identity: sometimes he is called Eliyahu HaNavi, sometimes Eliyahu HaTishbi, and sometimes he is identified as Pinchas; in some places it says HaTishbi and in others HaGiladi, and there are various opinions among Chazal regarding his lineage. And well known is the view of the Ari z"l that there were two individuals named Eliyahu - Eliyahu HaTishbi and Eliyahu HaGiladi.
אֵלֶּה רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת לְתֹלְדוֹתָם רָאשִׁים אֵלֶּה יָשְׁבוּ בִירוּשָׁלִָם׃ - These were heads of ancestral houses according to their generations, chiefs; these dwelt in Jerusalem.
Yet is Yerushalayim not the territory of Yehudah? The Radak explains: Part of it belonged to Binyamin and part to Yehudah, as it says, "He covers him all day long, and he dwells between his shoulders" - we see that Binyamin had a portion in Yerushalayim, and in the Temple Courtyard as well. And those enumerated up to this point are the portion of Binyamin that dwelt in Yerushalayim.
"Chiefs according to their generations" - meaning they were heads of their ancestral homes. The Malbim notes that later, in chapter 9, verses 7-8, Scripture mentions additional descendants of Binyamin who dwelt in Yerushalayim, and there it mentions leaders who presided over the community as a whole; whereas here it mentions leaders who presided only over their own descendants, that is, a head of his family. For there it mentions Yechanyah son of Yeroham, who was a leader over the entire community, whereas the sons of Yeroham mentioned here were leaders only over their descendants, over their respective families.
וּבְגִבְעוֹן יָשְׁבוּ אֲבִי גִבְעוֹן וְשֵׁם אִשְׁתּוֹ מַעֲכָה׃ - And in Givon dwelt the father of Givon, and his wife's name was Maacah.
Giv'on was a city belonging to the descendants of Binyamin, as recorded in the Book of Yehoshua. It is very likely that "Avi Giv'on" [the father of Giv'on] was the one who built it, and the city was named after him; or his name was Ye'aziel [Ye'iel], as Scripture mentions later when recounting the genealogy. And why does it call him "Avi Giv'on"? Not because his personal name was Giv'on, but because he was the chief and leader of the city of Giv'on.
Radak notes that Ba'al and Nadav are not mentioned here in full, whereas later we see that they are mentioned - Ba'al, Ner, and Nadav; for this genealogy is repeated later on.
And so writes the commentary attributed to Rashi: this section, up to "all these were the sons of Atzel," is written twice in this book. Likewise, the passage "Now the first inhabitants that dwelt in their possessions in their cities" in I Divrei HaYamim chapter 9 - that too appears twice. And the passage "Of the kohanim: Yedayah, and Yehoyariv" also appears in the Book of Nechemiah, chapter 11, "Now these are the chiefs of the province."
This is what the Yerushalmi teaches: Ezra found three scrolls - Sefer Me'onim, Sefer Za'atutei, and Sefer Ha'Achim - and they set aside the text of the one and upheld the text of the two. That is to say, when you find differing genealogies, the reason is that he found several genealogical records; when he saw an agreement between two against a third scroll, he followed the majority reading. It was not necessarily the same two that always agreed: in certain genealogies, scrolls A and B agreed against scroll C, while in others, scrolls B and C agreed against scroll A. What Ezra did was adopt the points of consensus and include them in his book, which is the meaning of "they set aside the text of the one and upheld the text of the two."
Likewise, they found many other genealogical records in addition to these, and when three, four, or five scrolls were available, they set aside the minority and upheld the majority. But when they found an even split, two against two, as in the passage "And in Giv'on dwelt the father of Giv'on" - he was compelled to record the passage twice, because the genealogical order was not identical, and he could not dismiss one in favor of the other. The same occurred with the passage "Now the first inhabitants": in two scrolls he saw one version and in two scrolls another, and therefore he wrote it twice. The Malbim similarly writes that this section is duplicated below in chapter 9, verses 35-39, with slight additions.
וּבְנוֹ הַבְּכוֹר עַבְדּוֹן וְצוּר וְקִישׁ וּבַעַל וְנָדָב׃ וּגְדוֹר וְאַחְיוֹ וָזָכֶר׃ וּמִקְלוֹת הוֹלִיד אֶת־שִׁמְאָה וְאַף־הֵמָּה נֶגֶד אֲחֵיהֶם יָשְׁבוּ בִירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם עִם־אֲחֵיהֶם׃ - And his firstborn son was Avdon, and Tzur, and Kish, and Ba'al, and Nadav; and Gedor, and Achyo, and Zecher; and Miklot begot Shim'ah; and they also dwelt opposite their brothers in Yerushalayim, alongside their brothers.
