Комментарий к Берешит 38:24

כמשלש חדשים ABOUT THREE MONTHS AFTER — the greater part of the first, the greater part of the third and the entire middle (second) one (Genesis Rabbah 85:10). The expression כמשלש חדשים signifies “when the months repeated themselves three times”. The word משלש is similar in form to (Ester 9:19) “and sending (ומשלח) portions”; (Isaiah 11:14), “sending (משלח) forth their hand”. Onkelos renders it similarly כתלתות ירחיא (where תלתות is the infinitive of תַּלַּת “when the months become three”).

AND JUDAH SAID: BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT! Ephraim Makshoah,¹⁸⁵There are two interpretations for the name ‘Makshoah’: (a) he was a watchman in a cucumber field (kishuim); (b) he was a scholar famous for his great ability in debate (kasheh). See Commentaries to Bereshith Rabbah 84:11. a disciple of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “Tamar was the daughter of Shem who was a priest.¹⁸⁶See Ramban above, 14:18. They therefore sentenced her to be burnt.”¹⁸⁷See Leviticus 21:9. Rashi quoted this Midrash but did not explain it. And I do not know this law, for a priest’s daughter is not liable to be burned except for harlotry in conjunction with a binding relation to a husband, either espoused or married, as is explained in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin.¹⁸⁸Sanhedrin 51b. However, a priest’s daughter who is waiting to be married by a brother-in-law is not at all liable to death for harlotry. Whether she is an Israelite’s daughter or a priest’s daughter, her punishment is only that of having violated a simple negative precept.¹⁸⁹This would be stripes, but not the death penalty. And should you say that marrying a childless brother’s wife was customary among the Sons of Noah, and that she was regarded by them as having the status of a married woman, and that their prohibitions were punishable by death, it would not be correct. The Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah¹⁵⁷85:6. that Judah was the one who first inaugurated the observance of the commandment that a brother marry a childless brother’s widow. And again, in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin,¹⁹⁰Sanhedrin 58a. it is made clear that a childless brother’s widow of the Sons of Noah is not at all liable to any punishment for harlotry.
It appears to me that since Judah was a chief, an officer, and a ruler of the land, his daughter-in-law who committed harlotry against him was not judged by the same law as other people, but as one who degraded royalty. It is for this reason that it is written, And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt, for the people came before him to do unto her in accordance with his command, and he declared her guilty of a capital crime because of the superior rank of royalty. Thus he judged her as if she had profaned her father in respect of his priesthood, but this was not the judgment meted out to commoners.
In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture, it is possible that their law was similar to that which is presently customary in some of the countries of Spain, i.e., that a married woman who commits a faithless act is turned over to her husband who decrees death or life for her, as he wishes. Now Tamar was designated for his son Shelah, and in the eyes of their laws she was considered as a married woman.

זנתה תמר כלתך, if you were to ask why Yehudah would believe such accusations which would be hard to prove, the informant added that the signs of her pregnancy spoke for themselves as proof of the accusation being justified.