Tanakh

וְעֵלִ֖י זָקֵ֣ן מְאֹ֑ד וְשָׁמַ֗ע אֵת֩ כׇּל־אֲשֶׁ֨ר יַעֲשׂ֤וּן בָּנָיו֙ לְכׇל־יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְאֵ֤ת אֲשֶֽׁר־יִשְׁכְּבוּן֙ אֶת־הַנָּשִׁ֔ים הַצֹּ֣בְא֔וֹת פֶּ֖תַח אֹ֥הֶל מוֹעֵֽד׃ 

"Now when Eli became exceedingly old, he heard about all that his sons were doing to all Israel: how they were lying with the women who were acting-as-a-workforce at the entrance to the Tent of Appointment." — Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 2:22; 1995 Schocken Bible Everett Fox translation

Talmud, Midrash, and Commentary

סָבַר לַהּ כְּרַב, דְּאָמַר רַב: פִּנְחָס לֹא חָטָא. מַקִּישׁ חָפְנִי לְפִנְחָס: מַה פִּנְחָס לֹא חָטָא — אַף חָפְנִי לֹא חָטָא. אֶלָּא מָה אֲנִי מְקַיֵּים ״אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכְּבֻן אֶת הַנָּשִׁים״ — מִתּוֹךְ שֶׁשִּׁהוּ אֶת קִינֵּיהֶן, שֶׁלֹּא הָלְכוּ אֵצֶל בַּעֲלֵיהֶן, מַעֲלֶה עֲלֵיהֶן הַכָּתוּב כְּאִילּוּ שְׁכָבוּם. 

"The Gemara explains: Rabbi Yonatan holds in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as Rav said: Pinehas did not sin. And the verse juxtaposes Hophni to Pinehas; just as Pinehas did not sin, so too Hophni did not sin. The Gemara asks: How, then, do I establish the meaning of the verse: “Now Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Israel; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting” (I Samuel 2:22), which indicates otherwise? The Gemara answers: Since the sons of Eli delayed sacrificing the bird-offerings of women who had given birth, a pair of doves brought as part of the purification process, and this delay caused the women not to go to their husbands in timely fashion, the verse ascribes to Hophni and Pinehas liability as if they had lain with them. They were guilty of nothing more than negligence and carelessness." — Shabbat 55b:13; William Davidson Talmud

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: אַרְבַּע צְווֹחוֹת צָוְחָה עֲזָרָה. רִאשׁוֹנָה: צְאוּ מִכָּאן בְּנֵי עֵלִי שֶׁטִּימְּאוּ הֵיכַל ה׳. 

"Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that the Sages taught: The people in the Temple courtyard all cried four cries, as they were in agreement over various issues (Pardes Rimonim). The first cry was: 'Leave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary' (see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok." — Pesachim 57a:9; William Davidson Talmud

Date Finished:

April 26, 2025

Description:

I drew the High Priest Eli's elder son Chofni and an original character named Eglah, who is related to Achinoam (cousin, sister, or sister-in-law is still unclear). Shaul defends Eglah against Chofni (not drawn yet). This is what makes Achinoam want to marry Shaul in the first place. Shaul reported this to Eli, but Eli failed to rebuke his sons sufficiently, leading to the entire lineage getting cursed. Because Eli and his line did nothing about ordinary Israelite women getting sexually harassed, Shaul held a grudge against the House of Eli and the House of Eli held a grudge against Shaul for essentially deposing them.

My Interpretation:

Given the lack of clarity on whether or not Pinchas was involved, I decided to only draw Chofni here. However, I definitely see Chofni at least as a predator against women who brought offerings and women who worked at the Sanctuary and Pinchas was at least an accomplice to his brother. 

