The sons of Reuben. After mentioning the Simeonites, who, as we have written, were the Judahites’ neighbors (1 Chr 4:24), the text returns to Reuben, the first-born.

For he was the first-born. This means: He was the first-born, and because the birthright and the kingship should properly have belonged to him, the account of the genealogies should properly have begun with him. But when he defiled his father’s bed, his birthright was given to the sons of Joseph son of Israel; that is, his father had a dear and beloved son to whom he gave it.

But not to be reckoned as first-born. This means: When he gave Joseph the birthright, this was not for him to be reckoned as first-born in all respects and to be called Israel’s first-born; for had that been the case he would have had the kingship also, just as the rule would have dictated that Reuben have everything.

For Judah became more powerful than his brothers, and Jacob gave him the kingship, whereas the rest of the birthright—that is, to receive a double portion of land—he gave to Joseph.

*And he who was to be a leader (u-le-nagid)—from him (mimmennu).* This means: Whoever was to be a leader in Israel (be-Yisra’el le-nagid) Jacob declared must come from him (mimmennu).

The sons of Reuben. Because the text had digressed from the topic, it returns to say “The sons of Reuben” again.

The sons of Joel. Even though the text did not mention him in the genealogical sequence, it mentions him now to provide the lines of the descendants that follow him. There are many cases like this in the genealogical accounts.

His son Shemaiah, his son Gog. Each one is a son of the one before. Even if they all had other sons, the text only mentions the first ones. One finds this in many places.

His son Beerah, whom [Tillegath (תלגת)-pilneser] exiled. He was chieftain of the tribe of Reuben at the time when Tillegath-pileser exiled them. He is the same as Tiglath (תגלת) mentioned in Kings (2 15:29): the transposition of letters in names is a normal feature of the language, as one sees often.

And his brothers, by their families. This means: He was himself a chieftain, and his brothers, in relation to their lines, were also heads of families and well known; and among them were Jeiel, theirhead, and Zechariah, etc.

Son of Shema son of Joel. He is the same as Shemaiah son of Joel mentioned above (v. 4).

He dwelt in Aroer (ba-‘Aro‘er) [until Nebo]. Some (?) explain that the bet (=in) of ba-‘Aro‘er takes the place of a mem (=from), because Aroer did not belong to the Reubenites, but rather to the Gadites, as the text says, “The Gadites rebuilt Dibon and Ataroth and Aroer” (Num 32:34). And this is correct: we similarly find bet in place of mem in: “and what is left over from the flesh and from the bread (ve-ha-notar ba-basar u-ba-laḥem)” (Lev 8:32), and in: “They battered and shattered the Israelites from that year (ba-shanah ha-hi), for eighteen years” (Judg 10:8). One can also interpret ba-‘Aro‘er to mean in the territory of Aroer (bi-gevul ‘Aro‘er), on the assumption that the city alone belonged to the Gadites who built it, whereas the territory around it belonged to the Reubenites.

He also dwelt toward the east. This means: toward the east of the land of Gilead; for their entire land was east of the land of Israel, as the text says, “the east side of the Jordan” (Num 32:19). They spread out toward the eastern part of the land of Gilead, however, and settled as far as the fringe of the wilderness at the Euphrates River (le-min ha-nahar Perat), meaning: as far as the Euphrates River, their border extending from the river (min ha-nahar) inward. For the Euphrates River is the eastern boundary of the land of Israel, as the text says, “from the River, the Euphrates (min ha-nahar nehar Perat), until the Western Sea” (Deut 11:24).

Because their cattle had increased. This means: The reason they had to spread out through the land was that their cattle had increased.

With the Hagrites (ההגראים). These are the descendants of Hagar: the alef takes the place of the gentilic yod.

Throughout the entire penei mizraḥ la-Gil‘ad. [This means]: the eastern region (penei mizraḥ) of the Gilead.

