ייִדישער מחשבֿה אויף בראשית 30:1

So, "SHE TOOK FROM THE TREE AND ATE." The Torah describes two considerations as having won out. 1) The external appearance of the tree was made the yardstick of what is good and what is evil. 2) The prospect of immediate pleasure outweighed the fear of the eventual harm. "Their eyes were opened and they were naked." This does not describe their embarrassment, which would not have been objectionable, and would have been the result of their having enjoyed the fruit of that tree. The awareness was a form of knowledge that they needed to maintain their image. In order to do this, expensive trimmings for one's exterior are required. They therefore quickly attempted to cover themselves so that they could prove themselves superior to the animals. (9) The Torah therefore does not state that they did this in order to cover their nakedness. This is also why no mention is made of their feeling ashamed when they heard the voice of G-d, only that they hid themselves out of fear, seeing that they had transgressed G-d’s commandment. Adam said "I heard Your voice and was afraid." To this G-d replied "who told you that you are naked?" (6) Had Adam and Eve eaten only from the trees whose fruit had been permitted, the feeling of shame would have necessitated covering only their private parts, would not have induced in them the feeling that they needed fancy clothing to prove their superior status. Only eating from the tree of knowledge could have accounted for that feeling. (7) Adam (man) added to his sin by blaming his wife, suggesting that because she had given him of the fruit, he had been bound to eat it. That is why G-d blamed him doubly now, saying 1) "Because you listened to your wife;" 2) "Because you ate." When our sages explain Psalms 69,32, "And this will please the Lord better than a bullock tossing its horns and showing its hooves," they say that this refers to the offering brought by Adam. The ox Adam offered had its horns protruding beyond his hooves. Split hooves are a sign of "purity" in an animal, and reconciliation with one's Maker is to be achieved by means of the sacrifice of a "pure animal" (or by words as described in Hoseah 14, who describes the bull as equivalent to lips). When such a reconciliation is attended by the claim that others are responsible for one's shortcomings, one distorts the concept of sacrifice. Adam did this by blaming his sin on his wife. Therefore, the Psalmist describes the signs of purity of his sacrificial bullock as having been obscured by its horns. Originally, the bull had only one horn, a sign of superior strength. It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that a horned animal is more likely to gore, to cause damage. Therefore, it would have been most fitting symbolically to serve as the sin offering for Adam. Eve fell into the same trap as Adam by blaming the serpent for her sin. The serpent, being the last party involved in the episode, did not need to be asked by G-d. It was cursed by having its former superior height reduced till it became the lowliest creature, condemned to crawling on the ground. Since the serpent had tricked Eve into eating what held allure for the eye, it would henceforth subsist on a diet of things that looked like earth, i.e. held no allure for the eye. The ongoing enmity between man and the snake, with man seeking to smash the head of the snake, is another part of the curse decreed on the latter. Woman was cursed in matters specific to her function. When she fails to become pregnant right after marriage, both parties worry about her being barren. Her pain will be greater than that of man, since even when she bears children she is not certain of her husband's love. There is the discomfort of pregnancy and the pain of giving birth. Despite all this, man dominates her when it comes to marital relations. Since man was created first, and since the survival of the species depends on him (he is commanded to procreate, not she), she who was created later was clearly created for his benefit, and not vice versa. Woman's sex urge is therefore usually weaker than man's. As the Talmud says (Kidushin 2), "It is the way of a man to try and recover what he has lost (i.e. looking for a wife), it is not the way of the lost object (woman) to go looking for its owner." For this reason, man displays less embarrassment in matters relating to sex. Granted that the urge for physical contact is rooted in the animalistic within us, man nevertheless has the redeeming excuse that he needs to reproduce the species. Woman does not share this redeeming aspect of the sex urge. The comparison is similar to what Solomon has stated in Proverbs 6,31-32 when he compares people who steal because of need with people who steal because of greed. The curse upon man was greater, since as a direct product of G-d’s creative activity (He personally had equipped him with the soul of life), his conduct should have been on a far higher plane than even that of his wife. He was cursed in all "directions" of motion corresponding to the status of being a "living creature" par excellence which had been his prior to his sin. The four aspects of motion can be subsumed as defined by the answers to the questions 1) where to? 2) how? 3) how much? 4) motion itself. Scriptural references for the above are "Go for yourself from your country," i.e. "where to;" (Genesis 12,1). "He will keep going and cry" equals the "how"? (Psalms 126,6). "Continuing to grow in intensity," equals the "how much?" (Exodus 19,19). "Here I am going to die," equals the "motion itself," an example of when the very nature of the motion transforms the essence of the one who is in motion (Genesis 25,32). G-d said, "Because you listened to your wife" 1) "The earth is cursed," will not yield its fruit easily. Man is condemned to eat vegetables he has to grow and plant, since he had been too anxious to eat from the fruit of the tree for which he did not have to toil. 2) Only after having "sweated and toiled" will man be able to feed himself from now on. 3) "Until you die," i.e. until your travels take you from above the ground to your grave below. 