Difference between revisions of "Purpose of the Yehuda and Tamar Story/2"
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
<point><b>Er and Onan's deaths</b> – According to <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary46-10" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary38-1-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 38:1-2</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary46-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 46:10</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="MaaseiHashemMaaseiAvot36" data-aht="source">R. Eliezer Ashkenazi</a><a href="MaaseiHashemMaaseiAvot36" data-aht="source">Ma'asei Hashem, Ma'asei Avot 36</a><a href="R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)</a></multilink>, Yehuda was punished for his intermarriage with the deaths of his sons.<fn>R"E Samet, "סיפור יהודה ותמר, סיפור בתוך סיפור‏?‏",‎ עיונים בפרשת השבוע סידרה שנייה, (Jerusalem, 2004): 161-181, argues that the text does not attribute their deaths to Yehuda's sins but to their own. However, M. Ben Yashar (in the article cited above)  points out that the verse does not say "ויעש ער את הרע בעיני י"י" but rather "וַיְהִי עֵר בְּכוֹר יְהוּדָה רַע בְּעֵינֵי י"י". It is his very existence, as the product of an illicit union, which was bad in Hashem's eyes.  Cf. Malbim Rut 1:5 who similarly explains that the deaths of Machlon and Kilyon were caused by their intermarriages.</fn></point> | <point><b>Er and Onan's deaths</b> – According to <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary46-10" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary38-1-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 38:1-2</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshitFirstCommentary46-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit First Commentary 46:10</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> and <multilink><a href="MaaseiHashemMaaseiAvot36" data-aht="source">R. Eliezer Ashkenazi</a><a href="MaaseiHashemMaaseiAvot36" data-aht="source">Ma'asei Hashem, Ma'asei Avot 36</a><a href="R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Eliezer Ashkenazi (Ma'asei Hashem)</a></multilink>, Yehuda was punished for his intermarriage with the deaths of his sons.<fn>R"E Samet, "סיפור יהודה ותמר, סיפור בתוך סיפור‏?‏",‎ עיונים בפרשת השבוע סידרה שנייה, (Jerusalem, 2004): 161-181, argues that the text does not attribute their deaths to Yehuda's sins but to their own. However, M. Ben Yashar (in the article cited above)  points out that the verse does not say "ויעש ער את הרע בעיני י"י" but rather "וַיְהִי עֵר בְּכוֹר יְהוּדָה רַע בְּעֵינֵי י"י". It is his very existence, as the product of an illicit union, which was bad in Hashem's eyes.  Cf. Malbim Rut 1:5 who similarly explains that the deaths of Machlon and Kilyon were caused by their intermarriages.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Ethnicity of Tamar</b> – This position suggests that Tamar, too, was Canaanite in origin.<fn>See: R"E Samet (in the article cited above) who suggests that If Yehuda himself married a Canaanite, he would certainly have had no issue with his sons marrying one of the local women.</fn>  There is no evidence in the text that Yehuda searched for a wife for his son from outside of Canaan, making it likely that she was a local woman.</point> | <point><b>Ethnicity of Tamar</b> – This position suggests that Tamar, too, was Canaanite in origin.<fn>See: R"E Samet (in the article cited above) who suggests that If Yehuda himself married a Canaanite, he would certainly have had no issue with his sons marrying one of the local women.</fn>  There is no evidence in the text that Yehuda searched for a wife for his son from outside of Canaan, making it likely that she was a local woman.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>"שְׁבִי אַלְמָנָה בֵית אָבִיךְ עַד יִגְדַּל שֵׁלָה בְנִי"</b> – <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit38-11" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:1</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:11</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-11_2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:11</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-23" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:23</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> maintains that Yehuda never meant to carry through with his promise. When he tells Tamar to wait for Shelah to mature, it was merely a stalling tactic meant to avoid her protestations.</point> | + | <point><b>"שְׁבִי אַלְמָנָה בֵית אָבִיךְ עַד יִגְדַּל שֵׁלָה בְנִי"</b> – <multilink><a href="RashiBereshit38-11" data-aht="source">Rashi</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:1</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-11" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:11</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-11_2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:11</a><a href="RashiBereshit38-23" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:23</a><a href="R. Shelomo Yitzchaki (Rashi)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Shelomo Yitzchaki</a></multilink> maintains that Yehuda never meant to carry through with his promise. When he tells Tamar to wait for Shelah to mature, it was merely a stalling tactic meant to avoid her protestations.<fn> <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBereshit38-5" data-aht="source">HaKetav VeHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBereshit38-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:5</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink> suggests that Yehuda's being misled into sleeping with Tamar was a measure for measure punishment for his misleading of her.</fn></point> |
