Genesis · Chapter 38

And it came to pass at that time that Judah went down from his brothers and turned aside to a man, an Adullamite, whose name was Hirah.

ויהי בעת ההוא AND IT CAME TO PASS AT THAT TIME — Why is this section placed here thus interrupting the section dealing with the history of Joseph? To teach that his brothers degraded him from his high position. When they saw their father’s grief they said, “You told us to sell him: if you had told us to send him back to his father we would also have obeyed you” (Genesis Rabbah 85:2). ויט AND HE TURNED away from his brothers. עד איש עדלמי UNTO A CERTAIN ADULLAMITE — he entered into a business-partnership with him.

"Now it came to pass at that time" — this time is not when Joseph was sold; rather, it was before his sale. A parallel usage is: "From there they journeyed to Gudgodah" (Deuteronomy 10:7), followed by "At that time Hashem set apart the tribe of Levi" (ibid., v. 8) — yet the tribe of Levi was chosen in the second year [of the wilderness], while they journeyed to Gudgodah in the fortieth year. I will explain that passage in its place. Now, why did Scripture place this section here, when it would have been fitting to place it after "and the Midianites sold him" [followed immediately by] the section "And Joseph was brought down to Egypt"? In order to separate the episode of Joseph regarding his master's wife from the episode of his brothers. I was compelled to give this explanation because from the day Joseph was sold until the day our ancestors descended to Egypt was only twenty-two years; yet Onan — the second of Judah's sons — was born and grew old enough to produce offspring, which cannot be less than twelve years; and further, "the days multiplied," and Tamar conceived and bore Perez, who himself came to Egypt with two sons. Let the matter of Bezalel not trouble you, for when I reach that passage I will explain it.

ויהי בעת ההיא, והמדנים מכרו אותו, [the Torah contrasts the facts with the perception of the facts, i.e. Joseph was alive but the Midianites had sold him. I believe that this is why the author quotes the beginning of this verse without elaborating on it at all. He leaves it to our imagination to fill in this next item in the tragic chain of errors beginning with the fact that Yitzchok had shown more love for Esau. Ed.] at about the same time when Joseph was sold to Egypt at the suggestion of Yehudah who had proposed this instead of bringing him back to his father and had thereby bereaved his father, Yehudah reaped some of the fruit of his ill advised plans, in that the way was paved for him to be bereaved of two of his own sons in due course.

38.1. וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, Yehudah descended and turned from his brothers, etc. Our sages in Sotah 13 say that the brothers demoted him. Ibn Ezra says that anyone who comes from the northern part of the world to the South is considered as "descending." What he said is correct; it does not apply here, however, because then the Torah need not have added: "from his brothers." This clearly indicates that Yehudah's descent, i.e. demotion, was caused by his brothers. It also says: ויט עד איש, "he turned to a certain person, etc." Our sages are quite correct when they interpret the word וירד as a moral descent and the words ויט, etc., are integral to the verse.

וירד יהודה מאת אחיו, “Yehudah separated from his brothers;” he could not bear watching the anguish of his father. Rashi here writes that the word וירד, which means: “he descended,” means that he had been deposed from his position of being the brothers’ spokesman and leader by the other brothers. He derives this from the expression: מאת, understanding the meaning of that word as being: על ידי, “through the action of;”You could well ask that seeing that it took only 22 years until the brothers under the leadership of Yehudah went down to Egypt in order to buy grain, how was it possible that during these few years not only did Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife bear him three sons, Er, Onan, and Shelah, but that two of them had already become married? And a few years after the death of Onan, Yehudah sired twins from his daughterinlaw Tamar, all before the descent of the brothers to Egypt for the first time? The answer to such questions is that in those times girls and boys were able to both sire and conceive and give birth already at the age of seven. According to a historical text accepted by our sages as accurate and reliable, called seder olam, Er, Yehudah’s oldest was born approximately a year after the sale of Joseph. Bat Shua bore Yehudah two more sons in short order, before she died (verse 12). When Er was seven years old he married Tamar. When he died and married Onan, and Onan died, Shelah was still too young to marry. Tamar remained a widow in the house of Yehudah for a year before returning to her mother’s home. When two or three more years had passed and she was not allowed to marry Shelah, she took matters into her own hands and contrived to become pregnant from a member of Yaakov’s family, her dearest desire, i.e. she became pregnant by her fatherinlaw, Yehudah. All of this had only taken about 19 years after Yehudah had been deposed and moved away from his brothers. In the meantime, Peretz, one of the twins Tamar had born to Yehudah had married at the age of seven and had himself become a father of Chetzron and Chamul, (Genesis 46,12) all before Yaakov and his family moved down to Egypt after the brothers’ second trip there. By the time Chetzron and Chamul came to Egypt, only twenty two years had elapsed since the sale of Joseph.[While this is interesting, this Editor cannot reconcile it with G-d having punished both Er and Onan at the tender age of 7 or eight years, for having deliberately failed to produce children (38,7 and 10) Where is the source for the culpability of such young children anywhere? Ed.]

ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, “it was at about that time that Yehudah descended.” Actually, the passage about Joseph being brought down to Egypt (39,1) should have been the natural continuation at this point. The Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 85:2 explains that the reason the Torah inserted this chapter about Yehudah and his marriage was to draw our attention to the fact that Yehudah’s having counseled selling Joseph had become the cause for his “descent,” i.e. for his losing the role of leadership amongst his brothers. When the brothers observed the inconsolable state of mind of their father they blamed Yehudah for being the cause of it telling him that if only he had stopped them and had suggested that they return Joseph to his father they would have listened to him.” A kabbalistic approach: the paragraph describing a levirate marriage was appended to the paragraph describing the sale of Joseph as both paragraphs deal with the subject of גלגול, a form of reincarnation, complete transformation of one’s fate. It is a fact that the sin committed by the brothers was of the type that could be atoned for by nothing less than reincarnation of their souls in different bodies. This is also the mystical dimension of the levirate marriage (widow of a brother who died without having sired children to one of the surviving brothers, compare Deut. 25:5-10). The mystical dimension of the levirate marriage is the same as the mystical dimension of reincarnation of the souls in a new body. The ten martyrs whom the Romans chose to expiate for the sin of the brothers having sold Joseph were none other than reincarnations of the brothers’ souls in different bodies. By dying a martyr’s death the millennia-old sin overhanging them was finally expiated. Er and Onan, the sons of Yehudah who died prematurely for committing a sin, were similarly reincarnated in the bodies of the twin sons Peretz and Zerach whom Tamar bore for Yehudah (verse 29). This is the deeper meaning of the sequence (Numbers 26:19-20) “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan and the sons of Yehudah were, etc.” All this is alluded to here through the sequence in which the Torah relates these events, something which the intelligent reader will comprehend. As to the problem that there were ten such martyrs at the hands of the Romans whereas only nine of the brothers were actively involved in the sale of Joseph, seeing that Reuven had been absent at the time of the sale and had previously expressed disapproval of the brothers’ treatment of Joseph, we would have to say that the tenth person was Joseph himself who was guilty of providing the brothers with cause to hate him to such a degree that they committed this crime against him. Seeing Joseph had been an inseparable part of the sin he also became part of the method of expiation. Another way of answering the problem of why the Romans chose ten martyrs [and why G’d allowed this, Ed.] is that certainly Joseph was not held responsible in such a fashion but that Reuven was. Reuven was punished in that way not because of his share in the sale of Joseph, something he had had no share in, but he had not been punished yet for his misdemeanour involving the couch of his stepmother Bilhah. We even have an allusion to this in Moses’ blessing for Reuven at the end of his life (Deut. 33:6) ויהי מתיו מספר, “may his population be included in the count,” the count being the ten martyrs who would absolve the ten brothers from their sin in the future.

ויהי בעת ההיא,”It was at that time,” according to Rashi the reason why the Torah introduces this paragraph with these words is to tell us that Yehudah’s demotion from his position of leadership of the brothers and his moving away from them was because he had proposed the sale of Joseph to Egypt. Many commentators challenge Rashi’s commentary saying that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Joseph to Egypt to the eventual reunion of the family, seeing that Joseph was 17 when he was sold and 39 when the brothers and his father moved to Egypt. Seeing that only so few years had elapsed, how could Yehudah have married, sired 3 sons, married off two of them, and have married Tamar and become the father of Zerach and Peretz, and Peretz siring Chetzron and Chamul, all within such a short space of time? [seeing the last two grandsons of Yehudah are numbered among the seventy members of Yaakov’s familty who left Canaan for Egypt (46,12)? Ed] Ibn Ezra writes that what is related here occurred before the sale of Joseph, and that the story was interrupted in order to contrast the story of Yehudah and Tamar with that of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar. [how Joseph could control his libido, whereas Yehudah could not.]

And Judah saw there the daughter of a merchant man whose name was Shua, and he took her and went in to her.

כנעני means A MERCHANT — (cf. Pesachim 50a and Zachariah 14:21).

A DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE. [In translating “Canaanite,” Onkelos said “merchant.” That is to say, a merchantman who came to dwell in the land of Canaan for business reasons. His intent is to say that Jacob’s sons guarded themselves from marrying Canaanitish women, as Isaac and Abraham, their fathers, had commanded. 24:3. And thus did the Sages mention in the Gemara of Tractate Pesachim. They took as wives women from Egypt, Ammon, Moab, and from the noble families of the children of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. It is for this reason that Scripture singles out Shaul, the son of Simeon, as the son of a Canaanitish woman, as he was the only one among them. And even there the Rabbis expounded that the reference is to Dinah who had relations with a Canaanite [Shechem]. Our Rabbis, however, have differed in this matter. Thus they have said: “Rabbi Yehudah says, ‘Twin sisters were born with each of Jacob’s sons, and they took them as wives.’ Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘Their wives were Canaanitish women.’” It is possible that Rabbi Nechemyah was not particular about [ the term “Canaanitish” and did not mean it to indicate] their genealogy. He meant to say only that they took women from the land of Canaan as wives. However, they were from among the strangers and the sojourners who had come there from all lands, either Ammonite or Moabite women, and other peoples. His purpose See Note 108. was only to differ with Rabbi Yehudah and say that they did not marry their sisters, since a maternal sister is forbidden to the sons of Noah. But according to Rabbi Yehudah it will be necessary to say that the sons of Leah married the twin sisters of the six other brothers, Prior to the giving of the Torah on Sinai, our ancestors had the status of b’nei Noach (sons of Noah). Consequently they could marry a paternal sister but not a maternal sister. See Sanhedrin 58 a; Rambam, Hilchoth Melachim 9:5. and they in turn wed the twin sisters of the sons of Leah. It may be that Rabbi Nechemyah does not at all admit the existence of these twins, with Jacob not having any daughter other than Dinah, as the literal interpretation of Scripture would indicate. It is not logically correct to say that they all married Canaanitish women since there would then have been descendants of Canaan, the accursed servant, among those who inherited the land, just as there were representatives of the seed of Abraham, and Scripture has commanded that he be destroyed until neither remnant nor survivor remain. In any case, e., whatever the correct opinion be in the matter discussed above. this man [the Canaanite referred to here] was a merchant, for why should Scripture find it necessary to state that he was a Canaanite by descent when all people of the land were Canaanites, of the Perizzites and Jebusites and their brothers, as all of these traced their genealogy to Canaan? Adullam, [from where this man came] furthermore, was in the land of Canaan. Thus if the word “Canaanite” is to be understood literally, why should Scripture have even mentioned it? It would then have been proper for the verse to say: “And Judah took there a wife with such-and-such a name,” just as it mentions the names of the women in the case of Tamar, and Esau’s wives, and others. But the true explanation is that he was a merchant, not of the land of Canaan, which belonged to the Hivite or the Amorite. This then is the meaning of the verse: And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, implying that he married her on account of her father. The word “Canaanite” must therefore mean merchant, for they were all Canaanites, and if “Canaanite” were to refer to his genealogy it would not be significant enough to be mentioned. And concerning the verse which states, The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah; which three were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess, This would seem to indicate that she was indeed a Canaanitess. this is due to the fact that being the daughter of the man called “the Canaanite,” she was also so called, since this man was called “the merchant” by them as he was known for, and expert in, his trade, on account of which he settled there. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that because this woman was a Canaanitess, and Judah had transgressed the opinion of his fathers, her children were evil and they died. And this is why concerning Shaul, Scripture mentions only that he was the son of a Canaanitish woman, but with respect to Shelah the son of Judah it was not necessary for Scripture to mention it Shaul, on the other hand, was not mentioned above. Hence in mentioning the seventy souls, it states that he was of a Canaanitish woman (46:10). These are the words of Ibn Ezra, and Ramban now proceeds to comment upon them. [when enumerating the descendants of Jacob who entered Egypt]. If so, the expression, And Judah saw there a daughter, would mean that he saw her and desired her, even as it says of Samson, And he saw a woman in Timnah. And in the Parshah of Vayechi Yaakov, Rashi wrote: “And his sons bore him, but not his sons’ sons. For thus indeed did Jacob command them; ‘My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons since they are children of Canaanitish women.’” Ramban, however, proceeds to reconcile the position of Rashi with that of Ibn Ezra. It may be that, according to Rashi, Jacob said this of Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, who were of the daughters of Canaan, and therefore Jacob excluded all the other [grandsons although their mothers were not Canaanitish]. However, in all of our texts of Bereshith Rabbah we find this version: “My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons’ sons, as there is among them of the daughters of Canaan.” ” Thus it is clear from this Midrash that only Shaul was born of a Canaanitish woman, but not Shelah the son of Judah. Tamar likewise was the daughter of one of the strangers living in the land, not the daughter of a man who was a Canaanite by descent. Far be it that our lord David See Ruth 4:15-22. and the Messiah our just one, who will speedily reveal himself to us, be of the seed of Canaan, the accursed servant. Our Rabbis have also said concerning Tamar that she was the daughter of Shem, of whom it is said, And he was a priest of the most high G-d.

"A Canaanite man" — some say this means a merchant, as in "the Canaanite has dishonest scales in his hand" (Hosea 12:8); and with the addition of a yod: "no Canaanite shall be there anymore" (Zechariah 14:21). It is equally possible to take it in its plain sense. Our Sages of blessed memory said that "Judah went down" means he descended from his greatness. This is the way of homiletical interpretation, for one who travels from the north of the world to its south is indeed going down — and men of investigation will understand that this is true.

בת איש כנעני. the daughter of a Canaanite. The word "Canaanite" means a trader. Ibn Ezra writes that it is possible that the word Canaanite is to be understood in the usual way, i.e. a local inhabitant of the Canaanite tribes. I maintain that it is impossible to imagine that any of the sons of Jacob would intermarry with the Canaanites, something which their forefathers had so strenuously opposed, as pointed out specifically in Pessachim 50. The Torah was careful to say "the daughter of a Canaanite man," meaning that she herself was not a Canaanite woman. This is only possible if her father was a merchant, not an actual Canaanite. Had she been a Canaanite, Yehudah would have been guilty of a great misdemeanour by marrying her. If this had indeed been the case the Torah would have indicated it by writing "he married a Canaanite woman whose father was called Shua," or something similar. It would not even have required an additional word to inform us of that fact. The Torah should not have let us surmise that Yehudah married a Canaanite woman but should have spelled it out clearly. ויקחיה, he married her, etc. He performed all the necessary legal requirements for marriage.

בת שוע, איש כנעני, “Bat Shua, daughter of a merchant. She was not a Canaanite, as the sons of Yaakov would not marry women of this nation.

בת איש כנעני, “the daughter of a Canaanite man of distinction.” According to Onkelos the word כנעני in this instance refers to a merchant, a trader. Yehudah was certainly true to the tradition of his fathers not to marry girls of Canaanite descent. The respective wives of all the brothers may be presumed to have been of Egyptian descent or of Moabite and Ammonite descent respectively, neighboring peoples who were not from Canaanitic stock. The brothers may also have married descendants of Ishmael or Keturah, Avraham’s second wife who had born him six sons. This is the reason that we are told in 46,10 amongst the list of sons of Shimon that there was someone who is described as שאול בן הכנענית, “Saul the son of a Canaanite woman.” Even when the Torah was so explicit, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) still explained that that woman was not a true Canaanite, claiming that the “Canaanite woman” was none other than Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite and that Shimon had married her and had adopted the son she bore as a result of this rape.

