Daf Ditty Pesachim 62: Genealogies/ ‫יוחסין ספר‬

Sefer Yuchsin. Chain of kabalat haTorah from Moses through the author's
time by Rabbi Avraham Zacuto, published by Rabbi Shmuel Sholem with his
comments and supplements. Constantinople, 1566.1

1
About 70 of 176 leaves, 20 cm. Rabbi Shmuel b"r Moshe Shulem added a introduction and comments in the book which were
included in all future editions. Leaf 9b bears a handwritten notation: ‫…יש בכאן חסרון הניכר‬signed ‫ – ש"ש‬these are the initials of Rabbi
Shmuel Sholem, as he signed all his printed comments on the Sefer Yuchsin. Rabbi Shmuel Shulem was a prominent sage and
expert in Torah literature, as apparent from his comments on Sefer Yuchsin

1
2
There is a fundamental problem in the mishna that was clarified during the course of a particular
incident: Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yoḥanan. He said to him: Would the Master teach
me the Book of Genealogies?

The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed a midrash on the book
of Chronicles. Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: Where are you from? He said to him: From Lod.
Rabbi Yoḥanan further asked: And where is your present place of residence? He said to him: In
Neharde’a.

Rabbi Yoḥanan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these subjects neither to Lodites
nor to Neharde’ans, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod and your residence is in
Neharde’a, such that you have both shortcomings. Rabbi Simlai pressured Rabbi Yoḥanan until
he agreed to teach him.

3
JASTROW

4
Rabbi Simlai said to him: Teach me the Book of Genealogies in three months. Rabbi Yoḥanan
took a clod of dirt, threw it at him2, and said to him: Berurya, wife of Rabbi Meir and daughter
of Rabbi Ḥananya ben Teradyon, was so sharp and had such a good memory that she learned
three hundred halakhot in one day from three hundred Sages, and nonetheless she did not
fulfill her responsibility to properly learn the Book of Genealogies in three years because it is
especially long and difficult. And you say that I should teach it to you in three months? After
your inappropriate request, I am not inclined to teach you at all.

When Rabbi Simlai was taking leave to go, he said to Rabbi Yoḥanan: Even so, my teacher, as
I have already come, let me ask you a question: What is the difference between one who offers a
Paschal lamb both for its own purpose and for a different purpose, in which case the offering
is disqualified, and one who offers the sacrifice with the intent that it be both for those who can
eat it and for those who cannot eat it, in which case the offering is not disqualified?

He said to him: Since I understand from your question that you are a Torah scholar, come and
I will tell you the answer: When one sacrifices an offering for its own purpose and for a different
purpose, the disqualification is in the offering itself; that is, the disqualifying intention relates to
the sacrifice itself. In contrast, when one sacrifices an offering for those who can eat it and for
those who cannot eat it, the disqualification is not in the offering itself, as the disqualifying
intent relates to the people who are to eat from it.

2
He took a clod of earth and threw it at him. Rav Simlai assumed he could master the book Sefer Yuchsin in three months. This
suggested arrogance to Rav Yochanan, who threw a clod (kala) of earth at Rav Simlai. Why did Rav Yochanan throw a clod of
earth? Clod (kala) has the same gematria as aravah (humility)

5
Furthermore, when one sacrifices an offering for its own purpose and for a different purpose,
it is impossible to identify its prohibition; that is, there is no way to differentiate between valid
and invalid parts of the offering. In contrast, when one sacrifices an offering for those who can
eat it and for those who cannot eat it, it is possible to identify its prohibition. If some of the
people may eat it and some may not, it is possible to distribute the offering to each group and
thereby determine which part of the offering is invalid.

6
7
Furthermore, the intent that the offering be for its own purpose and for a different purpose
applies and can disqualify the offering in all four rites, namely: Slaughtering, receiving the blood,
carrying the blood to the altar, and sprinkling it on the altar; however, the intent that it be for those
who can eat it and for those who cannot eat it does not apply during all four rites, as it has no
effect during the time of the sprinkling.

Moreover, the intent that the offering be for its own purpose and for a different purpose is a
disqualification that applies to communal sacrifices as it does to individual sacrifices; in
contrast, the intent that it be for those who can eat it and those who cannot eat it does not apply
to the community as it does to an individual.

Rav Ashi said that careful analysis of these answers demonstrates the following: The argument
that its disqualification is in the offering itself and the argument that it is impossible to identify
its prohibition are one and the same thing; they are not two separate reasons.

As, what is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥanan says that when one brings an offering for a different
purpose, its disqualification is in the offering itself?

It is because it is impossible to identify its prohibition, and therefore the prohibition applies to
the offering itself.

8
Having mentioned the Book of Genealogies, the Gemara notes that Rami bar Rav Yuda said that
Rav said the following about it: From the day the Book of Genealogies was hidden and no
longer available to the Sages, the strength of the Sages has been weakened, and the light of
their eyes has been dimmed, as the book contained the reasons for many Torah laws and lists of
genealogies that are now lost.

9
Mar Zutra said: The Book of Genealogies’ exposition of Chronicles was so extensive that it was
said, in exaggeration, that the verses from the word Azel mentioned in the verse: “And Azel had
six sons and these are their names: Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah and Obadia and
Hanan; all these were the sons of Azel” (I Chronicles 8:38), to the word Azel mentioned in a
different verse with the identical wording: “And Azel had six sons and these are their names:
Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah and Obadia and Hanan; these were the sons of Azel”
(I Chronicles 9:44), bore four hundred camels of expositions written about these verses.

The Book of Genealogies

Rav Steinzaltz (OBM) writes:3

By way of introducing a question that Rabbi Simlai asked Rabbi Yohanan about the laws taught
in the first two Mishnayot of ourperek, the Gemara tells a story about their meeting.

Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yohanan. He said to him: Would the Master teach me the Book
of Genealogies? The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed
a midrash on the Book of Chronicles. Rabbi Yohanan said to him: Where are you from? He said
to him: From Lod. Rabbi Yohanan further asked: And where is your present place of residence?
He said to him: In Neharde’a. Rabbi Yohanan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these
subjects neither to Lodites nor to Neharde’ans, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod
and your residence is in Neharde’a, such that you have both shortcomings. Rabbi
Simlai pressured Rabbi Yohanan until he agreed to teach him.

Rabbi Simlai said to him: Teach me the Book of Genealogies in three months. Rabbi
Yohanan took a clod of dirt, threw it at him, and said to him: Berurya, wife of Rabbi
Meir and daughter of Rabbi Chananya ben Teradyon, was so sharp and had such a good memory
that she learned three hundred halakhot in one day from three hundred Sages, and nonetheless
she did not fulfill her responsibility to properly learn the Book of Genealogies in three
years because it is especially long and difficult. And you say that I should teach it to you in three
months? After your inappropriate request, I am not inclined to teach you at all.

Faced with this final refusal, Rabbi Simlai asks the question on our Mishnayot, which Rabbi
Yohanan agrees to explain to him.

3
https://steinsaltz.org/daf/pesahim62/

10
Rabbi Simlai was one of the first generation amora’im in Israel, a student of Rabbi Yehuda
Nesia and Rabbi Yannai. The Talmud, and, in particular, the Jerusalem Talmud, quotes him on
matters of halakha, but he is better known for his many aggadic homilies.

The Book of Genealogies (Sefer Yohasin) discussed here is a collection of baraitot, a type
of midrash on Divrei HaYamim. The Geonim explain that among the material included there were
the genealogies of all the families mentioned in the book, something that can easily explain its
length. The midrashim had information about which families were considered to have pristine
backgrounds, and who had problematic histories. Rav Yehudah Leib ha-Levi Edel writes in
his Iyye ha-Yam that we find very few midrashim on Divrei haYamim in the Talmud. Apparently
all of the baraitot were in this collection, which included deep explanations of the personal names
that appear in the book.

