I Samuel · Chapter 21

"And he arose and went." This is said of David:

Noveh. "To Nob" – the Heh is an added letter; therefore, the accent is on the penultimate syllable. "And he was terrified." They informed him that David was coming, and he was terrified, and went out to meet him. And it is a term denoting movement, like "and the elders of the city came hastening to meet him" and "they shall come hastening as a bird out of Egypt." And it is possible to interpret it according to its literal meaning, as a matter of trembling and fear, because he was coming alone, he feared and trembled to go out to meet him. What was the matter with his coming alone? And so did Jonathan translate: "And he was frightened."

"Why are you alone, and there is no man with you?" He marveled that a prince and great man like David, who was the king's son-in-law, would go alone.

And he was afraid. He hastened in fear to meet him. "Why are you alone? For it is not fitting for a minister and a great man to walk alone."

Novah. It is Nob, and the heh at its end, in place of the lamed at the beginning.

Why are you alone? If you are going on a military campaign, where is the army? And if you are on the king’s errand, where are his attendants and servants?

And the lads I have burdened. A language of imposed effort — the lads who went out with me, I put them to the trouble of running ahead of me to such and such a place. I have burdened. Like (Judges 8:16): 'and with them he afflicted the men of Succoth.' So-and-so, such-and-such. 'Almon' — from where there is no name, that I do not desire to mention — for it is a hidden matter. So-and-so. Like (Deuteronomy 17:8): 'Ki yifla' — it is hidden.

“Yoda’ati” – like “hoda’ati,” or it is similar to a square; and the meaning of “hoda’ati” is that I instructed them to go before me, and I will find them in such-and-such a place. And the meaning of “such-and-such” is “anonymous,” a place that is covered and hidden. “Such-and-such” is from “ki yifla mimcha davar” (“if a matter be too hard for you”), and “anonymous” is from “alem” (mute/silent), meaning a place in which nothing is spoken. And its Targum is: “Ve-yit ‘ulya miya shelachti qedmay le-’atar kasui ve-tamir” (And I sent them before me to a hidden and concealed place).

“And the youths I directed to such and such a place.” This means that I instructed the youths to go ahead of me, so that I would find them at a place I do not wish to reveal; thus, that place remained hidden and concealed. The reason for this was that I heeded the king’s command not to disclose to anyone the path I was traveling. It might be assumed that David inquired of God whether his journey would succeed, since it is later revealed that David indeed consulted God. However, since he told Ahimelech that the king had commanded him not to reveal his secret to anyone, he was obligated to phrase his inquiry in general terms.

"Which, etc." This means: Not for the reason that the king sent me, nor for the matter of the mission with which he charged me, have I come here alone. "And the young men." My servants, I instructed them to go to a certain unnamed place, meaning: the hidden and concealed one, which is not to be revealed, and there they shall wait until my arrival.

I appointed. Like 'I made known'. Such-a-one. From the word 'wonder' and 'hidden'. Nameless. From the word, 'mute,' and he means that the place should not be revealed or stated, like a mute who will not open his mouth, similarly (II Kings 6:8): 'to such-a-place and such-a-place are my camps'.

“Et hadavar, etc.” – He means to say that He commanded that no man should know either the matter itself, what it is, nor even the place to which he was to go. This is what is written, “And that which I have commanded you.” Therefore, he could not take a servant with him who knew the place, nor could he leave the servants in a known place, for then they would come to know the location through passersby traveling from the place of David to the place of the servants. Therefore, I informed and summoned the servants to stand in a certain place, hidden from any man.

Or the remainder. If there are not five, give me what is found in your hand.

"And now." Since my errand is secret, bread cannot be procured for me from elsewhere; therefore, what bread do you have on hand? If you have five, give them into my hand. "Or that which is found." He means to say: And if you do not have five in your hand, give that which is found; and if it is less than five:

Under your hand. He means under your authority.

And now, after I have placed there five youths far from a city of residence, give five loaves of bread to the five youths, or if you do not have five, give what is found at your hand.

Only from a woman. With difficulty I feed them to strangers. But this is impossible — that I feed them to the impure.

