Much to my chagrine, I only began to appreciate Rabbi Jonathan Sacks Z"L after his passing. Thank God he left a treasure trove for us to benefit from, even in his absence. Subsequent to writing this and thinking I had come up with a clever title, I came across his essay and video shiur on this subject, with the same title.
by Rabbi Avi Billet
Chapters 38 and 39 present to us two women who are a little forward in their approaches to Yehuda and Yosef, respectively.
After being married to Yehuda’s sons, Er and then Onan, respectively, Tamar, upon realizing that Yehuda's third son, Shelah, will not be her husband, takes matters into her own hands to have a child (which turn out to be twins) with Yehuda himself, through an act which can be called deceptive, while seemingly appealing to Yehuda’s loneliness (he had been widowed), which can easily be pinpointed as one element of Yehuda’s weakness in falling “prey” to her “trap.”
At the same time, when the hour comes for her to reveal the secret of her dalliance or have herself suffer the consequences of her actions, she chooses the latter, prompting the Talmud to learn from her the preference to submit to a fiery furnace rather than embarrass someone publicly, thereby cementing her place in the annals of our history as the mother of the Kingdom of Yehuda.
The other woman, whose name is not revealed to us, though she is quite identifiably the wife of Yosef’s master Potiphar, quite unabashedly throws herself at Yosef time and again only to suffer rejection due to his unwillingness to sin with his master’s wife. When the opportunity comes for her to have the coveted dalliance, Yosef not only does not succumb, but he escapes from her clutches, leaving his garment in her hand, making his exit – an exit which is recorded in the text 4 times!
While she, too, is the protagonist of the tale, albeit unsuccessful in her efforts, unlike Tamar, she lies about the circumstances, covering up her own crime, while casting full blame on Yosef, and causing him to languish in prison for likely more than a decade for a crime he did not commit, and for which she was completely guilty.
What a contrast!
Ibn Ezra notes the proximity of these two tales, suggesting that they are placed in the Torah in this way by design to compare Yehuda to Yosef (the first verse in each chapter references a “fall” of Yehuda and of Yosef).
The Gemara in Sotah (10b) compares Yehuda and Yosef, noting that Yosef sanctified God’s name in private, and thus had a ה added to his name (יהוסף – see Tehillim 81), while Yehuda sanctified God’s name in public through admitting his own “guilt” with Tamar and preventing her punishment, he is known by his name that contains God’s name (you see it when the ד is removed from יהודה) and he merited to have 3 other descendants saved from a fire on account of saving the lives of Tamar and her twins (Chananya, Misha’el and Azarya).
And while the comparison made between Yehuda and Yosef is meant to highlight certain things about each of them, it is the comparison of the women, Tamar and Mrs. Potiphar, which I find far more compelling. Rashi (see also Radak and others) suggests Tamar did what she did because she desired to produce a child for this family – whether it be from Shelah, or Yehuda, she did not care.
Noting that the family, at this juncture, were Noahides, Bchor Shor writes that prior to the giving of the Torah, any relative could have performed yibum (levirate marriage), even the father of the deceased. (Therefore, Tamar’s choosing shearing time (which is what Yehuda had gone to do) based on the Biblical precedent of it being a time of joy (see Avshalom, Naval) when one is a little more loose on account of one’s yetzer, was a. deliberate, and b. wise. In the end, she got what she wanted, and in a justified manner. [There is a debate – both sides are recorded by Rashi – as to what the Yehuda/Tamar relationship looked like after this incident, one approach suggesting they were never together again, and the other indicating that they remained husband and wife thereafter.] Rabbi Chaim Paltiel has a most generous reading of this text, indicating that Tamar only had intent for yibum and that this story is a lot more kosher than most simple readings suggest. (see the comments - in Hebrew)
Regarding the second tale, the Midrash is replete with analysis suggesting that certain aspects of Yosef’s character brought a test upon himself, and that her advances were actually a punishment to Yosef for being vain or for being too proud of himself.
