II Samuel · Chapter 1

After the death of Saul, David returned at the time when the sun of Saul was setting, and the children of Israel could not withstand their enemies; then the sun of David rose, and he, with four hundred men, defeated a very large and mighty army.

And behold, a man came from the camp. The Pesikta states that this was Doeg, but it is not settled in my mind.

"And it came to pass when he came to David." The letter bet:

And earth. Dust.

Whence. Where is the place of which you will say, 'From here I am coming.' I escaped. An expression of slipping away and rescue.

that the people fled from the battle. He related the evil occurrence that happened in stages as it should, so that the listener should not hear of the calamity all at once, for that is what enables one to bear that evil without great distress. The example: if one's friend dies without prior illness, he grieves for him more than if there had been prior illness, and he transitions to the evil gradually. Therefore, here he first related the flight of the people, and afterward he related the death of some of them, which is worse than the flight, and afterward he related the death of the leaders of the people, including Saul and his son Jonathan, which is worse than the death of the people.

That the people fled, he told him in order: first, the people fled, and this was the cause of their defeat; and afterwards, many fell from among them; and afterwards, Saul and Jonathan died.

How did you know? Perhaps by estimation, or from rumor.

How did you know whether it was through seeing or through hearing?

"Nikro nikreiti" [I happened, indeed I happened] means: I came there by chance, not with the intention of finding him there. And "nikra" is an infinitive from a sound nifal [verb] with a nun, like "nishol nish'al david" [David urgently asked leave, 1 Samuel 20:6]. Leaning on his spear. Due to the wound from having fallen on his sword. And the masters of the horsemen: The camps of the horsemen, as its Targum renders it, "the camp of the horsemen" [mishirit parshaya]; and so too the Targum rendered "Baal-gad" [Joshua 11:17] as "Meishar Gad" [the plain of Gad]. And one should explain "masters of the horsemen" as the heads of the horsemen and those appointed over them.

and behold, Saul was leaning on his spear. It seems that after he had fallen on his spear and saw that it had not pierced him, Saul was leaning on it with force to complete the piercing. And when he saw that he could not do so, he told the Amalekite youth to kill him.

"I happened to happen." By chance I came to Mount Gilboa: "Leaning." Because he had thrown himself upon his sword, as is written in I Samuel (31:4), he was weakened from the wound and was leaning on his spear, and the men of the chariots were coming near to him:

I met, I encountered. From the word 'chance'. Leaning. Leaning. And the masters of the horsemen. They are those accustomed much to riding. They came close to him. Meaning: they came near to him.

“Leaning on his spear” refers to the sword with which he was pierced.

“And he said to him, ‘I am an Amalekite.’” Thus is it written [ketiv: “he said”], and the qere is “and I said.” The qere is clear, and the ketiv means: that afterward he told him that he was an Amalekite—since Saul had killed Amalekites, he did not say, “I am Amalek.”

Who are you? From which people are you:

"Trembling seized me." (Targum:) "Trembling gripped me." And an aggadic midrash (see Yalkut Shimoni, remez 141): because of the sin of the priests whom he killed, and it is written of them (Exodus 28:4): "a checkered tunic" [kesones tashbetz, sharing the root with "hashabatz"]. "For while my soul is yet in me." Hurry and kill me; it is better for you to kill me, and let not these [Philistines] kill me and abuse me.

"For the shavatz has seized me." This is the name of an illness; perhaps it may befall a person due to a sword wound. Targum Yonatan translated it, "for trembling has seized me." And in the midrashic exposition, it refers to the sin of Nob, the city of the priests who wore a checkered tunic [tashbetz], whom I killed. And some explain that the horsemen wore tashbetz [checkered armor], as it is stated, "and the masters of the horsemen overtook him." "For as long as my soul is within me." While my soul is still within me, let not the uncircumcised put me to death. And according to the other interpretation, he said: "For I am so distressed because of the wound that my soul is still within me; therefore, I desire that you hasten my death."

for the armor that I wore caught me, for my life still lingers in me. The intention here, as I understand it, is that the garment he wore was reinforced with studs to give it strength so that the sword could not easily cut through it. And Saul said that the spear on which he fell caught hold of those studs, and therefore it could not pass through to pierce him. And when he said that he was still alive, he asked him to kill him so that the uncircumcised would not mock him.

For all that is yet [in me]. Meaning, all that remains in me still is only that my soul is yet within me and nothing more, for already all sensations have departed from it, and if so I will surely die, and therefore complete the death-blow, so that the uncircumcised would not torment me before I die:

The anguish. The shaking illness, so also Jonathan [the Targum] translated.

"And finish me off" — the meaning of the verb "motet" (in the reduplicated/intensive form) is that it completes the death. And the explanation is: the death-spasm has already seized me, which is the trembling of death; nevertheless, as long as my soul is still bound within me and struggling to depart — and by this, that you hasten my death, you will not be like a murderer, for [as the maxim goes] "a man already slain, you would merely be slaying"; rather, you will only shorten my sufferings.

"The armlet that was on his arm." (Targum:) "The bracelet that was on his arm."

"and I finished him off." The vav is [voweled with] a patach, though by rule it should be a qamats, because the matter is in the past tense; and likewise "and I poured out" and "and I covered you with silk," [where] the vav is patach though the matter is past tense. And the early commentators explained: since he lied that he had not killed him — for Saul had [already] fallen on his sword and died — therefore the vav of "and I finished him off" is patach. "After he fell." After he had fallen upon his sword, he could not live due to the wound, and I hastened his death, as he had requested of me. Or, its interpretation is that he could not live, for the cavalry had overtaken him and were close to coming upon him and killing him, and he desired that I kill him, not they.

for I know that I shall not live after my fall. That is to say, he did not permit himself the killing of Saul except because it became clear to him that it was impossible for him to live after his fall on his sword, whether because of the wound with which he was struck or because he could not flee and escape from his enemies who had overtaken him.

He shall not live. It is impossible for him to remain alive after the collapse he suffered from falling on his sword:

The diadem. The crown. And the armlet. The name of an ornament on the arm, and so (Numbers 31:50): armlet and bracelet.

"And I finished him off": I completed his death (since he had already been mortally wounded by the sword upon which he had fallen). And he explains that I did this because I knew that otherwise he would not live after his fall. And I also gained by this, that I took the crown from his head, and I brought them to my lord, who is worthy to wear them in his place.

"And David rent his clothes." From here our Sages of blessed memory derived that a person is obligated to tear his garment for a Nasi (Prince) and for the Av Beit Din (Head of the Court). "Saul" refers to the Nasi, and "Jonathan" refers to the Av Beit Din. And likewise for the majority of the congregation, as it is stated: "and for the people of the Lord, and for the house of Israel." And they derived from this: since the verse specified them individually, it implies that one is obligated to tear for each and every one of them. And it says "in his garment" (singular), indicating that a person is not obligated to tear except the upper garment. And it reads "in his garments" (plural), because David tore them all, for he tore for Saul alone, and he tore for Jonathan, and he tore for the people of the Lord.

(11-12) "And they rent their garments" – Our Sages of blessed memory interpreted this according to the halakhic practice of tearing one’s garments for a Nasi (prince), for the Av Beit Din (president of the court), and for the affliction of Israel. This is what is written: for Saul, who was the Nasi; for Jonathan, who was the Av Beit Din; for the people of God, meaning the Sanhedrin; and for all the House of Israel, who fell by the sword.

