All Israel was registered by genealogies. This means: Even though I have provided some of the genealogies, I have not provided all of them: the book of the kings of Israel is where they are recorded. But that book, like the Book of Jashar (Jos 10:13) and the Book of the Wars of the Lord (Num 21:14), is not in our possession.

And Judah was taken into exile in Babylon because of its violations. Concerning the exile of Israel, the text stated above (5:26) that King Pul of Assyria and King Tiglath-pileser of Assyria exiled the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half-tribe of Manasseh. In fact, the Assyrian king exiled the rest of the tribes also (2 Kgs 17). None of these tribes, however, returned at the time of the Second Temple, with the exception of a small minority—from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun (cf. 2 Ch 30:18)—who remained with the Judean kings until the Judean exile, went to exile with them, and returned with them. The tribe of Judah, on the other hand, which was taken into exile in Babylon because of its transgressions, did return in the time of Ezra. So here it tells about their return, and about those who settled in Jerusalem upon their return from exile as described in the book of Ezra (Neh 11:4–6). When the text says “The first to settle on their property,” it means that the first returnees from Babylon settled on their property in their cities—Israelites, priests, Levites, and temple servants. And as it proceeds to detail, some of them settled in Jerusalem. It says the same thing in the book of Ezra (Neh 11:3): “These are the provincial heads who lived in Jerusalem. In the countryside of Judah, the people lived in their towns, each on his own property—Israelites, priests, Levites, temple servants.” Only there it adds “and the sons of Solomon’s servants,” who are not mentioned here.

And among those who settled in Jerusalem were some of the Judahites etc. The text there says the same thing (Neh 11:4). The account here parallels the one there, with only occasional discrepancies. And those are easy to harmonize, because people are called by different names, as we have stated several times [in commenting] on this book. While [the two accounts] provide different numbers for the Benjaminites and the priests, this is because it counts some there that it does not count here, and vice versa. It is readily understandable.

To this point, at the King’s Gate on the east. This means: [The setup] remains how it was for the first Temple: the keepers are stationed at the gate through which the king used to enter, which was on the east then also. What was done for the Second Temple followed the example of the First Temple, as the text says, “David and Samuel the seer established that they be set up like this” (v. 22).

Shallum son of Kore son of Ebiasaph son of Korah. This is the same Ebiasaph son of Korah mentioned above (6:22) in the section that begins, “These were appointed by David to be in charge of music” (6:16). Shallum son of Kore is not mentioned there, however. Perhaps he was a descendant of Heman, and the text elides the genealogy through the son of Ebiasaph son of Korah.

And his kinsmen of his clan, the Korahites, were in charge of the work of the service, guards of the threshold of the Tent. This means they were guards of the doorposts of the Holy of Holies, much as their ancestors of the Korahite family—that is, the Kohathite family—were responsible for the Ark, the cover, and the screening curtain (cf. Num 4:4–15). This, then, is the camp of the Lord. They would guard the entrance so that nobody would go inside, much as it says concerning themselves, “But let them not go inside and witness the dismantling of the Sanctuary” (Num 4:20).