בת איש כנען, “daughter of a Canaanite named Shu’a.” Onkelos translates the word איש כנעני not as an ethnic description, but as the description given to “traders.” He wants to be sure that we know that none of the brothers married a Canaanite woman. This is the reason why the Torah singled out “Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite,” in 46,10 among the sons of Shimon as an exception. This subject has already been the subject of disagreement of Tannaim in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah claiming that twin sisters had been born with all of the twelve brothers, enabling them to marry half sisters, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah holds that the brothers other than Joseph, married Canaanite women. Rabbi Yehudah is forced to have the brothers marry half sisters, something permitted to Israelites before the Torah was given, whereas according to Rabbi Nechemyah we would have to presume that all these twin sisters died before their husbands moved to Egypt, as otherwise, how come they are not included in the list of descendants of Yaakov who moved to Egypt? If we approach the subject logically, it is hard to understand how sons of Yaakov could marry women of a cursed nation such as the Canaanites. It is therefore most likely that Onkelos was correct in translating the word איש כנעני as “a prominent trader.” This would also account for the Torah writing ‘Yehudah saw there, etc.” Had this girl been an ethnic Canaanite, what was so special in Yehudah “seeing” her? They were a dime a dozen! She struck him as not belonging to the true inhabitants of that region. It is possible to understand Rabbi Nechemyah as not meaning that the brothers actually married ethnic Canaanites. He may only have wanted to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that the brothers committed what was incest in terms of Torah legislation. Not only this, but half sisters from the same mother were also forbidden even before the Torah was given. There is little doubt that among the inhabitants of the land of Canaan there were also a minority of Moabites and Ammonites who did not belong to descendants of Canaan who had been cursed. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Yehudah had sons who were not loyal to their father and grandfather’s tradition was that he had married a Canaanite, and that this was the reason they died so young. This was also the reason the Torah criticized Shimon for having sired Sha-ul from a Canaanite mother [not necessarily his wife, Ed.]. If not for this reason, why would the Torah have singled out the maternity of Sha-ul as the only one of Yaakov’s grandchildren? According to the approach of Ibn Ezra, we would have to understand the line: “Yehudah saw there the daughter of a prominent Canaanite, etc.,” as Yehudah taking an instant liking to that woman, much as Shimshon took an instant liking to the Philistine woman in Judges 14,1 something described by the prophet Samuel as “Shimshon descended to Timnatah, where he saw a woman of the daughters of the Philistines, etc.” According to Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 50,13 וישאו אותו בניו, that “Yaakov’s sons carried his bier,” the absence of mention of Yaakov’s grandsons as pall bearers is due to Yaakov having forbidden Egyptians to be pall bearers as well as his grandsons, seeing they had been born of Canaanite mothers. He had referred at least to Shelah son of Yehudah and a Canaanite, and Shau-l son of Shimon and a Canaanite. In order not to slight these grandsons, he precluded all of them from being his pall bearers. [Tanchumah on Numbers12 explains why also Joseph and Levi were excluded from that task. Ed.] ער ואונן, some commentators trace the origin of these names to ערירי and אנינות, “childlessness, and pre burial state of mourning.” They had been named so, out of deference to Yaakov’s painful memories of the son he presumed lost. Nachmanides explains that Yehudah called his son ער, as a symbol of awakening, עוררה, whereas his wife called the second son אונן, and the Torah did not bother to inform us why either son was named as he was. It is possible that the wife of Yehudah had a difficult birth with her second son, just as Rachel called her second son by a name that reflected the pains she experienced in order to give birth to him. The word is closely related to the word מתאוננים in Numbers 11,1, where it describes deep frustration of the people and deep dissatisfaction. Yehudah, unlike his father Yaakov, did not bother to change the name his wife had given to their son. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,4 the name ער foreshadows that the boy would be “poured out from the world,” הוער, whereas the name אונן foreshadows that this child would bring sorrow and mourning upon himself, i.e. אנינה.

And she conceived and bore a son, and he called his name Er.

AND HE CALLED HIS NAME ER. Judah called his son Er, said name being derived from the expression, Stir up (‘Or’rah’) Thy might. His wife called the name of the second son Onan, Ramban makes the point that the name Judah chose for his son can easily be surmised, as it suggests strength. But why his wife should choose a name like “Onan” is not indicated. but Scripture does not relate the reason for this name. Now it is possible that she experienced difficult labor, for it is customary for women to name their children after such an experience, as did the mother of Jabez who so named him, saying: Because I bore him with pain. The name “Yavetz” contains the Hebrew letters of atzev (pain). And so did Atarah, the mother of Onam, [call him by the name Onam on account of her difficult labor], the name being derived from the expression, And the people were ‘k’mithon’nim’ (as murmurers); Wherefore doth a living man ‘yithonen’ (complain)? This is similar in expression to ben oni (the son of my sorrow) mentioned in the case of Rachel. Judah was not particular about changing Onan’s name as his father Jacob had done. In Bereshith Rabbah 5:5. our Rabbis said, by way of explaining the name Er, that he was destined to be thrown off (she’hu’ar) from the world. (Verse 7, and see Ramban there.) Now this is not to say that such was Judah’s intent. However, the Rabbis made their exposition since the names indicate the future.

And she conceived again and bore a son, and she called his name Onan.

And she continued again and bore a son, and she called his name Shelah; and he was in Chezib when she bore him.

והיה בכזיב AND HE WAS AT CHEZIB — the name of a place. I am of opinion that it was called Chezib because there she ceased bearing. This meaning of the word occurs in (Jeremiah 15:18) “wilt thou indeed be unto me as an (אכזב) a deceiver (one who ceases to keep faith)”, and (Isaiah 58:11) “whose waters do not (יכזבו) fail (cease)". For if this be not so (that it was called Chezib for the reason stated) what is it intended to tell us (what reason is there for telling us where he was at that time)? In Genesis Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah 55:4) I found the following ‘ותקרא את שמו שלה וגו AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SHELAH [AND HE WAS AT CHEZIB] etc. — פסקת “ceasing”.

AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SHELAH, AND HE [Judah] WAS AT CHEZIB, WHEN SHE BORE HIM. Rashi wrote: “I am of the opinion that because it was there that she ceased bearing children, the place was called Chezib (deceit). It is similar in expression to the verse, Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful (‘achzav’) brook. If this be not so, what is the verse teaching us by mentioning that Judah was in Chezib?”Now I do not know why a place should be named for that reason, [i.e., because there she ceased bearing children], there being nothing outstanding in such an event as three sons were sufficient for her. Moreover, at the time she gave birth to the third son it was not yet known whether she had ceased bearing or would give birth afterwards. Only at the time of her demise did it become established [that she had ceased bearing with the third son]. Also in Da’ath Z’keinim ba’alei Tosafoth. say that it was their custom for the father to name the firstborn, and the mother the second one. It is for this reason that Scripture states concerning the first son, And he called his name, here. and concerning the second one, And she called. here. Now concerning the third son, [the naming of whom was the father’s prerogative, Scripture nevertheless] says, And she called, explaining that this was because Judah was in Chezib when she gave birth to him, and he was not there to name him. This interpretation lacks rhyme or reason. In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra Scripture relates where they were born; the statement, when she bore ‘him,’ is as if it had said ‘them,’ as all three sons were born in one place. In my opinion, the name Shelah is an expression meaning a thing which stops and deceives. Thus, do not ‘thashleh’ (deceive) me, which the Targum there renders as, “Let not your word deceive your handmaid.” Perhaps it is related to the concept of error, for he who commits an error deceives his thinking. Thus Scripture is saying that she called him Shelah, [a word which is traceable to the root of the Hebrew word meaning ‘error,’] because of the name of the place, as he was in Chezib — [a word which means ‘deceive’] — when she bore him. And [the word v’hayah (and he was), although it should really be saying, v’haytha, (and she was), is identical with the expression ‘V’hayah hana’arah’ (And the damsel shall be). There, too, it should be saying, v’haytha hana’arah in the feminine, except that the word v’haya does not refer to na’arah but to the event itself and is therefore to be understood as: “And it shall come to pass that the damsel, etc.” Here, likewise, it is to be so understood. This is the intent of the saying of the Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah:5. “Paskath was the name of the place.”

"At Chezib" — this is a place name.

והיה בכזיב, the reason why she called their third son Shelah, a word reminiscent of Kings II 4,28 (לא) תשלה, “(do not) deceive, disappoint, disillusion,” a name which is not exactly complimentary to the bearer of it, was due to Yehudah being in כזיב, i.e. a reference to his being absent, so that she did not have this moral support when she began the labour pains prior to giving birth to her third son. [I am not sure if the author understood the Torah as using to the word כזיב to describe Yehudah’s state of mind, and that there was no such place at all. Ed.] Had he been there, he would never have agreed to the name she gave his son.

והיה יהודה בכזיב בלדתו אותו, “and Yehudah had been in Keziv (Achziv, according to Atlas Carta) when she gave birth to him.” (about 20 km north of Akko). This was the reason she named this son Sheylah; had Yehudah, the father been present at his birth, he would have named him. Rashi, commenting on this verse states that he has seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah, according to which the name Sheylah means that Bat Shua announced that her pregnancy had come to an end. The word could be a reference to her being disappointed about her husband’s absence while she gave birth. Compare what the woman from Shunem had said (אל תשלה אותי) to Elisha when promised she would have a son, i.e. and the son had died (Kings II 4,28).

והיה בכזיב בלדתה אותו, “he was at Keziv when she gave birth to him.” Why did the Torah have to tell us that Yehudah was at a certain place at the time his wife gave birth? According to Rashi this place was called כזיב because Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife, stopped having any more children after this. According to Nachmanides, Yehudah called his son Shelah, a word connected to שגגה, error, as the place he was born at brought home to Yehudah that he had committed an error. There is a mystical dimension to this verse and the word כזיב alludes to the third of the emanations, the emanation called בינה. This emanation has a great deal to do with the ability of a woman (or man) to have children. In fact this is alluded to already when G’d is described as ויבן, i.e. He provided בינה for the first woman who was formed from part of Adam. Our sages there commented that a woman has an extra portion of such בינה, i.e. she has been providentially endowed with the ability to have children. Yehudah had a prophetic insight which told him that his principal issue would not be any one of these three sons and he therefore prayed invoking the great attribute of G’d known as כוזו [which appears on the back of the parchments of our Mezzuzot, — Ed.], an attribute involved in matters pertaining to fertility and other genetic influences not subject to a person’s merit, the same attribute Hannah prayed to when she asked G’d to grant her זרע אנשים, not just a child but a child who would become worthy, i.e. an איש in the full sense of the word. (compare Samuel I 1,11) Yehudah’s prayer was accepted as he had twin sons by Tamar (verse 18) one of whom, Peretz, became the ancestor of King David. According to Rashi, the words ותהר לו, “she became pregnant for him,” in the above-mentioned verse are significant in this respect. We do not find this pronoun לו in connection with Bat Shua’s pregnancies or births. This entitles us to assume that Yehudah’s descendants would be known through Peretz and Zerach rather than through his other surviving son Shelah. The word בכזיב may also be read as an acrostic for the words ב-כח כ-וזו, ז-כה י-הודה ב—תאומים, “through the merit of invoking G’d’ attribute כוזו Yehudah merited having the twins born for him by Tamar.”

ותוסף עוד ותלד בן ותקרא שמו שלה, “She continued to give birth to another child whom she named Shelah.” I find it peculiar that on this occasion the Torah does not mention Bat Shua’s pregnancy before mentioning that she gave birth. Perhaps we may explain this as her having become pregnant with two children at the time she conceived Onan, and that there was an interval between Onan’s birth and Shelah’s birth. This could be borne out by the wording of the verse that refers to the birth of Shelah as an “additional” birth. This would also explain the Torah speaking about Yehudah being in כזיב, The word is understood as describing “interval, interruption,” as in Isaiah 58,11 אשר לא יכזבו מימיו ‘whose waters will flow without interruption.” [how does the author explain Yehudah asking Tamar to wait until Shelah grows up before giving her to him as a wife? Ed.] In other words, Yehudah separated from Bat Shua for some time after the birth of Onan. The Torah would then be telling us that in spite of Yehudah having separated from Bat Shua after the birth of Onan, she bore him another son, something that he had not expected. According to the author, Yehudah’s stalling Tamar was only that, an excuse not to have a third son marry the same woman whose two husbands had already died. והיה בכגזיב בלדתה אותו, “while he was in Keziv when she gave birth to him.” According to Rashi the location was called Keziv because this was where Bat Shua stopped bearing children. Nachmanides queries this, wanting to know why a place would be named to mark such a non-event. Furthermore, who knew at the time when Onan was born that his mother would not have any more children? No one knew this until after Bat Shua died. Some commentators say that seeing Yehudah had named his first son, his wife had named his second son. This was an accepted custom in those days. It would have been Yehudah’s turn to name the third child. The Torah explains the fact that he did not do so, by mentioning that he was in a different place at the time Bat Shua gave birth Nachmanides writes also that the meaning of the word כזיב indicates some disruption. The translation of לא תשלה by the Targum is also לא תכזב, “do not err in your prediction, i.e. do not deceive by being wrong.” (compare Kings II 4,28) Bat Shua giving birth in the absence of her husband was a mistake on Yehudah’s part, he should have been at her side.

And Judah took a wife for Er his firstborn, and her name was Tamar.

And Er, the firstborn of Judah, was evil before Hashem, and Hashem put him to death.

רע בעיני ה' WAS WICKED IN THE EYES OF THE LORD — like the wickedness of Onan, and committing the same sin. This must have been the case because of Onan it is said, (v. 10) “And the Lord slew him also — Onan’s death was for a similar reason as Er’s death. Why did Er commit this sin? So that she should not bear children and her beauty thereby become impaired (Yevamot 34b).

AND ER, JUDAH’s FIRSTBORN, WAS WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture does not specify the nature of his wickedness as it did in the case of his brother. here. Instead, it simply states that he died for his own sin. It informs us that this was not by way of punishment of Judah for his role in the sale of Joseph, since the saving of Joseph’s life by Judah compensated for his role in the sale. There was no case of death of a child in the house of the patriarchs except this one who was wicked in the sight of the Eternal, since the race of the righteous is blessed. This is why Jacob mourned many days for his son Joseph, and he refused to comfort himself, -35. for he considered this to be a great punishment to himself, quite apart from his love for him.

ויהי ער רע בעיני ה', the words “in the eyes of G’d,” are mentioned to tell us that he was not evil to his fellow human beings.

וימיתהו, “He killed him.” The sin was that he did not sleep with his wife in such a way that she could become pregnant with his semen. Tamar had remained a virgin even after having been married to Onan, so that Yehudah was not guilty of sleeping with a close relative whose previous marriage had been consummated, so that she would have been forbidden to him on that score. Our author, at this point raises the same question this Editor had raised at the end of 38,1, i.e. that they should not have been culpable until the age of 20.

ויהי ער רע בעיני ה' וימתיהו ה', “Er was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him.” Some scholars ask how it is possible that someone as young in years as Er could be held responsible for his deeds by the Heavenly tribunal, which supposedly does not judge anyone under 20 years of age. The forced answer given to this question is that if a youngster is intellectually developed to the level of a 20 year old, he is held responsible in spite of his being a minor in terms of years. According to what I have written earlier, about Yehudah having separated from his brothers and married prior to the sale of Joseph, it is quite possible that Er was 20 years old at the time of his death. Nachmanides draws attention to the fact that the Torah did not spell out Er’s sin, even though we have been told about Onan’s sin. Presumably, the words: “he was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him,” mean that he died on account of his own personal sin, and not as a punishment for Yehudah for his having sold Joseph. Yehudah was saved from his penalty for having saved Joseph’s life by the very act of selling him. Among all the families of the patriarchs the only one who had to bury his children was Yehudah.

And Judah said to Onan: Go in to your brother's wife and perform the levirate duty with her, and raise up seed for your brother.

