ויהי בעת ההיא וירד יהודה, “it was at about that time that Yehudah descended.” Actually, the passage about Joseph being brought down to Egypt (39,1) should have been the natural continuation at this point.

The Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 85:2 explains that the reason the Torah inserted this chapter about Yehudah and his marriage was to draw our attention to the fact that Yehudah’s having counseled selling Joseph had become the cause for his “descent,” i.e. for his losing the role of leadership amongst his brothers. When the brothers observed the inconsolable state of mind of their father they blamed Yehudah for being the cause of it telling him that if only he had stopped them and had suggested that they return Joseph to his father they would have listened to him.”

A kabbalistic approach: the paragraph describing a levirate marriage was appended to the paragraph describing the sale of Joseph as both paragraphs deal with the subject of גלגול, a form of reincarnation, complete transformation of one’s fate. It is a fact that the sin committed by the brothers was of the type that could be atoned for by nothing less than reincarnation of their souls in different bodies. This is also the mystical dimension of the levirate marriage (widow of a brother who died without having sired children to one of the surviving brothers, compare Deut. 25:5-10). The mystical dimension of the levirate marriage is the same as the mystical dimension of reincarnation of the souls in a new body. The ten martyrs whom the Romans chose to expiate for the sin of the brothers having sold Joseph were none other than reincarnations of the brothers’ souls in different bodies. By dying a martyr’s death the millennia-old sin overhanging them was finally expiated. Er and Onan, the sons of Yehudah who died prematurely for committing a sin, were similarly reincarnated in the bodies of the twin sons Peretz and Zerach whom Tamar bore for Yehudah (verse 29). This is the deeper meaning of the sequence (Numbers 26:19-20) “Er and Onan died in the land of Canaan and the sons of Yehudah were , etc.” All this is alluded to here through the sequence in which the Torah relates these events, something which the intelligent reader will comprehend. As to the problem that there were ten such martyrs at the hands of the Romans whereas only nine of the brothers were actively involved in the sale of Joseph, seeing that Reuven had been absent at the time of the sale and had previously expressed disapproval of the brothers’ treatment of Joseph, we would have to say that the tenth person was Joseph himself who was guilty of providing the brothers with cause to hate him to such a degree that they committed this crime against him. Seeing Joseph had been an inseparable part of the sin he also became part of the method of expiation. Another way of answering the problem of why the Romans chose ten martyrs [and why G’d allowed this, Ed.] is that certainly Joseph was not held responsible in such a fashion but that Reuven was. Reuven was punished in that way not because of his share in the sale of Joseph, something he had had no share in, but he had not been punished yet for his misdemeanour involving the couch of his stepmother Bilhah. We even have an allusion to this in Moses’ blessing for Reuven at the end of his life (Deut. 33:6) ויהי מתיו מספר, “may his population be included in the count,” the count being the ten martyrs who would absolve the ten brothers from their sin in the future.

בת איש כנעני , “the daughter of a Canaanite man of distinction.” According to Onkelos the word כנעני in this instance refers to a merchant, a trader. Yehudah was certainly true to the tradition of his fathers not to marry girls of Canaanite descent. The respective wives of all the brothers may be presumed to have been of Egyptian descent or of Moabite and Ammonite descent respectively, neighboring peoples who were not from Canaanitic stock. The brothers may also have married descendants of Ishmael or Keturah, Avraham’s second wife who had born him six sons. This is the reason that we are told in 46,10 amongst the list of sons of Shimon that there was someone who is described as שאול בן הכנענית, “Saul the son of a Canaanite woman.” Even when the Torah was so explicit, our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 80:11) still explained that that woman was not a true Canaanite, claiming that the “Canaanite woman” was none other than Dinah who had been raped by a Canaanite and that Shimon had married her and had adopted the son she bore as a result of this rape.

והיה בכזיב בלדתה אותו, “he was at Keziv when she gave birth to him.” Why did the Torah have to tell us that Yehudah was at a certain place at the time his wife gave birth? According to Rashi this place was called כזיב because Bat Shua, Yehudah’s wife, stopped having any more children after this. According to Nachmanides, Yehudah called his son Shelah, a word connected to שגגה, error, as the place he was born at brought home to Yehudah that he had committed an error.

