In this part of the chapter, Scripture enumerates the list of David's mighty men (gibborim). The first difficulty that immediately catches the eye arises from comparing this account to the Book of Shmuel: there, three warriors of the first rank are listed - Adino HaEtzni, Elazar son of Dodo the Achochite, and Shammah son of Agee; whereas here, only two are enumerated: Yashov'am son of Chachmoni and Elazar son of Dodo the Achochite. Another difficulty: there it states that he raised his spear over eight hundred slain, while here it says over three hundred slain. Furthermore, here Elazar's heroism is recounted in a plot of land full of barley, whereas in Shmuel, Shammah's heroism is told in a plot full of lentils - both the names have changed and the barley and lentils! The Malbim explains: this is precisely what we have noted throughout the book - Ezra does not come to duplicate the Book of Shmuel, but to add to what is already known to us from there. For the rest of the details, he relies on you to take them from the Book of Shmuel, which was accessible to all, while what he added here are details you will not find there at all.
וְאֵלֶּה מִסְפַּר הַגִּבֹּרִים אֲשֶׁר לְדָוִיד: יָשָׁבְעָם בֶּן חַכְמוֹנִי רֹאשׁ הַשָּׁלִישִׁים, הוּא עוֹרֵר אֶת חֲנִיתוֹ עַל שְׁלֹשׁ מֵאוֹת חָלָל בְּפַעַם אֶחָת׃ - And this is the number of the mighty men whom David had: Yashov'am, son of a Chachmonite, the chief of the captains; he lifted up his spear against three hundred slain at one time.
In the Book of Shmuel it is written: "He that sat in the seat, Tachkemoni, chief among the captains; he was Adino HaEtzni; against eight hundred slain at one time." We learned there that his name was Adino HaEtzni, and here Scripture adds: know that his name was also Yashov'am son of Chachmoni, and he was called this on account of his wisdom. "Yashov'am" - in terms of his wisdom, he sat (yashav) in the yeshivah to teach wisdom to the people (am), and likewise sat with the king to advise him in the affairs of the nation; "son of Chachmoni" - to teach a wise son (ben chacham), to teach the wise.
And regarding his valor, Scripture recounts that in a single engagement he slew three hundred warriors without tiring, and even after three hundred fallen he still brandished his spear with ease. Think about it: if a person were to take a sword and simply be asked to split fifty watermelons, by the thirtieth he would tell you his arm aches. And a sword is not a kitchen knife - merely lifting it weighs several kilograms. To split three hundred like that, even standing still without resistance, is extraordinary; but here we are talking about active combat, pursuing enemies to cut them down. Yet despite everything, he still swung his arm with complete ease.
"Chief of the captains" (rosh ha-sheloshim) - the read tradition (Keri) is "ha-shalishim" (the captains / the three), while the written text (Ketiv) is "ha-sheloshim" (the thirty). It follows, then: in terms of his wisdom, he was head over all of them, and therefore Scripture counted him as chief of the three supreme warriors; but in terms of sheer martial might he was not superior to the three warriors, for we will see later that Avishai the brother of Yoav was of the secondary tier of warriors and performed that exact same feat - meaning he was not unique at the very top, since someone else accomplished a feat no less impressive than his. Rather, he was the head of the thirty warriors whose prowess was below that of the top six.
The Radak also addresses the variation between "Yashov'am son of Chachmoni" here and "Yoshvei vaShevet Tachkemoni" in Shmuel, suggesting that perhaps two different individuals are being discussed: "Tachkemoni" is the father, while here Scripture speaks of the son. "Yashov'am" - because he sat in council with the king regarding the affairs of the nation (am), sitting with the king and advising him. According to this, the discrepancy in numbers is also understood: the father's strength exceeded that of the son - the father's prowess accounted for eight hundred slain, and the son's for three hundred. Alternatively, adds the Radak, Scripture may be speaking of both of them together - "he raised his spear," meaning both Yashov'am and Chachmoni, over three hundred slain.
And if you ask: but there it is written eight hundred! One can explain that in one battle there were three hundred, and in another battle eight hundred. For the meaning of the text is that in that specific battle he succeeded in slaying eight hundred men. Just as fighter pilots mark on the aircraft beside the cockpit how many enemy planes they shot down - so too it was recorded for him: in this battle eight hundred slain, and in that battle three hundred slain. And incidentally, they did not need to write anything down at all; they kept it in their heads. As is well known, Rav Ovadia always knew at any moment which blessing he was up to - saying "now sixty-four," "now ninety-three," counting his hundred blessings each day to ensure he had fulfilled the requirement of one hundred berachot, without writing a thing.