I strongly disagree with Rabbi Yonatan's commentary that the sons of Eli did nothing wrong sexually given that another part of the Talmud also records their misdeeds. The Gemara also disagrees with this interpretation since it goes against the plain meaning of the text (Shabbat 55b:19). What makes their deeds extra disgusting comes from how the women who did tasks contributed mirrors to the Mishkan (Vayakhel, Shemot (Exodus), 38:8). Rashi commented how these women's contributions helped the people survive in Egypt (Rashi on Exodus 38:8). Rabbeinu Bahya recounts that these mirrors made up the basin where the priests washed (Rabbeinu Bahya, Shemot 38:8). The only other time these women are mentioned is in reference to how Eli's sons lay with them (Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 2:22). Notably however, these women are not blamed for the misdeeds of Eli's sons. The punishment from Hashem also falls against Chofni, Pinchas, and Eli with a curse declared against the House of Eli alone. Similarly, when Avshalom sexually assaults his father's wives and concubines, only Avshalom is blamed. There's also Biblical scholarship suggesting the Eli narrative may have served a narrative purpose to justify the historical King Shaul's rise to power and his removal of Eli's house at Nov (Olyan 2020).

Therefore, I interpret this as a case of clear sexual harassment. Because Eli's sons were priests, their sexual harassment of these women perverted a sacred space. They mimicked idolatrous practices of soliciting sex in temples and spitting on the gifts that their female ancestors gave the priests to wash their faces in every day and allowed them to exist. If what the Talmud says is true in that the women they bothered were married, that makes everything worse in the sexual crimes department since adultery is a crime defined as having sex with a married woman. Jews are supposed to die rather than commit these crimes and yet here these priests' sons are.

It also feeds into the perilous status of women going into the monarchic era since Shoftim ends with the episode of the Levite's Concubine to show the people's moral decay. Ultimately, the war wasn't conducted because of concern about women but rather to sate the men's stained honor since they multiplied the crime of the Levite's Concubine six hundred times over with the women of Yavesh-Gilead and Shiloh. Sh'muel Bet also features two to three sexual assault narratives dependent on your interpretation: 1) Batsheva by David, 2) Tamar bat David by Amnon, and 3) David's wives and concubines at Avshalom's hands. This contasts sharply with the line saying to the daughters of Yisrael to weep over Shaul.

Regardless of Eli's weak disapproval, Tanakh conveys a powerful message that sexual harassment is not to be tolerated, and that enabling cultures ultimately lead to ruin. At the same time, the Book of Sh'muel and the Book of Kings only show but does not address the slow erosion of women's rights within Tanakh.

Names: 

Chofni (חׇפְנִי֙) means "pugilist/boxer" If you divided Chofni's name into parts, the first letter means "engraving" while the rest means "face/surface/appearance" or "wrath/anger." In certain ways, sexual harassment and abuse can permanently scar victims leaving an engraving upon them.

Eglah means calf.

Tanakh

וְלֹֽא־יָסַ֨ף שְׁמוּאֵ֜ל לִרְא֤וֹת אֶת־שָׁאוּל֙ עַד־י֣וֹם מוֹת֔וֹ כִּֽי־הִתְאַבֵּ֥ל שְׁמוּאֵ֖ל אֶל־שָׁא֑וּל וַיי נִחָ֔ם כִּֽי־הִמְלִ֥יךְ אֶת־שָׁא֖וּל עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל׃ {פ}

"And Shemuel did not see Sha'ul again until the day of his death, for Shemuel was mourning over Sha'ul, while Hashem had repented that he had made Sha'ul king over Israel." — Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 15:35; 1995 Schocken Bible Everett Fox translation

Talmud, Midrash, and Commentary

וַיְשַׁסֵּף. חִתְּכוֹ לְאַרְבַּע, וְאֵין לַתֵּיבָה זוֹ דִּמְיוֹן וְתַרְגּוּם וַיְשַׁסֵּף, ״וּפָשַׁח״. וּבַגְּמָרָא שֶׁלָּנוּ יֵשׁ הֲוָה מְפַשַּׁח וְיָהִיב לָן אֲלוּתָא, כְּלוֹמַר בּוֹקֵעַ: 

"[Shemuel] cut. He cut him [Agag] into four pieces. This word has no likeness [in Scripture]. The Targum renders וַיְשַׁסֵּף (vay'shafer) as וּפָשַׁח (ufashach). And in our Gemara we find, 'he broke off [מפשח] a branch, and gave us several twigs,' meaning that he split." — Rashi on I Samuel 15:33:2; Metsudah Tanach Series Lakewood, NJ

אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא: אַקְפִּיץ עָלָיו זִקְנָה. הַיְינוּ דִּכְתִיב׃

"Therefore, the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: I will spring old age upon him and everyone will think Shmuel is elderly." — Taanit 5b:6; William Davidson Talmud (Koren-Steinsaltz translation)

"Yes, Saul disobeyed Samuel and refused to execute his royal adversary; yes he gave in to his feelings, his compassion, and is his own victim. Is that a reason to condemn him irrevocably? Yes, says Samuel, because Saul is too kind, too charitable; because he is unwilling to behead a human being, be it his enemy, he is doomed to lose his kingdom. Between the voices of heaven and his heart, he chooses to listen to his heart." — Elie Wiesel, Saul, 79; Five Biblical Portraits with a New Introduction (2023)

"To Samuel, identifying and responding to the Voice is straightforward: God willfully crosses our path to make us follow God’s sovereign will. There are no differences of tone or timbre, no shades of meaning to decipher. Samuel’s palette of life is black and white." — Rabbi Karen Soria, Shabbat Zachor, The Women's Haftarah Commentary 269-274

Date Finished:

January 8, 2025

Description:

I wanted to draw a picture of Sh'muel angry at Shaul before he departed from Shaul forever until his death. I wanted to play around with background and expressions.

Tanakh

וַיָּ֥שׇׁב שְׁמוּאֵ֖ל אַחֲרֵ֣י שָׁא֑וּל וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ שָׁא֖וּל לַיהֹוָֽה׃ {ס} 

"But Sh'muel turned back from following Saul, and Saul went to worship Hashem." — Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 15:31; 2018 Robert Alter translation

Talmud, Midrash, and Commentary

״וַיָּרֶב בַּנָּחַל״, אָמַר רַבִּי מָנִי: עַל עִסְקֵי נַחַל. בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְשָׁאוּל: ״לֵךְ וְהִכִּיתָ אֶת עֲמָלֵק״, אָמַר: וּמָה נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת אָמְרָה תּוֹרָה הָבֵא עֶגְלָה עֲרוּפָה — כׇּל הַנְּפָשׁוֹת הַלָּלוּ, עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. 

וְאִם אָדָם חָטָא, בְּהֵמָה מֶה חָטְאָה? וְאִם גְּדוֹלִים חָטְאוּ, קְטַנִּים מֶה חָטְאוּ? יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: ״אַל תְּהִי צַדִּיק הַרְבֵּה״. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ שָׁאוּל לְדוֹאֵג: ״סוֹב אַתָּה וּפְגַע בַּכֹּהֲנִים״, יָצְאָה בַּת קוֹל וְאָמְרָה לוֹ: ״אַל תִּרְשַׁע הַרְבֵּה״. 

§ Having mentioned the verse about Saul, the Gemara proceeds to interpret more of that passage: 'And Saul came to the city of Amalek and he strove in the valley” (I Samuel 15:5). Rabbi Mani said: This means that Saul strove with God, as it were, concerning the matter of the valley. At the time when the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Saul: “Now go and attack Amalek and proscribe all that belongs to him; do not pity him, but kill men and women alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and sheep alike, camel and donkey alike” (I Samuel 15:3), Saul countered and said: Now, if on account of one life that is taken, in a case where a slain person’s body is found and the murderer is unknown, the Torah said to bring a heifer whose neck is broken to a barren valley, in the atonement ritual described in Deuteronomy 21:1–9, all the more so must I have pity and not take all these Amalekite lives.

And he further reasoned: If the men have sinned, in what way have the animals sinned? Why, then, should the Amalekites’ livestock be destroyed? And if the adults have sinned, in what way have the children sinned? A Divine Voice then came forth and said to him: “Do not be overly righteous” (Ecclesiastes 7:16). That is to say: Do not be more merciful than the Creator Himself, Who has commanded you to do this, for to do so would not be an indication of righteousness but of weakness. At a later time, when Saul said to Doeg: 'Turn around and strike down the priests, and Doeg the Edomite turned around and struck down the priests, and he killed on that day eighty-five men who wore the linen ephod, and he struck Nob the city of priests by the sword, man and woman alike, infants and sucklings alike, oxen and donkeys and sheep, by the sword' (I Samuel 22:18–19), a Divine Voice came forth and said to him: "Do not be overly wicked' (Ecclesiastes 7:17)." — William Davidson Talmud Yoma 22b:8-9; Koren Steinsaltz translation

