Chapter 1 of Shmuel B opens the days of David's reign, and most of it is devoted to the great lament that David composed over Shaul and over his son Yonatan. This lament is not merely an outpouring of emotion, but an ordered message: David comes to prove that the defeat on Mount Gilboa was not a natural outcome of the course of the battle, but the complete providence of the Creator of the world. We will follow the order of the pesukim, according to the explanations of the Malbim, and add the words of the commentators and the midrashim.
וַיְקֹנֵן דָּוִד אֶת־הַקִּינָה הַזֹּאת עַל־שָׁאוּל וְעַל־יְהוֹנָתָן בְּנוֹ׃ וַיֹּאמֶר לְלַמֵּד בְּנֵי־יְהוּדָה קָשֶׁת הִנֵּה כְתוּבָה עַל־סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁר׃ - And David lamented this lament over Shaul and over Yonatan his son. And he said to teach the sons of Yehuda the bow; behold, it is written in the Book of the Upright.
David says: it is no wonder that we must teach the sons of Yehuda the bow, for we did not do the will of Hashem, and consequently we are compelled to fight in the natural way. What one should indeed wonder about is the following.
הַצְּבִי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים׃ - The beauty of Israel is slain upon your heights; how have the mighty fallen!
Even if one must learn the bow and fight in the natural way, according to the way of nature we should have won, and for two reasons. The first: we fought while we were on the mountain, and one who fights from above has a strategic advantage over one standing below. "Upon your heights" - that is, in the high place, and nevertheless we fell. The second: "how have the mighty fallen" - we were not weak men. Shaul was mighty, and Yonatan alone killed a thousand men as we saw in the previous battles, and alone put an entire camp to flight. If so, is it not clear that here "their Rock sold them and Hashem delivered them up," that the Holy One, blessed be He, handed them over to the enemies? From a natural standpoint this should not have happened.
And what is "hatzvi"? From the language of matzav, the state of the battle, meaning the deployment of the army. And there is another explanation: "the tzvi of Israel" - the Land of Israel, which is called the Land of the Tzvi, meaning how could it be that such a thing happened to the Land of the Tzvi.
אַל־תַּגִּידוּ בְגַת אַל־תְּבַשְּׂרוּ בְּחוּצֹת אַשְׁקְלוֹן פֶּן־תִּשְׂמַחְנָה בְּנוֹת פְּלִשְׁתִּים פֶּן־תַּעֲלֹזְנָה בְּנוֹת הָעֲרֵלִים׃ - Tell it not in Gat, proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon, lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice, lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult.
The matter was by providence, as was explained, for it is not natural that they would fall in such a way. But David says: do not reveal to them that this was by providence. For if they defeated us in a chance victory, their joy is not so great; but if they know that they won by providence, they will say: the providence has passed to us, our hand is on top, Hashem delivered them into our hand, and consequently they will feel free to do with them whatever they wish. Therefore: tell it not in Gat that our defeat was by providence.
The Malbim asks: what is the difference between "tell it not in Gat" and "proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon"? Indeed, in poetry and lament it is common to find parallel expressions and repetition of the matter in different words, but among the prophets this is not so. Among the prophets every expression is entirely precise and contains no mere repetition. If so, it is directed specifically at "tell" and specifically at "proclaim," and specifically at Gat and specifically at the streets of Ashkelon.
The first difference: the informer (magid) comes to announce something, to convey information, and it is possible that he did not see it with his own eyes but only heard it. The bearer of tidings (mevaser), by contrast, comes to bring joy: "I have good news for you" - something meant to gladden, to publicize, to make a celebration. The second difference: Gat is the royal city, while Ashkelon is the city of the rest of the people. Therefore in Gat there was an announcement, and in the streets of Ashkelon there were tidings. Messengers who went out into the streets of Ashkelon were essentially saying: gentlemen, tonight there is a party, we defeated Israel. To the king one must say, my lord, we won the battle, this is delivering a report of what is happening on the battlefield; but to the people there is no need to report, only to bring tidings: know this, rejoice, you may hold a feast today.
