David’s lament reaches a poetic climax as he turns his grief toward the very battlefield where the tragedy unfolded. Addressing the ridge of Gilboa, an extension of the Samarian mountains where the fighting spread [ביאור שטיינזלץ], he curses the landscape [רש״י, מצודת ציון, רד״ק]. As a sign of mourning for Saul, David calls for nature’s blessings to be withheld, declaring that neither dew nor rain should fall upon these mountains, nor should they possess fields of offerings. This negation applies to the entire landscape [מצודת דוד, רד״ק]. The primary approach among commentators is that David curses the fertile fields so they will no longer produce high-quality crops fit for holy offerings. Some directly connect the lack of crops to the withholding of rain, noting that rain falls in the merit of these offerings; if the offerings cease, the heavenly blessing of rain will naturally stop as well [אלשיך, מלבי״ם]. Taking a different perspective, this declaration can be read as a rhetorical expression of astonishment: How could dew and rain possibly continue to fall, and how could this remain a holy land, after such a terrible disaster occurred upon it? [אברבנאל].
The justification for this severe curse is the desecration of the warriors' shields. The shields were rejected, cast away, and treated as an abomination [מצודת ציון, רלב״ג, רד״ק]. Like a vessel violently expelling its contents [רש״י], or an object deeply stained with blood [ביאור שטיינזלץ], the leather shields of the fallen heroes lost all their value and purpose [רש״י, מצודת ציון, ביאור שטיינזלץ].
The imagery of a shield left without anointing oil is understood in two primary ways. The first approach focuses on the physical reality of ancient warfare. Warriors routinely smeared their leather shields with oil to create a slick surface, causing enemy weapons to slide off rather than pierce the material. In his grief, David laments that Saul’s shield seemingly expelled its protective oil, leaving it broken, abandoned, and unable to stop the arrows that ultimately struck the king [רש״י, מצודת דוד, רד״ק, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Conversely, the absence of oil can be viewed as a testament to Saul’s relentless bravery. A dry shield indicates constant use on the battlefield, unlike resting shields that sit in storage and require regular oiling and maintenance [רלב״ג, אברבנאל]. In this light, Saul's shield was not anointed with oil, but rather with the blood of his enemies [אברבנאל].
The second approach interprets the shield metaphorically, representing Saul himself or his spiritual standing. The imagery suggests a tragic reversal, leaving Saul completely stripped of his royal status, as though he had never been anointed king at all [רד״ק, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Alternatively, the shield symbolizes Saul’s immense personal courage, highlighting that he protected the nation through his own physical might rather than relying solely on the authority of his anointment [אברבנאל]. Another view suggests the shield represents Saul’s past merits and good deeds, which ultimately failed to protect him in his final battle [מלבי״ם]. Finally, a close reading of the text's specific phrasing—referring to "the" oil—reveals that Saul was never anointed with the primary anointing oil that was later used for David. Because of this, and without David by his side in battle, Saul ultimately lacked God's providence [אלשיך].