"'Samuel turned back from Saul.' All English versions render this, erroneously, to indicate that Samuel nevertheless accompanied Saul to the sacrifice. But the expression 'turn back with' (shuv 'im) as in verse 30 and "turn back from [literally, after]" (shuv ‘aharei) are antonyms, the latter meaning unambiguously "to abandon." (It is precisely the latter idiom that we see in G-d's condemnation of Saul in v. 11). Samuel is completing his rejection of Saul here by refusing to accompany him in the cult, shaming him by forcing him to offer the sacrifice without the officiating of the man of G-d." — Robert Alter's note in 'The Hebrew Bible' on 1 Sam 15:31

"There is great pathos in this haftarah -- first. because Saul's sin is not a flagrant rejection of divine authority and second, because his repeated confessions and appeals for divine forgiveness are rejected. The reader is confronted with the austerity and stringency of God's demands and the brutality demanded of the Israelite nation. Mercy is prohibited; no one and nothing may be "Spared." The war against the Amalekites is presented as a just war, punishing an offense centuries old. Rejection or reinterpretation of the absolute orders is completely out of the question. whether as an actual event or as a literary case setting an example, Sam 15:1-34 confronts us with a fierce and uncompromising theology. Its liturgical recitation, yearly, requires repeated moral and theological reflection." — Michal Fishbane, Etz Hayim 1280-1281

"But the burden is too much for Saul. He has no time to emerge from his small chrysalis—his tribe, the smallest of all; his family, the most junior of the tribe—to the immense responsibility of kingship. His wings have no time to dry and strengthen properly, so he acts precipitously, as in 13:8–14 or 14:26–35. Saul rushes to please God, to pacify the people, to placate Samuel. But Saul is empty inside." — Rabbi Karen Soria, Shabbat Zachor, The Women's Haftarah Commentary 269-274

Date Finished:

March 29, 2025

Description:

I decided to use the Alter translation for this version. It makes a lot more sense for Sh'muel to completely leave Shaul behind and force Shaul to sacrifice without Sh'muel.

This is the companion piece to "Sh'muel HaNavi after Agag." Shaul would never be the same after this incident since after this episode, his mental health truly spirals downward. What could have been interpreted as hypomanic or manic episodes of prophecy before turn into dark depressive episodes and the agitated mixed episodes seen later in Shaul's life. It also serves as the bridge between "Young Shaul" and "Older Shaul."

Tanakh

וַתִּכְבַּ֤ד הַמִּלְחָמָה֙ אֶל־שָׁא֔וּל וַיִּמְצָאֻ֥הוּ הַמּוֹרִ֖ים אֲנָשִׁ֣ים בַּקָּ֑שֶׁת וַיָּ֥חֶל מְאֹ֖ד מֵהַמּוֹרִֽים׃

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר שָׁאוּל֩ לְנֹשֵׂ֨א כֵלָ֜יו שְׁלֹ֥ף חַרְבְּךָ֣ ׀ וְדׇקְרֵ֣נִי בָ֗הּ פֶּן־יָ֠ב֠וֹאוּ הָעֲרֵלִ֨ים הָאֵ֤לֶּה וּדְקָרֻ֙נִי֙ וְהִתְעַלְּלוּ־בִ֔י וְלֹ֤א אָבָה֙ נֹשֵׂ֣א כֵלָ֔יו כִּ֥י יָרֵ֖א מְאֹ֑ד וַיִּקַּ֤ח שָׁאוּל֙ אֶת־הַחֶ֔רֶב וַיִּפֹּ֖ל עָלֶֽיהָ׃ 

וַיַּ֥רְא נֹשֵֽׂא־כֵלָ֖יו כִּ֣י מֵ֣ת שָׁא֑וּל וַיִּפֹּ֥ל גַּם־ה֛וּא עַל־חַרְבּ֖וֹ וַיָּ֥מׇת עִמּֽוֹ׃ 

וַיָּ֣מׇת שָׁא֡וּל וּשְׁלֹ֣שֶׁת בָּנָיו֩ וְנֹשֵׂ֨א כֵלָ֜יו גַּ֧ם כׇּל־אֲנָשָׁ֛יו בַּיּ֥וֹם הַה֖וּא יַחְדָּֽו׃ 

"The battle was heavy around Sha'ul; the shooters, the men of the bow, found him, and he was seriously wounded* by the shooters.