4) "To dust you will return," you will dissolve into a multiplicity of particles (reference to how much, quantity). Instead of being a single integrated unit, you will disintegrate. 8) Originally, Adam had called Eve “ishah ", emphasizing her parity with man, i.e. ish. After the episode with the tree of knowledge, he called her chavah, emphasizing the female element within her, and the fact that she was the mother of all subsequent human beings. Between these two names, the two functions of woman are defined. On the one hand, as the eyshet chayil, woman of valor, she possesses all the ingredients that can raise her to the status of prophetess; on the other hand her function is to become a mother. A woman who fails to give birth, just like a man who is sterile, has not forfeited her major function in life, as is proven from Isaiah 56,3-5, "Let not the barren proclaim I am but a dried-out tree." We hold the view that man's major function is the performance of good deeds, something quite independent of procreation. If Jacob had been angry at Rachel for demanding children, else her life would not be worth living (Genesis 30,1-2), it was precisely for this reason. When the Talmud in Nedarim 64 states that of the four categories of people who are considered as dead, one is the group that have no children, the reference is only to their perpetuating their name on this earth. When woman conducts herself true to her purpose as helpmate to man, she also retains the name ishah. When, however, she acts as a hindrance, her function is reduced to that of the female part within her, i.e. she remains only chavah, mother. (9) G-d, in His kindness, covered their entire bodies with clothing, fulfilling a wish Adam had expressed already before that. G-d had waited for this request for clothing just as He had waited for the request of a suitable mate.

At the creation, we find no evidence that birthright was part of the rules guiding the affairs of man. Proof lies in the random order the names of Noach's sons are referred to on different occasions. This was changed when Abraham appeared on the stage of history. His descendants were to play a leading role due to their being descendants of Abraham. In effect G-d had said, "Until now I have bestowed blessings, henceforth I grant Abraham the authority to bestow and direct blessings" (Genesis 12,3). Abraham debated with himself if he were to bestow this power to bless on others. Since he was not certain that he might help weeds to sprout (promote the power of wicked people), if he took it upon himself to transfer this power to bless, he decided to leave well enough alone (Bereshit Rabbah 61). He waited for G-d to make His will known in the matter. G-d did bless his son Isaac (gave him the power to bestow blessings). Since Abraham had two first born sons, he would have had to bestow the blessing (power to bless) on both of them. He was afraid to err; on the other hand, the trait of "chessed," kindness, for which he was famed would not allow him to deprive Ishmael of a share in favor of Isaac. This in spite of the fact that he knew that his descendants would be known primarily through Isaac. Therefore, considering himself as the manager of the Almighty's orchard, he decided to leave this decision to the owner of the orchard. After Abraham's death, the owner chose Isaac, and thus we come to point two in our parable. When twins were born to Isaac, the older of whom exhibited signs of unfitness, problem three in our parable, this had to be dealt with. Isaac, true to his characteristic of pachad, din, i.e. justice, which our sages have credited him with, did not dare deviate from the principle of transferring power in accordance with birthright. When Jacob says some time later that "the One whom Isaac feared was on my side" (Genesis 31,42), this grants us an insight into the matter. An examination of all the instances in which a direct relationship or communication between G-d and Isaac is described reveals that the term used for "G-d" is invariably elokim, i.e. the attribute of justice. The only exception is the instance when G-d tells Abraham that Isaac is not to be slaughtered after all. This latter instance which taught Abraham that rachamim, mercy is one of G-d’s attributes, is the only time when this factor emerges as playing a role in the relationship between G-d and Isaac. It is understandable then that Isaac of all people would not deviate from the pattern of nobility of birth decreed from above. Isaac's own position as Abraham's heir was due to this very system. Add to this that Isaac personally had not observed any misconduct in Esau, and it becomes clear why he chose Esau to bestow the blessing on. Jacob himself had been very careful never to tell his father of the sale of the birthright, since he had kept hoping that he would secure his father's blessing by virtue of his superior moral conduct, plus the influence of his mother. He did not want to benefit by exposing his brother's unworthiness. This trait of Jacob was very laudable. Leviticus 25,36 tells us, "Your brother shall live alongside you." Our sages explain that this