Ve-li-benei Yissakhar (=the sons of Issachar). The lamed of ve-li-benei is like the lamed of ve-ha-shelishi le-Avshalom (=the third one Absalom; 1 Chr 3:2). Above (2:3), the text began to present the lines of the tribes; but it interrupted with Levi, presenting their lines and their dwelling-places according to their cities. So now, it returns to provide the lines of the tribes and the numbers that they totaled in the time of King David of Israel. As for those that it leaves out and does not mention here, it mentions them along with all the rest when it relates how they joined David in Hebron in order to coronate him (1 Chr 12:24–39). The text does not, however, provide the lines of Dan and his sons. Some say, though (cf. the commentary attributed to a student of Saadia), that “Ḥushim the sons of aḥer” mentioned near the sons of Naphtali (v. 12) refers to Hushim son of Dan (Gen 46:23). In the case of Naphtali also, it does not provide his progeny beyond his sons (v. 13): perhaps [Ezra] did not find their lines recorded, nor was it told to him by tradition. Alternatively, it includes the genealogies that it left out when it says at the end, “All Israel was registered by genealogies; and these are in the book of the kings of Israel” (1 Chr 9:1).

Le-Tola‘ men of substance according to their lines. This means: Tola had (le-Tola‘ hayu) these men of substance by the rest of his sons—other than Uzzi—and they totaled twenty-two thousand six hundred, whereas from Uzzi he had thirty-six thousand (v. 4). This is the reason the text says that they had many wives and sons (v. 4), for that is why their numbers were so high. For the numbers of the rest of Tola’s sons—of whom there were five—totaled just twenty-two thousand six hundred; but the descendants of Uzzi totaled thirty-six thousand, because they had many wives and fathered many sons.

Their kinsmen belonging to all the families of Issachar. [This refers to] those descending from Tola’s brothers—Puah, Jashub, and Shimron.

[The sons of] Benjamin: Bela, Becher, and Jediael—three. Some (?) explain that this Benjamin descends from Issachar, as does the entire line until “the sons of Naphtali” (v. 13), because Benjamin [son of Jacob] will be mentioned later, after Asher (1 Chr 8:1). But it is possible to explain that this refers to Benjamin son of Jacob, and that here the text mentions some of the genealogy, whereas later it mentions more of it—up until the lines of King Saul of Israel.

And Jediael. He is the same as Ashbel (Gen 46:21).

The sons of Becher … Anathoth. The city of Anathoth that is in the land of Benjamin is named for him, because this Anathoth built it. This is similar to: “and he named the city for his son Enoch” (Gen 4:17).

And Alemeth (‘Alamet). This too is both a person’s name and the name of a city in the land of Benjamin: it is the one called “Bahurim.” Targum Jonathan, also, renders “from Bahurim” (2 Sam 19:17): “from Alemeth (‘Almat).”

And Shuppim and Huppim were the sons of Ir. This is Iri, whom the text lists among the sons of Bela (v. 7).

Hushim, one ofthe sons of Aher. This Aher is not mentioned—perhaps he is the same as one of those listed, and he had two names. The reason the text relates the genealogy in abridged form is that Ezra recorded only what he found in the genealogical records or was told to him by tradition.

The sons of Naphtali. The text records none of his progeny besides his sons. It says “the descendants of Bilhah” just as the Torah says “These were the descendants of Bilhah” (Gen 46:25); [that is,] without saying the equivalent for the other [mothers of the tribes]. But there is a midrashic interpretation (cf. Bereshit Rabbati 46:25) that the text mentions Bilhah to praise her, because she married Jacob willingly; for concerning her, it does not say “she took” as with Zilpah (Gen 30:9), but only “she gave” (Gen 30:4).

The sons of Manasseh: Asriel (Asri’el), whom she bore. It seems from the Torah (Num 26:29–31) that Asriel is a son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh, so that he was [Manasseh’s] great-grandson. We find many places in this book where the text lists grandsons in a sequence of sons. So here, too, it mentions Asriel among the sons of Manasseh even though he was his great-grandson. And it places him before his son Machir because Machir was a son of a concubine, as it says, “his Aramean concubine bore Machir the father of Gilead.” When it says “Asriel, whom she bore” without mentioning the one who bore him, it follows a standard practice of the text, as in: “whom she bore to Levi in Egypt” (Num 26:59), and: “He was the one whom she bore after Absalom” (1 Kgs 1:6). The reason the text mentions Asriel without listing the others is that they are [all] listed in the Torah (Num 26:29–35); so it takes an abridged form. But it does mention Asriel: perhaps he was more highly regarded than his brothers and his family was well known. There is a midrashic explanation on this (?), [which affirms that it mentions him] because his name was similar to their ancestor Yisra’el (=Israel).

And Machir took a wife le-Ḥuppim u-le-Shuppim. This means: He took a wife from [Huppim and Shuppim]. These are the sons of Ir mentioned above (v. 12). The meaning of the lameds in le-Ḥuppim u-le-Shuppim is that Machir took a wife who was a sister of Huppim and Shuppim (aḥot le-Ḥuppim u-le-Shuppim). Thus it says, “The name of his sister was Maacah.” In saying “his sister” rather than “their sister,” the text is referring to the more highly regarded of them, namely Huppim, whom it places before Shuppim. But when it says “Shuppim and Huppim” (v. 12), this is according to birth.

