ื‘ืกืดื“

Kavanot: How Are the Mighty Fallen

Thoughts on Tanach and the Davening

After David hears of Saulโ€™s death, and has the Amalekite lad killed, he has time to react to the news.

ื™ื– ื•ื™ืงื ืŸ ื“ื•ื“ ืืช ื”ืงื™ื ื” ื”ื–ืืช ืขืœ ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืขืœ ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื‘ื ื•ืƒ ื™ื— ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœืœืžื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืฉืช ื”ื ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื

He apparently starts ื”ืงื™ื ื” ื”ื–ืืช with ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœืœืžื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื”, but itโ€™s hard to see how that is part of the poem that follows. Itโ€™s more likely that this is a two-pasuk introduction to the chapters that follow, the elegy and the plan to teach the people of Judah to fight. He looks back at the past and plans for the future.

Bow to the Inevitable

We could look at ืœืœืžื“ ืงืฉืช as a generic term for teaching them to use weapons, but many of the commentators try to understand why specifically a bow:

ื‘ืขื‘ื•ืจ ืฉืจืื” ื›ื™ ืžื™ืชืช ืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื™ืชื” ื‘ืกื‘ืช ื™ืจืืชื• ืžื”ืžื•ืจื™ื ื‘ืงืฉืช ื•ืœื ื”ื™ื• ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืžื™ ืฉื™ื”ื™ื” ื‘ืงื™ ื‘ื–ื” ืืžืจ ื“ื•ื“ ืœืœืžื“ ืืช ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืฉืช ื›ื™ ื”ื•ื ืžื”ื ื‘ื—ืจื™ื ืฉื‘ื›ืœื™ ื”ืžืœื—ืžื”.

ืจืœื‘ืดื’, ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื:ื™ื—

In fact, there were those known to be ื‘ืงื™ ื‘ื–ื”:โ€Ž ืฉื‘ื˜ ื‘ื ื™ืžื™ืŸ was famous for its marksmanship, but presumably as the tribe of Saul they were disproportionately killed in the war. David felt it was Judahโ€™s responsibility to fill the gap.

Abarbanel suggests a tactical reason for emphasizing the bow, as a consequence of losing the war with the ืคืœื™ืฉืชื™ื:

ื›ืžื• ืฉืืžืจื• ืžืื ืฉื™ ืคืจื ื”ื ืงืจืื™ื ื˜ื•ืจืดืงื™ื ืฉื”ื ื‘ื ื•ืกื ื™ื›ื• ืืช ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ื”ื ื‘ืงืฉืช, ืœื–ื” ืืžืจ ืื—ืจื™ ืฉื”ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื”ืืžืชื™ื™ื ื”ืขื•ืžื“ื™ื ืขืœ ืžืจื•ืžื™ ืฉื“ื” ื›ื‘ืจ ืžืชื•, ืจืื•ื™ ื”ื•ื ืืดื› ืืœ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืขื ื”ื™ื•ืชื ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ ื›ื— ืฉื™ืœืžื“ื• ืœื™ืจื•ืช ื‘ืงืฉืช ื›ื“ื™ ืฉื™ืœื—ืžื• ืžืจื—ื•ืง ื•ื™ื ื•ืกื• ืžื”ืจื”, ืื—ืจื™ ืฉื”ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื”ืฉืœืžื™ื ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ื‘ื ื™ื• ืžืชื•, ื•ื–ื” ืื ื›ืŸ ืžื›ืœืœ ื”ืงื™ื ื” ื”ื™ื”.

ืื‘ืจื‘ื ืืœ, ืฉื

The Parthian shot was a military tactic made famous by the Parthians, an ancient Iranian people. The Parthian archers mounted on light horse, while retreating at a full gallop, would turn their bodies back to shoot at the pursuing enemy. The maneuver required superb equestrian skills, since the riderโ€™s hands were occupied by his bow. As the stirrup had not been invented at the time of the Parthians, the rider relied solely on pressure from his legs to guide his horse. The tactic also could be used during feigned retreat, with devastating effect.

This tactic was used by most Eurasian nomads, including the Scythians, Huns, Turks, Magyars, and Mongols, and it eventually spread to armies away from the Eurasian steppe, such as the Sassanid clibanarii and cataphracts.

