Chapter 20 of Divrei HaYamim I concludes the account of David's wars: the conquest of Rabbah of the Ammonites by Yoav, followed by three wars with the Pelishtim in which descendants of the giants fell. The chapter parallels accounts in Sefer Shmuel, and throughout it the commentaries examine the textual variations and what was omitted here out of respect for David. Let us follow the order of the verses.
וַיְהִי לְעֵת תְּשׁוּבַת הַשָּׁנָה לְעֵת צֵאת הַמְּלָכִים וַיִּנְהַג יוֹאָב אֶת־חֵיל הַצָּבָא וַיַּשְׁחֵת אֶת־אֶרֶץ בְּנֵי־עַמּוֹן וַיָּבֹא וַיָּצַר אֶת־רַבָּה וְדָוִיד יֹשֵׁב בִּירוּשָׁלָ͏ִם וַיַּךְ יוֹאָב אֶת־רַבָּה וַיֶּהֶרְסֶהָ׃ - And it came to pass, at the turn of the year, at the time when kings go out to battle, that Yoav led out the army forces and ravaged the land of the children of Ammon, and came and besieged Rabbah; but David remained in Yerushalayim. And Yoav struck Rabbah and destroyed it.
"At the turn of the year" - the Metzudat David explains that the sun had returned to the exact same point as when the kings went out to battle the previous year, as we saw in the previous chapter. The commentary attributed to Rashi cites Chazal: the time when grasses are abundant in the field to feed the horses is "the time when kings go out." When did kings go out to war? When there was sufficient feed for the horses. Or in the words of the Malbim: during the harvest season.
The Malbim notes: this verse is drawn from Shmuel II chapter 11, and what is written here - "and Yoav struck Rabbah" - is the conclusion of the narrative there in chapter 12, verses 26 through 31. That is, even though King David ultimately arrived there, the primary conquest was accomplished by Yoav, and therefore it states "and Yoav struck Rabbah."
וַיִּקַּח דָּוִיד אֶת־עֲטֶרֶת־מַלְכָּם מֵעַל רֹאשׁוֹ וַיִּמְצָאָהּ מִשְׁקַל כִּכַּר־זָהָב וּבָהּ אֶבֶן יְקָרָה וַתְּהִי עַל־רֹאשׁ דָּוִיד וּשְׁלַל הָעִיר הוֹצִיא הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד׃ - And David took the crown of their king from his head, and found it to weigh a talent of gold, and in it was a precious stone; and it was placed upon David's head. And he brought out the spoil of the city in great abundance.
David takes the crown of their king from his head and finds that this extraordinary crown weighs a talent of gold, set with a precious stone. He adopts this crown for himself - "and it was placed upon David's head" - and in addition, "he brought out the spoil of the city in great abundance."
Here the commentators address the difficulty: it is difficult to take the matter literally, since a talent of gold is approximately thirty-three kilograms. A person cannot place thirty-three kilograms on his head - like balancing thirty-three bags of milk on one's head. Perhaps one could bear it for a brief moment, but not as a golden crown worn on a regular basis.
Radak cites: some explain that the crown was suspended above his head, and he would sit upon the throne beneath it, with it hovering directly over his head. That is, it did not rest directly on his head, but hung suspended by cords above him for honor, and this was his splendor - sitting beneath the crown. The commentary attributed to Rashi writes: "And I heard in Narbonne that such is the custom in the lands of Ishmael" - that they suspend the crown above the king's head, rather than it resting directly upon him.
Chazal explain that the precious stone within it was a lodestone, which suspended the crown in the air - similar to what was done with the calves of Yerov'am, where a lodestone, a magnet, held them aloft; so too here, a kind of magnet held the crown in midair. Another explanation brought by Chazal: "weighing a talent of gold" refers not to physical weight but to its monetary value - it contained a precious stone worth a talent of gold. Radak adds another explanation: it was not upon his head continually, but rather on certain special occasions he would place it upon his head; enduring it for a short time is possible, but walking around and bearing such weight for an extended period is unreasonable.
