In this chapter we enter a new episode, known as "Amnon and Tamar." The chapter opens with the words "And it came to pass afterward," and this expression comes to tell us that there is a connection and continuity between what is related here and what was said earlier. There David was told by the prophet that evil would rise against him from his own house, that he would have trouble and calamity in his household. And this trouble begins here. From this point on, matters grow tangled: Tamar and Amnon, and afterward Avshalom, and one matter leads to another, until in the end all the prophet's declarations about the trouble and calamity that would befall David in the wake of the affair of Bat Sheva are fulfilled.
וַיְהִי אַחֲרֵי־כֵן וּלְאַבְשָׁלוֹם בֶּן־דָּוִד אָחוֹת יָפָה וּשְׁמָהּ תָּמָר וַיֶּאֱהָבֶהָ אַמְנוֹן בֶּן־דָּוִד׃ - And it came to pass afterward, that Avshalom son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon son of David loved her.
The verse calls Tamar the "sister" of Avshalom. Avshalom was the son of Maachah, and Tamar too was a daughter of Maachah, and if so she is seemingly the sister of Amnon as well, since they are all children of David. And from here arises a great difficulty: later in the chapter Tamar will say to Amnon, "Speak now to the king, for he will not withhold me from you" - take me lawfully. Would David consent to incest in his household?
Rather, let us take note of what happened here. Maachah was a beautiful captive woman (eshet yefat toar), and David came upon her on the battlefield, according to the views that the first act is permitted on the battlefield (and there is a dispute about this in halachah). At that moment Maachah was still a gentile, and consequently the daughter born of her, Tamar, is like a gentile who converted. Tamar is not considered a Jewess by birth but a convert. In contrast, when Maachah gave birth to Avshalom she was already a Jewess after her conversion, and she conceived him in her Jewishness, and therefore Avshalom is a full son who requires no conversion at all, whereas Tamar requires conversion, just as the captive woman herself requires conversion.
And if so, Tamar is permitted to Amnon by Torah law. The example of this is simple: two gentiles, a brother and sister, who convert - by Torah law they are permitted to marry one another, even though they are brother and sister from the same father and the same mother, since a convert is like a newborn child. Only the Sages forbade this, so that people should not say, "We have come from a stricter sanctity to a lighter sanctity": when I was a gentile it was forbidden for me to marry my sister, since the children of Noach were commanded regarding forbidden relations, and now that I have converted it is permitted to me? It would appear as if Jewishness is a less stringent sanctity than being a gentile. So that people should not say this the Rabbis decreed and forbade it, but by Torah law the matter is permitted. And so it was with Tamar: since her mother conceived her while still a gentile, Tamar has no bond of siblinghood with Amnon at all, and in principle Amnon could have married her. And yet, as we shall see shortly, there was a problem here on account of which they would not have wanted them to marry.
וַיֵּצֶר לְאַמְנוֹן לְהִתְחַלּוֹת בַּעֲבוּר תָּמָר אֲחֹתוֹ כִּי בְתוּלָה הִיא וַיִּפָּלֵא בְּעֵינֵי אַמְנוֹן לַעֲשׂוֹת לָהּ מְאוּמָה׃ - And Amnon was so distressed that he made himself sick on account of his sister Tamar, for she was a virgin, and it seemed impossible in the eyes of Amnon to do anything to her.
The Malbim explains: David raised Tamar as a veritable princess, as one of his daughters among all his sons and daughters, as we shall see later in the chapter. And if now Amnon were to come and marry her, what message would that convey? "This one is not my daughter." This one was born while her mother was still a gentile, and her status is that of a convert, and a convert is a person who has no lineage. That is to say: you came from the outside, you are a convert, you are not part of the king's children. There would have been a great blemish in this and a severe injury to her honor. Therefore Amnon understood that David would not degrade her honor in order to give her to him. And if so, he had no way to marry her lawfully, and there remained to him only force or seduction; but since the daughters of the king were modest within their chambers, this route too was blocked before him. And this is "and it seemed impossible in the eyes of Amnon to do anything to her" - every way of reaching her was wondrous and unattainable for him. And regarding what is said, "for she was a virgin," the Radak explains that precisely this caused him greater desire, until he grew sick from his lust.