Wikipedia, Parthian shot

The ืžืฉื‘ืฆื•ืช ื–ื”ื‘ suggests a metaphoric interpretation of ืงืฉืช based on the ื”ืขืžืง ื“ื‘ืจ on ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœื’:ื™ื‘ (citing a text not present in my edition):

ื›ื ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืœ ื™ื•ืกืฃ ื”ื ื” ืื ื›ื™ ืžืช; ื•ื”ื™ื” ืืœืงื™ื ืขืžื›ื ื•ื”ืฉื™ื‘ ืืชื›ื ืืœ ืืจืฅ ืื‘ืชื™ื›ืืƒ ื›ื‘ ื•ืื ื™ ื ืชืชื™ ืœืš ืฉื›ื ืื—ื“ ืขืœ ืื—ื™ืš; ืืฉืจ ืœืงื—ืชื™ ืžื™ื“ ื”ืืžืจื™ ื‘ื—ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื‘ืงืฉืชื™ืƒ

ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืคืจืง ืžื—

ื‘ื—ืจื‘ื™ ื•ื‘ืงืฉืชื™: ื”ื™ื ื—ื›ืžืชื• ื•ืชืคืœืชื•.

ืจืฉืดื™, ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืžื—:ื›ื‘

ื•ื”ืœื ื›ื‘ืจ ื ืืžืจ (ืชื”ืœื™ื ืžื“:ื–) ื›ื™ ืœื ื‘ืงืฉืชื™ ืื‘ื˜ื— ื•ื—ืจื‘ื™ ืœื ืชื•ืฉื™ืขื ื™? ืœื. ื—ืจื‘ื™ ื–ื• ืชืคืœื” ืงืฉืชื™ ื–ื• ื‘ืงืฉื”.

ื‘ื‘ื ื‘ืชืจื ืงื›ื’,ื

ืงืฉืช is a metaphor for prayer. David is determined to teach them what he already knows: (ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื™ื–:ืžื”)โ€Ž ืืชื” ื‘ื ืืœื™ ื‘ื—ืจื‘ ื•ื‘ื—ื ื™ืช ื•ื‘ื›ื™ื“ื•ืŸ; ื•ืื ื›ื™ ื‘ื ืืœื™ืš ื‘ืฉื ื”ืณ ืฆึพื‘ืื•ืช.

Just Books

When the text says ื”ื ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ, what is it talking about? What is this โ€œBook of the Straightโ€? (You might think itโ€™s a book about poker; volume 2 is โ€œThe Book of the Flushโ€.) Itโ€™s mentioned one other time in ืชื ืดืš:

ื•ื™ื“ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ื•ื™ืจื— ืขืžื“ ืขื“ ื™ืงื ื’ื•ื™ ืื™ื‘ื™ื• ื”ืœื ื”ื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ; ื•ื™ืขืžื“ ื”ืฉืžืฉ ื‘ื—ืฆื™ ื”ืฉืžื™ื ื•ืœื ืืฅ ืœื‘ื•ื ื›ื™ื•ื ืชืžื™ืืƒ

ื™ื”ื•ืฉื•ืข ื™:ื™ื’

It may be one of the other sources like ืกืคืจ ืžืœื—ืžื•ืช ื”ืณ or ื“ื‘ืจื™ ื”ื™ืžื™ื ืœืžืœื›ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” that are scattered throughout ืชื ืดืš:

ื•ื”ื ื” ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ ืœืคื™ ืžื” ืฉืื—ืฉื‘ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ื” ืžืคื•ืจืกื ืืฆืœื.

ืจืœื‘ืดื’, ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื:ื™ื—

ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš ืืช ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื”; ื›ื™ ืขืœ ืคื™ ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ื›ืจืชื™ ืืชืš ื‘ืจื™ืช ื•ืืช ื™ืฉืจืืœืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืช ืœื“:ื›ื–

ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ืืœ ืžืฉื” ื›ืชื‘ ื–ืืช ื–ื›ืจื•ืŸ ื‘ืกืคืจ ื•ืฉื™ื ื‘ืื–ื ื™ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข; ื›ื™ ืžื—ื” ืืžื—ื” ืืช ื–ื›ืจ ืขืžืœืง ืžืชื—ืช ื”ืฉืžื™ืืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืช ืคืจืง ื™ื–:ื™ื“

ื›ืชื‘ ืœืš: ืฆื•ื” ืฉื™ื›ืชื•ื‘ ื”ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ื‘ืกืคืจ ืžื™ื•ื—ื“, ืฉืขืœ ืคื™ ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื”ืืœื” ื›ืจืช ื‘ืจื™ืช ืฉื™ืœืš ืขืžื”ื, ื•ื›ื‘ืจ ื‘ืืจืชื™ ื‘ืคื™ืจื•ืฉ ื™ื”ื•ืฉืข, ืฉืกืคืจ ื–ื” ืงืจื ื‘ืฉื ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ.

