Chapter 18 opens with the words, "And it came to pass after this." The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: After what? After King David sought to build a House for Hashem, and the Holy One, Blessed be He, told him, "You shall not build a house for My Name; rather, your son will." David said: If I am not to be the builder, at least I will gather the materials. And that is what David did throughout his life: he ensured that his son Shlomo would have the means to erect and build the House, so that when his son came to build, everything would be ready at hand. The chapter before us describes how David procured these materials - through his wars against his enemies, taking their spoils for the purpose of building the Beis HaMikdash.
We previously mentioned that this was one of the charges leveled against David regarding the phrase, "You have shed much blood." There is an explanation in Chazal that since he had amassed vast funds for the construction of the Beis HaMikdash, when a famine struck and people came asking him to distribute funds to those whose lives were in danger, David replied that this money was consecrated to the Beis HaMikdash and how could he give it away, and this led to blood being shed. In any event, we see that David exerted himself tirelessly throughout his days to ensure there would be means to build the Beis HaMikdash, and this is the direct continuation of what we saw above: If I will not build it, at least I will prepare for its construction.
This chapter, the Malbim notes, is drawn from Shmuel II, Chapter 8, with additions and adjustments, and the Malbim highlights these variations throughout.
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי כֵן וַיַּךְ דָּוִיד אֶת פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּכְנִיעֵם וַיִּקַּח אֶת גַּת וּבְנֹתֶיהָ מִיַּד פְּלִשְׁתִּים׃ - And it came to pass after this that David struck the Pelishtim and subdued them, and he took Gat and its daughter-towns from the hand of the Pelishtim.
In Shmuel it says, "he took Metheg-Ammah," and here Ezra reveals to us that the city of Gat is what was called Metheg-Ammah. What is Metheg-Ammah? Radak cites Targum Yonasan, "the regulation of the aqueduct": there was an aqueduct passing through there, and they channeled the conduit so that it flowed from outside the city into the city - a sort of miniature national water carrier that transported water into the town, and the city was named after it. Radak further notes there that in our text the place is called "Gat and its daughters," meaning that Gat and all its surrounding hamlets were included under the name Metheg-Ammah. "Its daughters" is translated by the Targum as "its villages": just as in "let the daughters of Yehudah rejoice" the reference is not to literal daughters but to the satellite towns and villages surrounding the cities of Yehudah, so too with Gat and its daughters.
However, the Malbim also alludes here to the homiletic interpretation found in Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer. When Avimelech came to Yitzchak and said, "We have clearly seen that Hashem is with you," they meant: We know that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is destined to give all these lands to you and your descendants; make a covenant and an oath with us that your descendants will not dispossess the land of the Pelishtim. They wanted to ensure they would not be evicted from there. What did Yitzchak do? He cut off one cubit (ammah) from the bridle (metheg) of the donkey he was riding - the rein placed upon the donkey's neck - and gave it to them, so that they would hold a sign of the covenant and oath. When David sought to enter the land of the Pelishtim, he was unable to do so by virtue of that sign of the covenant from Yitzchak's oath, until he took that token of the covenant from them. They had preserved it like a museum piece: "Look at this bridle piece; this is our insurance policy." In order for David to conquer them, he had to take that insurance policy away from them. Therefore it says, "David took Metheg-HaAmmah from the hand of the Pelishtim" - and once it was no longer in their possession, he was able to conquer their land.
וַיַּךְ אֶת מוֹאָב וַיִּהְיוּ מוֹאָב עֲבָדִים לְדָוִיד נֹשְׂאֵי מִנְחָה׃ - And he struck Moav, and the Moavites became servants to David, bearers of tribute.
The Malbim notes: In the Book of Shmuel, Scripture elaborates at great length regarding the defeat of Moav, whereas here it is concise - he struck Moav, and Moav became servants to David, bearers of tribute.
וַיַּךְ דָּוִיד אֶת הֲדַדְעֶזֶר מֶלֶךְ צוֹבָה חֲמָתָה בְּלֶכְתּוֹ לְהַצִּיב יָדוֹ בִּנְהַר פְּרָת׃ - And David struck Hadadezer king of Zobah towards Chamath, as he went to establish his dominion at the Euphrates River.
