ויהי ערבכור יהודה רע בעיני ה' וימיתהו ה'… וירע בעיני ה' אשר עשה [אונן ] וימת גם אותו …וירבו הימים ותמת בת שוע אשת יהודה…(בראשית לח:ז,י,יב).

And Er the firstborn of Yehudah was evil in the eyes of God, and God killed him … And the thing that he (Onan, the second son of Yehudah) did displeased God, and he killed him as well … And after some time had passed, Bat Shua the wife of Yehudah died … (Bereshit 38:7,10,12)

The death of Er left his wife Tamar childless. Under the laws of levirate marriage (יבום), Onan should have built a family with Tamar in the name of his older brother. When he failed to do so, he was killed by God as well. Yehudah told Tamar to wait for his third son Shelah to grow up so that he could perform the levirate marriage. Subsequently, Yehudah failed to marry Shelah to Tamar even though she had waited for him. During that time, Yehudah’s wife also died.

Similarly, three tragedies befell the house of Naomi, the mother-in-law of Ruth:

ושם האיש אלימלך ושם אשתו נעמי ושם שני בניו מחלון וכליון … וימת אלימלך איש נעמי ותשאר היא ושני בניה. וישאו להם נשים מואביות שם האחת ערפה ושם השנית רות. וימתו גם שניהם מחלון וכליון… (רות א:ב- ה).

And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Machlon and Kilyon…. And Elimelech the husband of Naomi died, and she was left with her two sons. And they took wives for themselves from the women of Moav, the name of one was Orpa, and the name of the other was Ruth … And Machlon and Kilyon both died … (Ruth 1: 2-5)

There are many similarities between the two stories. In both instances, a family is shattered by the deaths of a parent and two children. In each, a surviving spouse is left childless, yet the closest surviving relative (in our case - Shelah, and in the book of Ruth – “Hago’el”) does not ensure the continuation of the family through the levirate marriage[1]. Nevertheless, in both cases, the main character eventually effects the rehabilitation of the family.

The Righteousness of Ruth and Tamar

Both stories also involve the appearance of a foreign woman who casts her lot with the family. Ruth and Tamar are similar in their dedication to the restoration of the shattered and grieving families to which they have connected themselves. Yet, there is a significant difference between the stories of these two personalities as well. In the Book of Ruth, Ruth’s positive intentions are clear from the outset:

אל תפגעי בי לעזבך לשוב מאחריך כי אל אשר תלכי אלך ובאשר תליני אלין עמך עמי ואלהיך אלהי''(רות א:טז).

And Ruth said: Do not implore me to leave you or to return from following you. For wherever you go, I shall go; and where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.” (Ruth 1:16)

The righteousness of Ruth is recognized by all. She is praised by Boaz (Ruth 2:11-12; 3:1) and by the women of Beit Lechem (Ruth 4:11-12,15). In contrast, the character and intentions of Tamar are unclear. She appears as a harlot, worthy of death. Nevertheless, there is a consensus among the commentators regarding the purity of Tamar’s intentions. They portray her as a woman determined to attach herself to the nation of her husband and its God, in spite of the personal tribulations that she is subjected to by individuals from that nation. For example:

בנו יעקב: מה שתמר מהרהרת בלבה את זה מבטאה רות בפנייתה המפורשת לנעמי )רות א:טז) ''עמך עמי ואלהיך אלהי '' . שם התפקיד מתפצל בין השתיים, התכנון לנעמי והביצוע לרות , ואילו כאן , הכל מוטל על תמר.

רמב"ן: אז מיהרה תמר ברוב תאוותה להוליד מזרע הקודש.

Benno Jacob: What Tamar thinks in her heart, Ruth expresses in her request to Naomi: “Your people shall be my people, and your God shall be my God.” There, the task is divided between the two – the planning to Naomi and the implementation to Ruth. Here, everything falls upon Tamar.

Ramban: Then Tamar hastened with great passion to give birth to the holy offspring. (Bereshit 38:11)

But how do the commentators know that Tamar was positively motivated? Although there is no explicit proof in the text, there are a number of hints that enable the commentators to infer Tamar’s righteousness. For example:

1) The text implies the importance of Tamar by referring to her by her first name, in contrast to Yehudah’s wife who is only referred to as Bat Shua – “the daughter of Shua”.[2]

2) Tamar was concerned about Yehuda’s honor, according to the following commentary of Rashi and other commentators, as evidenced by the fact that she endangered her own life in order to not directly embarrass him.