ืžืœื‘ื™ืดื, ืฉืžื•ืช ืœื“:ื›ื–

But itโ€™s hard to imagine whatโ€™s so important about training Judah in marksmanship that warrants mentioning โ€œthereโ€™s more detail in this other bookโ€. ื—ื–ืดืœ claimed that it was not a contemporary source, but a much earlier one:

(ื™ื”ื•ืฉื•ืข ื™) ื•ื™ื“ื•ื ื”ืฉืžืฉ ื•ื™ืจื— ืขืžื“ ืขื“ ื™ืงื•ื ื’ื•ื™ ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ื• ื”ืœื ื”ื™ื ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ. ืžืื™ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ? ืืดืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืดืจ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ื” ืกืคืจ ืื‘ืจื”ื ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉื ืงืจืื• ื™ืฉืจื™ื ืฉื ืืณ (ื‘ืžื“ื‘ืจ ื›ื’) ืชืžื•ืช ื ืคืฉื™ ืžื•ืช ื™ืฉืจื™ื. ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืจืžื™ื–ื (ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืžื—) ื•ื–ืจืขื• ื™ื”ื™ื” ืžืœื ื”ื’ื•ื™ื. [ืื™ืžืชื™ ื™ื”ื™ื” ืžืœื ื”ื’ื•ื™ื?] ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืขืžื“ื” ืœื• ื—ืžื” ืœื™ื”ื•ืฉืขโ€ฆื›ืชื™ื‘ (ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื) ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืœืœืžื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืฉืช ื”ื ื” ื›ืชื•ื‘ื” ืขืœ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ. ืžืื™ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ? ืืดืจ ื—ื™ื™ื ื‘ืจ ืื‘ื ืืดืจ ื™ื•ื—ื ืŸ ื–ื” ืกืคืจ ืื‘ืจื”ื ื™ืฆื—ืง ื•ื™ืขืงื‘ ืฉื ืงืจืื• ื™ืฉืจื™ืโ€ฆื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืจืžื™ื–ื? (ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืžื˜) ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืชื” ื™ื•ื“ื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš ื™ื“ืš ื‘ืขื•ืจืฃ ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ืšโ€ฆืจืดื ืื•ืžืจ ื–ื” ืกืคืจ ืžืฉื ื” ืชื•ืจื”; ื•ืืžืื™ ืงืจื• ืœื™ื” ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ? ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ื•) ื•ืขืฉื™ืช ื”ื™ืฉืจ ื•ื”ื˜ื•ื‘ ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ ื”ืณ. ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืจืžื™ื–ื? (ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœื’) ื™ื“ื™ื• ืจื‘ ืœื•โ€ฆืจืณ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ืจ ื ื—ืžื ื™ ืืžืจ ื–ื” ืกืคืจ ืฉื•ืคื˜ื™ื; ื•ืืžืื™ ืงืจื• ืœื™ื” ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ? ื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ืฉื•ืคื˜ื™ื ื™ื–) ื‘ื™ืžื™ื ื”ื”ื ืื™ืŸ ืžืœืš ื‘ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืื™ืฉ ื”ื™ืฉืจ ื‘ืขื™ื ื™ื• ื™ืขืฉื”. ื•ื”ื™ื›ื ืจืžื™ื–ื?โ€ฆื“ื›ืชื™ื‘ (ืฉื•ืคื˜ื™ื ื) ืžื™ ื™ืขืœื” ืœื ื• (ื‘ืชื—ืœื”) ืืœ ื”ื›ื ืขื ื™ [ื‘ืชื—ืœื”] ืœื”ืœื—ื ื‘ื• ื•ื™ืืžืจ ื”ืณ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื™ืขืœื”.

ืขื‘ื•ื“ื” ื–ืจื” ื›ื”,ื

While all three possibilities are midrashic, I think the idea that ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ is ืกืคืจ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช is close to peshat. Itโ€™s entirely possible that the ancient name for that book was ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ (thereโ€™s no reason that a book has to be named for its first word). As Rashi points out in the beginning of ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช, there are almost no mitzvot in it. It is included in the Torah to teach us ืžื™ื“ื•ืช, like ื—ืกื“ and ืืžืช:

ื•ื›ืŸ ื”ืจื‘ื” ืœืžื“ื ื• ืžื”ืœื™ื›ื•ืช ื”ืื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื“ืจืš ืืจืฅ ืžื” ืฉืฉื™ื™ืš ืœืงื™ื•ื ื”ืขื•ืœื, ื”ืžื™ื•ื—ื“ ืœื–ื” ื”ืกืคืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ืกืคืจ ื”ื‘ืจื™ืื”. ื•ืžืฉื•ื ื”ื›ื™ ื ืงืจื ื›ืžื• ื›ืŸ ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ ืขืœ ืžืขืฉื” ืื‘ื•ืช ื‘ื–ื” ื”ืคืจื˜.