"bread of the holy things." My revered father, of blessed memory, explained: [This refers to] the loaves of the thank-offering, which a non-priest may eat in a state of ritual purity. "If the boys have been guarded." This is a way of showing respect: "If you have been guarded," meaning, just as it is said elsewhere, "and all your servants shall come down to me."

“Except that there is holy bread.” It is possible that he chose from among the holy offerings that which has a lighter prohibition, namely, the lesser holy offerings, as is the case with the bread of the thank-offering, and regarding this he said that he would give it to him and to his young men. If the young men were guarded only from women. And behold, this relationship of the young men is in honor of David, and I think that the intention here is that they should be guarded from the impurity of a woman and from anything that resembles this impurity.

"bread of holiness": These were the showbread, which had already been removed from the table and the bowls of frankincense had been burned. "If the youths were guarded. These are the youths of whom David said that he sent them to a certain place, a certain location, and he thought that the truth was with him, and that he would bring bread to them." “Only from a woman.” This is as if it said, “Only if the young men guard themselves from a woman,” meaning: from the impurity of a seminal emission. And even though that bread was forbidden to non-priests, nevertheless, due to the severity of the famine, he desired to feed them, but only to those who were ritually pure.

Profane. Non-sacred.

And the priest answered, “There is no bread of the common type under my hand, but only holy bread.” According to the plain meaning, he had in his hand the heave-offering of the loaves of the thank-offering. It is explained in Zevachim (page 117) that the heave-offering of the loaves of the thank-offering applies only in the time of the great high place. Nevertheless, their practice was to lift them up and give them to the priest who offered the sacrifice, just as they practiced with the breast and the thigh, which also do not apply in the time of the high places (as stated above in chapter 9 on “and he lifted up the thigh and the upper part”). And in all places, their law is like that of minor holy things, which are eaten by non-priests but not by those who are ritually impure. This is what is written: “If the young men have indeed kept themselves from women.”

It is kept for us. It is kept from us. And the vessels of the boys were holy. Pure. And it is a common way. And the bread, from when it was removed from the table and the bowls of frankincense were burned, it is close to becoming non-sacred food — that it has gone out from the hand of me'ilah when it has the time of permission for the priests. And even today it will be sanctified in the vessel. And even if today was the beginning of its sanctity on the table, I was obligated to take it from there and feed him — for bulmus had seized him and he was in danger. So it is explained in Menachot.

"If only a woman were bound to us. Even if a woman had been bound to us as recently as yesterday or the day before, upon my departure we purified ourselves." "And the vessels of the young men" – namely, their garments were consecrated. "And it is a common journey." That is to say: even though we went out on a common journey, not supposing that we should need holy bread, nevertheless we purified ourselves, as is the way of men who intend to set out on a journey. "And how much more to-day, when there shall be holy [bread] in the vessel." Its meaning: all the more so to-day, when holy bread will be with us — that we should guard ourselves in the matter and take care that it remain in its holiness in the vessel.

“Yet if a woman is detained for us, etc.” – This means: behold, there was a woman who was unavailable to us from the time of our going out, which was yesterday and the day before, because of our great eagerness to fulfill the king’s commandment, our vessels were already fit for sanctification, for we had purified ourselves upon our departure. And it is the way of common food. I mean that such is the way of those who eat common food, that their level should be as my level, to eat their non-sacred food in purity, meaning with the purity of sacred things. And even though today, when the food is in our vessels, we are careful and vigilant to eat it in purity, and this is the intention, which is the correct approach: behold, if it had been set aside yesterday or the day before to come to it, as I emerged, we purified ourselves, and the vessels of the youths were fit for consecration. And behold, this is our way and our custom even in the eating of non-sacred food, that we strive to eat it with the purity of sacred things. And since the matter is thus, how could we not be vigilant to eat with the purity of sacred things when it is in our vessels?

"Only a woman who is secluded from us." He means to say: Not as you imagine that we do not guard ourselves from a woman, so it is not the case; rather, a woman is forbidden to us from now, yesterday, and the day before, at the time of my departure from my house. And even the garments of the youths are pure and fit for the holy, for they purified them. And this is the manner of profanation. And that bread, once it is removed from the table and the bowls of frankincense have been offered, it is close to becoming profane, for it has exited the domain of misappropriation once there is permission for the priests to eat it. "And even though today..." The meaning is: Even if today was the beginning of its sanctity upon the table, and there is still in it the liability for misappropriation (me'ilah), nevertheless, I am permitted to eat them, because he was seized by bulmus, which is the illness of ravenous hunger, and everything is permitted on account of saving a life (pikuach nefesh). This is how our Sages explained it in Menachot (95b).