There is a mystical dimension to this verse and the word כזיב alludes to the third of the emanations, the emanation called בינה. This emanation has a great deal to do with the ability of a woman (or man) to have children. In fact this is alluded to already when G’d is described as ויבן, i.e. He provided בינה for the first woman who was formed from part of Adam. Our sages there commented that a woman has an extra portion of such בינה, i.e. she has been providentially endowed with the ability to have children. Yehudah had a prophetic insight which told him that his principal issue would not be any one of these three sons and he therefore prayed invoking the great attribute of G’d known as כוזו [which appears on the back of the parchments of our Mezzuzot, — Ed.], an attribute involved in matters pertaining to fertility and other genetic influences not subject to a person’s merit, the same attribute Hannah prayed to when she asked G’d to grant her זרע אנשים, not just a child but a child who would become worthy, i.e. an איש in the full sense of the word. (compare Samuel I 1,11) Yehudah’s prayer was accepted as he had twin sons by Tamar (verse 18) one of whom, Peretz, became the ancestor of King David. According to Rashi, the words ותהר לו, “she became pregnant for him,” in the above-mentioned verse are significant in this respect. We do not find this pronoun לו in connection with Bat Shua’s pregnancies or births. This entitles us to assume that Yehudah’s descendants would be known through Peretz and Zerach rather than through his other surviving son Shelah. The word בכזיב may also be read as an acrostic for the words ב-כח כ-וזו,ז-כה י-הודה ב--תאומים, “through the merit of invoking G’d’ attribute כוזו Yehudah merited having the twins born for him by Tamar.”

וימת גם אותו, “He killed him also.” The word גם is proof that Er and Onan died for the same sin. Our sages in Yevamot 34 say that it is easy to understand why Onan should have died for this sin seeing he had violated his father’s instructions to marry Tamar and to have children by her (verse 8). He thought that these children would not be accounted as his own but as his deceased brother’s Er, hence he deliberately wasted his semen. The question is why did Er act in such a fashion? Why did he not want children? The Talmud answers that he did not want Tamar to become disfigured through a pregnancy. He wanted to preserve her beauty, i.e. to treat her as a sex object rather than as the mother of his children. This explains why Yehudah had stressed to Onan (verse 8) “and maintain seed for your brother.” Seeing that Yehudah did not add the word המת, “the deceased,” when instructing Onan to have children with Tamar, Onan realised that when Tamar would have children these would not even be considered as his children but as his late brother’s. In other words, he would not even be compensated for Tamar losing her youthful beauty. The meaning of the letter ל in the word לאחיך in verse 8 may be understood as similar to אמרי לי אחי הוא, “say concerning me he is my brother” (Genesis 20,13). The verse teaches us the lesson that if someone deliberately wastes his semen, i.e. שחת ארצה,it is as if he should be dead. And this was the sin of the generation which perished during the deluge. We find the word כי השחית כל בשר על הארץ in connection with that generation, i.e. the same word as we find describing Onan’s sin (Nidah 12). The reason the Torah calls the firstborn of Yehudah ער was because these letters are the same as רע, “evil” in G’d’s eyes [same letters in a different sequence. Ed.] Seeing the Torah mentions the word רע in connection with both Er, Onan, and the people of Sodom (Genesis 13,13), it stands to reason that all of these people were guilty of the sin of letting their semen go to waste deliberately.