והקם זרע AND RAISE SEED — The son will be called by the name of him who is dead.

AND MARRY HER AS BROTHER-IN-LAW, AND RAISE SEED TO THY BROTHER. The son will be called by the name of the deceased. This is Rashi’s language. But this is not true, for in the same commandment of the Torah it likewise says, And it shall be, that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel, and yet the brother-in-law is not commanded to call his son by the name of his dead brother. In the case of Boaz it says, Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Machlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place, and yet she called him Obed, not Machlon. Moreover, it says here, And Onan knew that the seed would not be his. here. Now what misfortune would have befallen him — to the point that he wasted his seed from before her — if his son was to be called by the name of his dead brother? Most people even desire to do so. Again, Scripture does not say, “And Onan said,” but instead it says, And Onan ‘knew’ that the seed would not be his. here. This would indicate that Onan had some definite kind of knowledge in this matter which made him certain that the seed would not be his. here. The subject is indeed one of the great secrets of the Torah, Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5. concerning human reproduction, and it is evident to those observers who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. The ancient wise men who were prior to the Torah knew of the great benefit in marrying a childless dead brother’s wife, and that it was proper for the brother to take precedence in the matter, and upon his failure to do so, his next of kin would come after him, for any kinsman who was related to him, who would inherit his legacy, would derive a benefit from such a marriage. And it was customary for the dead man’s wife to be wed by the brother or father or the next of kin in the family. We do not know whether this was an ancient custom preceding Judah’s era. In Bereshith Rabbah 5:6. they say that Judah was the one who inaugurated the commandment of marrying a childless person’s widow, for since he had received the secret Onan “knew” that when he married his brother’s wife his brother’s soul would become incarnate in his son. Therefore Onan did not consider the child to be his own. See my Hebrew commentary, pp. 214-5. from his ancestors he was quick to fulfill it. Now when the Torah came and prohibited marrying former wives of certain relatives, it was the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, to abrogate the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife in case he dies childless, but it was not His will that the prohibition against marrying a father’s brother’s wife or a son’s wife or similar wives of relatives be set aside. It was only in the case of a brother that the custom had established itself, and the benefit is likely with him and not with the others, (Abarbanel; see my Hebrew commentary, p. 215). as I have mentioned. Now it was considered a matter of great cruelty when a brother did not want to marry his dead brother’s wife, and they would call it the house of him that had his shoe loosed, for [after his dead brother’s wife had performed Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) of the brother-in-law], he The Cabala has considered the subject of Chalitzah, as one of profound mystery. was now removed from them, and it is fitting that this commandment be fulfilled through the loosening of the shoe. Now the ancient wise men of Israel, having knowledge of this important matter, established it as a custom to be practised among all those inheriting the legacy, providing there is no prohibition against the marriage, and they called it Ge’ulah (Redemption). This was the matter concerning Boaz, and the meaning of the words of Naomi and the women neighbors. This explains why the women did not say, “There is a son born to Ruth or Boaz.” The man of insight will understand.

"And he shall perform levirate marriage with her" — the meaning is: since you are her levir, demonstrate the levirate act, and that is "come in to your brother's wife." In the section beginning "When brothers dwell together" (Deuteronomy 25:5), I will elaborate somewhat, if Hashem lengthens my days until I reach there.

ויבם אותה, “he performed a levirate marriage ceremony on her.” This is one of the expressions which can be used positively as well as negatively, i.e. constructively and destructively. Other expressions that are similar are;, פארות, תפאר or מסעף פארה, בסעיפות קננו, in this instance it means he lifted marriage restrictions from her so that she could remarry. The same applies to the expression: ויבמה, “he preformed the levirate ritual of marriage for her.”

ויבם אותה, “and perform a levirate marriage with her.” According to Nachmanides this was an accepted custom in earlier times, long before the Torah had been given when it was legislated to perform such levirate marriages and the scope of who was qualified to enter into such levirate marriages was greatly reduced at that time. The Torah made an exception in the laws of incest, permitting a brother to marry the widow of another brother who had died without offspring, although there was an overriding law not to marry the one time wife of a brother under all other circumstances.

And Onan knew that the seed would not be called by his name, and it came to pass whenever he went in to his brother's wife that he would destroy his way upon the ground, so as not to raise up seed for his brother.

ושחת ארצה AND HE DESTROYED ONTO THE GROUND — He 'threshed inside and winnowed outside' (Genesis Rabbah 85:5).

"For the seed would not be his" — it would not be called by his name, in accordance with the meaning of "and the firstborn whom she bears" (Deuteronomy 25:6). "And he spilled to the ground" — he would waste his seminal emission and pour it outside upon the ground. And I marvel at Ben Tamim the Easterner, who interpreted "and he spilled to the ground" to mean that he engaged with her in an unnatural manner, so that she would not conceive — as though he spilled upon the earth that belongs to her, since she sits upon the earth. This is a crazed interpretation, and God forbid, God forbid, that the holy seed should be defiled in such filth. "He gave seed" — [the word neton] is conjugated like a shalem (regular) verb.

כי לא לו יהיה הזרע, he knew that not he alone would get the credit for performing this act of love for his deceased brother, seeing that part of the merit would go to his older brother seeing he had first fulfilled the commandment of marrying, so that he would share in the merit of having a son sired posthumously through a levirate union with his widow by his younger brother. [I fail to understand how someone who married in order to use sex only as an act of self-gratification can be described as having acquired a merit by the act of marrying. Perhaps gratifying the sex urge only with someone to whom one is married is by itself a מצוה, and this is what Seforno had in mind. Ed.] לבלתי נתן זרע לאחיו, for not having given his seed for the use (perpetuation on earth) of his deceased brother.

וידע אונן, “Onan realised;” [the author’s problem with this expression is that the term ידע, normally refers to something in the past which was known as a fact. Ed.] The author quotes הידוע נדע, “how were we to know,” in Genesis 43,7 as proof that the term can also be used here. כי לא לו יהיה הזרע, “for the child would not be named after him;” according to the plain meaning of the text, זרע is used with the production of a crop in the field, not a human being.'והיה אם בא וגו, “and whenever he would engage in marital relations, etc;” he reasoned that if he were to impregnate his wife (the widow of his brother) the result would be that he would at the same time destroy his own ancestral share of the land. For who would then do the plowing and all the other work needed to be performed in the field? לבלתי נתן זרע לאחיו, “not to provide semen for his brother;” we find similar considerations in the Book of Ruth 4,6 when a potential redeemer declined to perform a levirate marriage with Ruth;” [as the latter had not been a Jewess, and a Moabite even, his consideration was not sinful. Ed.] Besides, there was another redeemer willing and anxious to perform such a ritual for her.

And what he did was evil before Hashem, and He put him to death as well.

וימת גם אותו, “He killed him also.” The word גם is proof that Er and Onan died for the same sin. Our sages in Yevamot 34 say that it is easy to understand why Onan should have died for this sin seeing he had violated his father’s instructions to marry Tamar and to have children by her (verse 8). He thought that these children would not be accounted as his own but as his deceased brother’s Er, hence he deliberately wasted his semen. The question is why did Er act in such a fashion? Why did he not want children? The Talmud answers that he did not want Tamar to become disfigured through a pregnancy. He wanted to preserve her beauty, i.e. to treat her as a sex object rather than as the mother of his children. This explains why Yehudah had stressed to Onan (verse 8) “and maintain seed for your brother.” Seeing that Yehudah did not add the word המת, “the deceased,” when instructing Onan to have children with Tamar, Onan realised that when Tamar would have children these would not even be considered as his children but as his late brother’s. In other words, he would not even be compensated for Tamar losing her youthful beauty. The meaning of the letter ל in the word לאחיך in verse 8 may be understood as similar to אמרי לי אחי הוא, “say concerning me he is my brother” (Genesis 20,13). The verse teaches us the lesson that if someone deliberately wastes his semen, i.e. שחת ארצה, it is as if he should be dead. And this was the sin of the generation which perished during the deluge. We find the word כי השחית כל בשר על הארץ in connection with that generation, i.e. the same word as we find describing Onan’s sin (Nidah 12). The reason the Torah calls the firstborn of Yehudah ער was because these letters are the same as רע, “evil” in G’d’s eyes [same letters in a different sequence. Ed.] Seeing the Torah mentions the word רע in connection with both Er, Onan, and the people of Sodom (Genesis 13,13), it stands to reason that all of these people were guilty of the sin of letting their semen go to waste deliberately.

And Judah said to Tamar his daughter-in-law: Remain a widow in your father's house until Shelah my son grows up — for he said: Lest he also die like his brothers. And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house.

‘כי אמר וגו FOR HE SAID etc. — that is to say, he pushed her off with a straw (i.e., he put her off with a lame excuse) because he never intended to give her to him in marriage כי אמר פן ימות FOR HE SAID LEST PERADVENTURE HE DIE — She is a woman of whom it may be presumed that the men she marries will always die young (Genesis Rabbah 85:5).

ABIDE A WIDOW AT THY FATHER’s HOUSE. The meaning thereof is that “you should conduct yourself there as a widow until Shelah be grown up.” He suggested to her: “Place yourself in mourning, put on mourning garments, do not anoint yourself with oil, as a woman girded with sack-cloth for the bridegroom of her youth, until Shelah be grown up and he will marry you.” Such was the custom of a widow waiting to be married: she who desires to be married to a stranger wears mourning garments only for a short period as is the custom, and then feigning comfort arrays herself in scarlet. And she covered herself with a veil, here. Ramban thus interprets the verse; And she removed the garments of her widowhood, and covered herself with a veil, as an indication that she was no longer mourning. See Ramban further, Verse 16. until she be married to a man. FOR HE SAID, LEST HE ALSO DIE, LIKE HIS BRETHREN. That is to say, he dismissed her with a paltry reply because he never intended to give her to him in marriage. For he said, Lest he also die, like his brethren, for she has established herself as one whose husbands die young. This is Rashi’s Language. Now I do not know why Judah, a ruler of his generation, should be shy towards this woman and not tell her, “Go in peace from my house,” and why should he mislead her when she is even forbidden to Shelah, just as the Rabbis have said concerning a married woman: “Twice establishes a presumption [that the woman is a katlanith — a woman whose husbands die].” However since Judah was angered by her harlotry to the extent of condemning her to be burned, it would appear that he originally did wish her to remain in his family. It is also unreasonable to say that Judah did not hear about how his children sinned against G-d, thus causing Him to deliver them into the hands of their fate, while Tamar was guiltless in their death. It is obvious that Judah did care to have Tamar in the family, and as for her part in the death of Er and Onan, did not Judah hear how his sons had sinned against G-d, and that Tamar was guiltless? The correct view appears to me to be that Shelah was fit for the marriage, but his father did not want him to marry Tamar while he was still a youth, lest he commit some sin with her as had his brothers who died young, for they were boys, none of them having attained twelve years See my Hebrew commentary, p. 216. of age. His intention was that when he would mature and would listen to the instruction of his father, he would then give her to him as a wife. But when she had waited a long time and it appeared to her that Shelah had grown up — although in the eyes of his father he was still a boy as he was not yet ten years old and therefore his father was bent on waiting longer — then Tamar, in her craving to give birth from the sacred race, hastened and did this deed.

"Remain a widow in your father's house" — there is a missing bet before the [second] bet, as in "whatever is found in the house of Hashem" (2 Kings 12:11).

שבי אלמנה, wait for a while in a state of widowhood. This expression also occurs in Hoseah 3,3 ימים רבים תשבי לי, “you will have to go a long time without marrying.” פן ימות הוא כאחיו, so he would not be so preoccupied with Tamar’s beauty due to his immaturity which had deflected his brothers from the purpose of marriage, and he too would die as a result of this.

; כי אמר פן ימות, “for he had said (to himself) ‘”lest he die too;”On this line Rashi comments that Yehudah felt that Tamar was one of those women who has a tendency to bring about the death of her husbands. We have a statement to this effect in the Talmud Yevamot 64 as well as in Ketuvot 43, that if two husbands of a woman have died, one risks one’s life if one marries her. Even according to the opinion that such conclusions cannot be drawn unless the same woman had lost three husbands, Yehudah was afraid for the life of his son. The Talmud forbids a potential suitor to marry a woman with such a record. עד יגדל שילה, “until Sheylah would have come of age.” Yehudah felt that once Sheylah would mature, he would be wise enough not to repeat the sins of his older brothers who had died. An alternate exegesis of this paragraph: Yehudah wanted to wait until Sheylah would grow up, in her father’s house by which time, hopefully, Sheylah would have married someone else and would have produced children from such a marriage. Once that had occurred, Yehudah was willing to let Tamar marry him as he would have no reason that his semen would given to Tamar in order to keep alive the name of his deceased brothers, would at the same time destroy his own future.

עד יגדל שלה בני, “until my son Shelah becomes of age.” Seeing there was no brother older than Shelah for Tamar to marry, she would have to wait until Shelah was old enough. Had Shelah been of marriageable age already, Yehudah would not have asked Tamar to wait. This verse [the problems caused by Yehudah delaying the levirate marriage of Shelah, Ed.] prompted our sages in Yevamot 39 to say that if a brother evaded performing the levirate union until a younger, under-aged brother had come of age and would perform it in his stead, or if an older brother was overseas and a brother who was present wanted to wait until his older brother returns from overseas and marries this widow, that one does not accept such arguments. The brother who is present and of age must either perform the levirate marriage or release the widow by performing the rite of חליצה, the act of releasing her to marry an outsider, so hat she can get on with her life. In Ruth 1,11 Naomi says to her daughters-in-law: “turn back, my daughters! Why should you go with me? I am too old to be married. Even if I were to be married tonight and I also bore sons, should you wait for them till they grow up?” This suggests that there might be a point in waiting under less extreme circumstances. There are those who hold that Naomi meant that if she had been pregnant at the time she uttered these words she would have encouraged her daughters-in-law to wait till such sons had been old enough to marry. However, people who think along those lines are quite wrong. The Torah in Deut. 25,1 introduces the whole subject of the levirate marriage with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו, which the Talmud in Yevamot 17 interprets to mean ”when the brothers concerned are alive at the same time.” In other words, no unborn brother can qualify for observing this legislation for a brother who had died before he was born. כי אמר פן ימות גם הוא, “for he had said: ‘lest he die too.’” He felt that Tamar had demonstrated a tendency to cause the death of her husbands. There is an opinion in the Talmud according to which when something occurs successively even only twice we already consider this as an established pattern, i.e. חזקה. This is the way Rashi interprets our verse. Nachmanides questions this, writing that if indeed Yehudah’s fears were based on this consideration why would he not tell Tamar his reason and deceive her by making her think that he would give Shelah to her in due course? According to Rashi, Shelah would be forbidden to marry Tamar as she was a potential killer. This is why Nachmanides explains that actually Shelah would have been a suitable third husband for her under the levirate marriage legislation. Yehudah simply did not want Shelah to marry until he had matured more as otherwise he might become guilty of the same sin which had caused the death of his brothers. When Tamar noticed that although Shelah had matured in the interval her father-in-law had still not given him to her in marriage, she decided to take a different route to secure issue from the family of Yaakov/Yehudah.

שבי אלמנה בית אביך, “dwell as a widow in your father’s home, etc.” This was a rejection of Tamar as Shelah’s future wife; Yehudah had no intention of ever letting Shelah marry Tamar. Nachmanides writes that he does not understand why Yehudah had to reject her in such a round about fashion; he could have simply told her to go home and feel free to marry anyone else. Furthermore, seeing that Yehudah was so concerned about Tamar having had sexual relations with someone that he was prepared to convict her of death by burning, clearly he did expect her to marry Shelah, why else maintain the fiction that she was a levirate wife in limbo, and as such forbidden to be intimate with any other man? Moreover, it is most unlikely that Yehudah had not heard that the cause of his sons dying was not Tamar but their own sins. I believe therefore, that Shelah was perfectly suitable to be the husband of Tamar in a levirate marriage, but his father did not want him to marry Tamar while he was still young, (immature) so that he would not commit a sin similar to those committed by his brothers. They died in their youth precisely because they were too immature, neither of them being even 12 years of age. When Shelah would reach maturity and therefore be obedient to his father’s moral and ethical instructions, he would be quite prepared to have him marry Tamar. At the time of Onan’s death, he was not even 10 years old. Tamar, who was older and had an active libido, deserved to be remarried sooner, and when Yehudah did not give him to her she interpreted this as an outright refusal, not a temporary one.

