The Reading
The Summary
Shemuel Bet Chapter 13
This chapter details the troubling incident of “Amnon and Tamar”. Amnon is the firstborn son of David and has fallen madly in love with Tamar, who is apparently his very beautiful half-sister from another mother (we will address this issue at the conclusion of the summary). He does not feel comfortable approaching her romantically but is paralyzed with sorrow over his obsession with her. His friend and cousin, Yonadav, advises him to feign being ill and request that Tamar personally tend to him, preparing and serving him food. This will give him the opportunity to interact with her privately and perhaps develop some connection.
This suggestion meets with Amnon’s approval; he pretends to be sick and asks for Tamar to come and prepare pancakes for him and feed him on his sickbed. King David sends Tamar to fulfill the request of Amnon. She arrives, kneads the dough and prepares the cakes in Amnon’s presence. When they are ready, Amnon refuses to eat until everyone else has left the area. He then asks for Tamar to bring the food into his bedroom and feed him there. When she draws close to him to offer him the pancakes, he grabs hold of her and attempts to force himself on her. She resists, urging him to speak to the king about marrying her and not to sexually assault her and bring shame upon both of them. Amnon does not listen to her and rapes her.
As soon as the act is completed, Amnon’s emotions undergo a total reversal – he feels nothing but hatred and revulsion for Tamar, and – over her tearful objections – casts her out of his chamber, referring to her derisively as “that woman”. Tamar was wearing the multicolored garment that the maiden daughters of the king typically wore; she tore her garment, placed ashes on her head, and went on her way, weeping. Avshalom, her brother, immediately surmises what has happened; when she confirms his suspicions, he cautions her to keep it a secret to protect the honor of the family. However, Avshalom never again speaks to Amnon. King David hears of all that has transpired but is powerless to take any action against his son.
Two years later, Avshalom is planning a shearing party for his flocks near the land of Ephraim and he invites the entire royal family to attend. David declines repeated invitations to the celebration, not wanting to leave the palace unoccupied for the outing. Avshalom therefore asks if Amnon may join the party instead of the king; although David is surprised by this unusual request, he grants it.
Meanwhile, Avshalom prepares his servants to ambush Amnon when he arrives; they kill him in retribution for his dishonoring of Tamar. Word initially comes to David that all of the king’s sons were killed, and he responds by beginning to mourn their losses. Eventually, a messenger clarifies that only Amnon has been killed. Avshalom flees to Geshur to live with his grandparents for three years (his mother was the daughter of the king of Geshur). As time passes, David is comforted for the loss of Amnon, but pines for Avshalom who has escaped and forsaken him.
These deeply troubling developments are clearly the beginning of the punishments that Natan foretold would plague David and his household – namely, “the sword will never leave your house”. A careful reader may notice strong similarities and parallels between this narrative and the story of Yosef told in the Book of Beresheet.
Most obviously, the coat of many colors worn by Tamar is strikingly reminiscent of the one worn by Yosef and is called “ketonet passim”, exactly the same term that the Torah uses to describe Yosef’s garment. In our story we have a “stalker” who creates a situation where he is alone with the object of his affections so he can take advantage of her; this is similar to the wife of Potifar’s efforts to get Yosef alone so she could seduce him.
The stories of Amnon and Tamar and of Yosef both involve family drama of a very serious nature; in one case, brother murders brother, in the other, brothers contemplate and ALMOST murder brother. In both stories, a son is estranged or separate from his father for a significant period of time and they eventually reunite. In both stories, a father sends his child or children right into the clutches of one who wishes to harm them; David sends Tamar to Amnon and Amnon to Avshalom, and Yaaqov sends Yosef to his brothers.
Moreover, there are two phrases that appear in the story of Amnon and Tamar and that are strikingly evocative of the story of Yosef. One is Amnon’s command “take every man out of my presence”, which are the exact words that Yosef uses before revealing his identity to his brothers; the other is “he mourned over his son all the days” to characterize David’s reaction to the loss of either Amnon or Avshalom (it is not clear which one), which is itself reminiscent of the description of Yaaqov who, in his belief that Yosef had died “mourned over his son many days.” We cannot escape the conclusion that these parallels are deliberate – what do they mean and what are they intended to teach us?
