The sons of Judah: Perez, Hezron, Carmi. The text proceeds to fill in the lines of Judah not recorded above, recording—in abridged form—sons and grandsons in order.

Hur and Shobal. This is the Hur mentioned above: “Caleb son of Hur the first-born of Ephrathah” (2:50). This Hur was the son of Caleb son of Jephunneh: he was the father of the Caleb who was the father of Shobal, as indicated above (ibid.). Here, the text completes his progeny.

Reaiah son of Shobal. Reaiah (Re’ayah) is the same as Haroeh (Ha-ro’eh) mentioned above: “Shobal … had sons: Haroeh, Hazi-hammenuhoth” (2:52). For Ha-ro’eh (הרואה) and Re’ayah (ראיה) are one and the same, as it is common for letters in names to change position.

These were the families of the Zorathite clan. This is the same as the one mentioned above: “From these came the Zorathites and the Eshtaolites” (2:53), only here the text lists Jahath, Ahumai and Lahad, who were the main Zorathite families.

And these: the father of Etam. This means: And these were additional descendants of Shoval and of Hur: the father of Etam, Jezreel ….

And the name of their sister was Hazlelponi. Perhaps the reason the text mentions their sister—and the sister of the sons of Zerubbabel above (“And Shelomit was their sister” [3:19])—is that they did not have others; so it mentions these. Alternatively, these were famous and important women in their time, and so it mentions them as it does in the case of Serah daughter of Asher (1 Chr 7:30).

The father of Bethlehem. In order to be brief, the text does not mention Salma, who was the father of Bethlehem. Rather, it says “the sons of Hur … the father of Bethlehem”; for Hur was the father of Salma, and Salma was the father of Bethlehem (1 Chr 2:50–51).

Ashhur the father of Tekoa had. This is the one mentioned above (2:24) as the son of Hezron, who begot him by his wife Abijah. But above the text did not list any more of his progeny, only that he was “the father of Tekoa” (ibid.); so here it completes his progeny.

Jabez was more esteemed than his brothers. Perhaps Jabez is one of those listed, and he had two names. Or he is an additional one, and the text records his story even though it does not list him in the genealogical sequence.

Jabez (יעבץ). Even though, considering the story, this involves a transposition [of letters]—for according to the story it should have said יעצב—Hebrew-speakers are not particular on this, as in the cases of Noaḥ (=Noah), from yenaḥamenu (=will provide us relief; Gen 5:29); Qayin (קין; =Cain), from qaniti (קניתי; =I have gained; Gen 4:1); and Shemu’el (=Samuel), from me-Adonay she’iltihu (=I asked the Lord for him; cf. 1 Sam 1:20).

Jabez called out. Perhaps he was concerned about his name, which is related to [the word meaning] pain (עצב)—as it says, “that I not suffer pain (לבלתי עצבי)”—and he was concerned that his dealings would not turn out right, and that he would experience pain in his dealings with the world. So he made a vow that, should God make him succeed, he would do such and such—but it does not say what he vowed. This is also true for [the verse], “Jacob then made a vow, saying, ‘If God remains with me …’” (Gen 28:20) according to some of the commentators, and for [the verse], “Then Israel made a vow … and said, ‘If you deliver this people’” etc. (Num 21:2).

Ve-‘asita (=and make/do) that from misfortune I not suffer pain (me-ra‘ah le-bilti ‘oṣbi). This means: And make for me that I not suffer pain from misfortune, meaning that You should make a sign for me that I will not suffer pain from misfortune in the world, and that my name not cause me any pain. ‘Oṣbi is then the infinitive of an intransitive verb, with the pronoun and the infinitive relating to one person: it does not indicate a subject and an object. Alternatively, it is a transitive verb, and the meaning is: And You will act on my behalf to save me from misfortune, such that it not cause me pain.

Chelub the brother of Shuhah. Even though the text does not mention him in the genealogical sequence, it mentions him [here] to relate his lines. One finds this in many places in the book, because it keeps the genealogical lines brief.

Father of the Ir-nahash. This is akin to “father of Kiryath-jearim” (1 Chr 2:50): the city called “Ir-nahash” was settled by his sons.

These were the men of Recah. All these sons of Chelub who are listed were called “men of Recah” for a reason known to them.

The sons of Kenaz: Othniel. Even though the text had not mentioned Kenaz, it mentions his lines, as we have written (v. 11).

Father of Ge-harashim. This is akin to “father of Kiryath-jearim” (1 Chr 2:50) in the sense that we have written (v. 12). The text indicates why the city was called “Ge-harashim”—because they were craftsmen (ḥarashim). This means: crafters of stone, wood and iron; for each of them is called a ḥarash.

