Benjamin begot Bela his first-born, Ashbel the second. The text says “Ashbel the second” when he was really the third; for the sons of Benjamin were Bela, Becher, and Ashbel (Gen 46:21). Indeed, above it does say “Bela, Becher” (7:6). But because it does not mention Becher [here], it says “Ashbel the second.” It does not mention Becher here much as it does not mention him in parashat Pineḥas—just: “Of Bela, the clan of the Belaites; of Ashbel, the clan of the Ashbelites” (Num 26:38). Now in parashat Vayyiggash (Gen 46:21) the text lists ten sons for Benjamin, whereas in Pineḥas (Numbers 26:38–39) it only lists five! Perhaps these five were the clan chiefs for Benjamin. That would also be why it does not list Becher here even though it lists him in the first account. Also, in Vayyiggash (Gen 46:21) the text lists Ard and Naaman among the sons of Benjamin, whereas in Pineḥas (Numbers 26:40) it lists them among the sons of Bela! Perhaps in Vayyiggash it includes grandsons with sons. Alternatively, it says “The sons of Bela were Ard and Naaman” because Bela named his sons for his brothers. In Pineḥas, the text also presents the names differently from the way it presents them in Vayyiggash, as this book does [here] and in many places besides it, as we have written (1 Chr 6:18). But our Sages, of blessed memory (Numbers Rabbah 21:8), say that those families missing in Pineḥas perished in the wilderness in the affair of Balaam. What will they say, though, concerning Becher, who is not mentioned in Pineḥas but is mentioned above in this book (7:8–9)—himself, his family, and the numbers they reached in the time of David?

And they transferred them (vayyaglum) to Manahath. This means: These clan chiefs transferred the inhabitants of Geba to Manahath; and after that, the text mentions which of the heads transferred them, namely Naaman, Ahijah, and Gera. The sense of this usage of glh is one of movement; that is, he made them get up and move from their place, which was Geba, to Manahath. The sense of “You are also a goleh (=an exile)” (2 Sam 15:19) is also one of movement. It is the same for every use of glh, except that most of them refer to moving captives.

And Shaharaim had sons in the country of Moab min (=from) Shilḥo Otam. This Shaharaim is a descendant of Benjamin—even though the text does not mention him, there are many such cases in the book—who went to live in the country of Moab because of famine or some other occurrence and had sons from Shilho Otam. That is the name of one of his wives; Hushim is [the name of] the second; and Baara is [the name of] the third—all three were his wives. The text is saying that he had sons by all three: [the word] “from” in “from Shilho” serves a double function, so that it is as though it had said: “from Shilho Otam and from Hushim”; and ve-et Baara is equivalent to “u-min (=and from) Baara,” as in “they had just gone out et the city” (Gen 44:4) and “as I go out et the city” (Exod 9:29), where [et] means min. The text provides the lines of two of his wives (vv. 9–11)—“his wife Hodesh” (v. 9) is the same as Shilho Otam whom it mentioned—but it does not provide the lines of Baara. Perhaps this is because [Baara’s descendants] were not highly regarded or in positions of leadership; for the ones that it does mention were clan chiefs, as it says (v. 28). But some (?) explain min shilḥo otam to mean: After (me-‘et; =min ‘et; =from the time) Shaharaim sent them away (shilaḥ otam), transferring them and the rest of the clan chiefs to Manahath (vv. 6–7), he subsequently went to the country of Moab and had sons there by his wives Hushim and Baara.

Jaareshiah, Elijah, and Zichri were the sons of Jeroham. I found in the Midrash (Exodus Rabbah 40:4) that this Elijah is the prophet Elijah, and that he had four names; and these four names are interpreted as references to him, as expounded in that midrashic passage. He was a Benjaminite, then—for as the text says (v. 1), these are the lines of Benjamin—in which case Phinehas is not the same as Elijah according to this midrashic author. I also found in Seder Eliyyahu Rabbah (18) and in Genesis Rabbah (71:9): “[Elijah] said to them: ‘My distinguished scholars, how much longer are you going to debate over me? I am a descendant of Rachel!’ They said to him: ‘Provide evidence for your claim.’ He said to them: ‘Is this not what it says in the book of genealogies: “Elijah and Zichri were the sons of Jeroham”?’”

These dwelt in Jerusalem. For part of Jerusalem belonged to Benjamin and part of it to Judah, and the Benjaminites mentioned to this point dwelt in Jerusalem.

Dwelt in Gibeon (Giv‘on). Gibeon was a Benjaminite city, as it says in the book of Joshua (18:25). Perhaps this Avi Giv‘on built it, and it was named for him. Alternatively, his real name was Jeiel—mentioned below where the text provides this genealogy a second time (1 Chr 9:35)—but it calls him Avi Giv‘on (=father of Gibeon) because he was the elder of the city called Giv‘on.

Baal, Nadab. The text does not mention Ner; but the second time it does mention him: “Baal, Ner, Nadab” (1 Chr 9:36).

They, too, opposite their kinsmen. They too dwelt with their kinsmen in Jerusalem, even though their primary residence was not in Jerusalem.

Ner begot Kish. In the book of Samuel it says that Abiel was the father of Kish (1 Sam 9:1), and that Ner was a brother of Kish son of Abiel and the father of Abner (ibid. 14:51). In another verse also, it says “Abiner son of Ner, Saul’s uncle” (ibid. 14:50). But here it says that Ner was the father of Kish the father of Saul! (Also, in the verse below it says “Kish, Baal, Ner, Nadab” [1 Chr 9:36], from which it seems that Ner and Kish were brothers. Concerning that, however, we might explain that Ner named his son Kish, for his brother.) It is possible to explain that Abiel is the same as Ner and that he had two names, and that his son—who was the father of Abner—he named Ner, for himself. So when Ner named his son Abner (Avner), he meant to refer to the name of his father (av), which was Ner. I similarly found the following in a rabbinic source, in Leviticus Rabbah (9:2): “Rabbi Simeon ben Lakish said: One verse says ‘Ner begot Kish,’ and another verse says ‘Kish son of Abiel’ (1 Sam 9:1). How can this be? His name was Abiel, but because he would light candles (nerot) for the public in dark alleys he acquired the name Ner.”

Jonathan, Malchi-shua, Abinadab, and Eshbaal. Abinadab is the same as Ishvi mentioned in the book of Samuel (1 14:49): the text calls him Abinadab there also when they died at war (1 Sam 31:2). Eshbaal is the same as Ish-bosheth (Ish Boshet) son of Saul (2 Sam 2:8): “baal” and “bosheth” are the same, because the Baal-deity is called Boshet (=shame), as it says, “They turned aside to Boshet” (Hos 9:10). It also says, “you have set up altars to Boshet, altars for sacrifice to Baal” (Jer 11:13). Furthermore, Gideon is called both Jerubbaal (Judg 6:32) and Jerubbesheth (2 Sam 11:21). (The text, however, does not tell us why he was called that.) The same is true for Jonathan’s son: in the book of Samuel it calls him Mephibosheth (2 4:4), and here “Merib-baal” (v. 34). “Baal” stands in place of “bosheth”; and “Merib (meriv)” stands in place of “Mephi (mefi [מפי])” because they are similar, for a merivah (=quarrel) is ‘al ha-peh (על הפה; [=oral]). This is what they were called because of some matter known to them that it not known to us.

Merib-baal begot Micah. In the book of Samuel (2 9:12) it says that this Micah was a son of Mephibosheth.

Azel (אצל) had. The ṣadei has a ṣerei; but in “the sons of Azal,” the ṣadei has a pataḥ, because of the pause.