Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Torah

A DAUGHTER OF A CERTAIN CANAANITE. [In translating “Canaanite,” Onkelos said “merchant.” That is to say, a merchantman who came to dwell in the land of Canaan for business reasons. His intent is to say that Jacob’s sons guarded themselves from marrying Canaanitish women, as Isaac and Abraham, their fathers, had commanded. And thus did the Sages mention in the Gemara of Tractate Pesachim. They took as wives women from Egypt, Ammon, Moab, and from the noble families of the children of Ishmael and the sons of Keturah. It is for this reason that Scripture singles out Shaul, the son of Simeon, as the son of a Canaanitish woman, as he was the only one among them. And even there the Rabbis expounded that the reference is to Dinah who had relations with a Canaanite [Shechem]. Our Rabbis, however, have differed in this matter. Thus they have said:, 84:19. “Rabbi Yehudah says, ‘Twin sisters were born with each of Jacob’s sons, and they took them as wives.’ Rabbi Nechemyah says, ‘Their wives were Canaanitish women.’” It is possible that Rabbi Nechemyah was not particular about [ the term “Canaanitish” and did not mean it to indicate] their genealogy. He meant to say only that they took women from the land of Canaan as wives. However, they were from among the strangers and the sojourners who had come there from all lands, either Ammonite or Moabite women, and other peoples. His purpose was only to differ with Rabbi Yehudah and say that they did not marry their sisters, since a maternal sister is forbidden to the sons of Noah. But according to Rabbi Yehudah it will be necessary to say that the sons of Leah married the twin sisters of the six other brothers, (sons of Noah). Consequently they could marry a paternal sister but not a maternal sister. See Sanhedrin 58 a; Rambam, Hilchoth Melachim 9:5. and they in turn wed the twin sisters of the sons of Leah. It may be that Rabbi Nechemyah does not at all admit the existence of these twins, with Jacob not having any daughter other than Dinah, as the literal interpretation of Scripture would indicate. It is not logically correct to say that they all married Canaanitish women since there would then have been descendants of Canaan, the accursed servant, among those who inherited the land, just as there were representatives of the seed of Abraham, and Scripture has commanded that he be destroyed until neither remnant nor survivor remain. In any case, this man [the Canaanite referred to here] was a merchant, for why should Scripture find it necessary to state that he was a Canaanite by descent when all people of the land were Canaanites, of the Perizzites and Jebusites and their brothers, as all of these traced their genealogy to Canaan? Adullam, [from where this man came] furthermore, was in the land of Canaan. It would then have been proper for the verse to say: “And Judah took there a wife with such-and-such a name,” just as it mentions the names of the women in the case of Tamar, and Esau’s wives, and others. But the true explanation is that he was a merchant, not of the land of Canaan, which belonged to the Hivite or the Amorite. This then is the meaning of the verse: And Judah saw there a daughter of a certain Canaanite, implying that he married her on account of her father., meaning that he saw a man there who was not of the regular community. The word “Canaanite” must therefore mean merchant, for they were all Canaanites, and if “Canaanite” were to refer to his genealogy it would not be significant enough to be mentioned. And concerning the verse which states, The sons of Judah: Er, and Onan, and Shelah; which three were born unto him of Bath-shua the Canaanitess, this is due to the fact that being the daughter of the man called “the Canaanite,” she was also so called, since this man was called “the merchant” by them as he was known for, and expert in, his trade, on account of which he settled there. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra says that because this woman was a Canaanitess, and Judah had transgressed the opinion of his fathers, her children were evil and they died. And this is why concerning Shaul, Scripture mentions only that he was the son of a Canaanitish woman, but with respect to Shelah the son of Judah it was not necessary for Scripture to mention it [when enumerating the descendants of Jacob who entered Egypt]. If so, the expression, And Judah saw there a daughter, would mean that he saw her and desired her, even as it says of Samson, And he saw a woman in Timnah. And in the Parshah of Vayechi Yaakov, Rashi wrote: “And his sons bore him, but not his sons’ sons. For thus indeed did Jacob command them; ‘My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons since they are children of Canaanitish women.’” It may be that, according to Rashi, Jacob said this of Shaul the son of Simeon, and Shelah the son of Judah, who were of the daughters of Canaan, and therefore Jacob excluded all the other [grandsons although their mothers were not Canaanitish]. However, in all of our texts of Bereshith Rabbah we find this version: “My bier shall not be borne by any of your sons’ sons, as there is among them of the daughters of Canaan.” (46:10).” Thus it is clear from this Midrash that only Shaul was born of a Canaanitish woman, but not Shelah the son of Judah. Tamar likewise was the daughter of one of the strangers living in the land, not the daughter of a man who was a Canaanite by descent. Far be it that our lord David and the Messiah our just one, who will speedily reveal himself to us, be of the seed of Canaan, the accursed servant. Our Rabbis have also said concerning Tamar that she was the daughter of Shem, of whom it is said, And he was a priest of the most high G-d.