wording teaches that one's own life takes precedence over that of one's fellow man in a situation where only one of the two lives can be saved. If the object of one's quest for Divine help is personality growth rather than the acquisition of worldly goods, then competing for the attainment of that goal is permissible. Aristotle also states in his Ethics that self-love, when its objective is perfection of self, is virtuous. Our sages, when describing jealousy as a negative trait, do approve of jealousy when it involves envying scholars who know more (Baba Batra 25). The same idea is reflected in Bereshit Rabbah 71 in connection with Rachel's jealousy of her sister Leah (Genesis 30,1). She envied Leah her good deeds. This is why our sages can consider that kind of jealousy a positive quality. On the other hand, "good" character traits employed for a base purpose are viewed as a negative quality (compare Chapter 27 on Dinah). Our problem is to determine whether jealousy under the circumstances described is permitted even when the attainment of one's own purpose involves something detrimental to one's competitor. Consider the definition by our sages of the commandment "Love your fellow man like yourself." The Talmud Shabbat 31 explains this to mean " do not do to others that which is hateful to yourself." Aristotle defines it in a similar vein. In other words, we should want for our fellow man what we want for ourselves. We certainly do not need to want for our fellow man what he wants for himself. This is especially so, when our fellow man is wicked or a criminal. In Psalms 139,21, David expresses it in these words: "Must I not hate those who hate You O Lord, and quarrel with those who rise up against You?" Clearly the word "fellow man" referred to in the Torah means someone sharing the same objectives in life that we ourselves believe in. Since Jacob's motivations corresponded to the ones stipulated by our sages, the verse we quoted from Psalms may be applied to him. Having established this point, we return to item four in our parable. The problem is how to restore the position of leadership to those qualified for it. It does not suffice to deny G-d’s special blessings to the undeserving, rather action is needed to channel those blessings to those who deserve them. When Jacob blessed his grandsons prior to his death, he reversed his hands to ensure that Ephrayim would be the recipient of the greater blessing. Er, the firstborn son of Yehudah, is described as unfit, unworthy. Peretz and Zerach respectively, are not treated according to what the order of their birth would call for. Reuben, Jacob's firstborn, is not accorded the privileges his birthright calls for. David was not Yishai's firstborn, neither was Solomon the senior of the surviving sons of David when he was assured that he would be his father's successor. To prove that birthright as an automatic claim to the succession was not practiced at the time of the Exodus, see Numbers 3,3. G-d says, "The day I smote all the firstborn of Egypt, I established an exclusive claim on all the firstborn of Israel." Obviously, if succession by birthright had been the norm at that time, there would have been no need for G-d to underline that only from that day on would G-d claim the firstborn of Israel as especially beholden to Him. We see then that the practice of succession by birthright had been discontinued at some time, only to be re-introduced at the time of the Exodus. Later, after the episode of the golden calf, when this method of succession had again been found unreliable, the privileges of that group were transferred to the tribe of Levi which had proved its worthiness. This then is the fifth rule that we learned from our parable. Now we understand what the Midrash quoted at the beginning of our chapter had in mind. Since Jacob may well have been aware that the privileges of the firstborn would be abolished once the tabernacle was to be erected, why did he risk his life merely in order to hasten that event? The question is even more justified when we consider that Jacob derived no practical advantage from all his machinations. There is no mention of Jacob ever having offered sacrifices in his capacity as firstborn, and if he had done so, the fact would no doubt have come to the attention of his father. His father could not then have been surprised when he heard from Esau some forty-eight years later, that the latter had traded away his birthright. The Midrash wishes us to know that if Jacob's actions had been motivated by materialistic considerations, this would have been most dishonorable; since he was guided by the desire to secure for himself a higher spiritual level, however, such purpose was laudable. Jacob was aware that the heter bamot, permission to erect altars for G-d wherever one wanted, in order to draw down G-d’s blessing, could lead to grievous abuse if the excercise of the priestly functions was left in the hands of the unworthy. Such abuse would lead to G-d’s blessings being channelled to those who were undeserving, something that could not be pleasing in the eyes of G-d. Therefore, he hastened to restore the source of blessing to those who were fit for it for as long as the condition "wherever I allow My name to be mentioned, I will come and grant My blessing," existed (Exodus 20,24). He realized that at a later stage a central site for the residence of the shechinah, Divine Presence, would be established, and that then the function of priesthood would be performed only in that central place (tabernacle or temple) and only by priests who had to meet exacting criteria of physical and moral fitness.

