ויהי בעת ההיא,,”It was at that time,” according to Rashi the reason why the Torah introduces this paragraph with these words is to tell us that Yehudah’s demotion from his position of leadership of the brothers and his moving away from them was because he had proposed the sale of Joseph to Egypt. Many commentators challenge Rashi’s commentary saying that 22 years elapsed from the sale of Joseph to Egypt to the eventual reunion of the family, seeing that Joseph was 17 when he was sold and 39 when the brothers and his father moved to Egypt. Seeing that only so few years had elapsed, how could Yehudah have married, sired 3 sons, married off two of them, and have married Tamar and become the father of Zerach and Peretz, and Peretz siring Chetzron and Chamul, all within such a short space of time? [seeing the last two grandsons of Yehudah are numbered among the seventy members of Yaakov’s familty who left Canaan for Egypt (46,12)? Ed] Ibn Ezra writes that what is related here occurred before the sale of Joseph, and that the story was interrupted in order to contrast the story of Yehudah and Tamar with that of Joseph and the wife of Potiphar. [how Joseph could control his libido, whereas Yehudah could not.]

בת איש כנען, “daughter of a Canaanite named Shu’a.” Onkelos translates the word איש כנעני not as an ethnic description, but as the description given to “traders.” He wants to be sure that we know that none of the brothers married a Canaanite woman. This is the reason why the Torah singled out “Sha-ul, son of the Canaanite,” in 46,10 among the sons of Shimon as an exception. This subject has already been the subject of disagreement of Tannaim in the Mishnah, Rabbi Yehudah claiming that twin sisters had been born with all of the twelve brothers, enabling them to marry half sisters, whereas Rabbi Nechemyah holds that the brothers other than Joseph, married Canaanite women. Rabbi Yehudah is forced to have the brothers marry half sisters, something permitted to Israelites before the Torah was given, whereas according to Rabbi Nechemyah we would have to presume that all these twin sisters died before their husbands moved to Egypt, as otherwise, how come they are not included in the list of descendants of Yaakov who moved to Egypt? If we approach the subject logically, it is hard to understand how sons of Yaakov could marry women of a cursed nation such as the Canaanites. It is therefore most likely that Onkelos was correct in translating the word איש כנעני as “a prominent trader.” This would also account for the Torah writing ‘Yehudah saw there, etc.” Had this girl been an ethnic Canaanite, what was so special in Yehudah “seeing” her? They were a dime a dozen! She struck him as not belonging to the true inhabitants of that region. It is possible to understand Rabbi Nechemyah as not meaning that the brothers actually married ethnic Canaanites. He may only have wanted to dispute the opinion of Rabbi Yehudah that the brothers committed what was incest in terms of Torah legislation. Not only this, but half sisters from the same mother were also forbidden even before the Torah was given. There is little doubt that among the inhabitants of the land of Canaan there were also a minority of Moabites and Ammonites who did not belong to descendants of Canaan who had been cursed. Ibn Ezra writes that the reason Yehudah had sons who were not loyal to their father and grandfather’s tradition was that he had married a Canaanite, and that this was the reason they died so young. This was also the reason the Torah criticized Shimon for having sired Sha-ul from a Canaanite mother [not necessarily his wife, Ed.]. If not for this reason, why would the Torah have singled out the maternity of Sha-ul as the only one of Yaakov’s grandchildren? According to the approach of Ibn Ezra, we would have to understand the line: “Yehudah saw there the daughter of a prominent Canaanite, etc.,” as Yehudah taking an instant liking to that woman, much as Shimshon took an instant liking to the Philistine woman in Judges 14,1 something described by the prophet Samuel as “Shimshon descended to Timnatah, where he saw a woman of the daughters of the Philistines, etc.” According to Rashi’s commentary on Genesis 50,13 וישאו אותו בניו , that “Yaakov’s sons carried his bier,” the absence of mention of Yaakov’s grandsons as pall bearers is due to Yaakov having forbidden Egyptians to be pall bearers as well as his grandsons, seeing they had been born of Canaanite mothers. He had referred at least to Shelah son of Yehudah and a Canaanite, and Shau-l son of Shimon and a Canaanite. In order not to slight these grandsons, he precluded all of them from being his pall bearers. [Tanchumah on Numbers12 explains why also Joseph and Levi were excluded from that task. Ed.]