The sons of Gad dwelt facing them in the land of Bashan as far as Salcah. This does not include the entire land of Bashan, because the Torah says that Moses gave the land of Bashan to the half-tribe of Manasseh, as it says, “The rest of the Gilead and all of the Bashan the kingdom of Og I assigned to the half-tribe of Manasseh—the whole Argob district, all that part of the Bashan” (Deut 3:13). Rather, the Gadites had a part of the Bashan, which extended until Salcah; and from Salcah onward, the entire Bashan belonged to the half-tribe of Manasseh. And when it says in the Torah that “all of the Bashan [the kingdom of Og]” belonged to the half-tribe of Manasseh, it means: all of the Bashan that constituted the kingdom of Og, along with the whole Argob district that is called “Rephaim country” (ibid.). There were, however, a few places in the Bashan over which Og did not rule. Even though he was called “King of Bashan” (Num 21:33), this is because the majority of the Bashan was his. But a part of the Bashan—until Salcah—had belonged to the Amorites, and that was what the Gadites possessed. When the text says here “and they dwelt in Gilead, in Bashan, and in its dependencies” (v. 16), this refers, again, to the part of the Bashan that extends until Salcah and its dependencies, where the Gadites dwelt. Similarly, when it says here (v. 23) that the half-tribe of Manasseh dwelt in the land of Bashan as far as Baal-hermon, it means from the part of the Bashan that belonged to the Gadites as far as Baal-hermon. Accordingly, it says in Joshua (22:7), “To the one half-tribe of Manasseh Moses had assigned territory in the Bashan,” but it does not say the whole Bashan.

Joel the chief. He was chief of the Gadites. Those four who are mentioned, who were heads of families and well known in the tribe, ruled in the Bashan. But in the Midrash (cf. b. Pesaḥim 68a; Numbers Rabbah 14:18) it says: “‘And Shaphat in Bashan’ refers to Shaphat the father of the prophet Elisha, because the text juxtaposes ‘in Bashan’ to him: just as the Bashan has sixty cities (Deut 3:4), so Elisha his son led Israel for sixty years.”

Chief of their clan. [This refers] either to Abdiel or to his father Guni.

And they dwelt in Gilead, in the Bashan (ba-Bashan). This means u-ba-Bashan (=and in the Bashan): it elides the vav, as in shemesh yareaḥ (=sun and moon; Hab 3:11).

All of them were registered by genealogies in the days of King Jotham of Judah and in the days of King Jeroboam of Israel. This means: All these descendants of Reuben, Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh were registered by genealogies for this war that they made on the Hagrites (v. 19); that is, they were enumerated by the clans of their ancestral houses when they went out to war. This happened in the days of King Jotham of Judah and in the days of King Jeroboam of Israel—that is, Jeroboam son of Joash, a descendant of Jehu. This is despite the fact that it seems from the verses in Kings that King Jotham of Judah and King Jeroboam of Israel did not rule concurrently. For Jeroboam ruled for forty-one years (2 Kgs 14:23); in Jeroboam’s twenty-seventh year, King Azariah—that is, Uzziah—son of Amaziah ascended to the throne (ibid. 15:1); and this Azariah ruled for fifty-two years (ibid. 15:2). King Azariah of Judah, then, ruled for thirty-eight years after the death of King Jeroboam of Israel. (Even though one can quibble over these calculations, as we will explain [in our commentary] on the book of Kings [ibid. 15:1], Uzziah still lived for a long time after Jeroboam.) How, then, could Jotham son of Uzziah have ruled in the days of Jeroboam? Because Jotham son of Uzziah ruled during the lifetime of his father Uzziah, from the time Uzziah became a leper, as the text says, “The Lord struck the king with a plague … while Jotham, the king’s son, was in charge of the palace and governed the people of the land” (ibid. 15:5). One might also explain “in the days of Jotham … and in the days of Jeroboam” to mean each one in his time, and that [these tribes] registered for the war with each of them.

And experienced at (lemudei) war. This is an adjective derived from the Qal, and not a passive participle; for lmd is an intransitive verb, which takes a pa‘ul form only as an adjective, as I have explained in the Mikhlol in the section on grammar (20a).

And all who were with them. [This means]: And all of the nations that were with the Hagrites—all were delivered into the hands [of the Reubenites, Gadites and Manassites].