ื”ืขืžืง ื“ื‘ืจ, ืคืชื™ื—ื” ืœืกืคืจ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช

ื”ืžื”ืจืดืœ ืžืกื‘ื™ืจ ืฉืกืคืจ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช, ื”ื•ื ื”ืกืคืจ ืฉืžื“ื‘ืจ ืขืœ ื”ืžื™ื“ื•ืช ืฉืœ ืขื ื™ืฉืจืืœ. ืขืœ ื”ืžื™ื“ื•ืช ืฉื›ืœ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื™, ืฆืจื™ืš ืœืืฆื•ืจ ื‘ื ืคืฉื•. ื›ื™ื•ืŸ ืฉื”ืชื•ืจื” ื”ื™ื ืœืฉื•ืŸ ื”ื•ืจืื”.

โ€ฆ

ืžืฉื™ื‘ ื”ืจืณ ื—ื™ื™ื ื•ื™ื˜ืืœ ื›ืš: ืื™ืŸ ื”ืžื™ื“ื•ืช ืžื›ืœืœ ื”ืชืจื™ืดื’ ืžืฆื•ื•ืช, ื•ืืžื ื ื”ื ื”ื”ื›ื ื•ืช ื”ืขื™ืงืจื™ื•ืช ืืœ ืชืจื™ืดื’ ื”ืžืฆื•ื•ืชโ€ฆื›ื™ ื”ืžื™ื“ื•ืช ืžื•ื˜ื‘ืขื•ืช ื‘ืื“ื, ื•ืื™ืŸ ื›ื•ื— ื‘ื ืคืฉ ื”ืฉื›ืœื™ืช ืœืงื™ื™ื ืืช ื”ืžืฆื•ื•ืชโ€ฆืืœื ื‘ืืžืฆืขื•ืช ื”ื ืคืฉ ื”ื™ืกื•ื“ื™ืช.

ื”ืจื‘ ื‘ืจื•ืš ืจื•ื–ื ื‘ืœื•ื

Back to our story, note that the three options are all reading the reference in ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ to prophecies of Judahโ€™s mission: ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืืชื” ื™ื•ื“ื•ืš ืื—ื™ืš;โ€Ž ื™ื“ื™ื• ืจื‘ ืœื• and ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ื™ืขืœื”. Judah is destined to be the leader of the tribes, but for the past 300 plus years, since the days of ืขืชื ื™ืืœ, theyโ€™ve done nothing. They have been passive subjects of the Philistines for more than a hundred years. David is saying with ื™ืืžืจ ืœืœืžื“ ื‘ื ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื“ื” ืงืฉืช, โ€This ends here!โ€œ

I would suggest an additional understanding based on ืกืคืจ ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช,โ€Ž ืกืคืจ ื”ื™ืฉืจ. David has been dealing with the Philistines so far in only one way: bribery.

ื•ื”ื›ื” ื“ื•ื“ ืืช ื”ืืจืฅ ื•ืœื ื™ื—ื™ื” ืื™ืฉ ื•ืืฉื”; ื•ืœืงื— ืฆืืŸ ื•ื‘ืงืจ ื•ื—ืžืจื™ื ื•ื’ืžืœื™ื ื•ื‘ื’ื“ื™ื ื•ื™ืฉื‘ ื•ื™ื‘ื ืืœ ืื›ื™ืฉืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ื›ื–:ื˜

But we learn from Jacob that we need a three-pronged approach to foreign powers:

ื•ื™ืชืŸ ื‘ื™ื“ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื• ืขื“ืจ ืขื“ืจ ืœื‘ื“ื•; ื•ื™ืืžืจ ืืœ ืขื‘ื“ื™ื• ืขื‘ืจื• ืœืคื ื™ ื•ืจื•ื— ืชืฉื™ืžื• ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื“ืจ ื•ื‘ื™ืŸ ืขื“ืจืƒ

ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœื‘:ื™ื–

ื”ืชืงื™ืŸ ืขืฆืžื• ืœืฉืœืฉื” ื“ื‘ืจื™ื ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืŸ, ืœืชืคืœื” ื•ืœืžืœื—ืžื”.

