1. The Origins of Ammon and Moav
The Mishnah in Yevomos—tractate Yevamot—discusses the nations from whom the Torah prohibits intermarriage. Among these are the Ammonim and Moavim, descendants of Ammon and Moav. Their origins trace back to the episode with Lot, Avraham’s nephew. After the destruction of Sodom, Lot and his daughters believed the world had ended. In their isolation, both daughters had relations with their father: the older gave birth to Moav, and the younger to Ammon. The name “Moav” itself means “from a father” (May-av), alluding to this origin through incest. Rashi notes that because the older daughter initiated this act, the Torah publicized it by naming her son Moav, while Ammon’s origins are less explicit. Over time, these two nations developed. When Bnei Yisrael journeyed toward Eretz Yisrael, they sought passage through Ammon and Moav but were rebuffed. Balak ben Tzippor, king of Moav, even hired Bilam to curse Israel. The Torah states that because these nations did not greet Bnei Yisrael with bread and water (al dvar asher lo kidmu eschem balechem u’vamayim), “lo yavo amoni u’moavi b’kal Hashem”—an Ammonite or Moavite may not enter into the congregation of Hashem.2. The Halachic Distinction: Men Versus Women
This prohibition against marrying into Klal Yisrael applies to all generations for Ammon and Moav—even after many generations, their descendants may not join the Jewish people through marriage or conversion in a full sense. However, the Mishnah makes a surprising distinction: this restriction applies only to males from Ammon and Moav, not to females. In contrast, regarding Egyptians (Mitzrim), there is a prohibition for three generations for both males and females. The Mishnah records a dissenting opinion that argues logically: if women from nations prohibited forever (Ammon/Moav) are permitted immediately, then certainly women from nations only prohibited for three generations (Mitzrayim) should be permitted right away. The Gemara discusses this debate but focuses on how we know that only male Ammonites and Moabites are prohibited.3. The Scriptural Source: Shaul’s Inquiry About David
The Gemara brings a proof from Sefer Shmuel regarding David HaMelech’s lineage. When Shaul saw David going out to fight Goliath, he asked Avner his chief of staff: “Ben mi zeh hanar?”—Whose son is this lad? Although Shaul already knew David personally (as he had served him), he was really asking about David’s ancestry—specifically whether he descended from Peretz or Zerach, sons of Yehuda and Tamar. Shaul wanted to know because if David descended from Peretz (“paratz”—to break through), it would indicate royal potential, as kings have license to “break through” barriers for their needs. Shaul feared for his own monarchy if David was destined for kingship. What prompted Shaul’s concern? He noticed that his own garments fit David perfectly—a sign that David might be suited for royalty.4. Doeg’s Challenge: Legitimacy of David’s Lineage
During this discussion between Shaul and Avner, Doeg HaAdomi intervened with a more fundamental challenge: perhaps David was not even eligible to join Klal Yisrael at all! Doeg argued that since David’s maternal ancestor was Ruth the Moabite (Moavis), he should be disqualified according to the Torah’s prohibition against Moabites entering the congregation. Avner responded by citing a brysa: only male descendants of Moav are excluded (“Moavi v’lo Moavis”—a male but not a female). Doeg countered by questioning whether masculine language in other prohibitions (such as Mamzer) also excludes females (Mamzeres). Avner explained that in those cases, such as Mamzer, both genders are included due to the nature of the term (Mum zor—a strange blemish). Doeg pressed further regarding Egyptians (Mitzri/Mitzris). Avner ultimately answered that since the Torah gives a specific reason for excluding Ammonites and Moabites (failure to provide bread and water), which was only incumbent upon men (who typically provided hospitality), women were not included in this prohibition.5. The Beis Medrash Debate and Final Ruling
Doeg remained unconvinced by Avner’s reasoning, arguing that women could have provided hospitality to Israelite women just as men could have provided for men. The debate escalated until Shaul instructed Doeg to inquire further in the Beis Medrash. In the Beis Medrash, Doeg repeated his challenges before the sages who were unable to answer satisfactorily at first. They were on the verge of declaring David illegitimate when suddenly Ben Amotza (also called Yisra HaYishmaeli) intervened dramatically: drawing his sword like an Ishmaelite warrior, he declared that anyone who did not accept his ruling would be struck down on the spot! He testified that he had received a tradition from Shmuel HaRamasi’s court affirming that only males from Ammon/Moav are excluded—females are permitted. The Gemara questions whether such testimony can be accepted when it benefits oneself or one’s relatives (since Yisra was related by marriage to David). Tosafos explains that normally we do not accept rulings benefiting oneself unless they precede personal involvement or can be verified independently—which was possible here since Shmuel’s court was still alive.6. Why Are Women Exempt? Two Explanations in Chazal
The Gemara explores why specifically women are exempt from this prohibition. One explanation is practical: women were not expected to go out and provide bread or water due to modesty (tzniut). The Gemara cites Sarah Imeinu as an example of modest conduct (sarah ba’ohel—Sarah was in her tent). Therefore, since women were not responsible for failing in hospitality toward Bnei Yisrael, they are not included in this eternal ban. Another opinion simply derives it directly from scriptural language: since only men failed in their duty according to how Torah frames it (“asher lo kidmu eschem balechem u’vamayim”), only men are excluded.7. Tehillim’s Allusion: Dovid HaMelech’s Gratitude
Dovid HaMelech himself refers to this episode in Tehillim: “Pitachta li moiseydai”—“You have untied my ropes.” Dovid expresses gratitude for being released from two constraints: first regarding his own legitimacy (through Ruth HaMoavia) and second concerning his son Rechavam (whose mother Naama was an Amonite woman). Both issues could have disqualified them but were resolved by halacha permitting female converts from these nations. Dovid further notes that although it seemed like a new ruling at his time, it was already embedded in Torah law from earlier generations—evident even in how Lot’s daughters are described as “hanimtza’ot”, which Chazal connect linguistically with Dovid himself (“Matzasi Dovid avdi”—“I have found My servant Dovid”) indicating Divine providence guiding these events toward kedusha.8. Tosafos on Linguistic Derivation: Why Only “Amoni”?
Tosafos addresses why we derive exclusion specifically by reading “Amoni v’lo Amonis”. Rashi explains that if Torah intended both genders it could have used shorter forms like “Amoni Meovi”. Since it uses longer masculine forms (“Amoni Meovi”) rather than simply “Amoiv Meoviv”, we learn it excludes females as well as males. By contrast, with Mitzri/Edomi prohibitions where masculine forms are actually shorter than feminine or plural alternatives (e.g., Mitzri vs Mitzrayim), we do not derive similar exclusions based on gendered language alone. Thus only regarding Amon/Moav do we apply this particular drasha according to Tosafos’s analysis. This entire sugya illustrates how halacha emerges through careful textual analysis combined with tradition and Divine orchestration—bringing forth ultimate kedusha even from origins shrouded in ambiguity or challenge.