Our Gemara concludes that after a time Sefer Yohasin was lost. According to the Maharsha, there
developed powerful families with “skeletons in their closets” whose secrets were found in the Sefer
Yohasin, leading the Sages to refrain from teaching the work publicly, and it eventually fell from
use. With its passing many of the secrets and traditions that it held were forgotten.

Rabbi Elliot Goldberg writes:4

The Babylonian Talmud is far from the only text the rabbis produced. In addition to the parallel
Jerusalem Talmud, we also have the Tosefta (a text that parallels the Mishnah but contains many
teachings not found in the Mishnah), and quite a few compilations of midrash. There may well
have been more books that no longer survive. In fact, today’s page hints that there were.

After a long run of pages with incredibly technical conversations about what qualifies or
disqualifies a paschal offering, the Talmud suddenly offers us a story about a mysterious book:

Rabbi Simlai came before Rabbi Yohanan. He said to him: Would the Master teach me Sefer
Yochasin (the Book of Genealogies)?

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: Where are you from?

He said to him: From Lod.

Rabbi Yohanan further asked: And where is your present place of residence?

He said to him: In Neharde’a.

Rabbi Yohanan said to him: I have a tradition that we teach these subjects neither to Lodites
nor to Neharde’ans, and certainly not to you who comes from Lod and your residence is in
Neharde’a, such that you have both shortcomings.

4
Myjewishlearning.com

11
Rabbi Simlai wants to study Sefer Yochasin but Rabbi Yohanan wants to dissuade him. His
response echoes a bartender near Fenway Park to a patron wearing a Yankees hat: “We don’t serve
Yankees fans here.”

Rabbi Simlai is persistent, however, and Rabbi Yohanan finally agrees to teach him. Pushing his
luck, Rabbi Simlai has a further request: Can we finish in three months? At this, Rabbi Yohanan
picks up a clod of dirt and throws it at the would-be student, exclaiming:

Beruriah, wife of Rabbi Meir and daughter of Rabbi Hananya ben Teradyon, learned three
hundred halakhot in one day from three hundred sages, and nonetheless she did not fulfill
her responsibility to properly learn the Book of Genealogies in three years. And you say that
I should teach it to you in three months?

If Beruriah (we met her back in Tractate Berakhot), known for being exceptionally intelligent and
wise, couldn't finish Sefer Yochasin in three years, how could Rabbi Simlai expect to do it in three
months?

It’s not clear if Rabbi Simlai ever got the chance to study Sefer Yochasin — the Talmud is silent
on the matter. Some commentators suggest that as he was shooed away by the clod of dirt and, on
his way out, asked a question about the mishnah on today’s page (which is why this story is here).
Others suggest that he posed his question only after the completion of his course of study —
perhaps in as little as three months.

So what is Sefer Yochasin, this Book of Genealogies, that took the famous Beruriah three years to
learn and which Rabbi Yohanan was so reluctant to teach Rabbi Simlai? That information is lost
to us — and likely to the sages who wrote the Talmud itself. Further down the page Rami bar Rav
Yuda says that Rav elaborates:

From the day the Book of Genealogies was hidden and no longer available to the sages, the
strength of the sages has been weakened, and the light of their eyes has been dimmed.

There are no other references to Sefer Yochasin in the Talmud outside of today’s daf. Of course,
we can speculate on what it was about. Rashi explains that the book contains the reasons behind
many of the mitzvot, so perhaps Rabbi Simlai is looking to deepen his understanding of Jewish
practice. Many scholars suggest, based upon a geonic commentary, that Sefer Yochasin was a
commentary on the Chronicles, the last book in the Hebrew Bible, which contains many
genealogical lists. In the end, we can’t be sure. But there is one more comment about it on today’s
page that suggests it sure wasn’t short:

Mar Zutra said: From “Azel” to “Azel” bore four hundred camels of expositions.

Mar Zutra suggests that from the first reference to a person named Azel in 1 Chronicles 8:38 to
the second reference, later in the same verse (or perhaps in 9:44) there were four hundred camel
loads of commentary. (Rashi’s introduction to his commentary on Chronicles says thirteen
thousand camel loads, but who's counting?) No wonder Beruriah couldn’t complete her study in
three years!

12
To Teach or Not to Teach
Rabbi Jay Kelman writes:5

"Rav Simlai came in front of Rav Yochanan and asked him to teach him Sefer Yuchsin, the Book
of Lineage. He [Rav Yochanan] asked him where he was from. 'Lod,' he replied. 'And where do
you live?' 'In Neharda'. 'We [Rav Yochanan responded] do not teach it, neither to Lodians or
Nehardeim; how much more so to you, who are from Lod and reside in Neharda'" (Pesachim 62b).

Talmudic stories are meant to convey a message in way that law cannot.6 At times, the message is
obvious; sometimes, less so. This story clearly falls into the second category.

We are not told why Rav Simlai wanted specifically to learn this book. While it is possible that
Rav Yochanan was a genealogical expert, perhaps it is connected to another well-known teaching
of Rav Simlai.

"Rav Simlai expounded: 613 mitzvoth were told to Moshe; 365 negative commands corresponding
to the days of sun, and 248 positive commands corresponding to the limbs of the body" (Makkot
23b). The Talmud explains that this is based on the verse, "Moshe commanded us Torah, a heritage
to the community of Israel" (Devarim 33:4).

A Book of Lineage links us to our past and makes us most cognizant of our future—and that is the
meaning of a heritage. Interestingly, both Parshat Breisheet and Parshat Noach have long lists of
genealogies linking Adam to Abraham. But ultimately, it is not our physical origins that link us to
the chain of Jewish history, but rather our moral behavior. And the Sefer Yuchsin of the Jewish
people is to be found in the 613 mitzvoth.

Yet Rav Yochanan had no interest in teaching this to him. Whether he would have taught him
something else we are not told, but it stands to reason that there was something about Sefer
Yuchsin that triggered such a response. While the exact meaning of Sefer Yuchsin is somewhat
obscure, it involves the listing of generations and genealogies of families. Tragically, the
Gemara (Brachot 5b) relates how Rav Yochanan used to walk around with the tooth of his son—

5
https://www.torahinmotion.org/discussions-and-blogs/pesachim-62-teach-or-not-teach

6
Modern literary analysis does not concern itself with author intent, but rather asks whether a given interpretation of the written
text is plausible. Students of Shakespeare and, l'havdil, the Rambam provide many beautiful ideas that can be elucidated from the
text before them, but are unlikely to have crossed the author's mind. When Rav Soloveitchik was once asked if he felt an
interpretation he was giving of the Rambam was Rambam's intent, the Rav replied that it did not matter. (See Dr. Marc
Shapiro, Brisker Method Reconsidered, Tradition 31:3.

13
the tenth to predecease him. For very understandable reasons, Sefer Yuchsin with its listing of
parents and children was not something Rav Yochanan was keen to teach.

While a perfunctory reading would seem to indicate that Rav Yochanan brushed aside Rav Simlai
based on his places of abode, it seems rather unlikely that had Rav Simlai came from, say, Tzipori
(Rav Yochanan's place of birth), that Rav Yochanan would have gladly taught him. Surely these
places must be of some significance.

