Numbers 26:13

Zerah, called also Zohar, Gen 46:10; Exo 6:15. There is another of his sons, Ohad, mentioned Gen 46:10, not here, possibly because his family was extinct before this time.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

13. Zerah is the same as Zohar. Gen_46:10.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

לזרח OF ZERAH — He is identical with Zohar (mentioned in Exodus 6:15 as a son of Simeon), which is an expression equivalent to צהר, shining (a synonym of זרח). However, the family of אהוד (mentioned there) had ceased to exist by now. The same was the case with five families of the tribe of Benjamin, for with ten sons did Benjamin go down to Egypt and here it enumerates only five. Similarly with Ezbon of the tribe of Gad. So you have seven families that had become extinct (cf. Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5). — And I have found in the Talmud Yerushalmi Yoma 1:2 the reason why these seven families were now extinct: that when Aaron died the clouds of glory departed and the Canaanites came to wage war against Israel. These therefore set their hearts on returning to Egypt and turned back eight stages from Mount Hor to Moserah, as it is said, (Deuteronomy 10:6) “And the children of Israel journeyed from Bene Jaakon to Moserah; there Aaron died”. But did he not die at Mount Hor and from Moserah to Mount Hor there were eight stages in a backward direction? But the explanation is that they turned back, and the Levites pursued them to force them to return and slew of them seven families. And besides these, of the sons of Levi there fell four families: the families of Shimei and Uzzieli, and of the three sons of Izhar (Exodus 6:21) only the family of one son, Korah, is enumerated here, v. 58, so that the family of Izhar may be regarded as extinct — making three families missing. And as regards the fourth family I do not know which of those mentioned in 3:21, 27, 33, it was that had become extinct by now (Talmud Yerushalmi Sotah 1:10; Yoma 1:1). But Rabbi Tanchuma (Midrash Tanchuma, Pinchas 5) explained that they (the families not mentioned here) died by the plague in the matter of Balaam. But this can hardly be so, because according to the deficiency that shows itself in the tribe of Simeon in this census, as compared with the first census in the wilderness of Sinai (1:23), it would appear that all the twenty four thousand who died of that plague (Numbers 25:9) must have fallen from the tribe of Simeon.