Ve-na‘tor la-hem (=and He responded to their entreaty). This is the equivalent of ve-ne‘tar: it is a passive form, similar to ve-naḥtom be-taba‘at ha-melekh (=and sealed with the king’s signet; Esth 8:8).

And [these tribes] dwelt in their stead (taḥtam). [This means]: in their place (bi-meqomam). Even though the text says “They carried off their livestock” (v. 21), some of them dwelt there whereas others returned to their land with the spoils.

Until the exile. [This means]: until they were exiled by the Assyrian king (v. 26).

The members of the half-tribe of Manasseh … they were very numerous. This means: Because they were very numerous, they extended their boundary “to Baal-hermon, Senir, and Mount Hermon.”

Ve-‘Efer ve-Yish‘i (Epher and Ishi). The vav of ve-‘Efer is like the vav of ve-Ayyah va-‘Anah (=Aiah and Anah; Gen 36:24).

To this day. For [these tribes] did not leave when the Judean exile left Babylon.

The sons of Levi. The text presents the progeny of Levi’s sons also—and the cities that were given to them (1 Chr 6:39–66)—and it mentions that David appointed people from their ranks to perform music and to minister before the Lord (ibid. 6:16–38). The text presents the progeny of Aaron until the exile (vv. 29–41); that is, [until] Jehozadak, who went [to Babylon] with the Judean exile at the hands of Nebuchadnezzar, and whose son Joshua went up from Babylon with the [returnees from] exile (Hag 1). In the book of Ezra (Ezra 7:1–5), the text [likewise] provides this genealogy back to Aaron, because Ezra was a son of Seraiah: it provides Seraiah’s genealogy back to Aaron, just as here it provides the genealogy of his brother Jehozadak back to Aaron. Only there, it omits five ancestral houses that it mentions here, from Johanan, the father of Azariah, until Meraioth. It is in order to be brief that it omits those five ancestral houses. The text presents the progeny of Eleazar but not the progeny of Ithamar, because high priests were forever to come from the descendants of Eleazar. After all, this is what the Holy One, blessed is He, said to Phinehas when he took impassioned action at Shittim: “It shall be for him and his descendants after him a pact of priesthood for all time” (Num 25:13). And this refers to the high priesthood; for the descendants of Ithamar were also priests, but high priests were forever to come from the descendants of Phinehas. This blessing began with Zadok, because until Zadok there were high priests from the descendants of Ithamar also. After all, Eli was a high priest (cf. 1 Sam 1:9) of the descendants of Ithamar, as were Ahimelech (cf. 1 Sam 21:3) and his son Abiathar (cf. 1 Sam 22:20; 1 Kgs 2:27).

It was [Azariah] who served as priest in the Temple that Solomon built in Jerusalem. If we explain that he was the first to serve as priest in the Temple—such was not the case! For it was Zadok, as it says in Kings, “the priest Zadok and the prophet Nathan” (1 Kgs 1:34). In this book also, it says, “and they anointed him as ruler before the Lord, and Zadok as high priest” (1 Chr 29:22). But if we say that the text does not mean that he was the first to serve as priest in the Temple, only that he served in the Temple—there were others who served as priests also; so what is it adding? If it is adding that he was a high priest, there were others who were also high priests! Our Sages, of blessed memory (Yalqut Shimoni Qoraḥ 754), say that this is the Azariah from the days of King Uzziah; and because he gave his life for the sanctity of the Temple in not allowing Uzziah to offer incense (2 Chr 26:17–18), it says “it was he who served as priest,” meaning that he cared about the honor of the priesthood and was not partial to Uzziah. One can also explain that he served as priest in the days of Solomon also—after Zadok, and after his ancestors that are mentioned—but that he was still young in the days of Solomon and was not high priest until the days of Uzziah. In fact, in the days of Hezekiah he was still alive and was high priest, as it says, “The chief priest Uzziah replied to him” (cf. 2 Chr 31:10). So it is because he lived so long that it says concerning him, “who served as priest in the Temple,” meaning: who served for a long period of time.