The author wonders why Rashi accepts as facts matters that even the Midrash only voices as a suspicion. (1) "Israel loved Joseph because he was a ben zekunim, son of his old age. When the brothers saw this they hated him." Here we find that the real reason for their hatred was not related to his tale bearing, something they recognized as being due simply to his immaturity. They believed that Jacob's love for Joseph precluded Jacob from loving them. The letter mem in the words mikol banav, is to be understood like the letter mem in the words ma-asser mikol meaning "a tenth of all." Here too the meaning would bem "The brothers saw that of all his sons, Jacob loved Joseph." They all felt relegated to the status of sons of concubines vis a vis Joseph. Being aware of the status of Ishmael in Abraham's household and Jacob's own status in Isaac's household when compared to Esau, his father's favorite, the brothers concluded that they themselves were to be excluded, and that the colored coat was evidence that Joseph had been selected to be the carrier of the tradition. Had they been right, they could have attempted to obtain a blessing by deceit, just like their father Jacob had done. In that case, they would have concealed their feelings towards Joseph. In fact, however, their hatred was confined, at least initially, to their inability to talk to Joseph peaceably. (6) When Joseph started having dreams and revealed the nature of his thinking by prattling on about them, the hatred intensified and brotherly love receded still further, until finally no more is said about hatred, but we hear only about jealousy. Thus a plan was formed to take action against the object of their jealousy. We find something similar in the relationship between Saul and David. Saul's jealousy was stirred into action by the growing success of David (Samuel I 18,14-16). The dream in which Joseph saw his brothers' sheaves of grain bowing down to his own sheaf reflected the fact that when later on the brothers encounter Joseph on their first trip to Egypt, they paid homage to him since they were in need of obtaining grain from him. At that time, they did not bow down to Joseph per se, since they were unaware of Joseph's identity at that time. In the second dream, reference is made to the time when they would pay homage to him as a ruler over them. Perhaps they ridiculed him when they said, "Do you want to be king over us?" meaning that such a thing could never be until their descendants had increased sufficiently to warrant establishing a nation and a monarchy. Or, they asked, "Do you wish to rule amongst us?" As Onkelos suggests, they accused Joseph's dreams as reflecting his fantasies during his waking hours. Once the brothers had convinced themselves that they were permitted to dispose of Joseph, or were even duty-bound to do so, they planned to do it far away from home so as to have a free hand and not be inhibited by the proximity of their father. Nablus is approximately a day's journey from Hebron, and they knew that Joseph would visit from time to time. Midrash Rabbah's suggestion is that from the word et, it is clear that the brothers' primary concern was to "tend to themselves." A new element into the frequent visits by Joseph of his brothers is introduced. Previously, due to the brothers grazing their sheep in the vicinity of Hebron, Joseph would visit by day and be back home by evening. This was no longer the case. No doubt, Joseph had not planned to stay away longer than necessary and to report back to his father. Since G-d did not want lo postpone His plan, He assisted Joseph when Joseph left the beaten trail not having found his brothers in Nablus and went to look for them. Joseph imagined that the man whom he encountered who seemed to know who he was, would certainly know where his far more famous brothers were. This is why he said merely, "I seek my brothers," without bothering to identify the brothers further. Sometimes G-d uses the very efforts man makes to thwart His plans as instruments to advance His plans. This is what Joseph had in mind when he said at a much later stage, "G-d intended for the good what you had intended for evil." The apparently superfluous words of the angel, "They have moved from here," give rise to the comment of our sages that they had severed brotherly relations with Joseph, and that their very departure from Shechem (Nablus) was proof of this. What the man meant to tell Joseph was that the brothers' departure itself was far more relevant than the place they had moved to. (2) The brothers' attitude towards Joseph was unanimous, though they disagreed on the method of implementation. Each of them considered how to rid themselves of the evil forces that they felt Joseph represented. In Jeremiah 