וּלְאַמְנוֹן רֵעַ וּשְׁמוֹ יוֹנָדָב בֶּן־שִׁמְעָה אֲחִי דָוִד וְיוֹנָדָב אִישׁ חָכָם מְאֹד׃ - And Amnon had a friend whose name was Yonadav son of Shimah, David's brother, and Yonadav was a very clever man.
The word "רֵע" means friend, and Amnon's friend was Yonadav, son of Shim'ah, David's brother, that is, Amnon's cousin. Scripture testifies about him that he was "a very wise man." And here lies a great wonder: Yonadav, David's nephew and a member of the family, arranges for Amnon a terrible act of rape within the royal family? How can such a thing be understood? Moreover, the Malbim stresses that a plain "wise man" in the Holy Scriptures means one wise for good, not one wise for evil.
The Ralbag takes this at face value and says that Yonadav was of the type "they are wise to do evil, but to do good they have no knowledge" - here there was no wisdom for good but wisdom for evil alone. But the Malbim finds this very difficult, both because it does not fit the title "wise" and because it does not fit a family relative to do such a thing. Therefore let us examine the advice itself, and from it we will understand the matter.
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה כָּכָה דַּל בֶּן־הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּבֹּקֶר בַּבֹּקֶר הֲלוֹא תַּגִּיד לִי וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַמְנוֹן אֶת־תָּמָר אֲחוֹת אַבְשָׁלֹם אָחִי אֲנִי אֹהֵב׃ - And he said to him: Why are you so wasted away, son of the king, morning by morning? Will you not tell me? And Amnon said to him: I love Tamar, sister of my brother Avshalom.
What does "morning by morning" mean? The Malbim explains: Yonadav noticed that Amnon was sick with lovesickness, because he saw him wasted and thin every morning when he rose from his bed. Ordinary sick people feel better in the morning, and as the day advances the illness grows heavier; but with the lovesick the matter is exactly the opposite - morning by morning his condition is worse than toward evening. And the Radak explains the reason: all night long his mind is on her and he cannot fall asleep, and therefore in the morning his face looks bad. Here already is Yonadav's wisdom, that he detected that this was not an ordinary illness but lovesickness.
וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹ יְהוֹנָדָב שְׁכַב עַל־מִשְׁכָּבְךָ וְהִתְחָל וּבָא אָבִיךָ לִרְאוֹתֶךָ וְאָמַרְתָּ אֵלָיו תָּבֹא נָא תָמָר אֲחוֹתִי וְתַבְרֵנִי לֶחֶם וְעָשְׂתָה לְעֵינַי אֶת־הַבִּרְיָה לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֶרְאֶה וְאָכַלְתִּי מִיָּדָהּ׃ - And Yehonadav said to him: Lie down on your bed and feign illness, and when your father comes to see you, say to him: Please let Tamar my sister come and feed me bread, and let her prepare the food before my eyes, so that I may see and eat from her hand.
Now we see that Yonadav's advice was in fact good advice, and not evil as it appears from the plain meaning of the verses. "Lie down on your bed and feign illness" - make yourself out to be sick, and your father will come to visit you, and then you will ask of him that two things will heal you: first, that Tamar "feed me bread," that she literally feed me from her hand to mine; and second, "and let her prepare the food before my eyes," that she fry before my eyes (and Chazal explain that "the food" refers to kinds of fried dishes). Yonadav's aim was that David would understand from Amnon's words that he was sick with lovesickness, and from this he would understand that the only option to prevent Amnon's death - since a person could reach the gates of death in such an illness - was to marry Tamar to him in a permitted manner. And thus David would understand that there is no room to preserve Tamar's honor at the price of Amnon's life: although there is in this a blemish to her standing, there is nothing to be done.
And how did Yonadav expect David to understand this? For according to the natural order of things one first fries and then feeds, and Yonadav used reversed language: "feed me bread" first, and then "and let her prepare the food before my eyes." But he reversed the order deliberately, so that the king would understand that the main emphasis is on "feed me bread," that he eat from her hand. And then David would wonder: why is it so important to him to eat specifically from her hand? Apparently her love is lodged in his heart. And from this David would understand that his whole illness stems from love for her, and would consent that Amnon marry Tamar. Up to here the plan is excellent.
