These are the sons of Israel. The text begins by presenting the progeny of the sons of Judah, because the book is primarily about the Judean kings.

The sons of Zerah: Zimri. This is Zabdi the son of Zerah, who is mentioned in the book of Joshua (7:1).

The sons of Carmi: Achar. Even though Carmi was not listed, it was known that Carmi was a son of Zabdi, who is the same as Zimri mentioned above. Such is the tendency of this book when presenting genealogies in some cases. Achar is the same as Achan; but the text calls him “Achar” pejoratively, because he caused trouble for (‘akhar) Israel.

And the sons of Ethan: Azariah. This is similar to “The sons of Dan: Hushim” (Gen 46:23) and “The sons of Palu: Eliab” (Num 26:8). The author did not record the progeny of Heman, Calcol, and Darda; perhaps he did not find them. Alternatively, he abridged the progeny of Zerah because the kingship did not decend from them, and he returned to present the progeny of Hezron son of Perez because the kingship did descend from them.

And Chelubai. This is Caleb son of Hezron, whom the text mentions later (v. 18).

Nahshon, prince of the sons of Judah. It is written in this manner for the honor of David, to impart that even his grandfather Nahshon was a prince.

Jesse (Ishay [אישי]) fathered. [The name] is the same whether [it begins with] an alef or a yod, because the letters alef, hei, vav, and yod can interchange.

Shimea, the third. This is the same as Shammah mentioned in the book of Samuel (1 16:9).

David, the seventh. R. Jonah [ibn Janaḥ] explains that this is akin to “the eighth,” because Jesse had seven sons besides David. For it says in the book of Samuel, “Jesse presented seven of his sons before Samuel” (1 16:10), at which point Samuel says to him, “Are these all the boys you have?” (1 16:11), and he responds, “There is still the smallest one” (ibid.). Furthermore, it says, “He had eight sons” (1 17:12). So if he had eight sons, and David was the eighth, “David, the seventh” must then mean “David, the eighth.” But this substitution is impossible! In truth, it is possible that Jesse had a son from another wife, and that in the book of Samuel, the text counts all of them when saying “seven of his sons” and then “There still remains the smallest one.” Here, however, it mentions the seven that were of the same mother as David. The scholar R. Abraham Ibn Ezra in fact explained it this way (Sefer Ṣaḥot 72b). There are some, however, who say that another son had died. In the Midrash (Midrash Tehillim 119:81), it says that the name of the eighth son was Elihu, the one mentioned among the officers whom David appointed over Judah: “Elihu, of the brothers of David” (1 Chr 27:18). And he was younger than David; so when the text says “and David was the smallest” (1 Sam 17:14), it is only because he made himself small that it calls him “small.”

Jether the Ishmaelite. This is Jithra the Israelite who is mentioned in the book of Samuel (2 17:25): the text calls him “the Ishmaelite” because he resided in the land of Ishmael. The reason it calls him “the Israelite” is so that nobody should think that, beacuase he was called “the Ishmaelite,” he was of Ishmaelite descent. Rather, he was of Israelite descent.

Caleb the son of Hezron. Some of our Sages, of blessed memory (b. Sotah 11b), say that this is Caleb the son of Jephunneh; and why was he called “the son of Jephunneh?” Because he turned (panah) away from the plot of the spies. They also say that when the text says “Othniel son of Kenaz, brother of Caleb” (Jos 15:17), it means that he was his brother by his mother, so that Caleb was not the son of Kenaz but rather his stepson—that is, the son of his wife. They say that this is implied by a textual subtlety, where it says “the Kenizite” (Num 32:12) instead of “the son of Kenaz.” It does not seem so, however, according to the plain sense of the verses. For according to the plain sense, it seems that this Caleb was among the earlier sons of Hezron, in that it says (v. 21) that afterward, he took the daughter of Machir when he was sixty years old. If, however, the matter is as our Sages said—that he was Caleb the son of Jephunneh—then when Hezron fathered Caleb, Hezron would have been one hundred and seventy years old! For Caleb said, “I was forty years old when Moses, the servant of the Lord, sent me” (Jos 14:7), and that was in the second year after they left Egypt, whereas Hezron was among those who came to Egypt (Gen 46:8, 12).