18,18, we find a similar dilemma facing those who wanted to silence the prophet. Their course of action was "let us go and bad-mouth him, then we will no longer have to listen to his rebukes.” They too wanted to avoid laying a hand on him directly. (3) The brothers had intended that disposing of Joseph should not bring any further consequences. Had they given the impression that robbers had attacked him, surely the robbers would have taken the colored coat, but would have left the body. This would have set off a hunt after the robbers. The idea of putting him in a pit and preserving the coat would explain that no remains were found, and would prevent a search being instituted. In this way they would escape retribution by their father. They hoped to escape retribution by G-d by saying, "Let us see what will happen to his dreams!" What they meant was that if his dreams had indeed been Divine messages, they were anyways powerless to prevent their realization. If Joseph's dreams would be realized, at least they would know that they were meant to be realized. In that event, G-d Himself would prevent them from actually becoming guilty of bloodshed. If, on the other hand, G-d would not save Joseph, the brothers would feel at ease for having opposed their father whose love of Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to Joseph they considered misplaced, and it would have proved to them that Joseph had deserved his fate. (7) Jacob may have chosen that day since he had heard the brothers had decided to graze their flocks so much further from home. (9) Reuben may have hoped to dissuade Joseph from his mode of behavior and to save him in that manner, although in order to get his way with his brothers, he had to use more devious language to conceal his plan. Reuben explained to his brothers that they must make allowance for the possibility of a natural means of Joseph surviving, if they wanted to escape responsibility for having murdered him. Relying on G-d performing a miracle to save Joseph is not enough to claim that not only the brothers' will but also G-d’s will had been done, should Joseph die as a result of their actions. Rashi's comment that verse twenty-two had been said by the holy spirit, means that the second part of the verse is a report to us, the readers, not of the conversation that took place between Reuben and his brothers, but that the Torah added this line as evidence that Reuben was not lying when he said to the brothers in 42,22, "I told you not to sin against the lad!" The caravan looked like a typical Ishmaelite caravan from the distance, but on closer inspection turned out to be a group of Midianites. Since the former usually carried merchandise down to Egypt, Yehudah suggested they sell Joseph to the Ishmaelites. Later they recognised the Midianites, a special branch of the tribe of Ishmaelites. Since Yehudah had not been aware of everything Reuben had in mind, namely to bring Joseph back to their father, he advised in keeping with the expressed intention of Reuben, that they refrain from laying a hand on Joseph themselves, and that they merely sell him. Since Joseph was their flesh and blood, they did not want to become guilty of murder, did not even want indirect guilt on their conscience. (8) In order to forestall any search or further inquiries, they then treated Joseph's colored coat in such a way that the impression would be created that he had fallen victim to a ferocious beast. Jacob's mourning was indicative of his despair to ever see Joseph again. The contrast between Jacob's behavior and that of David, when the latter lost his first son by Bat Sheva, is explained in Midrash Tanchuma Parshat Vayigash (compare Samuel II 11,12). (10) Jacob mourned himself, having a tradition that should a son of his die during his lifetime, he, Jacob, would end up in purgatory. This accounts for his reference, "For I will go down to my son to she-ol," the latter word meaning gehinnom, i.e purgatory. This subject and the need for all of his twelve sons to play their part in the founding of the Jewish nation is discussed in Chapter 31. Jacob hoped that this would be the last and only mourning he would have to observe before his death. In this way, his refusal to be comforted was not a complaint against what fate had decreed against him. Since Jacob was aware that his son must have died because of a sin he had committed, and that this in turn reflected on the manner in which he had raised him, acceptance without further mourning would indicate that he, Jacob, had not been sufficiently chastened by what he had suffered, and that just as in the case of makkat mardut, lashes imposed by Rabbinic tribunal for a person's obstinacy in not submitting to the Rabbis' decision, a further series of lashes