The text reminds us that the previous chapters described two contemporaneous battles: David vs. Amalek and Saul vs. Philistines. The contrast is palpable. Saul is dead and Israel is lost while David is victorious and has just gone around the cities of southern Judah giving out the spoils of war. We have talked about the fact that Israel did not eulogize Saul appropriately; Tosaphot suggests that this was from an awareness of Davidโs growing power. Even those loyal to Saul were afraid to say so explicitly:
The ืืฉืืฆืืช ืืื finds a hint to this in the wording: Saul is just ืฉืืื, with no title. He cites the gemara about how insulting that is:
The Bearer of Bad News
The messenger who comes ืืืืื ืงืจืขืื ืืืืื ืขื ืจืืฉื reminds us of a previous incident:
The navi is pointing out how ืกืคืจ ืฉืืืื ื ends exactly how it began: with Israel lost, under Philistine rule.
Kismet
The refugee identifies himself as an ืขืืืงื (which seems to escape Davidโs notice for the moment) which highlights the tragedy of the moment. Not only is Saul about to lose his kingdom to the enemy he has fought his whole career, he is now going to lose his life to the enemy that was his greatest public mistake. And there is a hint to his suffering from his greatest personal mistake, the slaughter of the ืืื ืื of ื ื, in his expression ืืืื ื ืืฉืืฅ:
All Dead
The question that bothers everybody is the contradiction between the refugeeโs story and the actual narrative of Saulโs death: did he commit suicide or was he killed by the ืขืืืงื? Radak suggests the ืขืืืงื was flat out lying:
He identifies himself as a ืขืืืงื, figuring โthe enemy of my enemy is my friend.โ Saul hates Amalek, Saul hates David, so David must love Amalek. What better way to curry favor with the big powerful warlord than to boast of having finished off his enemy? Of course, he is wrong. Badly wrong.
But the wording doesnโt actually imply a contradiction. Saul asks ืืชืชื ื, which is different from ืืืชื ื.
Miracle Max: Whoo-hoo-hoo, look who knows so much. It just so happens that your friend here is only MOSTLY dead. Thereโs a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive. With all dead, well, with all dead thereโs usually only one thing you can do.
Inigo Montoya: Whatโs that?
Miracle Max: Go through his clothes and look for loose change.
The Malbim points out that Saul was still alive (barely) after falling on his sword. ืืืชืช means the death blow, the coup de grace:
Weโve seen this a few times, most notably when David kill Goliath:
Tearing kriyah
One more note, on ืืืืืง ืืื ืืืืื ืืืงืจืขื. Tearing garments as a sign of mourning occurs multiple times in ืชื ืดื, but here is the source to tearing over a public tragedy.
Now, after mourning Saul all day, David comes back to interrogate the Amalekite, who clarifies his status (still probably thinking that he needs to play up being Amalekite to impress David).
And this is an important point. The command to wipe out Amalek is to destroy the nation, not literally the people. We are commanded to offer them peace:
David, of course, does not consider himself an enemy of Saul but his successor. He has the refugee killed in cold blood, which seems brutal and unwarranted, and rather than do it himself, he has one of his men kill him. The ืืฉืืฆืืช ืืื cites ืจื ืืฉื ืืื ืืืื that ืืื ืืื ืขืจืื means ืืืืืื ืืื ืขืจืื, as with Avimelech (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื:ื)โ ืืืืืจ ืืืืืื ืื ืืืช ืขืฉืืช ืื ื; ืืืขื ืฉืื ืืื ืืขื ืืช ืืฉืชื ืืืืืช ืขืืื ื ืืฉืื. He hypothesises that this was Avishai, who told David when they came upon Saul in the cave:
But why kill him at all?
I think the Rambamโs ืืืจืืช ืฉืขื here is not the ืืืจืืช ืฉืขื of a ื ืืื (where ืืณ commands a violation of what we understand ืืณ's will) or the halachic ืืืจืืช ืฉืขื (where we have two valid competing halachic principles, and and social reality leads us to choose one that would not usually be chosen). I think he is defining ืืื ืืืืืช, that a king has the power of life and death, and decided that the precendentโallowing a subject to kill the king, even when the king commands itโwas too dangerous to allow the ืขืืืงื to live.
Alea iacta est
This, then, is a defining moment for David. I see this as similar to Julius Caesar on the banks of the Rubicon, deciding whether to enter Rome and start a civil war. David has been acting like a king in Ziklag, but with this act he is either a halachic king or a common murderer. He knows this is the law; he had a similar conversation with Avigail about killing Naval:
This was his statement: Saul is dead. I am now the legitimate king of all Israel with all the power that this entails.