AND HE CALLED HIS NAME ER. Judah called his son Er, said name being derived from the expression, Stir up (‘Or’rah’) Thy might. His wife called the name of the second son Onan, but Scripture does not relate the reason for this name. Now it is possible that she experienced difficult labor, for it is customary for women to name their children after such an experience, as did the mother of Jabez who so named him, saying: Because I bore him with pain. (pain). And so did Atarah, the mother of Onam,, 2:26. [call him by the name Onam on account of her difficult labor], the name being derived from the expression, And the people were ‘k’mithon’nim’ (as murmurers); Wherefore doth a living man ‘yithonen’ (complain)? This is similar in expression to ben oni (the son of my sorrow) mentioned in the case of Rachel. Judah was not particular about changing Onan’s name as his father Jacob had done. In Bereshith Rabbah our Rabbis said, by way of explaining the name Er, that he was destined to be thrown off (she’hu’ar) from the world. Now this is not to say that such was Judah’s intent. However, the Rabbis made their exposition since the names indicate the future.

AND SHE CALLED HIS NAME SHELAH, AND HE [Judah] WAS AT CHEZIB, WHEN SHE BORE HIM. Rashi wrote: “I am of the opinion that because it was there that she ceased bearing children, the place was called Chezib (deceit). It is similar in expression to the verse, Wilt thou indeed be unto me as a deceitful (‘achzav’) brook. If this be not so, what is the verse teaching us by mentioning that Judah was in Chezib?” Now I do not know why a place should be named for that reason, [i.e., because there she ceased bearing children], there being nothing outstanding in such an event as three sons were sufficient for her. Moreover, at the time she gave birth to the third son it was not yet known whether she had ceased bearing or would give birth afterwards. Only at the time of her demise did it become established [that she had ceased bearing with the third son]. Now some scholars say that it was their custom for the father to name the firstborn, and the mother the second one. It is for this reason that Scripture states concerning the first son, And he called his name, and concerning the second one, And she called. Now concerning the third son, [the naming of whom was the father’s prerogative, Scripture nevertheless] says, And she called, explaining that this was because Judah was in Chezib when she gave birth to him, and he was not there to name him. This interpretation lacks rhyme or reason. In the opinion of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra Scripture relates where they were born; the statement, when she bore ‘him,’ is as if it had said ‘them,’ as all three sons were born in one place. In my opinion, the name Shelah is an expression meaning a thing which stops and deceives. Thus, do not ‘thashleh’ (deceive) me, which the Targum there renders as, “Let not your word deceive your handmaid.” Perhaps it is related to the concept of error, for he who commits an error deceives his thinking. Thus Scripture is saying that she called him Shelah, [a word which is traceable to the root of the Hebrew word meaning ‘error,’] because of the name of the place, as he was in Chezib — [a word which means ‘deceive’] — when she bore him. And [the word v’hayah (and he was), although it should really be saying, v’haytha, (and she was), is identical with the expression ‘V’hayah hana’arah’ (And the damsel shall be). in the feminine, except that the word v’haya does not refer to na’arah but to the event itself and is therefore to be understood as: “And it shall come to pass that the damsel, etc.” Here, likewise, it is to be so understood. This is the intent of the saying of the Rabbis in Bereshith Rabbah: “Paskath was the name of the place.”

