שמואל א, פרק י״ד, פסוק ל׳

In the aftermath of a grueling battle, a strict fast imposed on the soldiers leads to a profound missed opportunity. Jonathan presents a highly logical military argument to highlight the physical toll this lack of food took on the army. He reasons that if merely a small taste of honey was enough to restore his own energy and brighten his eyes, a proper meal would have certainly done wonders for the exhausted troops [מצודת דוד, ביאור שטיינזלץ]. Had the soldiers been allowed to consume the captured enemy spoils, they would have been significantly invigorated and fought with the strength of mighty warriors [מצודת ציון, ביאור שטיינזלץ].

From a tactical standpoint, one might argue that pausing to eat would have halted the army's momentum and wasted precious time during a critical pursuit. Jonathan counters this concern by pointing out that the men could have simply eaten from the abandoned enemy supplies they stumbled upon. Since this food was already prepared and sitting right in front of them, there would have been no real delay. Furthermore, even if a brief moment was lost to eating, the overall benefit would have far outweighed the cost. A fresh surge of energy would have enabled the soldiers to attack with significantly more power [מלבי״ם].

The conclusion of Jonathan's argument is universally understood by commentators as a rhetorical question rather than a simple statement of fact. He is not observing that the defeat of the Philistines was limited; rather, he asks in exasperation if the victory would not have been far greater [מצודת ציון]. Ultimately, he concludes that if the men had been properly nourished, there is absolutely no doubt they would have delivered a much wider and far more decisive blow to the Philistines.