הוא מוצאת, והיא שלחה אל חמיה לאמר: לאיש אשר אלה לו אנכי הרה (בראשית לח:כה).

רש''י: הוא מוצאת - להישרף. והיא שלחה אל חמיה -לא רצתה להלבין פניו ולומר ממך אני מעוברת , אלא לאיש אשר אלה לו. אמרה: אם יודה מעצמו- יודה , ואם לאו - ישרפוני, ואל אלבין פניו. מכאן אמרו: נוח לו לאדם שיפילוהו לכבשן האש ולא ילבין פני חברו ברבים.

When she was brought out, she sent to her father-in-law saying: ‘By the man to whom these belong I am pregnant….’ (Bereshit 38:25)

Rashi: When she was brought out - to be burned. She sent to her father-in-law - She did not want to embarrass him by saying: “I am pregnant from you”. Rather, she said: “By the man to whom these belong”. She said to herself: “If he will admit it, he will admit it, and if not, let them burn me so that I not embarrass him.” From here they said: “It is better for a person to be cast into a fiery furnace than that he should publicly embarrass his friend.”

Rabbeinu Hannanel (quoted in Tosfot Ketubot 67a) reads the word מוצאת(“she was brought out) as מוצת(“she was burned”) as in “ויצת אש בציון” (“and fire burned in Zion” – Eichah 4:11). As such, he depicts an even more dramatic situation in which Tamar refrains from revealing Yehudah’s indiscretion even as she is on the verge of self sacrifice.

Yehudah’s Inner Struggle

Nevertheless, according to the Midrash, Yehudah hesitated:

ותאמר: הכר נא, למי החותמת המטה והפתילים האלה? (בראשית לח:כה) ''והיא שלחה אל חמיה לאמור…'' ביקש לכפור. אמרה לו : הכר נא את בוראך - שלך ושל בוראך הן! (ב''ר פ''ה יא).

…and she said: ‘Recognize these, I pray thee – whose signet, cord and staff are these?’ (Bereshit 38:25)

And she sent to her father-in-law saying: He wished to deny it. She said to him: “Recognize your Maker – they belong to you and your Creator.

(Bereshit Rabbah 5:11)

According to this midrash, Tamar’s use of the term “הכר נא” (“recognize, I pray thee”) was designed not only to get Yehudah to recognize the articles that she had sent, but to encourage him to engage in serious introspection.

The idea that Yehudah hesitated in his response is supported by the structure of the verse in two ways:

והיא שלחה אל חמיה לאמר: לאיש אשר אלה לו אנכי הרה

ותאמר: הכר נא למי החתמת והפתילים והמטה האלה?

ויכר יהודה

ויאמר: צדקה ממני.

And she sent to her father-in-law saying: ‘By the man to whom these belong I am pregnant….

And she said: ‘Recognize these, I pray thee – whose signet, cord and staff are these?

And Yehudah recognized them,

And he said: “She is more righteous than me.”

1) When Tamar sent the items to Yehudah for identification, she addressed him with a question. We would have expected that the next line would be Yehudah’s response. As the word ותאמר(“and she said”) indicates, however, it is Tamar who speaks again. Apparently, Yehudah failed to respond, and Tamar, therefore, pressed her challenge to him.

2) The insertion of the phrase “ויכר יהודה” (“and Yehudah recognized”) before Yehudah’s response indicates that here too he hesitated before admitting his guilt, unlike David who immediately recognized his guilt when confronted by Natan with the evidence of his sin against Uriah and Bat Sheva. David immediately said: “I have sinned to God” (“ויאמר דוד אל נתן חטאתי לה'” – Shmuel II 12:13).

Thus, Tamar, in a refined and subtle manner, brought Yehudah to the point that he could publicly admit his indiscretion that almost brought his daughter-in-law and their future child to death by fire. But Tamar inadvertently did more than that. Unknowingly, through her use of the term “הכר נא” (“recognize, I pray thee), she encouraged Yehudah to examine his role in the sale of his brother and the deception perpetrated against his father, also with the words “הכר נא”:

וישלחו את כתונת הפסים ויביאו אל אביהם ויאמרו זאת מצאנו הכר נא הכתונתבנך הוא אם לא. (בראשית לז:לב)

And they sent the coat of many colors and brought it to their father, and said: “This we have found. Recognize, I pray thee if it is the coat of your son or not.” (Bereshit 37:32)

This allusion to his past also awakened in Yehudah the ability to confront and deal with a dark part of his personal history. The results of this introspection are evident when Yehudah takes personal responsibility for the safety of his youngest brother, Binyamin, in the face of Yosef’s demands (see Bereshit 43:9, 44:32-34).