Withheld. Prevented, similarly (Deuteronomy 11:17 et al.): 'and He will withhold the heavens'. From us. He means from among us. Since the day before yesterday. He means like the third day before today. A common way. He means the matter of non-sacred.

And David answered, etc., "Of a truth women have been kept from us," he replied, "there is no concern of the impurity of a seminal emission, for women have been withheld and kept from us since yesterday and the day before, while we were on the way. Moreover, there is no concern of the impurity of vessels, for the vessels of the young men are holy. Furthermore, there is no prohibition on the grounds that she is part of the heave-offering of the thank-offerings (and according to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer there in the Gemara, or according to the first version of Rami bar Hama there), for it is treated in a manner of profanity; that is to say, they treated it in a manner of profanity, in that they did not wave it before the Lord for the sake of the heave-offering, for it is a time of a small high place, and the waving and the heave-offering of the thank-offerings do not apply. Likewise, there is no prohibition on the grounds that they went outside [the Temple precincts], for the prohibition of 'outside' applies only in Shiloh, where the most holy things are eaten in all that is within sight, but not so in Nob and Gibeon, after the high places were permitted. This is what is written, 'and it is in a manner of profanity.' And even though today it is sanctified by means of vessels, this means: even though it was sanctified by means of the service vessels [for the thank-offerings are sanctified by the slaughter of the sacrifices by means of the knife, which is a service vessel, as stated in Menachot (page 78)], nevertheless, it is treated in a manner of profanity, and they treat it as profane food, to eat it in any place and by any person. And regarding this he said, 'and even though today,' meaning: today in Nob it is not like the days of old in Shiloh, where the service vessels would effect sanctification. And regarding this he said:

To place hot bread. Another — on the day of its taking. And our Sages said (Yoma 21a): Hot on the day of its taking, and on the day of its removal — hot as the day of its arrangement.