ער ואונן, some commentators trace the origin of these names to ערירי and אנינות, “childlessness, and pre burial state of mourning.” They had been named so, out of deference to Yaakov’s painful memories of the son he presumed lost. Nachmanides explains that Yehudah called his son ער, as a symbol of awakening, עוררה, whereas his wife called the second son אונן, and the Torah did not bother to inform us why either son was named as he was. It is possible that the wife of Yehudah had a difficult birth with her second son, just as Rachel called her second son by a name that reflected the pains she experienced in order to give birth to him. The word is closely related to the word מתאוננים in Numbers 11,1, where it describes deep frustration of the people and deep dissatisfaction. Yehudah, unlike his father Yaakov, did not bother to change the name his wife had given to their son. According to Bereshit Rabbah 85,4 the name ער foreshadows that the boy would be “poured out from the world,” הוער, whereas the name אונן foreshadows that this child would bring sorrow and mourning upon himself, i.e. אנינה.

ותוסף עוד ותלד בן ותקרא שמו שלה, “She continued to give birth to another child whom she named Shelah.” I find it peculiar that on this occasion the Torah does not mention Bat Shua’s pregnancy before mentioning that she gave birth. Perhaps we may explain this as her having become pregnant with two children at the time she conceived Onan, and that there was an interval between Onan’s birth and Shelah’s birth. This could be borne out by the wording of the verse that refers to the birth of Shelah as an “additional” birth. This would also explain the Torah speaking about Yehudah being in כזיב, The word is understood as describing “interval, interruption,” as in Isaiah 58,11 אשר לא יכזבו מימיו ‘whose waters will flow without interruption.” [how does the author explain Yehudah asking Tamar to wait until Shelah grows up before giving her to him as a wife? Ed.] In other words, Yehudah separated from Bat Shua for some time after the birth of Onan. The Torah would then be telling us that in spite of Yehudah having separated from Bat Shua after the birth of Onan, she bore him another son, something that he had not expected. According to the author, Yehudah’s stalling Tamar was only that, an excuse not to have a third son marry the same woman whose two husbands had already died.

והיה בכגזיב בלדתה אותו, “while he was in Keziv when she gave birth to him.” According to Rashi the location was called Keziv because this was where Bat Shua stopped bearing children. Nachmanides queries this, wanting to know why a place would be named to mark such a non-event. Furthermore, who knew at the time when Onan was born that his mother would not have any more children? No one knew this until after Bat Shua died. Some commentators say that seeing Yehudah had named his first son, his wife had named his second son. This was an accepted custom in those days. It would have been Yehudah’s turn to name the third child. The Torah explains the fact that he did not do so, by mentioning that he was in a different place at the time Bat Shua gave birth Nachmanides writes also that the meaning of the word כזיב indicates some disruption. The translation of לא תשלה by the Targum is also לא תכזב, “do not err in your prediction, i.e. do not deceive by being wrong.” (compare Kings II 4,28) Bat Shua giving birth in the absence of her husband was a mistake on Yehudah’s part, he should have been at her side.

ויהי ער רע בעיני ה' וימתיהו ה', “Er was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him.” Some scholars ask how it is possible that someone as young in years as Er could be held responsible for his deeds by the Heavenly tribunal, which supposedly does not judge anyone under 20 years of age. The forced answer given to this question is that if a youngster is intellectually developed to the level of a 20 year old, he is held responsible in spite of his being a minor in terms of years. According to what I have written earlier, about Yehudah having separated from his brothers and married prior to the sale of Joseph, it is quite possible that Er was 20 years old at the time of his death. Nachmanides draws attention to the fact that the Torah did not spell out Er’s sin, even though we have been told about Onan’s sin. Presumably, the words: “he was wicked in the eyes of the Lord and He killed him,” mean that he died on account of his own personal sin, and not as a punishment for Yehudah for his having sold Joseph. Yehudah was saved from his penalty for having saved Joseph’s life by the very act of selling him. Among all the families of the patriarchs the only one who had to bury his children was Yehudah.