וְאַחֲרָיו אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן דּוֹדוֹ הָאֲחוֹחִי, הוּא בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה הַגִּבֹּרִים׃ - And after him was Elazar son of Dodo the Achochite, who was one of the three mighty men.
The Malbim explains: Eleazar was also among the three mighty men of the first tier, all of whom were together with David in that battle against the Philistines at Pas Dammim, as we will see in the next verse. In the Book of Shmuel, it is only mentioned that he struck down the Philistines and brought about a salvation, whereas Ezra adds for us that he also saved a plot full of barley - something that does not appear in Shmuel. And as for what is related in Shmuel, that the third warrior, Shammah, saved a plot full of lentils - Ezra does not mention this, since it contains no novelty, and you already know it from there. It turns out that there were two separate plots: Eleazar saved the barley plot, while Shammah saved the lentil plot.
And if you ask: Why did the Book of Shmuel, which comes to tell the full story, omit Eleazar's feat in the barley plot? The Malbim explains: Because he accomplished this with the assistance of his troops, as we will soon see, and therefore it did not see a need to record this feat; by contrast, Shammah's feat with the lentils was performed entirely on his own, which is why it was singled out there in a unique way.
הוּא הָיָה עִם דָּוִיד בַּפַּס דַּמִּים, וְהַפְּלִשְׁתִּים נֶאֶסְפוּ שָׁם לַמִּלְחָמָה, וַתְּהִי חֶלְקַת הַשָּׂדֶה מְלֵאָה שְׂעוֹרִים, וְהָעָם נָסוּ מִפְּנֵי פְלִשְׁתִּים׃ - "He was with David at Pas Dammim, and the Philistines were gathered there for battle, and there was a plot of field full of barley; and the people fled before the Philistines."
"Pas Dammim" - Rashi explains: It is the name of a place, and in Shmuel it is called "Efes Dammim." There is no difficulty in this, for place names change over time. For example, Jaljulia - what is its biblical name? Gilgal. In the same way, "Efes Dammim" became "Pas Dammim." And why did the Philistines gather there for battle? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains based on the verse in Shmuel, "when they defied the Philistines" - the Philistines could not bear that someone dared to stand up for the honor of Israel and even taunt them, so they arose to wage war against Israel. And as for what is said that the field was full of barley - the Philistines intended to harvest it and set it on fire.
The Radak, unlike the Malbim, does not explain that these were two separate plots and two warriors, but rather the very same plot. And how are "lentils" reconciled with "barley"? It is possible that the field had already been harvested and was full of sheaves, and sheaves had also been gathered into it from other fields, containing both lentils and barley - thus the field was full of lentils as well as barley. The Metzudat David, however, follows the Malbim's approach: this was not the same battle, for there it states that Shammah rescued it, whereas here Eleazar rescued it; hence, these are two different warriors and two distinct episodes.
וַיִּתְיַצְּבוּ בְתוֹךְ הַחֶלְקָה וַיַּצִּילוּהָ וַיַּכּוּ אֶת פְּלִשְׁתִּים, וַיּוֹשַׁע יְהֹוָה תְּשׁוּעָה גְדוֹלָה׃ - "And they took their stand in the midst of the plot, and delivered it, and struck down the Philistines; and the Lord saved them with a great salvation."
"And they took their stand" is in the plural - Eleazar the son of Dodo the Ahohite and his men. This explains why the incident was not mentioned in the Book of Shmuel: it was not his valor alone, but achieved with the help of his men. They saved the plot so that the Philistines would not burn it, struck down the Philistines, and the Lord brought about a great salvation.
וַיֵּרְדוּ שְׁלוֹשָׁה מִן הַשְּׁלוֹשִׁים רֹאשׁ עַל הַצֻּר אֶל דָּוִיד אֶל מְעָרַת עֲדֻלָּם, וּמַחֲנֵה פְלִשְׁתִּים חֹנָה בְּעֵמֶק רְפָאִים׃ - "And three of the thirty chiefs went down to the rock, to David, to the cave of Adullam; and the camp of the Philistines was encamped in the Valley of Rephaim."