וַיִּשְׁכַּב אַמְנוֹן וַיִּתְחָל וַיָּבֹא הַמֶּלֶךְ לִרְאוֹתוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר אַמְנוֹן אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ תָּבוֹא־נָא תָּמָר אֲחֹתִי וּתְלַבֵּב לְעֵינַי שְׁתֵּי לְבִבוֹת וְאֶבְרֶה מִיָּדָהּ׃ - And Amnon lay down and feigned illness, and the king came to see him, and Amnon said to the king: Please let Tamar my sister come and make two cakes before my eyes, that I may eat from her hand.
Let us note: Amnon reversed the order. He said first "and make two cakes before my eyes," and only afterward "that I may eat from her hand." When the request is stated according to the natural order it does not set off any red flags for David. Only if "that I may eat from her hand" is stated first, in reversed order, is the king moved to ask: why specifically from her hand first? Apparently her love is lodged in your heart. And when the order is ordinary, David understands something entirely different: Tamar was expert in baking and cooking and frying, and Amnon wants her to fry and serve him, since these are apparently the cakes he loves, and as is known a sick person needs to eat certain things that he loves, for otherwise he will not eat at all. And especially since when a person sees how the food is prepared and its aroma rises to his nostrils, this stirs the gastric juices and increases his appetite. It turns out that Amnon, presumably not deliberately, prevented David from understanding the truth, and David thought there was here a natural matter and not a matter of love.
וַיִּשְׁלַח דָּוִד אֶל־תָּמָר הַבַּיְתָה לֵאמֹר לְכִי נָא בֵּית אַמְנוֹן אָחִיךְ וַעֲשִׂי־לוֹ הַבִּרְיָה׃ - And David sent to Tamar at the house, saying: Please go to the house of Amnon your brother and prepare the food for him.
David truly does not understand; he thinks the whole matter is about eating, and he sends Tamar.
וַתֵּלֶךְ תָּמָר בֵּית אַמְנוֹן אָחִיהָ וְהוּא שֹׁכֵב וַתִּקַּח אֶת־הַבָּצֵק וַתָּלָשׁ וַתְּלַבֵּב לְעֵינָיו וַתְּבַשֵּׁל אֶת־הַלְּבִבוֹת׃ - So Tamar went to the house of her brother Amnon, and he was lying down; she took dough, kneaded it, made the cakes before his eyes, and cooked the cakes.
וַתִּקַּח אֶת־הַמַּשְׂרֵת וַתִּצֹק לְפָנָיו וַיְמָאֵן לֶאֱכוֹל וַיֹּאמֶר אַמְנוֹן הוֹצִיאוּ כָל־אִישׁ מֵעָלַי וַיֵּצְאוּ כָל־אִישׁ מֵעָלָיו׃ - She took the pan and poured them out before him, but he refused to eat, and Amnon said, "Send everyone out from me," and everyone went out from him.
"The pan" refers to the frying pan, and "poured them out before him" means that she did not hand it to him but placed it before him, and therefore "he refused to eat": he did not want to eat by way of anyone else but only from her hand. And so he asked, "Send everyone out from me."
וַיֹּאמֶר אַמְנוֹן אֶל־תָּמָר הָבִיאִי הַבִּרְיָה הַחֶדֶר וְאֶבְרֶה מִיָּדֵךְ וַתִּקַּח תָּמָר אֶת־הַלְּבִבוֹת אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂתָה וַתָּבֵא לְאַמְנוֹן אָחִיהָ הֶחָדְרָה׃ - And Amnon said to Tamar, "Bring the food into the chamber, that I may eat from your hand," and Tamar took the cakes she had made and brought them to her brother Amnon into the chamber.
He asks that the food be brought into the chamber so that she specifically would serve him from her own hand, but his inner intention was to go from chamber to chamber, so that even if she cried out her cries would not be heard and the matter would not come to disgrace.
וַתַּגֵּשׁ אֵלָיו לֶאֱכֹל וַיַּחֲזֶק־בָּהּ וַיֹּאמֶר לָהּ בּוֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמִּי אֲחוֹתִי׃ - She brought them to him to eat, and he seized hold of her and said to her, "Come, lie with me, my sister."
וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַל־אָחִי אַל־תְּעַנֵּנִי כִּי לֹא־יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשֵׂה אֶת־הַנְּבָלָה הַזֹּאת׃ - And she said to him, "No, my brother, do not force me, for such a thing is not done in Israel; do not commit this vile deed."
