TTfT 1190, Sotah10- The Story of Yehudah and Tamar

The story of Yehudah and Tamar seems to leave Yehudah in a very compromising situation. As the Talmud understands it, however, it is actually Yehudah at one of his greatest moments.

When the verse describes Shmishon going to the city Timnah it describes him as “going down to Timnah,” but when describing Yehudah going to the city it says, “He went up to Timnah.”

The Talmud suggests that it is possible to resolve this inconsistency by logistical explanations. Either there were two cities by the name Timnah, or the city was on a mountain, such that one approach to it was from the top of the mountain coming down, and the other approach was from the bottom of the mountain going up.

The reason that it describes Timnah as going down by Shimshon is because what happened there for him was a step down. While Yehudah is described as going up to the same city because what happened there for him was an elevation and greatness.

The Talmud describes the conversation between Yehudah and Tamar before he agreed to relations with her. From this conversation we can see what Yehudah was willing to do, and what he was not willing to do. Keep in mind that the law at the time of this event is not Torah law, as this is happening before the Torah was given. There may be instances where Torah law may be more, or perhaps less, strict than the law described in the story.

Yehudah asked her, “Maybe you are an idolater?” She replied, “I have converted.” (Meaning that she subscribed to the monotheistic views of Avraham’s followers.)

Yehudah asked, “Maybe you are a married woman?” She replied, “I am single.”

Yehudah asked, “Maybe you are a Niddah?” She replied, “I am Tahor.” (Apparently declaring that she subscribed to the moral teachings of Avraham’s followers.”

The Talmud wonders how it could be that Yehudah did not recognize his former daughter in law, and explains:

When she was in his house she covered her face in great modesty, so that now he did not recognize her.

Rabbi Yochanan taught: It is proper for a person to be thrown into a fiery furnace rather than shame someone publicly. This is learned from the fact that Tamar was to be killed (for seemingly improper moral conduct) and she does not declare that she is pregnant from Yehudah which would have exonerated her. Instead she hopes he will acknowledge that the collateral she holds from the event is his.

Two questions:

1) Why was she guilty on a capital offense level; she was not a married woman?

2) If the fact that she had the relations with Yehudah exonerated her, then why couldn’t she expose him even if he didn’t admit. If she is not guilty then his insisting on the death penalty should be like murder?

The words of the Netziv (Bireishis 38:24) are most helpful here. “He dealt with this case in the way of a ruler who had been shamed. The practice at their time was that the ruler had the right to punish according to his honor.” Since she shamed his noble family name by fooling around immorally (even though she had been a daughter in law in the family) he felt it appropriate to punish her accordingly.

It follows that even if she exposed him as the one she had been with, she would still be guilty of bringing indignity on the family, because she is the one who set him up for this event. However, by exposing him she could have had a political type victory, where even if she was still guilty, the people would see what Yehudah had done and would free her. This act to expose his wrongdoing she as not willing to do, even to save herself.

The fact that Yehudah didn’t press the case and instead admitted that she had been with him is considered a moment of greatness for Yehudah.

The Talmud concludes:

Hashem declared:”This event was orchestrated by Me,” so that Yehudah should have a child with Tamar would be be the ancestor of the Davidic dynasty and eventually Moshiach.