“Upon the people of the Lord, and upon the house of Israel.” And the entire matter is a duplication of the theme due to the great distress; that is to say, the house of Israel fell by the sword, and they are the people of the Lord. Or, he said this because the majority of Israel were there. And in the midrashic exposition: Why did the verse not explain how many corpses fell on Mount Gilboa? Because of the verse: “Do not tell it in Gath, do not proclaim it in the streets of Ashkelon…”

over Saul and over Jonathan his son. He related this in stages: he began with the great and ended with the small. So too is the case with mourning and weeping.

And regarding the phrase "the people of God": These are the great ones among them. And upon the house of Israel. They are the rest of the people:

"Where are you from?" — he did not ask from which nation, since he heard from the account of his words that he was an Amalekite; rather, he asked him from which place, namely, whether he was a resident alien in his land, which is the land of Amalek, and how he came to the battle. And he answered that even his father came from the land of Amalek and resided as an alien in the Land of Israel. And so too is explained the general term "ger" (resident alien/convert), and there are among them those who converted and returned to the faith of Israel. And it is possible that this is what is meant when it says "son of a man, a convert, an Amalekite" — that he converted and returned to the faith of Israel.

“From where are you?” That is, from which place are you? Are you still sitting in the land of Amalek, or are you residing in the Land of Israel? This implies: have you converted? The son of a man who was an Amalekite convert. Furthermore, his father came to dwell in the Land of Israel, and he converted:

And David said to him, How were you not afraid to put forth your hand. One might wonder: why did David order his killing, when he did so at Saul's will and request? But the answer to this is not a difficult matter. It is that one who says to his fellow, 'Wound me,' and he wounds him, is liable, as is explained in the Gemara. How much more so in the case of the death of a king. And the command of the king does not exempt him in this, for the words of the master and the words of the disciple, whose words do we listen to? And Scripture warned about this matter of killing, how much more so about the killing of kings. And even though there were no witnesses present and he would have been convicting himself, and for this reason he would have been exempt according to the law, David did this as a temporary measure so that people would not lightly put forth their hands against royalty. And for this same reason he was careful not to put forth his hand against Saul when he was in the cave, even though Saul was pursuing him and it would have been permitted to kill him. And it seems that this messenger youth was not a righteous convert. And even though he said 'son of an Amalekite sojourner,' he already said this to indicate that he was not truly Amalekite, but rather his father had dwelt in the land of Amalek. And this was his response to David, for David already knew from his own mouth that he was Amalekite, but he asked him about the place where he had been encamped, and he replied that he was called Amalekite because of that place, not that he was from the family of Amalek.

How could you not fear. Meaning: since you are an Israelite by birth, how did you not fear the Lord from stretching out your hand against His anointed, even though he ordered you and was near to death, nevertheless you sinned against the Lord:

Struck. A matter of a mortal blow, as (I Samuel 22:18): and strike the priests.

Your blood be upon your head. (Targum:) The guilt of your killing shall be upon your head; there is no punishment from your death except upon yourself.

“Your blood be upon your head.” That is to say, you have brought your own death upon yourself. And the Targum renders it: “The liability of your slaying [Saul] shall be upon your head,” meaning that the blood of Saul, whom you killed, shall return upon your head. And it is possible that for this reason it is written “your bloods” [plural] — the blood of Saul and your own blood, both upon your head.

Your blood be on your head. Meaning: the guilt of your death is on yourself, for you yourself testified against yourself that you killed him, and even if the truth is not with you, and all your words are from thinking that thereby you will find favor in my eyes for having been my enemy from of old, nevertheless your mouth has testified against you, and your blood be on your head:

Testified. Bore witness, as (Exodus 20:13): you shall not testify.

The questions: How did they put him to death based on his own confession, when there were no witnesses and no prior warning? "Your blood is upon your head": If we say that he was an Amalekite in truth, since a Noahide is executed without prior warning, and is executed even for [killing] a treifah (a person mortally wounded and certain to die), and is executed on the testimony of a single judge and a single witness, one might say that the same law applies that he is executed by his own admission, just as he is executed on the testimony of a close relative (and it requires further investigation regarding the legal ruling in this matter). Regarding this, it is said, "Your mouth testified against you." And if we say that he was an Israelite, he was executed according to the law of the kingdom, as it is written: "For your mouth testified against you, saying, 'I have slain the Lord's anointed.'" This was so that people would not deliberately raise a hand against the king. And to accept the view of our Sages of blessed memory that he was Doeg, who was already liable to death for the incident of Nob, the city of the priests—regarding this it is said, "Your bloods" in the plural form—it hinted to him that even though a person is not credible to incriminate himself regarding the killing of Saul, nevertheless, "your mouth testified against you," for you had already been the cause of the killing of the priests and the priestly anointed one, which is alluded to in the statement, "I have slain the Lord's anointed."

He said, to teach the sons of Judah the bow. David said, now that the mighty men of Israel have fallen, the sons of Judah need them to teach them warfare and to draw the bow. Behold, it is written in the Book of the Upright. Is it not written in the Book of Genesis, which is the Book of the Upright—Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov? And where is the allusion? (Genesis 49:8): 'Your hand upon the neck of your enemies'—what battle aims his hand against the forehead, which is opposite the nape of the neck? Say, this is the bow.

To teach the sons of Judah the bow. Some explain that from this point onward, one must teach the sons of Judah the bow, since Saul and Jonathan died by it. And one might interpret that this is not part of the lament, and the beginning of the lament is "Your glory, O Israel" [v. 19]. For how could he recall, in the lament for Saul and Jonathan, the sons of Judah, who were opposed to Saul's kingship? But its meaning is: "And he said, 'To teach the sons of Judah the bow'"—before he began to lament over them, he said to his men, "Do not despair of good fortune, and let not your hearts be faint at the death of Saul and Jonathan, for the bow of war is in the hands of the sons of Judah, and to them belongs the might." And behold, this is written in the Book of Jasher, which is the Book of the Torah; and Targum Yonatan renders it "Sifra De-Oraita" [the Book of the Torah], in which it is written, "Your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies," and it is written, "He crouches, he lies down like a lion" [Genesis 49:8-9]. And likewise in the blessing of Moses our teacher, it is also written, "His hands shall be sufficient for him, and may You be a help against his adversaries" [Deuteronomy 33:7], and by their hand the Philistines shall be subdued, as we have seen that David, Uzziah, and Hezekiah subdued them. And in saying "the bow," it is because it is the primary instrument of war, and it is the way of Scripture to invoke it in place of a token of might, such as "the bow of the mighty is broken" [1 Samuel 2:4], "their bows are shattered" [Jeremiah 51:56], and "my arms can bend a bow of bronze" [2 Samuel 22:35], and the like. And he said "to teach," because each one of the sons of Judah will teach his fellow for war, for they are the main force of Israel's wars and their strong horn. And our Sages of blessed memory interpreted, "Your hand is on the neck of your enemies"—which hand is it that is opposite the neck? Say that it is the bow. And this is what is meant by "the sons of Judah, the bow." Behold, it is written in the Book of Jasher, in the Book of Genesis, which is the Book of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who are called the upright ones. And he began to lament and said:

He commanded that the children of Judah be taught the bow, etc. Because he saw that Saul's death was due to his fear of the archers, and there was no one in Israel skilled in this, David said, 'Let them teach the children of Judah the bow,' for it is among the most selected of weapons of war. And 'the Book of Jasher,' as I understand it, was a well-known book among them, and they already said that the Book of Jasher is the Book of Genesis.