Perhaps Rav Yochanan was upset that Rav Simlai moved from Lod to Neharda, located in Bavel
(Iraq). Rav Yochanan had established a great centre of Torah study in Tiberias. Why travel
hundreds of miles when great Torah scholars are found in the land of Israel?

Rav Simlai, the Talmud continues, urged Rav Yochanan to teach him and he agreed (how can one
not teach Torah to those who want to learn?). When Rav Simlai asked that they finish Sefer
Yuchsin in three months, Rav Yochanan angrily responded that even "Beruriah, the wife of Rav
Meir, the daughter of Rav Chananya ben Tradiyon...did not fulfill her obligation [finish] in three
years, and you expect to do it in three months".

Surely, the reference to Beruriah, Rav Meir, and Rav Hananiah ben Tradiyon are not accidental.
Rav Hananiah ben Tradiyon was one of the asara harugei malchut, killed by the Romans for
teaching Torah. And it was his daughter, Beruriah, who taught that we must distinguish between
the person and the problem. When Rav Meir cursed his neighbors for making too much noise,
Beruriah rebuked him, noting that the verse says, "Sins (not sinners) should be destroyed". Rav
Yochanan understanding the messages they taught had agreed to teach Rav Simlai, even if he felt
he was not worthy to be taught. However, he was taken aback by his demand. Interestingly, we
are never told if Rav Yochanan actually did teach Rav Simlai Sefer Yuchsin.

14
Simlai arrived before Rabbi Yochanan and requested to learn ‫—יוחסין ספר‬a collection of Baraisos
which expound upon the verses in Divrei HaYamim. Rabbi Yochanan initially refused to
condescend, and even after he agreed to study with him, they disputed about how long it would
take to complete their study. When R’ Simlai finally was about to leave, he asked Rabbi Yochanan
to explain the contrast we find between two Mishnayos. First, we find that the offering of the
Korban Pesach is disqualified if it is slaughtered ‫לשמו ושלא לשמו‬. Yet we also find that if it is done
‫ לאוכליו ושלא לאוכליו‬it is kosher.

What is the difference? Rabbi Yochanan answered this question, as well.

What is the connection between the study of ‫ ספר יוחסין‬and the query of Rabbi Simlai before he
departed?

‫ השילוח מי‬explains that Hashem presented us with 365 negative commandments and 248 positive
commandments which guide our conduct. Yet there are many aspects of our behavior which are
not directly legislated by the mitzvos. There are areas of middos, chessed and general common
sense and decency for which we need to rely on natural tendency and instinct which we inherited
from our holy matriarchs and patriarchs. These pillars of the world geared their actions for the sake
of heaven, and we have hopefully retained these traits without any distortions.

The name of R’ Simlai reflects that he was complete (‫ )שלם‬in the realm of mitzvos, and he wanted
to reinforce his understanding of ‫— יוחסין‬those inherited traits of chessed and humility which we
receive from our ancestors. R’ Yochanan did not know whether R’ Simlai was proficient in
Mitzvos, and he taught him the Mitzvos, which are 613 tangible concepts which can be clarified
‫ לברר אפשר איסורו‬When he was assured that R’ Simlai was capable, he then taught him proper
character traits, as well – areas which are more sublime and unspecified ‫לברר אפשר אי‬

Rami the son of Rab Judah said: Since the day that the Book of Genealogies was
hidden, the strength of the Sages has been impaired and the light of their eyes has
been dimmed.

Maharsha

15
A speculative, unsigned note says that this probably means the book was either suppressed or
forgotten, perhaps destroyed. But it doesn't say what it is!

What is -- or, I suppose, was -- the Book of Genealogies? Chazal must have known something
about it since they referred to it in the talmud. Rashi there says (according to Soncino) that it
contained the reasons for many scriptural laws that have been forgotten.

Was this a rabbinic writing? A text of divine origin?

According to Rashi - and confirmed by the Maharsha- it's a collection of Oral Law passed down
over the generations to explain ‫ דברי הימים‬- Chronicles. It was not a book detailing [then] current
Yichus.

Unfortunately, both Rashi and the Maharsha keep up the confusion - on one hand they say like
you said that it's a peirush on Divrei Hayamim, on the other hand they said that it was a sefer of
real Yuchsin (Which is why he didn't want to teach it and according to the Maharsha why it was
hidden).

Sefer Yuchsin

16
Rabbi Yochanan Zweig writes:7

‫ ְבֶּאָחד‬,‫ָהֵﬠָדה ִהְקִהילוּ‬-‫יח ְוֵאת ָכּל‬ 18 And they assembled all the congregation together on the
,‫ִמְשְׁפֹּחָתם‬-‫ ַו ִיְּתַיְלדוּ ַﬠל‬,‫ַלֹחֶדשׁ ַהֵשּׁ ִני‬ first day of the second month, and they declared their
‫ ִמֶבּן‬,‫ ְבִּמְסַפּר ֵשׁמוֹת‬:‫ְלֵבית ֲאֹבָתם‬ pedigrees after their families, by their fathers' houses,
.‫ְלֻגְל ְגּ}ָתם‬--‫ֶﬠְשׂ ִרים ָשָׁנה ָוַמְﬠָלה‬ according to the number of names, from twenty years old and
upward, by their polls.
Num 1:18
“…and they established their genealogy according to their families, according to their fathers’ household…”

Rashi teaches that prior to the census each Jew was required to produce a Sefer Yuchsin, a book of his lineage
or pedigree. The Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni #684) adds that producing this Sefer Yuchsin was also required as a
prerequisite to receiving the Torah. The Midrash notes that since the nations of the world were not able to
produce a book of their lineage for they could not identify who their parents were, they were not worthy of
receiving the Torah. Why is receiving the Torah dependent upon having a book of lineage? The aforementioned
Midrash appears to contradict another Midrash which states that the nations of the world rejected the Torah
based upon the precepts that it contains (Sifri Parshas Zos Haberacha). How does their rejection of the Torah coalesce
with the fact that they did not have a book of lineage?

A person who is the first in his family to receive a college education will be elated when he is accepted to a
community college. However, a person who descends from a family that boasts ten generations of Harvard
graduates will be completely devastated if the only college willing to accept him is a community college.
Surpassing the expectations which have been defined by one’s social upbringing is what gives a person a sense
of accomplishment. If a person is unable to identify his parents, this indicates that they were people who did not
take responsibility for themselves. Conversely, if a person is able to identify his lineage, we conclude that he
stems from individuals who took responsibility for themselves and had honorable standards.

The set of seven Noachide laws is a system which requires mankind to elevate themselves from the animal
kingdom by taking responsibility and setting moral standards. For the nations of the world, the very act of taking
responsibility for themselves is, in itself, an elevating sense of accomplishment. Their forefathers took no
responsibility for themselves, thus behaving like animals. Therefore, the nations of the world need only to behave
in a responsible manner to feel accomplished. However, fulfilling the requirement of behaving responsibly is
not considered an accomplishment for Hashem’s chosen nation. They are expected to behave differently than
animals, to act responsibly, for their forefathers have set a standard which makes anything less unacceptable.
What is considered an accomplishment for the nation chosen by Hashem is to be holy, elevated, and worthy of

7
https://torah.org/torah-portion/rabbizweig-5772-bamidbar-2/

17
Hashem’s presence. Only a nation that knows its lineage and therefore has a preexisting sense of responsibility
can be expected to be holy. The nations of the world rejected the additional requirement of being holy, for they
found their fulfillment in behaving as responsible human beings.