"And the priest gave him holy bread" — namely, holy bread, that is, the bread of thanksgiving offerings, for there was no other bread there except the Showbread, which is removed from before the Lord, and it is forbidden to lay hands on it by non-priests. Therefore, he gave him the bread of thanksgiving offerings, for there was no ordinary bread there. This is the explanation of my master and father, of blessed memory. And our Sages, of blessed memory, explained that he gave him the Showbread, and they explained, "And it was ordinary bread" — referring to the Showbread — for after the burning of the frankincense-bowls, it was [considered] as they said, "which are removed from before the Lord," and there is no transgression of misuse of sacred property (me'ilah) in the Showbread after the burning of the frankincense-bowls. And the explanation of "And even though today it is sanctified in the vessel" it need not be said that we may eat this [bread] because we are hungry and in danger, but rather, even this [bread] that has now been placed on the table, which is sanctified by the vessel — for the table sanctifies it — and there is transgression of misuse of sacred property in it, nevertheless, we are able to eat it, since there is no other bread that you can give us, and we are hungry and in danger. And they said that a sickness called "bolmus" seized David due to the severity of his hunger, and there is no matter that overrides the preservation of human life (pikuach nefesh) except idolatry, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed. "To place warm bread." "Warm" is a description, as in "The fortress of the Almighty is for the upright" (Proverbs 10:29), and the explanation is that at the time they were removing it from the table, they would place upon it the new one, warm, as they stated, "the palm-breadth of this one next to the palm-breadth of that one," as it is stated, "The bread of the Presence shall be before Me continually" (Exodus 25:30), so that the table should not be without bread. And the explanation of "on the day it is removed" is: at the time of its removal, like "on the day of the stranger" (Jeremiah 48:13), "every firstborn" (Exodus 12:29), "on the day I cried out by night before You" (Psalms 88:2). Therefore, he said "to place," meaning that they would hand over the old ones to be placed in their stead, the new ones. And regarding what he said, "to place warm bread," one ought to ask: How was it warm on the day of its arrangement? Was not the baking of the Showbread not overriding the Sabbath, and they would bake it on the eve of the Sabbath and arrange it on the Sabbath, as it is written, "On the Sabbath day he shall arrange it" (Leviticus 24:8)? And furthermore, how could he give him the Showbread, for the Showbread on the Sabbath day, when they would remove it, was divided between the outgoing watch and the incoming watch, and they would eat it, and David certainly did not travel on the Sabbath. And if you say that because of danger to life he traveled on the Sabbath, until Ahimelech wondered at him and said to him, "Why are you alone?" (1 Samuel 21:2), he should have wondered even more how he was traveling on the Sabbath. And furthermore, there is a question to ask: If with Ahimelech there was no weekday bread, was there no weekday bread in the entire city that David would ask from one of the citizens, until Ahimelech was compelled to give him holy bread? And if you say that David did not wish to reveal himself in the city, and came secretly to Ahimelech, Ahimelech should have sought weekday bread from one of the citizens to feed the Israelite, for would they inquire of Ahimelech for whom he was seeking it? And the answer to these questions is that Nob, the city of the priests, was entirely priests; therefore it is called the city of the priests. And therefore Saul commanded to kill the entire city, for his anger was only against the priests because of Ahimelech. And since it was entirely priests, and there was no foreign Israelite dwelling among them, the entire city were eaters of Terumah (heave-offering), and Terumah is for foreigners a transgression punishable by death. And one in danger from hunger is fed a forbidden thing if we have no permitted thing, and from two forbidden things, one feeds him the lighter one. Therefore, Ahimelech gave him the Showbread that is removed from before the Lord, in which there is no misappropriation after the burning of the frankincense pieces. And David certainly came to Ahimelech on a weekday. And if you say, since he came on a weekday, how did Ahimelech have the Showbread that is removed from before the Lord, for was it not already eaten on the past Sabbath between the two watches? It is possible that David found some of it that had not been entirely eaten, for there were twelve loaves that were divided among several priests, and each would receive a small amount, the size of an olive or slightly more, until they stated that the modest priests would withdraw their hands, and the greedy ones would take and eat. And after the modest ones withdrew their hands from it and did not eat, sometimes some of it remained after the Sabbath, and the remainder that David found, Ahimelech gave to him. And if you say that what the modest ones left, the others would eat, it is possible that they would eat their share and the share of the modest ones, and so they explained, "They take and snatch." And it is possible that the share of the modest ones remained, and so they stated, "An incident occurred with one who snatched his share and his friend's share, and they called him 'Son of Hamtzan'." It appears that the majority did not act thus. And the proper thing to say further is that Ahimelech's share remained, for the High Priest would divide with the watches in the loaves, as it is stated, "And it shall be for Aaron and his sons, half for Aaron and half for his sons" (Numbers 18:8). And regarding what he said, "to place warm bread on the day it is removed," we find a dispute among our Rabbis of blessed memory whether these loaves were baked on the Sabbath or on a weekday. For Rabbi Yehuda says that they were baked on the Sabbath, and according to his words, it is simple that the bread was warm at the time of its arrangement. And according to the Sages, who say that its baking did not override the Sabbath, and it was baked on the eve of the Sabbath, it is possible that it was warm at the time of its arrangement the next day, for on the eve of the Sabbath they would bake it, and the next morning after the offering of the additional sacrifices, they would arrange it. And it is possible that the night it was in the oven, and they did not remove it from the oven until the time of its arrangement, and it was still warm. Perhaps they would seal the mouth of the oven so that it would remain in its warmth until the next day. And from our Sages of blessed memory, who stated that by a miracle the bread was warm all the time it was on the table, as they stated, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: A great miracle was performed with the Showbread; its removal was warm like its arrangement, as it is stated, "To place warm bread on the day it is removed." And our Sages of blessed memory stated: Great is a sip, for its error is considered intentional. For had Jonathan not lent David two loaves of bread, Nob, the city of the priests, would not have been slain, and Doeg the Edomite would not have been driven out, and Saul and his three sons would not have been slain.