The Malbim explains: After the three mighty men of the first tier, there were three others of the second tier, second in their might and valor, and they served as chiefs over the thirty mighty men enumerated later in the chapter. This occurred at the time David was anointed king, when the Philistines marched up to the Valley of Rephaim adjacent to Jerusalem, and David went to the cave of Adullam near the Philistine territory, as recorded in II Samuel 5:17-20. There it says "and came... at harvest time" - meaning it took place during the harvest season; and here it recounts that they went down and came to the rock, where the stronghold and cave were located. The term "went down" is precise, for one traveling from Jerusalem toward Philistine territory descends from the Judean hills southward toward the land of the Philistines. All this occurred at the stage when they had just made David king - that is, accepted his sovereignty over them.
וְדָוִיד אָז בַּמְּצוּדָה, וּנְצִיב פְּלִשְׁתִּים אָז בְּבֵית לָחֶם׃ - "David was then in the stronghold, and the Philistine governor was then in Bethlehem."
"David was then in the stronghold" - this refers to the same stronghold at the cave of Adullam that we mentioned. "And the Philistine governor was then in Bethlehem" - the netziv was the governor, the magistrate whom the Philistines had installed in Bethlehem. For this took place at the beginning of David's reign, when the Philistines still ruled over Israel, and the yoke of the Philistine governor still needed to be removed from them. We find a similar situation in the days of Shimshon and Shmuel: "Strengthen yourselves and be men, O Philistines, lest you become slaves to the Hebrews" - which shows that the Hebrews were subject to them and the Philistines were the rulers, and they feared that the tables might turn and they would become enslaved to Israel. This was that same Philistine dominion, including the governor stationed at that time in Bethlehem.
וַיִּתְאָו דָּוִיד וַיֹּאמַר: מִי יַשְׁקֵנִי מַיִם מִבּוֹר בֵּית לֶחֶם אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁעַר׃ - And David longed and said: "Who will give me water to drink from the well of Beit Lechem, which is at the gate?"
The well of Beit Lechem was David's home place - "Now David was the son of that Ephrathite of Beit Lechem in Judah." Since David was accustomed to Beit Lechem, he was habituated to its water, and therefore he craved that specific water. The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: any water and air to which a person is accustomed are beneficial to him, whereas what he is not accustomed to causes him harm. Many times a person moves from one climate to another and it harms him, causing health issues and diminishing his mental clarity.
And regarding water, the Rambam writes that pure, clear water fosters a pure mind and intellect, whereas stagnant, foul water fosters decay in the mind. Therefore, you see that those in Africa have impaired intellects, while those in Europe have clear minds - for whoever drinks water from pits and contaminated water suffers a decline in clarity of mind, whereas in Europe they have the purest water, from melting snow, and this water leads to higher intellectual attainments. The commentary attributed to Rashi brings proof for this from Sefer Yosippon: a certain queen fell ill after marrying outside her homeland, and the physicians said she would have no cure until she bathed and benefited from the waters of her native place, and so they did for her. Notice that this was even regarding bathing, not only drinking. For this reason, King David specifically requested water from the well of Beit Lechem.
וַיִּבְקְעוּ הַשְּׁלֹשָׁה בְּמַחֲנֵה פְלִשְׁתִּים וַיִּשְׁאֲבוּ מַיִם מִבּוֹר בֵּית לֶחֶם אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׁעַר, וַיִּשְׂאוּ וַיָּבִאוּ אֶל דָּוִיד, וְלֹא אָבָה דָוִיד לִשְׁתּוֹתָם וַיְנַסֵּךְ אֹתָם לַיהֹוָה׃ - So the three broke through the Philistine camp, drew water from the well of Beit Lechem that was at the gate, carried it, and brought it to David; but David would not drink it, and poured it out as a libation to Hashem.
The three mighty warriors broke through the Philistine camp, drew water from the well at the gate, carried it, and brought it to David - but David did not want to drink of it, but rather poured it out as a libation to Hashem. The commentary attributed to Rashi comments: "And drew water" - while the Philistines were standing directly before the well. In other words, there was immense heroism here: to break through the Philistines who stood between them and the well, and to succeed in drawing water, all merely to fulfill David's wish. And regarding "and poured it out as a libation to Hashem," Bar Kappara says: it was the festival of Sukkot, and he poured it out on the Altar.