And he said. Before he began to lament, he saw fit to strengthen the hearts of his men, lest their hearts become faint and they despair of raising their heads against the Philistines. And he said to them: Behold, the time has come to teach the sons of Judah the bow of war, that they may prevail against the Philistines. Behold, it is written. Is it not that very matter which is written in the Book of the Upright, namely the Torah, of which it is said (Genesis 49:8): "Judah, you shall your brothers praise; your hand shall be on the neck of your enemies," etc., and it is also said (Deuteronomy 33:7): "His hands shall contend for him, and be a help against his adversaries." And so it was, for David subdued them, and also the kings of Judah after him.

The Questions: In this elegy, the phrase “How the mighty have fallen” appears three times. What is the “Book of the Upright”? Why does the verse repeat its words in different phrasing in verse 2 and in verse 4? And how are these metaphors to be elucidated according to the methods I laid out for the metaphors of the prophets in my Introduction to my Commentary on Isaiah? To teach the children of Judah the bow: We have already explained (in Joshua 10) regarding the verse “The sun stood still in Gibeon” – that it is written in the Book of Jasher. This refers to the book mentioned in the parashah of Ki Tisa, where it states (Exodus 34:27), “Write for yourself all these words, for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you.” These are the words mentioned above there: “Behold, I am making a covenant before all your people; I will perform wonders…” and “Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land…” God had promised them to drive out before them the seven nations, as it is stated there, “I will drive out before you the Amorite…” on the condition that they not make a covenant with them. He also promised them that this would occur through miracles, so that they would not need bows and warfare, as was the case in the battle of Gibeon. Regarding this, it says, “Before all your people I will perform wonders.” The Book of Judges explains that because Israel did not observe this condition written in the Book of Jasher (which is the aforementioned passage in Ki Tisa), they were forced into warfare. And God left some of the nations unconquered, as it is stated (Judges 3:1), “These are the nations that God left to test Israel by them, only to teach warfare to the generations of Israel who had not known it previously: the five lords of the Philistines…” It is clear that the Philistines remained at that time so that Israel would need to learn the use of the bow, since they had not observed the condition written in the Book of Jasher. This is what is written in his lamentation: “To teach” – meaning, that which requires teaching the children of Judah the bow is not surprising, for is it not written in the Book of Jasher? (And this corresponds to what was said in Joshua: when they observed what was written in the Book of Jasher, the sun stood still until the nation avenged its enemies; is it not written in the Book of Jasher? And they did not need the bow.) But this is surprising: how

"The glory of Israel lies slain upon your high places." The armed forces of Israel — upon the strength of your might you have fallen slain; so did Yonatan (Targum) translate.

"HaTzvi Yisrael" [the glory of Israel]. The heh [in ha-tzvi] is the heh of address, like the heh in "the congregation—there shall be one statute for you" [Numbers 15:15], and in "[O] generation, see the word of the LORD" [Jeremiah 2:31], and the like. The meaning of "tzvi" is desire and will, along the lines of "for you shall be a delightful land" [Malachi 3:12]; and the construct noun is elided, meaning: "the tzvi, [namely, the] tzvi of Israel." And likewise "the ark, the covenant" and "the people, the war," and the like. That is to say: you, who are a delightful land, how could this be, that upon your heights such slain have fallen? How have the mighty fallen! And the Targum [renders]: "You, Israel, were stationed upon your stronghold; you were cast down, slain." The explanation is that "tzvi" is related to the sense of "nitzav, nitzavim" [to stand, standing].

The glory, Israel [etc.]. Here begins the lamentation, and he said this of the Land of Israel, which is called 'the Land of the Glory,' and its meaning is: 'the glory' [is short for] 'the glory of Israel,' just as '[the] Ark, the Covenant' -- the intent of which is '[the] Ark, [i.e.] the Ark of the Covenant.' Upon your high places they are slain. He said this because of Mount Gilboa, on which Saul and his sons fell.

The beauty of Israel. As though saying: Nevertheless now is the time to lament with a bitter heart saying: The beauty of Israel, meaning: the desirable land of Israel, and is it fitting that there be slain on your heights, which are the heights of Gilboa, and how did the mighty fall there, and he meant: behold even the weak would strengthen themselves standing on the mountain, and on your heights even the mighty have fallen:

The beauty of Israel. The Land of Israel is called the land of beauty, as is written (Ezekiel 20:6): it is a beauty to all lands, and it is a matter of splendor and charm, as (Isaiah 28:5) a crown of beauty. And the heh of ha-tzevi is the heh of calling, as (Jeremiah 2:31): O generation, you, see. On your heights. Its meaning is high places and mountains, as (Deuteronomy 32:13): he made him ride on the heights of the earth.

"The gazelle, etc." — The intent is to say: Although they were required to learn archery, nevertheless, here they ought to have been victorious even by natural means, for two reasons. First, on account of the place from which they fought, which was on a mountain; for even a weak person, when positioned above, etc., is fit to prevail. This is what is written: "How the gazelle of Israel and its glory have fallen on your heights" — How did they become slain on your heights, whereas they were fighting from the height? Second, on account of their valor, concerning which it is said: "How the mighty have fallen." According to this interpretation, it is clear that not only did God not assist them through His providence, but rather the opposite: through His providence He fought against them, in the sense of: "Their Rock sold them, and the Lord gave them up."

Do not say: This is in the manner of a dirge, for they knew that they were killing Israel in war. And likewise, the prophet Micah spoke in the manner of a dirge: “In Gath, do not say”

Tell it not in Gath. It is known that Gath and Ashkelon were inhabited by Philistines.

Do not tell it in Gath. Of the death of Saul and Jonathan, and even though surely they would know without them, he said so for the poetic style of the lament, and similarly (Micah 1:10): Do not tell it in Gath:

They shall exult. It too is a matter of joy, as (Psalms 96:2): let the field exult. And the doubling of the matter in different words is the way of the lamenter.

Do not say, "Do not announce this matter that their defeat was providential, lest they rejoice that the Lord has abandoned His people." And there is a difference between "telling" (hagadah) and "proclaiming good tidings" (besorah): the one who proclaims good tidings (hamevaser) intends to publicize the matter so that a feast and rejoicing will be made in public; but the one who tells (hamaggid) is not specifically designated to proclaim good tidings and inform. Rather, he either did not see the matter with his own eyes but only heard of it, or he tells it not with the intention of proclaiming good tidings and publicizing. Now, in Gath, which is the royal city, the teller (hamaggid) told the matter, and from there they sent [messengers] to proclaim good tidings in all the cities so that a feast and rejoicing would be made. And these messengers were proclaiming good tidings (mevasrim), for they went out with the intention to proclaim good tidings and publicize. And there is a difference between "rejoicing" (simchah) and "exulting" (aluz): the one who exults is the one who dances due to excessive joy, while the one who rejoices does so in his heart. And the statements are parallel: "Do not tell in Gath, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice," and even after the teller told in the royal city, in any case, "Do not proclaim good tidings in the streets of Ashkelon," do not send proclaimers to proclaim good tidings to the people, lest they exult with dancing and revelry and make a feast and rejoicing.

The mountains of Gilboa. The mountains that are in Gilboa. "And fields of offerings." (Targum:) "There shall be no crop in you, in the measure from which one would make a dough-offering [challah]." "For there the shield of the mighty was cast off." They had leather shields, and when they went out to war they would anoint them with oil, so that the weapon striking upon it would slide off, as it says (Isaiah 21:5): "Arise, O princes, anoint the shield." And here thus was the lament in the dirge: "There the shield of the mighty was cast off" — it expelled its oil and the oil no longer clung to it, and it became as though it had never been anointed with oil at all. Every instance of "hagalah" is a term for something that ejects what is put into it, as (Job 21:10): "His bull breeds and does not fail [to hold the seed]."