So Sha'ul said to his weapons bearer: 'Draw your sword and run me through with it, lest these Foreskinned Ones come and run me through and deal wantonly with me!' But the weapons bearer would not because he was exceeding araid, so Sha'ul took the sword and fell on it.

And his weapons bearer saw that Sha'ul was dead, so he too fell on his sword and died with him.

Thus died Sha'ul and his three sons and his weapons bearer, indeed, all his men, on that day, together." — Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 31:3-6; 1995 Schocken Bible Everett Fox translation

וַיֹּ֣אמֶר אֵלַ֗י עֲמׇד־נָ֤א עָלַי֙ וּמֹ֣תְתֵ֔נִי כִּ֥י אֲחָזַ֖נִי הַשָּׁבָ֑ץ כִּֽי־כׇל־ע֥וֹד נַפְשִׁ֖י בִּֽי׃ 

וָאֶעֱמֹ֤ד עָלָיו֙ וַאֲמֹ֣תְתֵ֔הוּ כִּ֣י יָדַ֔עְתִּי כִּ֛י לֹ֥א יִֽחְיֶ֖ה אַחֲרֵ֣י נִפְל֑וֹ וָאֶקַּ֞ח הַנֵּ֣זֶר ׀ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־רֹאשׁ֗וֹ וְאֶצְעָדָה֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עַל־זְרֹע֔וֹ וָאֲבִיאֵ֥ם אֶל־אֲדֹנִ֖י הֵֽנָּה׃

"He [Shaul] said to me [the Amalekite]: 'Now stand over me and dispatch me, for dizziness has come upon me, though there is still life in me!'

So I stood over him and dispatched him since I knew that he could not live after his having fallen; then I took the diadem that was on his head and the bracelet that was on his arm, and have brought them to my lord here." — Sh'muel Bet (Samuel II) 1:9-10; 1995 Schocken Bible Everett Fox translation

*: the word vayachel can mean "tremble/be anguished/pained," so some translations suggest that Shaul HaMelech was not seriously wounded but seriously dreaded the archers. Because Hebrew has less words than English, it could mean he dreaded the archers and was seriously wounded by them.

Talmud and Midrash

תָּנוּ רַבָּנַן: חֲמִשָּׁה נִבְרְאוּ מֵעֵין דּוּגְמָא שֶׁל מַעְלָה, וְכוּלָּן לָקוּ בָּהֶן. שִׁמְשׁוֹן בְּכֹחוֹ, שָׁאוּל בְּצַוָּארוֹ, אַבְשָׁלוֹם בִּשְׂעָרוֹ, צִדְקִיָּה בְּעֵינָיו, אָסָא בְּרַגְלָיו. 

"The Sages taught in a baraita: Five individuals were created with a characteristic that is akin to a representation of the One on High, and they were all stricken by that characteristic. Samson was glorified in his strength, Saul in his neck (see I Samuel 9:2), Absalom in his hair, Zedekiah in his eyes, and Asa in his feet." — Sotah 10a:10

שָׁאוּל בְּצַוָּארוֹ, דִּכְתִיב: ״וַיִּקַּח שָׁאוּל אֶת הַחֶרֶב וַיִּפֹּל עָלֶיהָ״. 