And the name of the second was Zelophehad. This connects to “The sons of Manasseh: Asriel” above (v. 14): Asriel is a great-grandson of Manasseh—three generations after him—whereas Zelophehad is a great-great-grandson of Manasseh—four generations after him. The text says “the second” even though, relative to Asriel, [the line that produced Zelophehad] did not come second—for [Zelophehad’s] father Hepher was Gilead’s sixth son, whereas Asriel was the third (Num 26:29–33). Rather, it means “the second” one mentioned, for it only mentions Asriel, Zelophehad, and the sons of Shemida mentioned at the end (v. 19). The text mentions [Zelophehad] instead of his father Hepher, because Zelophehad was the only son he had who was as honorable and highly regarded as he was, and it was [Zelophehad] who perpetuated his name; for the others are not mentioned. But while Zelophehad had daughters only, Hepher did have other sons, as it says in Joshua, “a portion among their father’s brothers” (Jos 17:4), and in the Torah, “wives for the sons of their uncles” (Num 36:11).

And his sons were Ulam and Rekem. This refers to Peresh, or to the closer Sheresh.

These were the sons of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh. This refers to Asriel and Zelophehad whom the author had mentioned (vv. 14–15). He is saying: Even though I listed them among the sons of Manasseh, they were descendants of his grandson Gilead.

And his sister the ruler. [This means]: the sister of Gilead. She ruled over part of Gilead’s land. Even though this is not mentioned in the Torah or in the Prophets, it was known to them by tradition. And because she was a great woman, the text provides her progeny.

The sons of Shemida were. The text did not have to mention that Shemida was a son of Gilead, because this is known from the Torah (Num 26:32); but it mentions his sons, who were Ahian, Shechem, Likhi, and Aniam. This Shechem is not the one mentioned in the Torah (Num 26:31), for that one was Shemida’s brother, whereas this was his son.

**The sons of Ephraim: Shuthelah—**as stated in the Torah (Num 26:35). Bered is the same as Becher mentioned in the Torah (ibid.); Tahath is the same as Tahan (ibid.); and from that point forward they are later descendants. It is possible, however, that with the exception of Shuthelah, all those mentioned are later descendants.

The men of Gath killed them, the ones born in the land. Some explain (Pseudo-Rashi) that the reason the text says “the ones born in the land” is that the men of Gath were born in the land, and knew the lay of the land; so when the Ephraimites came into the land to take their cattle and did not know the roads, the men of Gath ambushed them and killed them. And some (?) explain that it says “the ones born in the land” because Gath later belonged to Israel; so it says that the men of Gath who were born in the land, that is, the Philistines, were the ones who killed them. But in my opinion, “the ones born in the land” refers to the Ephraimites. Because among the descendants of Ephraim the text mentions the ones born in Egypt—that is, his sons and grandsons, as it says, “Joseph lived to see children of the third generation of Ephraim” (Gen 50:23)—it says that the descendants of Ephraim “born in the land”—whom he produced “in the land”—went down to the land of Gath to take their cattle, and the men of Gath killed them. Now this took place in the wilderness. It could not have taken place in the land of Israel, because the text says “And Ephraim their father mourned many days” (v. 22)—and Ephraim did not enter the land! For the only ones who left Egypt at twenty years of age or more who entered were Joshua and Caleb (Num 14:29–30). Therefore, I say that this event took place in the wilderness or in the land of Gilead, with Ephraim still alive. For that is possible, because Machir son of Manasseh was among those who conquered the land of Gilead (Jos 17:1), and the children of Machir son of Manasseh were, after all, “born upon Joseph’s knees” (Gen 50:23). What proves this interpretation is that you find that the Ephraimites’ numbers when they went out of Egypt, when they were counted in the wilderness of Sinai in the second year, totaled forty thousand five hundred (Num 1:33), whereas when they were counted upon entering the land, at the fords of Moab, they totaled only thirty-two thousand five hundred (Num 26:37). So those eight thousand whom they lost in the wilderness are the ones whom the Gathites killed. But our Sages, of blessed memory, explain midrashically (b. Sanhedrin 92b) that this was before the exodus from Egypt: having calculated the end erroneously, they left before their time, and this is what happened to them.

And eḥav came to comfort [Ephraim]. This means his relatives and the people who knew him.

Because [this wife] was in his house when there was misfortune. For it was after he took her that this tragic event occurred, in which the men of Gath killed his sons.

Who built both Lower and Upper Beth-horon. These are the ones mentioned in the book of Joshua, in the portion of the Ephraimites (Jos 16:3, 5).

And Uzzen of Sheerah. The name of the city is Uzzen. Perhaps there was another Uzzen; so they would attribute this one to Sheerah, who built it.

His son Rephah, Resheph. The text returns to the genealogical sequence that it initiated for the Ephraimites (vv. 20–21). It digressed with the story of the men of Gath, and now it returns and completes the genealogy up until Joshua.

Ve-‘al yedei the Manassites.[This means]: ve-‘al meqomot (=and near the places of) the Manassites, as in ish ‘al yado (=each man in his place; Num 2:17). It means to say that near the cities of the Manassites, which were Beth-shean and its dependencies, Taanach and its dependencies, etc., were the cities of Ephraim, as it says in the book of Joshua (17:8–11).

The sons of Asher … who was the father of Birzaith. Malchiel was the father of Birzaith.

Heber begot Japhlet … heads of (rashei) the chieftains. Their might was so great that they were heads even of the chieftains of the tribes. Alternatively, rashei is the equivalent of rashim (=heads)—there are many cases like this—and the text means to say: they were the heads, the chieftains.