וַיֹּאמֶר: חָלִילָה לִּי מֵאֱלֹהַי מֵעֲשׂוֹת זֹאת, הֲדַם הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֶשְׁתֶּה בְנַפְשׁוֹתָם כִּי בְנַפְשׁוֹתָם הֱבִיאוּם, וְלֹא אָבָה לִשְׁתּוֹתָם. אֵלֶּה עָשׂוּ שְׁלֹשֶׁת הַגִּבּוֹרִים׃ - And he said: "Far be it from me, before my God, that I should do this! Shall I drink the blood of these men with their lives, for at the risk of their lives they brought it?" And he would not drink it. These things the three mighty men did.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: "For at the risk of their lives they brought it" - they delivered themselves up to the risk of death for this water. "Far be it from me [Chalilah li]" - it is profane (chullin) for me to drink water for which people risked their lives; for I would be like one drinking their blood. And this is the meaning of "Shall I drink the blood of these men with their lives?" - would I drink the blood of these men who went and endangered their lives? They brought it at the peril of their lives, and therefore the water is considered like blood to whoever drinks it.
Rashi in the Book of Shemuel cites another approach: "'And poured it out as a libation to Hashem' - so he said: I have received a tradition from the Beit Din of Shemuel HaRamati: Whoever delivers himself to death for words of Torah, a teaching is not quoted in his name. And what is 'and poured it out as a libation to Hashem'? That he stated them as an anonymous tradition (mishmei digmara)." The meaning of this is: David sent to the Sanhedrin for them to rule on a halachic question concerning that field, whether it was permitted to take what was there, and those men risked their lives to reach the Sanhedrin and ask. Since whoever delivers himself to death over words of Torah is not cited by name, David stated those words of Torah - which are compared to water - as a general rabbinic tradition, without attributing them to the name of the sage who uttered them.
The Malbim on the Book of Shemuel elaborates and explains why David did not want to drink. They performed an act of immense heroism, marched through the camp, and drew the water by force; yet when they returned with the water in hand, David refused to drink. The Malbim cites in the name of the Mahari, namely the Abarbanel: The ends should be commensurate with the effort invested to achieve them, as the rhetorician wrote - "Is this the mark of a wise craftsman, to prepare tools worth thousands upon thousands of gold dinars in order to make a single iron needle?" In other words, tools are always fashioned according to the results produced by them. A person does not establish an enormous factory for a trivial product, nor does one devise a powerful machine merely to produce a single needle in the end.
Therefore, if the effort invested is immense, it is fitting that the ultimate purpose be commensurately immense. For Kiddush Hashem, the sanctification of the Divine Name, one even gives his life; but to risk one's life for something of minor worth is like setting up a massive factory to manufacture a single needle, where there is no proportion between the investment and the outcome. Therefore, David did not want the vigorous effort put forth by the warriors to be for something trivial: Was all this exertion merely so that I would have something to drink? Rather, he said: Let all your effort be for the sake of pouring a libation to Hashem - and then the entire act becomes worthwhile and justified, since its purpose and outcome are a libation to Hashem. This is the meaning of "Shall I drink the blood of these men with their lives?" - these men risked their lives, and if so, it is only fitting that such self-sacrifice be dedicated to something of precious value and importance.
And what is the meaning of "pouring a libation to Hashem" here? The Radak explains: He poured it out onto the ground for the sake of Hashem, because there was no altar there. Normally, libations are poured upon the altar, but in the place of battle there was no altar - therefore, he poured it onto the ground in honor of Hashem.
In these verses, Ezra enumerates the heads of David's mighty warriors, not as a mere copy from the Book of Shmuel, but as a complement to it: Yashov'am ben Chachmoni, who by virtue of his wisdom was the chief over all of them, yet by virtue of his military might was not the chief of the three, and who struck down three hundred slain at one time while still wielding his spear with ease; and Elazar ben Dodo, who together with his men saved the barley plot at Pas Dammim - an act of valor that was not mentioned in Shmuel precisely because it was accomplished with the aid of his men. And after them, the three chiefs of the thirty, who broke through the Philistine camp to bring David water from the cistern of Beit Lechem to which he was accustomed. David was unwilling to drink it, because it was the blood of these men, and thereby taught us a major principle: the purpose must correspond to the magnitude of the effort - and therefore he turned their self-sacrifice into a libation to Hashem, elevating an act of mortal danger to the level of a deed of precious worth.