וְאֶת־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר־בָּהּ הוֹצִיא וַיָּשַׂר בַּמְּגֵרָה וּבַחֲרִיצֵי הַבַּרְזֶל וּבַמְּגֵרוֹת וְכֵן יַעֲשֶׂה דָוִיד לְכֹל עָרֵי בְנֵי־עַמּוֹן וַיָּשָׁב דָּוִיד וְכׇל־הָעָם יְרוּשָׁלָ͏ִם׃ - And he brought out the people who were in it, and cut them with saws, with iron axes, and with saws; and thus David did to all the cities of the Ammonites. And David and all the people returned to Jerusalem.
"And cut them with saws" (*vayasor bamegeirah*) - he cut them down with saws, from the term *masor* (saw), meaning he sawed them. As explained earlier, because the Ammonites were wicked, he took harsh retribution against them. The Malbim explains that *vayasor* derives from the root of *nasor* (to saw), as in the phrase: "Shall the saw boast over him who uses it?"
And what does "and with saws" (*u-ve-megerot*) add to "with saws" (*ba-megeirah*)? After all, it is unlikely that Scripture would first say *ba-megeirah* in the singular and then *u-ve-megerot* in the plural for no reason. Therefore, he explains that this refers to a different instrument made up of several blades: there is a tool with a single saw, and there is a tool composed of multiple saw blades. Alternatively, as it appears in another place, it is spelled *u-ve-magzerot* (axes or cutting tools), similar to the phrase "To Him who divided (*gozer*) the Red Sea."
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי־כֵן וַתַּעֲמֹד מִלְחָמָה בְּגֶזֶר עִם־פְּלִשְׁתִּים אָז הִכָּה סִבְּכַי הַחֻשָׁתִי אֶת־סִפַּי מִילִידֵי הָרְפָאִים וַיִּכָּנֵעוּ׃ - And it came to pass after this that a war arose at Gezer with the Philistines; then Sibbechai the Hushathite struck Sippai, who was of the descendants of the giants, and they were subdued.
What is missing here in the narrative, the pseudo-Rashi notes, is recorded in Shmuel II, chapter 21: "And the Philistines had war again with Israel; and David went down, and his servants with him, and fought against the Philistines." Here too, out of respect for David, the full account of the war was not written, because in that war it says, "and David grew faint" (*vaya'af David*) - not that he flew, but that he became exhausted. And there it says: "And Yishbi-Benov, who was of the descendants of the giant... being girded with a new sword, intended to kill David." The Gemara in Sanhedrin gives a full description of how he came upon him, seeking revenge for the death of his brother Goliath, throwing David into the air so that he would fall upon a spear, and Avishai ben Tzeruyah came to David's rescue. Since this episode reflected poorly on David - David grew exhausted, David was in mortal danger - the text here does not give a detailed account of the entire story.
"Then Sibbechai the Hushathite struck Sippai, who was of the descendants of the giants" - and in Shmuel it is written "Saph, who was of the descendants of the giant." He was the brother of Goliath and the brother of Yishbi-Benov. These were the final battles, the Malbim explains, and from then on King David no longer went out to battle himself, "so that you do not extinguish the lamp of Israel." There were three battles connected to Nov, because the giants were in Nov, while the battle itself took place in Gezer.
וַתְּהִי־עוֹד מִלְחָמָה אֶת־פְּלִשְׁתִּים וַיַּךְ אֶלְחָנָן בֶּן־יָעִיר אֶת־לַחְמִי אֲחִי גׇּלְיָת הַגִּתִּי וְעֵץ חֲנִיתוֹ כִּמְנוֹר אֹרְגִים׃ - And there was war again with the Philistines, and Elchanan the son of Ya'ir struck Lachmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam.
This was another battle, in which Elchanan ben Ya'ir struck down an enemy. The pseudo-Rashi explains that he was one of David's mighty men, named Elchanan ben Ya'ir, and he struck down Lachmi, the brother of Goliath the Gittite, "the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver's beam."