I believe the text means to highlight thematic commonalities between the narratives of Amnon-Tamar and Yosef that can help us read between the lines and grasp a deeper message in the story. Although he does not point to these specific clues in the text, Ralbag identifies one of the main ideas that explain the parallels. We learned several chapters ago that David placed his sons in positions of power even from a young age; the Ralbag comments that this was an error on David’s part. He groomed them, as it were, to follow in his footsteps and continue his legacy, and he granted them too much influence when they were not yet prepared to handle it.
We can apply this insight of Ralbag and advance it a few steps further to explain the link between this story and the story of Yosef. We can imagine – and we indeed observe – that, after receiving the devastating rebuke from Natan for his sin with Batsheva, David preferred to recede to the background and play a more passive and peripheral role in the kingdom. He was no longer as motivated or ambitious as he once had been and he was constantly wary of the impending consequences he knew would be visited upon him.David’s removal of himself from the scene enabled his children to play an even more active role in the affairs of state and in palace politics, and led to the intrigue we read about in this chapter and in chapters to come to carry on unchecked.
The story of Yaaqov and Yosef exemplifies the same problem. The first verse of Parashat Vayeshev tells us that Yaaqov settled in the land of Canaan, implying that he figured that his struggles, trials and tribulations were over, that he could retire and focus on passing the baton of leadership to the next generation, specifically to Yosef. The Rabbis say that it was precisely this decision on Yaaqov’s part that created and exacerbated the internal strife in the family and that nearly caused the death of Yosef at the hands of his brothers.
Yaaqov trusted too much in the wisdom and maturity of his sons, unwittingly feeding the ego of Yosef with special treatment and relying on the prudence and good judgment of the brothers who he assumed would not harm Yosef. In taking a back seat, Yaaqov allowed Yosef to provoke his brothers and also enabled the brothers to take it upon themselves to determine his fate, since they perceived Yaaqov as no longer an active player in the governance of the family.
One of the messages here is that it is incumbent upon a leader not to recede from the scene prematurely. As critical as it is for elders to “let go” and allow the younger generation to play a part in shaping their future, this can only be done gradually and when it is clear that the youth are prepared for the task. Leaders should step out of the picture when they see that the groundwork has been laid for a solid process of succession and not simply because they are too tired, too depressed or would prefer to enjoy a longer retirement.
Such personal motives may blind them to reality and persuade them that the individuals who will be taking over are more qualified for the task than is actually the case.
Yaaqov and David both abdicated their positions of influence too soon and caused tremendous damage as a result; both of them were forced to endure the estrangement from and “loss” of the very children they believed would be their saviors and would carry the torch forward on their behalf.
One final note about Tamar. In her words to Amnon, she implies that, were the king to be petitioned, she and Amnon could actually be legally wed. This is perplexing if we take the text at face value, since Tamar is Amnon’s half-sister and would be Biblically forbidden from marrying him. The Sages of the Talmud, quoted by many traditional commentaries, state that Maakha, Tamar’s mother, was a captive woman that David had relations with before she converted to Judaism, and that she was conceived while her mother was still a gentile. This meant that, according to the technical halakha, Tamar was not actually related to David or to Avshalom (although Avshalom and Tamar shared both a mother and a father, Avshalom was conceived and born after his mother became a Jewess.)
The Abarbanel rejects this interpretation as far-fetched and argues that Tamar’s claim to Amnon was simply a ruse to convince him not to assault her; they could not have actually gotten married. In fact, the Abarbanel takes issue with the halakhic principle invoked by the commentaries, which is remarkable but goes beyond the scope of our discussion.
I would like to suggest an alternative possibility. Tamar may have been the daughter of Maakha from a previous husband, and therefore not blood related to Amnon or David. She would have been a biological half-brother of Avshalom (which explains why the text refers to her several times as the sister of Avshalom) and would have been the stepdaughter of David, which would account for the fact that she is occasionally called Amnon’s sister as well.
If this is the case, then Amnon and Tamar could have been legally married if David had permitted it; although they lived in the same home and were part of the same family socially speaking, they were not related by blood. Consider the Brady Bunch as an instance of this kind of “blended family” where the boys and girls grow up as brothers and sisters but don’t actually share a biological parent. After proposing this hypothesis, it came to my attention that the commentary of Tosafot in Masekhet Sanhedrin offer the same explanation.