And the days multiplied, and the daughter of Shua, the wife of Judah, died. And Judah was comforted, and he went up to the shearers of his flock — he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite — to Timnah.

ויעל על גזזי צאנו AND HE WENT UP UNTO HIS SHEEP-SHEARERS — it means: and he went up to Timnah to stand by his sheep-shearers.

AND JUDAH, WENT UP UNTO HIS SHEEP-SHEARERS. He would go there continually to console himself after his wife’s death so that he may turn his attention to the sheep and forget his poverty. [and remember his trouble no more.] Now when it was told to Tamar that he goes up there daily without fail, she waited for him on one of those days. It may be that since Judah was prominent in the land, people would assemble there to make a feast at the time of the shearing, similar to a royal feast, and the poor would go there, and it was told to her before he went up there.

"And Judah was comforted" — the meaning is: after he had received consolation, he went up. "To his sheepshearers" — "al" here is used in place of "el" [i.e., "to"].

ותמת בת שוע, so that Yehudah should have brought his daughter-in-law into his house as a replacement for his wife. This is what Avraham had done when Yitzchok’s wife Rivkah moved into Sarah’s tent after the latter had died. (24,67) Yehudah’s failure to give Tamar his wife’s quarters to live in may have caused her to despair of having any kind of future in his family.

על גוזזי צאנו, “with the shearers of his flocks.” The word על here is used as meaning the same as עם, “with.”

ויעל על גוזזי צאנו, “he went up to supervise the shearing of his flocks.” The Torah describes a normal occupation of Yehudah, who frequently supervised his shearers. On one of these occasions, which Tamar was quite familiar with, she waylaid him. Alternately, the Torah describes a feast on the occasion of the completion of the shearing, and Tamar knew that Yehudah would participate. Therefore she positioned herself where he would have to pass her.

And it was told to Tamar, saying: Behold, your father-in-law is going up to Timnah to shear his flock.

עלה תמנתה HE GOETH UP TO TIMNAH — In the case of Samson it is said (Judges 14:1) “And Samson went down to Timnah”. But it lay on the slope of a mountain: from one direction one had to go up to it, from the other one went down to it (Sotah 10a).

עולה תמנתה, “ascending toward Timnat;” when Yehudah travelled this route it was spiritually uplifting for him (in retrospect) seeing that two righteous people would be born from that union. When Shimshon in Judges 14,1, travelled the same route, this is described as a “descent,” as it eventually led to his being blinded and dying, [and we have no record of his having sired any children at all. Ed.] לגוז צאנו, “to shear his sheep.” Tamar deliberately chose a time for this encounter when her fatherinlaw, Yehudah, would be in good spirits. At such a time one is more prone to fall victim to temptation, especially as at the conclusion of such a shearing there would be a festive meal and much wine would be consumed. If you were to ask how G-d could have agreed that all of the kings of the Davidic dynasty were the result of the illegitimate pairing of Yehudah with his daughterinlaw through Peretz? The answer is that it was better that David would be descended from the daughter of Shem who had been a priest of Hashem as we know from Genesis chapter 14, than that he should be descended through a Canaanite woman, a cursed nation. [The author appears to contradict what he wrote about Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife not having been of Canaanite descent. Compare page 281. Ed.] Furthermore, it is erroneous to describe the union between Tamar and Yehudah as sinful incest, seeing that before the giving of the Torah, when the seven laws only plus circumcision were binding for the descendants of Avraham, one could perform levirate marriages with any relative, including with the father of the deceased brother. (Compare B’chor shor) Seeing that Yehudah had not allowed Sheylah to perform the rites of the levirate marriage on Tamar, she was available to him for that purpose. Once the Torah was given, the rules about the levirate marriages were revamped to apply only to surviving brothers of the deceased. However, even after the Torah was given, the practice of the levirate marriage to other members of the family did not stop. [This editor is not sure whether the author means that after the Torah was given it remained permissible but was not obligatory for other members of the family, or whether what had once been allowed could not be abolished in practice, just as the use of private altars, though forbidden once the Israelites settled in the land of Israel, continued in spite of this, and it took until 100 years before the destruction of the Temple to eradicate that practice. Ed.] What Boaz did with Ruth is an example of this practice hundreds of years after the Torah had been given.

And she removed the garments of her widowhood from herself and covered herself with a veil and adorned herself, and she sat at the crossroads that is on the road to Timnah — for she saw that Shelah had grown up and she had not been given to him as a wife.

ותתעלף AND SHE WRAPPED HERSELF — she veiled her face that he should not recognise her. ותשב בפתח עינים AND SHE SAT AT THE ENTRANCE OF ENAYIM (literally, at the opening of the eyes) — at the place where the eyes become opened:) at the cross-road which is on the way leading to Timnah. Our Rabbis explain (Sotah 10b) that it means at the door (פתח) of our father Abraham’s residence to which all eyes עינים)) looked forward to pay a visit. כי ראתה כי גדל שלה FOR SHE SAW THAT SHELAH WAS GROWN etc. — This was the reason why she offered herself to Judah, for she was anxious to have children from him (as an ancestor in some way or other) (Horayot 10b).

"And she covered herself" — this is a transitive verb; its meaning is: she covered herself. "And she veiled herself" — its meaning is that she hid her face. Similarly, "and he covered his face" (Jonah 4:8) — he hid his face with his garments. Close in meaning to these is "studded with sapphires" (Song of Songs 5:14). "At the entrance of Enaim" — this is a place name. Some say there were two springs of water along the road that had the appearance of an opening [petah], and Judah would pass by there upon returning to his place.

בפתח עינים, at the beginning of two major roads. Such a highway is known as עינים, as we know from Genesis 16,7 על העין בדרך שור, “by the road leading to Shur.” אשר על דרך תמנתה, so that Yehudah could not avoid meeting her when he would return from Timnatah. כי ראתה כי גדל שלה, she thought that when Yehudah would see her without widow’s garments he would ask her why she had shed those garments. She would answer him that the time had come for Shelah to marry her. He himself had suggested that she live as a widow only until Shelah would grow up. In the meantime he had already matured.

כי ראתה כי גדל שלה, for she saw that Shelah had reached marriageable age. What is the meaning of the word והיא in our verse? Why did it not suffice for the Torah to say ולא נתנה לו לאשה? "and she had not been given as a wife to him" without the additional word והיא? Perhaps the verse wishes to inform us of two things. 1) She saw that Shelah had grown up and it was plain to see that Yehudah had not kept his promise when he asked Tamar to wait until such time as Shelah would grow up. 2) She saw through רוח הקודש, divine inspiration, that she was not destined to become Shelah's wife. This is why she could take up a position at Petach Eynayim and successfully seduce Yehudah. The long term results of Tamar's conduct speak for themselves. She deserved every possible credit.

ותכס בסעיף, “she wrapped her veil so as to cover her face.” This was not something that widows used to do.

ותתעלף, “she covered her face.” Ibn Ezra says that the meaning is that she covered her face. The expression is used in this sense in Jonah, בפתח עינים, according to Ibn Ezra this was the name of a place.

And Judah saw her and took her for one who goes out to the open country, for she had covered her face.

ויחשבה לזונה AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE AN HARLOT, because she was sitting at the cross-roads. כי כסתה פניה FOR SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE — so that he could not see her face and thus recognize her. A Midrashic explanation of our Rabbis is that כי כסתה פניה means BECAUSE SHE ALWAYS COVERED HER FACE: when she had stayed in her father-in-law’s house she had shown herself a modest woman, and therefore he did not suspect her (of being the woman who was sitting there for that evil purpose) (Sotah 10b).

AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE A HARLOT. This was because she was sitting at the cross-roads. For she had covered her face, and he could not see her. A Midrash of our Rabbis explains: For she had covered her face, i.e., that when she stayed in Judah’s house, she had acted modestly, always covering her face, and therefore he did not suspect her. This is Rashi’s language. Now the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s] literal interpretation is feasible since it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads, just as it is written, And she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, to call to them that pass by, etc. Accordingly, the verse states that because her face was veiled he did not recognize her. But according to the Midrasn of our Rabbis which states that she covered her face in her father-in-law’s house, meaning that she hid herself from him while being in his house and that he never saw her face, how would he recognize her even if she were not veiled? It further appears to me to be correct, in line with the literal sense of Scripture, that the verse is stating that he thought her to be a harlot because her face was veiled, since afterwards it states, For he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law. here. This indicates that if her face were not veiled, he would have recognized her to be his daughter-in-law. This again is at odds with the Midrash which states that he never saw her face. The reason for the covering of the face is that it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads wrapped up in a veil, with part of the face and hair uncovered, gesticulating with the eyes and lips, and baring the front of the throat and neck. Now since she would speak to the by-passer in an impudent manner, catching him and kissing him, she therefore veiled part of the face. Furthermore, harlots sitting by the roadside veil their faces because they commit harlotry even with relatives. Sodomites still do it to this day in our countries, and when they return to the city they remain anonymous. Thus we have learned in a Mishnah: “There are three kinds of head-nets: that of a girl, which is susceptible to midras An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. uncleanness; that of an old woman, which is susceptible to the uncleanness of a corpse, while that of a yotza’ath chutz, [literally, ‘she who goes outside’], is not susceptible to any uncleanness.” Now a yotzath chutz refers to the harlot, the nafkat bro of Onkelos here. This is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew term, yotza’ath chutz (she who goes outside)., who places the head-net on part of the head. It does not serve her the purpose of lying on it, for in that case it would be susceptible to midras-uncleanness. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. Nor does she cover her head with it, for in that case it would be susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. Instead, she uses it to dress up the ends of her hair, in order that it be partly visible from beneath the net, and this is why it is not susceptible to any uncleanness.

"For she had covered her face" — this explains [the phrase] "and she veiled herself." As for the one who interprets "she covered her face" to mean she painted it with various colors, and adduces proof from his daughter — it is nonsense, for one does not bring proof from fools. Also well-founded is what our Sages of blessed memory expounded: that she had been modest in her father-in-law's house.

ויחשבה לזונה כי כסתה פניה, “he assumed that she was a harlot because she had covered her face.” She had only done this when he was approaching, in order that he could not recognise her. The letter ח in the word ויחשבה, is vocalised with a semivowel sh’va.

כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yehudah considered the woman as a harlot because she had had covered her face, not wanting to be identified This would enable harlots to have sexual relations even with close relatives as the latter would not shy away from having contact with them. A Midrashic approach from Sotah 10: the words refer to the fact that while living under her father-in-law’s roof Tamar had kept her face covered so that he did not know what her face looked like. This is also the reason why Bereshit Rabbah 85,9 writes that a person should make a habit to know his relatives well enough to be able to identify them when looking at them so as to protect himself against what happened to Yehudah with Tamar.

ויחשבה לו לזונה, “he considered her as being a whore.” This was because she had chosen to sit at a crossroads כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” Our sages say that this described her state while married, and while she was in her father-in-law’s house, so that he did not recognize her facial features. Nachmanides writes that the proper explanation, based on the unadorned text, is that Yehudah considered the fact that she concealed her face as proof that she was a whore, as this is what all the whores did in those days They all used to sit at road junctions where there was a lot of traffic. Their shawl would cover part of their hair and leave only a mall part of their faces exposed, revealing their throats and part of their necks. Their lips and eyes were made up. They needed to accost prospective customers, speak to them, even kiss them, so that their faces could not be fully covered by their shawls. Seeing that they did not mind engaging in relations with their relatives, they had to worry about keeping their identities secret.

And he turned aside to her on the road and said: Come now, let me come in to you — for he did not know that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said: What will you give me, that you should come in to me?

ויט אליה אל הדרך AND HE TURNED UNTO HER BY THE WAY — from the road he was following he turned to the road where she was. In old French détourner; English to turn aside. הבה נא COME, I PRAY THEE — Prepare yourself and your mind for this. Wherever הבה occurs it signifies “preparing oneself”, except in any passage where it must necessarily be translated by “giving”. And, indeed, those signifying “preparation” have almost the meaning of “giving”. (ערבון (17— means a PLEDGE.

כי לא ידע כי כלתו היא, he did not even recognise her after he joined her in her private quarters. Had he recognised her he would surely have spoken to her concerning why he had not given her to his surviving son. G’d has His own agenda; clearly, it was His wish that Tamar bear a child or two children sired by Yehudah who in His eyes was more acceptable than his son Shelah [whose mother‘s antecedents we know little about.] G’d wanted that the eventual Messiah should have had genetic material dating back to Tamar. What will you give me. If he had offered immediate payment she would not have accepted it, because what she wanted was evidence that she could present later on to prove that he was the father.

הבה נא אבא אליך, “if you please, I wish to have relations with you.” If the Torah had applied the rules of grammar here, it should have quoted Yehudah as saying הבי instead of הבה. However, seeing that Yehudah considered the woman a harlot, a woman who demands sexual relations outright in the manner males do, he changed his mode of address and treated her as if she were a male. The Torah preferred to quote Yehudah verbatim instead of observing the rules of grammar. We find a parallel to this in Genesis 19,32 when the daughters of Lot initiate sexual intercourse with their father by first making him drunk. They too acted in a manner which is usually a male prerogative, and this is why the Torah wrote לכה נשקה instead of לכי נשקה. I have explained the matter there.

And he said: I will send a kid of the goats from the flock. And she said: If you give a pledge until you send it.

ערבון means a PLEDGE.

אם תתן ערבון, if you are prepared to give me such tokens I am willing to sleep with you as you requested.

אם תתן ערבון, “if you will leave an item as guarantee.” This is an abbreviated verse, which should have concluded with the words: “then I will accept your proposition.”

עד שלחך. The reason why we have the “weak” mode, i.e. the conjugation kal instead of the transitive conjugation hiphil, is to indicate that Yehudah would send a messenger to deliver the kid to Tamar. We find the use of the conjugation kal in connection with the sending of gifts especially, as for instance in 32,19 where Yaakov had instructed his messengers to Esau to describe the gift in such terms. (מנחה היא שלוחה) We find it again in verse 23 of our chapter where Yehudah says הנה שלחתי הגדי הזה, “here, I have sent this kid, etc.”

ותאמר אם תתן לי ערבון, “she said: ‘if you will give me a pledge;’” some commentators claim that Yehudah did not sleep with Tamar until after he had given her a token to serve as a marriage betrothal. They interpret her question above as her asking for such a token. It was meant to mean: “what kind of token of your intention to wed me are you going to give me?” Yehudah’s answer was that he would send her a young goat. Thereupon she asked for a guarantee that he would indeed send that goat. By insisting that he would give her his signet ring she meant that this would be her wedding ring. According to Rabbi Moshe, this whole interpretation is difficult to accept as the handing over of such a token requires the presence and confirmation by two witnesses in good standing as spelled out in the Talmud, tractate Kiddushin folio 65. Some people claim that an important person such as Yehudah would never travel except in the company of at least two people who could qualify as witnesses, just as a Torah scholar in our time does not travel alone and that therefore the betrothal of Tamar had been duly witnessed. If you were to counter that the betrothal was still invalid as she had never received the promised goat from him, and the Talmud in Kiddushin folio 8 states that even if the suitor gave the bride a token worth a p’rutah (smallest copper coin) as a pledge to cover the remainder, such a betrothal is not legally valid. We would therefore have to say that he gave her his signet ring not as a pledge, but as an outright gift at that time. After having done so, he told her that when he would send her the goat he expected her to return his ring. This is how, in my opinion, the author of the above interpretation must have meant it.

And he said: What pledge shall I give you? And she said: Your signet ring and your wrap and your staff that is in your hand. And he gave them to her, and he went in to her, and she conceived by him.

