Parasha: Vayeshev · Aliyah: Fourth (Netzach)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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.