In a sefer by R. Yitzchak Sorotzkin on Nach he refers to the Yad Ramah on Sanhedrin and is a tmiya because Avshalom could never have been in a position to be melech under any circumstances (and presumably would have known it) if he and Tamar were both born before there yefes toar mother Maacha converted because he would not have been Dovid's son halachically to be king (from "achicha").
Have you ever found an explanation for this statement from the Yad Ramah?
Thanks, David
1) I suggest that according to the opinion in the Yad Ramah (107a) that Avshalom and Tamar were twins conceived by Ma'achah in the war before she converted (incidentally, this opinion is also mentioned by Rabeinu Chananel to Sanhedrin 21a, in brackets), Avshalom was indeed not fit to be the king.
2) The Parashas Derachim (written by the Mishneh l'Melech), in the 12th Derashah, is in doubt about whether David possessed the status of a king during the six months of Avshalom's rebellion. He writes that if David was considered a king, then it follows that Avshalom was merely a bandit. I suggest, therefore, that the Yad Ramah also maintains that Avshalom was simply a thief and was not qualified to be the king.
3) This may also be inferred from the Gemara in Berachos 64a, which states that "anyone who pushes time aside is pushed off by events." Rashi explains that an example is Avshalom who tried to reign forcibly. Avshalom tried forcibly to dictate current events. The result was that he was killed and consequently cast aside by history.
According to the Yad Ramah, we can explain that Avshalom was trying forcibly to become king, even though he was not the Halachic son of David, and this is why he was rejected by the Hashgachas Hash-m.
4) I have found other opinions that apparently maintain that Avshalom was not qualified to be the king, and these will be support for the Yad Ramah's opinion:
(a) Tosfos in Sotah 41b (DH Oso) writes that the Din concerning the pedigree of the king is more exacting than other positions of authority. When the Torah states (Devarim 17:15), "From amongst your brothers you shall place a king over you," it teaches that the king must be absolutely from "amongst your brothers." Tosofos writes that both his father and mother must be from Yisrael.
Different interpretations have been given to this Tosfos by the Acharonim, but if we follow the simple meaning of the words it certainly would follow that Avshalom was not fit to be king.
(b) The Tosfos Yom Tov to Pirkei Avos 1:10 discusses Shemaya and Avtalyon. He writes that it is not possible that they themselves were Gerim, because if so they could not have been the Nasi and the Av Beis Din, respectively. He cites his teacher, the Maharal of Prague, who writes that their mothers were certainly from Yisrael, while the Gerim present in their familes were in generations earlier than their parents.
Again, if the father and mother of the Nasi must both be from Yisrael, then this certainly would also apply to the king.
(c) The following idea came to me partly through a search of the Otzar ha'Chochmah database. The Rambam in Hilchos De'os (6:6) writes that if Reuvin does an Aveirah towards Shimon, then Shimon should not silently hate Reuven as a result. Instead, he should express to Reuven what he did and say, "Why did you do such and such?"
The Rambam mentions -- as an example of the way that Resha'im behave -- the verse in Shmuel II 13:22: "Avshalom did not speak to Amnon either bad or good, because Avshalom hated Amnon." A commentary on Hilchos De'os called Pri Etz Chaim (by Rav Peretz Steinberg) suggests the following reason for why Avshalom hated Amnon. We notice that the problem was that Amnon raped Tamar, but had he married her, Tamar would have been happy with the marriage, and David would also have been agreeable. If we project this onto the opinion of the Yad Ramah, it all fits nicely into place. When the Ma'aseh of Amnon and Tamar happened, it became public knowledge that they were not brothers and sisters, because otherwise Amnon would not have done this. Everyone knew that Avshalom and Tamar were twins. However, it now became apparent that their mother conceived them before she converted. If so, it now became known that Avshalom was unqualified to be the king, which is why he hated Amnon.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you again. I don't understand the last point. Why would Avshalom hate Amnon because everyone knew Avshalom and Tamar were twins? Furthermore, certainly Avshalom, who was great in his own right, and was not described by Dovid in negative terms at all, would have known the halacha that he was not fit to be a king, as would all those who supported him.
