Chapter 9 in I Chronicles is a transitional chapter. Having concluded the genealogies of the tribes, Ezra now offers a general observation concerning the entire genealogical enterprise. Immediately afterward, he begins describing the first inhabitants who ascended from Babylonia and settled in their towns and in Jerusalem. The chapter deals with ordinary Israelites, Kohanim, Levites, and Netinim, as well as the working rosters of the gatekeepers and the officials appointed over the House of Hashem. Throughout the chapter looms the major question of how this record compares with the parallel account in the Book of Nechemiah, a subject the Malbim analyzes at length, establishing a fundamental principle that will guide us across the entire chapter.
וְכׇל־יִשְׂרָאֵל הִתְיַחְשׂוּ וְהִנָּם כְּתוּבִים עַל־סֵפֶר מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה הׇגְלוּ לְבָבֶל בְּמַעֲלָם׃ - "So all Israel were registered by genealogy, and behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel; and Judah was exiled to Babylonia for their unfaithfulness."
Radak explains: Ezra is telling us, know that although I recorded part of the genealogies, I did not record them all. All of Israel possess lineages. If you ask where the rest may be found, the answer is that they are written in the book of the kings of Israel. The king maintained archival records of the people, the families, and their descendants - in contemporary terms, they were registered in the population registry. Whoever wishes to look up those I omitted will find all the details preserved there.
Immediately the question arises: Where is this book? Radak notes that this book is no longer extant. Like Sefer HaYashar, like the Book of the Wars of Hashem, like "The Chronicles of the Kings of Israel" (which is distinct from the Book of Chronicles in our canon) - none of these have survived. The kings would compile chronicles documenting their wars and achievements, though these accounts were generally far more propaganda than factual history.
Nor should one grieve too deeply over this. In Egypt, for example, history books make no mention of the Six-Day War, and if they mention it at all, they claim they won. So too the Palestinians "won" Operation Guardian of the Walls, and we wish them many more such victories. This is how history was rewritten, so one should not imagine that finding the royal chronicles of the nations would have provided an authentic, objective record of what transpired.
Another example: nowhere in Egyptian records does it state that an entire enslaved nation lived among them. To such an extent that some began to cast doubt on what is written in the Torah, absurd as that is. Later, in many surrounding regions, detailed accounts were discovered recounting a slave nation departing Egypt with a mighty hand, Egyptians lamenting the plagues they suffered, the Ipuwer Papyrus, and more. Peripheral records exist, but inside Egypt itself "there was no such story" - because such an event was a devastating blow to national pride, and whatever dealt them a blow was simply erased from existence.
And why look so far? This remains the Arab method on the Temple Mount to this day. In order to claim they were here first, they systematically obliterate any remnant of evidence that we were ever there: excavating illicitly and discarding everything, hoping nothing can be proven. Yet when people seek proof, they go to the debris dumps, sift the soil, and uncover astonishing artifacts from the Second Temple era and even from the period of the Kings, including various inscriptions. But they have a narrative, and they do not let facts get in the way.
Scripture previously mentioned the exile of the northern kingdom of Israel: that Pul, king of Assyria, and Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, exiled the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, while the king of Assyria exiled the remaining tribes. Radak observes that only a few representatives from the northern tribes returned during the Second Temple period. Remnants remained from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun, who had attached themselves to the kings of Judah. Chazal debate whether the Ten Tribes returned or not, and the plain sense of Radak aligns with the view that they did not return. Those who remained with the kings of Judah were the ones who survived.
This reflects the principle: "And you who cleave to Hashem your God are alive, every one of you today." The Jewish people possess a preservation mechanism ensuring that Israel will never be eradicated - on the condition that they continue to be Israel. As long as you remain faithful to being Israel, you have a divine guarantee. Hence specifically, "you who cleave to Hashem your God are alive, every one of you today." Whoever looks for the Sadducees, the Boethusians, the Sicarii, the Essenes, and all the breakaway sects throughout history - and to look no further, the Reform movement - will find that they ultimately vanish. Because they broke away from Klal Yisrael, they assimilate and have no enduring existence. One might have expected to find today a massive, thriving group of Karaites or Sadducees standing on their own, yet there is none; they assimilated among the nations of the world. From this you learn: only those who cleave to Hashem are alive today, and to them alone were all the promises granted.