ืจืฉืดื™, ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœื‘:ื˜, ื“ืดื” ื•ื”ื™ื” ื”ืžื—ื ื” ื”ื ืฉืืจ ืœืคืœื™ื˜ื”

And we see this approach other places in ืชื ืดืš, notably in ืžื’ื™ืœืช ืืกืชืจ. We know about the prayer and three days of fasting, and we certainly know about the war. But the ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื•ืจื™ื sees a hint to the third approach as well:

ื›ื™ ืื ื”ื—ืจืฉ ืชื—ืจื™ืฉื™ ื‘ืขืช ื”ื–ืืช ืจื•ื— ื•ื”ืฆืœื” ื™ืขืžื•ื“ ืœื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื ืžืžืงื•ื ืื—ืจ ื•ืืช ื•ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ืš ืชืื‘ื“ื•; ื•ืžื™ ื™ื•ื“ืข ืื ืœืขืช ื›ื–ืืช ื”ื’ืขืช ืœืžืœื›ื•ืชืƒ

ืืกืชืจ ื“:ื™ื“

ื‘ืณ: ื”ื›ื, ื•ืื™ื“ืš ืจื•ื— ื•ื”ืฆืœื” ื™ืขืžื•ื“ ืœื™ื”ื•ื“ื™ื. ืจืžื– ืœื“ื•ืจื•ืช ื”ื‘ืื™ื ืฉื™ืชื ื• ื“ื•ืจื•ืŸ ืœืฉืจื™ื”ื.

ื‘ืขืœ ื”ื˜ื•ืจื™ื ืขืœ ื”ืชื•ืจื”, ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืœื‘:ื™ื–,ื“ืดื” ื•ืจื•ื—

ืจื•ื— literally means space, respite. Bribery doesnโ€™t end problems; it delays the consequences of the problem, but only as long as the money keeps coming in.

When the money keeps rolling in, you donโ€™t ask how
Think of all the people guaranteed a good time now

Che, Evita, Act II

Sometimes thatโ€™s enough. But usually the other two approaches are needed. And David is going to use them, both the literal meaning of ืงืฉืช, an instrument of war, and the metaphoric meaning, of prayer and petition.


Now letโ€™s look at the elegy itself:

ื™ื˜ ื”ืฆื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืœ ื‘ืžื•ืชื™ืš ื—ืœืœ; ืื™ืš ื ืคืœื• ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ืืƒ
ื› ืืœ ืชื’ื™ื“ื• ื‘ื’ืช ืืœ ืชื‘ืฉืจื• ื‘ื—ื•ืฆืช ืืฉืงืœื•ืŸ; ืคืŸ ืชืฉืžื—ื ื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ืคืŸ ืชืขืœื–ื ื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ื”ืขืจืœื™ืืƒ
ื›ื ื”ืจื™ ื‘ื’ืœื‘ืข ืืœ ื˜ืœ ื•ืืœ ืžื˜ืจ ืขืœื™ื›ื ื•ืฉื“ื™ ืชืจื•ืžืช; ื›ื™ ืฉื ื ื’ืขืœ ืžื’ืŸ ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืžื’ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ืœื™ ืžืฉื™ื— ื‘ืฉืžืŸืƒ
ื›ื‘ ืžื“ื ื—ืœืœื™ื ืžื—ืœื‘ ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืงืฉืช ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ืœื ื ืฉื•ื’ ืื—ื•ืจ; ื•ื—ืจื‘ ืฉืื•ืœ ืœื ืชืฉื•ื‘ ืจื™ืงืืƒ
ื›ื’ ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื”ื ืื”ื‘ื™ื ื•ื”ื ืขื™ืžื ื‘ื—ื™ื™ื”ื ื•ื‘ืžื•ืชื ืœื ื ืคืจื“ื•; ืžื ืฉืจื™ื ืงืœื• ืžืืจื™ื•ืช ื’ื‘ืจื•ืƒ
ื›ื“ ื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืœ ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ื›ื™ื ื”; ื”ืžืœื‘ืฉื›ื ืฉื ื™ ืขื ืขื“ื ื™ื ื”ืžืขืœื” ืขื“ื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ืขืœ ืœื‘ื•ืฉื›ืŸืƒ
ื›ื” ืื™ืš ื ืคืœื• ื’ื‘ืจื™ื ื‘ืชื•ืš ื”ืžืœื—ืžื” ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ืขืœ ื‘ืžื•ืชื™ืš ื—ืœืœืƒ
ื›ื• ืฆืจ ืœื™ ืขืœื™ืš ืื—ื™ ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื ืขืžืช ืœื™ ืžืื“; ื ืคืœืืชื” ืื”ื‘ืชืš ืœื™ ืžืื”ื‘ืช ื ืฉื™ืืƒ
ื›ื– ืื™ืš ื ืคืœื• ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ื•ื™ืื‘ื“ื• ื›ืœื™ ืžืœื—ืžื”ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื

David starts addressing Israel directly. ื”ืฆื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ is the vocative: O beautiful Israel, how are the dead left on your highest places?