AND ER, JUDAH’s FIRSTBORN, WAS WICKED IN THE SIGHT OF THE ETERNAL. Scripture does not specify the nature of his wickedness as it did in the case of his brother. Instead, it simply states that he died for his own sin. It informs us that this was not by way of punishment of Judah for his role in the sale of Joseph, since the saving of Joseph’s life by Judah compensated for his role in the sale. There was no case of death of a child in the house of the patriarchs except this one who was wicked in the sight of the Eternal, since the race of the righteous is blessed. This is why Jacob mourned many days for his son Joseph, and he refused to comfort himself, for he considered this to be a great punishment to himself, quite apart from his love for him.

AND MARRY HER AS BROTHER-IN-LAW, AND RAISE SEED TO THY BROTHER. The son will be called by the name of the deceased. This is Rashi’s language. But this is not true, for in the same commandment of the Torah it likewise says, And it shall be, that the firstborn that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel, and yet the brother-in-law is not commanded to call his son by the name of his dead brother. In the case of Boaz it says, Moreover Ruth the Moabitess, the wife of Machlon, have I acquired to be my wife, to raise up the name of the dead upon his inheritance, that the name of the dead be not cut off from among his brethren, and from the gate of his place, and yet she called him Obed,, Verse 21. not Machlon. Moreover, it says here, And Onan knew that the seed would not be his. Now what misfortune would have befallen him — to the point that he wasted his seed from before her — if his son was to be called by the name of his dead brother? Most people even desire to do so. Again, Scripture does not say, “And Onan said,” but instead it says, And Onan ‘knew’ that the seed would not be his. This would indicate that Onan had some definite kind of knowledge in this matter which made him certain that the seed would not be his. The subject is indeed one of the great secrets of the Torah, concerning human reproduction, and it is evident to those observers who have eyes to see, and ears to hear. The ancient wise men who were prior to the Torah knew of the great benefit in marrying a childless dead brother’s wife, and that it was proper for the brother to take precedence in the matter, and upon his failure to do so, his next of kin would come after him, for any kinsman who was related to him, who would inherit his legacy, would derive a benefit from such a marriage. And it was customary for the dead man’s wife to be wed by the brother or father or the next of kin in the family. We do not know whether this was an ancient custom preceding Judah’s era. In Bereshith Rabbah they say that Judah was the one who inaugurated the commandment of marrying a childless person’s widow, for since he had received the secret from his ancestors he was quick to fulfill it. Now when the Torah came and prohibited marrying former wives of certain relatives, it was the will of the Holy One, blessed be He, to abrogate the prohibition against marrying a brother’s wife in case he dies childless, but it was not His will that the prohibition against marrying a father’s brother’s wife or a son’s wife or similar wives of relatives be set aside. It was only in the case of a brother that the custom had established itself, and the benefit is likely with him and not with the others, as I have mentioned. Now it was considered a matter of great cruelty when a brother did not want to marry his dead brother’s wife, and they would call it the house of him that had his shoe loosed, for [after his dead brother’s wife had performed Chalitzah (the loosening of the shoe) of the brother-in-law], he was now removed from them, and it is fitting that this commandment be fulfilled through the loosening of the shoe. Now the ancient wise men of Israel, having knowledge of this important matter, established it as a custom to be practised among all those inheriting the legacy, providing there is no prohibition against the marriage, and they called it Ge’ulah (Redemption). This was the matter concerning Boaz, and the meaning of the words of Naomi and the women neighbors. (Ruth 4:17), meaning that she was thereby given back the son Machlon whom she had lost. This explains why the women did not say, “There is a son born to Ruth or Boaz.” The man of insight will understand.