Fathered Azubah Ishah and Jerioth (holid et ‘Azuvah Ishah ve-et Yeri‘ot). Yet afterward the text says, “When Azubah died [Caleb married Ephrath]” (1 Chr 2:19)—and, [moreover], it says [here] “and these were her sons”—so it seems that these were Caleb’s wives and it seems that they were his daughters! Our Sages, of blessed memory (cf. Exodus Rabbah 1:17), likewise ask: Is there a person who fathers his wives?! And they provide midrashic interpretations. But to my mind this et is like min (=from), as in ke-ṣeti et ha-‘ir (=when I go out from the city; Exod 9:29) and others like it. This, then, is the meaning of the verse: Caleb the son of Hezron fathered children from his wife Azubah and from Jerioth: both of them were his wives, and he had children from both of them. But the text keeps the genealogical lines brief, recording the sons of only one of them, namely Azubah: it is with respect to her that it says “and these were her sons.” And when Azubah then died, Caleb took another wife named “Ephrath” (v. 19).

Afterward Hezron had relations. The text says “when he was sixty years old” because the other wives whom it mentions he had already taken beforehand. Only afterward, when he was sixty years old and an old man, did he take the daughter of Machir …. All of these births were in Egypt, because Hezron was among those who came to Egypt.

Segub fathered Jair. It seems from the Torah (Num 32:41; Deut 3:14) that Jair was from the tribe of Manasseh, and that he is the one who took the cities in the land of Gilead and named them “Havvoth-jair,” for himself. The text relates the entire story here also, to impart that this is the Jair mentioned in the Torah. Here, however, it connects him to the tribe of Judah—indeed correctly. For when the Torah (ibid.) says “the son of Manasseh,” it means on his grandmother’s side, because his father’s mother was the daughter of Machir son of Manasseh (1 Chr 1:21). And because Jair took the cities in the land of Gilead, he remained there with the tribe of his grandmother, and those cities became his portion (Deut 3:14). But our Sages say (b. Bava Batra 112a) that this is not the Jair who is mentioned in the Torah. Rather, this Jair son of Segub took a wife in the land of Gilead, and when she died he inherited what was hers; so he had these twenty-three cities from his wife’s inheritance.

Geshur and Aram took. The text indicates that these cities that Jair took were taken away from his grandchildren by Geshur and Aram, who were neighboring nations, as it says, “Until the border of the Geshurites and the Maacathites” (Deut 3:14).

All of these were the sons of Machir, the father of Gilead. This means: All these cities belonged to the sons of Machir the father of Gilead—by which it means: to the sons of Machir’s daughter—and the text elides the prepositional lamed. The same is true for: “There were two company-commanders who were the son of Saul” (2 Sam 4:2), which means “for the son of Saul,” and many like it that elide the prepositional lamed. Based on this, our Sages, of blessed memory (cf. b. Yevamot 62b), say that grandsons, even sons of daughters, are like sons. But this does not hold true with respect to the law. Now they explain “the sons of” in keeping with its straightforward sense, not as “belonged to the sons of,” as we explain it. But our interpretation is correct; for if the text says this concerning the sons, what does “All of these” mean, when it only mentioned Segub and Jair? Rather, it refers to the cities—the “sixty cities” that the text mentions. It is possible that when the text refers to twenty-three cities in the land of Gilead (1 Chr 1:22), they are included in the sixty cities mentioned, for these sixty cities are also in the land of Gilead. When it says “twenty-three,” then, it means the large cities, and when it says “sixty,” it means together with their dependencies.

After the death of Hezron be-Kalev Efratah. Some say (Pseudo-Rashi) that they named the city “Caleb-ephrathah” for Caleb and his wife, in which case Hezron was among those who came to the land of Israel and died there. But this interpretation— that Hezron lived for more than two hundred and fifty years—is improbable. To my mind the meaning is: When his son Caleb took his wife Ephrathah, at that very point Hezron died.

Abijah, wife of Hezron. Because the text had said that in his old age he took Machir’s daughter, it indicates that when he died, he had another wife named Abijah and that she bore him Ashhur, the father of Tekoa, either during his lifetime or after his death.

The sons of Jerahmeel. The text initially presents the progeny of Ram son of Hezron (vv. 10–17), because he is the one who is essential for presenting the family of David; then afterward, following [the progeny of] Ram, it presents the progeny of Caleb son of Hezron (vv. 18–20); and now it returns to present the progeny of the first-born; that is, Jerahmeel.