ื”ืฆื‘ื™ ื™ืฉืจืืœ: ื”ื”ืดื ื”ืดื ื”ืงืจื™ืื”โ€ฆื›ืœื•ืžืจ ืืชื” ืฉืืชื” ืืจืฅ ื—ืคืฅ ืื™ืš ื”ื™ื” ื–ื” ืฉืขืœ ื‘ืžื•ืชื™ืš ื ืคืœื• ื—ืœืœื™ื ื›ืืœื”.

ืจื“ืดืง ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ืคืจืง ื ืคืกื•ืง ื™ื˜

But thereโ€™s a subtlety here: a ื‘ืžื” also is a ืžื–ื‘ื—. Saul sacrificed himself for the sake of Israel:

ื ืจืื” ืฉืจืฆื” ืœืืžืจ, ืฉืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ืงืจื‘ืŸ ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ ืœื›ืคืจ ืขืœ ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืขืœ ื‘ืžืช ื”ืฆื™ื‘ื•ืจ.

ืžืฉื‘ืฆื•ืช ื–ื”ื‘, ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื:ื™ื˜

ืื™ืš ื ืคืœื• ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื is a sort of refrain that separates the two parts of the ืงื™ื ื”. The first is about Saul and the national loss; the second is about Jonathan and Davidโ€™s personal loss.

Feelings of Rejection

The contrast in the next line is between the joy of the Philistines (ืชืฉืžื—ื ื” ื‘ื ื•ืช ืคืœืฉืชื™ื) and the mourning of the Israelites in ื›ื“:โ€Ž ื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืืœ ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ื›ื™ื ื”.

Then the land of Israel itself should mourn. Read ืฉื“ื™ ืชืจื•ืžืช as part of the address to ื”ืจื™ ื‘ื’ืœื‘ืข: may their fields [not (carry over the ืืœ) not bring forth] their offerings.

ื’ืขืœ means โ€œrejectedโ€ and is a reference to the ืชื•ื›ื—ื”:

ืžื’ ื•ื”ืืจืฅ ืชืขื–ื‘ ืžื”ื ื•ืชืจืฅ ืืช ืฉื‘ืชืชื™ื” ื‘ื”ืฉืžื” ืžื”ื ื•ื”ื ื™ืจืฆื• ืืช ืขื•ื ื; ื™ืขืŸ ื•ื‘ื™ืขืŸ ื‘ืžืฉืคื˜ื™ ืžืืกื• ื•ืืช ื—ืงืชื™ ื’ืขืœื” ื ืคืฉืืƒ ืžื“ ื•ืืฃ ื’ื ื–ืืช ื‘ื”ื™ื•ืชื ื‘ืืจืฅ ืื™ื‘ื™ื”ื ืœื ืžืืกืชื™ื ื•ืœื ื’ืขืœืชื™ื ืœื›ืœืชื ืœื”ืคืจ ื‘ืจื™ืชื™ ืืชื; ื›ื™ ืื ื™ ื”ืณ ืืœืงื™ื”ืืƒ

ื•ื™ืงืจื ืคืจืง ื›ื•

But here Saul is rejected. ื”ืณ should have saved His king:

ืคื™ืจื•ืฉื• ื›ืŸ ื ื’ืขืœ ื›ืื™ืœื• ืœื ื”ื™ื” ืฉืื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื— ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืœืžืœืš.

ืจื“ืดืง ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื:ื›ื

The Ralbag and Abarbanel interpret this as part of the praise of Saul that follows:

ื•ื”ื ื” ื”ืชื—ื™ืœ ืœืฉื‘ื— ืžื’ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ืืžืจ ืฉื”ื•ื ื‘ืœืชื™ ืžืฉื•ื— ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ื•ืื•ืœื ืืžืจ ื–ื” ืœืคื™ ืžื” ืฉืื—ืฉื•ื‘ ื›ื™ ืžื’ืŸ ืืฉืจ ืœื ื™ืฉืชืžืฉื• ื‘ื• ื›ื™ ืื ืœืขืชื™ื ืจื—ื•ืงื™ื ื™ืฆื˜ืจืš ืœืžืฉื—ื• ื‘ืฉืžืŸ.

