A merchant. You might ask: How does Rashi know that this term refers to a merchant? Perhaps Shua was an actual Canaanite. The answer is: Avraham did not want to give Yitzchok a Canaanite wife, and also Yitzchok commanded Yaakov not to marry one, so Yaakov’s sons surely would not [marry a Canaanite] either. But you might object: Rashi explained on 37:35, “R. Nechemiah says: ‘They [Yaakov’s daughters-in-law] were Canaanites,’” implying the sons did marry Canaanites. The answer is: Men from a different nation took Canaanite women and begat daughters, [whom Yaakov’s sons married], for these daughters were not [true] Canaanites because the lineage follows the father. But here it cannot be explained so, since it is written, “The daughter of a Canaanite man,” implying that the father was Canaanite.

Why did Er waste his seed? However, it is understood why Onan wasted his [seed], as the verse explains: the son is called by the name of his deceased brother, and Onan did not want to do this.

The son will be called by the name of the one who is dead. Nachalas Yaakov extensively contradicts Ramban and Re’m, [who explain that the son would literally be named after the deceased]; see there. Nachalas Yaakov rather explains that calling the son after the deceased means that it is considered as if the deceased were his father. That is why the verse says, “Establish seed for your brother,” and not, “Establish a name for your brother,” for the name is not the issue. See there.

Meaning, he pushed her off with a straw... Rashi is answering the question: Is the verse not self-contradictory? First it is written עד יגדל שלה בני, implying Yehudah intended to give her to Sheilah. Then it is written כי אמר פן ימות, implying Yehudah did not want to do so. Furthermore, when it says כי, how is this a reason for the preceding? If she is a woman whose husbands die, how could Yehudah give her to Sheilah when he comes of age? Therefore Rashi explains that Yehudah offered a pretense when he said עד יגדל שלה בני, for he did not intend that Sheilah should marry her. And when it says כי אמר פן ימות, this is giving the reason for [the verse’s implied statement] why he did not intend for them to marry.

“Shimshon went down, etc... to Timnah”... [Question:] In the previous verse it is written, “He went up,” and Rashi explained that this is connected with “to Timnah.” If so, why did Rashi not make his comment there? The answer is: [Based on the previous verse alone, Rashi would agree that] “He went up” could be connected with “to his sheep-shearers.” I.e., he went up the mountain to where the shepherds were, to stand by his sheep-shearers. [Thus, Rashi’s comment depends on the present verse.]

She covered her face so that he not recognize her. [Rashi knows this] because it is written later, “Because she had covered her face” — implying that this was already mentioned before.

At the opening of the eyes, at the crossroads... [It is so called] because two roads branch out, each in a different direction than the other, to here and to there, and one needs to open his eyes and think which road to take. פתח עינים means opening one’s eyes.

Our Sages explain it Midrashically: At the entrance of our father Avraham... I.e., at the tomb of our father Avraham. She prayed that a descendant of Avraham should come to her in order to have children by him. So say Chazal in Sotah 10a.

She desired to have children... [Rashi knows this] because afterwards she went back to her widow’s garb. If she did it to be promiscuous, she would not have gone back to her widow’s garb. (Maharshal)

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 kiddushinby 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 kiddushinby 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.

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)

עזקתך ושושיפך, the ring that you use as a seal... Rashi is answering the question: Why does Onkelos translate חותמך as עזקתך, which means “your ring”? In the verse it is written חותם, which means “seal.” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “The ring that you use as a seal.” Also, why does Onkelos translate פתילך as שושיפך, which means “your cloak”? In the verse it is written פתילך, “your thread.” Therefore Rashi explains that it means, “The cloak with which you cover yourself.” This is because פתיל is written regarding tzitzis (Bamidbar15:38), and about tzitzis it is written, “Your garment with which you cover yourself” (Devarim 22:12). So too here, [פתילך means,] “The cloak with which you cover yourself.”

Strong men, as he was; and righteous men, as he was. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ותהר לו? Scripture should have written ותהר ממנו. Just as it says צדקה ממני (v. 26), which Rashi explains as, “‘It is from me’ that she has become pregnant.” Perforce, לו means having similar traits. And we need not ask how Rashi knew they were strong and righteous, because the answer is that [both traits are equally implied. So] which one would you exclude?

Let her keep what she has. Rashi is answering the question: He already gave her it. Why does it say, “Let her take it?” Thus Rashi explains, “Let her keep...”

The thing will become public and will result in disgrace. Rashi is saying that the disgrace is not due to leaving the security with her.

For what else is there for me to do to be true to my word? Rashi is answering the question: How is, “Behold I sent her...” a reason for what preceded? Thus Rashi explains that Yehudah meant: If you say I must [search for her] since I promised her a goat-kid, [this is not so]. For what else is there for me to do? “Behold, I sent her this kid...” I.e., Rashi inserted the phrase, “For what else is there for me to do,” before, “Behold I sent her,” to explain the connection between, “Let her take it,” and, “Behold I sent her.”

Most of the first and most of the last... Although the fetus is discernable only after three months, a third of the pregnancy, that is for [a full term, i.e.,] nine month pregnancy. But Tamar had a seven-month term. For it is written about her, “When the time came for her to give birth” (v. 27). It is not written, “When her days of pregnancy were completed,” as it does about Rivkah. So explains Rashi on 25:Because of this, the fetus was discernable before three months.