David smites Hadadezer (spelled Hadarezer elsewhere, which is the same person) at Chamath - that was where the battle took place. What does it mean 'to establish his dominion [literally, hand] at the Euphrates River'? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: He went to establish his power and restore his border at the Euphrates River, meaning to lay his hand upon the territory and return it to being part of his boundary. An example of this usage is: 'Now Avshalom in his lifetime had taken and reared up for himself a pillar... and called the pillar after his own name: Yad Avshalom' - 'yad' means power and boundary, marking the extent of Avshalom's power and domain. He also cites another explanation in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak bar Shmuel of Narbonne: inside the monument, Avshalom carved the shape of a hand, and that is why it was called 'Yad Avshalom.'
The Malbim reveals a novel insight based on the added word 'Chamatah' (towards Chamath): the king of Zobah was marching to war against Chamath to battle To'u, king of Chamath. This is why To'u later sent gifts to David, for David aided him by striking down Hadadezer - Hadadezer was waging war against To'u, and David struck Hadadezer, thereby coming to To'u's aid. This explains what is stated in verse 10: 'for Hadadezer had been at war with To'u.'
And why did David intervene? Why should a dispute between To'u and Hadadezer concern him? The Malbim explains that herein lies the answer: Hadadezer sought to conquer Chamath, which would have given him a stronghold and dominion at the Euphrates River, along the border of the Land of Israel - and David could not allow this. If you will, it is akin to the Iranian entrenchment in Syria that modern Israel is alarmed by and actively works to thwart: David was alarmed by Hadadezer entrenching himself right at his border and posing a threat, and so he moved to drive him far from the border. In the Book of Shmuel, it is written 'to recover his dominion [lehashiv yado],' meaning that from Chamath he turned toward the Euphrates River to draw closer to the Land of Israel; whereas Ezra writes 'to establish his dominion [lehatziv yado],' meaning to secure a permanent foothold where he could place his hand - to have a recognized presence and stake in that region.
וַיִּלְכֹּד דָּוִיד מִמֶּנּוּ אֶלֶף רֶכֶב וְשִׁבְעַת אֲלָפִים פָּרָשִׁים וְעֶשְׂרִים אֶלֶף אִישׁ רַגְלִי וַיְעַקֵּר דָּוִיד אֶת כָּל הָרֶכֶב וַיּוֹתֵר מִמֶּנּוּ מֵאָה רָכֶב׃ - And David captured from him a thousand chariots, seven thousand horsemen, and twenty thousand foot soldiers; and David hamstrung all the chariot horses, but reserved of them enough for a hundred chariots.
In the Book of Shmuel, the numbers differ - there it says 'a thousand and seven hundred horsemen,' whereas here it says seven thousand. The Radak reconciles this by explaining that in Shmuel, Scripture counted only the high-ranking officers in Hadadezer's camp, whereas here it counts all the horsemen; furthermore, there it did not mention the count of chariots and foot soldiers, whereas here it does. The Malbim elaborates further: what are referred to there as 'horsemen' are actually cavalry officers, each in command of ten horses. Thus, the matter resolves beautifully: the 'thousand' mentioned in Shmuel refers to the thousand chariots, and the 'seven hundred' are cavalry captains, each commanding ten men - yielding the seven thousand recorded in our verse.
What is meant by 'and David hamstrung all the chariot horses'? The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: because it is written, 'he shall not multiply horses to himself,' and as was commanded in the days of Yehoshua, 'and you shall hamstring their horses.' Therefore, he spared only one hundred chariots for himself - just enough for his personal entourage. Anything beyond what was strictly needed for his entourage would be idle horses, kept merely for pride and prestige. In modern terms, it is like someone who fills his driveway with luxury cars: drive what you need to travel, but do not buy cars just to flaunt your prestige. In ancient times, people acquired horses for prestige, and about this the Torah commanded, 'he shall not multiply horses to himself.' The word 'to hamstring' (le'aker) means to incapacitate the primary part (the ikar), namely the legs, rendering the horse physically blemished and unfit for battle.
The question arises: by doing so, he renders the animal unable to walk - what about the prohibition of causing pain to animals (tza'ar ba'alei chayim)? Tosafot in Avodah Zarah (page 11a, as cited in 'Divrei Tovah') address the practice of hamstringing the horse ridden by a deceased king so that no commoner may ever ride it, asking: 'And if you say, why does the Gemara not challenge this on the grounds of tza'ar ba'alei chayim?' They answer: the honor of the king is different, for it represents the honor of the entire Jewish people, and the honor of the community overrides tza'ar ba'alei chayim. The honor of the king stands on a higher spiritual plane than preventing pain to animals.