And Phinehas son of Eleazar was the chief officer over them in time past; the Lord was with him. This means: Phinehas son of Eleazar was chief officer over the Korahite family in time past, in the days of their ancestors, just as his father Eleazar was in charge of them, as the text says, “In charge of the duties … Eleazar son of Aaron the priest” (cf. Num 3:32; 4:16). Eleazar’s son Phinehas continued to be chief after him: because the Lord was with Phinehas and he was greater than the sons of Ithamar, he was chief over them his whole life. Some of our Sages, of blessed memory (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 47), say that Phinehas is the same as Elijah. And it is indeed true that Phinehas lived for a long time. For he was among those who left Egypt (Exod 6:25); and in the days of the concubine at Gibeah, more than three hundred years after the exodus from Egypt, we see that he was still alive, as the text says there, “and Phinehas son of Eleazar …” (Judg 20:28). In a midrashic vein, our Sages, of blessed memory (Genesis Rabbah 60:3), say that the Divine Presence left him because he did not annul Jephtah’s vow, and that this is why the text says “was the chief officer over them”—not “is … over them,” but “was … over them.” And concerning [the phrase], “in time past the Lord was with him,” they say (y. Yoma 5a): “‘In time past the Lord was with him,’ for in the days of Zimri he protested (Num 25:7–8), whereas in the days of the concubine at Gibeah (Judg 19–21) he did not protest.” That is, because in the days of Zimri the Lord was with him, he had the strength to protest; so he did so. In fact, because the Lord was with him and he had the strength to protest, there was atonement for Israel in they did not die out in the days of Zimri. But in the days of the concubine at Gibeah he did not have the strength to protest, because the Lord was not with him; for several thousand Israelites had died by the time they defeated the Benjaminites (Judg 20:21–39). But some (?) explain that [the statement] “And Phinehas son of Eleazar was the chief officer over them” does not refer to Phinehas the priest, because this Phinehas was a Levite; and that is [precisely] the meaning of “in time past the Lord was with him.” That is, this Phinehas is not the one from time past, because the Lord was with that Phinehas in that the Divine Spirit rested on him. But such was not the case for this one, even though he was great and was chief officer over the Levites. The correct interpretation, however, is the one I have provided.

All these who were selected … David and Samuel the seer established them when they set things in place (be-emunatam). David and Samuel instituted shifts of priests and Levites and established that [together, the gatekeepers at the thresholds] should not amount to fewer than two hundred and twelve [Levites]. The sense of be-emunatam is be-qiyyumam (=when they set things in place), meaning that they established this and set it in place, as in: “And Esther’s ordinance set in place (qiyyam)” (Esth 9:32). What the text is saying here, then, is that they established the matter, and they set in place that it be like this for all times. Many cases can be found where emunah has the sense of qiyyum, such as “And I will espouse you with emunah (=permanence)” (Hos 2:22), emunah omen (=have been steadfastly fulfilled; Isa 25:1), “emunat ‘ittekha (=your capacity to endure) shall be” (Isa 33:6), and others besides these. But our Sages, of blessed memory (y. Sukkah 26b), concerning be-emunatam, say that there was an expertly devised system (umanut gedolah) in place there, which assured that no one shift would preemptively receive a second opportunity for appropriating land-holdings. Now these two hundred and twelve did not all serve guard-duty at once. Rather, consistent with the schedule of the shifts, a new shift would come every seven days. This is what is meant by: “to come every seven days, according to a fixed schedule, as did these (‘im elleh)” (v. 25). For these [Levite gatekeepers] too lived in villages of their own, as the text says, “they were in villages that accorded with their genealogy.” This means the villages given to them in the days of Joshua: each of them would trace his lineage to his ancestral house to find out in which city his ancestors lived. They knew, however, to come to Jerusalem for the shifts that were assigned to them.

The four gatekeepers of distinction were set in place. It is not that there were only four, but rather that there were four of distinction appointed to supervise the others in guarding the gates.

And they were in charge of the key ve-la-boqer la-boqer. This means: to open the gates every morning (ba-boqer ba-boqer): the vav of la-boqer is like the soft fah in Arabic.

Were entrusted with ma‘aseh ha-ḥavittim (החבתים). [This means]: ma‘aseh maḥavat (=making the griddle cakes). The gemination [of the tav] takes the place of the vowel-letter exemplified in [the word] seridim (שרידים; =fugitives; Jos 10:20), which represents its pattern. The same is true in [the phrase], “for the Arameans are neḥittim (נחתים; =encamped) there” (2 Kgs 6:9): the root is nḥt, and the gemination [of the tav] takes the place of the vowel-letter exemplified in seridim.

These are the musicians … free. This means that they would sit in the offices, free of other duties, because they were involved in musical duties day and night.

And in Gibeon there lived, etc. The text presented this section above (8:29), but it interrupted with the matter of the Levites and priests who lived in Jerusalem during their shifts. So now it presents it again, for the purpose of recording the progeny of Saul in proper sequence and an account of his fate and of the transferring of the kingship from him to David son of Jesse. From that point onward, it proceeds to relate the history of the Judean kings in order, one after the other, until the exile.