− | <point><b>Significance of children's names</b> – The names of Yehuda's sons might have symbolic significance. <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit38-7" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit38-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:7</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> points out that ער spelled backwards reads "רע", suggesting that he had turned evil, perhaps due to his parents' influence. HaKetav veHaKabbalah suggests that Shelah is related to the root שלה which means to mislead, and that it is indicative of Yehuda's later misleading of Tamar with regards to Shelah's levirate marriage.</point> | + | <point><b>Significance of children's names</b> – The names of Yehuda's sons might have symbolic significance. <multilink><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit38-7" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYosefBekhorShorBereshit38-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:7</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink> points out that ער spelled backwards reads "רע", suggesting that he had turned evil, perhaps due to his parents' influence. <multilink><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBereshit38-5" data-aht="source">HaKetav veHaKabbalah</a><a href="HaKetavVeHaKabbalahBereshit38-5" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:5</a><a href="R. Yaakov Mecklenburg (HaKetav VeHaKabbalah)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yaakov Mecklenburg</a></multilink> suggests that Shelah is related to the root שלה which means to mislead, and that it is indicative of Yehuda's later misleading of Tamar with regards to Shelah's levirate marriage.</point> |
<point><b>Prohibition of relations with daughter-in-law</b> – This position might maintain that in Canaan, a father-in-law, and not just a brother, could perform levirate marriage.<fn>This is attested to elsewhere in the Ancient Near East. See for example the Hittite Laws # 193: "If a man has a wife and then the man dies, his brother shall take his wife, then his father shall take her. If in turn also his father dies, one of his brother's sons shall take the wife whom he had. There shall be no punishment." (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. J. Pritchard (Princeton, 1969): 196.)</fn> Yehuda, who had assimilated into the surrounding society, might thus have found nothing wrong with the custom, even if it had not been practiced in his father's house. As such, this approach would likely understand the words "וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ" to mean that Yehuda did not cease from consorting with Tamar after discovering that he was the father of her children. Though later Jewish law prohibited such a relationship, Yehuda was following Canaanite, rather than Israelite, practice.</point> | <point><b>Prohibition of relations with daughter-in-law</b> – This position might maintain that in Canaan, a father-in-law, and not just a brother, could perform levirate marriage.<fn>This is attested to elsewhere in the Ancient Near East. See for example the Hittite Laws # 193: "If a man has a wife and then the man dies, his brother shall take his wife, then his father shall take her. If in turn also his father dies, one of his brother's sons shall take the wife whom he had. There shall be no punishment." (Ancient Near Eastern Texts, ed. J. Pritchard (Princeton, 1969): 196.)</fn> Yehuda, who had assimilated into the surrounding society, might thus have found nothing wrong with the custom, even if it had not been practiced in his father's house. As such, this approach would likely understand the words "וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ" to mean that Yehuda did not cease from consorting with Tamar after discovering that he was the father of her children. Though later Jewish law prohibited such a relationship, Yehuda was following Canaanite, rather than Israelite, practice.</point> | ||
− | <point><b>Future descendants</b> – One might question how it is possible that the David dynasty and the Mashiach would stem from the abominations of Canaan. This approach might respond that a parent's actions need not spell rejection of their offspring, and that in choosing David, Hashem looked to his deeds and not those of his ancestors. Every individual has the capability of overcoming their past.<fn>Cf. Radak who suggests that Hashem intentionally had David descend from Yehuda and Tamar on one side and Ruth and Boaz on the other so that the Kingdom of Yehuda would not become haughty.</fn></point> | + | <point><b>Future descendants</b> – One might question how it is possible that the David dynasty and the Mashiach would stem from the abominations of Canaan. This approach might respond that a parent's actions need not spell rejection of their offspring, and that in choosing David, Hashem looked to his deeds and not those of his ancestors. Every individual has the capability of overcoming their past.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="RadakBereshit38-26" data-aht="source">Radak </a><a href="RadakBereshit38-1-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:1-2</a><a href="RadakBereshit38-7" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:7</a><a href="RadakBereshit38-24" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:24</a><a href="RadakBereshit38-26" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:26</a><a href="R. David Kimchi (Radak)" data-aht="parshan">About R. David Kimchi</a></multilink>who suggests that Hashem intentionally had David descend from Yehuda and Tamar on one side and Ruth and Boaz on the other so that the Kingdom of Yehuda would not become haughty.</fn></point> |
<point><b>Purpose and placement of the story</b> – M. Ben Yashar suggests that the story is placed in the middle of the Yosef narratives in order to highlight the role of Hashem's providence. Yosef was sent to Egypt, putting the process of exile and enslavement into motion, as this exile was necessary to prevent the duplication of Yehuda's intermarriage.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="MalbimBereshit38-1" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBereshit38-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:1</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink> (drawing off <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbah85-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbah85-1" data-aht="source">85:1</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>) who similarly connects our story to the upcoming exile but in vastly different way.  He suggests that as the narrative begins to describe the events that led to Israel's first exile, which was paradigmatic of future oppressions and exiles, Hashem shares how he prepared for the birth of the Mashiach, creating his dynastic line.