וַאֲנִי אָנָה אוֹלִיךְ אֶת־חֶרְפָּתִי וְאַתָּה תִּהְיֶה כְּאַחַד הַנְּבָלִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַתָּה דַּבֶּר־נָא אֶל־הַמֶּלֶךְ כִּי לֹא יִמְנָעֵנִי מִמֶּךָּ׃ - "And I, where would I carry my shame? And you would be like one of the vile ones in Israel. Now, speak please to the king, for he will not withhold me from you."
Tamar tries to persuade him in three ways. First, "No, my brother" - you are my brother, and as a brother you ought all the more to spare my honor and not bring me to disgrace. "For such a thing is not done in Israel" - she alludes to the language spoken concerning the deed of Shechem son of Chamor: "for he had done a vile deed in Israel by lying with the daughter of Yaakov, and such a thing ought not be done." In other words, do you intend to repeat the deed of Shechem, which is the most shameful of shameful things? Second, from the standpoint of her own honor: "And I, where would I carry my shame?" - it is a very great disgrace for me. Third, from the standpoint of his honor: "And you would be like one of the vile ones in Israel" - you are David's firstborn, you are meant to reign after him, and you would become like one of the vile ones in Israel. And finally she proposes the proper path: "Now, speak please to the king, for he will not withhold me from you," for as we explained I am permitted to you according to Torah law, and it is better that the matter be done through what is permitted rather than through what is forbidden.
וְלֹא אָבָה לִשְׁמֹעַ בְּקוֹלָהּ וַיֶּחֱזַק מִמֶּנָּה וַיְעַנֶּהָ וַיִּשְׁכַּב אֹתָהּ׃ - But he would not listen to her voice, and being stronger than she, he forced her and lay with her.
Why the doubled language, "and he afflicted her" and "and he lay with her"? It is well known what our Sages expound wherever affliction and lying appear together: affliction refers to relations in an unnatural manner, and lying refers to the natural manner. That is, at first it was in an unnatural manner, so that she would not lose her virginity, for it is known that in those days many women did not wish to lose their virginity and therefore engaged in relations in an unnatural manner. And afterward, when he saw that his spirit was not satisfied, "and he lay with her."
וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ אַמְנוֹן שִׂנְאָה גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד כִּי גְדוֹלָה הַשִּׂנְאָה אֲשֶׁר שְׂנֵאָהּ מֵאַהֲבָה אֲשֶׁר אֲהֵבָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר־לָהּ אַמְנוֹן קוּמִי לֵכִי׃ - Then Amnon hated her with a very great hatred, for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her; and Amnon said to her, "Get up, go."
The Sages said: which is a love that depends on something? The love of Amnon and Tamar. What people speak of today in the street as "love" means something else entirely: this is not love but lust. Love is an inner attachment, and here there was no inner attachment at all. And so the Malbim writes: "and he hated her" - since this had been a dog like lust, the moment the flame of lust was extinguished the love vanished, for it had not been a genuine love. For had he loved her, how could he have driven her out in such shame? Rather, there was nothing here but a matter of physical lust, dog like, like animals, and therefore once it was over, immediately "he said to her, get up, go."
And not only that, but the matter brought him to a very great hatred: "for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her." Now seemingly, can such a thing be measured? Are there scales and measures, that he loved her eighty and hated her ninety? The Malbim explains: "than the love" means because of the love. Why did he hate her so much? Because of the great love he had felt before. That is, after a person comes to a matter of lust and stumbles in it, and now that thing is no longer before his eyes, pangs of conscience and regret begin within him, for nothing at all remained to him from it. If a person steals a million dollars, he is left with a million dollars; but one who came to a matter of lust and got nothing out of it but disgrace ends up hating the woman on whose account all the disgrace came upon him. How low have I fallen? An act of rape against my own sister, and what disgrace for her and what disgrace for me. And then he hates her because all this came about on her account. And in truth, what is it that he hates? The love he had felt before. It is not that the hatred is greater than the love, but that the hatred comes because of the love he had felt before, and on account of it the hatred came about.
The Radak says that from Heaven this matter was brought about: so that it would come about that Avshalom would want to avenge his sister's honor, and so that ultimately David would banish Avshalom, and Avshalom would rebel against David, and so that in the end David would be punished and there would be fulfilled in him "and he will lie with your wives in the sight of this sun," as the prophet said. And therefore they brought about from Heaven such a great hatred in his heart, to the point that he drove her out of his chamber in disgrace after he had done his wicked scheme to her.