Shimon Weichbrod writes:8

The Yalkut Shimoni in Bamidbar says that when Hashem gave the Torah to Klal Yisrael, the other
nations complained, to which Hashem responded: “Bring me your Sefer Yuchsin (genealogical
documents) to prove you deserve the Torah, as Bnei Yisrael did, and who were given the Torah in
the merit of their forefathers.” The Dubno Maggid asks, what does the giving of the Torah have
to do with your yichus? It only has to do with whether or not you will commit to keeping the
mitzvos contained in it. The zechus avos may endear us to Hashem, but how does that make us
worthy of the Torah?

The answer, he says, comes from another Yalkut Shimoni in Shemos on the pasuk: ‫נעשה ה׳ דבר‬
‫אשר כל‬, Everything Hashem said, we will do.

The Yalkut interprets the meaning of the pasuk as, “Everything Hashem says, had already been
done (as the word na’aseh can indicate past or future tense), by our forefathers, who, as Chazal
have told us, kept the entire Torah.

The Yalkut’s interpretation is that, when Hashem offered the Torah to Klal Yisrael, they were able
to accept it without even knowing what was in it. As so many mefarshim have asked, how could
Klal Yisrael say naaseh v’nishmah without having any clue as to whether they could keep the
Torah? How could they even know that it is possible to keep the Torah, if they didn’t know what
it contained?

The Dubno Maggid says that for Klal Yisrael this was not a challenge. They said “We can keep
the entire Torah, because our ancestors did, so we know it is something we can live up to.” This
is what is meant by bringing their Sefer Yuchsin – it’s their proof that they can accept the Torah,
and it is something that the other nations could never say.

In fact, the Dubno Maggid also uses this as an explanation for the term ‫לבנים סימן אבות מעשה‬. The
fact that our ancestors kept the entire Torah, is our sign that we can do it too.

8
https://images.shulcloud.com/1253/uploads/Kuntress/bmr_kuntress80_complete.pdf

18
Mar Zutra said: The Book of Genealogies’ exposition of Chronicles was so extensive that it was
said, in exaggeration, that the verses from the word Azel mentioned in the verse:

‫ ְוֵאֶלּה ְשׁמוָֹתם‬--‫ ִשָׁשּׁה ָב ִנים‬,‫לח וְּלָאֵצל‬ 38 And Azel had six sons, whose names are these:
‫ ְוֹעַבְדָיה‬,‫ַﬠְז ִריָקם ֹבְּכרוּ ְו ִיְשָׁמֵﬠאל וְּשַׁﬠ ְרָיה‬ Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and
.‫ ְבֵּני ָאַצל‬,‫ֵאֶלּה‬-‫ְוָחָנן; ָכּל‬ Obadiah, and Hanan. All these were the sons of Azel.
1 Chron 8:38

“And Azel had six sons and these are their names: Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah
and Obadia and Hanan; all these were the sons of Azel” to the word Azel mentioned in a different
verse with the identical wording:

‫ ְוֵאֶלּה ְשׁמוָֹתם‬,‫ ִשָׁשּׁה ָב ִנים‬,‫ מד וְּלָאֵצל‬44 And Azel had six sons, whose names are these:
‫ ְוֹעַבְדָיה‬,‫ ַﬠְז ִריָקם ֹבְּכרוּ ְו ִיְשָׁמֵﬠאל וְּשַׁﬠ ְרָיה‬Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael, and Sheariah, and
{‫ }פ‬.‫ ְבֵּני ָאַצל‬,‫ְוָחָנן; ֵאֶלּה‬ Obadiah, and Hanan; these were the sons of Azel.

I Chron 9:44

“And Azel had six sons and these are their names: Azrikam, Bocru, and Ishmael and Sheariah
and Obadia and Hanan; these were the sons of Azel”

bore four hundred camels of expositions written about these verses.

The Book of Genealogies was a collection of tannaitic teachings that formed a midrash on the
book of Chronicles.

Between "Azel" and "Azel" Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies

Robert R. Wilson writes9

Both general readers and modern scholars have traditionally neglected the biblical genealogies.
Most readers have seen the genealogies as unwelcome interruptions in the flow of the biblical
narrative, while many scholars have regarded the genealogies as deserts which can be crossed only
with great difficulty and which in the end yield little that is interesting or worthwhile. This lack of
interest in the biblical genealogies reflects the facts that not only are some of them genuinely
difficult to interpret, but also genealogies, in general, do not play an important role in modern
Western society. While societies in Asia, Africa, and the Near East still maintain and use complex
genealogies in a variety of ways, Western societies tend to view genealogies only as historical
documents to be preserved in archives.

9
The Biblical Archaeologist, Winter, 1979, Vol. 42, No. 1 (Winter, 1979), pp. 11-22

19
Occasionally, an individual, for some reason, will trace his family tree, and rarely genealogies are
used to determine the lawful heir of a title, an office, or a piece of property. Otherwise genealogies
are considered to be of interest only to historians. However, in recent years popular interest in
family histories has increased, and several important specialized studies of the biblical genealogies
have appeared.10

Because of this renewed interest in genealogy in general and in the biblical genealogies in
particular, it is important to reconsider the nature and function of the biblical genealogies.

Without such a reconsideration, the modern Western reader runs the risk of simply imposing on
the biblical text his own ideas about genealogy. The result of such a procedure may be an overly
narrow and possibly erroneous understanding of the biblical material. Because Western societies
usually see genealogies as historical documents, the reader may also see the biblical genealogies
only as historical sources.

Yet, once the reader accepts this limited view of the biblical genealogies, then he can ask only one
interpretive question: the question of their historical accuracy. Furthermore, from a modern
Western standpoint, the question of historical accuracy must be answered in one of two ways.
Either the biblical genealogies are accurate statements of the history which they record or they are
not. This narrow view of the biblical genealogies can be avoided on when the reader understands
the role which genealogies played in Israelite society.

Although biblical evidence on this point is somewhat limited, two other important sources of
information are available to help elaborate the biblical picture. First, genealogies are still used
today in portions of the non-Western world. Contemporary anthropologists have gathered a great
deal of data on the use of genealogies by groups having a social structure similar to that of ancient
Israel.

This data can provide helpful background material for the interpretation of the biblical genealogies.
Second, the ancient societies which surrounded Israel also used genealogies and can provide some
indication of how genealogies were used in Israel. Both of these sources of information suggest
that ancient Israelite genealogical views were quite different from our rather narrow modern views.

Genealogies in the Ancient Near East

It would be methodologically risky to apply modern anthropological evidence directly to the
biblical text without first determining whether or not there are similarities between ancient written
genealogies and modern oral genealogies. Fortunately, an answer to this question is supplied by a
number of ancient Near Eastern texts. These texts indicate that the societies surrounding Israel
used genealogies in much the same way that they are used today. Although putting a genealogy in
writing tends to inhibit genealogical change, ancient Near Eastern genealogies still exhibit the
same sort of formal fluidity so frequently found in modern oral genealogies. Furthermore, ancient
written genealogies had functions similar to those of modern oral genealogies.

10
see below in bibliography Johnson 1969; Malamat 1968 and 1973; Brown 1977: 57-95; Wilson 1975

20
Interpreting the Biblical Genealogies

In general, then, ancient Near Eastern written genealogies seem to have had characteristics similar
to those of the oral genealogies still being used today. It is therefore reasonable to suppose that
genealogies in Israel shared at least some of these characteristics, although this supposition still
must be tested with respect to each genealogy preserved in the Bible. However, the comparative
evidence already clearly has several important implications the biblical genealogies must be
conducted.