This demonstrates to us that Judaism possesses a very clear hierarchy of values. Part of the confusion in our day stems from the fact that whoever lacks the word of God firmly established in the heavens lacks the 'Anochi' - the plumb line (anach) that descended at the Giving of the Torah at Mount Sinai. This plumb line functions as a spirit level: if you want to know whether something is straight or crooked, you measure it against the plumb line of the Torah. But one who lacks Torah relies on human logic as his plumb line, and human logic is flawed time and time again.
An example of this can be seen in those circles that constantly champion animal welfare, even citing proof from the Torah, building animal shelters and looking out for their well-being - to the point where a certain member of Knesset boasted on her resume that she is a 'third-generation cat feeder.' Yet, when Gush Katif was evacuated (and by the way, Ariel Sharon once asked Rav Ovadia Yosef for a blessing, and the Rav blessed him that his days be prolonged - and indeed, he lay bedridden for years, prolonging his days in a hospital bed), there were families left homeless, searching for a place to lay their heads and stuck living in temporary trailer homes. Right then, self-righteous organizations launched a campaign with the slogan 'Adopt a Dog' - for all the evacuees had kept guard dogs in those dangerous areas, and when they were forced from their homes, the dogs were left roaming. But 'Adopt a Settler'? Heaven forbid! There was even a prominent leftist who publicly advised the Arabs to aim their rockets at the settlements rather than Tel Aviv, telling them they were harming their own interests - he gave them everything short of exact coordinates. For dogs there was deep compassion and mercy, but for human beings wandering without a home, the attitude was: 'That is their problem; why did they choose to live there?' This shows just how much distortion arises when man constructs his own moral yardstick without the guidance of the Torah.
And we have mentioned before: Heinrich Himmler, may his name be erased, had a dog he called "Mensch," and he would set it upon the camp inmates - "he is a human." And the Maggid of Kelm, when he saw a German woman kissing a dog, remarked at the Rabbinical Seminary in Berlin that in this place, people would be slaughtered like calves. They said to him: The Rabbi is exaggerating; the Rabbi comes from Eastern Europe; the Rabbi does not know Berlin - here there is etiquette, culture, and civility. He replied to them: I do not know Berlin, but I know a verse - "Those who sacrifice human beings kiss calves" (Hoshea 13:2). One who is capable of kissing a calf will be capable of slaughtering human beings like calves without any pangs of conscience. And not many years passed before these words were fulfilled.
The conclusion: Learn morality only from the Torah. The One Who created you, created the animals, and created the entire universe is the only One Who can dictate what is proper to do and what is not, whom to kill and whom to let live, against whom to take action and to whom to do good. And if the Holy One, Blessed be He, said that here the animals should be hamstrung for the honor of royalty, it is a sign that the honor of royalty takes precedence over cruelty to animals (tzaar baalei chaim). And this is precisely the hint in the wording of the verse: "And David hamstrung all the chariot horses" - why mention "David" again, when it was already stated, "And David captured from him"? Rather, it is to tell you that this involved honor due to his status as King David, so that everyone would see that the king was fulfilling Hashem's command, "he shall not multiply horses for himself" (Devarim 17:16). This royal dignity overrides the prohibition of cruelty to animals. However, for an ordinary person who is not a king, where royal honor is not hanging in the balance, this would not be permitted.
Tosafot further write that this also does not involve the prohibition of wasteful destruction (bal tashchit), for out of deference to the king's honor, bal tashchit is not a concern. Thus we find that shrouds worth one hundred maneh are made for a king - and for what purpose? After all, it is placed in the grave, and one hundred maneh is an enormous sum; rather, royal dignity permits it. From here, the authorities also discussed the custom of casting very costly silks (expensive garments) into the bonfire at the tomb of Rashbi. Some debated this on the grounds of bal tashchit, while those who permitted it argued that this is akin to the honor of royalty, since it is done in honor of the tzaddik.
וַיָּבֹא אֲרַם דַּרְמֶשֶׂק לַעְזוֹר לַהֲדַדְעֶזֶר מֶלֶךְ צוֹבָה וַיַּךְ דָּוִיד בַּאֲרָם עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁנַיִם אֶלֶף אִישׁ׃ - "And Aram of Darmesek came to help Hadadezer, king of Tzovah, and David struck down twenty-two thousand men among Aram."