Radak shares a powerful message from the temptation that after Yosef’s rise in position, “it was all for Yosef’s good, and to benefit his father and brothers. Even though it was very difficult at the beginning, all worked out. Even the sin of the wine-pourer and the dream of Pharaoh all came from God to put Yosef in a position of greatness/power. This story is recorded to see how the setup came about. Thus if something happens to someone, he should put his trust in God. This tale also comes to show us Yosef’s righteousness, and that a person should learn from Yosef how to overpower his inclination and to keep the faith. To the one who trusts will be the One Who is there, and He will not deal falsely.”
There is an approach suggested in the Midrash that Potiphar’s wife saw through astrology that greatness was to come from a union between her and Yosef, but she misunderstood, not realizing that the union in question would be between Yosef and Osnat bat Potiphera (this approach assumes that Potiphar and Potiphera are the same person – a debatable point – and that she was Osnat’s mother, another point which is highly contested in conflicting Midrashim).
No matter whether Potiphar’s wife was a messenger of God, sent to test Yosef, or whether she was indeed smitten by his good looks and his powerful position (one approach to understanding his line “There is no one greater than me in this household” includes even his master’s wife!) and wanted to be with him, or was disgusted by her husband and his personal preferences (see Alshikh 39:8), the text puts her as the one doing the advancing. And her intentions, no matter how we look at them, do not hold a candle to Tamar’s intentions with Yehuda.
Perhaps we can even note the strange irony of Sarah being taken to Pharaoh’s palace on account of her looks, and Yosef being put in this position on account of his looks. As much as Egypt may have rules against consorting with Semites, people in positions of authority don’t seem to care about the “rules for thee and not for me.”
By contrasting these two tales, the Torah is showing us, through its clear preference for Tamar, that there are different ways people may go about seeking human companionship and even intimacy. While neither of these stories is “pretty” in the romantic sense, or even in the sense that we would think proper (I would never recommend for any woman to do what either Tamar or Potiphar’s wife did, justifying such behavior due to the Torah presenting it to us), the study in contrast plays out like this.
Potiphar’s wife lives on in infamy. She may have played a side role in getting Yosef to prison, per how the Radak put it, which set up the good and the bad of the Israelites eventual descent to Egypt, but everything about her demonstrates the most undesirable character a person can present. Egotistical, thinking only of herself, caring not for the consequences of her actions, especially insofar as how they will reflect on another’s person’s life, casting blame where it doesn’t belong, denying the truth, lying, sending an innocent man to prison, using a different person’s race as a suggestion that “all people of that race are like that…” In short, she is a horrible human being.
Tamar’s modesty under the circumstances, Yehuda’s being the best candidate for Yibum, Yehuda not following through with the promise of Shelah as the next husband to Tamar, and Tamar’s desire to “establish the name of the dead” all point to her being a heroine of the narrative, and a heroine in the story of the Jewish people, the ancestress of King David.