"Shaul was smitten in his neck, as it is written: 'Therefore, Shaul took his sword and fell upon it'; he fell with his neck upon the sword." — Sotah 10a:12, William Davidson Tanakh (Koren Steinsaltz)

רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים נִתְנַבְּאוּ בְּחַיֵּיהֶם, וּשְׁמוּאֵל נִתְנַבֵּא בְּחַיָּיו וּלְאַחַר מוֹתוֹ, שֶׁאָמַר שְׁמוּאֵל לְשָׁאוּל ״אִם אַתָּה שׁוֹמֵעַ לַעֲצָתִי לִנְפֹּל בַּחֶרֶב וּתְהֵא מִיתָתְךָ כַּפָּרָה עָלֶיךָ וִיהֵא גוֹרָלְךָ עִמִּי בַּמָּקוֹם שֶׁאֲנִי שָׁם״, וְשָׁמַע שָׁאוּל לַעֲצָתוֹ וְנָפַל בַּחֶרֶב הוּא וְכָל בָּנָיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וַיָּמָת שָׁאוּל וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת בָּנָיו״. לָמָּה? שֶׁיְּהֵא חֶלְקוֹ עִם שְׁמוּאֵל הַנָּבִיא לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ״וּמָחָר אַתָּה וּבָנֶיךָ עִמִּי״. מַה הוּא ״עִמִּי״? רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר: עִמִּי בִּמְחִיצָתִי. 

"Rabbi Jochanan said: All the prophets prophesied in their lifetime, and Samuel prophesied in his lifetime, and after his death, because Samuel said to Saul: 'If thou wilt hearken to my advice to fall by the sword, then shall thy death be an atonement for thee, and thy lot shall be with me in the place where I abide.' Saul harkened to his advice, and fell by the sword, he and all his sons, as it is said, 'So Saul died, and his three sons' (1 Sam. 31:6). Why? So that his portion might be with Samuel the prophet in the future life, as it is said, "And to morrow shalt thou and thy sons be with me" (1 Sam. 28:19). What is the meaning of 'with me'? Rabbi Jochanan said: 'With me in my division in heaven.'" — Pikrei DeRabbi Eliezer 33:12; 1916 Gerald Friedlander translation

Date Finished:

March 23, 2025

Description: 

I've seen a bunch of artwork depicted with Shaul falling upon his sword via the chest (associated more with a quicker death of seconds to minutes) or the abdomen (more often in art; usually associated with a slower death over hours from blood loss and shock). If we are to take all accounts of death as true, then the death was not quick. Aiming for the center of mass would have been difficult especially considering Early Iron Age scale armor. We know that Shaul owned a bronze helmet, a breastplate or general armor, and a leather jerkin and that they were too heavy or big for David to walk in (Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 17:39). Scale armor has a long history of use since the Bronze Age in Egypt allowing high mobility, flexibility, and protection but can be weak against arrows. However, the Talmud claims that Shaul fell on the sword neck first, which would have been more exposed than the torso, and I wanted to show that here.

Neck wounds from stabbing can take four hours to death on average depending on the type of damage (vagal nerve: seconds; artery: seconds to minutes; vein: minutes to hours; airway: hours) (Chelik 2021). 

The word shavatz (שָּׁבָ֑ץ) has an ambiguous translation. Fox translated it as dizziness. Chabad translated it as shudders. Shavatz also be translated as cramps, agony, or anguish. In modern Hebrew, it translates to stroke, fit, apoplexy, paralysis, seizure, spasm, or convulsion. Based on the Amalekite's account, there was clear weakness since Shaul leaned on his spear (Sh'muel Bet (Samuel II) 1:6). If translated as dizziness, then that could suggest blood loss via hemorrhage. Alternatively, the shavatz might be associated with talking itself, which implies an airway injury. I interpreted it here as small vessel venous injury combined with airway injury, which takes more than just a couple minutes. 

There are differing accounts regarding Shaul's death: in Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 31:4 and Divrei HaYamim Aleph (Chronicles I) 10:4, Shaul falls upon the sword himself because he feared torture from the Philistines. The Amalekite in Sh'muel Bet gives a different account. He claimed that Shaul's this suicide attempt didn't work and that the Amalekite ultimately finished Shaul off (Sh'muel Bet (Samuel I) 1:9-10). An expanded midrash using the second account claims that Shaul suffered a lot during death because of the Nob incident, and that the Amalekite was the accuser of Nob (Midrash Tanchuma, Metzora 2:1; Rashi on II Samuel 1:9:1).

The Status of Shaul's Death

There is also extensive discussion on the law and circumstances behind his death. 