And the Sages expound: what is "the hatred with which he hated her was greater," why did he have such a great hatred toward her? Some say that a hair became bound to him, that is, that she did something (and the Ben Ish Chai explains it) that caused him to become injured in his reproductive organs, that his organs of procreation were damaged as a result of that act. And the Ralbag says that one may also explain it according to the plain meaning of the text: since he came upon her by force, presumably she resisted him, began to quarrel with him and to strike him and to deal forcefully with him, and presumably in so doing she caused him injury, and as a result not only did his love not continue toward her but it turned into a great hatred. And the Ralbag adds that it is also possible that she said to him words of disgrace even harsher than what she had said to him earlier about "this vile thing," and apparently that is what caused the great and immense hatred.
וַתֹּאמֶר לוֹ אַל־אוֹדֹת הָרָעָה הַגְּדוֹלָה הַזֹּאת מֵאַחֶרֶת אֲשֶׁר־עָשִׂיתָ עִמִּי לְשַׁלְּחֵנִי וְלֹא אָבָה לִשְׁמֹעַ לָהּ׃ - And she said to him, "Do not, on account of this great evil, which is greater than the other you did to me, send me away"; but he would not listen to her.
She says to him "do not" - do not do such a thing, and she makes clear to him that the act he is now doing is even more severe than what he did before. Why? Because the Torah said regarding rape "and she shall be his wife, he may not send her away all his days." Today we do not grasp this, but one must understand the reality of those times. Today a woman who was raped, God forbid, does not want to see the face of the rapist and cannot even bear to think of him, and she will suffer on his account all her life. But in those days it was the opposite: one who came upon a woman by force was obligated to marry her, and why? Because this was the only way for that woman to marry, and without it she would remain single all her life. And therefore the Torah obligates him to marry her. And if she does not want it, she is not obligated, for this is not an obligation upon her but a punishment upon him.
And therefore Tamar says: "do not, on account of this great evil, which is greater than the other" - do not send me away, because of the earlier evil you did to me, that you came upon me by force. The first evil is what makes it so that you cannot send me away now, and if you send me away it will be a doubled evil: it is not enough with the first evil, and after the Torah says "he may not send her away all his days," you add upon it a further evil.
Let us note a fine point: here it says "but he would not listen to her" (velo avah lishmoa lah), while in verse 14, when she tried to persuade him not to do the deed, it says "but he would not listen to her voice" (velo avah lishmoa bekolah). The Malbim explains: there he listened to her but did not heed her voice; he heard the words but did not accept the message. Here, since he already hated her, he did not even want to listen to her at all; not only did he not accept the message, but he did not want even to hear the words, and he immediately shut the door in her face.
וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־נַעֲרוֹ מְשָׁרְתוֹ וַיֹּאמֶר שִׁלְחוּ־נָא אֶת־זֹאת מֵעָלַי הַחוּצָה וּנְעֹל הַדֶּלֶת אַחֲרֶיהָ׃ - He called his young man who served him and said, "Send this one out of my presence, and bolt the door behind her."
He sends her away like one of the lowly: "Send this one out of my presence" - get her out of here and bolt the door behind her, what is she even doing here.
וְעָלֶיהָ כְּתֹנֶת פַּסִּים כִּי כֵן תִּלְבַּשְׁןָ בְנוֹת־הַמֶּלֶךְ הַבְּתוּלֹת מְעִילִים וַיֹּצֵא אוֹתָהּ מְשָׁרְתוֹ הַחוּץ וְנָעַל הַדֶּלֶת אַחֲרֶיהָ׃ - Now she had on a coat of many colors, for in this way the virgin daughters of the king dressed themselves in robes. His servant put her outside and bolted the door behind her.
