[Avodah] Tamar Not Embarrassing Yehuda

[Zvi Lampel]

From: Chaim Dovid Kaufman <cbkaufman at gmail.com>
> ...Why wouldn't Yehudah need to give a reason for halting
> the din?

Perhaps, as the judge who gave the original pesak without explanation (as
far as we can tell from the pesukim), he could simply say that upon further
investigation he discovered that the original pesak was incorrect. (Let the
people think Tamar was forced, for example.)

> [It seems that regarding Onein] the issur of zera l'vatala is
> what...bothers
> everyone. [But the pesukim indicate it was an issue of a] brother's
> selfishness....
> I think the Malbim treats this issue.

===================

From: "Rabbi Meir G. Rabi" <meirabi at gmail.com>
> Rabbi Lampel makes very interesting observations, thank you.

Thanks, Rabbi Rabi.

> When Y said, She is more righteous than I, who was he speaking to? HKBH?
> Himself?

I think it could be either, or to the sheluchim who brought the evidence
and Tamar's message, or to the accusers or Beis Din.

> It also remains to be explained why Tamar did not submit her evidence to
> Yehudah i.e. render herself completely defenseless, not AFTER it became
> public knowledge that she was with child, but after 2 or 3 weeks when she
> alone would have known?

Midrash Rabbah and Targumin say that the Satan made her lose the evidence
and she only found it now at the last minute. If the loss was before her
pregnancy showed (vs when she was brought out to be burnt), that would
explain it.

> Had she done so she would have given Y the opp to marry her himself or to
> Sheilo [or send her away to return later with a husband and child, or not]
> and completely sidestep any humiliating public awareness of her
> 'indiscretion' and Y's activities.

Yes, she would have been able to tell Yehuda he
accomplished the yibum, word would get out, and all would be fine.
Note: I tried to be ambiguous about what Yehuda's embarrassment would be
over: the indiscretion, or the failure to act on his promise to Tamar, or
the failureto perform the yibum himself.

> Does the Halacha permit putting oneself in danger - meaning constructing a
> situation in which one is prepared to lose their life in order to prevent
> humiliating another?

Rabbi Daniel Z. Feldman presents an informative shiur on this issue,
calling the idea ''shocking." Start at the 26:30 mark.

https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/1052125/rabbi-daniel-z-feldman/parshat-vayeishev-fourth-aliyah-timeless-lessons-of-yehudah-and-tamar/

He cites a number of mekoros that deal with this issue, and at 29:44 states
that many deal with this question and many end with a tsarich iyun.

> It seems her actions are not criticised by Chazal, as a lack of trust in
> HKBH. Why not?

Indeed, she is praised for the hishtadlus in bringing about the progenitors
of Mashiach. Deception in order to accomplish major holy ends is a theme
throughout Tanach.

> Same as to our praising Yael for her selfless actions - why is that not
> seen as a lack of Bitachon?

> Did Y act correctly in deceiving T by suggesting she will marry Sheilo
> sometime in the future?
> Is that not OnoAt Devarim? is it not a violation of Midvar Shekker
> TirChack?

I think all agree that he acted improperly. That is what he was embarrassed
about, and is praised for confessing.

===================

From: "Jay F. Shachter" <jay at m5.chicago.il.us>
>> We are told that Tamar risked execution rather than publicly
>> embarrassing Yehuda.

> Can we please stop taking these rhetorical statements literally?
>  no one is obliged to risk execution rather than publicly embarrass
> someone.

See above link. I am also bothered by this, but as Rabbi Feldman points
out, rishonim and acharonim somehow eschew taking the statement
merely bderech guzma. Sorry.

> You are not even allowed to risk execution rather than
publicly embarrass someone (there are minority opinions that disagree).
> 
Yes, not obligated nor even allowed. Sigh.

> And Bney Noax -- remember, we are talking about Bney Noax here -- are
> not even obliged to martyr themselves to avoid committing idolatry, or
> gilluy `arayoth.

This depends upon whether there is an obligation on Bnei Noach to be
mekadesh Hashem, an issue raised by the Gemara (Sanhedrin 94b), whose girsa
and conclusion is a machlokes rishonim (Rashi, yes; Tosafos and Rambam no).

https://daf-yomi.com/DYItemDetails.aspx?itemId=5973

> (Also, as has been mentioned before on this mailing list, I think the
> pshat of the psuqim is that Tamar was about to be branded, not burnt
> alive.)

 HaKesav V'Haballah writes that this is the meaning, citing the Baal
HaTurim who cites it in the name of R. Yehuda HaChasid. And he writes that
the Rosh notes that this was the Arab practice with zonos to his day.
Malbim (curiously not on the posuk of tisaref, but on the previous posuk of
Tamar covering her face) notes this as well, but curiously only in the name
of his contemporary, Avraham Ashkenazy.

Perhaps these mefarshim take the Chazal as well to mean that we learn from
Tamar that it is better to allow oneself to be branded (throw oneself to
the fiery furnace treatment ) rather than publicly embarrass another. And
this may well be meant literally. But alas, the other rishonim, acharonim
and poskim commentators take the potential burning of Tamar to be referring
to execution, which indeed raises technical problems, for which they do not
offer the solution that the statement was meant rhetorically,
hyperbolically, or in any way not literally.

Zvi Lampel