Now let us note the continuation of the verse: "lest they rejoice" (pen tismachna) as against "lest they exult" (pen ta'alozna). Simcha is joy in the heart; an aliza is a person who begins to dance from sheer joy. And here the halves of the verse are parallel. What does "the halves of the verse are parallel" mean? When at the beginning of the verse there are two clauses and at its end another two clauses, we number them: one and two at the beginning, three and four at the end. If clause one's continuation is clause three, and clause two's continuation is clause four, that is the halves of the verse being parallel. And here: "Tell it not in Gat" continues with "lest the daughters of the Philistines rejoice" - an announcement gives birth to joy in the heart. "Proclaim it not in the streets of Ashkelon" continues with "lest the daughters of the uncircumcised exult" - tidings give birth to dancing and celebration, joy that goes out from the heart into action.
הָרֵי בַגִּלְבֹּעַ אַל־טַל וְאַל־מָטָר עֲלֵיכֶם וּשְׂדֵי תְרוּמֹת כִּי שָׁם נִגְעַל מָגֵן גִּבּוֹרִים מָגֵן שָׁאוּל בְּלִי מָשִׁיחַ בַּשָּׁמֶן׃ - Mountains of Gilboa, let there be no dew nor rain upon you, nor fields of offerings, for there the shield of the mighty was defiled, the shield of Shaul, as though not anointed with oil.
"Mountains of Gilboa" - the mountains of the Gilboa. David comes to lament and to say: since the merit of Shaul and his sons is no longer with us, for they have died, consequently the spiritual abundance too will no longer accompany us. "Fields of offerings" are the choicest fields that stand upon the heights of the mountains. "For there the shield of the mighty was defiled" - the Malbim explains that the intent is not to an actual shield, but who was regarded as a shield over us? Shaul and his sons; these righteous ones are the ones who protected us. "The shield of Shaul, as though not anointed with oil" - this is not a shield of leather anointed with oil, but a shield of merits and good deeds. "Nig'al" means it was cast out, that is, the oil that was in it departed from us. These merits were, as it were, cast out from us, and we no longer have them. And consequently "let there be no dew nor rain upon you" - we are no longer worthy of abundance. And let us note: the intent is not specifically dew and rain in their plain sense, but a hint to the spiritual abundance that descends from heaven, which is characterized by dew and rain.
The Metzudat David explains differently: David, as it were, curses the mountains. You mountains, with you and through you the disaster occurred, therefore I say that there shall be no dew and rain upon you. And what is "fields of offerings"? The word "al" (no) carries another along with it - and this is a grammatical expression - meaning: no dew and no rain and no fields of offerings. There shall be upon you neither dew nor rain, and you shall not grow a field from which offerings would be brought, so that the mitzvah of separating terumot and ma'aserot would not apply to you, meaning that you would have no crops at all. And indeed in the mountains of Gilboa it apparently has been so ever since David's lament.
And where else do we find that the negating word "carries another along with it"? In the prayer "Aleinu": "who has not made our portion like theirs, nor our lot like all their multitude." Seemingly it should have said "and not our lot like all their multitude," and indeed some siddurim changed the wording. But there is no need to change it, and the version should be left as it is in the original, since the "not" applies also to the continuation: who has not made our portion like theirs and not our lot like all their multitude. And so it is here as well.
מִדַּם חֲלָלִים מֵחֵלֶב גִּבּוֹרִים קֶשֶׁת יְהוֹנָתָן לֹא נָשׂוֹג אָחוֹר וְחֶרֶב שָׁאוּל לֹא תָשׁוּב רֵיקָם׃ - From the blood of the slain, from the fat of the mighty, the bow of Yehonatan did not turn back, and the sword of Shaul did not return empty.
Here too the Malbim writes that the halves of the verse are parallel: "from the blood of the slain" refers to "the bow of Yehonatan did not turn back," and "from the fat of the mighty" refers to "and the sword of Shaul did not return empty."