“And the priest gave him holy bread.” This means that there was no other bread to give him except the Showbread, which is not removed from before the golden table except to place fresh bread in its stead on the day it is taken, in such a way that there are always two sets of Showbread on the table. And behold, they did not remove it except on the Sabbath day, as has been explained in the Torah. At that time, it was distributed among the priests. Therefore, it was not customary for Ahimelech to give David from the Showbread. He [the commentator] understood that this statement was made to indicate that, if it had been possible for him, it would have been more appropriate for him to give David from the Showbread, because after the burning of its accompaniments, namely the frankincense, there is no transgression of misuse of sacred property at all. And according to this interpretation of the verse, he understood that the holy item given to him involved a greater deviation from the ways of the Torah than would have been the case with the Showbread after the burning of its accompaniments. Therefore, he understood that this holy item given to him was either Terumah or a Meal Offering, and the priest permitted its consumption by a non-priest, but not its consumption in a state of ritual impurity. For regarding non-priests, it is possible that this is due to saving a life, because the eating itself removes the danger that would arise from starvation. However, ritual impurity should not be set aside for this reason, since it is not in itself a cause for removing the danger. For this reason, it is considered more permissible to extinguish the lamp on the Sabbath for a sick person who is sleeping when he is in danger during his illness, rather than to move the lamp to take it out of the sick person’s room, as we have explained in its proper place. And behold, he called the bread that is placed in place of the removed bread “fresh bread,” because it was baked anew around the time of the Sabbath, even though it is possible that it had been standing in its golden molds in which it was baked until the time of its placement, and at that time its heat was preserved to some extent for this reason.

"And He gave... holy..." He gave him the Showbread, for he had no other bread except these. "The ones removed. Those which were removed from the table, in order to place hot bread in their stead, at the time of taking those [loaves] that had been lying on the table all week [and although the bread arranged for Shabbat was baked on Erev Shabbat, nevertheless it was placed in a location that would preserve its heat]:"

"That were removed." [The word is] from the term 'removal', [not from the root meaning 'to hand over'].

And the priest gave him holy food, which is the heave-offering of the bread of thanksgiving. He explained the reason why he did not give him other bread: because there was no bread there (for it was a city that was entirely priests), except for the Showbread that is removed from before the Lord to place fresh hot bread in its place, since it is written, “It shall be before Me continually.” And although the bread taken from the table is lighter than the bread on the table, in that it does not involve misappropriation, and all the more so is it lighter than heave-offering, for which one is liable to death; nevertheless, he could not give it to him, because it is forbidden to laymen. According to the opinion of our Sages of blessed memory, he gave him the Showbread that is removed from the table, because David was seized by ravenous hunger. This was already explained in the Parashat Derachim: therefore, he gave him the removed Showbread, in accordance with the law of one seized by ravenous hunger, that they feed him first the lightest of the light foods. And David said to him, “Give me five loaves,” because the High Priest would take five loaves, as it is stated in Yoma. He said to him, “Give me five loaves immediately,” for with them his mind would be set at ease. Or, give him whatever is found; if he has ordinary food in his hand, that is better. The priest replied to him, “As you have said, or whatever is found—there is no ordinary bread.” The Targum of Jonathan translates: “except holy bread,” which is the Showbread after the burning of the frankincense, which is the lightest of all. For the order is: heave-offering, for which one is liable to death; the Showbread before the burning of the frankincense is lighter, as it is only a negative commandment; and the Showbread after the burning is the lightest of all, as it does not involve misappropriation. However, this is on the condition that the youths were guarded only from women. If they were impure, the matter would reverse, for the prohibition of holy food is more severe than that of heave-offering, as an impure person who eats holy food is liable to excision (as stated by Maimonides, Chapter 18 of the Laws of Disqualified Consecrated Things). Regarding heave-offering, there is only a liability to death by Heaven (as stated by Maimonides, Chapter 6 of the Laws of Heave-offering). And the lightest of all is the Showbread before the burning of the frankincense, for one is not liable due to impurity until its permit is brought (as stated by Maimonides, Chapter 2 of the Laws of Misappropriation). At that time, it would be appropriate to feed him heave-offering, and after it, the Showbread on the table, and after it, the Showbread removed from the table, which is the most severe of all. And David replied that a woman was confined with them, and the vessels of the youths were holy, and there was no concern of impurity. And since it did not specify which holy food, one might say whether it was the Showbread on the table or the Showbread removed from the table. He said to him that it is ordinary food relative to heave-offering, even though it will be sanctified in the vessel today. He meant to say that even the bread on the table is light relative to heave-offering, as mentioned above, since it is only a negative commandment. Therefore, “And the priest gave him holy food,” not heave-offering, because there was no other bread there except the Showbread removed from the table, which is the lightest of all.