In II Shmuel it is written "Dammesek" (Damascus), whereas here it says "Darmesek." Do not wonder at this, says the commentary attributed to Rashi, for it is the style of Scripture to speak in this manner and insert the letter resh. An example of this is shevet (rod) and sharvit (scepter) - "who chastised you with whips" (I Melachim 12:11), which the Targum renders as "sharvitin." Thus, Dammesek and Darmesek are one and the same.
וַיָּשֶׂם דָּוִיד בַּאֲרַם דַּרְמֶשֶׂק וַיְהִי אֲרָם לְדָוִיד עֲבָדִים נֹשְׂאֵי מִנְחָה וַיּוֹשַׁע ה' לְדָוִיד בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר הָלָךְ׃ - "And David placed [garrisons] in Aram of Darmesek, and Aram became servants to David, bringing tribute; and Hashem saved David wherever he went."
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains "vayyāsem" (and he placed) - he placed netzivim (garrisons or governors), for in Shmuel it is explicitly stated, "And David placed garrisons in Aram of Dammesek," these being officers and officials appointed on David's behalf after he conquered the area. However, the Malbim explains that it was not without reason that Ezra omitted the garrisons: for in chapter 19 we will see that Aram fought against Israel, meaning that David wanted to station garrisons but in the end was unable to do so. Therefore, it is stated here simply, "And David placed in Aram of Darmesek" - he had a plan to station garrisons, but Ezra does not mention them because ultimately they came to fight against us and the plan did not materialize. Shmuel speaks of the plan, whereas Ezra - who writes after the events have unfolded - can recount not only the intentions, but the ultimate results as well.
וַיִּקַּח דָּוִיד אֵת שִׁלְטֵי הַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ עַל עַבְדֵי הֲדַדְעָזֶר וַיְבִיאֵם יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם׃ - "And David took the golden shields that were upon the servants of Hadadezer, and brought them to Yerushalayim."
The "shields of gold" (shiltei hazahav) are golden shields, as it is written in Yirmeyahu 51: "Sharpen the arrows, fill the shields (hashlatim)" - shelatim are shields, and "haveru" comes from the root of clear and clean, meaning clean or sharpen the arrows and fill the shields.
וּמִטִּבְחַת וּמִכּוּן עָרֵי הֲדַדְעֶזֶר לָקַח דָּוִיד נְחֹשֶׁת רַבָּה מְאֹד בָּהּ עָשָׂה שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת יָם הַנְּחֹשֶׁת וְאֶת הָעַמּוּדִים וְאֵת כְּלֵי הַנְּחֹשֶׁת׃ - And from Tibhath and from Cun, cities of Hadadezer, David took an exceedingly great amount of copper, with which Solomon made the copper Sea, the pillars, and the copper vessels.
In the Book of Shmuel it is written, "And from Betah and from Berothai, cities of Hadadezer," whereas in our text it says, "And from Tibhath and from Cun." The Radak explains that these cities had two names: Tibhath and Betah are an anagram of the same name, and Berothai is the city called Cun, just as one can refer to the same place as England or Britain. The Malbim offers a simpler explanation, consistent with his approach throughout the book: Ezra refers to places by the names they bore in his own time. In the days of Shmuel they were called Betah and Berothai, and later their names changed, so Ezra refers to them by the names familiar to his contemporaries, for he would not designate cities by names unknown to his readers.
Here we find another example of this chapter serving as a continuation of the previous one: it was from this vast amount of copper that Solomon fashioned the copper Sea - a basin of enormous proportions - as well as the pillars and the copper vessels, which likewise required an immense quantity of copper. David brought all of it from the cities of Hadadezer, and from there Solomon had the materials to build. In the Book of Shmuel this detail is not mentioned at all; it states there only briefly, "and from Amalek, and from the spoil of Hadadezer king of Zobah" - in general terms alone; whereas Ezra elaborates and provides the details.
וַיִּשְׁמַע תֹּעוּ מֶלֶךְ חֲמָת כִּי הִכָּה דָוִיד אֶת כָּל חֵיל הֲדַדְעֶזֶר מֶלֶךְ צוֹבָה׃ - And Tou king of Hamath heard that David had struck down the entire army of Hadadezer king of Zobah.
