Quoting Commentary for I Samuel 17:38

‘LIKMATZIM’ (HANDFULS). They stored up the grain handful upon handful, fist by fist. This is the language of Rashi.
Onkelos translated it as, “into store houses,” since excavations made in the earth for storage or other purposes are called ‘kmatzim.’ He is hid now in one of ‘hap’chothim’ (the pits),⁹³II Samuel 17:9. Jonathan translated, “in one of the kumtza.” Similarly, he always translated the term pachath as kamtza, which is related to the expression, He that diggeth ‘gametz’ (a pit),⁹⁴Ecclesiastes 10:8. as the letter gimmel serves here as kuph, just as it serves as a kaph in the following verses: Never lacking in ‘hamazeg’ (mingled wine),⁹⁵Song of Songs 7:3. the word hamazeg being derived from the term, ‘Mas’cha’ (She hath mingled) her wine;⁹⁶Proverbs 9:2. ‘v’chano’ which Thy right hand hath planted,⁹⁷Psalms 80:16. Translated: ‘And of the stock’ which Thy right hand hath planted. But Ramban explains it as: “And of the garden, etc.” which is like ganoh (garden); ‘vayisachru’ the fountains of the murmuring deep,⁹⁸Above, 8:2. which is like vayisagru (and they were closed); To their native land (‘m’churatham’);⁹⁹Ezekiel 29:14 (m’churatham); 16:3 (m’chorotayich). Thy origin (‘m’chorothayich’) and thy birth;⁹⁹Ezekiel 29:14 (m’churatham); 16:3 (m’chorotayich). And I will give over (‘v’sikarti’) Egypt.¹⁰⁰Isaiah 19:4. In all of these cases the kaph and the gimmel are alike. The kuph and the kaph are often alike, as in kova and chova, (both meaning “hat”);¹⁰¹I Samuel 17:38 (kova); 17:5 (chova). ‘tikein’ (he set in order) many proverbs,¹⁰²Ecclesiastes 12:9. the word tikein being like the term sichein in the verse, Who has directed (‘sichein’) the spirit of the Eternal?¹⁰³Isaiah 40:13. Our Rabbis have said in connection with the term jewelry: tachshitim and takshit. Similarly, it is said, ‘Vayatziku’ (And they set down) the ark of G-d — but Abiathar went up — until all the people hath passed out of the city,¹⁰⁴II Samuel 15:24. and the Targum translates: “And they put down the ark,” thus making vayatziku as vayatzig, just as it is said concerning it, And they brought in the ark of the Eternal, ‘vayatzigu’ (and set it) in its place,¹⁰⁵Ibid., 6:17. the word being derived from the expressions, ‘atziga’ (let me place) with thee,¹⁰⁶Above 33:15. and ‘v’hitzagtiv’ (And I will set him) before thee.¹⁰⁷Further, 43:9.

The one who wears the uniform (mada) shall wear the uniform, etc. It is clear that the mada is a fancy garment that kings wear, as it is written (I Samuel 17:38), "And Shaul clothed David in his mada. And it is a cloak like Rashi explains; and as it is written (II Samuel 13:18), "for maiden princesses wore robes." And this is since Rabban Gamliel was from the descendants of the leaders and kings, from the Children of Yehudah. Whereas Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah was not so, as he was a priest. And it is only fitting for a king and a Nassi to be from the descendants of Yehudah. And this is as it is said in the first chapter of Sanhedrin (5a), "'The scepter shall not depart from Yehudah' (Genesis 49:10) - these are the Exilarchs in Babylonia; 'Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet' - these are the grandchildren of Hillel, etc." And Rabbi Yehoshua is [talking] about this, saying that the office of Nassi is returning to Rabban Gamliel by right, since he is from the descendants of the leaders; and it is not appropriate for Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah - who was a priest - to take the office of Nassi from him. And it is like they said, that the kings of the House of the Hasmoneans - who were priests - were punished for having taken for themselves, the monarchy that belongs to the descendants of David. And Rabbi Yehoshua spoke about the high priest to appease the mind of Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah with the opposite - that "one who sprinkles, son of one who sprinkles, etc." For the priesthood is given to the descendants of Aharon the priest, meaning to Rabbi Elazar ben Azariah. And [for] "one who is not one who sprinkles, etc." - meaning he is not from the descendants of the priesthood - the priesthood is forbidden to him; even to a king, as we found with Uziyahu, who contracted tzaraat for this. And just like no man can touch what is prepared for you, which is the priesthood - so too, you should not touch that which is prepared for your fellow, Rabban Gamliel, which is the office of the Nassi. And he brought that they would not say to a priest, "Your water is cave water and your ashes are, etc": That perforce we trust a priest about something that is related to the priesthood, meaning that it is purification water [that he is using], and not cave water which is disqualified from sprinkling; and we also trust a priest that he sprinkled the dust of a heifer and not burnt ashes - so too we should not be exacting with Rabban Gamliel concerning that which is related to his office of the Nassi. And it is easy to understand.

In fact, we read of only two other cases in which the Torah describes people clothing others.²³⁰Although there are only two such stories in the Torah, there are a few more in the rest of the Tanakh. For example, when King Shaul uses his own armor to cover David (I Shmuel 17:38) and when God tells Yeshayahu that He will dress Elyakim ben Chilkiyahu (Yeshayahu 22:21.) In general, these stories follow the outline we will describe, i.e., the benevolence of someone who covers another with new and better clothes. (The story of Haman’s clothing Mordechai in the book of Esther is typical of the irony of that book, wherein Haman plays the role of the, in this case reluctant, benefactor who imitates God.) At this point, we are already familiar with both of them: when Rivka places Esav’s clothes on Ya’akov²³¹It is perhaps not surprising that another midrash identifies this cloak too with the one given by God to Adam (See R. M. Kasher’s Torah Shelemah, Bereshit 3:21, note 184), while still another identifies it with the clothing of the Kohen Gadol (see Talmud Yerushalmi, Megila 1:12). It appears that there is even a Midrashic tradition that combines both of these opinions, identifying the clothing of Esav with both the bigdei kehuna and Adam’s clothing; see Torah Shelemah, Bereshit 27:15, note 66. However, Esav’s clothing is more commonly associated with a different conception of the first clothes given to Adam, according to which the clothes have less to do with the bearer’s relationship with God (i.e., kehuna) than they do with his dominion over the animals (See Yalkut Shimoni, Bereshit 62 and Bereshit Rabba 65:16). Though one could combine both themes, saying that the garments that gave dominion over animals were also those of the sacrificial rite, there don’t appear to be any midrashim that do so. Since the latter association of Esav’s clothes with Adam’s “animal clothes,” is more common, we may conclude that the connection between Esav’s clothing and the bigdei kehuna remains tenuous, whereas the connection between Adam’s garments and the bigdei kehuna is more grounded in the Biblical text and its accompanying interpretive tradition. and when Pharaoh places royal garments on Yosef. In both cases, God is notably absent. Still, as with the Divine clothing of Adam and Chava and as with the priestly robes, we witness a benevolent figure granting advantage through an active bestowal of clothing. Hence, even if God is not directly involved, there is an emulation of God’s dressing of man.