Two questions seem to arise: why does it matter to us what she was wearing? And further, why does the verse open with "a coat of many colors" and end with "robes"? It should have said, "for in this way the virgin daughters of the king dressed themselves in a coat of many colors." But the Malbim explains: the ketonet, as it is also in the language of Chazal, is the inner garment, and the meil is the outer garment. And so we see also in halachah: a shirt is called a ketonet, and the garment worn over it is called a meil. Out of modesty, the daughters of the king never went out without robes. They had a coat of many colors, a kind of striped, ornate, and colorful inner garment, as we saw with Yosef, and over it they would wear a robe. But when Amnon sent Tamar away, he did not send her out with the robe, but in the coat of many colors alone upon her skin, and it was not their way to go out like that. Thus he sent her away in disgrace, stripped of her robe and shamed of her dignity, thrust out like one of the harlots, God forbid, as a promiscuous woman, in the words of the Malbim.
וַתִּקַּח תָּמָר אֵפֶר עַל־רֹאשָׁהּ וּכְתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ קָרָעָה וַתָּשֶׂם יָדָהּ עַל־רֹאשָׁהּ וַתֵּלֶךְ הָלוֹךְ וְזָעָקָה׃ - Tamar put ashes on her head, and tore the coat of many colors that was on her, and she laid her hand on her head, and went on crying out as she went.
Why did Tamar do all this, when it adds no honor to the matter? It was because she did not want people to suspect her, God forbid, of having been seduced, and therefore she cried out so that they would know she had been forced. The disgrace of a seduced woman is greater than the disgrace of one who was forced, for one who is forced the Torah exempts, and where do we learn this from? From the case of a forced woman in the Torah: "the girl cried out, and there was none to save her" - that in such a case she is exempt and there is no claim against her. Therefore she cried out, to tell everyone: know that, God forbid, nothing here happened by my will.
Chazal say that in the wake of this incident, David and his court decreed against seclusion (yichud) with an unmarried woman. By Torah law the prohibition of yichud is only with a married woman or with one of the arayot, but with an unmarried woman there is no Torah prohibition of seclusion. And what is yichud? To be inside a room that people do not enter, and it need not be locked, it is enough that people do not enter, and to remain there together for a period of a few minutes; and there are various opinions among the poskim, some beginning from two minutes. Even if they merely drank a cup of coffee there, they transgressed the prohibition of yichud, which is a serious prohibition. In their time the prohibition applied only with a married woman, and David came and saw where seclusion with an unmarried woman could lead, and he decreed against seclusion with an unmarried woman. And this was the foundation of the whole prohibition: had there already been a prohibition of yichud with an unmarried woman, they would not have come to this sin, and since at that time it was not yet prohibited, they came to it. And this is what they said: if with the daughters of kings this is so, all the more so can the daughters of common folk come to the prohibition; and if with modest women this is so, all the more so with promiscuous ones. Therefore they decreed the matter upon the community as a whole.
Incidentally, it emerges from this that the prohibition of yichud with an unmarried woman is rabbinic; so it was in their time. But in our time the prohibition of yichud with an unmarried woman is a Torah prohibition, and why? Because all unmarried women are niddot. In their time even an unmarried woman would immerse, because there was a matter of eating produce in purity and not to make impure that on which one lies and sits, not to make impure something she sits on, for they practiced the laws of tumah and taharah. But today, when we have no laws of tumah and taharah and we are all impure with the impurity of the dead, unmarried women do not immerse, and consequently anyone who is intimate with an unmarried woman is liable to karet, a Torah prohibition, and therefore yichud with an unmarried woman today is a Torah prohibition. And with a woman who did immerse, the prohibition is from the court of David; and today it is written that she should not immerse, so that she not bring herself under suspicion.
This chapter opens the chain of tragedies decreed upon the house of David. Tamar, who was born when her mother Maacah was still a gentile and whose status was therefore that of a convert, was permitted to Amnon according to Torah law, yet she was raised as a princess, and so Amnon understood that David would not harm her honor and would give her to him in marriage. Yonadav, a very clever man, diagnosed the sickness of love from the phrase "morning by morning" and offered advice whose entire purpose was that David would grasp the depth of the illness and give him Tamar permissibly in marriage. But Amnon reversed the order of things, David did not understand, and instead of a permitted marriage came rape and disgrace. From here we learned the fundamental distinction between love and lust: "a love that depends on something" is extinguished the moment the flame of lust burns out, and even turns into a great hatred that stems from that very "love" itself. Tamar is sent away in shame, stripped of her robe, crying out openly so that all would know she had been forced, and out of this act David and his court decreed against the seclusion of an unmarried woman, a safeguard whose entire purpose is to teach us how far the chain of downfall can reach when there is no fence at its beginning.