ויבם אותה, “and perform a levirate marriage with her.” According to Nachmanides this was an accepted custom in earlier times, long before the Torah had been given when it was legislated to perform such levirate marriages and the scope of who was qualified to enter into such levirate marriages was greatly reduced at that time. The Torah made an exception in the laws of incest, permitting a brother to marry the widow of another brother who had died without offspring, although there was an overriding law not to marry the one time wife of a brother under all other circumstances.

שבי אלמנה בית אביך, “dwell as a widow in your father’s home, etc.” This was a rejection of Tamar as Shelah’s future wife; Yehudah had no intention of ever letting Shelah marry Tamar. Nachmanides writes that he does not understand why Yehudah had to reject her in such a round about fashion; he could have simply told her to go home and feel free to marry anyone else. Furthermore, seeing that Yehudah was so concerned about Tamar having had sexual relations with someone that he was prepared to convict her of death by burning, clearly he did expect her to marry Shelah, why else maintain the fiction that she was a levirate wife in limbo, and as such forbidden to be intimate with any other man? Moreover, it is most unlikely that Yehudah had not heard that the cause of his sons dying was not Tamar but their own sins. I believe therefore, that Shelah was perfectly suitable to be the husband of Tamar in a levirate marriage, but his father did not want him to marry Tamar while he was still young, (immature) so that he would not commit a sin similar to those committed by his brothers. They died in their youth precisely because they were too immature, neither of them being even 12 years of age. When Shelah would reach maturity and therefore be obedient to his father’s moral and ethical instructions, he would be quite prepared to have him marry Tamar. At the time of Onan’s death, he was not even 10 years old. Tamar, who was older and had an active libido, deserved to be remarried sooner, and when Yehudah did not give him to her she interpreted this as an outright refusal, not a temporary one.

ויעל על גוזזי צאנו, “he went up to supervise the shearing of his flocks.” The Torah describes a normal occupation of Yehudah, who frequently supervised his shearers. On one of these occasions, which Tamar was quite familiar with, she waylaid him. Alternately, the Torah describes a feast on the occasion of the completion of the shearing, and Tamar knew that Yehudah would participate. Therefore she positioned herself where he would have to pass her.

ותתעלף, “she covered her face.” Ibn Ezra says that the meaning is that she covered her face. The expression is used in this sense in Jonah,

בפתח עינים, according to Ibn Ezra this was the name of a place.

ויחשבה לו לזונה, “he considered her as being a whore.” This was because she had chosen to sit at a crossroads

כי כסתה פניה, “for she had covered her face.” Our sages say that this described her state while married, and while she was in her father-in-law’s house, so that he did not recognize her facial features. Nachmanides writes that the proper explanation, based on the unadorned text, is that Yehudah considered the fact that she concealed her face as proof that she was a whore, as this is what all the whores did in those days They all used to sit at road junctions where there was a lot of traffic. Their shawl would cover part of their hair and leave only a mall part of their faces exposed, revealing their throats and part of their necks. Their lips and eyes were made up. They needed to accost prospective customers, speak to them, even kiss them, so that their faces could not be fully covered by their shawls. Seeing that they did not mind engaging in relations with their relatives, they had to worry about keeping their identities secret.