וַיִּשְׁלַח אֶת הֲדוֹרָם בְּנוֹ אֶל הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִיד לִשְׁאָל לוֹ לְשָׁלוֹם וּלְבָרְכוֹ עַל אֲשֶׁר נִלְחַם בַּהֲדַדְעֶזֶר וַיַּכֵּהוּ כִּי אִישׁ מִלְחֲמוֹת תֹּעוּ הָיָה הֲדַדְעָזֶר וְכֹל כְּלֵי זָהָב וָכֶסֶף וּנְחֹשֶׁת׃ - And he sent Hadoram his son to King David to greet him and to bless him because he had fought against Hadadezer and struck him down, for Hadadezer had been at war with Tou; and [he sent] all kinds of vessels of gold, silver, and copper.
We have already explained why David did this: he was concerned that Hadadezer would establish a stronghold by the Euphrates River and pose a threat to him. And since Tou had been at war with Hadadezer, when he heard that David had defeated him, from his perspective this was marvelous - David had done his work for him. Therefore, Tou sent his son Hadoram to greet David and bless him, sending along a tribute of vessels of gold, silver, and copper, for having fought Hadadezer and delivered him from his hand.
גַּם אֹתָם הִקְדִּישׁ הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּוִיד לַה' עִם הַכֶּסֶף וְהַזָּהָב אֲשֶׁר נָשָׂא מִכָּל הַגּוֹיִם מֵאֱדוֹם וּמִמּוֹאָב וּמִבְּנֵי עַמּוֹן וּמִפְּלִשְׁתִּים וּמֵעֲמָלֵק׃ - These also King David dedicated to Hashem, along with the silver and gold that he had carried away from all the nations: from Edom, from Moab, from the children of Ammon, from the Philistines, and from Amalek.
As mentioned, Scripture relates how David prepared the groundwork for the building of the Beit HaMikdash: he dedicated even the vessels of gold, silver, and copper that Tou sent him, together with all the silver and gold he had carried off from all the nations in his wars - Edom, Moab, the children of Ammon, the Philistines, and Amalek. David dedicated everything toward the building of the Temple.
וְאַבְשַׁי בֶּן צְרוּיָה הִכָּה אֶת אֱדוֹם בְּגֵיא הַמֶּלַח שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר אָלֶף׃ - And Abishai son of Zeruiah struck down Edom in the Valley of Salt, eighteen thousand [men].
Why he is called "Avshai" here rather than "Avishai" - this we will address later. But what preoccupies the commentators here are the difficulties: in Tehillim it mentions that not Avishai struck them, but Yoav; here it says eighteen thousand, whereas in Tehillim it says twelve thousand (and in Shemuel eighteen thousand, as in our text); and in both books it says "Edom," while in Shemuel "Aram" appears. If so, what is the correct resolution?
The first explanation is cited in the name of the Radak: The war with Edom took place at the time of the war with Aram, as it says in Tehillim, "When he strove with Aram Naharayim and Aram Tzovah," and between Aram and Edom there were eighteen thousand. The calculation of the numbers is as follows: Avishai began the war and struck six thousand of them, and Yoav came and completed the war, striking another twelve thousand - making eighteen thousand in all. Therefore, in Tehillim it is written, "and Yoav returned," for he returned after Avishai had begun. And why is the full count of eighteen thousand credited here to Avishai? Radak explains that the entire war is attributed to his name because he began it, and whoever begins the battle - the entire victory is named after him. In Sefer Shemuel, it mentions that the war was waged by David, because the supreme commander is King David, who oversees all the wars and is the primary figure.
The Malbim directs the reader to his commentary in Sefer Shemuel, where he presents two explanations. Usually we do not repeat here what he explained there, otherwise we would have to relearn all of Sefer Shemuel from scratch, and our primary focus is on the textual variations. Nevertheless, let us mention his second explanation: He cites the statement of Chazal, also mentioned here by the Metzudat David, that they struck Edom twice - once twelve thousand and once eighteen thousand. This is how the Midrash Tanchuma resolves it: Initially he conquered them and placed garrisons among them, and later they rebelled against him, so he returned and conquered them again, at which point it says, "and he placed garrisons throughout all of Edom."
וַיָּשֶׂם בֶּאֱדוֹם נְצִיבִים וַיִּהְיוּ כָל אֱדוֹם עֲבָדִים לְדָוִיד וַיּוֹשַׁע ה' אֶת דָּוִיד בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר הָלָךְ׃ - And he placed garrisons in Edom, and all the Edomites became servants to David; and Hashem saved David wherever he went.