"Mountains of Gilboa." [The word הרי is] like [the plural] הרים (mountains); and similarly, "those who pass through the Valley of Baca," "who make their dwelling in tents." "And fields of offerings." [Understood as] "and let there be no fields of offerings" — the אַל mentioned [earlier in the verse] stands in place of two [governing both clauses]. And the meaning of "a field of offerings" is a field fit for taking offerings from it; that is to say, even if grain were to grow there, it would have no blessing, and would not reach the harvest [stage] such that offerings would be separated from it. And the Targum: "There shall not be among you produce in the measure from which they would make ḥallah," meaning in the amount from which they take out ḥallah, which is the measure of an omer. "Rejected" [נגעל]. It became repulsive and was cast away. "Without anointing with oil." That is to say, thus was rejected the shield of Saul's warriors, as if the shield had not been anointed with oil, for they anoint the shield in order to smooth it so that weapons would not penetrate it; and so "anoint the shield" is understood, according to some commentators. Or, its meaning is that it was rejected as if Saul himself had not been anointed with oil to be king.

O mountains of Gilboa. He cursed those mountains because of what happened there from that evil occurrence. And fields of offerings. That is to say, let there be no field there that produces complete fruit from which tithes would be separated. For there the shield of the mighty was despised. That is to say, it was loathed and cast aside as though it had no value as a shield. And he said this because Saul did not wait for the warriors to come upon him to see whether his shield would protect him from the archers, but rather he considered himself as though he had no shield, even though he was a great warrior. And Jonathan's shield did not benefit him from falling into the hands of the Philistines. And now he began to praise Saul's shield and said that it was not anointed with oil. But I said this as I understand it, for a shield that is not used except at rare intervals would need to be oiled with oil. And so is the intention, as I understand it, in what the prophet said concerning the death of Belshazzar: 'Arise, O princes, anoint the shield' -- that is to say, they must now anoint the shield, for they did not go out to battle always, as they were doing before. And afterward he returns to praise Jonathan and Saul concerning bravery, and for this reason he says that Jonathan's bow did not turn back from the blood of the slain, from the sword of the mighty, for always he was victorious. And Saul's sword did not return empty, not failing to defeat his enemies in battle. In their death they were not divided. He said this because of their dying together in battle.

And the fields of offerings. The word 'and let there be no' that he said serves a double function, as though it were said both 'and let there be no rain upon you' and 'and let there be no fields of offerings,' and it is as though he cursed the mountains, that dew and rain would not descend upon them, and there would be no field in them to give from it a heave-offering to the Lord, that nothing would grow in them to be a portion for the Most High, because upon them came the disaster, for there the shield of the mighty was loathed and abhorred, and the shield of Saul was made as though it had never been anointed with oil to slip away from the sword-stroke:

O mountains of Gilboa. Like 'mountains of Gilboa'. Was loathed. A matter of disgust and abhorrence, as (Leviticus 26:30): and my soul shall abhor you. Shield. It is like a garment made of boiled leather, anointed with oil to smooth from it the blow of sword and spear, and they wear it in war to protect.

Behold, he will lament that due to the absence of the merit of Saul and his sons, the heavenly abundance will be withdrawn from them. The measure of this is: “O hills of Gilboa, and choice fields” (meaning the choice fields situated on the high mountains and lofty heights), “have no dew or rain upon you.” Does this not mean that from now on, the abundance of dew and rain will be removed from you? This is because there the shield of the mighty was despised. And he explains his words: he did not intend by this “shield” an actual shield anointed with oil, but rather a metaphorical shield, namely the merit of Saul and his sons, which served as a shield for his people and a protection for his congregation. This is what is written: “The shield of Saul, as if it had not been anointed with oil”—the shield not anointed with oil. He means to say that it was not a shield of leather that was despised, but rather a shield of merit and good deeds that was rejected, for his merit did not benefit them. This is nothing other than the withdrawal of the abundance from above.

He did not retreat backward. He was not accustomed to retreat backward.

"We shall not turn back." [The word] is [written] with a sin, and its meaning is the same as [the word] with a samekh, from יִסֹּגוּ אָחוֹר ("they shall turn back").

Did not turn back. His bow has returned backward, without his arrows being satiated with the blood and fat of his enemies. "It shall not return empty." [It would not return] to its sheath, without it having wrought a great slaughter.

Retreated. Like 'retreated' with a samekh, and its meaning is turning back, as (Isaiah 59:13): and they retreated from following our God.

"From the blood of the slain" — the clauses of the verse are parallel: "From the blood of the slain, the bow of Jonathan did not turn back," and "from the fat of the mighty, the sword of Saul did not return empty." It depicts that Jonathan was an archer (as stated in 18:1), up to his sword, up to his bow, and there (ch. 20) [he shot] the three arrows to the side. And Saul did not have a bow; he only fought with a sword and a spear. And both are necessary in war: the archer kills from afar, and the one holding a sword fells the slain up close. Now, the archer sometimes retreats backward if he sees that he has already shed much blood, then his heart grows faint. In contrast, it says that from the blood of the slain, the bow of Jonathan did not retreat backward. And the fighter with a sword sometimes returns empty-handed, when he approaches a mighty man and the fat of his flesh obstructs him, for he cannot pierce him with his sword. But the sword of Saul did not return empty-handed on account of the fat of the mighty. And it intended to say that sometimes mighty men fall due to a lack of knowledge and skill in warfare, but this was not the case here, for they were skilled in warfare, one with his bow and the other with his sword. B. Furthermore, it will say that sometimes mighty men stumble when there is no love between them and they do not help one another, saying to his brother, "Be strong." But here it was not so, for:

Quicker than eagles. To do the will of their Creator.

"They did not separate." The Targum: "They did not separate from their people." That is to say, even though they knew they would die in battle, they did not separate from the people of the LORD, nor did they hold back or flee from the battle. And it is possible to interpret it as: they did not separate from one another, for they died as one, just as in their lifetime they had been dear to one another.

“During their lifetime.” While they were still alive, they were beloved and agreeable to all people; that is to say: they were greatly accepted by all creatures, and cherished in the eyes of everyone. And even in their death they were not separated. Even after their death, they were not separated from love and pleasantness, for it will never be forgotten, for it is great, because they were swifter than eagles and stronger than lions, to fight the battles of the Lord.

And the delightful. A matter of beloved and cherished and agreeable, as (Proverbs 2:10): and knowledge shall be delightful to your soul. Were separated. From the word separation and parting.

"Saul and Jonathan, beloved and delightful," etc., until "even in death they were not separated." 3. Moreover, they themselves possessed the swiftness of eagles and the might of lions, for these two are the signs of valor and strength (as it is stated in 1 Chronicles 12:9), "Their faces were like the faces of lions, and they were swift as gazelles upon the mountains."

"Who clothed you in crimson, with delights." (Targum:) "Who used to clothe you in colorful garments and bring you delicacies" (language of Targum Yonatan).

"With finery." The Targum renders: "And [who] brings you delicacies." And it can be interpreted according to its plain sense, for fine, pleasant clothing is a delight to the body, just as good food is. And in the midrash, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nehemiah [disagree]: Rabbi Yehuda says, "Daughters of Israel" — these are literally the daughters of Israel; "weep for Saul" — because when their husbands went out to war, he would feed them, sustain them, and clothe them in crimson with finery; from here [we learn] that ornaments are becoming only on a body that is pampered. Rabbi Nehemiah says, "Daughters of Israel" — these are the Sanhedrins of Israel; "weep for Saul" — because whenever Saul heard the reasoning of a halakha come forth from the mouth of a Torah scholar, he would stand and kiss him on the mouth.