Therefore, those who remained were those who aligned with the kings of Yehudah. As for the Ten Tribes - throughout that entire era their kings were wicked idolaters, and they are gone to this day. From time to time someone presents some remnant, supposedly "from the tribe of Menasheh", somewhere in Africa or India or similar places, but there is no clear proof that they can be regarded as halachic Jews, and certainly they require conversion l'chatchilah. There are differing views in Chazal as to whether they are destined to return or not, and our accepted tradition is that they will return in the future, but reality has proven that from those who abandon the ways of Hashem, nothing remains.
We must know not to get worked up. A government arises, all the wicked band together, and people panic. First of all, do not worry. It is written that toward the coming of Mashiach, there will be refining, clarifying, and purifying. What does this mean? It means there is no longer a middle ground: "Are you for us, or for our adversaries?" And now we see who is for our adversaries and who is for us. Situations arise where one must take a side, and now we see who has taken the side of the transgressors - those who want to uproot Shabbos, uproot halachic conversion, uproot the sanctity of the family, and the like - versus those who want to walk in the way of Hashem and oppose that agenda.
There is no need to cry out in despair and no reason to panic. We must feel pain - pain over the degraded honor of the Torah, that indeed we must feel. But we do not panic. The Jewish people are built for the long haul, and even if there are hurdles along the way, we overcome them. We outlived Pharaoh; we will outlive the regimes of every generation as well. And why be stressed? Because one must understand: the sitra achra (the side of impurity) has no true existence. Its entire existence is merely drawn from the realm of holiness, and on its own it has no substance at all; therefore, any manifestation of the sitra achra is fleeting and transient.
Ultimately, "Hashem shall be King over all the earth," and Melech HaMashiach will be our king. Pinning one's hopes on a right-wing government is shortsightedness. We do not need a right-wing government; we need Melech HaMashiach, and that is what we must pray for. Not a prayer at the Kotel for a right-wing government; our prayer is that Melech HaMashiach will come and reign over us. Someone once noted acutely: we pray, "and uproot the reign of wickedness from the earth" - if there were no reign of wickedness, what would Mashiach come to uproot? So even if there are bumps along the road, and even if for a time someone makes boastful sounds - it is temporary. "You who cling to Hashem your God are all alive today," and those who will survive in the end are us, as history has repeatedly proven.
Thus, those tribes did not return during the Second Temple period, except for a few individuals who were attached to Yehudah. Now the verse recounts: "And Yehudah was exiled to Bavel for their unfaithfulness" - meaning Yehudah was also exiled at a certain point to Babylon, as they too had wicked kings, and the sin of Menasheh brought about the decree of exile. And who returned with them? Yehudah and Binyamin, who were together, were the ones who returned from Bavel, and now the verse describes their return to the Land.
We have a tradition that the tribe of Binyamin was dispersed primarily throughout Ashkenazic lands, while the tribe of Yehudah was scattered throughout Eastern lands. In Yemen, the majority were from the tribe of Yehudah; it was well known and documented among them that their lineage traces to Yehudah, and they were often called "Kehal Yehudah." They went into exile already during the First Temple period, in the second exile - the exile of Yehudah - rather than in the earlier exiles of the Ten Tribes, and therefore they did not participate in the Return to Zion in the days of Ezra and Nechemiah.
The Malbim adds: after listing the genealogy of some of the tribes, the text comes to clarify that there are tribes that were skipped - Zevulun, Dan, Naphtali - which were not mentioned at all, and even among those recorded, not all families were detailed, only some. Therefore it says, "And all Israel was genealogically registered": do not think that those who were not recorded have some blemish or lack proper lineage; rather, all were of documented lineage, and it is all written in the Book of the Kings of Israel. And the genealogy of Yehudah who were exiled to Babylon - that you will find in the books of the kings of Yehudah, whose records were still extant, since those who returned from the exile were from Yehudah and held their genealogical records in hand.
וְהַיּוֹשְׁבִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר בַּאֲחֻזָּתָם בְּעָרֵיהֶם יִשְׂרָאֵל הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְהַנְּתִינִים׃ - And the first inhabitants who were in their possession in their cities were the Israelites, the priests, the Levites, and the Netinim.