What is a weaver's beam (*menor oregim*)? It is a cylindrical wooden roller around which the fabric is wound during the weaving process. It is a long, heavy beam around which all the warp threads are wound. As the weaver works the weft threads - weaving half a meter or a meter - the roller is turned, followed by more weaving and turning. The woven cloth is rolled up as it is produced, leaving the unwoven warp threads exposed so the weft threads can be inserted between them. This is a weaver's beam. The verse relates that the wooden shaft of his spear was as thick and heavy as a weaver's beam.
Targum Yonatan translated this verse in Shmuel: "And David son of Jesse, the weaver of the curtains for the Temple, who was from Bethlehem, killed him." He interprets "like a weaver's beam" as referring to those who crafted the curtains (*parochet*) for the Temple, and "Ya'ir" as an allusion to the Forest of Lebanon (*Ya'ar HaLevanon*), a designation for the Temple, where the curtains were woven. Our Sages explain this as measure for measure: Let David come - whose forebear wove the curtain of the Temple with a weaver's beam - and kill Goliath, whose spear shaft was like a weaver's beam. According to this exposition, Elchanan ben Ya'ir is King David himself, who was called "Elchanan" because God showed him favor (*chananu Hashem*), and this refers to David striking down Goliath.
However, most commentators here reexamined this explanation. Although this is a Midrashic teaching of Chazal, the words of Chazal are "like a hammer that shatters a rock," and a verse can be expounded in multiple ways, especially since the plain meaning (peshat) of the verse does not align with this: in the peshat it explicitly says Elchanan the son of Yair, and it says that he struck down Lachmi the brother of Goliath - it is neither Goliath nor David.
Therefore, the commentary attributed to Rashi states that Goliath the Gittite is not Goliath the Philistine, and consequently "the brother of Goliath the Gittite" is not the brother of Goliath the Philistine. First, there he is called a Philistine, whereas here he is called a Gittite. Second, earlier it was stated, "Then Sibbecai the Hushathite struck down Sippai, who was among the descendants of the giants (Rephaim)," and later in verse 6 it states, "and he too was born to the giant (Harapha)" - Haraphah was Goliath's mother - whereas here, regarding Goliath the Gittite, it is not mentioned that he was born to Haraphah. Hence, this was someone else, from a different family, who was not a son of Haraphah.
Radak notes that in the Book of Shmuel it is written, "Elchanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite struck down Goliath the Gittite," and in his view, Goliath the Gittite is indeed Goliath the Philistine, for Goliath the Philistine was from Gat. There is no contradiction in this: just as one might say Reuven the Israeli and Reuven the Jerusalimite - one after the land and one after the city. Similarly, Goliath the Philistine is named after his nation, and one of the Philistine cities was Gat ("Tell it not in Gat, publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon" - one of the five Philistine cities). At times he is called a Gittite and at times a Philistine: his dwelling place was Gat, and his nation was the Philistines.
However, according to Radak, it was not Elchanan who struck him down, but David, and "the Bethlehemite" refers to David. David struck down Goliath the Gittite, and Elchanan struck down his brother. What, then, is "et Lachmi the brother of Goliath"? It does not mean he struck Lachmi, but rather "et" means "with": Elchanan the son of Yair struck down, together with the Bethlehemite - with David - the brother of Goliath the Gittite. It turns out that there were two events here: David struck down Goliath, and Elchanan, together with David, struck down Goliath's brother.
Malbim explains: "Elchanan the son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite struck down Goliath the Gittite" - Ezra came and explained that the name of the warrior who struck him down was Elchanan the son of Yaare of the family of weavers (oregim), and he explains that "oregim" refers to the family of Betzalel, who were the weavers for the Mishkan. And know that he did not strike down Goliath, but rather Lachmi the brother of Goliath. Since Goliath's brother was a mighty warrior like his brother, and the one who killed him was also an Ephrathite like David, from the family of Betzalel, the proverb-makers composed a saying, "The Bethlehemite killed Goliath," because he was an Ephrathite from Beit Lechem Ephratah. That is, the popular proverb attributed the killing to a man of David's family from Beit Lechem, even though in reality he struck down Goliath's brother and not Goliath himself.