Daughters of Israel, weep over Saul. He said this because, due to his great success against the Philistines, Israel was at ease in his days, and their enemies did not plunder them in his days. And for this reason it came about that the daughters of Israel would clothe themselves in crimson with finery, and put ornaments of gold upon their garments.

"Who clothed you in crimson." For when he was victorious in battle, he distributed the spoils of the enemy to his men, so that each man might clothe his wife and daughters, and it is as though he himself is the one who clothes them. “With pleasant garments.” This implies: other garments of splendor, which delight the body of the one who wears them. "Upon your garment." For this is the manner of placing the golden ornaments above, upon the garment, so that they may be seen.

To Saul, weeping. From the word weeping. Crimson. Crimson worm, and it is wool dyed red. Delicacies. Every thing that is luxurious, whether good foods, whether garments of splendor and the like, they are called eden, and so (Proverbs 29:17): and he shall give delicacies to your soul. Ornaments. A matter of adornment, as (Jeremiah 4:30): you shall adorn yourself with golden ornaments.

The daughters of Israel: After lamenting together over Saul and Jonathan in the two preceding verses, he begins to lament over each one individually. And he says regarding Saul (over whom he himself did not weep, since Saul was pursuing him): "The daughters of Israel shall weep over him," on account of the benefit they derived from him, namely, "who clothed you in scarlet, etc."

Upon your high places slain. (Targum:) Upon the house of your strength you were killed.

"Upon your high places slain." Upon your high places you fell, slain; and Targum Jonathan: "Upon your house of your might you were killed."

Jonathan, upon your high places you are slain. That is to say, how was it that upon your high places you should be slain, with all your great strength?

"How the mighty have fallen." The matter is repeated two or three times, in the manner of a mourner. Jonathan upon your heights, slain. You, Jonathan, a hero such as you, shall be a corpse upon your heights? Does not even the weak one count as a hero when standing on a mountain, and all the more so a hero such as you, and on a mountain with which you are still familiar, knowing its exits and entrances, as it were saying: Behold, that distress is a wonder, a wonder of wonders.

How does he begin to lament for Jonathan? For when he fell, a camp of mighty warriors who surrounded him fell with him as well. And already at the beginning, regarding Saul, he said: "The glory of Israel lies slain on your high places; how the mighty have fallen!" For Saul's mighty men fell after the battle. However, Jonathan's mighty men, who fell first — for they had not yet fled and were still fighting — of them he said: "How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle!" And it is to them that [the verse] joins Jonathan, [saying] "slain on your high places."

"Wonderful is Your love to me." [The word has] two feminine markers, and the doubling serves to intensify the wonder of the love. And so too הֶחְבֵּאתָה ("she hid") — and in its place we have also explained its meaning. "Than the love of women." The Targum renders it: "than the love of two women," meaning the two women whom David had: Abigail and Ahinoam. And my master, my father, of blessed memory, explained "than the love of women" as referring to that which they [women] love — whether their husbands or their sons — for their love is strong toward them.

Your love to me was wonderful, beyond the love of women. That is to say, the love of Jonathan for David was stronger and more wonderful than the love of women for their beloved, which is a very strong love, to the extent that he might strike her and curse her, yet she would not lose any of her love for him on that account.

I am distressed on your account. I am greatly pained for you, because you have been very pleasant to me. It is wondrous. The love with which I have loved you is a wondrous love, and it is greater than the love of women, who are loved with great love by those who desire them.

It grieves me. From the word distress and worry. My brother. Cherished as a brother. Wonderful. Its meaning is a thing whose comprehension is difficult and wondrous, as (Exodus 15:11): doing wonders.

"Tzar" [distress]: In contrast to his saying that the daughters of Israel would weep for Saul, he says that he himself would weep for Jonathan, as it is written, "I am distressed for you, my brother Jonathan." And he explains that this is from two aspects: A. From the aspect of his goodness and righteousness, which is what is written, "You were very pleasant to me." B. From the aspect of the greatness of his love, which was not like the love of women, which is a love of pleasure or of benefit, but rather an intrinsic love. And regarding this he said, "Your love was more wonderful to me than the love of women." And this is in contrast to his saying that the women would weep for Saul on account of the benefit — the crimson and finery that they received from him. But the love for Jonathan is wonderful and exceedingly elevated above this love.

The instruments of war. Sha'ul and Yonatan, who were the instruments of war of Israel.

“And their weapons of war were lost.” This means that so many heroes fell that it was as if their weapons of war had been lost. Alternatively, it refers to Saul and Jonathan, who were the weapons of war of Israel, having died.