ABIDE A WIDOW AT THY FATHER’s HOUSE. The meaning thereof is that “you should conduct yourself there as a widow until Shelah be grown up.” He suggested to her: “Place yourself in mourning, put on mourning garments, do not anoint yourself with oil, as a woman girded with sack-cloth for the bridegroom of her youth, until Shelah be grown up and he will marry you.” Such was the custom of a widow waiting to be married: she who desires to be married to a stranger wears mourning garments only for a short period as is the custom, and then feigning comfort arrays herself in scarlet. And she covered herself with a veil,, as an indication that she was no longer mourning. See Ramban further, Verse 16. until she be married to a man. FOR HE SAID, LEST HE ALSO DIE, LIKE HIS BRETHREN. That is to say, he dismissed her with a paltry reply because he never intended to give her to him in marriage. For he said, Lest he also die, like his brethren, for she has established herself as one whose husbands die young. This is Rashi’s Language. Now I do not know why Judah, a ruler of his generation, should be shy towards this woman and not tell her, “Go in peace from my house,” and why should he mislead her when she is even forbidden to Shelah, just as the Rabbis have said concerning a married woman: “Twice establishes a presumption [that the woman is a katlanith — a woman whose husbands die].” However since Judah was angered by her harlotry to the extent of condemning her to be burned, it would appear that he originally did wish her to remain in his family. It is also unreasonable to say that Judah did not hear about how his children sinned against G-d, thus causing Him to deliver them into the hands of their fate, while Tamar was guiltless in their death. The correct view appears to me to be that Shelah was fit for the marriage, but his father did not want him to marry Tamar while he was still a youth, lest he commit some sin with her as had his brothers who died young, for they were boys, none of them having attained twelve years of age. His intention was that when he would mature and would listen to the instruction of his father, he would then give her to him as a wife. But when she had waited a long time and it appeared to her that Shelah had grown up — although in the eyes of his father he was still a boy as he was not yet ten years old and therefore his father was bent on waiting longer — then Tamar, in her craving to give birth from the sacred race, hastened and did this deed.

AND JUDAH, WENT UP UNTO HIS SHEEP-SHEARERS. He would go there continually to console himself after his wife’s death so that he may turn his attention to the sheep and forget his poverty. Now when it was told to Tamar that he goes up there daily without fail, she waited for him on one of those days. It may be that since Judah was prominent in the land, people would assemble there to make a feast at the time of the shearing, similar to a royal feast, and the poor would go there, and it was told to her before he went up there.

AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE A HARLOT. This was because she was sitting at the cross-roads. For she had covered her face, and he could not see her. A Midrash of our Rabbis explains: For she had covered her face, i.e., that when she stayed in Judah’s house, she had acted modestly, always covering her face, and therefore he did not suspect her. This is Rashi’s language. Now the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s]. literal interpretation is feasible since it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads, just as it is written, And she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, to call to them that pass by, etc. Accordingly, the verse states that because her face was veiled he did not recognize her. But according to the Midrasn of our Rabbis which states that she covered her face in her father-in-law’s house, meaning that she hid herself from him while being in his house and that he never saw her face, how would he recognize her even if she were not veiled? It further appears to me to be correct, in line with the literal sense of Scripture, that the verse is stating that he thought her to be a harlot because her face was veiled, since afterwards it states, For he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law. The reason for the covering of the face is that it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads wrapped up in a veil, with part of the face and hair uncovered, gesticulating with the eyes and lips, and baring the front of the throat and neck. Now since she would speak to the by-passer in an impudent manner, catching him and kissing him, she therefore veiled part of the face. Furthermore, harlots sitting by the roadside veil their faces because they commit harlotry even with relatives. Sodomites still do it to this day in our countries, and when they return to the city they remain anonymous. Thus we have learned in a Mishnah: “There are three kinds of head-nets: that of a girl, which is susceptible to midras or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. uncleanness; that of an old woman, which is susceptible to the uncleanness of a corpse, while that of a yotza’ath chutz, [literally, ‘she who goes outside’], is not susceptible to any uncleanness.” Now a yotzath chutz refers to the harlot, the nafkat bro of Onkelos (she who goes outside)., who places the head-net on part of the head. It does not serve her the purpose of lying on it, for in that case it would be susceptible to midras-uncleanness. or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. Nor does she cover her head with it, for in that case it would be susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. Instead, she uses it to dress up the ends of her hair, in order that it be partly visible from beneath the net, and this is why it is not susceptible to any uncleanness.