He is kept before the Lord. He keeps himself before the Tent of Meeting, to occupy himself with Torah. The mighty one of the shepherds. The head of the court.

"He was detained before the Lord." It appears that he had come there to sacrifice with other men, and his companions departed while he remained after them to pray or to sacrifice further; therefore it says "detained." And our Sages of blessed memory explained it as that he detained himself before the Tent of Meeting to occupy himself with Torah; and they explained "the mightiest of the herdmen" to mean that he was head of the court — and this is by way of midrash. "Doeg the Edomite." He sojourned in the land of Edom, therefore he was called the Edomite; and likewise Uriah the Hittite, Ithra the Ishmaelite, Ittai the Gittite — they are named after the place in which they sojourned. "The mightiest of the herdmen." Abir is the same in the absolute and in the construct, because it has a dagesh, on the pattern of kabir; abir Yaakov is light, of the pattern of sarid, and therefore it changes in the construct. And its meaning is: the chief of the shepherds of the cattle that belonged to Saul, appointed over them.

"Prince of shepherds." This means: the great shepherd of the flocks that belonged to Saul, and he was appointed over them.

Detained. Held back there, to seclude himself in the service of the Lord: "Prince of the shepherds": Great and appointed over the shepherds of the king's flock.

Detained. Halted, similarly (Judges 13:15): 'please let us detain you'. The Edomite. Who dwelt in Edom, but was Israelite by birth. A mighty man. A matter of strength, similarly (Genesis 49:24): 'mighty man of Jacob,' and he means great and important.

"And there was a man." He relates that the priest was not on his guard because of Doeg, who was there; and this is a sign that it did not enter the priest's mind that he was fleeing. And this also declares the wickedness of Doeg, who was there and heard that David said he was going on Saul's errand, and nevertheless informed against the priest falsely, as will be explained.

And is there not here. That is: and if there is here. Urgent. In haste.

"And is there not." With chirik, like "v-ein" with tsere; and it is by way of question — that is to say: is there not under thy hand a sword or a spear that thou mightest give me? And like it in chirik and tsere: nir and ner, bein and bin, rish and rash, chein and chen. And the Targum renders: and if there be here. “Under your hand.” This means: under your authority. And there are many similar cases. Keli. As its Targum translates it: "Manni." Nechutz. Its meaning, according to its context, is “swift,” and it has no companion word; and so did Jonathan render it: “in his haste.”

And is there not. He said to him in the language of a question: “Is there not here a sword to give it to me?” For it was, etc., necessary. And due to the haste, I did not take what I had with me.

And there is not. With a chirik like with a tsere, similarly (above 4:21): 'where is the glory'. Here. Here. Vessel. Targum Yonatan: 'my vessel'. Necessary. A matter of great haste, and similarly Targum Yonatan translates: 'in his haste'.

Wrapped. Wrapped — and so (I Kings 19:13): And he wrapped his face in his mantle. After the ephod. After he inquired by the Urim and Thummim, he told him so. And so Yonatan translated: after he inquired for him by the ephod.

"Wrapped in a cloth." From "and he wrapped his face," "the face of the covering," "the covering"; and its meaning is wrapped in a cloth. And so is its Targum: wrapped in a cloak. "After the ephod." This means that it [the sword] was hanging behind the place where the ephod and breastplate were placed. Alternatively, the meaning of "ephod" here is that it was not the ephod of the breastplate, but rather a linen ephod, which was a garment worn by the priests and the servants of God, as it is stated: "eighty-five men, each bearing a linen ephod" (1 Samuel 22:18), and it is also written: "David was girded with a linen ephod" (2 Samuel 6:14). And this sword was hanging behind these garments. This is the correct interpretation. And the Targum translates: "After he had inquired for him in the ephod," meaning that after he had inquired for him through the ephod and breastplate regarding his way, and only then did he tell him to take this sword. For thus did Doeg say: "And he inquired for him of the Lord" (1 Samuel 22:13). And likewise, Saul said to Ahimelech: "Inquire for me of God" (1 Samuel 22:13), and Ahimelech did not withhold from him; rather, he said: "Today have I begun to inquire for him of God" (1 Samuel 22:15). This interpretation is acceptable in my eyes, but it is not the straightforward meaning of the verse according to its context, which states "after the ephod" between "wrapped in a garment" and "that one you shall take for yourself." "If it is that one you take for yourself, take it. If it is that one you wish to take, take it, for there is no other besides her." "By this." Explanation: "In this place." There is none like it. And yet, did not Ahimelech know that there was none like it? Why did he say to him, “If you take that one”? Because it was in the Tent of Meeting as a memorial of the miracle, as I have explained, it was not Ahimelech’s desire to remove it from there if there were another one present. But since there was no other one there, he could not withhold it from David, for David had taken it from the Philistine and placed it there in the Tent of Meeting, and it was within his power to take it and return it whenever he wished.

