Musar su Genesi 38:78

And, of course, if people credit him with good deeds he did not do, he should not rejoice at this but on the contrary feel great pain in his heart that he should have gotten credit for something he did not do. Also, in the case where somebody told evil tales concerning him — if these are true — he should not seek to twist the truth and thus clear himself, but do as Judah who said: "She is more in the right than I" (Gen. 38:26). And he should not try to contradict the man that told these tales, nor should he hate him because he revealed the matter, but he should bow humbly before the Creator, Blessed be He, that he has revealed a little of much that could have been revealed, in order to rebuke him and correct him that he might return to God.

And one who plays with children and [masturbates] whether with the hand or the foot is liable. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Niddah 13b) that his punishment is like the punishment of the generation of the flood, that had corrupted their ways. And likewise one who does like the act of Er and Onan - to thresh (the penis) inside (the vagina) and winnow outside, to destroy the seed - is liable, as it is stated (Genesis 38:10), “And what he did was displeasing to the Lord, and He killed him as well.” And it is stated about those that waste seed (Isaiah 57:5), “You who inflame yourselves among the terebinths, under every verdant tree; who slaughter children, etc.”

And behold the dust of murder is whitening [someone else’s] face (embarrassing someone). Since his face turns white and the ruddy appearance leaves [it], it is similar to [the draining of blood] caused by murder. And so did our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, say (Bava Metzia 58b). And secondly because the pain of the [embarrassment] is more bitter than death. Therefore our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Ketuvot 67b), Really “it is preferable for a person to make himself fall into a fiery furnace, and not whiten the face of his fellow in public” - but they did not say this about other weighty transgressions. Indeed, they compared the dust of murder to [actual] murder: And just like they said that he must [let himself] be killed and not murder; they likewise said that he should make himself fall into a fiery furnace, and not whiten the face of his fellow in public. And they learned this from the matter of Tamar, as it is stated (Bereishit 48:25), “As she was being brought out, she sent to her father-in-law, etc.” Behold even though she was being taken out to be burned [to death], she did not reveal that she was pregnant from Yehudah, so as not to whiten his face.

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid. 38:12): "And after 'many days,' the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died." And because he deceived his father with a kid of goats, dipping Joseph's robe in its blood, they deceived him, too, with a kid of goats, as we find in the Midrash. And because they said (Ibid. 37:32): "Recognize, now," he, too, was punished through Tamar with (Ibid. 38:25): "Recognize, now, whose are this signet and cloak and staff? Who can imagine the greatness of the shame and the mortification that he suffered then!

From here on, Scripture begins to relate the punishments and the mortifications that they suffered for this, all "measure for measure." First of all, Judah was punished, who was the immediate cause of the sale. He became a mourner over his sons, and certainly also rent his garments over them, according to the din. And his brothers, too, were not exempt from the punishment of "rending" [k'riyah], for they, too, rent their garments on their day of woe [viz. Ibid. 44:13]. And because he [Jacob] mourned his son "many days," therefore, (Ibid. 38:12): "And after 'many days,' the daughter of Shua, Judah's wife, died." And because he deceived his father with a kid of goats, dipping Joseph's robe in its blood, they deceived him, too, with a kid of goats, as we find in the Midrash. And because they said (Ibid. 37:32): "Recognize, now," he, too, was punished through Tamar with (Ibid. 38:25): "Recognize, now, whose are this signet and cloak and staff? Who can imagine the greatness of the shame and the mortification that he suffered then!

וירא שם יודא בת איש כנעני . From this verse, our sages in Kidushin 41 derive the rule that one must not marry a woman until one has seen her.

לאיש אשר אלה לו אנכי הרה . The Talmud Sotah 10b concludes that this verse teaches that one should rather suffer oneself to be burned alive than to shame one's fellow-man publicly. The penalty for publicly shaming someone is so great that one must not do it even if one can save lives, and even if the person who would suffer the embarrassment is guilty of the crime one accuses him of.

(Ibid. 17): "Reprove shall you reprove your neighbor, but do not bear sin because of him"; that is, do not "whiten his face" in public, even by way of reproof; how much more so, otherwise. If one whitens the face of his friend in public, his sin is too great to bear. As we find in Bava Metzia 58b: "If one whitens his friend's face in public, it is as if he sheds blood." And (Ibid. 59a): "It is better for one to cast himself into a fiery furnace than to whiten his friend's face in public. Whence is this derived? From [the instance of] Tamar, viz. (Bereshith 38:25): 'She was taken out [to be burned], and she sent to her father-in-law, saying, etc.'" It is apparent from this that even if the man [spoken against] is, indeed, liable, still, great care must be taken not to shame him. And it emerges from the Gemara that if one is accustomed to whiten his friend's face in public, he has no share in the world to come.