The Radak explains: the first to arrive from Bavel settled in their cities - Israelites, Kohanim, Levi'im, and Netinim - and they also settled in Yerushalayim, as will be seen below. In the Book of Ezra (referring to the Book of Nechemiah, which the Radak refers to as Ezra), it states: "Now these are the chiefs of the province who dwelt in Yerushalayim; but in the cities of Yehudah, everyone dwelt in his possession in their cities: Israel, the priests, the Levites, and the Netinim," and there it adds, "and the descendants of Shlomo's servants," which is not mentioned here. The Radak explains: the accounts here and there are essentially the same, with slight variations in a few places, and it is easy to reconcile them, as personal names vary - a person is mentioned in one place by the name Ner and in another by the name Aviel, and so forth. And our text included what was omitted there, while that text included what was omitted here. The accounts complement one another.
The Malbim explains: From here onward, Scripture describes the Children of Israel returning to the Land of Israel from the Babylonian exile, after Cyrus granted permission to ascend. "The first inhabitants" - when they returned from Babylon, each person settled in his ancestral estate; everyone returned to the place where he had previously settled.
וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם יָשְׁבוּ מִן־בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה וּמִן־בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן וּמִן־בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה׃ - And in Jerusalem dwelt some of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh.
Now Scripture relates who settled in Jerusalem during the days of Ezra and Nehemiah. This corresponds to what appears in Nehemiah 11, where they cast lots to bring one out of ten to dwell in Jerusalem - they sought to strengthen Jerusalem, so they cast lots so that one out of every ten selected would settle there. Those who wish to expand on this may consult the lessons on the Book of Nehemiah, where this was detailed further.
The Malbim notes: What is written here through verse 18 is also recorded in Nehemiah chapter 11 through verse 25, yet there are numerous differences and variations - in the names of the individuals, their genealogies, their counts, and all their details. So much so that the Gemara in Pesachim states that between "Azel" and "Azel" there were four hundred camel-loads of homiletical interpretations (derashot). That is: from the "Azel" mentioned at the end of the previous chapter (chapter 8, "And Azel had six sons... All these were the sons of Azel") until the "Azel" mentioned later on - on the variations between them, there were four hundred camel-loads of interpretations.
The Malbim remarks that this is not surprising at all, for there are immense and numerous difficulties between this Azel and that Azel. In sharp language he writes: "to the point that the peshat commentators heaped up four hundred camel-loads of empty wind" - borrowing the very phrase of Chazal, he argues that the literalist commentators piled up four hundred camel-loads of vain speculation to equate divergent names and interpret them as similar, using explanations that invite ridicule. And even if one were to follow the path of derash here, these are still laughable notions devoid of truth.
The Malbim elaborates on his methodology at length in the Book of Nehemiah, and we will occasionally cite his words from there. His rule is this: do not attempt to force a direct parallel between what is written here and what is written there, for such was the approach of Ezra and Nehemiah - what one detailed, the other saw no need to detail, and what the other detailed, the first saw no need to detail. The meaning of this is: do not raise contradictions, for matters are stated expansively in one place and concisely in another; words of Torah are impoverished in one place and rich in another. There are no contradictions here, only complementary accounts.
And if you ask: but didn't we see different names of sons there? They are not different. There, Scripture mentioned some of the sons, and those it omitted there it mentioned here, or vice versa. One must combine both lists. Nehemiah came to add to, clarify, and explain the words of Ezra, supplementing what Ezra had omitted, thereby completing what Ezra abbreviated and explaining it beautifully, with both accounts harmonizing perfectly. The Malbim states: I will not duplicate the discussion here, but will merely refer to my commentary there - and we will cite his insights so that the subject is clear and complete.
Thus he writes in Nehemiah: Know that the matters mentioned here are also found in Divrei HaYamim, where there are many variations and apparent contradictions, and the commentators offered strange interpretations regarding them (there he phrases it more gently). However, the rough ground shall become level in light of what we have written - that the Book of Ezra is a supplement to Divrei HaYamim. Ezra HaSofer authored the Book of Ezra as a completion to the Book of Divrei HaYamim which he wrote earlier, and Nehemiah completed the Book of Ezra. Thus, Ezra supplements Divrei HaYamim, and Nehemiah supplements both Ezra and Divrei HaYamim. Ezra, who wrote Divrei HaYamim, reiterated things stated in earlier books in order to explain or add something not mentioned there, so that his words are mostly not a mere duplication of the narrative, but an addition to it. Through this approach, the Malbim says, "thank God, we have succeeded in resolving all the questions and contradictions." Likewise Nehemiah, when repeating things after the Book of Ezra, comes to add, not merely to reiterate what was already written.