“Wrapped in a garment.” She was concealed and covered with a garment, behind the breastplate and the ephod, which were in the chamber where the priestly garments were placed. And behold, there they placed this sword, to publicize the miracle that was performed for Israel concerning Goliath.

"After the ephod." It is placed after the ephod, and Jonathan [ben Uzziel] translated: "After he had inquired of him through the ephod." He means to say: Initially, he inquired of him through the Urim and Thummim, and afterwards he said to him these words: "If that very one." If you wish to take her, take her. There is none like her. He means to say: She is better for me than all swords.

Wrapped. Wrapped and covered, similarly (I Kings 19:13): 'and he wrapped his face in his mantle'. In a garment. In clothing. The ephod. It is the name that includes even the breastplate. Except it. Outside of it. Here. In this place.

“Sword of Goliath”: Abarbanel explains that warriors would refrain from taking a sword with which its owner had been slain, for it is an ill omen for its possessor. This is what is written: “If you take it, take it, for there is no other.” David replied, “There is none like it,” for in his case it signifies a good omen, since he conquered with it.

Because of Saul. But did he not flee yesterday? Rather, this means that on that very day he fled from the Land of Israel and came to Achish, so that Saul would not find him; and this is what is meant by "because of Saul." "And he came to Achish." In the Book of Psalms, he is called Abimelech, and he had two names; similarly, there are many others. Or perhaps Abimelech is a generic title for all the kings of the Philistines, just as Pharaoh is the title for the king of Egypt. And so we find him called Abimelech in the days of Abraham and in the days of Isaac.

"On that day." For as long as he was in the Land of Israel, he was still under Saul's authority, and it was as if he had not fled.

And he fled—now he fled completely, for he had gone beyond the borders of the Land of Israel.

Is not this David, the king of the land? They said to Achish: A condition was between us (above, 17:9): 'If he can fight with me and smite me, and we will be your servants.' There is nothing for you except to descend from your throne, and he will be the king of this land.

"King of the land." This means: He is esteemed as a king, because he goes out and comes in to battle before the people. Is it not to this that they will respond? That is to say, is it not about him that the praise was to be sung in the choirs, saying, “Strike... and David in his tens of thousands.”

They will answer. A matter of raising the voice, similarly (Deuteronomy 27:14): 'and the Levites shall answer with a loud voice'. With mecholot. The name of musical instruments.

Is this not David? They suspected him of coming as a spy, for it is impossible that he fled; is he not the king of the land? And it is impossible that he would flee from Saul, for he is greater than Saul — whether with the people, who reckon him as king, or by reason of his might — for behold, for this they answered in their dances: “Is this not David, king of this land, the land of the Philistines?” According to the condition that Goliath set, we are servants to the vanquisher of the Philistine. And he came to capture the land. For this, they answered a second time in their dances, saying, “David has slain his ten thousands,” for he came to strike us down as slain.

"And he was afraid." With the yod of the prefix-letters alone, the yod of the root being omitted from the writing. He was afraid of him, lest he kill him, for he had slain their champion and many of them.

His taste. His words. And he raved. He went mad. And he made marks. And he wrote. His spittle. His saliva — a thing that drips is called rir. And so (Job 6:6): 'in the juice of mallows'; and so (Leviticus 15:3): 'his flesh runs.'