Some Rabbinic opinions see the death as voluntary and therefore improper and unacceptable (Sefer HaIkkarim, Maamar 4 21:5; 1929 Jewish Publication Society of America translation; Da'at Zekenim on Genesis 9:5:1). However, the  majority view and the basis for modern halacha (Jewish law) considers his death as "compelled suicide" (anuss אנוס) and so all honors are due to him (Radak on Samuel 1 31:4; Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 345:3; Bereshit Rabbah 34:13; Tur HaArokh Genesis 9:5:4) via the expression anuss k'Shaul (אנוס כשאול; "as distressed as Shaul"). For reference, Bereshit Rabbah comes from 400 CE during the Talmudic era and the Shulchan Aruch comes from 1563 CE. We also memorialize the death in the prayer Av HaRachamim started during the Crusades and said every Shabbat in Eastern Ashkenazi tradition or on the Shabbat before Shavuot and Tisha B'av for Western Ashkenazi communities as well as Yizkor. In contrast, the Catholic Church denied a proper burial to suicide victims until 1983. Catholic attitudes towards suicide only softened in 1992, but the wording still suggests that many suicides are still damned to hell (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2281-2283). Given the generally more negative attitude towards Shaul within Xtianity, this doesn't surprise me that much.

As for why it occurred, some traditions saw it as teshuvah or an acceptance of Hashem's judgement (Pikrei DeRabbi Eliezer 33:12; Berakhot 12b:10-12; Vayikra Rabbah 26:7; Radak on Samuel I 31:5). Others say it was obligatory to avoid chillul hashem because the Philistines would have tortured him (Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah 345:3; Bereshit Rabbah 34:13). Given what the Philistines did to his and his sons' bodies after they were dead (Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 31:9-10; i.e. stripping, beheading the bodies and displaying said heads, and impaling/hanging the beheaded corpses unburied for an extended period of time as well as hanging the armor in an idolatrous temple; note: all of these things are direct violations of Jewish law) and how they treated Shimshon (Shoftim (Judges) 16:21; Shoftim (Judges) 16:25, 16:27; Sotah 10a:6; i.e. blinding, binding, humiliation, hard labor and/or rape if Sotah 10a:6 is also considered, and torture), Shaul had good reason to fear.

My Interpretation:

Sh'muel Aleph (Samuel I) 31:4 and Divrei HayYamim Aleph (Chronicles I) 10:4 are correct in that Shaul dies from falling upon his own sword. The account given by the Amalekite in Sh'muel Bet (Samuel I) 1:9-10 is a half-truth. The Amalekite is telling a half-truth in that he saw Shaul dying but lied about mercy killing him. It would serve as an inversion to the mercy that Shaul had shown the Amalekites. In addition, the Amalekite stole the crown and armlet while Shaul was still alive rather than from the body. Rashi and Targum Yonassan translate the bracelet as tefillin because it would have meant the Philistines would have taken the bracelet as a spoil of war. However, I disagree with that translation since the Philistines taking spoils of war is the point. Therefore, I made my own armlet design based on the choshen (Kohen breastplate) that was seen in other pieces. 

As for why Shaul died by suicide, I see it as a combination of factors: avoid torture by the Philistines into apostasy and the ensuing chillul Hashem (Tanakh After Dark Season 2 Episode 13; Tanakh After Dark Episode 22: King Shaul's Mental Illness Part 3: The Final Days), the death of three of his sons most likely in front of him (Miryam bat Tanhum also died by suicide after the Romans martyred seven of her sons in front of her; Gittin 57b:20; Eichah Rabbah 1:50), and suicidal regret regarding the killing at Nov. That's why he did it with the meteoric iron sword Hashem gifted him all those years ago in the battle against the Philistines when Shaul kept the mitzvah of the blood (Vayikra Rabbah 25:8; Bamidbar Rabbah 10:1; Midrash Sh'muel 17:3-4). I think that Sh'muel did actually appear in the End-or scene to foretell of the dying at Gilvoa fate. However, I do not think Sh'muel would advise Shaul to die specifically via his own sword, and that's a hallucination based on Shaul's mental illness and the culture of the time (Tanakh After Dark: Episode 2; Tanakh After Dark Episode 22: King Shaul's Mental Illness Part 3: The Final Days).