חתמך ופתילך THY SIGNET AND THY STRING — The Targum renders it by “Thy signet and thy cloak” — the ring which you use as a seal and the cloak with which you cover yourself ותהר לו AND SHE CONCEIVED BY HIM (לו, to him) — she conceived men who were strong, similar to himself, and men who were righteous, similar to himself (Genesis Rabbah 85:9).

THY SIGNET ‘UP’THILECHA.’ Onkelos renders it as “thy signet and thy cloak,” meaning “the ring which you use as a seal, and the cloak with which you cover yourself.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct to say that he would give his cloak, and go away from her unclothed. And how is it that a cloak is called p’thil in the Hebrew language? And how can it be referred to later on as p’thilim, here. in the plural? Now should you say that on account of its fringed strings (p’thilim), the garment was called p’thil, far be it that Judah should fulfill the Commandment of Tzitzith (Fringes), yet treat it so lightly as to give it away in unchastity! Perhaps, he had with him a small scarf which he occasionally wound around part of the head, and which was called p’thil because it was short as a p’thil (fringe), and it is this which the Targum [Onkelos] rendered as shashifa, [which Rashi incorrectly took to mean “a cloak”]. Now you will not find that Onkelos will translate simlah (a garment) as shashifa wherever it is found in the Torah. Instead, he translates it throughout by a term denoting “cover” or “garment,” excepting the verse, And they shall spread the ‘simlah’ (garment), concerning which he says, “And they shall spread the shashifa,” because this is the sudar referred to in the Talmud ” See also Ramban to Deuteronomy 22:17. through which virginity is established. So did Jonathan ben Uziel translate hama’ataphoth (the mantlets) as shashifa, these being small scarfs which they wound around the head, and distinguished persons spread them over their bonnets and headbands. This custom still prevails in eastern countries. It is further possible that Judah possessed a seal impressed with the form of a lion or some other known figure, as rulers do, and he also had fringes in his hand, woven in the same design, with which to stroll about, as well as a rod in his hand, as becomes a ruler or lord, even as it is written, A strong rod, to be a sceptre to rule, and it is further written, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. It was these that he gave into Tamar’s hand.

"Your seal" — out of the strength of his desire he gave three things as pledge for so trivial a matter. The meaning of kedeshah ["cult prostitute"] — I will explain it at the verse "there shall be no kadesh" [Deuteronomy 23:18].

ופתילך, your closely fitting sash. The items Tamar chose as pledge were all things which testified to the superior standing of its owner in society. We know from Job 38,3 that a sash is evidence of someone’s manhood, i.e. someone’s superior status. She wanted to own such trinkets reminding her constantly of Yehudah’s status so that her child would be influenced by the thoughts she entertained during her pregnancy and would grow up to be like its father.

חותמך פתילך, “your signet ring and your cord;” these were both items that he could not be without for any length of time. He needed the signet ring for confirming any transactions, and the cord to tie up the sheep. (The third item, his staff, was less important as he was in his prime.)

חותמך ופתילך ומטך אשר בידך, “your signet, your wrap, and your staff which is in your hand.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word חותמך refers to a ring used to seal documents. Possibly, Yehudah’s signet ring bore the image of a lion seeing that his father described him as גור אריה, “a lion cub” in Genesis 49,19. Rashi explains that the word ופתילך means “your wrap,” a garment with which he covered himself. Concerning this Nachmanides disagrees, saying that it is not logical that Yehudah would give a harlot a garment of his without which he would remain naked. Moreover, how is it possible that the Torah would describe a שמלה as a פתיל? Besides, why would this garment be described by Tamar as הפתילים i.e. as garments in the plural in verse 25? If one were to say that the word פתיל refers to the ציצית, the fringes, how can we assume that Yehudah would treat the fringes in such a desultory manner, i.e. giving the part of the garment which lends it some sanctity to a harlot? Nachmanides therefore concludes that פתיל is a small cloth such as a kerchief used to wear around the neck or part of the head. It is still a common practice in the Orient that distinguished people wear such a piece of attire. It is called פתיל as it is short like a שושיפא, short cloak. (Compare Onkelos on Deut. 22,17 where שמלה, bed-sheet, is translated as שושיפא.) ומטך, “and your staff.” She referred to the staff that princes and dignitaries are in the habit of carrying. It is similar to the word שבט, which is mentioned by Yaakov as a hallmark of the authority of the dynasty of Yehudah when Yaakov blessed him before his death (Genesis 49,10). Some commentators view the three items which Tamar demanded as a pledge from Yehudah as allusions to the three financial obligations a husband assumes vis-a-vis his wife as outlined in Exodus 21,10. They are named there as שאר, כסות עונה, the entitlement to food, clothing, and marital rights. The signet ring was symbolic of her marital rights, her claim on Yehudah. She alluded to the stamp of the sacred covenant which every male Jew wears on his sexual organ ever since he has been circumcised. The staff is symbolic of food, sustenance, as we know from Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” פתילך, of course, is symbolic of the wife’s right to be provided with clothing by her husband. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,9, (slightly different wording) by returning these three pledges to Yehudah, Tamar’s offspring did indeed merit to secure for itself (at different times in history) all these three items. Concerning Zerubavel, the leader of the Jews returning from exile in Babylon, we read in Chagai 2,23: ”I will take you, My servant Zerubavel son of Shaltiel- declares the Lord,- and make you as a signet for I have chosen you.” As to the פתיל, Tamar, as the mother of Peretz, became the ancestor of Betzalel, architect of the Tabernacle of whom it is written in Exodus 39,3 וקצץ פתילים, “he cut threads.” The word מטך was an allusion to King David of whom Samuel I 17,40 recorded that ויקח מקלו בידו, “he took his staff in his hand.”

Your seal, your cord, and your staff. According to the simple interpretation, it seems appropriate to explain why he specifically gave these three items as collateral. This was because his intention was for an act of promiscuity, and he was degrading the seal of the holy covenant that was in his flesh [circumcision]. He was also degrading the staff of rulership in his hand, with which he was meant to be a shepherd and leader, who was commanded not to have many wives — for it is not fitting for a shepherd of Israel to be a shepherd of prostitutes. He was also degrading the commandment of tzitzit [ritual fringes] which protect from sexual impropriety, like that incident (Menachot 44) where someone hired a prostitute for 400 zuz but was saved through the mitzvah of tzitzit, while this one [Judah] was not saved. This explains why the Scripture tells us that he gave these three items as collateral — it comes to explain why he did not remember [or pay heed to] the sign of the holy covenant, the staff of rulership in his hand, and the tzitzit on his garments. Rather, because he gave all three as collateral and they were degraded in his eyes, consequently he did not remember the seal in his flesh because he gave away a mere seal that was in his hand. Therefore, he had nothing to remind him of the seal in his flesh. Similarly, he gave away the staff that was in his hand, and also your cord — meaning the tzitzit — he gave to her. Consequently, he had nothing left to protect him from promiscuity. And its Midrashic interpretation is: Since everything that happened to the forefathers was a sign for their descendants, even though the forefathers did not intend this, similarly in this story it details matters that occurred in that event to inform what would happen to the children in the end of days. This is because the outcome of this union was that from it would be born the redeemer for Israel, the scattered sheep, to remove from them the buck and the he-goat — the Greek king and other kings of the nations who advance first in their success like this goat. As it states in the Gemara (Shabbat 77b): “Why do goats walk in front?” And it concludes that it is like the creation of the world, where darkness came first and then light. Without doubt, this question was asked as an allusion to why the nations precede Israel in their success. And it answers that it is like the creation of the world, where darkness functioned first and afterward came the light. So too, the nations who walk in darkness have their function in this world first, and afterward comes the light of Israel. This is not the place to elaborate further on this. This is what it means here [when she asked] “What will you give me?” What will be the purpose of this intimate encounter? And he answered I will send a young goat — referring to the kings of Babylon who are [like] the goats among the sheep. Israel is a scattered sheep, [but will be saved] through the redeemer who will be born from this encounter. And what is the pledge/collateral by which they will be assured this will happen? He sent a seal, staff, and cord — alluding to three things that are held as collateral as long as Israel is in exile. The first collateral is the Holy One’s seal, namely the Name of Y-H which God sealed upon the tribes: HaReuveni, HaChanochi, HaPalui, as Rashi explains in Parshat Pinchas. And the reason the letter Hey precedes the Yud in the word HaChanochi is because this is the pattern in all seals of God’s ring where the Name Y-H is engraved in its proper order, but after being sealed on the tribes the letters were reversed, as is the way of all seals, as it says It is transformed like clay under a seal (Job 38:14). This seal is held as collateral because wherever they were exiled, the Divine Presence was with them, and the Name Y-H, which is the seal, cannot be complete until the children are redeemed and seated at their heavenly Father’s table, as it says For the hand is on the throne of Y-H (Exodus 17:16). The second collateral is the Aleph of the [Divine] Throne [kiseh, spelled with an aleph at the end], as it says For the hand is on the throne [kes] of Y-H. For neither the Name nor the Throne is complete until the future [redemption]. This is [represented by] your cord — the tzitzit, for techelet [blue thread] resembles the sea, and the sea resembles the sky, and the sky resembles the Throne of Glory (Menachot 43b). Therefore, the techelet in tzitzit reminds us of the Throne of Glory. The cord being collateral alludes to the Throne being partially held as collateral, and in the future both the Name and the Throne will be complete, as it says He has desired [ivah] it for His dwelling place (Psalms 132:13) — for the letters of “ivah” [alef, vav, hey] complete the Name and the Throne. Another explanation: Your cord alludes to what was said about them and cut into cords (Exodus 39:3) regarding the Tabernacle and all its vessels, and they were all taken as collateral, as it appears in the Midrash (Shemot Rabbah 51:3) on These are the accounts of the Tabernacle, the Tabernacle [Mishkan] — that it was taken as collateral [nitmashken] twice for the sins of Israel, etc. And your staff refers to the collateral of the letter vav of [the name] Elijah, for the shape of the vav is like the shape of a staff. Our Sages said [in the Midrash of Missing and Extra Letters] that “Elijah” is written five times without the vav, and “Jacob” is written five times with a vav, because Elijah gave these [letters] as collateral to Jacob that He would come and redeem His children. Perhaps this is why he took as collateral the vav, alluding to the staff and scepter of rulers that would be in Judah’s possession would be held as collateral throughout the days of desolation. Or it alludes to the vav of the Great Name [of God] that is held as collateral, for in this world we only use the name “Yah.” Some say that Elijah gave him his handshake [literally: striking of the palm] as a promise that He would redeem them, and the five fingers of the palm resemble five vavs. All these matters are clear to the one who understands, and it is the glory of God to conceal a matter; let the wise man hear and increase in learning.

ופתילך, “and your garment.” According to Rashi the word is equivalent to שמלתך, your “decorative garment.” [normally, as opposed to בגד, an outer garment, שמלה is understood to refer to undergarments. Ed.] Nachmanides disputes Rashi’s interpretation, as, if Yehudah handed over such a garment (normal usage of שמלה), he would have had to walk away naked. Furthermore, how could the Torah refer to a שמלה by the description פתיל? Besides, since when does the word פתיל occur in the plural? If you were to counter that we find this plural in connection with the commandment of ציצית, it is inconceivable that Yehudah would use a garment with sacred fringes and demean it in such a fashion. [the vowel segol in the word פתילך is taken by Nachmanides to indicate a plural form. Ed.] Perhaps he had a small cloth in his hand, something short like a פתיל, a cloth used to wind around one’s head, turban fashion, which Tamar referred to as פתיל because it was short. It is also possible that Yehudah’s signet ring had the shape of a lion, and he had pieces of short cloth that had been embossed with that ring. The staff מטה, he held in his hand in the fashion of rulers who carry a mace.

And she arose and went away, and she removed her veil from herself and put on the garments of her widowhood.

ותלבש בגדי אלמנותה, because she was no longer willing to be married, seeing that she had achieved her purpose and was with child from the man whose seed she wanted to perpetuate.

And Judah sent the kid of the goats by the hand of his friend the Adullamite to take back the pledge from the hand of the woman, but he did not find her.

And Jehuda sent the kid of the goats by the hand of his friend the Adullemite, to bring back the pledge from the hand of the woman; but he found her not.

And he asked the men of her place, saying: Where is the consecrated woman who was in plain sight on the road? And they said: There is no consecrated woman here.

הקדשה— means a woman who is devoted to, (מקדשת) and who is ever ready for illicit intercourse.

הקדשה, the harlot; a woman who is always ready to have sexual relations with any male. The male equivalent of the term is found in Deuteronomy 23,18. where the Torah instructs the Jewish people not to tolerate this phenomenon, and in Kings I 14,24 where the presence of such male prostitutes is acknowledged with the words וגם קדש היה בארץ, a phenomenon which surfaced immediately after the death of King Solomon.

And he returned to Judah and said: I did not find her, and also the men of the place said: There is no consecrated woman here.

וגם אנשי המקום אמרו, in their uninhibited conversation. Chirom warned Yehudah that his pursuit of this search would be liable to hurt his image.

And Judah said: Let her keep it for herself, lest we become a mockery. Here, I sent this kid, but you did not find her.

תקח לה Let that remain hers which she has in her possession (i.e. LET HER KEEP IT). פן נהיה לבוז LEST WE BECOME A SCORN — if you seek her further the matter will become public and disgrace will follow, for what more can I do to redeem my promise? (for I have sent this kid etc and I can do no more). הנה שלחתי את הגדי הזה BEHOLD, I SENT THIS KID — Because Judah had deceived his father through a kid of the goats — for he had dipped Joseph’s coat in its blood — therefore he, too, was deceived through a kid of the goats (Genesis Rabbah 85:9).

"Let her take it for herself" — leave her, and let her keep the pledge. "Lest we become a laughingstock" — a mockery, in that I gave a seal, cord, and staff as pledge for such a trifling matter. I have sent the kid and you did not find her — and this is a sign that she may take the pledge for herself.

הנה שלחתי, so that I have not betrayed my promise.

תקח לה, not literally “let her take it,” but “let her keep it.” Yehudah said that he would not make an additional effort to find her and to redeem his pledges. פן נהיה לבוז, so we will not make ourselves laughing stocks by chasing after harlots.

And it came to pass about three months later that it was told to Judah, saying: Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot, and behold, she is also pregnant from harlotry. And Judah said: Bring her out and let her be burned.

כמשלש חדשים ABOUT THREE MONTHS AFTER — the greater part of the first, the greater part of the third and the entire middle (second) one (Genesis Rabbah 85:10). The expression כמשלש חדשים signifies “when the months repeated themselves three times”. The word משלש is similar in form to (Ester 9:19) “and sending (ומשלח) portions”; (Isaiah 11:14), “sending (משלח) forth their hand”. Onkelos renders it similarly כתלתות ירחיא (where תלתות is the infinitive of תַּלַּת “when the months become three”). הרה לזנונים SHE IS WITH CHILD BY HARLOTRY — The word הרה is an adjective, meaning pregnant, like (Exodus 21:22) “a pregnant (הרה) woman” (where הרה can be only an adjective) and as (Song. 7:10) “Clear (ברה) as the sun” (where ברה is an adjective; Rashi perhaps quotes this example to prove also that הרה is from root הרר just as ברה is from ברר) ותשרף AND LET HER BE BURNT — Ephraim the Disputant said in the name of Rabbi Meir: She was the daughter of Shem who was a priest (see Rashi on Genesis 14:18) on this account they sentenced her to be burnt (cf. Leviticus 21:9) (Genesis Rabbah 85:10).