Bereshit Rabbah 85, 1, commenting on Genesis 38, 1, the episode introducing Yehudah's marriage, etc., quotes Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman who interprets Jeremiah 29,11 in which G–d is on record that all His intentions are for the good of the Jewish people, even though it may not always appear thus to us. G–d also stresses that He is fully aware of our thoughts. The sale of Joseph is an example of how what appear to be plans and actions contrary to G–d's intentions are nonetheless furthering His plans. The brothers were concerned only with ridding themselves of Joseph and the danger they thought he represented to them. Joseph and Reuben, as well as Jacob, were each mourning their part in the fate that had befallen the other; Yehudah was busy choosing a wife. G–d, on the other hand, was busy paving the way for the eventual arrival of the Messiah.

This אדמוני will eventually emerge purified and holy, a reference to the David who is also known as אדמוני. We read in Samuel I 16,12 that David is described as אדמוני עם יפה עינים וטוב ראי, "ruddy cheeked, bright-eyed and handsome." The first person to be described as אדמוני was Esau; it is therefore hardly a compliment to David to be similarly described. The essential difference is that whereas Esau was עין רע, represented all that is negative associated with the eye, David was the reverse, and is therefore described as יפה עינים. In David's case the positive aspects of eyes are meant: the prophet therefore describes him as טוב ראי. Solomon, who says in Kohelet 10,8: פורץ גדר ישכנו נחש, that "he who breaches the fence will be bitten by a snake,” may have referred to David's forbear Peretz, whom the Torah had described as "bursting out" (Genesis 38,29). The נחש referred to is the power of Esau. King Saul repaired the fence partially when he defeated נחש king of Ammon who went to war against Israel as reported in Samuel I 11,1. David also accomplished a great deal in this area during his reign. In the future, as the Messiah, however, he will take revenge on the forces of Esau in the manner of a serpent, as we know from Isaiah 14,29: כי משרש נחש יצא צפע, "For from the root of a snake there sprouts an asp."

This is the deeper significance of the kingdom of David, which at first glance does not appear to have been rooted in holiness. Simply consider Yehudah's involvement with Tamar whom he thought to be a harlot; or, if you will, think about Ruth, a descendant of an incestuous union between Lot and his daughter. Even Ruth's joining Boaz at night was not exactly the act of a model of chastity that we would have expected. If all these precedents did not disqualify David from becoming the role model of the eventual Messiah, we need not marvel at the eventual purification of those descendants of Esau who will still exist when the Messiah will be crowned king. All these apparently accidental happenings were part of G–d's plan. The tortuous developments which led to the emergence of David and eventually to the Messiah are an example of how eventually all the חצוניות, people and forces outside the realm of holiness, will be turned "outside in," and be restored to their original sacred root.

One of the most prominent allusions to such a development can be seen in the relationship between Yehudah and Tamar. When Yehudah sent his partner to pay Tamar the promised kid and to retrieve his signet ring, etc., the Adulamite is reported as asking the men of her place איה הקדשה, "where is the harlot that had been at the roadside?" This can also be read as Ayeh haKedushah "where is the holiness?" He received the reply that there had not been a harlot in that place (Genesis 38,21-22). This is an allusion to the angels who are constantly asking each other for the site of G–d's holiness, and who, in the future, are going to address this question to Israel. Israel's spiritual level in those days will be so far superior to that of the angels that even those who had been considered as חצונים, will have become sanctified outsiders, from a spiritual point of view. At that time the name of G–d will be as we say in the קדיש prayer: י"הא שמיה רבא, His name will be great. The letters י"הא are an allusion to the three ways in which the Ineffable Name can be spelled as words, using either the method with the א, the method with the ה, or the method with the letter י. [Example: the letter ה can be spelled ה"א, or ה"ה, or ה"י. ] When all three methods are used G–d's name is "great." We have pointed out on another occasion that the question the angels ask Israel is: מה פעל א-ל I have elaborated on this when discussing the meaning of the קדושה.

The true reason is that the Talmud, when giving the views of the two Rabbis Yossi, stated: "One said this and the other said that." The fact that the Talmud did not identify who said what means that the two Rabbis did not disagree. Each only cited one possible reason for the different opinions. The lights allude to the souls, as we know from Proverbs 20,27: נר ה' נשמת אדם, "The soul of man is the light of the Lord." We know that nowadays most of the souls inhabiting bodies are re-incarnations of people who have lived in earlier times. The best of such kind of re-incarnation one can experience is if the soul is allotted to someone who is related to the former incarnation, as has been explained by the Rekanati in connection with the legislation of the levirate marriage. When Yehudah said to his son Onan that he should marry the widow of his brother Er (38,8), he meant that the first child to be produced from such union would become the re-incarnation of Er. Later on his intention of having Er re-incarnated became fulfilled through his own union with Tamar. When Peretz and Zerach were born by Tamar, they were the respective reincarnations of both Er and Onan (Onan also having died in the meantime). The Rekanati explains this at length. When the Talmud said that the essence of the Chanukah light is that a person should light one light for his house- read: "family"- this is an allusion to the duty of ensuring re-incarnation by means of the levirate marriage.