Metzudat David explains: these named individuals were also sons of the father of Giv'on, and they too dwelt in Giv'on.
וְנֵר הוֹלִיד אֶת־קִישׁ וְקִישׁ הוֹלִיד אֶת־שָׁאוּל וְשָׁאוּל הוֹלִיד אֶת־יְהוֹנָתָן וְאֶת־מַלְכִּישׁוּעַ וְאֶת־אֲבִינָדָב וְאֶת־אֶשְׁבָּעַל׃ - And Ner begot Kish, and Kish begot Sha'ul, and Sha'ul begot Yehonatan, and Malki-shua, and Avinadav, and Eshba'al.
Here there is a major difficulty in the order of the verses, the names, and the lineage. Radak begins by pointing out: in the Book of Shemuel it states that Avi'el was the father of Kish, so how did Avi'el suddenly become Ner? Furthermore, Ner was the brother of Kish son of Avi'el, whereas here Ner is presented as the father of Kish - is he his father or his brother? Moreover, Ner was the father of Avner ("Avner ben Ner"), and according to the verse here, Avner would be the brother of Kish, since both are sons of Ner - yet Kish was the son of Avi'el! It is also said that "Avner ben Ner was the uncle of Sha'ul," but if Ner was the father of Kish, who was the father of Sha'ul - this does not align with the statement in Shemuel that Avi'el was the father of Kish.
Radak resolves this in two ways. First: both accounts are true - Ner named his son Kish after his brother, so that he had both a brother named Kish and a son named Kish. Second: Avi'el is Ner. Although this explanation is less favored by the Malbim, the commentators frequently employ it: when one name appears in one place and a different name elsewhere, it is the same person who bore two names. According to this, "Ner begot Kish" is identical to "Avi'el begot Kish," and they are not two conflicting figures. He was also the father of Avner, whose name incorporates the name of his father, Ner: "Av-Ner," as Scripture states, "Avner ben Ner."
The Radak similarly cites the words of Chazal: Rava said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, one verse states, "And Ner begot Kish," while another verse states, "Kish the son of Aviel" - how can this be reconciled? Aviel was his name, and because he would kindle lamps in the dark alleyways, he was called Ner ("lamp"). Chazal thus view the name Ner as an epithet based on his deeds: in those days there was no electric grid covering the land, and there were dark places where walking was dangerous, and he would light lamps there - and on account of this he was called Ner. Thus the matter is resolved: Ner is a nickname, while Aviel was the name given to him at his circumcision.
The Malbim likewise confronts this difficulty: "And Ner begot Kish" contradicts what we saw in verses 29-30, that the father of Givon was named Ye'iel and was the father of Kish, Ner, and Nadav. Moreover, in Shmuel we find "Avner son of Ner" and "Kish son of Aviel." From this it emerges that Kish, and Ner the father of Avner, and the father of Shaul were all sons of Aviel, and that same Ye'iel who was the father of Givon was called Ye'iel, Aviel, and Ner. This is what we noted earlier, that the Malbim often resorts to this principle out of necessity - that the same individual appears under several different names.
Regarding the sons of Shaul, the Radak notes: Yehonatan, Malchishua, Eshbaal - and Avinadav is the Yishvi mentioned in the Book of Shmuel; this is why he is called Avinadav there when they died in battle. Thus, he had two names: Yishvi and Avinadav. And Eshbaal is Ish-boshet, the son of Shaul who reigned after him. The Radak explains: Baal and Boshet are one and the same, for idolatry is referred to as "boshet" (shame), as in, "and separated themselves unto that shame."
Why is idolatry called boshet? Because it brings shame to its worshipers: they worship, bow down, and cry out, yet it is deaf - "like a deaf adder that stops its ear" - unable to hear the one who calls upon it, bringing them only humiliation. So too it is said, "altars to that shameful thing, even altars to burn incense unto Baal." Likewise, Gideon was called Yerubaal and was also called Yerubeshet - showing that it is the very same name, rendered at times with "Baal" and at times with "Boshet."
וּבֶן־יְהוֹנָתָן מְרִיב בָּעַל וּמְרִיב בַּעַל הוֹלִיד אֶת־מִיכָה׃ - And the son of Yehonatan was Meriv-baal; and Meriv-baal begot Michah.