From this perspective, the Malbim notes, Nehemiah quotes Ezra's phrasing in Divrei HaYamim - "and in the cities of Judah they dwelt, and in Jerusalem they dwelt" - so that we recognize he is citing Divrei HaYamim. For since he intends to provide supplements, how would one know to which point his words connect? Therefore, he first quotes from Divrei HaYamim, thereby indicating precisely which point he is coming to supplement.
עוּתַי בֶּן־עַמִּיהוּד בֶּן־עׇמְרִי בֶּן־אִמְרִי בֶן־בָּנִי מִן־בְּנֵי־פֶרֶץ בֶּן־יְהוּדָה׃ - Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani, of the children of Perez the son of Judah.
In Divrei HaYamim it is written, "of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim, and Manasseh," whereas Nechemiah skips this, since it was already recorded. The Metzudas David explains: not all the tribes of Israel settled in Jerusalem, and in Nechemiah the children of Ephraim and Manasseh were not even mentioned, because those who settled in Jerusalem were so few that he did not count them.
Here in Divrei HaYamim, a long lineage extending back to Perez is cited, whereas in Nechemiah it states, "of the children of Judah: Athaiah the son of Uzziah." The explanation is: Ezra did not write out the entire genealogical lineage down to Perez, but rather only four generations and omitted the rest; then Nechemiah came, found additional individuals in the genealogical records, and added them - namely Athaiah and Amariah, who were two specific ancestors.
וּמִן־הַשִּׁילוֹנִי עֲשָׂיָה הַבְּכוֹר וּבָנָיו׃ - And of the Shilonites: Asaiah the firstborn and his sons.
This refers to the descendants of Shelah the son of Judah. "Asaiah the firstborn" is the Maaseiah mentioned in Nechemiah, as the Metzudas David notes. And the Malbim explains: there in Nechemiah, Scripture details his lineage across six generations, whereas here it abbreviates.
וּמִן־בְּנֵי־זֶרַח יְעוּאֵל וַאֲחֵיהֶם שֵׁשׁ־מֵאוֹת וְתִשְׁעִים׃ - And of the sons of Zerach: Jeuel, and their brethren, six hundred and ninety.
This verse was not copied in Nechemiah, because since it had already been clarified in Divrei HaYamim, Nechemiah saw no need to repeat it. However, there the count given is for the children of Perez alone - four hundred and sixty-eight, whereas here the total sum of the children of Perez and Zerach is tallied - six hundred and ninety. There is no contradiction here whatsoever: Nechemiah counts only the children of Perez, while Ezra here counts the children of Perez and Zerach together. From this, the Malbim notes, you learn that the children of Zerach alone numbered two hundred and twenty-two - six hundred and ninety minus four hundred and sixty-eight.
וּמִן־בְּנֵי בִּנְיָמִן סַלּוּא בֶּן־מְשֻׁלָּם בֶּן־הוֹדַוְיָה בֶּן־הַסְּנֻאָה׃ - And of the sons of Benjamin: Sallu the son of Meshullam, the son of Hodaviah, the son of Hassenuah;
וְיִבְנְיָה בֶּן־יְרֹחָם וְאֵלָה בֶן־עֻזִּי בֶּן־מִכְרִי וּמְשֻׁלָּם בֶּן־שְׁפַטְיָה בֶּן־רְעוּאֵל בֶּן־יִבְנִיָּה׃ - And Ibneiah the son of Jeroham, and Elah the son of Uzzi, the son of Michri, and Meshullam the son of Shephatiah, the son of Reuel, the son of Ibnijah;
וַאֲחֵיהֶם לְתֹלְדוֹתָם תְּשַׁע מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים וְשִׁשָּׁה כׇּל־אֵלֶּה אֲנָשִׁים רָאשֵׁי אָבוֹת לְבֵית אֲבֹתֵיהֶם׃ - And their brethren, according to their generations, nine hundred and fifty-six. All these men were heads of fathers' houses according to their fathers' houses.
The Malbim explains: In Nechemiah, Sallu's lineage is traced back seven generations with names differing from those mentioned here, while all those in verse 8 - Yivneiah son of Yerocham, Elah son of Uzzi son of Michri, and Meshullam son of Shephatiah - are not mentioned there at all. Furthermore, regarding the descendants of Sallai, he mentions nine hundred and twenty-eight there, along with other details not found here.