ופתילך, “and your garment.” According to Rashi the word is equivalent to שמלתך, your “decorative garment.” [normally, as opposed to בגד, an outer garment, שמלה is understood to refer to undergarments. Ed.] Nachmanides disputes Rashi’s interpretation, as, if Yehudah handed over such a garment (normal usage of שמלה), he would have had to walk away naked. Furthermore, how could the Torah refer to a שמלה by the description פתיל? Besides, since when does the word פתיל occur in the plural? If you were to counter that we find this plural in connection with the commandment of ציצית, it is inconceivable that Yehudah would use a garment with sacred fringes and demean it in such a fashion. [the vowel segol in the word פתילך is taken by Nachmanides to indicate a plural form. Ed.] Perhaps he had a small cloth in his hand, something short like a פתיל, a cloth used to wind around one’s head, turban fashion, which Tamar referred to as פתיל because it was short. It is also possible that Yehudah’s signet ring had the shape of a lion, and he had pieces of short cloth that had been embossed with that ring. The staff מטה, he held in his hand in the fashion of rulers who carry a mace.

הוציאוה ותשרף, “take her outside to be burned.” Rashi explains this unusual type of the death penalty as due to the fact that Tamar was the daughter of Shem whom we know as the priest of the Supreme G’d from when he blessed Avraham, as well as the fact that he was King of Jerusalem, (Genesis 14) she was subject to this more severe death penalty for adulterous conduct, as per Leviticus Nachmanides questions this, saying that the legislation referred to in Leviticus is reserved for the daughter of a priest who is betrothed but not yet married properly. A widow waiting to be married to her brother-in-law, and therefore forbidden to any other male, is subject to the penalty imposed on violators of a normal negative commandment, not the death penalty. Besides, every capital crime committed by non-Jews is subject to death by the sword, never by burning. Furthermore, Yehudah’s statement צדקה ממני, after becoming aware of his almost fatal error, appears to reinforce Tamar’s guilt even more, a) because he, as the local leader of the region, should have lived a life completely beyond reproach, and certainly should not have slept with a whore; b) she, by engaging in extramarital relations had expressed disdain for the local authority. Keeping these two points in mind, he condemned her to death by burning. [some of these aspects are based on the opinion that Yehudah had realised that the woman he had presumed to have been a whore, was actually a virgin, something that in retrospect made him aware that his sons Er and Onan had never consummated their marriage to Tamar. The people who had brought Tamar before the tribunal had only known that she had become pregnant from someone not her husband and that she had not claimed to have been the victim of rape. Ed.] Looking at the plain unadorned text, we must remember that the law concerning women who had had illicit sexual relations while married, would have been handed over to her husband for him to do with her as he saw fit. Seeing that legally, Tamar was destined to be married to Shelah as soon as Shelah was old enough, she was in the category of a married woman according to local custom. Rabbi Yehudah the pious, explains that Yehudah did not actually condemn Tamar to be burned at the stake, but that she should be branded with a branding iron which would leave an indelible mark on her face so that she would be disgraced for all to see for the rest of her life. As soon as Yehudah found out that he was the father of the child Tamar was carrying, and that therefore she had not been a whore at all, he did not do anything to her. Many raise the question how Yehudah could pronounce judgment, saying: “take her outside and burn her,” seeing that according to Jewish law, a King is not subject to being judged by a court of his subjects, nor is he himself allowed to sit in judgment of anyone. In addition to this legal point, according to Jewish law, whenever a capital crime is dealt with in the court, and a vote is taken as to the guilt or innocence of the accused, the first person polled is the youngest and not the most senior, so as not to sway the judgment of the junior judges. Here we were told only about the presiding judge’s Yehudah’s vote on the subject. A third difficulty is how could Yehudah, a relative, and therefore a biased participant, be allowed to be present at these proceedings at all? [all of the preceding is of course, based on the assumption that just as the brothers observed Torah law although it was not yet revealed to them as legislation, they complied also with the wider ramifications of Torah laws as found in the written text. Ed.] The answers suggested to these various reservations of our sages about Yehudah’s conduct, is that the trial of Tamar was conducted by Yitzchok, Yaakov and Yehudah being the tribunal. Seeing that Yehudah was the junior member of this tribunal, we are told about his vote first, something completely in accordance with Jewish law.. Another view voiced by a Midrash, claims that Tamar’s father, Shem, personally sat in judgment of her. With all due respect, this is chronologically impossible. A review of the relevant historical data will reveal that Shem had long been dead at that time. [According to Genesis 11,11 Shem died 501 years after the deluge, i.e. in the year 2157 after the creation of Adam. The Exodus occurred in the year 2448, after the Israelites had been in Egypt for 210 years. In other words, when Yedudah came to Egypt in the year 2238 he was about 3 years older than Joseph, who we know was 39-40 years at the time as testified by the Torah. This means that Yehudah was born in or around the year 2195, 27 years after the death of Shem. Ed.] As to the statement in Avodah Zarah 36 that the tribunal of Shem decreed that an unmarried male who has sexual relations with an unmarried female is subject to the death penalty, [seeing that for gentiles there is no other penalty, Ed.] and the origin of that law is attributed to the incident between Yehudah and Tamar, this does not mean that Shem, the founder of that tribunal was still alive, but that the academy and tribunal which he founded continued to bear the name of its founder, Shem.