Yehonatan, as is known, his expertise was in shooting the bow, as we saw when he made a signal with his lad using arrows. Says the Malbim: a man who shoots a bow, it is very possible that after he has already killed many people he will become alarmed and retreat, because he understands that now they will try at any cost to kill him, and his heart weakens within him. Like a lone submachine gunner who strikes terror and fires in every direction and kills many, so that they will do everything to destroy him. But Yehonatan was not so: "from the blood of the slain" - even though many fell slain, "the bow of Yehonatan did not turn back."
And Shaul, his warfare was with the sword. What usually prevents a man from continuing to fight with a sword? "The fat of the mighty": when the one standing before him is a mighty man with much fat upon his body, the force of the sword is weakened, and then the warrior sees before him a giant of a man and retreats. But "from the fat of the mighty the sword of Shaul did not return empty" - Shaul did not fear this and was not dismayed by this.
And what did David mean to say by this? All the reasons for them to win were present, yet they did not win. Never did Yonatan flinch from the blood of the slain, and never did Shaul's sword turn back from the fat of the mighty, and nevertheless they failed. And should you say: perhaps there was no cohesion and unity within the army, and that is why what happened happened - the next pasuk addresses this.
שָׁאוּל וִיהוֹנָתָן הַנֶּאֱהָבִים וְהַנְּעִימִם בְּחַיֵּיהֶם וּבְמוֹתָם לֹא נִפְרָדוּ מִנְּשָׁרִים קַלּוּ מֵאֲרָיוֹת גָּבֵרוּ׃ - Shaul and Yonatan, beloved and pleasant in their lives, and in their deaths they were not divided; they were swifter than eagles, stronger than lions.
Consider this: Shaul and Yonatan even in their deaths were not divided, for there was love between them. If so, one cannot say that a lack of unity is what caused the defeat in battle - they were together in their lives and in their deaths. And more than that: they possessed in themselves all the qualities that should not have led to such a downfall, for they had the swiftness of eagles and the strength of lions. And if so, by nature they should have won the battle. And if they did not win, this is exactly what David wishes to say in his lament: this was under the full providence of the Creator, for by nature there was no chance they would be defeated.
בְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־שָׁאוּל בְּכֶינָה הַמַּלְבִּשְׁכֶם שָׁנִי עִם־עֲדָנִים הַמַּעֲלֶה עֲדִי זָהָב עַל לְבוּשְׁכֶן׃ - Daughters of Israel, weep over Shaul, who clothed you in scarlet with fine linen, who put ornaments of gold upon your apparel.
Until here he eulogized them both together, and from here onward he eulogizes each one separately, beginning with Shaul. And David, who was an upright and honest man, found it hard to lament over Shaul, for Shaul had been his pursuer, and it was hard for him to say: I have great grief that you have died. And all the more so since David himself had already said in the past "either his day will come, or Hashem will strike him, or he will go down into battle and perish," meaning that he wanted the Creator to remove this pursuer from him. He took no action, but he also could not say: I am very sad that he has died.
Today people sell everything; no one expects integrity and honesty. Someone who fought a man all his life then stands up and tells how close he was to him and how special he was and speaks of his legacy. This is the hypocrisy of our times. David was not like this. Therefore he does not say I am sad, but rather directs the grief to those for whom it is fitting: "Daughters of Israel, weep over Shaul" - you, daughters of Israel, it is very fitting for you to grieve over the death of Shaul.
And regarding the meaning of "who clothed you in scarlet with fine linen," Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Nechemia disagreed. Rabbi Yehuda says: daughters of Israel - the actual daughters of Israel. Weep over Shaul, for when their husbands went out to war, he would feed and provide for them and clothe them in scarlet with fine linen. And some say that when they returned from war with the spoils, Shaul would take care to give to each and every one: here, take these ornaments and these special garments, and give them to your wife.
Rabbi Nechemia says that what is written, "daughters of Israel," is a metaphor: these are the Sanhedrins of Israel. "Weep over Shaul" - for when Shaul would hear a point of halacha coming from the mouth of a Torah scholar, he would rise and kiss him on his mouth. So great was his esteem and his love of Torah. And from here, incidentally, comes the expression "the lips shall kiss": when someone says something wonderful, we say "the lips shall kiss," meaning it is fitting to kiss him on his mouth.
אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבֹּרִים בְּתוֹךְ הַמִּלְחָמָה יְהוֹנָתָן עַל־בָּמוֹתֶיךָ חָלָל׃ - How the mighty have fallen in the midst of battle; Yonatan is slain upon your high places.
Now he turns to lament Yehonatan. Not only did Yehonatan fall, but the entire camp of warriors around him fell as well. And what is the difference between what he said about Shaul and what he says here? Shaul's warriors fell after the battle, once they had already been defeated and had fled; but Yehonatan's warriors fell at the start of the battle, when they had not yet fled and were still fighting. This is what astonishes him: "in the midst of the battle" - while still in the thick of the fight the warriors fell. Once they begin to flee it is understandable, for the beginning of a fall is flight, and the flight is the start of the defeat; but in the midst of battle, how did the warriors fall?
"Yehonatan, slain upon your high places" - you, Yehonatan, were upon the heights, on the mountains of the Gilboa, in an elevated place. And as we explained, one who fights from a high place has an advantage, and you should have had a strategic advantage over the Pelishtim. So how, then, did you fall slain?
צַר־לִי עָלֶיךָ אָחִי יְהוֹנָתָן נָעַמְתָּ לִּי מְאֹד נִפְלְאַתָה אַהֲבָתְךָ לִי מֵאַהֲבַת נָשִׁים׃ - I am distressed for you, my brother Yehonatan; you were very pleasant to me; your love was wondrous to me, more than the love of women.
"I am distressed for you" - I am pained and grieved for you exceedingly. "You were very pleasant to me" - your friendship, your companionship and your love were most pleasant to me. And the love with which you loved me and with which I loved you was more wondrous than the love of women.
And what does "than the love of women" mean? Some explain: more than a man loves a woman. And some explain, like the Ralbag: more than the love with which a woman loves her beloved. These are the words of the Ralbag, and unfortunately reality has not changed since then, and this is a matter of centuries ago: more wondrous, meaning more astonishing and unique, was Yehonatan's love for David than the love of women for their beloved, which is a very strong love, to the point that he may strike her and curse her and she will not lose any of her love for him because of this. He strikes her, curses her, and she still loves him, and she even goes and dismisses the complaint. This is something the mind cannot grasp. And just as the love of women for their beloved cannot be grasped by the mind, so David says: the love between me and you was a wondrous love, a supernatural love, even though there were all the reasons for him not to love me.
The Malbim explains that David laments here from two aspects. The first: from the aspect of Yehonatan's righteousness and goodness of heart, and this is "you were very pleasant to me" - your friendship and your closeness to me, because you were so righteous and unique, were very pleasant to me. And the second: from the aspect of the love itself. And he does not say "wondrous like the love of women" but rather "than the love of women," more than the love of women. And why? Because the love of women is a love of the pleasant and a love of the beneficial. Why does a man love a woman? Because it is good for him with her. Why does a woman love a man? Because it is good for her with him. It turns out that whom do we truly love? Ourselves. The love of women is self love, egotistical love; I am not interested in what is good for him, I am interested in what is good for me. But with us the love was not like that; rather it was a true love, a love on its high spiritual level, which is not for the sake of benefit.
And see the difference between what he said about Shaul and what he said about Yehonatan: about Shaul he said "Daughters of Israel, weep over Shaul, who clothed you in scarlet with luxuries" - why should you weep over Shaul? Because you derived benefit from him. In contrast, over Yehonatan I lament, for the love between us was not a love of benefit but a wholly spiritual love, not because it pays off for me or is worthwhile for me, and this is a superior and more unique love.
And according to this the Malbim explains what "more than the love of women" means: more than the love of the women I spoke of in the previous verse, namely the daughters of Israel who weep over Shaul. That is, the love between us was greater than the love with which the women loved Shaul for clothing them in scarlet with luxuries.