And the entire middle month. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps the opposite is true: it was the entire first and second month, and part of the third. Or, it was part of the first month, and the entire second and third month. The answer is: If so, it would be two months and just ten days [when the child would be discernable]. One of the months would be only ten days, i.e., a third of a month. This is a minority of a month, and cannot be considered a month, whereas the verse says: “About three months later,” implying three whole months. Re’m answers: Perhaps a fetus is discernable after a third of the pregnancy only if it includes the majority of the first month, the whole second month, and the majority of the third month. Since the majority is considered like all, it is counted like three whole months — and the months themselves have an effect [on the fetus’ development].

An adjective — pregnant... Rashi means as follows: Although הרה is sometimes a future tense verb, such as in, “Behold you will conceive (הרה) and give birth to a son” (16:11), here it cannot mean this. For how would they know that Tamar will conceive? Thus Rashi explains it as an adjective.

She was the daughter of Sheim who was a Kohein... Not literally a daughter, for Sheim had died when Yaakov was fifty, and now Yaakov was over one hundred and ten. Rather, she was from Sheim’s family.

They, therefore, sentenced her to be burned. You might ask: Why was she liable for burning? She was neither married nor betrothed, and only then is a Kohein’s daughter burned. Although she needed *yibum,*this does not make her liable for death because [promiscuity in such a case] is merely a Biblical prohibition: “The wife of the deceased shall not marry out” (Devarim 25:5). The answer is: They sentenced her to death so as to cast fear on the people and save the generation from becoming immoral. And once she had been sentenced to death, it was by burning because we find elsewhere that the execution of a Kohein’s daughter was by burning. Also Rashi holds this view, as he explains, “They, therefore, sentenced her to be burned.” This is as Re’m explained. But Maharshal asks: Was she not unmarried [and not liable for death]? He answers: She [was liable because she] needed yibum.

From here they concluded: Better for a person to be thrown into a fiery furnace... You might ask: How did Chazal know this? Perhaps Tamar did not inform [that it was Yehudah] because she was not yet thrown into the fire, neither was it burning. But had the fire been burning she would have informed. The answer is as Rabbeinu Tam explains in Tosafos, Bava Metzia 59a: It is written here היא מוצת, missing an א, which is similar to, “He has kindled (ויצת) a fire in Zion” (Eichah 4:11). This implies that the fire was burning and still she did not inform. This is why Chazal concluded as they did.

Please recognize your Creator and do not destroy... She did not know there were three lives. Rashi says this because in truth it was so, but she mentioned only two lives. *Maharshal,*however, explains that Rashi knew this because it is written הכר נא. Why is נא written in the middle [of her plea]? It should be at the beginning or the end. From this Rashi deduces that she first said: “הכר (recognize) that I conceived from you,” [i.e., there are two lives]. Then she added נא, as if to say, “I have another request: Do not destroy the additional life.” I.e., do not destroy three lives.

In what she has said. Rashi is answering the question: צדקה ממני implies she was more righteous than him. But here, what does it matter whether she was more righteous?

She is righteous in what she has said. But she is not righteous in her act of illicit relations. The verse says, “He did not know that she was his daughter-in-law” (v. 16), implying that if he had known he would not have been with her. But she knew, so how did she permit herself to do this? She should not have relied on stretched explanations [that it was permitted due to yibum]. But she is righteous in what she said, for I do indeed recognize the signs as belonging to me. She assumedly conceived from me, since they said, “There was no harlot here.” Also the calculation of “about three months” is proof. Although she could have conceived from others, who might also have been with her, that is a mere possibility whereas the signs are definite. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Conformed with the law inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Sheilah. [Rashi knows it means this] because it says both כי and על כן, when one is sufficient.

Some say he did not continue whereas others say he did not cease. Some say Yehudah did not continue since his only reason for being with her would be to establish seed in the name of the deceased. As he had done this, he ceased from relations [although Halachically she was his wife]. And some say he did not cease since he saw she yearned to have children from him. Her intentions were pure, so he continued being with her.

One extended his hand outside and after she tied... Rashi explains that it means “extended” because ויתן יד [would seem to] imply that the fetus intended to give her a hand. And Rashi says “one,” meaning that it was one of the two, because the verse does not state who put out his hand, nor does Scripture state המוציא or הנותן [as is usual when the subject is unidentified]. And Rashi adds, “After she tied the thread on it he withdrew it,” because כמשיב ידו [implies he put his hand back out, which] is understandable only if he had withdrawn it.

Corresponding the four bans ... corresponding to the four things that he took... I.e., the four things Achan took, which were: a cloak from Shinar, two chunks of silver worth 200 shekels, making three, and a strand of gold, making four. Re’m objects: Sanhedrin 43b mentions a view that he violated three bans, and a view that it was five — four in Moshe’s time and one in Yehoshua’s. Either way, it was not four. Re’m answers: According to Bereishis Rabbah, [which Rashi is citing, this verse] deals only with the four bans of Moshe’s days. But this is incorrect because Bereishis Rabbah lists the four bans: those of Amalek, Sichon and Og, Yericho, and Midian. This is three in Moshe’s days and one in Yehoshua’s. There is a lengthy answer to this. But the Maharsha emends the text in Sanhedrin 43b to read: “Rabbi Yochanan said it was four bans...” [Accordingly, Rashi was following this view.] (Nachalas Yaakov)

Because of the bright color of the scarlet thread. [Rashi knew this because this way Zorach] is like Peretz, who was named after what happened.