Kommentar zu Bereschit 38:26

צדקה SHE IS RIGHTEOUS (right) in what she has said

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;¹⁹¹I Kings 2:32. 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.¹⁹²I Samuel 24:18. 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 above¹⁹³In Verse 8 here. when I discussed the law of marrying a childless brother’s widow.

צדקה ממני, more righteous than I. He referred to her accusation (words) as compared to his accusation (words) against her. “I had commanded her to remain in her father’s house until Shelah would grow up. She complied with the terms of our understanding. However, I did not keep my part of the bargain I had struck with her.” כי ..לא נתתיה לשלה בני, the construction here is similar to Job 32,2: על צדקו נפשו מאלוקים, “because he thought himself more righteous than G’d.” Another similar construction occurs in Samuel I 24,18 with King Sha-ul who admitted to David that he had been wrong in persecuting him with the words: צדיק אתה ממני, “you are more righteous than I.”...

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.

צדקה ממני; she is more righteous than I, for I had declared her guilty of being burned to death while she was innocent, seeing she is pregnant from me and has not acted like a harlot. Our sages in Makkot 23 as well as in Bereshit Rabbah 85,12 say that there are basically three locations where the Holy Spirit,רוח הקודש , was manifest [was needed to confirm a verdict. Ed.] One was the court of Shem, son of Noach. This is based on the word ממני in our verse not meaning “than me, Yehudah,” but “from Me, G’d.” [although Shem himself was no longer alive at the time Tamar’s trial came up, his grandson Ever, probably in conjunction with others maintained the court he had founded, which was administering the seven Noachide (universal laws for all of mankind) laws at the time. Ed.] The sages understand that when the verdict was passed on Tamar a heavenly voice was heard saying that Tamar’s pregnancy by Yehudah had been decreed by G.d, “from Me.” The second such instance was in the court conducted by the prophet Samuel. They base this on Samuel I 12,5 ויאמר עד, G’d confirming that the prophet had dealt fairly with the whole people during his being the supreme authority, before a King was appointed. Without this confirmation we only had his word for it. The third example was the court of King Solomon, during the famous trial of two women claiming a live baby as her own and the dead one as belonging to her adversary. (Kings I 3,27.) A heavenly voice confirmed Solomon’s verdict [which from a purely halachic point of view was quite unsubstantiated. Ed.] The words היא אמו, “she is his mother,” then were not said by Solomon but by G’d. G’d’s confirmation of Tamat’s innocence was needed as people could have argued that while it was true that she had slept with Yehudah, who was to say that other men had not also slept with her and that she was actually pregnant by someone else? The Talmud concludes by citing the heavenly voice as saying ממך יצאו כבושים, “secrets unknown to others are revealed by Me.” [according to Rashi on Makkot 23 the fact that in due course Tamar’s and Yehudah’s son became the forerunner of the Davidic dynasty proved that the seed she had carried was that of Yehudah, both Tamar and Yehudah being of Royal descent, -Tamar as the daughter of Malki Tzedek King of Shalem, and Yehudah by dint of the destiny predicted for him by his father on his deathbed.] There is a variant reading which says that as a result of Yehudah’s admission, G’d decided to appoint him as the founder of the future Davidic dynasties, and that the line ונכבשה הארץ לפניכם, “the land will become conquered before you,” in Numbers 32,29 is addressed to the leading tribe, Yehudah. This is based on the wordכבושים in the Talmud being read as ממך יצאו כובשים, “that conquerors will emerge from your loins.”

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)

In what she has said. Rashi is answering the question: צדקה ממני implies she was more righteous than him. But here, what does it matter whether she was more righteous?

ויאמר צדקה ממני, he (Yehudah) said: “she is more righteous than I am. ”G–d’s methods when sitting in judgment cannot be compared to the way a human judge deals with offenders. When a human judge tries a case, and the accused party admits his guilt, the judge proceeds to carry out the penalty for the offence in question, having proven that he did not act arbitrarily. In other words, if the offence carries the death penalty, it is carried out forthwith. According to Proverbs 28,13, this is not G–d’s way of dealing with the guilty party Solomon describes it as: ומודה ועוזב ירוחם, “if he confesses and abandons sin, he will experience mercy.” As soon as Yehudah’s brother Reuven heard about how he had publicly acknowledged being the father of Tamar’s unborn children, he himself acknowledged his guilt in defiling his father’ couch. (Yaakov’s words in Genesis 49,4) This is also what Eliphas said to Job (Job 15,18) אשר חכמים יגידו ולא כחדו מאבותם, “that which the wise men have transmitted from their fathers and have not withheld it.” The wise men that Job referred to are none other than Yehudah and Reuven. This is why the descendants of those two sons of Yaakov were the only ones whose territory was never invaded by aliens [prior to the building of Solomon’s Temple? Ed.] (compare Moses’ blessing in Deuteronomy 33, 6-7)

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.]

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).

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,¹⁹⁴Shmuel the Elder (Sotah 10 b). who explains the verse as saying, “And he did not cease to know her,”¹⁹⁵Since Tamar did in fact become his legitimate wife, as explained above, he did not cease living with her. since here the expression used is, v’lo yasaph, and elsewhere it is written, A great voice ‘v’lo yasaph’.¹⁹⁶Deuteronomy 5:19. 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.”

ולא יסף, he did not continue to sleep with Tamar. If you were to interpret the words ולא יסף as “he did not stop sleeping with her,” the wording should have been: ולא יסף עוד מלדעתה.