AND JUDAH SAID: BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT! Ephraim Makshoah, See Commentaries to Bereshith Rabbah 84:11. a disciple of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “Tamar was the daughter of Shem who was a priest. They therefore sentenced her to be burnt.” Rashi quoted this Midrash but did not explain it. And I do not know this law, for a priest’s daughter is not liable to be burned except for harlotry in conjunction with a binding relation to a husband, either espoused or married, as is explained in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin. However, a priest’s daughter who is waiting to be married by a brother-in-law is not at all liable to death for harlotry. Whether she is an Israelite’s daughter or a priest’s daughter, her punishment is only that of having violated a simple negative precept. And should you say that marrying a childless brother’s wife was customary among the Sons of Noah, and that she was regarded by them as having the status of a married woman, and that their prohibitions were punishable by death, it would not be correct. The Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah 5:6. that Judah was the one who first inaugurated the observance of the commandment that a brother marry a childless brother’s widow. And again, in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin, it is made clear that a childless brother’s widow of the Sons of Noah is not at all liable to any punishment for harlotry. It appears to me that since Judah was a chief, an officer, and a ruler of the land, his daughter-in-law who committed harlotry against him was not judged by the same law as other people, but as one who degraded royalty. It is for this reason that it is written, And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt, for the people came before him to do unto her in accordance with his command, and he declared her guilty of a capital crime because of the superior rank of royalty. Thus he judged her as if she had profaned her father in respect of his priesthood, but this was not the judgment meted out to commoners. In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture, it is possible that their law was similar to that which is presently customary in some of the countries of Spain, i.e., that a married woman who commits a faithless act is turned over to her husband who decrees death or life for her, as he wishes. Now Tamar was designated for his son Shelah, and in the eyes of their laws she was considered as a married woman.

"About three months" — [the word kimeshalesh is formed] with the addition of a mem before "three"; whereas "in days" [kimyamim] has the mem added after [the root for] "three."

וגם הנה הרה, she did not even bother to hide her condition which reflects negatively on you. This is similar to a statement by our sages in Yevamot 35 “when a woman had illicit sex she engages in all kinds of bodily convulsions to avoid becoming pregnant and thereby revealing her shame and that of her husband or lover.”

הוציאוה והשרף, "take her out and let her be burned!" The reason for this is that it is the prescribed penalty for adultery amongst the Gentiles as we know from Avodah Zarah 36. It is clear from there that even if the sin did not involve a sexual union forbidden by Biblical law either to Israelites or to Gentiles, the tribunal headed by Noach's son Shem appears to have legislated that a woman who was destined for her brother-in-law was liable to death if she had relations with someone else. As soon as Yehudah realised that he had been her partner, he knew she was free from that decree as it applied only to Gentiles amongst Gentiles, not to partners in a levirate union. Since a father-in-law was not culpable for sleeping with his Noachide daughter-in-law, no crime had been committed seeing Tamar was Jewish. Sotah 10 understands the words ולא יסף עוד לדעתה to mean that Yehudah did not discontinue being intimate with Tamar. This proves that their relationship had not been sinful, i.e. that the father of the deceased could legally perform the rite of the levirate marriage with his daughter-in-law.

זנתה תמר כלתך, “Tamar, your daughterinlaw, has committed an act of infidelity.” She observed the norms of a woman awaiting the levirate marriage, and therefore was out of bounds to any other male pending the resolution of her problematic marital status. She would be released only if her prospective “redeemer” refused to honour this obligation. וגם הנה הרה, “and she is also visibly pregnant.” She can no longer hide her condition. ויאמר יהודה, “Yehudah, acting as judge ruled;” was there no one more qualified to sit in judgment of Tamar than her fatherinlaw? Both Yitzchok and Yaakov were still alive! The fact is that they all sat in judgment of her. The reason why Yehudah was the first one to announce his opinion was because according to the rules of Jewish law when sins or crimes involving capital punishment are discussed the most junior of the judges is asked for his vote first. הוציאה ותשרף, “take her outside so that she will be burned to death!” Rashi comments that Tamar was the daughter (offspring) of Shem who had been a priest, and the Torah prescribes the death penalty by burning for women of priestly descent if they are found as having committed incest before marriage while betrothed. (Leviticus 21,9). In this particular instance, Tamar had not legally been betrothed to anyone, so that even after the Torah had been given she would not have been guilty of a capital offence. However, in those days people imposed severe penalties for infidelity in order to act as deterrent to eventual sinners. Besides, as pointed out, Tamar’s ancestor had been deprived of the title “priest” after when Avraham had defeated the four mighty kings of his era he blessed both Avraham and G-d but committed a fatal error by naming Avraham ahead of naming G-d. (Compare Genesis 14,1920) Nonetheless, (assuming Tamar was Shem’s his real daughter she would have been quite old. [Shem died in the year 2156 or 2157 B. C. E. having been born in the year 15567 B. C. E., and Yehudah, Tamar’s fatherinlaw was born in 2186 or 2185 B. C. E. At the time Shem was deprived of his status as a priest Avraham was between 75 and 87 years old, seeing that he had been born in the years 1948 B. C. E. If Tamar had been alive, then it does not require a mathematician to figure out how old a lady Tamar must have been when Yehudah selected her as his daughterinlaw for his son Er. Ed.] Some commentators (Talmud Avodah Zarah, folio 36) claim that even if Tamar had not been a daughter of Shem she would have deserved the death penalty if she had committed adultery with someone other than a partner in a levirate marriage ceremony. This is based on the assumption that she slept with a Canaanite. Even though Shem was dead, the court established by him continued to function after his demise. The court continued to be named after its founder. If you were to say that if Tamar was guilty of the death penalty then so was her partner Yehudah, we would have to answer that in that era an adult surviving would perform the levirate marriage rites, but if only brothers who were minors were available, the father would perform that duty.

הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.” All the onlookers accepted Yehudah’s verdict without argument. This teaches that Yehudah was the local judge of that community. It was the custom in that place that any woman found committing adultery would be burned. Bereshit Rabbah 85,10 quoted by Rashi 38,24 claims that Tamar was the daughter of Shem (the son of Noach whom we know as a Priest for the Supreme G’d from the time of Avraham). Seeing that the Torah provides the death penalty by burning for the daughters of Priests, (Leviticus 21,1) she was sentenced to be burned.

הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.” Rashi explains this unusual type of the death penalty as due to the fact that Tamar was the daughter of Shem whom we know as the priest of the Supreme G’d from when he blessed Avraham, as well as the fact that he was King of Jerusalem, (Genesis 14) she was subject to this more severe death penalty for adulterous conduct, as per Leviticus Nachmanides questions this, saying that the legislation referred to in Leviticus is reserved for the daughter of a priest who is betrothed but not yet married properly. A widow waiting to be married to her brother-in-law, and therefore forbidden to any other male, is subject to the penalty imposed on violators of a normal negative commandment, not the death penalty. Besides, every capital crime committed by non-Jews is subject to death by the sword, never by burning. Furthermore, Yehudah’s statement צדקה ממני, after becoming aware of his almost fatal error, appears to reinforce Tamar’s guilt even more, a) because he, as the local leader of the region, should have lived a life completely beyond reproach, and certainly should not have slept with a whore; b) she, by engaging in extramarital relations had expressed disdain for the local authority. Keeping these two points in mind, he condemned her to death by burning. [some of these aspects are based on the opinion that Yehudah had realised that the woman he had presumed to have been a whore, was actually a virgin, something that in retrospect made him aware that his sons Er and Onan had never consummated their marriage to Tamar. The people who had brought Tamar before the tribunal had only known that she had become pregnant from someone not her husband and that she had not claimed to have been the victim of rape. Ed.] Looking at the plain unadorned text, we must remember that the law concerning women who had had illicit sexual relations while married, would have been handed over to her husband for him to do with her as he saw fit. Seeing that legally, Tamar was destined to be married to Shelah as soon as Shelah was old enough, she was in the category of a married woman according to local custom. Rabbi Yehudah the pious, explains that Yehudah did not actually condemn Tamar to be burned at the stake, but that she should be branded with a branding iron which would leave an indelible mark on her face so that she would be disgraced for all to see for the rest of her life. As soon as Yehudah found out that he was the father of the child Tamar was carrying, and that therefore she had not been a whore at all, he did not do anything to her. Many raise the question how Yehudah could pronounce judgment, saying: “take her outside and burn her,” seeing that according to Jewish law, a King is not subject to being judged by a court of his subjects, nor is he himself allowed to sit in judgment of anyone. In addition to this legal point, according to Jewish law, whenever a capital crime is dealt with in the court, and a vote is taken as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the first person polled is the youngest and not the most senior, so as not to sway the judgment of the junior judges. Here we were told only about the presiding judge’s Yehudah’s vote on the subject. A third difficulty is how could Yehudah, a relative, and therefore a biased participant, be allowed to be present at these proceedings at all? [all of the preceding is of course, based on the assumption that just as the brothers observed Torah law although it was not yet revealed to them as legislation, they complied also with the wider ramifications of Torah laws as found in the written text. Ed.] The answers suggested to these various reservations of our sages about Yehudah’s conduct, is that the trial of Tamar was conducted by Yitzchok, Yaakov and Yehudah being the tribunal. Seeing that Yehudah was the junior member of this tribunal, we are told about his vote first, something completely in accordance with Jewish law. Another view voiced by a Midrash, claims that Tamar’s father, Shem, personally sat in judgment of her. With all due respect, this is chronologically impossible. A review of the relevant historical data will reveal that Shem had long been dead at that time. [According to Genesis 11,11 Shem died 501 years after the deluge, i.e. in the year 2157 after the creation of Adam. The Exodus occurred in the year 2448, after the Israelites had been in Egypt for 210 years. In other words, when Yedudah came to Egypt in the year 2238 he was about 3 years older than Joseph, who we know was 39-40 years at the time as testified by the Torah. This means that Yehudah was born in or around the year 2195, 27 years after the death of Shem. Ed.] As to the statement in Avodah Zarah 36 that the tribunal of Shem decreed that an unmarried male who has sexual relations with an unmarried female is subject to the death penalty, [seeing that for gentiles there is no other penalty, Ed.] and the origin of that law is attributed to the incident between Yehudah and Tamar, this does not mean that Shem, the founder of that tribunal was still alive, but that the academy and tribunal which he founded continued to bear the name of its founder, Shem.

She was being brought out, and she sent to her father-in-law, saying: By the man to whom these belong I am pregnant. And she said: Recognize now to whom this signet ring and cord and staff belong.

הוא מוצאת WHEN SHE WAS BROUGHT FORTH to be burnt. והיא שלחה אל חמיה SHE SENT TO HER FATHER-IN-LAW — she did not wish to put him to shame in public by saying “It is by thee that I am with child”, but she said only “By the man whose these are”. She thought: “if he is to acknowledge it, let him acknowledge it voluntarily, and if not, let them burn me and let me not put him to shame in public”. From this passage our Rabbis derived the teaching: Far better that a man should let himself be cast into a fiery furnace (even as Tamar was ready to be burnt to death) and let him not publicly put his fellow to shame (Sotah 10b). הכר נא RECOGNISE, I PRAY THEE — The word נא is used as an expression of entreaty: Acknowledge (הכר) I beg of you, your Creator and do not destroy three lives (Genesis Rabbah 85:11).

"She is being brought out" — it should have been formed like "this is made known" (Isaiah 12:5), were it not for the suppression of the alef as is its rule [i.e., the alef of the hitpa'el is elided].

היא מוצאת והיא שלחה, even at this late stage in the trial when she was already on the way to the site of her execution, Tamar did not despair, as she had a heart as stout as that of a lion. לאיש אשר אלה לו, even though she was in extreme danger she did not want to publicly embarrass Yehudah. She is the person who inspired our sages to declare that one ought to prefer to be burned in public to publicly embarrassing a fellow human being (Sotah 10

והיא שלחה, “and she had sent;” the word is spelled with the letter י, [although usually we find it spelled with the letter ו, just like its masculine counterpart הוא, “he.” Ed.]

היא מוצאת, “when she was taken out,” to be burned. We learn from this verse that a person should rather allow himself to be burned than to cause a fellow man to blanch from public embarrassment. Tamar reasoned to herself: “if he will admit his part in my pregnancy, all well and good; If not, I will rather allow myself to be burned in the furnace than to shame him in public.” Although the word מוצאת, has been spelled with the letter א, (whereas if it meant “being burned,” it should have been spelled without that letter) one may interpret it homiletically as being derived from הצתה, subjecting something to fire. Incidentally, the first letters in the words of the verse ו-יאמר י-הודה ה-וציאוה - ו-תשרף when read backwards yield the acrostic י-ה-ו-ה, the Ineffable Name of G’d. This suggests that at the time Tamar was concerned with saving Yehudah’s “face,” G’d was busy saving her life by invoking the attribute of Mercy. שלחה אל חמיה לאמור, “she sent to her father-in-law to convey, etc.” She meant for her messengers to tell Yehudah in her name: “for the man to whom these items belong I am pregnant, etc.,” the messengers themselves did not know what she had in her hand. She did this in order to protect Yehudah’s reputation in the event he chose to ignore her. When she realised that this indirect message was ineffective, she thought that possibly Yehudah had forgotten the encounter with her. At that point she confronted Yehudah face to face (in private) adding the words הכר נא, “please identify.” This is why the Torah mentions the items in question individually at this point. She was still determined not to reveal him as the father of her unborn child if he chose to deny his involvement in her pregnancy. The Jerusalem Targum on the words היא מוצאת, claims that Samael had hidden the three items which she could have used to clear her name. The author mentions a prayer of Tamar in which she expressed the hope that in return for having preferred a fiery death in order to protect Yehudah’s public image, G’d would arrange for these items to be found so that three persons’ lives would be saved thereby, (hers and that of her two unborn sons). G’d gave the angel Gavriel a hint and he returned these items to Tamar and she threw them at the feet of the judges. This is the meaning of the words הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify the owner of the signet ring, etc.”

And Judah recognized them and said: She is more righteous than I — she is pregnant because I did not give her to Shelah my son. And he did not continue to know her again.

צדקה SHE IS RIGHTEOUS (right) in what she has said ממני FROM ME is she with child. Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained this to mean that a Bath-kol came forth and said the word ממני — from Me and by My agency have these things happened: because she proved herself a modest woman whilst in her father-in-law’s house I have ordained that kings shall be descended from her, and I have already ordained that I would raise up kings in Israel from the tribe of Judah (Genesis Rabbah 85:11) (therefore I have brought it about that these two persons who are to be the ancestors of kings should unite to become so). כי על כן לא נתתיה BECAUSE THAT I GAVE HER NOT — For (כי) she has acted rightly, because (על כן) I did not give her to Shelah, my son. ולא יסף עוד AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE — Some explain that ולא יסף means he did not continue to know her (Sifrei Bamidbar 88): others explain that it means he did not cease to know her (Sotah 10b). An exactly similar instance occurs in reference to Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:25), where ולא יספו which some translate “and they did not continue to prophesy” is translated in the Targum by “and they did not cease to prophesy”.

SHE IS RIGHTEOUS FROM ME. “She is righteous in her words. From me is she with child. Our Rabbis expounded that a bath kol (a Divine voice) came forth and said the word mimeni, i.e., ‘From Me and from My authority did these events unfold.’” This is Rashi’s language. The correct interpretation is that it is similar to the verses: Men more righteous and better than he; And he [Saul] said to David, Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rendered unto me good, whereas I have rendered unto thee evil. Here too the meaning is: “She is more righteous than I, for she acted righteously and I am the one who sinned against her by not giving her my son Shelah.” The purport of the statement is that Shelah was the brother-in-law, [hence he was the first designated to marry her], and if he did not wish to take her as his wife, his father is next in line to act as the redeemer, as I have explained above when I discussed the law of marrying a childless brother’s widow. AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE (‘v’lo yasaph’). After having established progeny for his children, he did not wish to be with her again even though this was dependent upon his wish as she was not forbidden to him, being, in fact, considered as his wife, as is the law when the widow of a childless man has relations with a relative. This is the reason for the explanation given by a certain Sage, who explains the verse as saying, “And he did not cease to know her,” since here the expression used is, v’lo yasaph, and elsewhere it is written, A great voice ‘v’lo yasaph’. Reference there is to the Divine Voice that came forth from Mount Sinai, concerning which Scripture says, v’lo yasaph [with a kamatz], meaning “and it did not cease,” or “it did not diminish in strength,” unlike the human voice which decreases and eventually stops completely. Here also the identical expression, v’lo yasaph [with a patach], means “and he did not cease.”

"Because I did not give her" — as in "because I have seen your face" (Genesis 33:10), meaning according to our Sages: "seeing that I did not give her." Or the meaning is: she did this because I did not give her [to Shelah]. "To know her" — to lie with her.

