וַתֹּ֕אמֶר הֲשָׁאַ֥לְתִּי בֵ֖ן מֵאֵ֣ת אֲדֹנִ֑י הֲלֹ֣א אָמַ֔רְתִּי לֹ֥א תַשְׁלֶ֖ה אֹתִֽי׃
Then she said: ‘Did I desire a son of my lord? did I not say: Do not deceive me?’
Chizkuni
והיה יהודה בכזיב בלדתו אותו, “and Yehudah had been in Keziv (Achziv, according to Atlas Carta) when she gave birth to him.” (about 20 km north of Akko). This was the reason she named this son Sheylah; had Yehudah, the father been present at his birth, he would have named him. Rashi, commenting on this verse states that he has seen a comment in Bereshit Rabbah, according to which the name Sheylah means that Bat Shua announced that her pregnancy had come to an end. The word could be a reference to her being disappointed about her husband’s absence while she gave birth. Compare what the woman from Shunem had said (אל תשלה אותי) to Elisha when promised she would have a son, i.e. and the son had died (Kings II 4,28).
Sforno
והיה בכזיב, the reason why she called their third son Shelah, a word reminiscent of Kings II 4,28 (לא) תשלה, “(do not) deceive, disappoint, disillusion,” a name which is not exactly complimentary to the bearer of it, was due to Yehudah being in כזיב, i.e. a reference to his being absent, so that she did not have this moral support when she began the labour pains prior to giving birth to her third son. [I am not sure if the author understood the Torah as using to the word כזיב to describe Yehudah’s state of mind, and that there was no such place at all. Ed.] Had he been there, he would never have agreed to the name she gave his son.
Ramban
AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SHELAH, AND HE [Judah] WAS AT CHEZIB, WHEN SHE BORE HIM. Rashi wrote: “I am of the opinion that because it was there that she ceased bearing children, the place was called Chezib (deceit). It is similar in expression to the verse, Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful (‘achzav’) brook.139Jeremiah 15:18. If this be not so, what is the verse teaching us by mentioning that Judah was in Chezib?”
Now I do not know why a place should be named for that reason, [i.e., because there she ceased bearing children], there being nothing outstanding in such an event as three sons were sufficient for her.140Had she been barren that would be a tragedy of some significance. Moreover, at the time she gave birth to the third son it was not yet known whether she had ceased bearing or would give birth afterwards. Only at the time of her demise did it become established [that she had ceased bearing with the third son].141Why then would the place have been called Chezib at the time she gave birth to the third son?
Now some scholars142R’dak in his commentary. Also in Da’ath Z’keinim ba’alei Tosafoth. say that it was their custom for the father to name the firstborn, and the mother the second one. It is for this reason that Scripture states concerning the first son, And he called his name,143Verse 3 here. and concerning the second one, And she called.144Verse 4 here. Now concerning the third son, [the naming of whom was the father’s prerogative, Scripture nevertheless] says, And she called, explaining that this was because Judah was in Chezib when she gave birth to him, and he was not there to name him. This interpretation lacks rhyme or reason.
In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra Scripture relates where they were born; the statement, when she bore ‘him,’ is as if it had said ‘them,’ as all three sons were born in one place.
In my opinion, the name Shelah is an expression meaning a thing which stops and deceives. Thus, do not ‘thashleh’ (deceive) me,145II Kings 4:28. which the Targum there renders as, “Let not your word deceive your handmaid.” Perhaps it is related to the concept of error, for he who commits an error deceives his thinking. Thus Scripture is saying that she called him Shelah, [a word which is traceable to the root of the Hebrew word meaning ‘error,’] because of the name of the place, as he was in Chezib — [a word which means ‘deceive’] — when she bore him. And [the word v’hayah (and he was), although it should really be saying, v’haytha, (and she was), is identical with the expression ‘V’hayah hana’arah’ (And the damsel shall be).146Above, 24:14. There, too, it should be saying, v’haytha hana’arah in the feminine, except that the word v’haya does not refer to na’arah but to the event itself and is therefore to be understood as: “And it shall come to pass that the damsel, etc.” Here, likewise, it is to be so understood. This is the intent of the saying of the Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah:13785:5. “Paskath was the name of the place.”147This contradicts the opinion of Rashi, who maintains that it was the mother who named the place Chezib because she ceased bearing children.
Now I do not know why a place should be named for that reason, [i.e., because there she ceased bearing children], there being nothing outstanding in such an event as three sons were sufficient for her.140Had she been barren that would be a tragedy of some significance. Moreover, at the time she gave birth to the third son it was not yet known whether she had ceased bearing or would give birth afterwards. Only at the time of her demise did it become established [that she had ceased bearing with the third son].141Why then would the place have been called Chezib at the time she gave birth to the third son?
Now some scholars142R’dak in his commentary. Also in Da’ath Z’keinim ba’alei Tosafoth. say that it was their custom for the father to name the firstborn, and the mother the second one. It is for this reason that Scripture states concerning the first son, And he called his name,143Verse 3 here. and concerning the second one, And she called.144Verse 4 here. Now concerning the third son, [the naming of whom was the father’s prerogative, Scripture nevertheless] says, And she called, explaining that this was because Judah was in Chezib when she gave birth to him, and he was not there to name him. This interpretation lacks rhyme or reason.
In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra Scripture relates where they were born; the statement, when she bore ‘him,’ is as if it had said ‘them,’ as all three sons were born in one place.
In my opinion, the name Shelah is an expression meaning a thing which stops and deceives. Thus, do not ‘thashleh’ (deceive) me,145II Kings 4:28. which the Targum there renders as, “Let not your word deceive your handmaid.” Perhaps it is related to the concept of error, for he who commits an error deceives his thinking. Thus Scripture is saying that she called him Shelah, [a word which is traceable to the root of the Hebrew word meaning ‘error,’] because of the name of the place, as he was in Chezib — [a word which means ‘deceive’] — when she bore him. And [the word v’hayah (and he was), although it should really be saying, v’haytha, (and she was), is identical with the expression ‘V’hayah hana’arah’ (And the damsel shall be).146Above, 24:14. There, too, it should be saying, v’haytha hana’arah in the feminine, except that the word v’haya does not refer to na’arah but to the event itself and is therefore to be understood as: “And it shall come to pass that the damsel, etc.” Here, likewise, it is to be so understood. This is the intent of the saying of the Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah:13785:5. “Paskath was the name of the place.”147This contradicts the opinion of Rashi, who maintains that it was the mother who named the place Chezib because she ceased bearing children.
Tur HaArokh
Available for Premium members onlyRashi
I will go mad Heb. שׁוֹלָל, becoming mad like a mentally deranged person, with bewilderment. Cf. (Ps. 76:6) “The stout-hearted have become mad (אֱשְׁתּוֹלְלוּ)”; (Isa. 59:15) “And he who turns away from evil is considered mad (מִשְׁתּוֹלֵל).” The ‘tav’ comes into the word to serve in the reflexive present and past. This is the normal pattern of a word whose first radical letter is ‘shin’ or ‘sammech’ when a ‘tav’ is added in the reflexive, either present or past, as in מִשְׁתּוֹלֵל. I say that it is an expression of error, as in (II Kings 4:28) “Do not mislead (תַשְׁלֶה) me”; (II Sam. 6:7) “For his error (הַשַּׁל) ;” (Dan. 3: 29) “who speaks anything amiss (שָׁלוּ).”