is administered until the victim changes his attitude. Jacob was afraid then that if he did not mourn sufficiently he might be in line for further chastisement. This is similar to what Job says (Job 9,27-28), "Should I say I will forget my complaint and comfort myself, I am afraid of all my sorrows, I know that You will not acquit me." Anyone acting differently would be like someone whose I.O.U. had been paid off, but had not been destroyed by the creditor. The brothers' intention had been fulfilled as soon as Joseph was sold to Egypt, a country from which slaves could not escape. Thus the brothers were no longer worried about Joseph's dreams becoming realized. Even when they came to Egypt during the famine, they never thought of him in that connection. G-d had to put in motion all these events in order for Israel eventually to become fit to become G-d’s chosen nation once they would leave Egypt. If the brothers were not punished, it is not because they were not free to do otherwise, but because they acted freely, convinced that their conduct was justified. (4) Midrash Tanchuma, which pictures G-d as having been involved in the brothers' plan, wishes to direct our attention to the fact that the ultimate benefit which accrued to the brothers from their action, is proof that it enjoyed Divine sanction, and that if the brothers had not done what they did, G-d would have been forced to seek other means to set in motion a chain of events leading to similar results. After the lesson we have learned from the first story about events showing a dovetailing of G-d’s plans with the freely executed actions of man, the second is even more impressive. (11) It demonstrates that G-d wanted the founder of Jewish royalty to be born from a union of Yehudah and Tamar. The latter was a fit mother for royalty both because of her conduct and because she was a descendant of Shem, the king of Salem (Bereshit Rabbah 85). Yehudah, being unable to watch the grief of his father, had moved away and befriended Chirom. This association led to the selection of Bat Shua as his wife, Yehudah's motivation apparently being a combination of financial and esthetic considerations. Since Bat Shua was from a distinguished family, her ancestry is mentioned in spite of her own name not being revealed. (12) Had Yehudah paid more attention to the personality of his wife, his sons would presumably have turned out better. When he got around to selecting a wife for his oldest son Er, he chose better than for himself. This, however, failed to inspire his son, and that is the reason the latter avoided procreation with Tamar. Since the duty to procreate is universal, and since there is no need to spell out the penalty as a warning, Er died for his sin of omission. In this way, what appears to have been G-d’s plan, namely to produce the source of Jewish monarchy through the union of Yehudah and Tamar, seems to have suffered a setback. Onan also refused to have children with Tamar, being aware that any offspring from her would not really be considered as his own. G-d’s plan thus appeared to have suffered a further setback. The participants' free choice was the cause of these delays in carrying out G-d’s plan. If Onan felt that children with Tamar would not be counted as his children, seeing they would be from a levirate union, having relations with his sister-in-law for purposes other than procreation would be incestuous and thus punishable by death. (13) Now Yehudah's plan for a union between his remaining son and Tamar was postponed due to Sheylah's tender age. He wanted to wait for Sheylah to attain both physical and spiritual maturity so that when he would eventually marry Tamar, he would perform his marital duties properly. As far as Yehudah was concerned there was no specific time-limit for the postponement of the marriage between Sheylah and Tamar. Tamar did not feel that she needed to accept such delay silently. The names Er and Onan are suggestive of their respective deaths, arirut meaning barrenness, whereas aninut conveys the pain and anguish caused one's progenitors through one's untimely death. The name Sheylah suggests the disappointment in store already at his birth in a disappointing, illboding place (38,5). Meanwhile Tamar was waiting, widowed, for Sheylah to attain manhood and for her to become his wife. (14) She had not been aware that Yehudah had had a different timetable in mind for her marriage to Sheylah than had applied when she had been married to Onan. In removing her widow's garments, Tamar had planned to remind Yehudah of his promise in the event he had forgotten same. Covering herself with a veil, adorning herself, and placing herself at a site where she hoped to encounter her father-in-law on the way to Timnah, she hoped to