Jerahmeel had another (aḥeret) wife, whose name was Atarah. According to the plain sense of the verse she was an Israelite, and it says “another” because it mentioned the first one. Even should you say that she was a concubine, as in: “you are the son of a woman of another status (aḥeret)” (Judg 11:2), she was still an Israelite. But our Sages, of blessed memory (y. Sanhedrin 11b), explain midrashically that she was a gentile, and that for this reason the text mentions that her name was Atarah; for he took her as an adornment for himself (le-hit‘ater bah), because she was the daughter of people of distinction. Based on this they say (cf. Midrash Zuta Ruth 1:12): Do not trust a convert until twenty-four generations. For there are twenty-four generations from Atarah until Ishmael son of Nethaniah son of Elishama, who killed Gedaliah son of Ahikam (2 Kgs 25:25). They consist of Atarah, Onam, Shammai, Nadab, Appaim, Ishi, Sheshan, Sheshan’s daughter, Attai, Nathan, Zabad, Ephlal, Obed, Jehu, Azariah, Helez, Eleasah, Sisamai, Shallum, Jekamiah, Elishama, Nethaniah, and Ishmael, who together with Jarha—the father of Attai—who was a slave (1 Chr 2:34), total twenty-four.

Seled died lo banim. [This means]: be-lo banim (=without children).

Sheshan had no sons. But it says, “The sons of Sheshan: Ahlai” (v. 31)! The point, rather, it is that Ahlai died in his father’s lifetime, and so there was no son or daughter left by him.

Sheshan had an Egyptian slave, whose name was Jarha (ירחע), who grew up with him and was a member of his household, like Abraham’s slave Eliezer, and he gave him his daughter (v. 35) after he freed him. In a midrashic vein: It is from the name that they deduced that he made him a freeman; for ירחע stands for עבד חרי (‘eved ḥarrei; “a freed slave”): the ‘ayin stands for עבד (‘eved; =slave), and ירח backward is חרי (ḥarrei; =free). It is based on this that [the Sages] say (cf. b. Pesaḥim 113b): When your daughter matures, free your slave and give her to him. But even though Sheshan freed Jarha, he violated the Torah when he gave him his daughter, because Jarha was a first-generation Egyptian convert (cf. Deut 23:8–9). They also say based on this (y. Horayot 19a): Do not trust a slave until sixteen generations; for there are sixteen generations from Jarha until Ishmael son of Nethaniah.

The sons of Caleb the brother of Jerahmeel. Having presented the progeny of Jerahmeel, the text proceeds to complete the progeny of Caleb, whatever was not recorded above (vv. 18–20).

Meshah his first-born. For those mentioned above were not [Caleb’s] first sons. The text nonetheless places them earlier—perhaps they were the most important of his sons. It does the same for the sons whom he had by Ephrath, for the honor of Bezalel. This accounts for the formulation above, “and these were her sons” (v. 18); that is, he himself already had sons, but these he had by Azubah.

Who was the father of Ziph. Ziph was well known; that is why it says “the father of.” The same is true for “Machir father of Gilead” (v. 21) and many others. Perhaps the city Ziph (Jos 15:24) was named for him. Some explain (Pseudo-Rashi) “the father of Ziph” to mean the chief of Ziph, meaning that Meshah was the chief who ruled the city that was called Ziph. But the first explanation is correct.

The sons of Mareshah the father of Hebron. To my mind, “Ziph” is elided: because the text just mentioned him, it relies on the reader’s understanding and leaves him out. It is as though it had said, “The sons of Ziph: Mareshah father of Hebron.”

The sons of Jahdai. He is one of the sons mentioned, and he had two names.

Maacah was the concubine of Caleb, who fathered (pilegesh Kalev Ma‘akhah yalad). Yalad does not refer back to Maacah—for then the text would have said yaledah (=bore)—but rather to Caleb. It is as though it had said, “Maacah was the concubine of Caleb*, and he* fathered (pilegesh Kalev Ma‘akhah ve-yalad) Sheber and Tirhanah by her.”

These were the sons of Caleb son of Hur. This means that those whom the text lists now, Shobal and the others, were sons of Caleb son of Hur, who is the grandson of Caleb son of Jephunneh. Having presented above the progeny of Uri son of Hur (v. 20), it says here that Hur had another son named Caleb and that these were his sons.