Similarly, Yehonatan's son, who is called Mefivoshet in Shmuel, is called here Meriv-baal: "Baal" in place of "Boshet," and "Meriv" parallel to "Mefi." These names were likely bestowed as an expression of battle against idolatry, against the Baals - that he would contend (yariv) with the Baal. This parallels Gideon being named Yerubaal: there it relates that he went and slaughtered the bull that had been fattened for the Baal - his father had fattened it for the Baal for seven years - and when they came to kill him, his father told them, "Let Baal contend with him." Why should you contend for him? If Baal has a reckoning with him, let Baal settle it himself. On account of this, he was named Yerubaal. And Meriv-baal begot Michah, who is mentioned in the Book of Shmuel as the son of Mefivoshet.
וּבְנֵי מִיכָה פִּיתוֹן וָמֶלֶךְ וְתַאְרֵעַ וְאָחָז׃ וְאָחָז הוֹלִיד אֶת־יְהוֹעַדָּה וִיהוֹעַדָּה הוֹלִיד אֶת־עָלֶמֶת וְאֶת־עַזְמָוֶת וְאֶת־זִמְרִי וְזִמְרִי הוֹלִיד אֶת־מוֹצָא׃ - And the sons of Michah: Pithon, and Melech, and Taarea, and Achaz. And Achaz begot Yehoadah; and Yehoadah begot Alemet, and Azmavet, and Zimri; and Zimri begot Motza.
וּמוֹצָא הוֹלִיד אֶת־בִּנְעָא רָפָה בְנוֹ אֶלְעָשָׂה בְנוֹ אָצֵל בְּנוֹ׃ וּלְאָצֵל שִׁשָּׁה בָנִים וְאֵלֶּה שְׁמוֹתָם עַזְרִיקָם בֹּכְרוּ וְיִשְׁמָעֵאל וּשְׁעַרְיָה וְעֹבַדְיָה וְחָנָן כָּל־אֵלֶּה בְּנֵי אָצַל׃ - And Motza begot Binea: Rafah was his son, Elasah his son, Atzel his son. And Atzel had six sons, whose names are these: Azrikam, Bochru, and Yishmael, and Shearyah, and Ovadyah, and Chanan; all these were the sons of Atzel.
The Radak comments on the variation in vocalization: "U-l'Atzel" is vocalized with a tzeirei, while "benei Atzal" is vocalized with a patach - due to the pause (hefsek), as it stands at the end of the verse. This is similar to what we find in other places, such as kesef becoming kasef, where the vocalization of a word changes at the end of a verse.
וּבְנֵי עֵשֶׁק אָחִיו אוּלָם בְּכֹרוֹ יְעוּשׁ הַשֵּׁנִי וֶאֱלִיפֶלֶט הַשְּׁלִשִׁי׃ וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי־אוּלָם אֲנָשִׁים גִּבּוֹרֵי־חַיִל דֹּרְכֵי קֶשֶׁת וּמַרְבִּים בָּנִים וּבְנֵי בָנִים מֵאָה וַחֲמִשִּׁים כָּל־אֵלֶּה מִבְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן׃ - And the sons of Eshek his brother: Ulam his firstborn, Yeush the second, and Elifelet the third. And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valor, archers, and had many sons, and sons' sons, a hundred and fifty. All these were of the sons of Binyamin.
"And the sons of Eshek his brother" - the brother of Atzel. And the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valor, archers, having many sons and grandsons, one hundred and fifty, and all these were of the descendants of Binyamin. And with this, we conclude Chapter 8.
Chapter 8 returns to tracing the genealogy of the tribe of Binyamin with the goal of reaching King Shaul. We saw the variations in names between the Torah and our text (Achiram - Acharach, Shephupham - Nochah, Chuppim - Rapha); the addition of family heads among the descendants of Addar and Naaman, the sons of Bela; and the episode of the exile to Manachath - which according to the Malbim was connected to the Concubine of Giv'ah, where the tribes of Israel exiled the leaders who failed to protest, while Ehud their father subsequently exiled the rest of the family to reunite them in one place. We saw the wives of Ehud and his sons, the descendants of Elpaal and Beriah, the Midrash stating that Eliyahu HaNavi was a descendant of Binyamin along with the citation ("provide a sign for your words") from the genealogical register, and the resolution of the duplications in the book in light of the Yerushalmi regarding the three scrolls Ezra found. Finally, we reached the lineage of Shaul: Ner is Abiel, who was called by that name because he lit lamps in dark alleyways; Eshbaal is Ish-bosheth, and Merib-baal is Mephibosheth - their names testifying to the war against idolatry, whose entire essence brings shame to its worshippers.