צדקה ממני, even though she approached me under false pretences, misrepresenting herself, she still acted more righteously than I did. I did not see her at all when I sent her the goat. [I was too embarrassed to be seen, Ed.] Her deceit was practised for a noble cause. and appears to have been approved by G’d, seeing she meant to maintain the seed of her deceased husband, whereas I was merely wanting to gratify my libido. Immediately she had done what she meant to do she resumed living as a widow as I had told her to do. My seeking her out to let her have the goat I had promised her was meant only to ensure that my good image would be preserved. This in itself is not a worthy cause. Our sages have used this occurrence as the basis for their saying that “a sin committed for noble cause is better than a good deed when same is not performed as such but as something self-serving.” (Nazir 23).

צדקה ממני, "she is more righteous than I." As we have already mentioned the death penalty which had first been decreed upon Tamar was a man-made ordinance applicable to certain sexual offences by the Gentiles. Inasmuch as it was revealed that Tamar's partner had been Yehudah this made her more righteous than Yehudah. Tamar had known all along that she was permitted to sleep with Yehudah, whereas Yehudah, who had not known who she was at the time, had merely been fortunate that she had not been forbidden to him under existing regulations. The verse also means that Tamar had not only been righteous in the manner in which she conducted her defence, but had also been righteous in her conduct. Legally speaking, the episode is comparable to someone who intends to eat forbidden fat but who is fortunate enough to have exchanged the forbidden fat for some which is permitted. Should you question that at the time Yehudah was intimate with Tamar he thought that she was a Gentile; why then did he violate what he knew to be the local ordinance? Our rabbis have answered in Bereshit Rabbah 85,8 that G'd on occasion directs the steps of a man and corrects what was an evil intent in order that the end result should correspond to His plans. [This seems to mean that though Yehudah would have slept with any harlot at that moment when he felt a sexual urge, G'd directed that the woman he did in fact sleep with was ritually pure and permissible. Ed.] The Midrash rationalises this by referring to the line of kings that were to emanate from Yehudah. We suggest that the reader turn to our commentary on Genesis 49,9 גור אריה. כי על כן לא נתתיה לשלה, "since I did not give her to Shelah, etc." Yehudah explained Tamar's behaviour as due to her having lost hope that she would become Shelah's wife. Hence there was no more זיקה, bond of marital attachment between her and Shelah. Alternatively, Yehudah simply assumed the blame for having caused Tamar's behaviour seeing he had not given her to Shelah. The words צדקה ממני then should be translated: "she is righteous in her deeds; I was the cause of what she did."

צדקה ממני, “she is more righteous than I;” why did Yehudah add the word: ממני? She did what she did because she wanted to become pregnant from him since she was afraid that Shilo also would spill his seed like his brothers had done and he would die. [The meaning is as follows: whereas both she and I indulged our libido, I did it for a merely physical gratification, whereas she was intent on becoming the mother of a member of the family of Avraham, Yitzchok and a Yaakov. I considered her as a potentially bad omen, two of her husbands having died on her, whereas her entire purpose was to bring life into the world. Ed.] כי על כן, “because of this;” if I had not withheld her rightful husband, my son Sheylah from her because I had been afraid that he too would deliberately fail to impregnate her, she would not have felt forced to take such a drastic step in order to become part of my family. A different interpretation: “her righteousness is rooted in me so that I should free her of the death penalty, because if I were to convict her I would be punishing myself; [by killing the son she is about to bear for me. Ed.] ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “and he did not stop having marital relations with her,” seeing that originally I had intended to perform the levirate marriage ritual with her,” as explained on verse 25. Some commentators claim that in that era the only valid marriage ceremony was for the parties concerned sleeping together. Such “sleeping” together was legal as a form of marriage only if the manner in which it was performed was the generally accepted method, i.e. the male ejaculating his semen into the female vagina while in the ‘missionary’ position. Seeing that this was so, Tamar had never been married, as both Yehudah’s sons had not consummated the marriage. She was therefore legally married to Yehudah, who had never been her fatherinlaw. Another interpretation of the words: ולא יסף; “he never again had marital relations with Tamar again, as he was afraid she would cause death to any husband. [When he had done it the first time, Yehudah had thought he was sleeping with a harlot. Ed.] Still another explanation of the meaning of these words: he did not sleep with her again as he was ashamed to do so seeing that he was her fatherinlaw. This is based on the grammatical nuance that if it were to mean that he never stopped to sleep with her, [i.e. treated her as his wife, Ed.] the word לדעתה, with the prefix ל, would not make sense.

צדקה ממני, “she is more righteous than I.” When the messengers presented Yehudah with the signet ring, etc., he immediately owned up and said: צדקה, “she is righteous in what she says;” ממני, “she is pregnant from me.” This is also the way Onkelos translates these words. Nachmanides understands the word ממנו as a comparative, meaning “she is more righteous than I.” He meant “whereas when I had sexual intercourse with her I had unworthy motives, she had had worthy motives wanting me to perform the rite of the levirate marriage with her.” This is what he had in mind when he added “because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Shelah, after all, was the person who was next in line to perform that rite. Yehudah was the next closest relative to perform this rite of the levirate marriage and to keep alive the names of his late departed sons Er and Onan, in the event Shelah would refuse to marry Tamar. According to a Midrashic approach found in Makkot 23 after Yehudah had said צדקה, “she is righteous,” a heavenly voice was heard adding the word ממני, “from Me;” i.e. G’d informed the judges and Tamar that He had guided matters in such a way that Tamar would become pregnant by Yehudah. In that connection the Talmud goes on to say that we know of only three instances where the Holy spirit took an active part in judicial proceedings of a terrestrial court to assure a certain outcome. One was the court founded by Shem; the second was the court presided over by the prophet Samuel; the third was the court presided over by King Solomon. In the case of the court founded by Shem and known as “his court” hundreds of years later, the Holy Spirit intervened clearing Tamar of all guilt. The Holy Spirit again intervened in the court of Samuel as we know from Samuel I 12,5 “G’d is witness, and His anointed is witness, to your admission this day that you found nothing in my possession.” [Samuel had challenged the people to list any wrong he had committed against anyone of them or whose property he had made use of by citing his authority as ruling judge. Ed.] In that paragraph the answer should have been in the plural, i.e. the people should have been quoted as saying: “we are witness.” The fact that the author of the Book of Samuel refers to the singular is proof that it was G’d answering on behalf of the people. The third time the Holy Spirit interfered in the deliberations by a terrestrial court was when Solomon heard the case of two women each of whom claimed the surviving baby as her own (Kings I 3,26). At that time the Book of Kings has the mother of one of the babies call out: “give the surviving baby to her, do not kill it, for she is its mother.” The words “she is its mother,“ were added by the Heavenly Voice, whereas the baby’s true mother only said the words “give the surviving baby to her and do not kill it.” ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “and he did not have further sexual intercourse with her.” Having fulfilled the commandment of ensuring that the souls of Er and Onan would be reincarnated in Tamar’s children, Yehudah refrained from treating her as his wife, even though technically, i.e. from a halachic point of view he could have had marital relations with her. The reasoning of the commentator (Samuel the elder in Sotah 10) who understood the words ולא יסף to mean “he did not stop,” is that seeing Yehudah’s union with Tamar had been approved by heaven there was no point in discontinuing his marital relations with her.

צדקה ממני, “she is correct; it stems from me.” Rashi interprets this statement as referring to Tamar’s statement, (words) that she was pregnant by Yehudah, (Though the words were never articulated by her) Nachmanides understands Yehudah as referring to Tamar’s deeds rather than to her words. She was right, whereas he was wrong in not giving her as a wife to Shelah, seeing that she had a claim on him. Shelah’s father would rank second behind his son only if his son had refused to carry out his obligation to marry Tamar. Some commentators feel that the words צדקה ממני, were spoken by Yehudah when he became aware that it had been he who had impregnated Tamar, and had found out in the process that she had been a virgin, and that the unnatural deaths of his two older sons had been the punishment for their failing to fulfill their duties as husbands of Tamar, and their wasting their semen. In the event that someone would claim that according to accepted norms a virgin never conceives from her first sexual experience, so how could Yehudah have impregnated her as virgin, this principle is valid only if the hymen had not previously been weakened, such as by an almost but not quite penetration, as is described as having been performed by Onan. (Genesis 38,9) ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “he had no further marital relations wit her.” There is an opinion (Sotah 10) according to which the meaning of the above words is that Yehudah did not stop having marital relations with Tamar. According to the opinion that the meaning of ולא יסף is “he did not continue, etc.” we must view Yehudah’s conduct vis a vis Tamar as reflecting the concept of קדש עצמך במותר לך, “sanctify yourself by eschewing even what is permitted to you.” Yehudah did not mean to imply that Tamar was legally out of bounds to him as a wife. Seeing he had fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful with her, he saw no point in continuing a relationship that could be misinterpreted by people who had known Tamar as the wife of one of his sons.

And it came to pass at the time of her giving birth that behold, there were twins in her womb.

בעת לדתה AT THE TIME OF HER BEARING — But in the case of Rebecca Scripture says (25:24) “And when her days to give birth were fulfilled” — in the latter case the months of pregnancy were complete, here, however, they were short of the full term (Genesis Rabbah 85:13). והנה תאומים AND BEHOLD TWINS — Here the word is written plene (with א and י whilst there (in the case of Rebecca) it is written defective (תומם without these letters) because one (viz., Esau) was wicked, but here both were righteous (Genesis Rabbah 85:13).

והנה תאומים בבטנה, she recognised shortly before giving birth that she was going to give birth to twins. This is the reason the midwife tied the red string to the baby first appearing out of her womb.

והנה תאומים בבטנה, “and here there were twins in her womb.” The midwife noticed this already before Tamar had commenced to give birth. This is why she had a means of identification ready to make sure the firstborn would be identified as such.

And it came to pass as she gave birth that one put out a hand, and the midwife took it and tied a crimson thread on his hand, saying: This one came out first.

ויתן יד THE ONE PUT OUT HIS HAND — one stretched forth his hand outside, and after she had bound the scarlet thread upon his hand he drew it back.

"And he put out a hand" — one of them, whose name is not yet mentioned because he had not yet been named. These events too are wondrous — that the placentas burst together, this one drew back his hand, and his brother came out.

על ידו שני לאמור, a scarlet thread on his hand, as though to say, etc. The midwife had a sudden flash of Holy Spirit and did something without being aware of its true significance. By tying Shani scarlet thread around his hand she indicated that the baby was Sheyni the one born second, though it had left the womb first. The Torah adds the word לאמור, "meaning to say" that this one emerged first. Although the midwife said so the truth was the reverse. The red thread was to prove יש אם למסורת, that there is a distinct significance to the spelling of a text as well as to the accepted way of reading a text.

And it came to pass when he drew back his hand that behold, his brother came out, and she said: What great strength you surged with! And his name was called Perez.

פרצת THOU HAST BURST FORTH — What a strong effort hast thou made!

HOW HAST THOU BURST FORTH? THIS BURSTING UPON THYSELF (‘PARATZTA ALECHA’). “What a strong effort you have made!” thus the language of Rashi. But the word paretz, wherever used, signifies the breaching of a fence and passing through, just as: I will break down (‘p’rotz’) the fence thereof; Why hast Thou broken down (‘paratzta’) her fences? And in the language of the Rabbis: “Pirtzah (a breach in a wall) calleth forth to the thief.” Indeed, the Sacred Language See Ramban on Exodus 30:13, as to why Hebrew is called “a sacred” language. uses the term p’rotz when referring to anything that oversteps its boundary: And thou shalt break forth (‘upharatzta’) to the west, and to the east; Here referring to the conquest of land. And the man broke forth (‘vayiphrotz’) exceedingly. Here referring to an unusual increase in wealth. It is thus clear that the word p’rotz is used to refer to anything which breaks forth from its normal boundary. It is for this reason that the verse here is saying, at the time that the first child drew back his hand, and this one hurriedly came out, “What great breach hast thou made in the fence in order to hurry out before him?” The verse says, alecha (upon thee), to indicate that ‘the fence’ was upon him, and he was imprisoned in it. The sense of the verse is thus: “What great breach did you take upon yourself to make in the fence, with the result that you came out of it?”Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in explanation of the verse: “Mah paratzta? What have you broken, in the manner of a man who makes a breach in a fence and exits through it, and now the responsibility for this breach is upon you.” ”There is no point to this interpretation. In the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakaneh See Note 42, Seder Bereshith. there is mentioned a mystic principle in connection with the name of these children, Peretz and Zerach. Thus they said: “He was called Zerach (shining) on account of the sun which always shines, and Peretz (breaking) on account of the moon which is sometimes dismantled and sometimes whole. Now was not Peretz the firstborn, and yet the sun is greater than the moon? This presents no difficulty, for it does indeed say, And he [Zerach] put out his hand, here. Thus Zerach was indeed the firstborn. and it is further written, And afterwards came out his brother.” here, referring to Zerach. And the verse concludes; that had the shining red thread upon his hand, thus indicating the importance of his having put out his hand first. Now according to their opinion, the moon is associated with the name Peretz on account of the kingdom of the House of David. Peretz and Zerach were born twins since the moon functions by means of the sun. Thus Peretz is the twin of Zerach who gives forth the hand, while he In other words, by putting forth his hand, Zerach indicated that the birthright was to have been his, but Peretz, by coming out first, indicated the consent of the Supreme One to his being appointed the firstborn. is the firstborn by virtue of the power of the Supreme One, as is said, I also appoint him first-born. This is the purport of the saying of the Sages with respect to the Sanctification of the Moon: “David King of Israel lives and exists.” Ramban’s meaning is that since the kingdom of David evolved from Peretz, and Peretz is symbolized by the moon, the Sages of the Talmud, when wishing to inform the Jews in other countries that the New Moon had appeared and been sanctified by the Great Court, would use this message: “David, king….” This they did in order to circumvent a prohibition by the Romans against transmitting news regarding the times set for the festivals. See Ramban above, 32:26. The man learned [in the mystic teachings of the Cabala] will understand.

"What a breach you have made" — like a person who breaches a fence and goes out through it; and so this designation, Perez ["breach"], is decreed upon you. Others said it is like "and you shall spread out" (Genesis 28:14). The Gaon [Saadia] said that mah paratzta is taken in its plain sense, while alekha ferets is derived from "and he spread out greatly" (Genesis 30:30).

ויהי כמשיב ידו, the prefix כ meaning “as if,” describes that he did not really retract his hand. He was forced to, being pushed by his brother.

מה פרצת עליך פרץ, "how did you burst your way out?" Inasmuch as the hand of the first one indicated that he was about to emerge from the womb before his brother why did you push your way out past him thus blocking his becoming the first-born? The word מה, which normally means "what," must be understood here similarly to Psalms 104,24: מה רבו מעשיך, "how great are Your works, etc.?" When the Torah continues עליך פרץ, this explains the nature of this bursting forth. Normally, when twins are born, the one which emerges first is from the sperm that entered the womb last, the earlier sperm being blocked by the sperm injected later. In this instance the baby born first was formed from the sperm that had entered Tamar's womb first. This is why the kingdom rightfully belonged to Peretz, seeing he had been both conceived first and born first.

והנה יצא אחיו, “and here suddenly his brother emerged.” Seeing that future kings would claim Tamar as their original matriarch, it was important to know which was the older. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 85,13) פרץ, this name was given to the twin whose head came out first.