1)In the past interpreters commonly viewed the biblical genealogies in three different ways.11 First,
scholars have treated some genealogies as symbolic statements of the political relationships that
existed between various tribal and national groups. The segmented Patriarchal genealogies (Gen
25:1-4, 12-18; 29:31-30:24; and Genesis 36) usually have been interpreted in this way, and there
even have been attempts to use these genealogies to reconstruct tribal alliances and migrations.
Second, scholars have taken the late layers of the Judahite, Levitical, and Benjaminite genealogies
(1 Chronicles 2-3, 5-6, 8) at face value and have analyzed them as statements of actual biological
relationships or as family histories.
They have assumed that these sources preserve data on the composition of royal and priestly
groups in the exilic and postexilic periods. Third, scholars have viewed some genealogies as
complete fabrications having literary but no historical worth. To be sure, one still must take
seriously these lines of interpretation. However, the comparative evidence indicates that several
other interpretive possibilities also exist. The idiom of genealogy can be used to express various
dimensions of social reality. Genealogies can express social status, political power, economic
strength, legal standing, ownership of land, and religious importance. A wide range of possible
genealogical functions must be considered in the process of interpreting any given biblical
genealogy. The segmented genealogies in Genesis indeed may prove to be political expressions,
but scholars must also investigate the possibility of their functioning economically, socially, or
religiously. The late genealogical material in Chronicles may actually reflect the structure of
Israel's political and religious establishments, but the genealogical conflicts in this material may
point to an even wider range of functions. Genealogies which now have only literary functions
may once have had one or more social functions before being committed to writing. The fact that
a genealogy now has literary functions is not necessarily a sign that it is a literary fabrication. Thus
at each point in the interpretation of the biblical genealogies, the whole range of possible functions
must be considered.

2) Scholars have sometimes speculated about the original function of particular biblical
genealogies without taking into account their structure. A classic example of this approach is the
attempt to interpret the genealogy of Cain in Gen 4:17-24 as an old genealogy of the Kenite tribe.
This genealogy, which is actually embedded in the biblical narrative, traces a single ancestral line
for six generations and then becomes segmented in the seventh generation. The line moves from
Cain through his descendants-Enoch, Irad, Mehu- jael, Methushael, and Lamech-and terminates
in Lamech's children- Jabal, Jubal, Tubal-cain, and Naamah. The Kenite interpretation of this
genealogy has a long history in biblical scholarship, and it was originally based on the apparent
biblical equation of Cain and the Kenites (Num 24:21-22; Judg 4:11).

11
Wilson 1977: 1-8

21
3) Previous studies of the biblical genealogies have tended to concentrate on their structure without
taking into account their function. This tendency has had serious consequences in scholarly
treatments of apparently parallel genealogies which contain structural variants. Interpreters
concerned only with genealogical structure have usually dealt with these variants by attempting to
harmonize them, either by locating the "error" made in one of the genealogies or by reconstructing
the "original" from which the variants emerged. In some cases, this approach may still be the right
one. However, the comparative evidence presents another explanation for genealogical variants.
They may be related to the differing functions of the genealogies. When this is the case, then the
interpreter should not attempt to harmonize the variants or correct the "errors," to do so would
obscure the point that the biblical writer is trying to convey. Seen in the proper functional context,
two apparently conflicting genealogies may in fact both be accurate statements of the ancient
writer's views.

4) In the past, interpreters commonly have asked whether or not a particular biblical genealogy is
"true" or "historically accurate." In many cases this question has been answered negatively, with
the result that historians have rejected the genealogies as potential sources for the reconstruction
of Israelite history. However, the comparative evidence suggests that the question of the accuracy
of the genealogies is much more complex than scholars have supposed. In some cases, where the
genealogies may be attempting to relate family histories, it may be fruitful to ask about the
accuracy of the presentation. Given enough additional information, an outside observer can judge
the accuracy of the genealogies. However, in many cases the question of genealogical accuracy
may not be a fruitful one because the genealogies involved express a perceived reality which is
not open to outside observation. The genealogies express the way in which the writer viewed
domestic, political, or religious relationships. Therefore, the genealogies are accurate expressions
of the perceptions of the authors but may not correspond with what a Western historian would
regard as "objective data." Nevertheless, the modern historian cannot ignore genealogies of this
type. They are still valuable sources for exploring ancient Israel's social, intellectual, and religious
attitudes and perceptions. The genealogies are indispensable if the modern historian wants to write
a complete account of the life of ancient Israel.

In spite of the great amount of light that comparative evidence can shed on the interpretation of
the biblical genealogies, many problems still remain. The genealogies in Chronicles in particular
are highly complex, and the only possible way to understand them is to study each one of them
carefully using all available interpretive tools. Still, the comparative data now available suggests
that at many points the Bible's genealogical views are quite similar to those of living societies
where genealogies are still created, preserved, and used. A recognition of these similarities can
add new dimensions to the biblical genealogies and can allow the modern reader to enter more
fully into the world of the ancient Israelites.

22
Chronicles: Perspectives in Prophetic History

23
Rabbi Hayyim Angel12 writes:13

Introduction [1]

Jewish tradition has understood the idea of multiple aspects of truth from its very beginnings.
Drawing on analogies from ancient Near Eastern texts, Joshua Berman demonstrates that Tanakh
exhibits signs of juxtaposed contradictory texts and updated histories. Prophetic writers often
updated history for the needs of the moment, but did not erase earlier versions. The prophetic
writers, and their ancient readers, understood that the meaning of the update is found by contrasting
the new version with the earlier versions.[2]

One of the great illustrations of this principle emerges from a sustained comparison and contrast
of the biblical Book of Chronicles with the earlier parallel texts in the Books of Samuel and Kings.
Long neglected in study, Chronicles provides the opportunity to gain insight into the prophetic

12
Rabbi Hayyim Angel is National Scholar of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals, and he teaches advanced Tanakh classes at
Yeshiva University. He serves as Tanakh Scholar at Ben Porat Yosef Yeshiva Day School. This article appears in issue 30 of
Conversations, the journal of the Institute for Jewish Ideas and Ideals.
13
https://www.jewishideas.org/article/chronicles-perspectives-prophetic-history

24
writers’ religious purposes. In this essay, we will outline an approach to the purposes of Chronicles,
and also into Samuel and Kings.
In his introduction to the Book of Samuel, Abarbanel presents himself as the first to inquire about
the fundamental nature of Chronicles. Why do Samuel and Kings omit significant episodes that
are later included in Chronicles? Why does Chronicles omit major episodes that are included in
Samuel–Kings? Furthermore, why does Chronicles repeat entire passages already recorded in
Samuel–Kings? One ultimately may ask why Chronicles was canonized in Tanakh. Presumably,
those stories omitted by Samuel and Kings were omitted deliberately, and those included already
were told. Therefore, Chronicles appears superfluous:

These are the doubts pertaining to this formidable question, but in searching for its solution, I
remain alone and nobody joins me in this endeavor. I have not found any discussion—great
nor small—in the words of our Sages of blessed memory; not the Sages of the Talmud, nor the
later commentators.… God has added to my grief, in that there is no commentary on Chronicles
in this land with the exception of the few glosses of Radak of blessed memory. And those
comments are negligible in their brevity, and he did not address this issue at all. Additionally,
the Jews do not study Chronicles in their academies. I confess my own sins today: I have not
studied it nor explored its issues until now.[3]

Until fairly recently, Abarbanel’s lamentation from 500 years ago remained as accurate as when
he wrote it—precious little attention was given to the Book of Chronicles. In the past generation,
however, there has been a surge of scholarly interest in the nature and theology of Chronicles and
in its relationship with earlier biblical books.

