Parshat Vayeshev
by Rabbi Avi Billet
The story of Yehuda and Tamar is familiar to regular parsha readers. Yehuda marries off his son Er to Tamar. Er dies for being “bad in God’s eyes” and so Yehuda gives the bereaved widow to Er’s brother, Onan. The Torah reports that Onan would spill his seed so as not to impregnate Tamar (hence the term ‘onanism’) so God caused Onan’s death as well. Fearing widowhood and singlehood for the rest of her days, Tamar disguised herself as a harlot on a crossroad, only to meet, by design!, one specific potential customer, her recently widowed father-in-law Yehuda, who does consort with her and impregnates her, all while being unaware of her true identity.
Upon discovering her pregnancy, and thus her faithlessness in (not) waiting for Yehuda’s third son, she is slated for punishment, which most assume was to be a capital punishment of burning.
After she produced items Yehuda had given her as collateral for payment for services, he chose to admit to what had happened, thus saving her and his babies (as she carried twins), and embarrassed himself to protect them. A question can be asked why he wasn’t immediately subjected at least to the possibility of punishment for impregnating her…? The Talmud in Sotah 10b discusses this tale from various angles (see below) [That subject is beyond the scope of this essay’s topic]
Yehuda’s response, upon recognizing the truth of what had taken place, is to indicate that Tamar is righteous, in fact more righteous than Yehuda was in the situation for he failed to have his son Shelah marry Tamar as promised. Then the Torah attests to us that וְלֹֽא־יָסַ֥ף ע֖וֹד לְדַעְתָּֽהּ.
What does that phrase mean? Most would likely translate “and he did not continue to know her,” and we might even assume that the “knowledge” referred to is the “Biblical kind” which refers to marital relations. In other words, they were never intimate again. Others might suggest she was sent away – a more literal meaning of not “knowing” her means never having any contact whatsoever. This is more far-fetched however, because every indication is that her children were part of Yehuda’s family, so it is unlikely that she would have been sent away.
Rashi offers us two possibilities: “Some say he did not continue [to be with her]. And some say he did not stop [being with her].” For the latter interpretation, Rashi uses the example of Eldad and Meidad, when the Torah says ולא יספו – which means “they did not stop prophesying.” (see Bamidbar 11:25).
The Talmud in Sotah 10b says: ולא יסף עוד לדעתה - אמר שמואל סבא חמוה דרב שמואל בר אמי משמיה דרב שמואל בר אמי: כיון שידעה שוב לא פסק ממנה, כתיב הכא: ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, וכתיב התם: קול גדול ולא יסף.
This view follows the second view of Rashi, though it uses a different source to support the idea that Yehuda and Tamar remained together. In Va’Eschanan (Devarim 5:19), Moshe describes the sound of God’s voice at Sinai as “with a great voice, which did not cease.” [Hadar Zekenim, Torah Temimah]
The first view – that they separated – is championed by many commentaries. Rashbam and Chizkuni note that the word should have a מ at the beginning – either מדעתה or מלדעתה – if the Torah were telling us they remained together. Radak offers that since their initial union was borne in a circumstance that is shameful, a hidden identity, a presumed prostitute, etc. it is not a union that can be bounced back to “normal.” Others suggest that Yehuda’s true perception of her, as a קטלנית, a woman whose husbands die, remained, and he felt the need to exercise caution. (B’chor Shor, Chizkuni)
Ramban suggests she remained his wife – they lived in the same general space. But as it is for a yavam, who has relations with the woman just to have a child, and then often enough never again, they did not live together as husband and wife again. Rabbenu Bachaye takes it a step further, saying “He could have been with her because their union was legitimate, but he chose not to.” [See also R Eliyahu Mizrachi]
Chizkuni (mentioned above) actually raises a number of possibilities. (Two of them are noted above)
• They remained together, as their initial union – initiated by her, per her desire to be with Yehuda – was done per קדושי יבום.
• Based on the depiction of her marriages to Er and Onan, it seems neither marriage was ever consummated (which raises other questions – see R Chaim Paltiel at the end of this), which means she may not have officially been Yehuda’s daughter-in-law
Netziv makes a fascinating point. Comparing this relationship to that of Yaakov and Rachel, he notes that Rachel was pregnant with Binyamin before the family returned to Canaan. Once they were in Canaan, the land in which the forefathers observed Torah laws, Yaakov could no longer be intimate with Rachel, based on the law against marrying your wife’s sister. Despite his plans, Leah was his first wife, and so Rachel would thus be forbidden to him when in Canaan. Similarly with Tamar and Yehuda, while, as it turns out, their initial union was done b’heter, further being with her, since she had been married to his sons, would have been problematic. (A levirate marriage of the brother of the deceased is a different story, but not with any other relative… consider the story of Ploni Almoni in the Book of Ruth, and what Chazal tell us about Boaz, after his marriage to Ruth…)
Netziv acknowledges the view in Megillah 17 that Rachel became pregnant in Eretz Yisrael (Canaan), and notes that according to that opinion, once the marriage is concretized properly – as was done outside of the land of Canaan, it need not be revisited or ended just because they’ve moved back to Canaan.
In practice, whatever Yehuda and Tamar did is surely no one’s business. It is clear that Peretz and Zerach (Tamar’s twins) are the last children Yehuda has. Perhaps more important than whether they lived together as husband and wife after this tale is what lessons we are to take from the narrative. Yehuda’s story, as it continues to evolve, is demonstrative of a person who learns from the mistakes of his youth, who takes ownership of errant ways, and who matures over time. He becomes a great leader!
Tamar, by and large, is viewed as a woman who came to the entire situation of her relationships in Yehuda’s family from a vantage point of kedusha, and wanting to be the mother of Malchus. Radak reminds us that this affair, and the Ruth/Boaz relationship, and how Shlomo came from David/Batsheva all serve as a reminder to the kings of Yehuda that their humble beginnings should prevent them from every lording over their subjects.
For us, we can take the literal meaning of ידיעה and ask ourselves what kinds of relationships we wish to have. The kind in which there is nothing more to learn about a person? Or the kind in which we don’t stop learning about our life partner? Even moreso, for those who view the relationship of Yehuda and Tamar on a spiritual level, the message of “knowledge” is in embracing how the other person continues to grow spiritually, while supporting that growth, and hoping to be blessed to join for the ride that brings each of us closer to God in our lifetimes.
**********************************************************************************
ר' חיים פלטיאל בראשית פרק לח פסוק כו
וא"ת במה הצילה כ"ש בת שזנתה, וי"ל שיהודה מצאה בתולה ממקום בתולים שער ואונן לא שמשו אלא שלא כדרכן ובזאת הטענה יכול להצילה שבני נח בעולת בעל יש להם אבל נערה המאורסה אין להם. ומ"מ היאך נתעברה מביאה ראשונה, וי"ל ע"י מיעוך. ורשב"ם פי' שדרכן של בני נח לייבם בקרובים והאחים היו כלים לפיכך האב יכול לייבם ולכך ניצלה. ועוד קשה הרי אין קידושין (ט)[ת]ופסין בכלתו, וי"ל דלהא מסיק בסוטה שאמ' שיתומה הויה שגם שם פי' רש"י וקידושי יתומה אינם קידושין כי עתה אני ממאנת בו ואיני כלתו.
No comments:
Post a Comment