עד יגדל שלה בני, “until my son Shelah becomes of age.” Seeing there was no brother older than Shelah for Tamar to marry, she would have to wait until Shelah was old enough. Had Shelah been of marriageable age already, Yehudah would not have asked Tamar to wait. This verse [the problems caused by Yehudah delaying the levirate marriage of Shelah, Ed.] prompted our sages in Yevamot 39 to say that if a brother evaded performing the levirate union until a younger, under-aged brother had come of age and would perform it in his stead, or if an older brother was overseas and a brother who was present wanted to wait until his older brother returns from overseas and marries this widow, that one does not accept such arguments. The brother who is present and of age must either perform the levirate marriage or release the widow by performing the rite of חליצה, the act of releasing her to marry an outsider, so hat she can get on with her life. In Ruth 1,11 Naomi says to her daughters-in-law: “turn back, my daughters! Why should you go with me? I am too old to be married. Even if I were to be married tonight and I also bore sons, should you wait for them till they grow up?” This suggests that there might be a point in waiting under less extreme circumstances. There are those who hold that Naomi meant that if she had been pregnant at the time she uttered these words she would have encouraged her daughters-in-law to wait till such sons had been old enough to marry. However, people who think along those lines are quite wrong. The Torah in Deut. 25,1 introduces the whole subject of the levirate marriage with the words כי ישבו אחים יחדיו, which the Talmud in Yevamot 17 interprets to mean ”when the brothers concerned are alive at the same time.” In other words, no unborn brother can qualify for observing this legislation for a brother who had died before he was born.

כי אמר פן ימות גם הוא, “for he had said: ‘lest he die too.’” He felt that Tamar had demonstrated a tendency to cause the death of her husbands. There is an opinion in the Talmud according to which when something occurs successively even only twice we already consider this as an established pattern, i.e. חזקה. This is the way Rashi interprets our verse. Nachmanides questions this, writing that if indeed Yehudah’s fears were based on this consideration why would he not tell Tamar his reason and deceive her by making her think that he would give Shelah to her in due course? According to Rashi, Shelah would be forbidden to marry Tamar as she was a potential killer. This is why Nachmanides explains that actually Shelah would have been a suitable third husband for her under the levirate marriage legislation. Yehudah simply did not want Shelah to marry until he had matured more as otherwise he might become guilty of the same sin which had caused the death of his brothers. When Tamar noticed that although Shelah had matured in the interval her father-in-law had still not given him to her in marriage, she decided to take a different route to secure issue from the family of Yaakov/Yehudah.

כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” According to the plain meaning of the text Yehudah considered the woman as a harlot because she had had covered her face, not wanting to be identified This would enable harlots to have sexual relations even with close relatives as the latter would not shy away from having contact with them.

A Midrashic approach from Sotah 10: the words refer to the fact that while living under her father-in-law’s roof Tamar had kept her face covered so that he did not know what her face looked like.This is also the reason why Bereshit Rabbah 85,9 writes that a person should make a habit to know his relatives well enough to be able to identify them when looking at them so as to protect himself against what happened to Yehudah with Tamar.

הבה נא אבא אליך, “if you please, I wish to have relations with you.” If the Torah had applied the rules of grammar here, it should have quoted Yehudah as saying הבי instead of הבה. However, seeing that Yehudah considered the woman a harlot, a woman who demands sexual relations outright in the manner males do, he changed his mode of address and treated her as if she were a male. The Torah preferred to quote Yehudah verbatim instead of observing the rules of grammar. We find a parallel to this in Genesis 19,32 when the daughters of Lot initiate sexual intercourse with their father by first making him drunk. They too acted in a manner which is usually a male prerogative, and this is why the Torah wrote לכה נשקה instead of לכי נשקה. I have explained the matter there.

חותמך ופתילך ומטך אשר בידך, “your signet, your wrap, and your staff which is in your hand.” According to the plain meaning of the text the word חותמך refers to a ring used to seal documents. Possibly, Yehudah’s signet ring bore the image of a lion seeing that his father described him as גור אריה, “a lion cub” in Genesis 49,19. Rashi explains that the word ופתילך means “your wrap,” a garment with which he covered himself. Concerning this Nachmanides disagrees, saying that it is not logical that Yehudah would give a harlot a garment of his without which he would remain naked. Moreover, how is it possible that the Torah would describe a שמלה as a פתיל? Besides, why would this garment be described by Tamar as הפתילים i.e. as garments in the plural in verse 25? If one were to say that the word פתיל refers to the ציצית, the fringes, how can we assume that Yehudah would treat the fringes in such a desultory manner, i.e. giving the part of the garment which lends it some sanctity to a harlot? Nachmanides therefore concludes that פתיל is a small cloth such as a kerchief used to wear around the neck or part of the head. It is still a common practice in the Orient that distinguished people wear such a piece of attire. It is called פתיל as it is short like a שושיפא, short cloak. (Compare Onkelos on Deut. 22,17 where שמלה, bed-sheet, is translated as שושיפא.)