Almost half of Chronicles has parallels in earlier biblical books, while the rest of the material likely
was drawn from other written sources and oral traditions extant at that time.[4] It is a retelling of
history, which stands independently as a coherent narrative. There are times where Chronicles
depends on our knowledge of Samuel–Kings, but there also are times where Chronicles repeats
narratives almost verbatim.

It is erroneous to read Chronicles as a commentary on Samuel–Kings, even though it does often

supplement history and clarify ambiguities from those earlier books. Treating Chronicles as
secondary to Samuel–Kings leaves us with the glaring problems raised by Abarbanel. Similarly,
shuffling all of the episodes recorded in the three books in order to create a composite history tends
to eliminate the independent significance and purpose of each prophetic narrative.

What Questions Are We Asking?

25
When one is interested in ascertaining exact historical data based on the accounts in Samuel, Kings,
and Chronicles, one first must reconcile the accounts and then combine the material into a
composite picture. Far more important than attaining a historical portrait of the period, though, is
addressing the question of how each biblical book uses history to teach its prophetic messages as
an exhortation to its readers.
One example of a seemingly minor discrepancy in the texts that teaches an important theme is the
account of an artisan that Solomon hires to build the Temple. In Kings, Solomon employs a Tyrian
artisan named Hiram (not to be confused with the king of Tyre who had the same name) whose
mother is from the tribe of Naphtali:

King Solomon sent for Hiram and brought him down from Tyre. He was the son of a widow
of the tribe of Naphtali, and his father had been a Tyrian, a coppersmith. (I Kings 7:13–14)

When retelling this narrative, however, Chronicles reports that this artisan’s mother was from Dan,
not Naphtali:

Now I am sending you a skillful and intelligent man, my master Hiram, the son of a Danite
woman, his father a Tyrian. (II Chron. 2:12–13)

In attempting to explain the discrepancy, several traditional commentators follow midrashic leads
that suggest that Hiram’s maternal grandfather was from one tribe and his maternal grandmother
from the other tribe. Unconvinced by that answer, Malbim posits that there actually were two
artisans named Hiram. One began working on the Temple project but died in the middle of the
construction, so another took over. These commentators attempt to explain what happened.
It is difficult to ascertain the historical reality behind these parallel texts given the factual
discrepancy and insufficient information to support either reading. It is possible, however, to detect
important thematic contrasts between Kings and Chronicles reflected in this disparity. Chronicles’
account of Solomon’s deriving from Judah and Hiram from Dan parallels the two leading artisans
of the Tabernacle in the wilderness. Bezalel and Oholiab were from Judah and Dan, respectively
(see Exod. 31:1–6). In contrast, the Kings narrative does not create that association since it relates
that Hiram descended from the Tribe of Naphtali. Without addressing the historical question of
Hiram’s tribe, one midrash highlights this connection between Chronicles’ account of the Temple
and the Tabernacle:

26
 When the Tabernacle was built, two tribes joined in the work. Rabbi Levi in the name of
Rabbi Hama son of Rabbi Hanina says that they were from the tribes of Judah (Bezalel)
and Dan (Oholiab). So it was with the building of the Temple, that these two tribes
partnered, as it is written… Huram, the son of a Danite woman…and Solomon son of David
was from the Tribe of Judah. (Pesikta Rabbati 6)

Chronicles is far more interested than Kings in demonstrating connections between the Tabernacle
and the First Temple. Chronicles teaches that like the Tabernacle (Exod. 25:9, 40; 26:30; 27:8),
there was a divinely revealed plan for the First Temple (I Chron. 28:11, 19). That suggestion is
absent from Kings. Additionally, Chronicles reports fire from heaven at the dedication of the
Temple (II Chron 7:1–2), a detail missing from Kings, where only the cloud of God is reported (I
Kings 8:10–11). The Tabernacle dedication had both elements (Exod. 40:34–38; Lev. 9:24).
Chronicles further mentions that Solomon went to Gibeon because the Tabernacle was there,
whereas Kings does not report this detail.

It may be argued that the author of Chronicles had a similar interest in presenting Solomon’s chief
artisan as deriving from Dan to draw another parallel between the Tabernacle and the First Temple.

Below is a brief summary chart of the relevant verses:

27
 Kings Chronicles
I Chronicles 28:11, 19
David gave his son Solomon the plan of the
porch and its houses, its storerooms and its
No mention of divinely revealed plans for the
upper chambers and inner chambers; and of the
Temple.
place of the Ark-cover…“All this that the Lord
made me understand by His hand on me, I give
you in writing—the plan of all the works.”
I Kings 8:10–11 II Chronicles 7:1–2
When the priests came out of the sanctuary— When Solomon finished praying, fire
for the cloud had filled the House of the Lord descended from heaven and consumed the
and the priests were not able to remain and burnt offering and the sacrifices, and the glory
perform the service because of the cloud, for of the Lord filled the House. The priests could
the Presence of the Lord filled the House of the not enter the House of the Lord, for the glory
Lord. of the Lord filled the House of the Lord.
II Chronicles 1:3–5
Then Solomon, and all the assemblage with
him, went to the shrine at Gibeon, for the Tent
of Meeting, which Moses the servant of the
I Kings 3:4 Lord had made in the wilderness, was there.
The king went to Gibeon to sacrifice there, for (But the Ark of God David had brought up
that was the largest shrine; on that altar from Kiriath-jearim to the place which David
Solomon presented a thousand burnt offerings. had prepared for it; for he had pitched a tent
for it in Jerusalem.) The bronze altar, which
Bezalel son of Uri son of Hur had made, was
also there before the Tabernacle of the Lord,
and Solomon and the assemblage resorted to it.

Asking only “what happened historically” often leads to forced answers. Even when the factual
resolutions are convincing, these explanations do little to explain the prophetic purpose of
Chronicles. By noticing instead which details each book chooses to highlight and asking what each
book is attempting to teach, we are encouraged to seek broader themes and patterns in the two
books that shed light on the prophetic messages of each.

David and Solomon

The David–Solomon narrative in Chronicles is longer than the narratives of all other kings
combined. The genealogies at the beginning of Chronicles highlight David, spanning from Adam
all the way to David by chapter 2.
Curiously, David is listed as the seventh of Jesse’s sons, whereas he was Jesse’s eighth son in the
Book of Samuel:

28
 Thus Jesse presented seven of his sons before Samuel, and Samuel said to Jesse, “The Lord
has not chosen any of these.” Then Samuel asked Jesse, “Are these all the boys you have?”
He replied, “There is still the youngest; he is tending the flock.” And Samuel said to Jesse,
“Send someone to bring him, for we will not sit down to eat until he gets here.” (I Sam.
16:10–11)

Boaz of Obed, Obed of Jesse. Jesse begot Eliab his first-born, Abinadab the second, Shimea
the third, Nethanel the fourth, Raddai the fifth, Ozem the sixth, David the seventh. (I Chron.
2:12–15)

In attempting to ascertain the historical truth behind this discrepancy, Radak suggests that
Chronicles lists the seven sons who were born of the same mother. Jesse’s other son must have
been from a different mother. Similar to our discussion about the tribal origins of Hiram’s mother,
this response is not particularly satisfying, even as it is plausible.
Once again, a midrash addresses the conceptual meaning of Chronicles’ deviation from Samuel:

All sevenths are favorites in the world…The seventh is a favorite among the generations.
Thus: Adam, Seth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared, Enoch, and of him it is written, And
Enoch walked with God (Gen. 5:22). Among the children the seventh was the favorite, as
it says, David the seventh (I Chron. 2:15). (Lev. Rabbah 29:11)

Without addressing the question of “what happened,” this midrash is sensitive to a major purpose
of Chronicles: It highlights the greatness of King David. Since seven is a favorite biblical number,
Chronicles listed David seventh in the genealogies even at the expense of Jesse’s having eight
sons.
This recasting of David as the seventh son is symptomatic of the idea that Chronicles attempts to
cleanse the negative perception of David. Most conspicuously, Chronicles omits reference to the
Bathsheba affair and its aftermath, even though the Book of Samuel devotes ten chapters to that
story. Similarly, Chronicles also omits Solomon’s idolatry, which caps the narrative in I Kings 11.
Additionally, Chronicles describes the beginnings of David’s and Solomon’s reigns as stable from
their outset. All tribes immediately accept David as king after Saul’s death (I Chron. 11:1–3), and

Chronicles omits the stories of rebellions and instabilities associated with Solomon’s ascension to
the throne recorded in I Kings 1–2.