So although he was seeking to establish a dynasty that was technically a new one and not Beis Dovid, he and his supporters such as Achitofel etc. must have had a sevora that he WAS *achicha* - and entitled to be a king EVEN if he wasn't technically Dovid's son. Maybe there was a sevora that the din of ben Yefes Toar has a special element that yichus goes after the father EVEN if the child was conceived before she was converted. Or for example, what is the status of a vlad if the pregnant mother converts BEFORE the first 90 period of gestation while the vlad still has no halachic existence?
Of course this has implications for Tamar's status as well as a daughter. But is it conceivable that the two children of the yefes toar would not be the father's halachic children in general, BUT for purposes of kingship status it might go after the father of the vlad? Wouldn't that be why Avshalom would want to kill Amnon, that Amnon was chayav misa at least bidey shamayim if Avshalom held that Tamar was Amnon's paternal sister?!
In any case, it would be clear that Avshalom was NOT seeking simply to be the valid heir of beis Dovid, but was seeking to be king on his own merits, which appparently many people agreed with EVEN if it contradicted the PROPHECIES about Beis Dovid, which itself is amazing. How would anyone have thought that Hashem's promises to Dovid and his descendants were being terminated without any nevua?
Reb Dovid, that is a very interesting idea you mention about the pregnant mother converting before the first 90 days of pregnancy. I do not know how we rule on this question but I could make some suggestions, and if we are correct then this could solve the entire problem we had in the Yad Ramah in the first place.
1) The question is: From when is a father considered a father? A source to answer this question is Rashi in Megilah
13a, DH b'Sha'ah. The verse in Megilas Esther says that Esther did not have a mother or a father. The Gemara explains that this means that when Esther was conceived, her father died, and her mother died in childbirth. Rashi writes that since her father died as soon as her mother became pregnant, this means she did not possess a father at the point in time when a father can be called a father. We see from this that a father is not yet considered a father merely at conception.
2) To find out when a man is considered a father, we go to Sanhedrin 69a, where the Gemara is discussing the age range of the Ben Sorer u'Moreh. Rav Dimi says that it is only at the age when he is a "Ben" -- a son -- and not when he is old enough to be a father. Rashi explains that if three months have elapsed since he developed pubic hairs, then he could already be a father. Rashi writes that the reason why he could be a father three months after maturing is because if he would have had relations with a woman she might become pregnant from him, and three months later the embryo would be recognizable in the pregnant mother. We learn from this that the father is considered the father as soon as it is noticeable that his wife is pregnant.
3) Therefore, one could argue that if Ma'achah would have converted within the first 90 days, then it would not have mattered that David was not the father at the time of conception, because a father is anyway never considered a father at that stage. The crucial point is whether he was the father when the developing baby was already apparent. Since Ma'achah had converted by that time, David would be considered the father, and Avshalom and Tamar would both be his children even according to the Yad Ramah.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. According to Point #3 and the Aruch Laner, Tamar and Avshalom would be the Jewish children (not gerim) of a Jewish mother who converted during the 90 days. However, how does that make the Jewish father their halachic father since although they are Jewish children of a Jewish mother they originated from a situation where the father was not a halachic father of the embryos at the time of conception. So wouldn't it come out that they didn't actually have a halachic father?
If it is the case they were thus born Jews and not geyrim converted in vitro, then it turns out that Tamar's offer to marry Amnon would amount to an aveyra because he was her halachic paternal brother (unless she didn't have a halachic father as I asked). Indeed, the Abarbanel holds that they were both children conceived and born after the conversion, in which case Amnon's act was to commit a serious aveyra.
The Abarbanel postulates that Tamar was simply trying to push off Amnon by offering to marry him, but this is extremely hard to understand since both would know such a statement is meaningless and Amnon would in fact seeking to do a grubbe aveyra. Now the possibility that the first born son of Dovid Hamelech was committing a coarse aveyra of arayos is to my mind utterly inconceivable kepshuto!! His children were all great tsaddikim and talmidei chachomim.