How are the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished. That is to say, in the loss of Saul and Jonathan it was as though the weapons of war were lost, for they were the weapons of Israel's war against its enemies. Or he meant by this: how have mighty and strong men like Saul and Jonathan fallen, and how have the weapons of war that were in their hands been lost, not used to destroy their enemies nor to defend themselves? And the benefits that come from this narrative are these: The first is in character traits, and it is that a person should not entrust himself to dangers. Do you not see that Jonathan, when he struck the Philistine garrisons at Gibeah of Benjamin, almost endangered all of Israel, had it not been for God who was with him? And a person should not rely on a miracle, especially with what he saw of the lack of weapons of war in Israel, to the extent that no sword or spear was found except in the hands of Saul and Jonathan. The second is to teach that nothing can stop God from saving, whether with many or with few. Do you not see that Jonathan alone, with his armor-bearer, defeated the entire Philistine camp and terrified it to the extent that every man's sword was against his brother? The third is in commandments, and it is to teach that one should not transgress the words of the prophet. Do you not see that Saul, because he transgressed the words of Samuel, was punished in that his kingship was not established except for a short time? The fourth is in philosophy, and it is to teach that knowledge of future matters reaches even the multitude, but in a weak manner. And for this reason evidence is drawn from their narratives and words about what is to come. And in this manner Jonathan drew evidence from the words of the Philistines when they said 'Come up to us,' concerning what was to come upon the Philistines from Israel. And in this manner too God made clear to Gideon what was to come upon the Midianite camp, as He commanded him: that he and his servant Pura should go down to the camp and hear what they would say. The fifth is in character traits, and it is that a person should act with zeal in his deeds when he finds himself aided by God in them. And for this you see that Saul made the people swear not to eat bread until evening, in order that they act with zeal to subdue the Philistines while they were able. And it was found that God agreed with this oath, and for this reason He did not answer him when he inquired of God, because of what Jonathan transgressed in this oath. The sixth is to teach that in God's lap the lot is cast, and from God is every judgment. And for this, truth is found in what became known from this narrative and others, and this is that the lot already fell upon Jonathan as being the sinner in this matter. The seventh is to teach that the ruler over the judgment, and he is the king, should not show favor to any person, to the extent that he should say to his sons, 'I do not know you.' And for this you find that Saul swore that Jonathan should be put to death, and had it not been for the hand of all Israel being with him, Saul would have killed him. The eighth is to teach the intensity of God's will to destroy Amalek when Israel is able to defeat him. For it is revealed to God the intensity of this people's hatred of Israel, and this might be a cause in the stumbling of Israel's feet so that they would be destroyed. And for this God devised to destroy them at the time of Israel's success. And for this reason the Torah commanded that we remember what Amalek did to us, combined with what God desired to destroy those with corrupt evil beliefs, so that we not learn from their deeds. And for these two reasons God commanded that no remnant or survivor be left of them, and that no benefit whatsoever be derived from their property. Blessed is He whose purposes are devised. Do you not see Haman the Agagite's thought to destroy all Israel by making them stumble? And behold, it was as a step between them and death, had it not been for God who was with them. The ninth is to teach: with all strength, save one who showed a person kindness, in such a way that no harm comes to him. And for this it relates that Saul made an effort to remove the Kenite, who was from the sons of Moses' father-in-law, from among the Amalekites, lest during the war they be harmed accidentally together with the Amalekites. The tenth is to teach that one should not transgress God's commandment through His prophet. Do you not see how Saul was punished in that he transgressed the words of Samuel concerning Amalek, and this was the cause of his being killed before his time? The eleventh is to teach that God does not desire burnt offerings and sacrifices, but rather His will is that they heed His words, and they should not need sacrifices -- how much less does He desire that a person sin in order to find something to sacrifice from it to God, as in the matter of what Saul and Israel did in taking from the spoil of Amalek, for hearing the voice of God is better than the offering of a sacrifice, as it is said: 'Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice.' The twelfth is in philosophy, and it is to teach, by way of allusion, from which side came the lack in divination and teraphim, and it is a very deep matter, as explained in our words in the second book of Wars of God. The thirteenth is in philosophy, and it is to teach the intensity of Samuel's courage and his bravery, to the extent that he did not fear to speak such harsh words to Saul, even though he was king, and he killed Agag in a cruel manner, as mentioned here, to recompense him measure for measure, and to fulfill God's commandment. For these traits befit a prophet, that is to say, he should not fear any person, but rather submit to fulfill God's commandments with all strength. The fourteenth is in character traits, and it is to teach that there is no deficiency in a prophet if he should lie in some respect to save his life. Do you not see that God gave Samuel the idea to say, 'I have come to sacrifice to God,' even though he said that he came only to anoint one of Jesse's sons as king? The fifteenth is to teach that a person should not rely on a miracle, even though he is very complete and cleaves to God. Do you not see that Samuel, with the greatness of his virtue, feared that Saul would kill him, and took counsel on how to escape from this, in what he said, 'How can I go, and Saul will hear and kill me?' And he did not rely on a miracle, even though he was walking in God's commandments. For God's will is that the person make an effort in the appropriate causes for his salvation, for God does not perform miracles except in places of necessity. And for this they said, 'That the Lord your God may bless you' -- could it be that one should sit idle? Scripture says, 'in all that you do.' And we have already expanded on this in our commentary on the Torah and in the book Wars of God. The sixteenth is to teach that not what the eye sees is the truth, for Jesse did not think that his youngest son would be fit for kingship, and for this reason he did not bring him into the house to pass him before Samuel. And he is the one whom God alone chose. And for this it is said: 'The stone which the builders rejected has become the cornerstone.' The seventeenth is to teach that it is fitting for one who is to be king that his appearance be suitable for royalty, so that all people's eyes see his beauty, and for this reason he should be honored in their eyes, they should love him and submit to serve him. And if he were repulsive in their eyes, they would loathe him and not fear him, and the purpose for which the kingship exists would be ruined. And for this it relates of Saul that he was tall from his shoulders upward, above all the people, and it relates of David that he was ruddy, with beautiful eyes and good looks, and for this his appearance was suitable for royalty. The eighteenth is to teach the wonderful impression a person takes on when his condition changes to that of being king, how much more so when anointed by a prophet. Do you not see that Saul immediately after being anointed king was changed into another man? And so was the matter with David, as it relates and says, 'And the spirit of God rushed upon David from that day forward.' And this is fitting according to the foundations of the Torah, for the deeds of the king are arranged in some manner by God. And for this Solomon said: 'The heart of the king is in the hand of God, like the watercourses; He turns it wherever He wills.' For it is not fitting that there be in the choice of the king someone to destroy his people if he desires, for 'there is one higher than the high, watching.' The nineteenth is to teach how deep are God's thoughts, in that He brought an evil spirit upon Saul so that David would approach the kingship, and this was the cause of bringing the kingship to him easily, from what Israel saw of the goodness of David's success in wars and in all his affairs. And for this he was the one who brought out and brought in Israel, even while Saul was king. The twentieth is to teach that from the blessing of the servant, attained from God, comes the blessing of his master, for the servant's will and desire is that his master be blessed, and from this side comes the blessing to the master from the servant. And for this it relates in Saul's matter, when an evil spirit from God frightened him, that David was under God's providence, and for this it is possible that through him this evil would depart from Saul. And for this they relate of David, even though he knew how to play, that he was a successful man and God was with him. The twenty-first is to teach that it is not fitting to come before kings and princes with empty hands. And for this it relates that Jesse sent to Saul by the hand of his son David a donkey loaded with bread, a skin of wine, and a kid goat. And for this the Torah commanded to proclaim to the people under God's sovereignty that when they come to see His face they should not come with empty hands, as it is said: 'You shall not appear before the Lord empty-handed.' The twenty-second is to teach that the one who sends a gift to kings should not expend much of his wealth on it in order that it be a gift fitting for the king, but rather it suffices that the gift be very fitting in relation to the giver. And for this it relates of this gift that it was small in measure in relation to the king. And so you find with Jacob, who sent by his sons to Egypt, to the lord of the land, a small gift -- yet it was among the finest of kinds. And if there was another benefit in this as well, as we explained there in our commentary on the Torah. The twenty-third is to teach that a person should not rely on his strength and bravery, for not by might shall a man prevail, but from God comes the establishment of victorious steps. Do you not see that Goliath the Philistine, with all his great strength and the might of his weapons of war, fell by God's aid into the hands of David, who was a youth and without weapons of war? The twenty-fourth is to teach the intensity of David's courage and his zeal for God concerning Goliath, and how he set his life on a knife's edge to avenge God's vengeance, for this trait befits the complete person. The twenty-fifth is to teach that he who trusts in God shall be exalted. And for this you find that when Saul heard the intensity of