29
Kings mentions Pharaoh’s daughter five times, highlighting her central role in Solomon’s rise and
fall particularly in leading his heart astray to idolatry (I Kings 3:1; 7:8; 9:16, 24; 11:1). In contrast,
she is mentioned only once in Chronicles. It is noteworthy that even this one parallel casts Solomon
in a more positive light than he is portrayed in Kings. In Kings, Solomon moves Pharaoh’s
daughter to her new palace. In Chronicles, he moves her there so that the Temple precincts would
be kept more sacred.

I Kings 9:24 II Chronicles 8:11

As soon as Pharaoh’s daughter went up from Solomon brought up Pharaoh’s daughter from
the City of David to the palace that he had built the City of David to the palace that he had built
for her, he built the Millo. for her, for he said, “No wife of mine shall
dwell in a palace of King David of Israel, for
[the area] is sacred since the Ark of the Lord
has entered it.”

This cleansing of the images of David and Solomon begins to sound like whitewashing. The
commentary attributed to Rashi[5] already suggested this line of interpretation and many since
have followed suit:

[When the author of Chronicles] comes to recount the David stories he does not recount
his flaws but rather only his heroism and greatness. [This is] because this book is [David’s]
and that of the kings of Judah. (commentary attributed to Rashi on I Chron. 10:1)

Yehudah Kiel rejects this line of interpretation, insisting that the author of Chronicles expects the
reader to know the earlier Books of Samuel–Kings, so he does not need to repeat every story. Since
Samuel and Kings still are included in Tanakh, people would know the stains on those kings’
records.[6]

If the commentary attributed to Rashi really means that Chronicles records no flaws of the Judean
kings, this assertion is incorrect. Many sins of southern kings are recorded in Chronicles, including
several that are unattested in Kings. But it certainly is true that the mistakes of David and Solomon
are significantly diminished or absent, and Kiel admits this point elsewhere in his commentary.
However, Kiel’s assertion also is insufficient. A number of events recorded in Samuel–Kings are
repeated in Chronicles, sometimes nearly verbatim. It is clear that each book includes information
that it needs in order to teach its own messages. Chronicles is not merely a supplement to Samuel–
Kings that fills in historical gaps.

A more fruitful approach emerges from trying to understand each book in its context. Traditionally,
Jeremiah composed Kings in the era of the destruction of the First Temple. Ezra composed

30
Chronicles at the beginning of the Second Temple period (Bava Batra 15a). One of the main
purposes of Kings is to vindicate God for the destruction—it was Israel’s fault rather than God’s
abandonment or injustice. Chronicles, on the other hand, wanted to inspire faith and hope in the
Returnees to Zion, to be discussed below.

In Samuel–Kings, David plays only a minor role in the building of the Temple and Solomon is the
Temple builder. In contrast, Chronicles contains eight chapters that describe David’s doing many
actions to help lay the framework for the Temple. In Chronicles, David and Solomon are partners
in building the Temple.
Chronicles repeatedly emphasizes the divine election of Solomon, a detail conspicuously absent
from Kings (see I Chron. 28:5, 6, 10; 29:1). This is not how Solomon claimed the throne in Kings,
where he needed to eliminate opposition before securing his throne. David goes through a similar
process in the Book of Samuel, having to contend with opposition from Saul’s family before finally
consolidating the kingdom. In contrast, Chronicles portrays David’s assumption of the throne as
unanimous and uncontested from the start.

The Davidic throne is referred to as “God’s throne” in Chronicles (I Chron. 28:5; 29:23; II Chron.
9:8; cf. II Chron. 13:8). This appellation demonstrates an intimate link between God’s kingdom
and the human throne. There is no tension with the institution of monarchy expressed in Chronicles
as there had been in Samuel–Kings. In Samuel–Kings, in contrast, David is the permanent founder
of the Davidic dynasty and viewed as the model king. Solomon fell short of David’s ideal standard
after turning to idolatry. In Chronicles, the roles of David and Solomon are equated on all three
counts. Solomon’s son Rehoboam even is equated to David and Solomon in righteousness before
he turned to sin and folly:

They strengthened the kingdom of Judah, and supported Rehoboam son of Solomon for
three years, for they followed the ways of David and Solomon for three years. (II Chron.
11:17)

Kings would not have set Solomon as a religious standard, since Solomon himself fell short of
David’s standard.
Similarly, David and Solomon are founders of the dynasty and builders of the Temple in
Chronicles, as Chronicles adds Solomon’s name to the verse where Kings had mentioned only
David:

31
I Kings 8:66 II Chronicles 7:10
On the eighth day he let the people go. They On the twenty-third day of the seventh month
bade the king good-bye and went to their he dismissed the people to their homes,
homes, joyful and glad of heart over all the rejoicing and in good spirits over the goodness
goodness that the Lord had shown to His that the Lord had shown to David and
servant David and His people Israel. Solomon and His people Israel.

The combination of the two periods of David and Solomon, coupled with a near-elimination of
their sins and political instabilities, forms one ideal period in Israel’s history.

Manasseh

The Book of Kings casts Manasseh as the worst Judean king in history. His unparalleled levels of
idolatry and murder led to the decree of the destruction of the Temple and exile (II Kings 21). In
contrast, Chronicles reports Manasseh’s sins but then states that he repented (II Chron. 33:11–16).
In contrast with Kings, Chronicles blames the destruction squarely on Zedekiah’s generation (II
Chron. 36:11–19).

Overall Purposes of the Books

Using the aforementioned contrasts, we now are in a position to discuss some of the primary
purposes of Samuel–Kings and Chronicles.

Samuel–Kings

The three great disasters—the splitting of the kingdom, the exile of the Northern Kingdom, and
the destruction of the Temple—all came as a result of idolatry. All three punishments were
intergenerational decrees. Several Northern dynasties likewise followed this pattern of idolatry,
leading to intergenerational punishment.
At the time of the destruction of the Temple, many complained that God unfairly punished them
for the sins of their ancestors: “Our fathers sinned and are no more; and we must bear their
guilt” (Lam. 5:7; cf. Jer. 31:29;Ezek. 18:2). Kings addresses their concern by agreeing that they
were in fact suffering primarily for the sins of their ancestors. However, this was fair and part of a
broader pattern in God’s judgment. The generation of the destruction did not have to be the worst
generation in order to experience the nation’s worst disaster. Kings teaches that God was fair, and
therefore did not permanently abandon Israel.