And I saw a most wonderful explanation from the Ben Ish Chai. There is a Gemara in Tractate Yevamot that gives advice on how a person should choose a wife and how he should choose a friend. "Nachot darga v'nasiv itta" - descend a level and take a wife. Let her be a little less than you in intelligence, a little less than you in income. And why? Because two kings cannot serve under one crown, and about the man it is said "and he shall rule over you." And if she understands more than you or her income is higher than yours, she will consequently disdain you and say: I know that he is talking nonsense, why should I bow my head? It will be very hard for her. But if you took one a bit lower in level, she nullifies herself to you, and the hierarchy in the home and the order of standing are preserved.
And regarding choosing a friend the Gemara says the opposite: "ul darga v'nasiv shushvina" - ascend a level and take yourself a friend. Do not choose someone less than you, but always someone greater than you, who will raise you up and elevate you. And it is written "and acquire for yourself a friend" - friends are acquired with money. If you want a person to be your friend and to truly receive from him, influence him, invest in him, give to him, and you will see that little by little the connection between you becomes strong.
The Ben Ish Chai now asks: David says "nifleata ahavatcha li" (your love to me was wonderful), yet it would seem more fitting to say "nifleata ahavati eilecha" (my love to you was wonderful) - after all, a person is speaking about himself, and he could have said that the love with which I love you is more wonderful than the love of women. Why does he suddenly speak about the love with which Yehonatan loved him?
The answer is that if we examine the matter, Yehonatan had no reason at all to take David as a friend. The rule is "ول דרגא ונסיב שושבינא," one takes a friend from a higher level. You, Yehonatan, are the son of the king and the heir to the throne, and who was David? An anonymous man, a shepherd, without lineage, and moreover descended from Rut the Moabite. What would draw you to David? David says: as a friend I cannot understand what you saw in me, for you should have sought a higher level. Rather, know that the love with which you love me is a love more wonderful than the love of women: you treated me the way a man chooses a wife - descending in level - and not the way a man chooses a friend. You came down a level and chose me as a friend. And this itself shows Yehonatan's greatness and righteousness, for he could have said: I need to seek a higher level, what have I to do with David. That is why David says specifically "nifleata ahavatcha li" (your love to me), and not "my love to you," for he marvels: it is a wonder in my eyes, how did you ever treat me in this way.
אֵיךְ נָפְלוּ גִבּוֹרִים וַיֹּאבְדוּ כְּלֵי מִלְחָמָה׃ - How have the mighty fallen, and the weapons of war perished!
Who are the "weapons of war"? Rashi says: these are Shaul and Yehonatan, who were the weaponry of Israel; they themselves were their instruments of war. And the Malbim explains: usually when mighty men fall, there are other mighty men to take their place who will use the weapons of war. But imagine that we have airplanes and all the pilots have died - what use are the airplanes? They will rust, there is nothing to be done with them. So too David says: we now have no replacement mighty men for Shaul and Yehonatan, and consequently the weapons of war that were their instruments will be lost, for there will be no one to use them. And the idea behind these words: we have no substitute for them - not for their might, not for their uniqueness, not for their righteousness, and not for their protection of all Israel. And this was the conclusion of David's lament over the death of Shaul.
David's entire lament is constructed as a single proof: the fall at Gilboa was not a natural course of events. We fought from the mountain, we were mighty men, Yehonatan did not retreat from the blood of the slain and Shaul did not recoil from the fat of the mighty, and the two of them were united, and in their life and in their death they were not divided - and nevertheless they fell. If so, the hand of Providence was in the matter. And on this basis David warns not to reveal this to the Pelishtim, laments the removal of the shield and the abundance from the mountains of Gilboa, directs the weeping over Shaul toward the daughters of Israel who benefited from his goodness, and eulogizes Yehonatan with a love that is not self-serving and cannot be grasped by reason - a love in which Yehonatan came down a level in order to take David as a friend. And he concludes: we have no substitute for mighty men such as these, and once they have fallen, even the weapons of war in our hands are lost.