She is righteous, [it is] from me. Alternatively, “She is more righteous than me” — her intentions were pure whereas mine were not.

כי על כן לא נתתיה, as if the Torah had written כי על כן שלא נתתיה, “because I did not give her, etc., she has done this, i.e. pretended to be a harlot, because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” We find a similar construction in Exodus 13,8 בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, “on account of this (that I observe the commandment mentioned) G’d has done this for me” (taken me out of Egypt).”

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.

She is righteous in what she has said. But she is not righteous in her act of illicit relations. The verse says, “He did not know that she was his daughter-in-law” (v. 16), implying that if he had known he would not have been with her. But she knew, so how did she permit herself to do this? She should not have relied on stretched explanations [that it was permitted due to yibum]. But she is righteous in what she said, for I do indeed recognize the signs as belonging to me. She assumedly conceived from me, since they said, “There was no harlot here.” Also the calculation of “about three months” is proof. Although she could have conceived from others, who might also have been with her, that is a mere possibility whereas the signs are definite. (Nachalas Yaakov)

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.

צדקה ממנו, the meaning is as per Targum, i.e. “she has become pregnant from me.” We are puzzled by this commentary, as if true, the sin of sleeping with one’s father-in-law is far greater than that of sleeping with a total stranger. We must assume therefore, that prior to the giving of the Torah, the way the system of the Levirate marriage was practiced was that in the absence of the deceased husband of the widow having any siblings, another close family member would perform that rite with the widow in order to ensure that the name of the deceased would be preserved thereby. Yehudah’s statement at the time when Tamar explained her complaint that she had not been given as a wife to Shelah, must therefore be explained as follows: “actually, seeing that at the time Onan died Shelah was not yet old enough to perform these rites it was my duty to have done so, especially as I could not be sure he would do so even when he would grow up.” At the time when Yehudah, through sleeping with Tamar had actually fulfilled the required rite though not having been aware of it, G–d said to him: “by doing so you saved four lives from death. One was saved from dying in a pit and three were saved from dying by being burned to death. This is based on Daniel 1,6: ויהי בהם מבני יהודה דניאל, חנניה, מישאל, ועזריה, there were among them from the descendants of Yehudah: ‘Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah.’ The verse does not trace their ancestry to Chizkiyah, but to Yehudah. Daniel was saved from a pit, the other three from a fiery furnace. An alternate explanation of the words: צדקה ממנו, “she became pregnant from me.” Yehudah claimed that he had married her legally by betrothing her with his ring, as mentioned earlier in my commentary. Rabbi Moshe queries this interpretation claiming that such a betrothal is invalid when performed by the father-in-law. He bases himself on the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 10, the Talmud, quoting the dialogue between Yehudah and Tamar there claims that when Yehudah asked her about her marital status, including asking her whether perhaps her father had accepted a token of betrothal on her behalf, she responded by saying that this was impossible as she was an orphan. Rashi on the Talmud there explains that even if she had been betrothed by her father, had he lived, such a betrothal would have been invalid as she would have had to be a minor for such a betrothal to have any legal significance. She is quoted as having told Yehudah that she was completely and legally available and was not ritually impure either. At any rate, when the Torah subsequent to the revelations after the trial writes that Yehudah ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, this line has to be understood that he did not stop to have marital relations with her, as he had now found out that everything had been legal to begin with. (verse 26) According to our author this latest interpretation follows the view expressed in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 100, that even a woman with an infant on her shoulder is believed when she claims that her betrothal at the time had been illegal.

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.]

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 לדעתה, he did not sleep with her again seeing that even this time the act had been unintentional and in a manner not appropriate to her status. It is demeaning for a socially highly placed individual to sleep with a harlot. For Yehudah to have done so again would have been demeaning for him [as she would always be aware that the first time he had done this was in order to merely gratify a biological urge. Ed.] In the Targum we find two different versions regarding the meaning of the words ולא יסף עוד לדעתה. The second version is that Yehudah never stopped sleeping with Tamar, i.e. he treated her as his wife in every respect from then on. The reason why the Torah told us about all these details and how the seed of Yehudah became mingled with that of Ruth the Moabite, as well as how King Solomon was the son of Bat Sheva whose marriage to David did not exactly come about in a normal manner, is to show that the hand of G’d had been at work in all of these situations. G’d’s design had been that the Kingdom of Israel should be David’s on a hereditary basis forever [whenever there would be independent kings, not appointed by conquerors of the Jewish people. Ed.] The somewhat flawed lineage in Jewish kings is G’d’s device to prevent such kings from becoming proud of their pure ancestry, and considering themselves ”ancestrally“ superior to their peers. [perhaps the advice of the Shulchan Aruch that when appointing public officials of high rank one should select someone with a “skeleton in his closet,” a קופת שרצים, is based on the flaws in the ancestry of the Davidic dynasty. Ed.]

Conformed with the law inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Sheilah. [Rashi knows it means this] because it says both כי and על כן, when one is sufficient.

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.

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.

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”.

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.

Some say he did not continue whereas others say he did not cease. Some say Yehudah did not continue since his only reason for being with her would be to establish seed in the name of the deceased. As he had done this, he ceased from relations [although Halachically she was his wife]. And some say he did not cease since he saw she yearned to have children from him. Her intentions were pure, so he continued being with her.

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."