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
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 the 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.
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 Jubilees, Ibn Ezra,2 Ma'asei Hashem, Shadal, and Malbim, the term "כְּנַעֲנִי" refers to a person of Canaanite ethnicity. Unlike his ancestors, Yehuda apparently had no qualms about marrying a local Canaanite woman. [For elaboration on this issue, see Did Yaakov's Sons Marry Canaanites.]
Er and Onan's deaths – According to Ibn Ezra and R. Eliezer Ashkenazi, 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 for his son from outside of Canaan, 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, it was merely a stalling tactic meant to avoid her protestations.5
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 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.
Prohibition of relations with daughter-in-law – This position might maintain that in Canaan, a father-in-law, and not just a brother, could perform levirate marriage.6 Yehuda, who had (according to this approach) 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.
Future descendants – 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.7
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 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.8 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 Purposes of the Egyptian Bondage.
Avot and Mitzvot
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" – Radak9 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 commentators10 maintain that Yehuda did not marry a Canaanite woman. They assert that the term "כְּנַעֲנִי" refers not to the ethnicity of Yehuda's father-in-law, but rather to his profession as a merchant.11 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.
Tamar's ethnicity – According to this approach, Tamar, too, was a non-Canaanite. R. Shemuel b. Nachmani in Bavli Sotah asserts that she was a convert, while Ramban12 suggests that perhaps she was the daughter of one of the sojourners in the land.13
Er and Onan's deaths – Ramban suggests that the deaths of Yehuda's sons provide no evidence of Yehuda's wrongdoing, 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,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.
Prohibition of relations with daughter-in-law – This approach might condone Tamar and Yehuda's union through a number of ways:
- 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.
"וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ" – Those who legitimize Yehuda and Tamar's union by suggesting that the pre-Sinai law was different, might suggest that after the initial act, Yehuda ceased to consort with Tamar. Despite the lack of prohibition, Yehuda may have 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 this 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 rather about the two leadership contenders among Yaakov's children – Yosef and Yehuda. As such, it shares the life stories of each, giving insight into the character of each future leader.21
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.
Sources:Opinions in Bereshit Rabbah
"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 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
Allusions to Yosef narratives – Chapter 38 contains several allusion to the Yosef narrative, which serve to highlight that the events of the chapter 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: "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.
Er and Onan's deaths – R. Shemuel b. Nachmani in Bavli Sotah23 suggests that the deaths of Yehuda's wife and sons were a direct consequence of the sale. Yehuda ignored the anguish he caused his father in letting him think that his child was dead, so Hashem caused him to experience that very same anguish.
Marriage to "בַּת אִישׁ כְּנַעֲנִי" – This position does not focus on the propriety or impropriety of Yehuda's marriage.
"שְׁבִי אַלְמָנָה בֵית אָבִיךְ עַד יִגְדַּל שֵׁלָה בְנִי" – Yehuda's insensitivity to Tamar's plight might betray how, at this point of the story, he has not yet changed and is still an individual who thinks only of himself and not the welfare of others. Just as he let his father mourn a living son, so too, he chains Tamar in eternal widowhood despite there being a potential husband.
"צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי" – These words mark the turning point in Yehuda's behavior. When Tamar boldly states: "לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה וַתֹּאמֶר הַכֶּר נָא לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה הָאֵלֶּה" Yehuda could easily have pretended that he had no connection to the pledges, and let Tamar bear the fatal consequences of her ruse.24 Yet, as he hears his own words "הַכֶּר נָא" emerge from Tamar's mouth, he begins to reflect on his actions, deciding to take responsibility and save a life rather than take one.
Yehuda in subsequent chapters – Yehuda's transformation is evident in the later stories as well, as he takes responsibility for Binyamin, altruistically offering himself in Binyamin's stead. Interestingly, the root ערב appears in only two stories in Torah - the pledge of our chapter and Yehuda's pledge to his father regarding Binyamin's safety (Bereshit 43:9, 44:32).
"וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ" – This position might suggest, as above, that before Sinai, the responsibility to perform a levirate marriage fell on a father in cases where a brother was not a candidate. If so, it was Yehuda's obligation to wed Tamar, and the verse might be suggesting that as soon as he recognized his error he did so and never discontinued the relationship.25
Purpose and placement of the story – Chapter 38 is closely intertwined with the surrounding narrative, explaining how Yehuda, the brother most responsible for Yosef's sale, morphs into the individual who later prevents Binyamin's similar plight and facilitates the reunification of Yaakov's family.