Yehudah’s Declaration

Yehudah’s confession is expressed in the terse phrase “צדקה ממני”. This phrase is interpreted in its plain sense by Rashbam and Ramban:

רשב''ם: צדקה ממני -יותר ממני , שאני ציוויתיה לשבת בית אביה עד שיגדל שלה . היא השלימה תנאי שציוויתיה , אך אבל אני לא השלמתי לה תנאי שהתניתי לה, כי לא נתתיה לשלה בני.

רמב''ן : צדקה ממני -… צדקה במעשיה יותר ממני , כי היא הצדקת ואני החוטא שלא נתתיה לשלה בני.

Rashbam: More than me (she was more righteous than me), for I commanded her to wait in the house of her father until Shelah would grow up. She fulfilled the condition of my command, but I did not fulfill my condition to her, for I did not give her to Shelah my son.

Ramban: Her acts were more righteous than mine, for she was correct and I sinned in that I did not give her to Shelah my son.

Rashi, however, interprets the phrase differently:

רש"י: צדקה: בדבריה. ממני: היא מעוברת

Rashi: She was righteous: in her words, from me: she is pregnant.

Rashi changes the meaning of the verse by changing the word “ממני” from an object into a subject. As such, Yehudah’s statement expresses both the righteousness of Tamar and his responsibility for the pregnancy. The Midrash also provide an alternative interpretation to the word “ממני”:

יצתה בת קול ואמרה: ממני יצאו הדברים כבושים (סוטה י ב).

A heavenly voice went out and said: “From me the things have emerged.” (Sotah 10b)

By breaking the phrase into two parts with God as the second speaker, the Midrash adds the element of divine providence to the events that unfold. As the Midrash in Bereshit Rabbah 85:1 states:

ויהודה היה עסוק ליקח לו אשה – והקב"ה היה עוסק בורא של משיח.

Yehudah was busy marrying a wife – and God was busy creating the light of Mashiach.

This spark of redemption was ignited when Yehudah confronted his distant past, his more recent past, and his embarrassing present condition before the observers who had come to witness the death of his righteous daughter-in-law. This was a public sanctification of God’s name. In relation to this incident, R. Shimon Chasida stated:

ואמר רבי שמעון חסידא: יהודה שקידש שם שמים בפרהסיא זכה ונקרא כולו על שמו של הקב''ה.(סוטה י, ב).

Yehudah, who sanctified the name of heaven in public, merited to be called completely by the name of God (that all four letters of God’s name appear in the name of Yehudah). (Sotah 10b)

Of course, Yehudah received his name at birth, but after this event the four letters of God’s name shone forth from his name.

The End of the Story

Yehudah’s immediate reward is the restoration of his family. In place of Bat Shua, Er, and Onan, come Tamar, Peretz, and Zerach. The story then comes to an abrupt end. Its completion is found in the book of Ruth, where Ruth and Boaz, the descendant of Peretz, rehabilitate the family of Elimelech with the birth of Oved, the grandfather of David. The people who witnessed the marriage of Boaz and Ruth proclaimed:

יתן ה' את האשה הבאה אל ביתך כרחל וכלאה אשר בנו שתיהם אדת בית ישראל ועשה חיל באפרתה וקרא שם בבית לחם. ויהי ביתך כבית פרץ אשר ילדה תמר ליהודה מן הזרע אשר יתן ה' לך מן הנערה הזאת. (רות ד:יא- יב).

May the Lord make the woman who has come into your house like Rachel and Leah, who both built the House of Israel, and be prosperous in Efrata and famous in Beit Lechem. And may your house be like the house of Peretz, whom Tamar bore to Yehudah, of the seed which the Lord will give you with this young woman.” (Ruth 4:11-12)

With this declaration, Tamar joined the ranks of the mothers of the nation and the ancestors of the kings of Israel.

[1] Shelah was the actual “yavam” of Tamar, while the “go’el” was simply the closest relative, followed by Bo’az. Nevertheless, Boaz implies that the “go’el” should have married Ruth after the death of her husband.

[2] The Tanach uses this form of the name in a degrading fashion. For example, Sara refers to Yishmael as “ben ha’ama” (the son of the maidservant – Bereshit 21:10), and Shaul refers in his anger to David as “ben Yishai (the son of Yishai – Shmuel I 20:27).