ומטך, “and your staff.” She referred to the staff that princes and dignitaries are in the habit of carrying. It is similar to the word שבט, which is mentioned by Yaakov as a hallmark of the authority of the dynasty of Yehudah when Yaakov blessed him before his death (Genesis 49,10).

Some commentators view the three items which Tamar demanded as a pledge from Yehudah as allusions to the three financial obligations a husband assumes vis-a-vis his wife as outlined in Exodus 21,10. They are named there as שאר, כסות עונה, the entitlement to food, clothing, and marital rights. The signet ring was symbolic of her marital rights, her claim on Yehudah. She alluded to the stamp of the sacred covenant which every male Jew wears on his sexual organ ever since he has been circumcised. The staff is symbolic of food, sustenance, as we know from Leviticus 26,26 בשברי לכם מטה לחם, “when I break for you the staff of bread.” פתילך, of course, is symbolic of the wife’s right to be provided with clothing by her husband.

According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,9, (slightly different wording) by returning these three pledges to Yehudah, Tamar’s offspring did indeed merit to secure for itself (at different times in history) all these three items. Concerning Zerubavel, the leader of the Jews returning from exile in Babylon, we read in Chagai 2,23: ”I will take you, My servant Zerubavel son of Shaltiel- declares the Lord,- and make you as a signet for I have chosen you.” As to the פתיל, Tamar, as the mother of Peretz, became the ancestor of Betzalel, architect of the Tabernacle of whom it is written in Exodus 39,3 וקצץ פתילים, “he cut threads.” The word מטך was an allusion to King David of whom Samuel I 17,40 recorded that ויקח מקלו בידו, “he took his staff in his hand.”

הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.” All the onlookers accepted Yehudah’s verdict without argument. This teaches that Yehudah was the local judge of that community. It was the custom in that place that any woman found committing adultery would be burned. Bereshit Rabbah 85,10 quoted by Rashi 38,24 claims that Tamar was the daughter of Shem (the son of Noach whom we know as a Priest for the Supreme G’d from the time of Avraham). Seeing that the Torah provides the death penalty by burning for the daughters of Priests, (Leviticus 21,1) she was sentenced to be burned.

היא מוצאת, “when she was taken out,” to be burned. We learn from this verse that a person should rather allow himself to be burned than to cause a fellow man to blanch from public embarrassment. Tamar reasoned to herself: “if he will admit his part in my pregnancy, all well and good; If not, I will rather allow myself to be burned in the furnace than to shame him in public.” Although the word מוצאת, has been spelled with the letter א, (whereas if it meant “being burned,” it should have been spelled without that letter) one may interpret it homiletically as being derived from הצתה, subjecting something to fire. Incidentally, the first letters in the words of the verse ו-יאמר י-הודה ה-וציאוה - ו-תשרף when read backwards yield the acrostic י-ה-ו-ה, the Ineffable Name of G’d. This suggests that at the time Tamar was concerned with saving Yehudah’s “face,” G’d was busy saving her life by invoking the attribute of Mercy.

שלחה אל חמיה לאמור, “she sent to her father-in-law to convey, etc.” She meant for her messengers to tell Yehudah in her name: “for the man to whom these items belong I am pregnant, etc.,” the messengers themselves did not know what she had in her hand. She did this in order to protect Yehudah’s reputation in the event he chose to ignore her. When she realised that this indirect message was ineffective, she thought that possibly Yehudah had forgotten the encounter with her. At that point she confronted Yehudah face to face (in private) adding the words הכר נא, “please identify.” This is why the Torah mentions the items in question individually at this point. She was still determined not to reveal him as the father of her unborn child if he chose to deny his involvement in her pregnancy.