So I remain mystified!
1) My Chidush is that fatherhood does not depend on conception. Rather, fatherhood depends on whether the baby is Jewish on day 90 after conception. If he is, then the father at the time of conception automatically becomes the Halachic father. My source for this is Rashi in Megilah 13a, DH b'Sha'ah, that Esther was considered as not having a father because her father at the time of conception was no longer alive at the time when he should have become a father. Rashi in Sanhedrin 69a, DH Ela, explains further that the time when one is fit to be a father is 90 days after conception. According to this, if Ma'achah would have converted by the time that 90 days after conversion had passed, then since David was the biological father he would automatically have become the Halachic father too. According to my theory, Tamar and Avshalom would have a Halachic father, and he was David ha'Melech.
2) Yes, according to the above, since David was Tamar's Halachic father, it turns out that Tamar and Amnon had the same father. This is what the Abarbanel maintains, as you write, that Tamar was simply trying to push off Amnon. However, he adds that Tamar thought that since his infatuation with her might be physically fatal for him, this might mean that David would give a Heter because of Piku'ach Nefesh. Possibly, Amnon also made this mistake and thought that she was permitted to him in order to save his life.
3) According to this, we can say that what Amnon did was not such a terrible Aveirah, because he believed that he was doing it in order to save his life. The source for this is the Rambam, Hilchos Yesodei ha'Torah 5:4, who writes that if someone should give up his life not to do one of the three cardinal sins, but instead he does the Aveirah, this is a Chilul Hashem. However, the Rambam adds that if he did the Aveirah rather than give up his life, then he is not punished for this by the Beis Din in this world because he did what he did under duress. Therefore, the Marranos should have given up their live not to convert, but those who did not give up their lives could not be punished for what they did because they did so under duress. Similarly, we can argue that even though Amnon certainly should not have done what he did, he did it under duress because he thought he was going to die otherwise as a result of his infatuation.
Kol Tuv,
Dovid Bloom
Thank you. But how can we compare being coerced to do one of those sins with Amnon, who was not actually coerced, and could certainly have taken another alternative to committing that act especially if he didn't truly want to marry her?! He wasn't just some ordinary person.
Either way, it really seems utterly inconceivable that the Ben bechor of Dovid Hamelech could even do such things kepshuto, such a grobbe aveyra. The people in those days were at very high spiritual levels, and we do know that some cases are not understood kepshuto.
Isn't it possible the whole story is al pi sod, after all, so many details seem irrelevant to the essence of the story, such as what Tamar cooked, and the details of her coat, etc.
David Goldman
One last comment on this subject.
1) The great lesson that we can learn from the story of Amnon is the terrible influence that bad friends can have on a person. Chazal tell us about this in Avos deRabbi Nosan 9:4. They also tell us there that this was the downfall of Yehoshafat who we discussed at length a few months ago. Yehoshafat was a tremendous Tzadik but because he associated himself with Achav, and later with Achazyahu, he lost his siyata DeShmaya. Then Avos deRabbi Nosan tells us "And we also found this with Amnon who became a friend of Yonadav who gave him bad advice". The posuk says that Yonadav was a very wise man but Gemara Sanhedrin 21a says that this means he was very clever at knowing how to do wicked things. Avos deRabbi Nosan concludes that one should not associate with a rasha even with the purpose of bringing him closer to Torah
2) It seems from this that Amnon did indeed start on a very high madrega, as Chazal appear to be comparing him to Yehoshafat. And in fact if we look at Sefer Chasidim #986 he implies that Amnon was trying to be mekarev Yonadav to Torah, since Sefer Chasidim states more clearly that the teaching that one should not become the friend of a rasha even to bring him nearer to Torah, is applicable specifically to the relationship of Amnon and Yonadav
3) The lesson we can learn from Amnon for our generation, and for every generation, is that however good and great the parents may be, if they do not keep their children away from bad influences all the good chinuch can go to waste, Chas veShalom. Parents always have to make sure they know who their childrens' friends are, and make sure that they have only a positive effect on their children
KOL TUV
Dovid Bloom