וַתְּהִי־עוֹד מִלְחָמָה בְּגַת וַיְהִי אִישׁ מִדָּה וְאֶצְבְּעֹתָיו שֵׁשׁ־וָשֵׁשׁ עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע וְגַם־הוּא נוֹלַד לְהָרָפָא׃ - And there was war again at Gat, and there was a man of great stature, whose fingers and toes were six and six, twenty-four in number; and he too was born to the giant.
"A man of stature" (ish middah) - like "men of stature" (anshei middot), a man of immense physical proportions. And why is he called this? Because when people see such an individual, everyone starts measuring him: he looks at least two meters tall, no, two meters twenty... Everyone sizes him up, and therefore he is called an ish middah ("man of measurement"). There was once a very tall man like this, eight feet tall, and someone looked up at him from below and asked, "Tell me, how is the weather up there?" He spat down at him and said, "Rainy."
"Whose fingers and toes were six and six, twenty-four" - twelve on his hands and twelve on his feet, and they could be counted as twenty-four, as they were set side by side in proper order. This serves to demonstrate his tremendous power, enabling him to wield a sword with immense strength.
And the Gemara in Berakhot asks: Why was it necessary to state "six and six, twenty-four"? Surely this is redundant - if you say six on each hand and foot, I already know the calculation on my own! The Gemara answers: Had the Merciful One only written "six and six," I would have thought six on his hands and six on his feet, totaling twelve altogether: three on one hand and three on the other hand, and likewise on the feet. Therefore, Scripture added "twenty-four." And had it written only "twenty-four," I would have thought seven on one and five on the other, which also adds up to twenty-four. Therefore, it states "six and six, twenty-four," showing that they were symmetrical, with six digits on each hand and each foot.
In the Book of Shmuel it is written "a man of strife" (ish madon), and Radak explains that this is synonymous with "middah" (stature). Alternatively, "madon" can be explained in the sense of strife and contention (riv u-madon), meaning that he went out to provoke and contend, to defy and blaspheme the battle lines of the living God.
"To the giant" (le-Harapha) - Radak explains in the name of his father that this is not a female name. Seemingly, Haraphah was the name of Goliath's mother, but Radak's father explains that it is a masculine noun: giant people are called Rephaim, and an individual giant is called a Rapha, which is the singular form of Rephaim. And as for the fact that in the Book of Shmuel it is spelled "Haraphah" with a hei and here with an aleph - this is of no concern, since the letters aleph and hei are interchangeable.
וַיְחָרֵף אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּכֵּהוּ יְהוֹנָתָן בֶּן־שִׁמְעָא אֲחִי דָוִיד׃ - And he defied Israel, and Yehonatan son of Shima, David's brother, struck him down.
He too arose defying and blaspheming just like Golyat, and for this reason, the one who took retribution from him was Yehonatan son of Shima, David's brother.
אֵל נוּלְּדוּ לְהָרָפָא בְּגַת וַיִּפְּלוּ בְיַד־דָּוִיד וּבְיַד־עֲבָדָיו׃ - These were born to the giant in Gat, and they fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.
"These were born to the Rapha in Gat" - "El" means "eleh" (these). According to those who interpret "Rapha" as referring to giants (Repha'im), the meaning is that they were born to the giants; and according to those who explain that Haraphah was the name of Golyat's mother, the meaning is that this Haraphah bore several giants in Gat. And the verse teaches us that all of them fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants: this one fell by the hand of Yehonatan, this one by the hand of Elchanan, this one by the hand of David, this one by the hand of Avishai - and ultimately, they all fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants.
Chapter 20 opens with the conquest of Rabbah of the Ammonites, accomplished primarily by Yoav, and the taking of their king's crown weighing a talent of gold - regarding which the commentators debate whether it was suspended above David's head, held in place by a lodestone, worth a talent of gold, or rested upon him for only a brief moment. Afterward, Scripture moves to three battles with the descendants of the giants in Philistia, omitting out of respect for David the episode of "and David grew faint" and Yishbi-Benov. Regarding "Elchanan the son of Yair," derash and peshat diverge: Chazal expounded that he was David himself, whereas Pseudo-Rashi, Radak, and the Malbim explain that another warrior struck down Golyat's brother. And the chapter concludes with an overarching declaration: all those giants - "fell by the hand of David and by the hand of his servants."