Father of (avi) Kiriath-jearim. Some explain (commentary attributed to student of Saadia): the ruler of Kiriath-jearim; and the same for “avi Bethlehem” (v. 51) and “avi Beth-gader” (ibid.). But it is possible to interpret avi according to its plain sense, meaning “father of Kiriath-jearim”: because all the people of Kiriath-jearim were his children and grandchildren, and the entire city was settled by his descendants, the text puts them together and says “father of Kiriath-jearim.” The same [may be said] for “avi Bethlehem” and “avi Beth-gader.”

Haro’eh ḥaṣi ha-menuḥot. Some explain (Pseudo-Rashi) that he ruled over a city named “Manahath,” the one mentioned below (1 2:54, 8:6), and that the meaning of ha-ro’eh is that he would supervise (ro’eh) the matters of the city and rule over it. Some explain (commentary attributed to student of Saadia) that he ruled over half (haṣi) of Jerusalem, which is called menuḥah (=tranquility). And some explain (cf. Targum) that he was the supervisor and appointee over half of the offerings (ḥaṣi ha-menaḥot) that came to Jerusalem from all the nations. There are still other interpretations that I did not see fit to record; and even those that I have recorded do not seem correct to me. What does seem correct in my view is that Haro’eh Ḥaṣi-ha-menuḥot consists of names of sons of Shobal—additional sons, beyond those who settled in Kiriath-jearim: one’s name was “Haroeh,” and the other’s name was “Hazi-hammenuhoth.” One should not be surprised by a combination of names of people that resembles something with a meaning. After all, the text presents the combination “Giddalti and Romamti” (1 Chr 25:4) which resembles something with a meaning, and yet they are names of people. And there are other examples besides these.

And the families of Kiriath-jearim: the Ithrites, the Puthites. This means: All the people of Kiriath-jearim, who were the descendants of Shobal, were divided into these families, and those who are mentioned were the heads of the families. Each family is identified in reference to the household of its ancestor, as in: “Of Imnah, the family of the Imnites … of Beriah, the family of the Beriites” (Num 26:44); and so for all of them.

From these came the Zorathite and the Eshtaolite clans. Zorah and Eshtaol are two places in the land of Judah: people from the families of Kiriath-jearim went out and built these two places and settled them, and they became two families called Zorathites and Eshtaolites. Even though the text says, “The spirit of the Lord first moved him in the Camp of Dan, between Zorah and Eshtaol” (Judg 13:25), [this area] did not belong to the tribe of Dan but to the tribe of Judah, as did Kiriath-jearim. Yet it was called “the Camp of Dan,” because people of Dan encamped in those places until their portion fell to them. Thus it says, “They went up and encamped at Kiriath-jearim in Judah. That is why that place is called ‘the Camp of Dan’ to this day” (Judg 18:12).

The sons of Salma: Bethlehem. [This is to be understood] in line with our explanation (v. 50) of “Salma father of Bethlehem” (v. 51). And there was another family of his descendants called the Netophathites.

Atroth-beth-joab. This is also the name of a family. Alternatively, it is the name of a city, similar to “Atroth-shophan” (Num 32:35), and the entire city was populated by his descendants.

And the Hazi-manahathites, the Zorites. These are also names of families.

And the families of the scribes that dwelt at Jabez. This means that these families were also among the descendants of Salma.

Scribes. For they were scribes and teachers. They were the inhabitants of the city named Jabez. It is possible that Jabez built it and that it was named for him.

The Tirathites, the Shimeathites, the Sucathites. These are names of families. There are many midrashic explanations of these names; but if we were to undertake to provide midrashic explanations for why all the names were called as they were, no book could contain them. We are only concerned, then, with what we find recorded. For all the names had explanations known to them; indeed, these are recorded in connection with a few of them. We should not, however, pursue those whose explanations are not recorded.

These are the Kenites (הקינים). This is how I found it in a carefully written manuscript: הקינים with a ṣerei under the qof. But in other manuscripts, also carefully written, I have found the qof with a ḥireq. The masoretic notation on it is: “No other occurrence; but one qinim va-hegeh (=lamentations and woes; Ezek 2:10).” The Kenites were similarly a well known family. Some say that they were smiths, based on the Targum of “and he gave it to a smith” (cf. Judg 17:4): ve-yahbeh le-qena’ah. But our Sages, of blessed memory (b. Sotah 11a), say that they are among the descendants of Keni, the father-in-law of Moses, and that they became mingled with the families of Judah, and thus their genealogy was presented together with them.

From Hammath, father of the house of Rechab. This is the family of the house of the Rechabites mentioned in the book of Jeremiah (35:2). The name of the father of that family was Hammath.