The Jerusalem Targum on the words היא מוצאת, claims that Samael had hidden the three items which she could have used to clear her name. The author mentions a prayer of Tamar in which she expressed the hope that in return for having preferred a fiery death in order to protect Yehudah’s public image, G’d would arrange for these items to be found so that three persons’ lives would be saved thereby, (hers and that of her two unborn sons). G’d gave the angel Gavriel a hint and he returned these items to Tamar and she threw them at the feet of the judges. This is the meaning of the words הכר נא למי החותמת וגו', “please identify the owner of the signet ring, etc.”

צדקה ממני, “she is more righteous than I.” When the messengers presented Yehudah with the signet ring, etc., he immediately owned up and said: צדקה, “she is righteous in what she says;” ממני, “she is pregnant from me.” This is also the way Onkelos translates these words.

Nachmanides understands the word ממנו as a comparative, meaning “she is more righteous than I.” He meant “whereas when I had sexual intercourse with her I had unworthy motives, she had had worthy motives wanting me to perform the rite of the levirate marriage with her.” This is what he had in mind when he added “because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” Shelah, after all, was the person who was next in line to perform that rite. Yehudah was the next closest relative to perform this rite of the levirate marriage and to keep alive the names of his late departed sons Er and Onan, in the event Shelah would refuse to marry Tamar.

According to a Midrashic approach found in Makkot 23 after Yehudah had said צדקה, “she is righteous,” a heavenly voice was heard adding the word ממני, “from Me;” i.e. G’d informed the judges and Tamar that He had guided matters in such a way that Tamar would become pregnant by Yehudah. In that connection the Talmud goes on to say that we know of only three instances where the Holy spirit took an active part in judicial proceedings of a terrestrial court to assure a certain outcome. One was the court founded by Shem; the second was the court presided over by the prophet Samuel; the third was the court presided over by King Solomon. In the case of the court founded by Shem and known as “his court” hundreds of years later, the Holy Spirit intervened clearing Tamar of all guilt. The Holy Spirit again intervened in the court of Samuel as we know from Samuel I 12,5 “G’d is witness, and His anointed is witness, to your admission this day that you found nothing in my possession.” [Samuel had challenged the people to list any wrong he had committed against anyone of them or whose property he had made use of by citing his authority as ruling judge. Ed.] In that paragraph the answer should have been in the plural, i.e. the people should have been quoted as saying: “we are witness.” The fact that the author of the Book of Samuel refers to the singular is proof that it was G’d answering on behalf of the people. The third time the Holy Spirit interfered in the deliberations by a terrestrial court was when Solomon heard the case of two women each of whom claimed the surviving baby as her own (Kings I 3,26). At that time the Book of Kings has the mother of one of the babies call out: “give the surviving baby to her, do not kill it, for she is its mother.” The words “she is its mother,“ were added by the Heavenly Voice, whereas the baby’s true mother only said the words “give the surviving baby to her and do not kill it.”

ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “and he did not have further sexual intercourse with her.” Having fulfilled the commandment of ensuring that the souls of Er and Onan would be reincarnated in Tamar’s children, Yehudah refrained from treating her as his wife, even though technically, i.e. from a halachic point of view he could have had marital relations with her. The reasoning of the commentator (Samuel the elder in Sotah 10) who understood the words ולא יסף to mean “he did not stop,” is that seeing Yehudah’s union with Tamar had been approved by heaven there was no point in discontinuing his marital relations with her.