</fn> Yehuda's actions demonstrated that the brothers were not immune to assimilation and intermarriage, and that until the nation's character was solidified, remaining in Canaan could prove disastrous. For elaboration on this approach to the need for the Egyptian Exile, see <a href="Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage" data-aht="page">Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage</a>.</point> | <point><b>Purpose and placement of the story</b> – M. Ben Yashar suggests that the story is placed in the middle of the Yosef narratives in order to highlight the role of Hashem's providence. Yosef was sent to Egypt, putting the process of exile and enslavement into motion, as this exile was necessary to prevent the duplication of Yehuda's intermarriage.<fn>Cf. <multilink><a href="MalbimBereshit38-1" data-aht="source">Malbim</a><a href="MalbimBereshit38-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 38:1</a><a href="R. Meir Leibush Weiser (Malbim)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Meir Leibush Weiser</a></multilink> (drawing off <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbah85-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbah85-1" data-aht="source">85:1</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink>) who similarly connects our story to the upcoming exile but in vastly different way.  He suggests that as the narrative begins to describe the events that led to Israel's first exile, which was paradigmatic of future oppressions and exiles, Hashem shares how he prepared for the birth of the Mashiach, creating his dynastic line.</fn> Yehuda's actions demonstrated that the brothers were not immune to assimilation and intermarriage, and that until the nation's character was solidified, remaining in Canaan could prove disastrous. For elaboration on this approach to the need for the Egyptian Exile, see <a href="Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage" data-aht="page">Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage</a>.</point> | ||
<point><b>Avot and Mitzvot</b></point> | <point><b>Avot and Mitzvot</b></point> |
Version as of 02:31, 30 November 2018
Purpose of the Yehuda and Tamar Story
Exegetical Approaches
Overview
Commentators vary greatly in their evaluation of Yehuda's deeds in Bereshit 38, leading to both contrasting portraits of his character and vastly different understandings of the purpose of the story as a whole. A first approach views Yehuda negatively, assuming that he had intermarried and absorbed customs of the surrounding Canaanites. If so, the story comes to stress the need for the Egyptian exile which would safeguard the family against further acculturation.
Ramban, in contrast, justifies all of Yehuda's actions in the chapter, viewing him as an upright individual. The chapter's goal is simply to provide insight into his life and character, since he, like Yosef, is one of contenders for leadership of the family and future nation. A third approach, taken by many Midrashim, reads the chapter as a story of atonement and change. The chapter describes how Yehuda is punished for his role in the sale of Yosef, and how he emerges repentant, having learned to look past himself to take responsibility and care for the welfare of others.
Introduction to the Egyptian Exile
The chapter portrays Yehuda as intermarrying and assimilating into Canaanite culture, highlighting the need for the brothers to descend to Egypt in order to stem the tide of acculturation.
Portrait of a Leader
Chapter 38 delves into the life of Yehuda since he is one of the two contenders for leadership among Yaakov's children. The last third of Bereshit paints a portrait of each of Yehuda and Yosef, giving the reader insight into the lives and character of each future leader.
attempts to respond that she was so called after her famous father.
- According to Ramban,14 Yehuda's words to Tamar were sincere; he really did intend for Shelah to wed Tamar. However, recognizing that his elder sons must have died due to sinful behavior, and assuming that this was a product of their young age, Yehuda wanted to wait until Shelah matured before marrying.15
- Ralbag,16 instead, suggests that Yehuda was justified in fearing that his third son might die if he married Tamar (as she had proven herself a "killer") and thus he acted properly in protecting his child. One might, nonetheless, question why then he simply did not release Tamar from the levirate marriage.
- Rid suggests that Tamar did not really have daughter-in-law (or even married) status at all since both Er and Onan had never consummated the marriage.17
- Ramban18 suggests that perhaps before the giving of the Torah at Sinai it was permitted for a man to have relations with his daughter-in-law if his son was deceased. He also suggests19 that, before Sinai, levirate marriage may have been fulfilled through either a father or brother. As such, Yehuda was not only not transgressing a prohibition but was even performing a meritorious action.20
- One might go even further and suggest that the prohibition of sleeping with one's daughter was not in effect at all before Sinai.
A Tale of Atonement
The events of the chapter both constitute atonement for Yehuda's role in the sale of Yosef and detail his journey of repentance and change.
- Rashi (following Tanchuma) suggests that the phrase refers to a metaphoric lowering of Yehuda's status after the sale. When the brothers saw their father's grief, they regretted their actions, and blamed Yehuda for being the instigator of the sale.
- R"Y Bekhor Shor and the Tzeror HaMor similarly connect the opening to the aftermath of the sale, but suggests that Yehuda lowered himself; he could not bear the anguish he had caused his father and decided to move out of the house.22
- "וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה" – R.Elazar in Bereshit Rabbah suggests that the phrase "וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה" alludes to the opening of chapter 39: "וְיוֹסֵף הוּרַד מִצְרָיְמָה", as Yehuda's descent was a direct consequence of Yosef's descent.
- גְּדִי עִזִּים – Resh Lakish in Bereshit Rabbah points out that just as Yehuda deceived his father through a baby goat, so too he was deceived by Tamar through a baby goat.
- "הַכֶּר נָא" – R. Yochanan in Bereshit Rabbah connects Tamar's words "הַכֶּר נָא לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה הָאֵלֶּה" with the brothers' identical formulation to their father, "הַכֶּר נָא הַכְּתֹנֶת בִּנְךָ הִוא אִם לֹא", again suggesting that the latter deception served as an apt punishment for the former.