Purpose of the Yehuda and Tamar Story/2
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
Purpose of the Yehuda and Tamar Story
Exegetical Approaches
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 so as to stem the tide of acculturation.
Sources:M. ben Yashar1
"וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה מֵאֵת אֶחָיו" – Bereshit Rabbah suggests that this phrase be understood metaphorically to refer to a downgrading of Yehuda's standing due to his problematic intermarriage. Even according to a more literal reading, though, the verse might suggest that Yehuda's actions were problematic. Yehuda went down from his brothers, apparently intentionally separating from his family, to instead live and mingle with the local Canaanite population.
Marriage to "בַּת אִישׁ כְּנַעֲנִי" – According to Ibn Ezra,2 Maasei Hashem, Shadal and Malbim, the term "כְּנַעֲנִי" literally refers to a person of Canaanite ethnicity. Unlike his ancestors, Yehuda apparently had no qualms about marrying a local Canaanite woman.
Er and Onan's deaths – According to Ibn Ezra, Yehuda was punished for his intermarriage with the deaths of his sons.3
Ethnicity of Tamar – This position suggests that Tamar, too, was Canaanite in origin.4 There is no evidence in the text that Yehuda searched for a wife from outside, making it likely that she was a local woman.
"שְׁבִי אַלְמָנָה בֵית אָבִיךְ עַד יִגְדַּל שֵׁלָה בְנִי" – Rashi maintains that Yehuda never meant to carry through with his promise. When he tells Tamar to wait for Shelah to mature, this is a lame excuse only meant to prevent her protestations.
Significance of children's names – The names of Yehuda's sons might have symbolic significance. R. Yosef Bekhor Shor 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 verb "שלה" meaning to mislead and is indicative of Yehuda's later misleading of Tamar with regards to Shelah's levirate marriage.
Prohibition of relations with daughter-in-law – This position might maintain that in Canaan, a father-in-law, and not just a brother, can perform levirate marriage.5 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 prohibits such a relationship, Yehuda was following Canaanite, rather than Israelite, practice.
Future descendants – One might question how it is possible that the David monarchy and Mashiach stemmed 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.6
Avot and Mitzvot
Purpose and placement of the story – M. Ben Yashar suggests that the story is placed in the middle of the Yosef narratives in order to show the reader Hashem's providence. Yosef was sent to Egypt, putting the process of exile and enslavement into motion, as this exile was necessary to prevent repetition of Yehuda's intermarriage.7 Yehuda's actions demonstrated that the brothers were not immune to assimilation and intermarriage, and that staying in Canaan before the nation was solidified could prove disastrous. For elaboration on this approach to the need for the exile, see Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.
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.
Sources:Ramban
"וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה מֵאֵת אֶחָיו" – Radak8 suggests that this is a mundane statement of fact, with no implicit critique of Yehuda. The verse simply shares that Yehuda moved geographically from highland to lowland.
Marriage to "בַּת אִישׁ כְּנַעֲנִי" – Many commentators9 maintain that Yehuda did not marry a Canaanite woman and assert that the term "כְּנַעֲנִי" refers not to the ethnicity of Yehuda's father-in-law, but to his profession as a merchant.10 However, in Divrei HaYamim I 2:3, Bat Shua herself is referred to as "הַכְּנַעֲנִית" which makes this read somewhat difficult. Ramban
attempts to respond that she was so called after her famous father.
attempts to respond that she was so called after her famous father.
Tamar's ethnicity – According to this approach, Tamar, too, was a non-Canaanite. R. Shemuel b. Nachmani in Bali Sotah asserts that she was a convert, while Ramban suggests that perhaps she was the daughter of one of the sojourners in the land.11
Er and Onan's deaths – Ramban suggests that the deaths of Yehuda's sons provide no evidence of Yehuda's wrong-doing, but, only, as the text implies, of Er and Onan's own crimes.
"שְׁבִי אַלְמָנָה בֵית אָבִיךְ עַד יִגְדַּל שֵׁלָה בְנִי" – Commentators defend Yehuda's action in two ways:
- According to Ramban,12 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 simply desired that Shelah mature before marrying.13
- Ralbag,14 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.
Prohibition of relations with daughter-in-law – This approach might legitimize Tamar and Yehuda's union in a number of ways:
- The 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.15
- Ramban16 suggests that perhaps before Matan Torah it was permitted for a man to have relations with his daughter-in- law once the son was no longer alive. He also suggests17 that perhaps before Matan Torah levirate marriage was fulfilled through a father in addition to a brother. As such, Yehuda was not only not transgressing a prohibition but was involved in a good deed.
- One might go even further and suggest that the prohibition of sleeping with one's daughter was not in effect at all before Matan Torah.
"וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ" – Those who legitimize Yehuda and Tamar's union by suggesting that before Matan Torah the law was different, might suggest that after the initial act, Yehuda ceased to consort with Tamar. Despite the lack of prohibition, Yehuda likely recognized the problematic nature of such a relationship and under normal circumstances would not have engaged in such an act; he did so here only unintentionally. According to the Rid, in contrast, it is possible that Yehuda continued the relationship since Tamar never had married status.
"צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי" – Even though thi approach assumes that Yehuda had proper reasons for delaying Tamar's marriage to Shelah, he nonetheless takes the blame on himself (כִּי עַל כֵּן לֹא נְתַתִּיהָ לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי), recognizing that Tamar's actions were positively motivated.
Purpose and placement of the story – This position might suggest that, despite initial appearances, the last third of Sefer Bereshit is not really about Yosef alone, but about the two leadership contenders among Yaakov's children – both Yosef and Yehuda. As such, it shares the life stories of each, giving insight into each future leader.18
A Tale of Atonement
The events of the chapter both constitute atonement for Yehuda's role in the sale, and detail his journey of repentance and change
"וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה מֵאֵת אֶחָיו" – 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 ringleader behind the deed. R"Y Bekhor Shor and 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 move out of the house.
Allusions to Yosef narratives – Chapter 38 contains several allusion to the Yosef narrative, which serve to highlight that the events of the chpater might be a measure for measure punishment for Yehuda's role in the sale:
- "וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה" – R.Elazar in Bereshit Rabbah suggests that the phrase "וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה" alludes to the opening of chapter 39: "וְיוֹסֵ֖ף הוּרַ֣ד מִצְרָ֑יְמָה". Yehuda's descent is 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 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 one deception served as an apt punishment for the other.
Er and Onan's deaths – R. Shemuel b. Nachmani in Bavli Sotah19 suggests that the deaths of Yehuda's wife and sons are a direct consequence of the sale. Yehuda ignored the anguish he caused his father in letting him think his child dead, so Hashem let him experience that very same anguish.
Marriage to "בַּת אִישׁ כְּנַעֲנִי"
Ethnicity of Tamar
"שְׁבִי אַלְמָנָה בֵית אָבִיךְ עַד יִגְדַּל שֵׁלָה בְנִי"
Prohibition of relations with daughter-in-law
"וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ"
Chronology of the story
Purpose and placement of the story