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

L’ZERACH’ (OF ZERAH). “He is [identical with] ‘Tzochar’ [Zohar — mentioned in Genesis 46: 10 as one of the sons of Simeon who went down to Egypt], and it [the name Zerach (Zerah)] is an expression meaning tzohar [‘shining,’ which is also the meaning of Zerach]. But the family of Ohad [the other son of Simeon mentioned ibid., in Genesis] became extinct. Similarly five families of the tribe of Benjamin [had by now ceased to exist], for he [Benjamin] went down to Egypt with ten sons, and here Scripture only counts five.” This is Rashi’s language.And Rashi has furthermore written: “All the families were called by the names of those [of their ancestors] who went down to Egypt, but those who were born after that time were not called families [in their own right and their own names], except for the families of Ephraim and Menasheh, both of whom were born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin. who went down to Egypt, and here in Verse 40 they are referred to as sons of Bela, who was himself a son of Benjamin, we must perforce say that the ones referred to here were not the same as those mentioned there [but had the same names]. Furthermore we must perforce say that the Ard and Naaman mentioned here were not amongst those who went down to Egypt, for otherwise Scripture would have mentioned them there in Genesis, in the same way that it counts the grandchildren of Judah and Asher. This is the meaning of Rashi when he wrote: “except for the families of Ephraim and Menasheh, both of whom were born in Egypt, and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela the son of Benjamin.” However, the question then arises: why are Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela, counted here, since they were not amongst those who went down to Egypt? In other words, why were they an exception to the rule? To answer this question Rashi quotes the statement which he found in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher. And I have found [it written] in the work of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher, Note 146. that their mother [that of Ard and Naaman — i.e., the wife of Bela] went down to Egypt when she was already pregnant with them [and therefore they formed separate families, since they are also included amongst ‘those who went down’ to Egypt]. Now if this is a tradition, well and good. But if not, I say that Bela had many children, but from each of these two, Ard and Naaman, there came forth a large family, [and therefore they formed families in their own right and in their own names], whereas the descendants of the other sons were called by Bela’s name, and [only] the descendants of these two [Ard and Naaman] were called after their [own] names.” All this is the language of the Rabbi [Rashi], of blessed memory.But I am astonished at [the words of] Rashi. For the difficulty [raised by Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] is not that Scripture counts the family of the Belaites by itself, and [nonetheless counts also] the families of the Ardites and the Naamites his sons, by themselves, Verse 40. for that was [indeed] because they became [large] families, as the Rabbi [Rashi] has said. This is the way of Scripture, as in the case of the children of Judah [where it counts Hezron and Hamul, who were grandchildren of Judah, as forming families by themselves], and [likewise] the children of Menasheh and Ephraim, and likewise the children of Asher. However, if we say that Ard and Naaman were born to Bela, the son of Benjamin, after they went down to Egypt, they should not have been counted here as [separate] families! are mentioned as forming separate families, since their father Bela is also mentioned as forming a separate family. To answer this, Rabbi Moshe gave the explanation that their mother was already pregnant with them when she went down to Egypt; and Rashi himself [because he questioned the authenticity of that tradition] gave a different reason, i.e., that they formed large families in their own right. Ramban is saying that Rabbi Moshe’s difficulty was not why Scripture mentions them as forming separate families, because the answer to that question is clearly that they had large families, which were worthy of constituting separate families and hence were not included in Bela’s family. That this is so we see clearly from the examples of Judah, Menasheh, Ephraim and Asher, as Ramban points out. Yet Rabbi Moshe did not ask about the children of these people, but only about Ard and Naaman, the children of Bela! Clearly this is because Scripture only counts as separate families the children of those who went down to Egypt, [e.g. Judah and Asher] or who were already there when Jacob went down [e.g. Menasheh and Ephraim]. But in the case of Ard and Naaman, there is a difficulty, whether we say that they went down to Egypt with Jacob or not, [as explained further on in Ramban], and it is this difficulty which Rabbi Moshe the Preacher was trying to answer. The question whether they went down to Egypt with Jacob depends, of course, on when they were born. For if we say that they were born to Bela after he went down to Egypt, the question arises: Why are they counted here as separate families, since only those who were among the seventy souls who went down to Egypt with Jacob are counted here as separate families? And if they were born before Jacob’s family went down to Egypt, then since they are not mentioned in Genesis, the total number of people who went down must have been seventy-two, so why does Scripture omit them and count only seventy? In brief it was this difficulty that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher had in understanding the verses, a difficulty which applies only to Ard and Naaman, and not as Rashi assumed his question to be, which would apply to other cases as well. And should we say that [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela] were born to him before [he went down to Egypt], then [the family of Jacob] would consist of more than seventy souls, for then the sons of Benjamin were ten apart from these two sons of Bela [thus the overall total of people who went down to Egypt would be seventy-two, whereas Scripture there only mentions a total of seventy]! It was for this reason [and not for the reason implied by Rashi’s explanation] that Rabbi Moshe the Preacher explained that their mother [the wife of Bela] was already pregnant with them [Ard and Naaman, when the family of Jacob went down to Egypt], and [since they were not yet born] they are not counted there [in the Book of Genesis], but here they are included, Verse 40. among those born [before the descent into Egypt, because their mother was already pregnant with them when they went into Egypt].Now if this is a tradition [of the Rabbis, that Bela’s wife was pregnant with Ard and Naaman when she went down into Egypt], we will force ourselves to accept it despite its difficulty. mention Ard and Naaman amongst the seventy souls that came into Egypt, because although their mother came into Egypt when she was pregnant with them, they were not yet born and thus one cannot say that they ”came into Egypt.” Yet here they are counted as forming separate families, although only the families of those that came into Egypt are counted as separate families, and the reason is because they “came into Egypt” since their mother was pregnant with them! Thus there is an apparent contradition! Furthermore, we will have to differentiate between the case of Jochebed and that of Ard and Naaman, as will be explained further on. We will also have to say that Jochebed was born [whilst they passed] through the walls [of the border-city of Egypt], on the very day that they entered into [Egypt], and therefore she is included amongst the seventy souls [that came into Egypt], whereas these [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela] were born some months [after Jacob’s family had come to Egypt, and therefore they are not included amongst the seventy souls that came into Egypt with Jacob]! But if it is not a tradition of our Rabbis [but merely a personal opinion of Rabbi Moshe the Preacher] we will reject this theory of his with all our might. But we can say that Ard and Naaman, the sons of Benjamin [as mentioned in Genesis 46:21], died without children, and Bela [their brother] wanted to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel, and therefore he gave his sons the names of his brothers who had died. Perhaps Bela [actually] performed the rite of marriage with their wives, since he was the firstborn, etc. — The duty of marrying a childless brother’s wife falls primarily on the eldest of the remaining brothers; if he refuses the duty devolves upon any other surviving brother (Yebamoth 39a). and Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela [from these marriages] became heads of families to raise up a name for Ard and Naaman the sons of Benjamin, who were amongst those that went down to Egypt. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the Naaman and Ard. Ramban now suggests that these two people who are mentioned there in Genesis as the “sons” of Benjamin, are in fact identical with the Ard and Naaman mentioned here in Verse 40, who are described as the sons of Bela, who was the son of Benjamin. Naaman and Ard were thus in fact the grandchildren of Benjamin, and it is the style of Scripture to describe grandchildren as children, as Ramban shows. This explains why Ard and Naaman are counted here as separate families in their own right, since they were amongst those who went down to Egypt [as stated explicitly in Genesis 46:21], and there is thus also no problem about how we reach the number of seventy souls who went down there. In other words, the Ard and Naaman mentioned there in Genesis [as the sons of Benjamin] and here in Verse 40 [as Benjamin’s grandsons] are identical persons. who are counted amongst the sons of Benjamin in the section of And these are the names etc., were in fact [not the real sons of Benjamin at all, but they were] the sons of his firstborn son Bela, as is stated explicitly here, Verse 40. and similarly Scripture counts them [as the sons of Bela] in the Book of Chronicles. mentioned is synonymous with Ard. Such is the custom of Scripture to speak of grandchildren as children [and therefore in Genesis 46:21 the verse describes them as the ‘sons’ of Benjamin], just as it says, Laban the son of Nahor, Vol. I, p. 360. and in the Book of Chronicles it is written, The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram, and Uz, and Hul, and Gether and Meshech, although the last four were in fact his grandchildren! And even though Scripture did not treat the sons of Perez [as the “sons” of Judah, their grandfather, as it did in the case of Ard and Naaman], likewise [it did not treat] the sons of Beriah [as the “sons” of Asher, their grandfather, as it did in the case of Ard and Naaman], — this may be because they [Ard and Naaman, the sons of Bela], were born upon Benjamin’s knees [i.e., he brought them up], and therefore they are considered his sons. This is then similar to [the verse], And these are the generations of Aaron and Moses, [where the verse proceeds to mention only the sons of Aaron! The explanation given is that they were in actual fact only the sons of Aaron, but since Moses brought them up and taught them Torah, they are also called his children]. Or it may be that because Benjamin had many sons — for he had eight — therefore Scripture included the few [i.e., his two grandsons, Ard and Naaman] amongst the many [real sons, and therefore spoke of all ten as Benjamin’s sons].And it is possible also that we suggest as a hypothesis that Scripture here does not count only the families of those who went down to Egypt, [as Rashi explained above], because [we see] that even those who were born in Egypt from that time onwards are also counted as families, such as Scripture does here in the case of [the families of] Ephraim and Menasheh [whose families are counted separately, even though they did not go down to Egypt with Jacob]. It is not a [satisfactory] reason for Scripture to do so [as exceptions in their cases only], on the grounds that they were [already] in Egypt [and therefore are included as separate families together with all those who came down afterwards with Jacob], because it is at the time of the [actual] descent [into Egypt] that one ought to count them all in one number, and to make families out of the seventy souls [who actually went down with Jacob, and it is not correct to include Ephraim and Menasheh who were there but did not go down with the others]! to Egypt. Hence we must say that in fact Scripture includes in its list not only those who actually went down to Egypt with Jacob, but also those who did not go down then, and even some who were born later, as explained further on. In that case we can understand that Ard and Naaman are included in the list, even though they were born later. Similarly Scripture always counts them [Ephraim and Menasheh] together with those who went down to Egypt, [such as in the verse]: Thy fathers went down into Egypt with threescore and ten persons So also the sons of Bela [Ard and Naaman] were born afterwards [i.e., after the descent into Egypt, and they are nonetheless counted here as separate families! This proves that the determining factor whether to count a family here separately, is not the criterion of whether its founder was amongst those who went down to Egypt with Jacob, as Rashi said, but must have been some other reason, as will now be explained].But [we must say that] this matter was [as follows]. It was the custom in Israel [for people] to appoint over themselves “heads of fathers’ houses,” and all the descendants of that man would always trace their lineage back to him, and be called by his name in his honor; just as all the Arabs do to this very day, and as do all the Jews who live in their [the Arabs’] countries, calling themselves by family [names, such as] “Ibn Ezra,” or “Ibn Shushan.” This is the meaning of the verse which says, These are the heads of their fathers’ houses, for from the time that they were fruitful and multiplied, 1:7. in Egypt, they established heads of families over themselves, to whom they would trace their lineage. Perhaps they initiated this practice in Egypt in order not to mingle themselves with the nations and so that they would be recognized and distinguishable among their tribes, [for it is there in Egypt] whither the tribes went up, even the tribes of the Eternal, as a testimony unto Israel, 122:4. and it became a custom in Israel. Thus [all] those mentioned here [in this section] were, every one of them, heads of their fathers’ house in Egypt, from whom the family traced its descent. That is why Scripture counts in the house of Machir [the son of Menasheh]: the family of the Machirites and the family of the Gileadites his son, and the family of the Iezerites and that of the Helekites, Verse 30. the sons of Gilead and their [other] brothers. In a similar way [Scripture records] the children of Judah [and also counts Hezron and Hamul, who were the sons of Perez and grandsons of Judah, as separate families] and those of Ephraim, for these children mentioned were great and distinguished people, and became heads [of their families]. But [the reason for them being counted as separate families] is not because they [each] gave birth to a large family, as the Rabbi [Rashi] wrote, because they all begot large families [even those who are not mentioned individually], since they were fruitful, and increased abundantly, and multiplied, and waxed exceedingly mighty., 1:7. But [Scripture named separate families here] as a mark of honor, meaning that [the members of that particular family] had appointed [that person] as their head. Now most of the families when they were in Egypt traced their descent from those who went down to Egypt [with Jacob], because they considered them distinguished ancestors, and the others appointed for themselves heads of houses from those who were born there shortly after [Jacob’s descent to Egypt]. Therefore most of the [people] mentioned here [in this census as forming families] were [amongst] those who went down to Egypt [with Jacob], and therefore these families trace themselves back to those who came down [originally] to Egypt, because it was there that they established them [these people, as the heads of their family-groups].

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.