32
Samuel and Kings form the completion of the first nine biblical books comprising the Torah and
“Early Prophets.” The pattern of David and Solomon’s reigns follows a pattern set out in the Torah.
The world began with instability (tohu va-bohu); people were placed in the Garden of Eden
conditional on their faithfulness to God’s command; sin undermined the fabric of creation by
leading to exile from Eden and ultimately the Flood. Similarly, the reigns of David and Solomon
also started with instability. Through faithfulness to God, David was accepted by all and Solomon
built a stable empire and a Temple that symbolizes the Garden of Eden;[7] then sin undermined
the stability leading to destruction and exile. Anticipating these disasters, Jeremiah poignantly
laments the reversal of creation to its primeval state of desolation:

I look at the earth, it is unformed and void (tohu va-bohu); at the skies, and their light is gone. (Jer.
4:23)

Chronicles

Adam, Seth, Enosh; Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared; Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; Noah, Shem,
Ham, and Japheth. (I Chron. 1:1–4)

By opening from the beginnings of humanity, Chronicles casts itself as a “new version” of the first
nine biblical books, culminating with the building of the Second Temple. The Returnees to Zion
were led by Zerubbabel, a Davidic descendant; and Jeshua, the High Priest from the Zadokite line.
The nine chapters of genealogies connect the Returnees to the beginnings of humanity, and also to
the idealized Golden Age of David and Solomon. David, Zadok, and the Levitical choir families
have their pedigrees traced back to Adam. I Chronicles 9 parallels the roster of returnees to Israel
in Nehemiah 11, stressing that all of human history from Adam until the Second Temple period is
linked.

Sara Japhet extends this idea to the overall purpose of Chronicles:

By reformulating Israel’s history in its formative period, the Chronicler gives new
significance to the two components of Israelite life: The past is explained so that its
institutions and religious principles become relevant to the present, and the ways of the
present are legitimized anew by being connected to the prime source of authority—the
formative period in the people’s past. Thus, Chronicles … strengthens the bond between
past and present and proclaims the continuity of Israel’s faith and history.[8]

33
There is a consistent effort in Chronicles to demonstrate continuity throughout the generations.
This premise also explains Chronicles’ efforts to connect the building of the First Temple with the
Tabernacle discussed earlier.
In a similar vein, Chronicles demonstrates the ongoing stability of Israel and the Davidic dynasty.
Its narrative therefore characterizes the reigns of David and Solomon as stable from their outset
and it omits reference to rebellions, divisions, or the major sins of these individuals.
In order to further portray a nation that is secure and enduring despite the monumental rupture at
the time of the destruction of the Temple, Chronicles downplays the idea of intergenerational
punishment (and merit). It teaches instead that the people are unburdened by their bleak past.
Manasseh is not explicitly blamed for the destruction in Chronicles (though Huldah alludes to the
decree in II Chron. 34:23–28). Chronicles focuses on individual responsibility, so it can include
Manasseh’s repentance. Kings, which depends on Manasseh’s unprecedented sinfulness and
intergenerational punishment to justify the destruction, could not include any sign of his
repentance.[9] By highlighting Manasseh’s repentance and God’s acceptance of his prayer,
Chronicles teaches that anyone can repent, and God never shuts the door to penitents
(cf. Sanhedrin 103a).

On a broader level, Manasseh’s sin, exile to Babylonia, repentance, and return to Israel symbolizes
the trajectory of the nation of Israel. This parallel is strengthened by the fact that the Assyrians
exiled Manasseh to Babylonia (II Chron. 33:11) instead of to their capital, Nineveh. Thus,
Manasseh serves as a microcosm for the returnees. The Jewish people had endured the destruction
of the Temple and exile to Babylonia for their sins, but God accepted their prayers and repentance
and returned them to Israel.

When Chronicles was written, it must have stunned the Jews who already knew the bleak Kings
narrative and who may have still felt rejected by God. Instead of being a secondary book to Samuel
and Kings, Chronicles functions as a prophecy and conveys religious messages to people of its
time. Through insertions, omissions, and other changes to the Samuel–Kings narratives,
Chronicles teaches God’s relationship with Israel and the House of David is stable and eternal, and
that there is full continuity with the past.

The most important point of any biblical historical narrative is the prophetic message that underlies
it. Because we have alternate versions of prophetic history in Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles, we
have the ability to see how each prophet could have written the story. This gift enables us to hone
in on the overall purposes of each book, gaining multiple perspectives on prophetic truth.

34
Notes

[1] This essay appeared originally in Hayyim Angel, Vision from the Prophet and Counsel from the Elders: A Survey of Nevi’im
and Ketuvim (New York: OU Press, 2013), pp. 329–341. Several sections of this essay were adapted from Hayyim Angel, “Seeking
Prophecy in Historical Narratives: Ahaz and Hizkiyah in Kings and Chronicles,” Milin Havivin: Beloved Words 2 (2006), pp. 171–
184; and “Seeking Prophecy in Historical Narratives: Manasseh and Josiah in Kings and Chronicles,” Milin Havivin: Beloved
Words 3 (2007), pp. 110–121; reprinted in Angel, Revealed Texts, Hidden Meanings: Finding the Religious Significance in
Tanakh (Jersey City, NJ: Ktav-Sephardic Publication Foundation, 2009), pp. 227–244, 245–261.
[2] Joshua A. Berman, Inconsistency in the Torah: Ancient Literary Convention and the Limits of Source Criticism (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 2017).
[3] Abarbanel, Nevi’im Rishonim (Jerusalem: Torah VeDa’at Press, 1955), pp. 163–164. See also his introduction to Kings on pp.
428–429.
[4] Isaac Kalimi, The Reshaping of Ancient Israelite History in Chronicles (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), p. 1. See further
discussions in Abarbanel, introduction to Early Prophets, p. 8; introduction to Kings, p. 428; Yehudah Kiel, Da’at Mikra: I
Chronicles (Hebrew) (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1986), introduction pp. 51–55.
[5] See discussion of this attribution in Kiel, Da’at Mikra: I Chronicles, introduction p. 140; II Chronicles,appendix pp. 89–90.
[6] Kiel, Da’at Mikra: I Chronicles, introduction p. 140.
[7] See, e.g., Num. Rabbah 12:6: “Rabbi Simeon bar Yohai said, ‘...From the beginning of the world’s creation the Divine Presence
had dwelt in this lower world; as it says, “And they heard the voice of the Lord God walking in the garden….” (Gen. 3:8), but once
the Divine Presence departed at the time when Adam sinned, it did not descend again until the Tabernacle had been erected.’”
Also Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer 20: “‘He drove the man out’ (Gen. 3:24)—He was driven from the Garden of Eden and settled on
Mount Moriah, for the entrance to the Garden of Eden opens onto Mount Moriah.” For a survey of other biblical passages that link
Eden to the Temple, and discussion of how this connection relates to its ancient Near Eastern setting, see Lawrence E. Stager,
“Jerusalem as Eden,” Biblical Archaeology Review 26:3 (May–June 2000), pp. 36–47.
[8] Sara Japhet, Old Testament Library: I and II Chronicles (Louisville, KY: Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), p. 49.
[9] On intergenerational punishment in Kings, Ezekiel, and Chronicles, see Gershon Brin, Iyyunim BeSefer Yehezkel (Hebrew),
(Tel Aviv University: The United Kibbutz Press, 1975), pp. 80–105; Japhet, Emunot VeDe’ot BeSefer Divrei HaYamim, pp. 138–
154; Yehudah Kiel, Da’at Mikra: I Kings (Jerusalem: Mossad HaRav Kook, 1989), introduction pp. 124–127. See also Hayyim
Angel, “Did Ezekiel Change Torah Theology?” in Angel, Vision from the Prophet and Counsel from the Elders: A Survey of
Nevi’im and Ketuvim (New York: OU Press, 2013), pp. 153–162.

35