ืจืœื‘ืดื’ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื:ื›ื

ืจืดืœ ืฉืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื™ื” ืžื’ืŸ ื”ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื ืœื’ื‘ื•ืจืชื• ื•ืชืงืคื• ื‘ืœื™ ืžืฉื•ื— ื‘ืฉืžืŸ, ืจืดืœ ืœื ื‘ื‘ื—ื™ื ืช ื”ื™ื•ืชื• ืฉืื•ืœ ืžืฉื•ื— ื‘ืฉืžืŸ ืžืฉื•ื— ืืœืงื™ ื™ืขืงื‘, ืฉื™ื“ื•ืข ืฉื›ืœ ืžืœืš ื”ื•ื ืžื’ืŸ ืขืžื• ื›ื’ื‘ื•ืจ ื›ื—ืœืฉ, ืื‘ืœ ื‘ื‘ื—ื™ื ืช ืขืฆืžื• ื•ื–ืจื•ืขื• ื•ื›ื—ื• ื”ื™ื” ืžื’ืŸ ืฉืื•ืœ ื”ื•ื ื”ืžื’ื™ืŸ ื‘ืขื“ ื›ืœ ื”ื’ื‘ื™ืจื™ื.

ืื‘ืจื‘ื ืืœ, ืฉื

Fly Like an Eagle

The praise of Saul and Jonathan are straightforward, but I want to talk about ืžื ืฉืจื™ื ืงืœื•: they were swifter than eagles:

One of the most famous birds in the Torah is the nesher, the king of birds. Although many assume that this is the eagleโ€ฆit seems more likely that it refers to a vultureโ€”specifically, the griffon vulture. This spectacular bird has a wingspan that can measure eight feet and is the most magnificent bird of prey in Israel.

โ€ฆ

Many people feel uncomfortable with identifying the nesher as the vulture rather than the eagle. The reason for this is that the nesher is described in noble terms by scripture, and regarded as the king of birds in Jewish thought. Whereas people today perceive the eagle in this light, the vulture is commonly regarded as a loathsome creature.

However, aside from the fact that such sentiments do not counteract the powerful evidence that the nesher is the vulture, the truth of the matter is that the vulture was perceived very differently in the ancient world. The Talmud mentions the Arabian deity called Nesra (Nasr), which was a vulture-god; the Assyrians also worshipped the vulture as a god. The griffon vulture was the symbol of royalty in ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia. One of the most prominent goddesses of the early Nile was Nekhbet, the female counterpart of the king of the gods, who is most commonly depicted as a griffon vulture. It was only in the time of Alexander the Great that the eagle was substituted as a symbol of royalty, due to the greater familiarity that Europe had with it.

โ€ฆ

Still, since in the modern Western world, it is the eagle that conveys the imagery of the griffon vulture in the ancient world, the practice of translating nesher as eagle can be defended. Eagle is the translation of vulture for the modern English reader.

Rabbi Natan Slifkin, The Identity of the Nesher

Clothing Statements

Most commentators explain ืžืœื‘ืฉื›ื ืฉื ื™ as a reference to the spoils of war. But that is inconsistent with Saulโ€™s history; he never fought wars of conquest. The only recorded time his army took spoils, it was the ill-fated battle against Amalek. Ralbag has an alternate explanation that I prefer:

ืืžืจ ื–ื” ื›ื™ ืžืจื•ื‘ ื”ืฆืœื—ืชื• ืขืœ ื”ืคืœืฉืชื™ื ื”ื™ื• ื™ืฉืจืืœ ื‘ืฉืœื•ื” ื‘ื™ืžื™ื• ื•ืœื ืฉืœืœื• ืื•ืชื ืื•ื™ื‘ื™ื”ื ื‘ื™ืžื™ื• ื•ืœื–ื” ื”ื™ื” ื–ื” ืืœ ืฉื™ืœื‘ืฉื• ื‘ื ื•ืช ื™ืฉืจืืœ ืฉื ื™ ืขื ืขื“ื ื™ื ื•ื™ืขืœื• ืขื“ื™ ื–ื”ื‘ ืขืœ ืœื‘ื•ืฉืŸ.

ืจืœื‘ืดื’ ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื‘ ื:ื›ื“

Part II: This Time Itโ€™s Personal

In the second part of his elegy, David talks of how he loved Jonathan. Weโ€™ve previously discussed what that love means:

ื ื•ื™ื”ื™ ื›ื›ืœืชื• ืœื“ื‘ืจ ืืœ ืฉืื•ืœ ื•ื ืคืฉ ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื ืงืฉืจื” ื‘ื ืคืฉ ื“ื•ื“; ื•ื™ืื”ื‘ื• (ื•ื™ืื”ื‘ื”ื•) ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื›ื ืคืฉื•ืƒ ื‘ ื•ื™ืงื—ื”ื• ืฉืื•ืœ ื‘ื™ื•ื ื”ื”ื•ื; ื•ืœื ื ืชื ื• ืœืฉื•ื‘ ื‘ื™ืช ืื‘ื™ื•ืƒ ื’ ื•ื™ื›ืจืช ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ื•ื“ื•ื“ ื‘ืจื™ืช ื‘ืื”ื‘ืชื• ืืชื• ื›ื ืคืฉื•ืƒ ื“ ื•ื™ืชืคืฉื˜ ื™ื”ื•ื ืชืŸ ืืช ื”ืžืขื™ืœ ืืฉืจ ืขืœื™ื• ื•ื™ืชื ื”ื• ืœื“ื•ื“; ื•ืžื“ื™ื• ื•ืขื“ ื—ืจื‘ื• ื•ืขื“ ืงืฉืชื• ื•ืขื“ ื—ื’ืจื•ืƒ