ר' חיים פלטיאל בראשית פרק לח
ReplyDeleteויחשבה לזונה. צ"ע פשטיה דקרא מאי קאמר, וכי משום דכסתה פניה ויחשבה לזונה, ועוד צדיק כיהודה יתכווין לזנות, ועוד מאי תקח לה פן נהיה לבוז, והא כבר שאל איה הקדשה, ועוד מאי צדקה ממני, והלא הייתה כלתו, ועוד אמרה הכר נא, אטו משום דקבלה אתנן תנצל. ופי' הר"ר חיים פלטיאל דה"ק פשטיה דקרא ויחשבה לזונה לאשה שמחזרת אחר הבעל לינשא דזונה נקראת המחזרת אחר המנאפים וכן עובדי ע"ז, אשר אתם זונים, ופונדקאית נקראת זונה שמחזרת אחר אכסנאים, ומשום דכסתה פניה החשיבה למחזרת לינשא כי כן דרך הנשים העומדות לינשא מכסות פניהם דרך צניעות. ויאמר הבה נא אבא אליך, התקדשי לי. ותאמר מה תתן לי, כסף או זהב או שטר, דחציף איניש דמקדש בביאה. ויאמר אני אשלח גדי עזים ותאמר אם תתן ערבון, ונהי דאמרינן קדשה במנה והניח משכון עליה אינה מקודשת, הכא מקום הטלה הקנה לה וקנתה לה מקום שהטלה עומד עליו כמו חצירה. וישאל איה הקדשה, כלומר איה האשה שנתקדשה, וא"ת המקדש בינו לבין עצמו אינה מקודשת ע"כ אמר בעיניים, כלומר בפומבי ובפני כל. ויאמרו לא הייתה בזה קדשה, לא ידענו שום אשה שנתקדשה. ויאמר תקח לה פן נהיה לבוז, הנה אני מודה שבאתי על אשה דרך קידושין והם אינם יודעים בדבר א"כ מכח דברי יחשדוני שבאתי בזנות על אשה. ויאמר הוציאוה ותשרף, אין זה שריפה ממש, חדא דלבני נח לא היה להם שריפה, ועוד דקטנה היתה כדאיתא בפרק קמא דסוטה קטנה אני יתומה אני, ועוד דלא היתה בת כהן דאמ' התם גיורת אני, ועוד הרי לא התרה בה, אלא קנס היה דב"ד מכין ועונשין. ויאמר צדקה, נ"ל דה"פ לפי שיטה אעפ"י שצדקתי שלא באתי על אשה בלא קידושין כדפי' לעיל מ"מ צדקה יותר ממני שלא ידעתי איזה אשה קדשתי והיא ידעה בטוב למי נתקדשה, ובדין עשתה כי אינה כלתי כי על כן לא נתתיה לשלה בני, פי' מו' שי' לפי שה"ק שקידושי ער ואונן לא היו קידושין ולא היתה שומרת יבם כי ער ואונן היו קטנים שהרי מעשה דבת שוע היה אחר מכירת יוסף דכתיב וירד יהודה וגו', שהורידוהו מגדולתו לפי שהיה בידו למחות ולא מיחה בהם על מכירת יוסף, דל ב' שנים לתלתא עיבורי דער ואונן ושלה, ואי ער הוה בן ט' שנים כשנשא תמר הרי י' שנים ממכירת יוסף ויבום אונן שנה הרי י"א וכי גדל שלה הרי י"ב ושנה לעיבור פרץ וזרח הרי י"ג, לא נשאר רק ט' שנים עד ירידת מצרים וכתיב ויהיו בני פרץ חצרון וחמול, ומתי נולדו והא פחות מט' אינו מוליד דפרץ לא היה בן ט' עד ירידת מצרים, אלא ודאי ער ואונן קטנים היו פחות מבני ט' וקידושין של ער לא היו קידושין. א"כ לא (היו קידושין) [היתה שומרת יבם].
(יח) ותאמר חותמך. טבעתך שאתה חותם בה, וקדשה בטבעת. ותימ' וכי מה הועילו הקידושין והלא קידושין צריכים עדים ואפי' שניהם מודים בה כדאיתא בקידושין, וי"ל דאדם חשוב כיהודה אינו יוצא בלא שתי עדים כמו ת"ח וקדשה בפניהם. וא"ת אכתי היאך הועילו הקידושין והלא לא מסר הטבעת אלא דרך משכון ואמרי' בקידושין קדשה בטבעת והיניח משכון עליה אינה מקודשת, וי"ל שהקנה לה הטבעת לגמרי אומנם לאחר מכאן התנה לה שאם הוא שולח לה גדי עיזים שתשלח לו המשכון שלו.
ותאמר חותמך ופתלך ומטך. פרשב"ם חותמך לקידושין ופתילך היינו הטלת לפרוס עליה ומטך לעשות החופה. וי"מ שאלה לו שארה כסותה ועונתה, חותמך זה העונה, פי' חותמו של מילה, ופתלך זה כסות, ומטך זה שארה, וכן כתיב בשברי לכם מטה לחם.