The sons of Caleb son of Jephunneh. We have already written )1 Chr 2:18) that the view of our Sages, of blessed memory, is that he is the same as Caleb son of Hezron, even though the text provides additional lines not provided above (1 Chr 2:18–55).

And the sons of Elah: Uknaz. That was his name: “Uknaz,” with a vav.

The sons of Ezrah: Jether, Mered … and she bore (vattahar et) Miriam. The meaning of vattahar is like that of vatteled (=she bore). Similarly, ‘al birkhot horay (=over the blessings of my ancestors; Gen 49:26) is akin to yoleday (=those who bore me). It is concerning the wife of Mered that the text says that she bore him—[that is,] Mered—Miriam, Shammai, etc.

Miriam. This is a son like the others: we find many names used for both males and females, such as Abijah the wife of Hezron (1 Chr 2:24), Ephah the concubine of Caleb (1 Chr 2:46), and many others. The end of the passage proves that “and she bore Miriam” refers to the wife of Mered. Similarly, “And his wife, the Judahite, bore Jered” (v. 18) means Mered’s wife.

The Judahite. This means that the first one mentioned was not a Judahite: she was Bithiah daughter of Pharaoh mentioned at the end of the passage.

Jered father of Gedor. Some explain (Pseudo Rashi) all these cases of “father of” as “master of,” and they explain Gedor, Soco, and Zenoah as the names of the cities over which these people ruled. But the truth is these terms they mean what they say: they are all names of sons born to each respective person. One finds several such cases in the [biblical] context where we made our introductory remarks [on this issue] (1 Chr 2:42): in the event that the son was more highly regarded and famous than the father, the text identifies the father in reference to the son.

These were the sons of Bithiah daughter of Pharaoh. This means: Those mentioned earlier—Miriam, Shammai, etc. (v. 17)—were sons of Bithiah daughter of Pharaoh, whom Mered, the son of Ezrah the descendent of Caleb son of Jephunneh, married. But our Sages, of blessed memory, explain midrashically (b. Sanhedrin 19b; Megillah 13a) that Mered is Caleb son of Jephunneh. And why was he called Mered? Because he rebelled (marad) against the plot of the spies. All these names—Jered, Abi-gedor, and Heber—they explain midrashically to refer to Moses, our teacher; and “bore” is to be understood as “raised,” because he was like a son to her.

The sons of the wife of Hodiah. Even though this Hodiah was not mentioned before now, the text provides his line. Such is the practice of the book, as we have written (1 Chr 4:11). It was from his wife the sister of Naham that he had these sons—the father of Keilah the Garmite, and Eshtemoa the Maacathite.

The sons of Shelah son of Judah. All the lines provided until now are from Perez and Zerah: the text did not, to this point, list any of the descendants of Shelah. But now, when completing the lines of Judah, it lists a few of the descendants of Shelah.

And the families of the linen factory. This means that those families were flax-workers.

And Jokim, and the men of Cozeba. There are many midrashic explanations of these names: [The Sages] explain (b. Bava Batra 91b) Joash and Saraph to be Mahlon and Chilion, asher ba‘alu le-Moav to mean that they married Moabite women, and ve-yashuvi* (וישבי) *Laḥem to mean that they were from Bethlehem in Judah. They also provide many midrashic explanations (ibid.) of the verse “These were the potters …” (v. 23). But the plain meaning of the verse is that all these are sons and grandsons of Shelah: all the people of Cozeba were his descendants (perhaps Cozeba is Chezib [Gen 38:5]); Joash and Saraph were also his descendants, with asher ba‘alu le-Moav meaning that they fought the Moabites and were their masters; and Yashuvi Laḥem (=Jashubi-lehem) was also one of his descendants.

The matters have been reliably transmitted. This means: Our earlier remark that Joash and Saraph became masters over Moab, although not found in the prophetic books, is known by a tradition that was carefully transmitted, received, and relayed from one man to the next. But some explain (cf. the commentary attributed to a student of Saadia) that “The matters have been reliably transmitted” refers to all the genealogical lines recorded to this point by Ezra: it means that even though what is written here cannot be found in any of the prophetic books, you should not ask how Ezra knew all these things that did not happen in his time—for they are all traditions.

These were the potters, dwellers of neta‘im and gederah. It might be that this refers to the people of Cozeba mentioned above (v. 22), and that it means that these people were well-known potters—expert crafters of pottery vessels—who dwelt outside the city where the crops (neta‘im) were, to plant crops and work the land and to make the vessels there. It also might be that the earth in that place was good for crafting, and that they lived there, planting crops and erecting fences (gederot).

In the king’s service. They were also in the king’s service outside [the city], attending to the crops and the fences; and they dwelt there because of their work.