ืฉืžื•ืืœ ื ืคืจืง ื™ื—

ืœ ื•ืขืชื” ื›ื‘ืื™ ืืœ ืขื‘ื“ืš ืื‘ื™ ื•ื”ื ืขืจ ืื™ื ื ื• ืืชื ื•; ื•ื ืคืฉื• ืงืฉื•ืจื” ื‘ื ืคืฉื•ืƒ ืœื ื•ื”ื™ื” ื›ืจืื•ืชื• ื›ื™ ืื™ืŸ ื”ื ืขืจ ื•ืžืช; ื•ื”ื•ืจื™ื“ื• ืขื‘ื“ื™ืš ืืช ืฉื™ื‘ืช ืขื‘ื“ืš ืื‘ื™ื ื• ื‘ื™ื’ื•ืŸ ืฉืืœื”ืƒ

ื‘ืจืืฉื™ืช ืคืจืง ืžื“

The Septuagint translates ืื”ื‘ืชืš as แผ€ฮณแฝฑฯ€ฮทฯƒแฝทฯ‚, agape. The Thayer Lexicon defines agape as โ€œto take pleasure in the thing, prize it above all other things, be unwilling to abandon it or do without it.โ€ Itโ€™s not an erotic, physical love.


One thing worth noting is that thereโ€™s no happy ending. ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื, even the sad ones, always end on a note of hope:

ื ืœืžื ืฆื— ืžื–ืžื•ืจ ืœื“ื•ื“ืƒ
ื‘ ืขื“ ืื ื” ื”ืณ ืชืฉื›ื—ื ื™ ื ืฆื—; ืขื“ ืื ื” ืชืกืชื™ืจ ืืช ืคื ื™ืš ืžืžื ื™ืƒ
ื’ ืขื“ ืื ื” ืืฉื™ืช ืขืฆื•ืช ื‘ื ืคืฉื™ ื™ื’ื•ืŸ ื‘ืœื‘ื‘ื™ ื™ื•ืžื;
ืขื“ ืื ื” ื™ืจื•ื ืื™ื‘ื™ ืขืœื™ืƒ
ื“ ื”ื‘ื™ื˜ื” ืขื ื ื™ ื”ืณ ืืœืงื™; ื”ืื™ืจื” ืขื™ื ื™ ืคืŸ ืื™ืฉืŸ ื”ืžื•ืชืƒ
ื” ืคืŸ ื™ืืžืจ ืื™ื‘ื™ ื™ื›ืœืชื™ื•; ืฆืจื™ ื™ื’ื™ืœื• ื›ื™ ืืžื•ื˜ืƒ
ื• ื•ืื ื™ ื‘ื—ืกื“ืš ื‘ื˜ื—ืชื™ ื™ื’ืœ ืœื‘ื™ ื‘ื™ืฉื•ืขืชืš;
ืืฉื™ืจื” ืœื”ืณ ื›ื™ ื’ืžืœ ืขืœื™ืƒ

ืชื”ื™ืœื™ื ืคืจืง ื™ื’

But this does not. This ends with the plaintive question, ืื™ืš ื ืคืœื• ื’ื‘ื•ืจื™ื. There is a time for mourning, and consolation is only empty words in the immediate aftermath of tragedy:

ืจื‘ื™ ืฉืžืขื•ืŸ ื‘ืŸ ืืœืขื–ืจ ืื•ืžืจ ืืœ ืชืจืฆื” ืืช ื—ื‘ืจืš ื‘ืฉืขืช ื›ืขืกื• ื•ืืœ ืชื ื—ืžื ื• ื‘ืฉืขื” ืฉืžืชื• ืžื˜ืœ ืœืคื ื™ื• ื•ืืœ ืชืฉืืœ ืœื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ื ื“ืจื• ื•ืืœ ืชืฉืชื“ืœ ืœืจืื•ืชื• ื‘ืฉืขืช ืงืœืงืœืชื•ืƒ

ืžืฉื ื” ืื‘ื•ืช ื“:ื™ื—

But David will take this tragedy and the determination that it instills in him, and go on to become the ื“ื•ื“ ื”ืžืœืš that we know.