צדקה ממני, “she is correct; it stems from me.” Rashi interprets this statement as referring to Tamar’s statement, (words) that she was pregnant by Yehudah, (Though the words were never articulated by her) Nachmanides understands Yehudah as referring to Tamar’s deeds rather than to her words. She was right, whereas he was wrong in not giving her as a wife to Shelah, seeing that she had a claim on him. Shelah’s father would rank second behind his son only if his son had refused to carry out his obligation to marry Tamar. Some commentators feel that the words צדקה ממני, were spoken by Yehudah when he became aware that it had been he who had impregnated Tamar, and had found out in the process that she had been a virgin, and that the unnatural deaths of his two older sons had been the punishment for their failing to fulfill their duties as husbands of Tamar, and their wasting their semen. In the event that someone would claim that according to accepted norms a virgin never conceives from her first sexual experience, so how could Yehudah have impregnated her as virgin, this principle is valid only if the hymen had not previously been weakened, such as by an almost but not quite penetration, as is described as having been performed by Onan. (Genesis 38,9)

ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, “he had no further marital relations wit her.” There is an opinion (Sotah 10) according to which the meaning of the above words is that Yehudah did not stop having marital relations with Tamar. According to the opinion that the meaning of ולא יסף is “he did not continue, etc.” we must view Yehudah’s conduct vis a vis Tamar as reflecting the concept of קדש עצמך במותר לך, “sanctify yourself by eschewing even what is permitted to you.” Yehudah did not mean to imply that Tamar was legally out of bounds to him as a wife. Seeing he had fulfilled the commandment to be fruitful with her, he saw no point in continuing a relationship that could be misinterpreted by people who had known Tamar as the wife of one of his sons.

ויהי כמשיב ידו, “it happened as he retracted his hand, etc.” This refers to the distance a person can withdraw his hand. If the subject of this phrase would be the infant to whom this hand belonged, the Torah should have written: ויהי כאשר השיב ידו.

מה פרצת עליך פרץ? “how did you burst your way out?” Rashi understands the expression פרץ as denoting doing something violently. Alternately, it may mean that “you have broken out of the boundary that was meant to contain you.” Nachmanides writes that anyone who crosses a boundary is described by Biblical Hebrew as being פורץ as G’d promised Yaakov in Genesis 28,14 ופרצת ימה וקדמה וגו', “and you will burst forth to the West, to the East, etc.” concerning his descendants. This is why the midwife, when seeing the firstborn extending his hand beyond the birth canal, exclaimed that by coming forth hand first, that “he had burst forth.” The meaning of the word עליך in our context refers to the natural boundaries that had been set for each of these infants and the order in which they were meant to be born. Some commentators explain the words: מה פרצת as similar to פרצה גדולה עשית, “you have made a great break-through,” i.e. “may it be G’d’s will that this breakthrough you have made into the world will be a good omen for your continuous further development. According to this inter-pretation, the word פרצת here is not similar in meaning to the word in Genesis