"Garrisons" [netzivim] - Pseudo-Rashi explains: governors, for he did not want to appoint a king over them, since a king signifies importance. A netziv is like a military commander appointed over an occupied territory, an appointment made by generals rather than establishing a monarchy, as kingship implies an important kingdom.
Regarding the expression, "and Hashem saved David," the Malbim explains, referring back to verse 6 as well, that David conquered Aram Naharayim there - which is Syria - and this conquest was not in accordance with the Torah. For it is written, "Every place where the sole of your foot shall tread shall be yours," meaning that any place a king of Israel conquers becomes part of Eretz Yisrael, but only on the condition that he first complete the conquest of Eretz Yisrael in its entirety; he must not begin conquering external territories while Eretz Yisrael has not yet been fully conquered. Therefore, the conquest of Aram Naharayim was not according to the Torah, as brought in the Sifrei at the end of Parashat Ekev, and it is termed a "private conquest" [kibbush yachid]. Nonetheless, the verse reveals to us, "and Hashem saved David" - that the Holy One, blessed be He, aided him even in what he did outside the strict halachah.
And in what Scripture tells us about the conquest of Edom, there is an allusion to the future: in the original promise, it was stated that the Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite would be ours, yet they did not conquer them, and in the future the King Messiah will conquer them - and they are Edom, Ammon, and Moav. Therefore, the Holy One, blessed be He, showed him a foretaste of the future and granted him salvation in these conquests.
וַיִּמְלֹךְ דָּוִיד עַל כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיְהִי עֹשֶׂה מִשְׁפָּט וּצְדָקָה לְכָל עַמּוֹ׃ - And David reigned over all Israel, and he administered justice and charity for all his people.
Pseudo-Rashi explains: He withdrew from going to war any further and from going out and coming in battle; rather, he would continually sit and judge Israel righteously. That is to say, "and he administered justice" - after he had finished his wars.
The Gemara in Sanhedrin notes the apparent contradiction: Wherever there is strict justice, there is no charity, and where there is charity, there is no strict justice. Charity means I am doing a kindness with you; justice means I am giving you what is legally yours, not charity. When a person comes to beit din, he says: Rule on what is rightfully mine; I am not looking for a handout. If so, "justice and charity" is seemingly a contradiction in terms.
The Gemara answers: Which judgment contains charity (tzedakah)? You must say it is compromise (*pesharah*). The virtue of compromise is exceedingly great: before entering into formal litigation, the judge should attempt to effect a compromise, reaching a middle ground that satisfies both parties. This is a judgment accompanied by charity.
The Gemara adds another explanation: He judged the case, acquitted the innocent, and held the liable party responsible. When he saw that a poor man was found liable to pay money, he paid for him out of his own house - this is justice and charity: justice for one and charity for the other. That is, a poor man and a rich man came before him for judgment, and the poor man was held liable, and his heart ached that the poor man had no means to pay. But would he pervert justice for this reason? Heaven forbid - an explicit verse in the Torah forbids perverting justice to show favor to the poor; justice must remain justice. Rather, David would afterward secretly give money from his own home to that poor man, so that he would have the means to pay the rich man.
Regarding this, the holy Shelah, as well as Midrash Shmuel, cites the prayer of David (Tehillim 119): "I have done justice and righteousness; do not leave me to my oppressors." What is the connection? Such conduct opens the door to charlatans and fraudsters: two people could conspire together - one posing as a wealthy claimant and the other dressing as a destitute pauper, the first suing the second. David would rule him liable, the defendant would weep that he had no way to pay, David would pay out of his own pocket, and the two would split the proceeds! Therefore David prayed: Master of the Universe, I have done justice and righteousness - do not leave me to my oppressors; do not allow people to exploit me and plot conspiracies against me.
Rebbi challenges this explanation: Does the verse say "for all his people"? It should have said "for the poor"! For he gave nothing to the rich man, but merely administered justice with him, while to the poor man he gave charity from his home, so this is not "all his people." Therefore Rebbi says: Even if he did not pay out of his own house, this is justice and charity - justice for the one whose money was restored to him, and charity for the one from whose hand stolen property was removed. Where is the charity? Rescuing you from robbery - that is charity. Ostensibly, even here it is still not "all his people" but only part of his people, since justice is for the winning party and charity is for the liable party. However, it can be said that here it truly applies to all his people, because sometimes a person is the liable party and sometimes he is the winner, whereas with the poor and the rich, typically the same person remains poor and the same person remains rich, even if changes occur in extreme circumstances.