ויקרא שמו זרח, “he called his name Zerach.” The name Zerach (shines) symbolised the sun, whereas the name Peretz (interruption) symbolised the moon. (the sun shines uninterruptedly, daily, whereas the moon is ineffective towards the end of the month and at its beginning). The kingdom of David stemmed from Peretz whose dynasty symbolised the moon and its ups and downs. We know that the moon’s orbit is completed every 29 days. This is why you will find that there were 29 righteous people (descended from him) listed in the Bible from the time of Peretz until the last King of the Davidic dynasty, Tzidkiyahu. They are: Peretz, Chetzron, Ram, Aminadav, Nachshon, Salmon, Boaz, Oved, Yishai and David. They were followed by Shlomoh, Rechavam, Aviyah, Assa, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram, Achazyah, Yoash, Amatzyah, Uzziah, Yotam, Achaz, Chiskiyah, Menashe, Ammon, Yoshiyahu, Yehoachaz, Yehoyakim, Yehoyachim, Tzidkiyah. These comprise a total of 29 men corresponding to the days in the lunar orbit; the lunar “sun” sets after such a period of time. The dynasty of David underwent a similar decline after Tzidkiyah and this is why the Temple was destroyed during the lifetime of Tzidkiyah who was the twenty-ninth scion counting from Peretz. [The reason we do not count from Yehudah who was promised Royalty by his father may be that Peretz was Royalty already, his mother having been the daughter of King Malki Tzedek, identical with Shem. If you find it strange that our author lists Menashe as a righteous king when the Book of Kings described him as the worst heretic ever, the reason may be that he became a penitent and G’d restored him to his throne as reported in Chronicles, II chapter 33 something not mentioned in the Book of Kings II chapter 21. See my book “The Just lives by his faith” for a possible reason for this omission Ed.]

However, in Shemot Rabbah 15,26 this calculation is described differently, and the month is given as having thirty days during the first half of which the moon is progressively becoming more powerful, whereas after that it declines visibly. According to the author of that list the first 15 days of the month are characterised by the leaders of the Jewish people from Avraham to Solomon, whereas the last 15 days symbolise the decline of the Kingdom of Yehudah after the division of the country between Rechavam and Jerobam. This is based on Exodus 12,1. G’d is supposed to have told the Jewish people already prior to their departure from Egypt that the kingdom would not last for more than thirty generations, hence the words: החודש הזה לכם, ”this month (moon) is for you, etc.” The Midrash lists verses in the Bible to back up the contention that the early ancestors of the Jewish people such as Avraham and Yitzchak are already part of these 30 generations. It quotes a verse in which Avraham is described as “shining,” such as Isaiah 41, 2. It similarly is at pains to prove the same for Yitzchak and Yaakov. Starting with Yehudah, there is no need for such proofs anymore. The author of the Midrash, aware that most of the Kings of Yehudah actually worshipped idols, does not describe them as an unending string of righteous people but lumps them together as part of the decline of the Davidic dynasty, in spite of the exceptions such as Chiskiyah and Yoshiyah to name but two. According to this Midrash, the prayers of the patriarchs on behalf of their errant children helped to persuade G’d to continue to let that Kingdom exist beyond the time it had a legal right to exist.

[This Midrash continues for several pages and I have decided to condense it in the interest of brevity. One of the more important points of the comparison between the orbit of the moon and the thirty generations of ascending and descending Jewish political power is the fact that King Tzidkiyah had his eyes gouged out by Nebuchadnezzar, King of Babylon. His subsequent blindness is taken by the Midrash as symbolic of the light of the Jewish “moon” having been extinguished.]

A kabbalistic approach: Our verse speaks of two births, two new human beings. There is a profound mystical dimension in this, something of great impact on the dynasty of the house of David. I will reveal to you a small part of that mystical dimension and I ask you to concentrate on what I am about to reveal.