And in Nechemiah chapter 11, the Malbim explains: In Divrei HaYamim, Scripture mentioned "Sallu son of Meshullam son of Hodaviah son of Hassenuah," but Nechemiah found additional individuals in Sallu's genealogy and added them - all those ancestors leading back to Yeshaiah who were descendants of Meshullam, whom Ezra omitted here and Nechemiah included there. Conversely, Nechemiah skips Yivneiah son of Yerocham, Elah son of Uzzi son of Michri, and all those mentioned here, because he had no novel information to add about them. Nechemiah adds only where he has a novel detail to contribute; thus, what Nechemiah added is not here, and what is here is not there.
The Malbim further adds: There, "Gabbai Sallai" is also mentioned, who is not mentioned in Divrei HaYamim (in our text, it says Sallu, not Sallai). Nechemiah comes to teach us that the family of Sallu along with Gabbai Sallai numbered nine hundred and twenty-eight. From this we learn that the three families added here in Divrei HaYamim - Yivneiah son of Yerocham, Elah, and Meshullam - numbered only twenty-eight men; when you add them to the nine hundred and twenty-eight, you arrive at exactly the number written here: nine hundred and fifty-six. Here, too, the Malbim follows the same approach: the numbers complement one another, and from them one can deduce the counts of each family, even those for which no explicit tally was recorded. The peshat commentators, by contrast, consider Sallu and Sallai to be the same person, referred to here as Sallu and there as Sallai.
וּמִן־הַכֹּהֲנִים יְדַעְיָה וִיהוֹיָרִיב וְיָכִין׃ - And of the Kohanim: Yedaiah, Yehoyariv, and Yachin.
The Malbim notes that there are several variations in the genealogy here, which he explains there in Nechemiah: Yedaiah was the son of Yehoyariv, and both are counted as two.
וַעֲזַרְיָה בֶן־חִלְקִיָּה בֶּן־מְשֻׁלָּם בֶּן־צָדוֹק בֶּן־מְרָיוֹת בֶּן־אֲחִיטוּב נְגִיד בֵּית הָאֱלֹהִים׃ - And Azariah son of Chilkiyah, son of Meshullam, son of Tzadok, son of Merayot, son of Achituv, the leader of the House of God.
The Metzudat David explains: Azariah is the Serayah mentioned in Nechemiah, and he was in charge of the House of God.
וַעֲדָיָה בֶּן־יְרֹחָם בֶּן־פַּשְׁחוּר בֶּן־מַלְכִּיָּה וּמַעְשַׂי בֶּן־עֲדִיאֵל בֶּן־יַחְזֵרָה בֶּן־מְשֻׁלָּם בֶּן־מְשִׁלֵּמִית בֶּן־אִמֵּר׃ - And Adaiah son of Yerocham, son of Pashchur, son of Malkiyah, and Maasai son of Adiel, son of Yachzerah, son of Meshullam, son of Meshillemit, son of Immer.
וַאֲחֵיהֶם רָאשִׁים לְבֵית אֲבוֹתָם אֶלֶף וּשְׁבַע מֵאוֹת וְשִׁשִּׁים גִּבּוֹרֵי חֵיל מְלֶאכֶת עֲבוֹדַת בֵּית־הָאֱלֹהִים׃ - And their brothers, heads of their ancestral households, one thousand seven hundred and sixty, valiant men for the work of the service of the House of God.
In the Koren Tanach, the text reads "gibborei chayil" [valiant men], and although other editions exist, the Koren Tanach is known to be very precise, as is the Mossad HaRav Kook edition, making it likely that their text is the accurate one. The meaning of the phrase is this: it does not refer to warriors in a military army, but rather to men of might in the labor of the service of the House of God. They were "mighty in their divisions" (chayil) - that is, in the way they were organized into their shifts and divisions for the service of God. This is very logical, as the text here is discussing Kohanim; Kohanim did not go out to war, and the tribe of Levi did not engage in warfare at all.