“And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand.” There are four instances of the word “hand” written here, corresponding to the four items that were placed under ban [cherem] that Achan [who would descend from him] took. This matter was alluded to here to indicate that because Achan would descend from him, he [Zerach] would not succeed in attaining kingship. For a king establishes the land through justice, but one who takes gifts destroys it (Proverbs 29:4). Because if one is inclined toward profit, they will eventually come to accept bribes. Therefore, he drew back his hand so that he would not receive the birthright and kingship. And here I have space to explain these four hands, which contain an allusion to a person who covets money and does not depart from the world with even half his desires fulfilled — if he has 100, he desires 200, etc. Every person has two hands with which they toil and labor to acquire what they can grasp through their own strength and might, according to what their hands can attain. Thus, all that is within one’s power is achievable through their two hands. If one is not content with what God has granted them — a handful — they covet another handful, meaning the work of four hands, double what is attainable with their two hands. This is essentially the same measure as one who has 100 and covets 200 — double what is already attainable through their two hands. Anyone who covets money is not charitable, and therefore is not fit for kingship. For our Sages said (Sanhedrin 49) that it was in the merit of David doing justice for this one and charity for that one that Joab was victorious in battle. Therefore, it is said of Judah his hands are sufficient for him [yadav rav lo] (Deuteronomy 33:7). It should have said “yarbu lo” [they shall be abundant], since “hands” is plural while “rav” [sufficient] is singular. Rather, this indicates that he did not covet money requiring two additional hands, as his two hands were sufficient for him. For rav here means “enough,” as in enough for you [rav lecha], do not continue. This hints that he was satisfied with the labor of his two hands and did not seek more than that. Therefore, You shall be a help against his adversaries, for this contentment leads to charity, through whose merit enemies fall before him, as evidenced by Joab. As it is written Good is the man who is gracious and lends… his heart is steadfast, he shall not fear, until he sees his desire upon his adversaries (Psalms 112:5). Similarly, it concludes in Bava Kamma (17a) that one who engages in acts of kindness, his enemies fall before him as casualties. Therefore it states that because his hands were sufficient for him — the labor attainable through his two hands was enough and he did not seek excess — he became charitable. Thus, You shall be a help against his adversaries. This was said about Judah, who came from Perez. But Zerah was not content with his hands being sufficient; rather, he sought the labor of four hands and coveted money that was not rightfully his, as it is said regarding Achan I coveted them and took them (Joshua 7:21). Therefore, “his right hand was turned back”, like one withdrawing his hand, for the right of the firstborn and kingship would not be his, as every king needs to be victorious over enemies, and he was not capable of this, as explained.

ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it happened as he retracted his hand, etc.” This refers to the distance a person can withdraw his hand. If the subject of this phrase would be the infant to whom this hand belonged, the Torah should have written: ויהי כאשר השיב ידו. מה פרצת עליך פרץ? “how did you burst your way out?” Rashi understands the expression פרץ as denoting doing something violently. Alternately, it may mean that “you have broken out of the boundary that was meant to contain you.” Nachmanides writes that anyone who crosses a boundary is described by Biblical Hebrew as being פורץ as G’d promised Yaakov in Genesis 28,14 ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו', “and you will burst forth to the West, to the East, etc.” concerning his descendants. This is why the midwife, when seeing the firstborn extending his hand beyond the birth canal, exclaimed that by coming forth hand first, that “he had burst forth.” The meaning of the word עליך in our context refers to the natural boundaries that had been set for each of these infants and the order in which they were meant to be born. Some commentators explain the words: מה פרצת as similar to פרצה גדולה עשית, “you have made a great break-through,” i.e. “may it be G’d’s will that this breakthrough you have made into the world will be a good omen for your continuous further development. According to this inter-pretation, the word פרצת here is not similar in meaning to the word in Genesis.

And afterward his brother came out, upon whose hand was the crimson thread, and his name was called Zerah.

אשר על ידו השני THAT HAD THE SHINING RED THREAD UPON HIS HAND — The word יד is written here four times corresponding to the four acts of sacrilege which Achan, who was a descendant of Zarah, committed with his hand. Others say these correspond to the four things which he took with his hand of the spoil of Jericho: a Babylon garment, two hundred shekels, and a wedge of gold (Genesis Rabbah 85:14). ויקרא שמו זרח AND HIS NAME WAS CALLED ZARAH — (bright, shining), because of the bright colour of the scarlet thread.

ויקרא שמו זרח, “he named him Zerach”. He was reddish skinned, and the word זרח appears in that sense in Kings II 3,22.

ויקרא שמו זרח, “he called his name Zerach.” The name Zerach (shines) symbolised the sun, whereas the name Peretz (interruption) symbolised the moon. (the sun shines uninterruptedly, daily, whereas the moon is ineffective towards the end of the month and at its beginning). The kingdom of David stemmed from Peretz whose dynasty symbolised the moon and its ups and downs. We know that the moon’s orbit is completed every 29 days. This is why you will find that there were 29 righteous people (descended from him) listed in the Bible from the time of Peretz until the last King of the Davidic dynasty, Tzidkiyahu. They are: Peretz, Chetzron, Ram, Aminadav, Nachshon, Salmon, Boaz, Oved, Yishai and David. They were followed by Shlomoh, Rechavam, Aviyah, Assa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Achazyah, Yoash, Amatzyah, Uzziah, Yotam, Achaz, Chiskiyah, Menashe, Ammon, Yoshiyahu, Yehoachaz, Yehoyakim, Yehoyachim, Tzidkiyah. These comprise a total of 29 men corresponding to the days in the lunar orbit; the lunar “sun” sets after such a period of time. The dynasty of David underwent a similar decline after Tzidkiyah and this is why the Temple was destroyed during the lifetime of Tzidkiyah who was the twenty-ninth scion counting from Peretz. [The reason we do not count from Yehudah who was promised Royalty by his father may be that Peretz was Royalty already, his mother having been the daughter of King Malki Tzedek, identical with Shem. If you find it strange that our author lists Menashe as a righteous king when the Book of Kings described him as the worst heretic ever, the reason may be that he became a penitent and G’d restored him to his throne as reported in Chronicles, II chapter 33 something not mentioned in the Book of Kings II chapter 21. See my book “The Just lives by his faith” for a possible reason for this omission Ed.] However, in Shemot Rabbah 15,26 this calculation is described differently, and the month is given as having thirty days during the first half of which the moon is progressively becoming more powerful, whereas after that it declines visibly. According to the author of that list the first 15 days of the month are characterised by the leaders of the Jewish people from Avraham to Solomon, whereas the last 15 days symbolise the decline of the Kingdom of Yehudah after the division of the country between Rechavam and Jerobam. This is based on Exodus 12,1. G’d is supposed to have told the Jewish people already prior to their departure from Egypt that the kingdom would not last for more than thirty generations, hence the words: החודש הזה לכם, ”this month (moon) is for you, etc.” The Midrash lists verses in the Bible to back up the contention that the early ancestors of the Jewish people such as Avraham and Yitzchak are already part of these 30 generations. It quotes a verse in which Avraham is described as “shining,” such as Isaiah 41, 2. It similarly is at pains to prove the same for Yitzchak and Yaakov. Starting with Yehudah, there is no need for such proofs anymore. The author of the Midrash, aware that most of the Kings of Yehudah actually worshipped idols, does not describe them as an unending string of righteous people but lumps them together as part of the decline of the Davidic dynasty, in spite of the exceptions such as Chiskiyah and Yoshiyah to name but two. According to this Midrash, the prayers of the patriarchs on behalf of their errant children helped to persuade G’d to continue to let that Kingdom exist beyond the time it had a legal right to exist. [This Midrash continues for several pages and I have decided to condense it in the interest of brevity. One of the more important points of the comparison between the orbit of the moon and the thirty generations of ascending and descending Jewish political power is the fact that King Tzidkiyah had his eyes gouged out by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. His subsequent blindness is taken by the Midrash as symbolic of the light of the Jewish “moon” having been extinguished.] A kabbalistic approach: Our verse speaks of two births, two new human beings. There is a profound mystical dimension in this, something of great impact on the dynasty of the house of David. I will reveal to you a small part of that mystical dimension and I ask you to concentrate on what I am about to reveal. We know that the name אלו-הים, with which the Torah describes G’d during the report of the creation of the universe describes Him as the king of the universe. This name is identified with the concept תשובה, another name for the emanation בינה. [In plain English, the attribute with which G’d created the universe is that which is active in the emanation בינה, the third emanation counting from the highest emanation, i.e. כתר, down. Ed.] We acknowledge this attribute especially on Rosh Hashanah, the “birthday” of the universe, (creation of man) and the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we conclude the third of the blessings in the עמידה prayer by saying המלך הקדוש, “the Holy King,” or המלך המשפט, “the King who dispenses justice,” instead of הא-ל הקדוש, “the Holy G’d,” or מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט, “the King who loves righteousness and justice.” There is no King without a people or man that He can be King over. When the Torah reports G’d’s directive (Genesis 1,3) as יהי אור ויהי אור, “let there be light and there was light,” this light came into existence by means of the power of the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth which is also known as אלו-הים. The repetition of the word אור in that directive and the report that it had been carried out, suggests that there were two kinds of light. You do not find the subject of the directive repeated when the Torah reports what G’d created on the other days. In the Torah’s report of the directives G’d issued concerning the other days you only find the expression ויהי כן to indicate that the universe had responded to G’d’s directive. You should realise that though the Torah appears to speak of two kinds of light, the meaning is not that there were actually two entirely different kinds of light. What is meant is that this light embodied two sources of power, of energy. One of these forces is essentially male, the other essentially female. The creation of the original light, however, was the product of a single source of energy, one which combines within it both male and female elements. This original light later on enabled the sun, the moon, and the stars to be derived from it and to be concretised. [The original light was independent of any physical matter, sunlight is not. It requires the sun, i.e. a physical body, in order to dispense it. Ed.]. I have explained this in my commentary on Genesis 1,14. The sun was endowed with the male properties of the original light, whereas the moon was endowed with the female properties of the original light. Having absorbed this knowledge, you will understand what occurred in the case of Yehudah, Tamar, and these two children born to Tamar and Yehudah respectively. By means of these two individuals, Peretz and Zerach, we can gain a better understanding of the whole process of creation. This is what the sages had in mind in Berachot 55 when they said: מלכותא דארע כעין מלכותא דרקיע, “the kingdom on earth is essentially similar to the kingdom in the celestial regions.” Yehudah’s name יהודה, gratitude, as we know from Leah’s feelings of gratitude to G’d meant that by having born more children for Yaakov than any of his wives would he would be appreciative of this. [compare Genesis 29,35. Ed.] Seeing that Yehudah was the fourth of the twelve sons who were to make up the tribes of Israel, G’d’s Holy Name is part of his name. His tribe became the leading tribe in Israel and the Kingdom of Israel was ruled over by a king from his tribe, i.e. David and his descendants. It was therefore appropriate that Tamar, herself descended from Royalty, should be married to him. The name Tamar reflects the fact that the original light contained both male and female properties, seeing that תמר, a date or date-palm, contains both male and female elements, or rather that the name for both a female palm and a male palm is the same. The לולב, palm branch, is indicative of the male element in the palm, whereas the fruit, the product of the female palm tree goes by the same name, i.e. תמר. It is male on the outside whereas its גרעין, its pit, is female. [It is split, similar in appearance to a vagina, as explained by Naftali Wessely.] This is something unique, not found in any other kind of tree. It was therefore appropriate that Peretz and Zerach be mothered by Tamar. Zerach corresponded to the element sun, the male element, the sun which shines without interruption, whereas Peretz corresponded to the element moon, the female element, a light which is uneven, sometimes stronger sometimes waning completely such as the light of the moon. It was therefore almost a historical must that the dynasty of King David be the product of Peretz rather than Zerach, seeing that he, Peretz — as indicated by his name already — represented the type of light we get from the moon, i.e. light which fluctuates constantly in intensity as does the light of the moon. When you will examine the verse intelligently you will find that just as the sun is always aligned with the moon just like twins, so Zerach and Peretz were aligned in the womb of their mother, i.e. they were twins. This concept of their being twins was carried so far that even at birth each of them could be taken for the firstborn depending on whether you consider the emergence of the hand or the emergence of the head as determining which one is the firstborn of the two. The Torah describes Zerach as the firstborn seeing that his hand emerged first from Tamar’s womb. It says “for he emerged first.” On the other hand, the Torah continues with ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it was as he was about to pull back his hand (inside the womb).” You will note that the Torah did not say that he had actually completed the act of pulling back his hand, i.e. וישב ידו. Peretz became the firstborn by reason of forcing his way out of the birth-canal of his mother past his twin brother Zerach. This is why the Torah writes in our verse ואחר יצא אחיו אשר על ידו השני, “after that, his brother, the one who had the red string tied to his hand, emerged.” In other words, when we consider the emergence from the womb of the entire baby, פטר רחם, as the dominant criterion, Peretz was the firstborn even though Zerach had first put his hand out of his mother’s womb. The Torah determined that for halachic purposes emergence of a whole baby from the mother’s birth canal first determines who is the true firstborn (Bechorot 46). This is why when the Torah revealed the names of these two twins it first gives us the name of Peretz. You will find an interesting verse in Psalms 89,28 אף אני בכור אתנהו עליון למלכי ארץ, “I will also appoint him firstborn, highest of the kings of the earth.” G’d is on record that He considers David, who biologically was the youngest of his brothers, as a firstborn. Seeing that the kingdom of the house of David is derived from Peretz, and Peretz in turn has been likened to the moon, the sages formulated the words דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים, “David King of Israel is alive and endures,” when we recite the monthly benedictions welcoming the arrival of the renewal of the light of the moon. When we look at the plain meaning of that statement it means simply that the moon is equated with David, (in name), seeing David is descended from Peretz who has been compared to the moon. Furthermore, seeing that the moon has been described in the Torah as the “small luminary” (Genesis 1,16), we find that the adjective “the small one” has also been applied to David (compare Samuel I 17,14). When we say the words חי וקיים, in the recital of קידוש לבנה, the sanctification of the new moon, the thought we entertain is that the moon has become visible again this month. On a more mystical level, these words are a reference to the latent power of the moon which is also known as דוד מלך ישראל, in that the word ישראל is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the mystical entity called Israel in the celestial regions. This is why this entity is described as חי וקיים, alive and well, enduring forever. Daniel 7,9 alludes to this when he said עד די כרסון רמיו, “until the thrones were set up.” There were two such thrones. In Chagigah 14 the sages have revealed to us how they understood this verse in Daniel. “Some hold that one of these thrones was reserved for G’d and the other for David. A second opinion holds that one of these thrones would be used by G’d when He employed the attribute of Justice, whereas he would use the other throne when employing the attribute of Charity. A third opinion, that of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah, contends that one of the ‘thrones’ was for sitting on, whereas the other served as a footrest.” It appears in that folio as if the sages of the first view disagreed with the view expressed by those who hold that one throne was reserved for David. Actually, the sages do not disagree with the basic concepts underlying all this. We know this as they derive their opinion from the verse ובקשו את ה' אלו-היהם ואת דוד מלכם, “and they will seek the Lord their G’d and David their king.” The words “and David their King” are a reference to this concept of כנסת ישראל. Concerning the moral/spiritual power represented by כנסת ישראל, our sages expounded (Zohar Terumah 175) that legally speaking the Israelites were not slated for exile from their land ever. The decree to exile them was not decided until they had rejected both the Kingdom of Heaven (G’d) and the Kingdom of David. We base this on Samuel II 20,1 “we have no portion in David nor in any inheritance of the son of Yishai. Every man to their tents!” [ — a proclamation by Sheva ben Bichri, a dissident and heretic, arousing the people to oppose David.] It is important to realize that the words “David” and the words “the son of Yishai” are not a repetition referring to one and the same person as those commentators who concentrate on the plain meaning of the text would have us believe. The meaning of the verse is that Sheva ben Bichri and his supporters declared their severance of allegiance to both the kingdom of heaven and the celestial aspect of the kingdom on earth as represented by David in his capacity as the son of Yishai. These people served idols instead. This is why he said “each one to his god!” [The sages inverted the letters in the word לאהליו, “to their tents,” to read “to their gods,” i.e. לאלהיו]. The verses reporting the birth of Zerach mention the word יד, hand, four times, i.e. ויתן יד, ותקשור על ידו שני, ויהי כמשיב ידו, אשר על ידו השני. These four expressions parallel the four times עכן בן זרח, [identical with Achan ben Karmi in Joshua chapter 7. Ed.] stretched out his hand, i.e. committed a trespass against loot captured by the Jewish people in their wars since their departure from Egypt. He hid and retained such loot from the battle against Amalek, against Sichon and Og, from the battle against the Canaanites and from the capture of Jericho [which was not preceded by a battle in the usual sense of the word. Ed.] (compare Bereshit Rabbah 85,14).