We know that the name אלו-הים, with which the Torah describes G’d during the report of the creation of the universe describes Him as the king of the universe. This name is identified with the concept תשובה, another name for the emanation בינה. [In plain English, the attribute with which G’d created the universe is that which is active in the emanation בינה, the third emanation counting from the highest emanation, i.e. כתר, down. Ed.] We acknowledge this attribute especially on Rosh Hashanah, the “birthday” of the universe, (creation of man) and the days between Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur when we conclude the third of the blessings in the עמידה prayer by saying המלך הקדוש, “the Holy King,” or המלך המשפט, “the King who dispenses justice,” instead of הא-ל הקדוש, “the Holy G’d,” or מלך אוהב צדקה ומשפט, “the King who loves righteousness and justice.” There is no King without a people or man that He can be King over. When the Torah reports G’d’s directive (Genesis 1,3) as יהי אור ויהי אור, “let there be light and there was light,” this light came into existence by means of the power of the Kingdom of Heaven and Earth which is also known as אלו-הים. The repetition of the word אור in that directive and the report that it had been carried out, suggests that there were two kinds of light. You do not find the subject of the directive repeated when the Torah reports what G’d created on the other days. In the Torah’s report of the directives G’d issued concerning the other days you only find the expression ויהי כן to indicate that the universe had responded to G’d’s directive. You should realise that though the Torah appears to speak of two kinds of light, the meaning is not that there were actually two entirely different kinds of light. What is meant is that this light embodied two sources of power, of energy. One of these forces is essentially male, the other essentially female. The creation of the original light, however, was the product of a single source of energy, one which combines within it both male and female elements. This original light later on enabled the sun, the moon, and the stars to be derived from it and to be concretised. [The original light was independent of any physical matter, sunlight is not. It requires the sun, i.e. a physical body, in order to dispense it. Ed.]. I have explained this in my commentary on Genesis 1,14. The sun was endowed with the male properties of the original light, whereas the moon was endowed with the female properties of the original light.

Having absorbed this knowledge, you will understand what occurred in the case of Yehudah, Tamar, and these two children born to Tamar and Yehudah respectively. By means of these two individuals, Peretz and Zerach, we can gain a better understanding of the whole process of creation. This is what the sages had in mind in Berachot 55 when they said: מלכותא דארע כעין מלכותא דרקיע, “the kingdom on earth is essentially similar to the kingdom in the celestial regions.” Yehudah’s name יהודה, gratitude, as we know from Leah’s feelings of gratitude to G’d meant that by having born more children for Yaakov than any of his wives would he would be appreciative of this. [compare Genesis 29,35. Ed.] Seeing that Yehudah was the fourth of the twelve sons who were to make up the tribes of Israel, G’d’s Holy Name is part of his name. His tribe became the leading tribe in Israel and the Kingdom of Israel was ruled over by a king from his tribe, i.e. David and his descendants. It was therefore appropriate that Tamar, herself descended from Royalty, should be married to him. The name Tamar reflects the fact that the original light contained both male and female properties, seeing that תמר, a date or date-palm, contains both male and female elements, or rather that the name for both a female palm and a male palm is the same. The לולב, palm branch, is indicative of the male element in the palm, whereas the fruit, the product of the female palm tree goes by the same name, i.e. תמר. It is male on the outside whereas its גרעין, its pit, is female. [It is split, similar in appearance to a vagina, as explained by Naftali Wessely.] This is something unique, not found in any other kind of tree. It was therefore appropriate that Peretz and Zerach be mothered by Tamar. Zerach corresponded to the element sun, the male element, the sun which shines without interruption, whereas Peretz corresponded to the element moon, the female element, a light which is uneven, sometimes stronger sometimes waning completely such as the light of the moon. It was therefore almost a historical must that the dynasty of King David be the product of Peretz rather than Zerach, seeing that he, Peretz — as indicated by his name already — represented the type of light we get from the moon, i.e. light which fluctuates constantly in intensity as does the light of the moon.

