Comentários de Citação sobre I Crônicas 9:35

In the version in Chronicles, when listing the descendants of the בני שעיר, Timna is again listed in verse 39 as a sister of Lotan. This is parallel to Machalat, the daughter of Yishmael whom Esau married as a concession to his parents’ disgust with his other wives (Genesis 28,9) being described asאחות נביות “a sister to Nevayot, son of Yishmael.” The description of a woman as a sister of her brother rather than as a daughter of her father or mother also occurs in Exodus 15,20 where Miriam is described as Aaron’s sister. What happened here is that the first time Timna is mentioned, she is described in terms of he relationship to Avraham’s family, i.e. as the concubine of a great grandson of Avraham, Eliphaz, son of Esau, whereas the second time Timna is described as a sister of Lotan (verse 22) not genetically related to Avraham at all, but part of the genealogy of the בני שעיר. Such digressions in the sequence of a narrative are not unknown in the Bible. We find the following in Joshua 13,7-8 after G’d had instructed him at the beginning of the chapter to proceed with distributing the land of Israel to the various tribes, ועתה חלק את הארץ הזאת בנחלה לתשעת השבטים וחצי שבט המנשה. עמו הראובני והגדי לקחו נחלתם אשר נתן להם משה בעבר הירדן מזרחה נתן להם משה עבד ה' “Therefore, divide this territory into hereditary portions for the nine tribes and the half tribe of Menashe. Now, the Reubenites and the Gadites, along with the other half tribe of Menashe had already received their shares which Moses assigned to them on the east side of the Jordan- as assigned to them by Moses the servant of the Lord.” There can be no question that something is missing here as part of the second verse. You would have to say that this verse answered the question implied by the first verse, i.e. “what about the other half of the tribe of Menashe?” The reason for this peculiar division in describing the tribal allocation for the tribe of Menashe is that one half of the tribe, i.e. the half mentioned last, received their allocation by the authority of Moses himself, whereas the second half of the tribe received its allocation by the authority of Joshua. I, Samuel, (our author) have found a third verse [in addition to the two mentioned in the Midrash quoted. Ed.] about the genealogy in Chronicles I 8,35-36 where we deal with the family of Yonathan son of King Sha-ul the following: ובני מיכה פיתון ומלך ותארע ואחז. ואחז הוליד את יהועדה, ויהועדה הוליד את עלמת וגו'.. “The sons of Micah: Pithon, Melech, Taarea, and Achaz. Achaz begot Yehoadah; and Yehoadah begot Alemeth, etc.” This same paragraph is repeated once more in chapter 9,41-43. In that sequence mention of Achaz is missing in the first of the two verses so that he appears out of nowhere in the second verse. Not only that but he is introduced with the connective letter ו, i.e. “and Achaz, etc. We must therefore conclude that the word ואחז הוליד, “and Achaz begot,” answers the verse which had in effect been interrupted in 8,35 with the word אחז. The author takes up the thread interrupted in chapter 8 and fills the reader in about the offspring of Achaz.

And in Gibeon dwelt the leader of Gibeon This section until (verse 38): “...all these were the sons of Azel,” is written twice in this Book. Also the section (9:2): “And the first settlers, who were in their inheritance in their cities,” and the section (9:10): “And of the priests: Jedaiah and Jehoirib” are likewise in the Book of Nehemiah, as it is written (11: 3): “And these are the heads of the province.” This is what is explained at the end of Megillath Yerushalmi. Ezra found scrolls: the scroll of מְעוֹנִים, the scroll of זַאַטוּטֵי and the scrolls of הָאַחִים, and they rejected the words of the one and accepted the words of the two. Likewise, they found many genealogical records. When they found three or five, they rejected the minority and accepted the majority. When they found an even number, e.g. “And in Gibeon dwelt the leader of Gibeon,” he had to write it twice because the order of their genealogy is not uniform, and likewise, [in] “the first settlers,” he found an even number, which differed one from the other. [Therefore], it was written twice: here and in his [Ezra’s] book. Now why did he not write both of them here, including those that are in Ezra: “And these are the heads of the province, etc.”? Because he traced the genealogy there until, “And these are the priests and the Levites,” and he traced the genealogy here until Jedaiah, who was after Ezra. Now what purpose would it have to explain and to trace the genealogy here in Chronicles, the generations and the genealogy after Ezra, except for those who were alive during the First Temple period?