And he changed his manner. He altered his speech and his demeanor in their sight, so that he would be unrecognizable to them and they would not consider him to be David; or, in order to appear foolish in their eyes, so that they would not pay attention to him and would expel him from the king’s palace, and he would depart. And the meaning of “his manner” is: from the king’s perspective, as it is said, “Blessed is your manner.” And the Targum renders it: “And he altered his knowledge.” And the vav in “and he changed” is a vav that precedes the mention of the object, similar to “and she saw the child” and “and one struck the other.” And the meaning of “in their eyes” is: in their presence. "And he was a fool among them." He performed acts of foolishness and folly. And the phrase "among them" means before them, namely, while he was in their midst, as they surrounded him and gazed upon him; and this was the act of folly that he performed. "And he scribbled on the doors of the gate." That he would write on the doors of the gate, or scratch scratches, for a scratch too is called a tav. And so Jonathan rendered it: and he scratched on the doors of the gate. “And his spittle came down upon his beard.” This refers to the saliva that exits from the mouth.

And he altered his tone. This is from the sense of the phrase, He takes away the sense of elders (Job 12:20), and the intent is that he altered his words in such a way that it would appear he spoke without sense, and he made himself out to be a fool. “And he wrote upon the doors of the gate.” This means that he would make a mark and a sign upon the doors of the gate, acting foolishly, and he would let the saliva from his mouth drip onto his beard.

And he changed his behavior. He altered his words before them, and acted foolishly while in their hands, and made marks and scratches on the doors, and he lowered, etc., and all this he did so that they would think that this was not David.

And he changed. From the word 'change' and 'passing'. His taste. A matter of speech of wisdom, similarly (Job 12:20): 'and the discernment of the elders He takes away'. And he became insane. A matter of foolishness, similarly (there verse 7): 'and the judges become insane'. And he marked. A matter of marking and scratching, similarly (Ezekiel 9:4): 'and you shall put a mark'. His spittle. His spit, similarly (Job 6:6): 'in the juice of mallows'.

And he changed his behaviour: initially, he gave the reason that he came because he had fled from his master; now he changed and gave another reason, and he behaved himself madly with words of madness, until from his words it appeared that he was a madman. And likewise from his actions: "and he scrabbled on the doors of the gate"; and likewise from his movements: "and his spittle fell upon his beard."

“Behold, you shall see.” Have you not seen that he is a madman, and David, is he not a man of understanding? If so, this is not David; why then do you bring him to me?

Acting insane. He shows in himself a matter of madness.

And Achish said, “Behold, you see…”—meaning that you are compelled to offer one of three explanations: 1. Perhaps you did not know that he was a madman. To this he replies, “Behold, you see a man acting madly”—is this not evident to everyone?

Shall this one come to my house? The language of astonishment — and therefore it is vocalized with a chataf patach, and unaspirated.

"I am lacking in madmen." This is said in a tone of astonishment: "Was I lacking in madmen, and did I need them, that you brought them to me?" And in the midrashic sense: since the wife of Achish and his daughter were mad, screaming and acting foolishly inside, while David was screaming and acting foolishly outside, Achish said to them, "Do you know of me that I am lacking in madmen?"

Do I lack madmen? That is to say: am I lacking madmen and in need of them, that ye should bring this one to me to play the madman? Furthermore, is this one, who is at the utmost extreme of madness, fit to come into my house? And behold, by this stratagem David escaped from the hand of Achish, king of Gath.

He was lacking madmen. It is said in the Midrash (Yalkut Shimoni here, Remez 131): That his wife and daughter were mad, and therefore he said, “Is it not enough for me...” — meaning to say, “Is it not sufficient for me with the madmen who are in my house, that you have also brought this one to go mad with me?” “This one” etc. And furthermore, is this one, who is in the utmost state of madness, fit to come into my house? Although sometimes the princes may delight in hearing the words of a madman, yet not the words of one who is in the utmost state of madness.

B. Or perhaps you will say that you brought him in the manner in which one brings a madman to make fun of him? To this it is said: “I am lacking madmen.” Are there not many madmen here besides him? And our Sages of blessed memory said that his wife and his daughter were mad. C. Or perhaps you will say that it was not you who brought him, but rather he came on his own accord? This is impossible, for “who is this that comes to my house on his own accord?” And is it fitting that they would allow him to enter?