David's trust in God, he trusted that David would defeat the Philistine, and for this Saul said to him, 'Go, and God be with you.' The twenty-sixth is to teach that along with trust in God, it is fitting to do what can be done to attain the desired end most completely. And for this you find that Saul made an effort that David should wear weapons of war in a manner suitable for fighting with him. And David too agreed to this until he saw that they would not benefit him, for he had not tried walking in them, and the use of those weapons requires training. And for this David took what he had tried walking in, together with the fact that it was more suitable for him to strike Goliath from afar, even though he had already placed his trust in God to be his help in striking Goliath. The twenty-seventh is to teach that the multitude has some divine influence in knowledge of the future, and this is indeed in what many agree upon regarding future matters. And for this you find that Saul was affected in this manner by the women's words in those songs that would indicate that David would come to the kingship, namely their saying: 'Saul has slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands.' And for this Saul did not rebuke them for these words, but rather he hated David and lay in wait for him to bring him down, in a way that he would not usurp the kingship from him and his offspring. And now this level of knowledge they call a bath kol (heavenly voice), and I think it is a part of complete divination and more correct than it. And this will be explained with some consideration from what we explained in the second book of Wars of God concerning divination. The twenty-eighth is to teach that whom God loves, He reproves, for the beloved is the one who is guarded. Do you not see how David succeeded in all his affairs, and how God guarded him from everything Saul devised to bring him down? None of Saul's schemes were effective. The twenty-ninth is to teach that God's counsel shall stand, so that everything a person does to oppose it will be an instrument for its fulfillment. And for this you find that almost everything Saul did against David was an instrument for David's coming to the kingship more easily, for the fact that he appointed him commander of a thousand, going out and coming in before the people, was the cause that all Israel and Judah loved him very much, seeing the goodness of his success, and this was the cause that the kingship came to David easily with little cause after the death of Ish-bosheth son of Saul, as explained there. And there is no doubt in what he devised to bring him down by the hands of the Philistines, for it was already proven from him the goodness of David's success against his enemies. And now, what Saul killed, the city of the priests of Nob, because of David, was also a cause of adding guardianship to David, for this was the cause that Abiathar the priest came to David with the Urim and Thummim, and David inquired of God in all his deeds, while Saul had no way of inquiring of God. And so too what forced David to flee from Saul and come to the land of the Philistines -- from this the matter developed that David had Ziklag, and David and his men were always fighting with God's enemies, and David sent of the spoil to Israel. And those wars were instruments for David's coming to the kingship, for then the goodness of his success was proven to Israel, to the extent that with a few he defeated many. And Saul and his offspring fell by the hands of the Philistines, until the hand of all Israel was with him. And so too what gave Michal his daughter to David as a wife to bring him down by the hands of the Philistines was an instrument for David's being saved from falling into Saul's hands, as explained in this narrative. And every person should conduct himself with the trait of humility and meekness. Do you not see that David was very humble and said that he was not worthy to take the king's daughter, even though it was his right by law because of his striking Goliath? And first he pleaded on account of the lowness of his station and the lowness of his family, and afterward he pleaded on account of being poor and unable to give the bride-price and gift to the king's daughter as befits her. The thirtieth is to teach that a person should not be very reluctant in what the great ones request of him. And for this you find that David was reluctant at first to take the king's daughter, on account of what he mentioned that he was unworthy for her. And when he saw that despite all this the king desired to marry her to him, he agreed to marry her, and showed Saul the goodness of his success, until he brought him two hundred foreskins of Philistines in place of the hundred that were requested, so that Saul would agree to him even more. The thirty-first is to teach that one who seeks an end should not be stinting in attaining it through all the causes by which that end is fulfilled most completely. And for this you find that it was not enough for Michal in lowering David through the window in order that he escape from his father's hands by fleeing, for perhaps the king would command and pursue him and overtake him. But she combined with this other causes, and they are that she put the teraphim on the bed, and the fleece of a goat at his head, so that when Saul's servants came to her she could tell them that he was ill, and they would leave him for a time, or perhaps Saul would be appeased by this and no longer try to kill him, for then he would see that his hand was withered, or perhaps God would smite him, or perhaps Saul would repent of this anger and leave him alone. And meanwhile David would have leisure to flee and distance himself from that place in a way that he would not fall into Saul's hands and would be saved. And for this same reason you find that it was not enough for Jonathan in what he desired to reveal to David whether his father's intention was to kill him, unless first he investigate the matter with him and afterward reveal it to David, for perhaps he would not find a way to speak at the end with David to inform him of his father's response to him. And for this you find that the first time Jonathan counseled David to hide in a certain field, and Jonathan would make an effort to speak with his father in that very field about David's matter, to request from before him that he not kill him, in a way that David could hear those words. And if he could not speak with him in a place where David would hear their words, it would be easy for Jonathan to go to the place where David was hidden, to smooth his feet, and then inform David of all his father's intention. And the second time this was not enough for Jonathan, for he saw that if what David told him was true, Jonathan could not trust that Saul would not kill him when he promised him that he would not, for he had already promised him concerning this matter at first. And for this Jonathan devised to find a way by which he could inform David of his father's intention. And for this he devised the scheme concerning shooting arrows, which would make clear to his youth whether David would need to flee and save his life or not, for perhaps he would not find a way to inform David of Saul his father's intention. And for this he devised the scheme of coming to David to speak with him about this matter. And for this same reason too you find that David concealed his being a fugitive even from Ahimelech the priest, even though he asked him in God whether his way would succeed, for perhaps if he revealed this to him it would be a cause for David to fall into the king's hands. And for this same reason David did not take with him any of his men when he fled. The thirty-second is in commandments, and it is that even though every commandment is set aside because of saving a life, if the setting aside of the commandment was not in itself a cause to save the transgressor from danger, even though it would be a cause to him accidentally, it is not fitting to set it aside in this manner. And for this Ahimelech did not permit David and his youths to eat the showbread in impurity, as we explained in what preceded. The thirty-third is to teach that a person should employ all possible schemes to save himself. And for this you find that David acted madly before the servants of Achish king of Gath, and let his saliva fall on his beard, so that they would think he had become insane and would not suspect him as a spy, nor make an effort to capture him because of being a commander and important man in Israel, for they would think upon seeing his madness that because of his foolishness he was driven from his station. And for this it was a cause that David saved his life from the hands of Achish king of Gath and his servants. The thirty-fourth is to explain that the prophecy of God to the house of Eli was fulfilled in the killing of Nob, city of the priests, even though this was an instrument for the removal of the high priesthood from the house of Eli, for none of his offspring remained except Abiathar, and through him the priesthood departed from the house of Eli and was given to Zadok, as explained in the book of Kings. And for this we do not find that Saul was punished for the killing of Nob, city of the priests, even though there was no cause there that would bring about their killing in this manner, for Ahimelech too did not sin against Saul, as he told him -- how much less did all his father's house, whom he killed together with them, sin against him? And for this you find that this sin was not mentioned among the sins that it mentions Saul sinned in, for God incited him to it to fulfill His prophecy. The thirty-fifth is to teach the intensity of David's zeal against those who commit robbery, to the extent that even though he was very afraid of Saul, he was aroused to save the inhabitants of Keilah from the hands of their plunderers, for this trait befits the complete person and the leader. The thirty-sixth is to teach the intensity of God's providence over His beloved, and this is that when Saul and his men were surrounding David and his men to capture them, God immediately caused that Saul was forced to turn away from David to save the land from the hands of the Philistines. And afterward, when Saul pursued, God caused that he fell into David's hands in a way that David was able to harm him. And this was when Saul was in the cave, and afterward when he was lying asleep in the camp. The thirty-seventh is to teach that a person should not press the time, but rather wait for the appropriate time. And for this you find that even though Saul had fallen into David's hands and was pursuing him, David did not agree to kill him, but rather he waited that another man should avenge his vengeance from him, or God, or his day would come to die and David would reign. The thirty-eighth is to teach that one who desires an end should not strive to attain it through that by which harm might come to him from it. And for this you find that David, even though it was permitted for him to kill Saul, for Saul was already pursuing him and this was an instrument for the kingship to come to David, he did not agree to his killing, lest this bring people to make light of the killing of kings and this would bring harm to David or to his offspring, for God had already anointed him king over Israel through Samuel His prophet. And for this same reason David killed the