When you will examine the verse intelligently you will find that just as the sun is always aligned with the moon just like twins, so Zerach and Peretz were aligned in the womb of their mother, i.e. they were twins. This concept of their being twins was carried so far that even at birth each of them could be taken for the firstborn depending on whether you consider the emergence of the hand or the emergence of the head as determining which one is the firstborn of the two. The Torah describes Zerach as the firstborn seeing that his hand emerged first from Tamar’s womb. It says “for he emerged first.” On the other hand, the Torah continues with ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it was as he was about to pull back his hand (inside the womb).” You will note that the Torah did not say that he had actually completed the act of pulling back his hand, i.e. וישב ידו. Peretz became the firstborn by reason of forcing his way out of the birth-canal of his mother past his twin brother Zerach. This is why the Torah writes in our verse ואחר יצא אחיו אשר על ידו השני, “after that, his brother, the one who had the red string tied to his hand, emerged.” In other words, when we consider the emergence from the womb of the entire baby, פטר רחם, as the dominant criterion, Peretz was the firstborn even though Zerach had first put his hand out of his mother’s womb. The Torah determined that for halachic purposes emergence of a whole baby from the mother’s birth canal first determines who is the true firstborn (Bechorot 46). This is why when the Torah revealed the names of these two twins it first gives us the name of Peretz. You will find an interesting verse in Psalms 89,28 אף אני בכור אתנהו עליון למלכי ארץ, “I will also appoint him firstborn, highest of the kings of the earth.” G’d is on record that He considers David, who biologically was the youngest of his brothers, as a firstborn. Seeing that the kingdom of the house of David is derived from Peretz, and Peretz in turn has been likened to the moon, the sages formulated the words דוד מלך ישראל חי וקיים, “David King of Israel is alive and endures,” when we recite the monthly benedictions welcoming the arrival of the renewal of the light of the moon. When we look at the plain meaning of that statement it means simply that the moon is equated with David, (in name), seeing David is descended from Peretz who has been compared to the moon. Furthermore, seeing that the moon has been described in the Torah as the “small luminary” (Genesis 1,16), we find that the adjective “the small one” has also been applied to David (compare Samuel I 17,14). When we say the words חי וקיים, in the recital of קידוש לבנה, the sanctification of the new moon, the thought we entertain is that the moon has become visible again this month.

On a more mystical level, these words are a reference to the latent power of the moon which is also known as דוד מלך ישראל, in that the word ישראל is a reference to כנסת ישראל, the mystical entity called Israel in the celestial regions. This is why this entity is described as חי וקיים, alive and well, enduring forever. Daniel 7,9 alludes to this when he said עד די כרסון רמיו, “until the thrones were set up.” There were two such thrones. In Chagigah 14 the sages have revealed to us how they understood this verse in Daniel. “Some hold that one of these thrones was reserved for G’d and the other for David. A second opinion holds that one of these thrones would be used by G’d when He employed the attribute of Justice, whereas he would use the other throne when employing the attribute of Charity. A third opinion, that of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azaryah, contends that one of the ‘thrones’ was for sitting on, whereas the other served as a footrest.” It appears in that folio as if the sages of the first view disagreed with the view expressed by those who hold that one throne was reserved for David. Actually, the sages do not disagree with the basic concepts underlying all this. We know this as they derive their opinion from the verse ובקשו את ה' אלו-היהם ואת דוד מלכם, “and they will seek the Lord their G’d and David their king.” The words “and David their King” are a reference to this concept of כנסת ישראל. Concerning the moral/spiritual power represented by כנסת ישראל, our sages expounded (Zohar Terumah 175) that legally speaking the Israelites were not slated for exile from their land ever. The decree to exile them was not decided until they had rejected both the Kingdom of Heaven (G’d) and the Kingdom of David. We base this on Samuel II 20,1 “we have no portion in David nor in any inheritance of the son of Yishai. Every man to their tents!” [ — a proclamation by Sheva ben Bichri, a dissident and heretic, arousing the people to oppose David.] It is important to realize that the words “David” and the words “the son of Yishai” are not a repetition referring to one and the same person as those commentators who concentrate on the plain meaning of the text would have us believe. The meaning of the verse is that Sheva ben Bichri and his supporters declared their severance of allegiance to both the kingdom of heaven and the celestial aspect of the kingdom on earth as represented by David in his capacity as the son of Yishai. These people served idols instead. This is why he said “each one to his god!” [The sages inverted the letters in the word לאהליו, “to their tents,” to read “to their gods,” i.e. לאלהיו].

The verses reporting the birth of Zerach mention the word יד, hand, four times, i.e. ויתן יד, ותקשור על ידו שני, ויהי כמשיב ידו, אשר על ידו השני. These four expressions parallel the four times עכן בן זרח, [identical with Achan ben Karmi in Joshua chapter 7. Ed.] stretched out his hand, i.e. committed a trespass against loot captured by the Jewish people in their wars since their departure from Egypt. He hid and retained such loot from the battle against Amalek, against Sichon and Og, from the battle against the Canaanites and from the capture of Jericho [which was not preceded by a battle in the usual sense of the word. Ed.] (compare Bereshit Rabbah 85,14).