These were the sons of David. Because the text presented above (2:10–17) the family of Ram until David, but it refrained from completing those lines in order to present those of Ram’s brother Caleb, it returns now, upon completing the lines of Caleb, to complete the Davidic lineage.

The second one Daniel. Yet in the book of Samuel (2 3:3) he is called Chileab. There is a midrashic explanation of this (Tanḥuma Toledot 6): Because David married Abigail after the death of Nabal (1 Sam 25:39–42), the scoffers of the generation said that this child born to Abigail was the son of Nabal. His countenance thus appeared in the likeness of David’s in order to remove suspicion. Hence he called him Chileab (Kil’av); that is, domeh la-av (=in the likeness of the father). But Daniel was his main name, meaning danani Elohay mi-Naval (=my God has vindicated me in the matter of Nabal).

The third one Absalom (le-Avshalom) son of Maacah. The lamed of le-Avshalom refers to the pure substance of the thing and does not relate anything else to the substance; so when the text says le-Avshalom, it is as if it had just said Avshalom. This lamed is like those in haregu le-Avner (=had killed Abner; 2 Sam 3:30), le-kol kelav ta‘aseh neḥoshet (=make all its utensils of copper; Exod 27:3), anush le-shivrekh (=your wound is severe; Jer 30:12), and others besides these, which I have cited in the Mikhlol in the section on grammar (194a).

Ithream, by his wife Eglah. [The Sages] say that this is Michal daughter of Saul (b. Sanhedrin 21a): it is for this reason that the text says “his wife,” meaning his first one. And when the verse says, “So to her dying day Michal daughter of Saul had no children” (2 Sam 6:23), it means that from that day onward she had none, as punishment for scorning David for dancing wildly before the Lord. But beforehand she did have [a child].

These were born (nulledu [נוּלּדו]) to him in Jerusalem. The gemination of the lamed of nulledu takes the place of the [preceding] vowel-letter: even though the vav is written here, it is incorporated into the gemination.

Four by Bath-shua daughter of Ammiel. This is Bathsheba daughter of Eliam (2 Sam 11:3), only some called her Bath-shua and some Bathsheba, because they are similar. Likewise, Ammiel and Eliam are one and the same, only the letters are transposed. These four sons are not mentioned in the order of their births. For Solomon was the eldest: he was the first son born by Bathsheba to David after the death of the child, as the text says, “David consoled his wife Bathsheba; he went to her ... she bore him a son, and he called him Solomon” (cf. 2 Sam 12:24). Now in the book of Samuel, when the text lists the children of David born to him in Jerusalem (2 Sam 5:14–16), it does not mention the first Eliphelet and Nogah (1 Chr 3:6–8)—perhaps they were not alive then, and so it does not list them. But in this book it does list them, even though the two of them were not alive. For it lists those born to him in Jerusalem; and because it says here “All the sons of David” (v. 9), it lists them all. In another place in this book where it again lists them (1 14:4–7), it similarly lists them all: even though it does not say “All these are the sons of David,” it does after all say “whom he had in Jerusalem” (ibid.).

And Eliphelet (the second one). Perhaps the first one had already died when he named the latter one. But in the second list in this book (ibid.) there is a slight difference between them, as the first is Elpalet and the second Elifalet.

The son of Solomon: Rehoboam. The text leaves aside the other sons and presents the progeny of Solomon, because the kingship belonged to him and to his children after him. It then presents the royal lineage of Judah, one generation after another.

The sons of Josiah: Johanan the bekhor (=first-born). This is Jehoahaz, whom Pharaoh Neco took and exiled to Egypt, where he died (2 Kgs 23:34); and he had two names. How then could the text say “the first-born?” After all, Jehoiakim was two years older than he! For it says “Jehoahaz was twenty-three … when he became king” (2 Kgs 23:31) and “Jehoiakim was twenty-five … when he became king” (2 Kgs 23:36); and there were only three months between their respective ascents to the throne (2 Kgs 23:31–34). Rather, it calls him bekhor because he was the bekhor for kingship, meaning that he reigned first. This is how our Sages, of blessed memory, explain it (b. Horayot 11b).

The third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum. Our Sages, of blessed memory (ibid.), say that Shallum is Zedekiah, and that the text calls him Shallum because he was wholesome (mushlam) in his deeds. For he was righteous—it was the people of his generation who were wicked. Furthermore, it calls him Shallum because the Davidic kingship came to a close (shalemah) in his day. And it says concerning him “the third” because he was the third son of Josiah, and “the fourth” because he was the fourth since Josiah’s reign. But it does not seem so according to the plain sense. Rather, this Shallum is Jehoiachin son of Jehoiakim son of Josiah. We cannot say that Josiah had another son named “Shallum”; for among the kings who reigned after Josiah we find only Jehoahaz, Jehoiakim, Jehoiachin, and Zedekiah, and in the book of Jeremiah, Shallum is called a king: “concerning Shallum son of Josiah … who succeeded his father Josiah as king” (Jer 22:11). The concern of that entire prophecy is rather Jehoiachin, who was exiled to Babylon; and when it says “son of Josiah,” this is because he was his grandson, and grandsons are like sons: one finds this in many places. And whereaes here too the text records him in the list of Josiah’s sons, this is only because he preceded his uncle Zedekiah in assuming the Josiahide kingship. This, in fact, is why it proceeds to mention him again—in the appropriate list (v. 16).

The descendants of Jehoiakim: his son Jeconiah, his son Zedekiah. Jeconiah named his son Zedekiah after his uncle Zedekiah.

And the sons of Jeconiah: Assir, Shealtiel his son. These were both his sons. They called him Assir because he was born in prison (bet ha-asurin). After all, the prophet wrote of Jeconiah, “Record this man as childless, one who shall never prosper” (Jer 22:30)! [The Sages], accordingly, say that he repented in prison and returned to God with all his heart, and that God responded to him and gave him sons (cf. Leviticus Rabbah 10:5). And when he left prison, he named one Assir because he was born in prison (bet ha-asurin), and the other Shealtiel because the Davidic kingship was taken away (nishtalleh) from him. They also say (b. Sanhedrin 37b): “Rabbi Johanan said: Exile atones for everything. For it says ‘Record this man as childless,’ and after he went to exile it says ‘Assir his son, Shealtiel his son’ (cf. our verse)—‘Assir’ because his mother conceived him in prison (bet ha-asurin), and ‘Shealtiel’ because God implanted him (shetalo El) in an unusual manner: although we have learned that a woman cannot conceive while standing, she did conceive while standing. Another interpretation: [The name] ‘Shealtiel’ relates to [God’s] annulment of His curse (nish’al ‘al alato); and [the name] ‘Zerubbabel’ (v. 19) refers to [Zerubbabel’s] conception in Babylon (nizra‘ be-Bavel). For what was his actual name? His name was Nehemiah son of Hacaliah.”

Malchiram, Pedaiah. These are all sons of Shealtiel. But the text deploys an abridged style and does not say “The sons of Shealtiel,” because in all these cases it is understood that it lists father and son.

The sons of Pedaiah: Zerubbabel and Shimei. When the text says in Haggai (1:1), Zechariah (?), and Ezra (Ezra 3:2), “Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel,” this is because he was his grandson; for Pedaiah was the son of Shealtiel, and Zerubbabel was the son of Pedaiah. After all, one finds many places where the text mentions grandsons as sons.

The son of Zerubbabel: Meshullam. This is equivalent to: “The sons of Zerubbabel.” The same is true for “The son of Hananiah” (v. 21) and “The son of Neariah” (v. 23).