The Malbim notes that in Nechemiah there are several variations and different figures, explaining them there as follows: Yedaiah, Yehoyariv, Yachin, and their brothers were performing the work of the House - meaning the labor of the service of the House of God, the maintenance of the Temple and the sacrifices - and their tally was eight hundred and twenty-two. Adaiah son of Yerocham and his brothers numbered two hundred and forty-two. In Adaiah son of Yerocham's genealogy, Nechemiah adds three ancestors whom Ezra omitted. He also mentions Amashsai son of Azarel son of Achzai, who is not mentioned here in Divrei HaYamim, where Nechemiah supplements what Ezra omitted, and their count was one hundred and twenty-eight. When combined, this subtotal reaches one thousand one hundred and ninety-two. From this we deduce that Maasai son of Adiel and his fellow heads numbered five hundred and sixty-eight, for five hundred and sixty-eight plus one thousand one hundred and ninety-two equals one thousand seven hundred and sixty - the exact tally recorded here. Thus, there is no contradiction between the numbers: here the comprehensive total is given, whereas there the partial figures are provided, and when combined, they equal the complete sum precisely.
וּמִן־הַלְוִיִּם שְׁמַעְיָה בֶן־חַשּׁוּב בֶּן־עַזְרִיקָם בֶּן־חֲשַׁבְיָה מִן־בְּנֵי מְרָרִי׃ - And of the Levites: Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, the son of Azrikam, the son of Hashabiah, of the sons of Merari.
וּבַקְבַּקַּר חֶרֶשׁ וְגָלָל וּמַתַּנְיָה בֶּן־מִיכָא בֶּן־זִכְרִי בֶּן־אָסָף׃ - And Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal, and Mattaniah the son of Micha, the son of Zichri, the son of Asaph.
וְעֹבַדְיָה בֶּן־שְׁמַעְיָה בֶּן־גָּלָל בֶּן־יְדוּתוּן וּבֶרֶכְיָה בֶן־אָסָא בֶּן־אֶלְקָנָה הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּחַצְרֵי נְטוֹפָתִי׃ - And Obadiah the son of Shemaiah, the son of Galal, the son of Jeduthun, and Berechiah the son of Asa, the son of Elkanah, who dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites.
The Metzudat David notes that the number of the Levites is counted in the Book of Nehemiah. And here, "who dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites" refers back to Elkanah, and does not mean that all of them dwelt there. We often face a difficulty when a particular description is attached to a series of names: to which of the names does it refer back, to the first or to the last? Just as with "Matityahu ben Yochanan Kohen Gadol" - who was the Kohen Gadol: Matityahu, Yochanan, or both? There are several opinions on this. Here, the text clarifies that the intention is Elkanah, who dwelt in the villages of the Netophathites, not Obadiah the son of Shemaiah the son of Galal, nor those mentioned earlier.
Here too, the Malbim illuminates that there are many differences and variations between the two accounts, and he explains in Nehemiah: Shemaiah the son of Hasshub, and Bakbakkar, Heresh, and Galal, and Mattaniah the son of Micha the son of Zichri the son of Asaph, and Obadiah the son of Shemaiah the son of Galal the son of Jeduthun - are not mentioned there in Nehemiah, nor was it mentioned here what their service was or what their number was. Nehemiah comes and explains that Shemaiah the son of Hasshub was appointed over the external work of the House, that is, the repair of the Temple (bedek habayit) and the provisions for the altar arrangements that were brought from outside, as Rashi explains. There it also specifies that Shabbethai and Jozabad were with him, whom Ezra does not mention here and Nehemiah adds. Furthermore, he adds to Shemaiah's lineage "the son of Bunni": Shemaiah was of the sons of Merari, as appears here in Divrei HaYamim, and here Hashabiah was mentioned as the head of the lineage, while Nehemiah comes and identifies the ancestor Bunni, who was four generations earlier than Hashabiah; because he was more renowned, Nehemiah saw fit to mention him specifically.
The chapter opens with the declaration that "all Israel were enrolled by genealogy" - so that no impression would arise that whoever was not listed here had a flawed lineage, but rather that the complete records were written in the books of the kings, which are no longer in our possession. From this we learned of the dubious reliability of the nations' historical records, and from this we also learned the great lesson: "And you who cling to the Lord your God are all alive today" - only those who cling to Hashem survive, while all the breakaway factions have vanished. Therefore, one should not be dismayed by any obstacle along the way, for the sitra achra has no independent existence, and our prayer is that King Moshiach will come and reign over us. And throughout all the genealogical lists of those returning from the exile - Israelites, Kohanim, and Levites - the Malbim established for us a golden rule: there are no contradictions between Divrei HaYamim and Nehemiah, but rather complementary accounts. Ezra complemented Divrei HaYamim, and Nehemiah complemented both of them, and when the numbers and names are joined together, everything aligns perfectly, beautifully harmonious, and all the rugged places become a plain.