find favor in his eyes so that she would be given to Sheylah. Her plan was sound, and she had no reason to think that Yehudah would suspect her of being a harlot, seeing that both her garments and her veil indicated her chastity. It had not occurred to her that Yehudah would suggest a sexual relationship without even inquiring after her name, i.e. who she was. Since according to the laws existing at that time, a union with one's father-in-law was permissible, Tamar preferred the certainty of the union offered now to the uncertainty of a union with Sheylah in the future. She asked Yehudah for a proper token of his esteem so as to have future evidence of the validity of the union now taking place between them. Since it was customary to pay off harlots after they had performed their part of the bargain, Tamar's insistence on a pledge before the union, marked her as different. Her insistence on receiving personalized items as a pledge, made it obvious that she was only concerned with the performance of the levirate act of marriage to produce offspring from this distinguished man. Yehudah's endeavors to retrieve his ring and staff to avoid being involved in a scandal and his desisting eventually to avoid drawing too much attention to himself petered out since he had made a sincere attempt to pay the promised young goat. The statement by the townspeople nearby that there had not been a harlot in their neighborhood proves that it had been Yehudah who had jumped to the wrong conclusion about the veil Tamar had covered her face with. Since Tamar's status was one of shomeret yibbum, waiting for consummation of the levirate marriage, her pregnancy led to her death sentence in accordance with the laws of infidelity governing that region. (15) Possibly, both Yehudah and Sheylah had been informed, since they were the only ones with whom Tamar would have been permitted to have sexual relations, and whose admission to such relations would have saved her from being burned. Yehudah's statement "Take her out and let her be burned," means "We did not have relations with her, therefore we cannot save her from her penalty.” Tamar did not send her pledge to Yehudah via the judge so as not to embarass him in case he wanted to own up and declare his being responsible for her pregnancy. Yehudah's statement "She is more righteous than I," reflects that what he had done to her had been quite legal, since she had been fit to become his wife, that Tamar also had acted with the proper intention so that not only the act had happened to be legally in order. This is the reason then that his admission was so praiseworthy. The praiseworthy conduct of Tamar was commented upon many hundreds of years later, when Boaz had become the father of Ruth's child, the latter having invoked the same kind of right Tamar had once invoked (Ruth 4,12). Both are portrayed as having been motivated by the purest and most noble intentions. The fact that both of these women played a major role in the founding of the davidic dynasty can only reflect Divine intervention. Our sages, in their deep insight, comment when interpreting the words "She is more righteous than I" that this comment was made by heaven to show that the turn of events was not haphazard, but the outcome of heavenly planning. Yehudah did not continue to live with Tamar, seeing that he would thereby commit an injustice against his son Sheylah whom he had denied Tamar only to take her for himself. The twins Tamar gave birth to reflect heavenly planning at work also, since through a single act of union Tamar produced seed for both her deceased husbands. If, whenever the Torah mentions Yehudah's offspring, the two sons who had died prematurely are mentioned, we may infer that there is a reason for this. True, Aaron's two sons Nadav and Avihu are also mentioned on frequent occasions after they had died, but in their case the reason is to explain why Aaron's younger son became High Priest after him. Their names being mentioned is not as strange, therefore, as the repeated references to Er and Onan. To have these two long deceased sons mentioned in the census taken in Numbers 26,19 may therefore be explained by their having lived on in the persons of Peretz and Zerach respectively. Perhaps the struggle described about each of the babies wanting to be the first to be born suggests that each one wanted to replace Er and Onan vicariously, both of whom had had to wait a long time to be re-incarnated in this fashion. We have explained earlier that ever since Jacob's time, natural birthright was something that has been fought over. The midwife who thought that she was earmarking the firstborn when she tied the string on his hand, stood corrected when the firstborn turned out to be the younger one after all.