Amalekite man when he said that he had already killed Saul, and he killed the killer of Ish-bosheth son of Saul. The thirty-ninth is to teach that a person should not conduct himself with the trait of stinginess and dog-like behavior, that is to say, resembling the image of a dog that does not let the other dogs remain in the house where he is, lest they diminish his food. Do you not see what happened to Nabal from the intensity of the stinginess he had, which almost was a cause to gather his soul and the soul of his house, had it not been for Abigail's wisdom? The fortieth is to teach that one who fears a stronger hand should appease him with abundance of gift, as Jacob did to appease Esau. And so did Abigail to appease David, for she greatly exceeded in this gift because of her knowledge of the strength of the anger that should have been in David concerning his husband, for he repaid evil for good and reviled and blasphemed him greatly. And for this she said, 'Let me atone before him with this great gift, and afterward I shall request this from him by way of petition and supplication.' The forty-first is to teach that one who wishes to appease a stronger person at the time of his strong anger should begin his words in a way of appeasement, so that the angry one agrees to incline his ear to his words, and should arrange his words in a manner of wisdom that will accomplish his salvation from the evil the angry one devised to do to him. And for this Abigail began her words in this manner, that she said, 'Let this sin be upon me,' so that David would be appeased somewhat by this admission, that she admitted she sinned against him, for 'one who acknowledges and forsakes shall have mercy.' And afterward she explained to him that it is not fitting that all this emotion be aroused from a lowly man like Nabal, if he spoke harsh words against him, for the evil of his heart's disposition and his baseness caused this. And there was in this speech some appeasement of David that cannot be overlooked. And afterward she excused herself to David and explained to him that she had no guilt in this, and she swore by God's name so that he would believe her words more. And there was yet more wisdom in her words, but she did not wish to show David that she feared him destroying Nabal and his house, but rather she left the matter as an assumption that God guarded David from committing this sin, that is to say, coming with blood, to shed innocent blood, and to show that he relied on his strength in a way that his hand would save him according to his thought, for this in truth is a great sin. And included in the appeasement in her words was that she mentioned David's pursuers in general, that God would cast their souls into the sling-bowl, and David's soul would be bound up in the bundle of life with God, for no evil would be found in his days. And as though she warned him by this that he not lose the kingship that God gave him because of such a sin, as Saul did, from whom the kingship was removed because of the sins he committed, as mentioned in what preceded. And to show further that she was not afraid of David doing this evil, she requested from him that he remember this kindness she had done for him at the time God would do him good and he would have the kingship, for then he would be able to recompense her as for all that she recompensed him. And for this David gave thanks to God who sent her before him to prevent him from this sin, and praised her good sense, for she had arranged her words with utmost perfection, as we explained. The forty-second is to teach that a person should not rely on a miracle, even though he always sees God's eyes upon him to guard him, but rather he should distance himself from danger as much as possible. And for this it relates that David fled to the land of the Philistines, because he saw that it was impossible that his guardianship be fulfilled in the land of Israel without danger, for Saul was always pursuing him. The forty-third is to teach the intensity of David's love for his people, for even when he fled from the land of Israel and was in the land of the Philistines, he fought God's wars against Israel's enemies and destroyed them; not a man of them lived. And it was from David's wisdom that he conducted the matter in a way that Achish thought David was pursuing Israel and killing them, and in this he trusted him even more, thinking that he had alienated himself from his people Israel. And for this same reason David made an effort not to dwell with Achish in the royal city. The forty-fourth is in philosophy, and it is to teach that knowledge of the future comes to a person from divine providence. And for this it relates that when Saul sinned, God did not answer him even through one of the prophets, and all the more so did He not answer him in correct dreams or through the Urim, for even though it was known that the Urim and Thummim were there, there was no priest there fit to be consulted through the Urim and Thummim, for Saul had already killed the complete ones among the priests who had the high priesthood when he killed Nob, city of the priests, and there was no high priest there -- all the more so was there no high priest upon whom the Holy Spirit rested, through whom it would be possible to inquire through the Urim and Thummim. And for this you find that when Jonathan sinned in transgressing his father's oath, God did not answer Saul when he inquired through the Urim and Thummim. And Saul realized then that the sin caused God not to answer him, and for this he inquired by lot in what the sin of this day was. And from this place it is explained that it is possible that God conceals from the prophet some of the future matters, because of the people who would derive benefit from that knowledge. The forty-fifth is to teach how God repaid Saul his recompense, that he killed Nob, city of the priests, and the time came when he felt the loss to him from their killing, until he was forced to incline to the lesser matters, namely the mediums, after he had already driven them away and obliterated them from the land, in order that some knowledge reach him concerning the war. The forty-sixth is to teach that it is not good for a person to join with the wicked. Do you not see that when David joined with the Philistines for war, God broke his deeds, and this was the cause that Ziklag was burned and the women and children in it were taken captive. And behold, for providence over David, God caused that the princes of the Philistines did not agree that David go with them in war, for they feared lest he devise a scheme to bring them down into Saul's hands, in order to appease his lords thereby. And this was the cause that David saved everything the Amalekite had taken from him, and took from them great spoil. And there was in this guidance toward David's coming to the kingship, when Israel saw his success, as we mentioned in what preceded. The forty-seventh is to teach that a person should cast his bread upon the waters, to do good to the poor and hungry, for in this he acquires the good trait of compassion, which shall not be overlooked, even though it may happen that the giver receives from the recipient a good recompense for it. Do you not see that David, in his compassion for the Egyptian man whom he found on the way hungry and thirsty, fed him and gave him drink, and gave him a piece of dried figs and two cakes of raisins? And this was the cause that he informed him of the place of the raid that had fallen upon Ziklag, and this was the cause that David saved everything the Amalekite had taken. The forty-eighth is to teach that it was not fitting for a person to trust in one who was not of his people. Do you not see that the Egyptian youth, who was a servant to an Amalekite man, thought it easy to bring his master down into David's hands, after David had sworn to him that he would not deliver him into his master's hands? And for this same reason too the princes of the Philistines did not agree to trust David. The forty-ninth is to teach that it was not fitting for a person to be cruel to his servants and slaves, to abandon them when they become ill, but rather he should make an effort in their healing and guarding them, as far as his hand can. Do you not see what happened to this Amalekite man because of his abandoning the Egyptian youth when he became ill? The fiftieth is to teach that by schemes the wise make war. And for this David made an effort to come to the raid immediately while they were at ease, until they all fell into their hands, except a few who mounted on camels and fled. The fifty-first is to teach the ruler to draw the heart of the people to him, in a way that they love him, and also when they sin against him, to show them that there is nothing against them in his heart, for in this he takes souls and draws them to serve him. Do you not see that David preceded in greeting the two hundred men who lagged behind in crossing the Brook Besor, to show them that there was nothing against them in his heart, even though they had not agreed to go with him to fight the raid that destroyed Ziklag? And not only that, but he also agreed that they should take their share from the spoil. And for this same reason too David sent of the spoil to the elders of Judah, even though the goodness of his success was already known to them by this, and there was in this wonderful guidance for the kingship to come to David. The fifty-second is to teach how God, whose purposes are devised, exceeded in creating the causes that would bring David to having the kingship easily, as His wisdom and will decreed. For if Saul alone had been killed, due to the strength of David's love for Jonathan, he would not have been able to agree himself to usurp the kingdom from him. And for this Jonathan died with him. And some Israelites also fell with them, to show them what difference there is between David and Saul: for Saul, even though he was king, fell with his people by the hands of the Philistines, while David with a few defeated a multitude. For this is what leads Israel to give the kingship to David. The fifty-third is to teach that a person should not rejoice in the fall of his enemies, but rather he should be troubled at the fall of a commander and important man, and remember that it may well happen to him too. And for this you find that David tore his garments and mourned and wept and fasted until evening over Saul first, because he was the most honored, and afterward over Jonathan, and afterward over the people of God, which is the house of Israel, and he lamented over Saul and Jonathan a wonderful lamentation. The fifty-fourth is to teach that a person should learn wisdom from what causes another to stumble. And for this you find that because David saw that Saul and his sons fell by the hands of the archers, he said, 'Let them teach the children of Judah the bow,' for it is a very wonderful weapon in war.

And the weapons of war were destroyed. For they were as though they were the weapons of war of Israel:

How does he conclude his lament? For sometimes heroes fall, and other heroes remain in their place; in such a case, even though heroes have fallen, their weapons of war are not lost, for the hero who comes in their place will use them. But here, how have the heroes fallen entirely, since not even one survivor remains? And consequently, the weapons of war are lost, for there is no one to use them.