La Bible Hébreu
La Bible Hébreu

Commentaire sur La Genèse 38:15

וַיִּרְאֶ֣הָ יְהוּדָ֔ה וַֽיַּחְשְׁבֶ֖הָ לְזוֹנָ֑ה כִּ֥י כִסְּתָ֖ה פָּנֶֽיהָ׃

Juda, l’ayant aperçue, la prit pour une prostituée; car elle avait voilé son visage.

Rashi on Genesis

ויחשבה לזונה AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE AN HARLOT, because she was sitting at the cross-roads.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Ramban on Genesis

AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE A HARLOT. This was because she was sitting at the cross-roads. For she had covered her face, and he could not see her. A Midrash of our Rabbis explains: For she had covered her face, i.e., that when she stayed in Judah’s house, she had acted modestly, always covering her face, and therefore he did not suspect her. This is Rashi’s language.
Now the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s]171See Note 139, Seder Bereshith. literal interpretation is feasible since it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads, just as it is written, And she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, to call to them that pass by, etc.172Proverbs 9:14-15. Accordingly, the verse states that because her face was veiled he did not recognize her. But according to the Midrasn of our Rabbis which states that she covered her face in her father-in-law’s house, meaning that she hid herself from him while being in his house and that he never saw her face, how would he recognize her even if she were not veiled?
It further appears to me to be correct, in line with the literal sense of Scripture, that the verse is stating that he thought her to be a harlot because her face was veiled, since afterwards it states, For he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law.173Verse 16 here. This indicates that if her face were not veiled, he would have recognized her to be his daughter-in-law. This again is at odds with the Midrash which states that he never saw her face. The reason for the covering of the face is that it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads wrapped up in a veil, with part of the face and hair uncovered, gesticulating with the eyes and lips, and baring the front of the throat and neck. Now since she would speak to the by-passer in an impudent manner, catching him and kissing him,174See Proverbs 7:13. she therefore veiled part of the face. Furthermore, harlots sitting by the roadside veil their faces because they commit harlotry even with relatives. Sodomites still do it to this day in our countries, and when they return to the city they remain anonymous.
Thus we have learned in a Mishnah:175Keilim 24,16. “There are three kinds of head-nets: that of a girl, which is susceptible to midras176A term applied to the uncleanness conveyed by a Zav or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. uncleanness; that of an old woman, which is susceptible to the uncleanness of a corpse, while that of a yotza’ath chutz, [literally, ‘she who goes outside’], is not susceptible to any uncleanness.” Now a yotzath chutz refers to the harlot, the nafkat bro of Onkelos177Verse 15 here. This is the Aramaic form of the Hebrew term, yotza’ath chutz (she who goes outside)., who places the head-net on part of the head. It does not serve her the purpose of lying on it, for in that case it would be susceptible to midras-uncleanness.176A term applied to the uncleanness conveyed by a Zav or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. Nor does she cover her head with it, for in that case it would be susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. Instead, she uses it to dress up the ends of her hair, in order that it be partly visible from beneath the net, and this is why it is not susceptible to any uncleanness.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashbam on Genesis

כי כסתה פניה, only at this point, in accordance with our commentary on the word ותתעלף, (verse 14)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Radak on Genesis

ויראה....כי כסתה פניה, so that he did not recognise her. This is why he considered her a harlot, seeing that she had positioned herself so prominently at the crossroads. Had she not covered her face, he would have recognised her as his daughter-in-law and would not have slept with her. Our sages in Sotah 10 say that on the contrary, she used to keep her face covered in her father-in-law’s house and was extremely chaste. When he now saw a woman sitting at the crossroads, the last thing he would think of was that it was his daughter-in-law Tamar.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tur HaArokh

ויחשבה לו לזונה, “he considered her as being a whore.” This was because she had chosen to sit at a crossroads
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rabbeinu Bahya

Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Siftei Chakhamim

Because she was sitting at the crossroads. Rashi is answering the question: How is, “Because she had covered her face,” a reason for [Yehudah to think] that she was a harlot? On the contrary, it shows she is modest! Thus Rashi explains, “Because she was sitting at the crossroads.” Then Rashi says that he did not recognize her “because she had covered her face.” Had he recognized her he would not have “thought she was a harlot.” You might ask: How could Yehudah go to a harlot? The Patriarchs and their children kept the Torah, so how could he transgress, “There shall not be a harlot” (Devarim 23:18)? Re’m answers: Perhaps he performed kiddushin with her through money or a written contract, and the goat-kid [which he promised to send] was only to appease her [i.e., not a harlot’s fee]. An alternate answer: He had relations with her as an act of kiddushin. Although it says in Kiddushin 12b that it is impudent to perform kiddushin by having relations, this is only when there are witnesses. Privately it is permitted, and here there were no witnesses — only his [close] friend who was considered as himself. Or, it was not in his friend’s presence. Accordingly, the verse says הבה נא (v.16), which Rashi explains as, “Prepare yourself and your mind for this,” it means to prepare for kiddushin by having relations. An alternate answer: Yehudah held that, “There shall not be a harlot,” applies only between a Jew and a Jewess, but a non-Jewess is merely forbidden Rabbinically.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Gur Aryeh on Bereishit

Please (Havah na). The word havah often means “prepare yourself.” Yehudah requested that she consign herself to him exclusively so that no harlotry would be involved.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Daat Zkenim on Genesis

ויחשביה לזונה, “he considered her as a harlot.” Why should Yehudah have cared? He turned around to resume on his way to the shearing. However, Tamar raised her face to heaven to pray and ask G–d why she should not be able to give birth to a worthwhile and intelligent son from the semen of such a righteous man as Yehudah. Upon hearing her prayer, G–d immediately dispatched the angel Michael who made Yehudah have second thoughts and turn around. The Torah here wrote: ויט אליה, “he turned to her,” and we find the same expression in Numbers 22,33 where it is written of Bileam’s she-ass: ותט לפני, “she turned around before me;” (the angel speaking to Bileam) in both instances the angel Michael was the subject. (subject discussed in B’reshit Rabbah 85,8)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Chizkuni

ויחשבה לזונה כי כסתה פניה, “he assumed that she was a harlot because she had covered her face.” She had only done this when he was approaching, in order that he could not recognise her. The letter ח in the word ויחשבה, is vocalised with a semivowel sh’va.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Rashi on Genesis

כי כסתה פניה FOR SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE — so that he could not see her face and thus recognize her. A Midrashic explanation of our Rabbis is that כי כסתה פניה means BECAUSE SHE ALWAYS COVERED HER FACE: when she had stayed in her father-in-law’s house she had shown herself a modest woman, and therefore he did not suspect her (of being the woman who was sitting there for that evil purpose) (Sotah 10b).
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Tur HaArokh

כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” Our sages say that this described her state while married, and while she was in her father-in-law’s house, so that he did not recognize her facial features. Nachmanides writes that the proper explanation, based on the unadorned text, is that Yehudah considered the fact that she concealed her face as proof that she was a whore, as this is what all the whores did in those days They all used to sit at road junctions where there was a lot of traffic. Their shawl would cover part of their hair and leave only a mall part of their faces exposed, revealing their throats and part of their necks. Their lips and eyes were made up. They needed to accost prospective customers, speak to them, even kiss them, so that their faces could not be fully covered by their shawls. Seeing that they did not mind engaging in relations with their relatives, they had to worry about keeping their identities secret.
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy

Siftei Chakhamim

At her father-in-law’s house, she was a modest woman, therefore, he did not suspect her. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise he would have recognized her when they spoke and also during their having relations, since afterwards she must have uncovered her face. This is why Rashi brings the Midrash. (Devek Tov)
Ask RabbiBookmarkShareCopy
Verset précédentChapitre completVerset suivant