The sons of Simeon. The text provides an abridged account of Simeon’s progeny after that of Judah because their portions rendered them neighbors (it presents [the Simeonites’] portion together with their progeny [vv. 28–43]), as it says, “The portion of the Simeonites was part of the territory of the Judahites; because the share of the Judahites was larger than they needed, the Simeonites received a portion inside their portion” (Jos 19:9). For they did not have their own portion as did the other tribes: this is the meaning of “I will scatter them in Jacob” (Gen 49:7).

Nemuel, Jamin. Nemuel is the same as Jemuel mentioned in parashat Vayyiggash (Gen 46:10) and parashat Va’era (Exod 6:15). He is also called Nemuel in parashat Pineḥas (Num 26:12): “Of Nemuel, the clan of the Nemuelites.” One finds this with many Hebrew names—with names of people and of cities—for they were not particular about changing one or two letters in a name. Sometimes, they called people by two names that are not similar to one another—calling them in one place by one name and in another place by another name.

In all, their families were not as prolific as the Judahites. Because [the Simeonites] dwelt among the Judahites, the text says that their families were not prolific enough to equal the numbers of the Judahites. It is for this reason that they dwelt among them and were appended to them, living in just a few of the cities of Judah. One even finds the cities mentioned here listed in the book of Joshua among the cities of Judah (Jos 15:20–36). It also mentions these cities as part of the portion of the Simeonites that fell to them within the portion of Judah (Jos 19:1–6). Now it says here “These were their cities until David became king”; for when David became king and the Judahites gained power, the Judahites expelled the Simeonites from their portion. They then sought a portion for themselves, as it says, “They went to the approaches of Gedor, to the eastern side of the valley … and some of the Simeonites went to Mount Seir …” (vv. 39–42); for they went all over looking for a portion. And when it says, “such were their settlements, those to which they were linked (ve-hityaḥsam la-hem),” it means that those five cities and their villages remained theirs (the Judahites did not expel them from them), so that they were linked to them, meaning that these cities were always referred to by the Simeonites’ name. Linguistically, it is not problematic to employ yḥs for cities. After all, the word yaḥas, as an indication of family, functions mainly to identify the family or tribe from which a person comes. Similarly, then, it can relate cities to people or people to cities, for the purpose of identification and of imparting the relevant information. Accordingly, the yod of צורי (Ṣori; =Tyrian; 1 Kgs 7:14) is called a “yod of yaḥas” because it relates the individual to Tyre, just as the yod of עברי (‘Ivri; =Hebrew; Gen 39:14) is called a “yod of yaḥas” because it relates [the individual] to Eber. Now when the text says “such (zot) were their settlements,” instead of saying elleh, this is consistent with the way the language works in many places, using a plural form for an individual or a singular form for a group: ki tiqrenah milḥamah (=should there be a war; Exod 1:10), vayyavo Mosheh ve-Aharon (=Moses and Aaron came; Exod 7:10), and others like them, as we have written in the Mikhlol in the section on grammar (6b–7a). Alternatively, its meaning is: “This (zot) was the land.”

Meshobab, Jamlech, etc. All those listed were chieftains of clans of the tribe of Simeon and ancestral heads, who went to seek land after David became king. The land belonged to the descendants of Ham, who had been living there from the beginning; and these people came, wiped them out forever, and settled in their place (vv. 40–41).

The Meunim—with a shuruq instead of a ḥolem: it is a plural form of ma‘on, which means a place of residence. When the text says “forever,” this is because until the days of Ezra the descendants of Ham still had not returned to these areas, even though the Simeonites had been exiled from them.

Sons of Ishi were at their head. Our Sages say (b. Bava Batra 123b) that these four sons of Ishi, who were heads of these five hundred people, were from Manasseh; for we have seen that Ishi was from the tribe of Manasseh, as the text says, “These were the chiefs of their clans: Epher, Ishi” (1 Chr 5:24). They say this because they affirmed (b. ibid.) that the descendants of Esau can only be defeated by of the descendants of Joseph—as the text says, “And the House of Esau shall be flame and the House of Esau shall be straw” (Obad 1:18)—and they then asked: But it says, “And some of the Simeonites went to Mount Seir” and “sons of Ishi were at their head”? So they replied that Ishi also came from Manasseh, as it says, “Epher, Ishi.”

[This group of Simeonites] destroyed the last surviving Amalekites. This means whoever remained, not having been wiped out by Saul and David; for concerning David it says, “until he had killed off every male in Edom” (1 Kgs 11:16), and Amalek was a descendant of Edom (Gen 36:9–12). Now when the text says “and [these Simeonites] lived [in Mount Seir] to this day,” it means: until the day that they were exiled. Alternatively, it means that to this day, even though the Simeonites have been exiled from there, Amalekites have not returned there; so to this day it is in the possession of the Simeonites.