וְיוֹאָב בֶּן צְרוּיָה עַל הַצָּבָא וִיהוֹשָׁפָט בֶּן אֲחִילוּד מַזְכִּיר׃ - And Yoav the son of Tzeruyah was over the army, and Yehoshaphat the son of Achilud was recorder.
The commentary attributed to Rashi explains: Since David withdrew from going out to battle - as we saw that he fell into danger with the descendants of the Rapha and they told him that the lamp of Israel must not be extinguished - and he sat and administered charity and justice, who would wage his wars? Therefore he appointed Yoav ben Tzeruyah over the army. This is a direct continuation of "administering justice and charity": David devoted himself to justice and charity, and he placed Yoav over the army. "Recorder" (*mazkir*) - he would remind the king which case came before him first, like bringing the book of chronicles to remembrance.
וְצָדוֹק בֶּן אֲחִיטוּב וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ בֶּן אֶבְיָתָר כֹּהֲנִים וְשַׁוְשָׁא סוֹפֵר׃ - And Tzadok the son of Achituv and Avimelech the son of Evyatar were priests, and Shavsha was scribe.
The Malbim notes: In Shmuel, it reads "Achimelech ben Evyatar," where his father Evyatar was the Kohen Gadol, and Tzadok and Achimelech were priests serving beneath him. And regarding the scribe - in Shmuel it says "and Serayah was scribe," and later there it says "and Sheva was scribe," which implies that at some point Serayah died and Sheva became scribe in his place, and he is the Shavsha mentioned here.
וּבְנָיָהוּ בֶּן יְהוֹיָדָע עַל הַכְּרֵתִי וְהַפְּלֵתִי וּבְנֵי דָוִיד הָרִאשֹׁנִים לְיַד הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ - And Benayahu the son of Yehoyada was over the Cherethites and the Pelethites, and the sons of David were first at the side of the king.
Many explanations have been offered as to who the Cherethites and Pelethites (*Kereti u'Feleti*) were. The commentary attributed to Rashi explains that they were nations, as it is written: "Woe to the inhabitants of the sea coast, the nation of the Cherethites." From these nations, David had men of valor - a kind of mercenary force he recruited from them - and Benayahu ben Yehoyada was appointed over them all, as it says: "And all his servants passed by him, and all the Cherethites and all the Pelethites, and all the Gittites." Just as the Gittites were a people, those who came from Gat, so too the Cherethites and Pelethites were peoples, the inhabitants of Crete. The more widely known interpretation in Chazal is that the Cherethi and Pelethi refer to the Urim ve-Tummim, by whose counsel decisions were decisively cut (*koretim*) and whose words were wondrous (*mafli'im*). Others explain, as does the Targum there and elsewhere, that the Cherethites and Pelethites were the archers and slingers.
"And David's sons were first at the side of the king" - the commentary attributed to Rashi explains: its meaning is that David's sons were always the first before the king to attend to all his needs. Do not misunderstand this as a distinction between his older sons and his younger sons, as if the firstborn were at the king's side while the younger ones were not; rather, "and the sons of David" - pause - "were the first beside the king," meaning they were the foremost attendants serving the king. This is so even though the cantillation marks (*ta'amei ha-mikra*) seemingly do not indicate this reading, since according to the cantillation it reads, "and the older sons of David - were at the side of the king."
Chapter 18 is the chapter of preparation for building the Beis HaMikdash: after Dovid was told that he would not be the one to build it, he took it upon himself to organize the materials, and his wars and their spoils were all dedicated to Hashem - to the point that from the copper he took from the cities of Hadadezer, Shlomo made the copper sea, the pillars, and the copper vessels. Throughout the chapter we saw Ezra's approach, as the Malbim explains: calling places by the names familiar in his own generation, adding details that reveal the reasons for the wars ("towards Chamas" - that Hadadezer came to establish a hold at the border of Eretz Yisrael), and omitting details that were not realized in practice (the garrisons in Aram). We also learned the hierarchy established by the Torah - that the honor of the monarchy supersedes the prohibition against causing pain to animals (tza'ar ba'alei chayim) and wanton destruction (bal tashchis) - and the greatness of Dovid, who, upon concluding his wars, sat and administered justice and charity for all his people, justice to one and charity to the other.