THY SIGNET ‘UP’THILECHA.’ Onkelos renders it as “thy signet and thy cloak,” meaning “the ring which you use as a seal, and the cloak with which you cover yourself.” This is Rashi’s language. But it is not correct to say that he would give his cloak, and go away from her unclothed. And how is it that a cloak is called p’thil in the Hebrew language? And how can it be referred to later on as p’thilim, in the plural? Now should you say that on account of its fringed strings (p’thilim), the garment was called p’thil, far be it that Judah should fulfill the Commandment of Tzitzith (Fringes), yet treat it so lightly as to give it away in unchastity! Perhaps, he had with him a small scarf which he occasionally wound around part of the head, and which was called p’thil because it was short as a p’thil (fringe), and it is this which the Targum [Onkelos] rendered as shashifa, [which Rashi incorrectly took to mean “a cloak”]. Now you will not find that Onkelos will translate simlah (a garment) as shashifa wherever it is found in the Torah. Instead, he translates it throughout by a term denoting “cover” or “garment,” excepting the verse, And they shall spread the ‘simlah’ (garment), concerning which he says, “And they shall spread the shashifa,” because this is the sudar referred to in the Talmud.” See also Ramban to Deuteronomy 22:17. through which virginity is established. So did Jonathan ben Uziel translate hama’ataphoth (the mantlets) as shashifa, these being small scarfs which they wound around the head, and distinguished persons spread them over their bonnets and headbands. This custom still prevails in eastern countries. It is further possible that Judah possessed a seal impressed with the form of a lion or some other known figure, as rulers do, and he also had fringes in his hand, woven in the same design, with which to stroll about, as well as a rod in his hand, as becomes a ruler or lord, even as it is written, A strong rod, to be a sceptre to rule, and it is further written, The sceptre shall not depart from Judah. It was these that he gave into Tamar’s hand.

AND JUDAH SAID: BRING HER FORTH, AND LET HER BE BURNT! Ephraim Makshoah,); (b) he was a scholar famous for his great ability in debate (kasheh). See Commentaries to Bereshith Rabbah 84:11. a disciple of Rabbi Meir, said in the name of Rabbi Meir: “Tamar was the daughter of Shem who was a priest. They therefore sentenced her to be burnt.” Rashi quoted this Midrash but did not explain it. And I do not know this law, for a priest’s daughter is not liable to be burned except for harlotry in conjunction with a binding relation to a husband, either espoused or married, as is explained in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin. However, a priest’s daughter who is waiting to be married by a brother-in-law is not at all liable to death for harlotry. Whether she is an Israelite’s daughter or a priest’s daughter, her punishment is only that of having violated a simple negative precept. And should you say that marrying a childless brother’s wife was customary among the Sons of Noah, and that she was regarded by them as having the status of a married woman, and that their prohibitions were punishable by death, it would not be correct. The Rabbis say in Bereshith Rabbah that Judah was the one who first inaugurated the observance of the commandment that a brother marry a childless brother’s widow. And again, in the Gemara in Tractate Sanhedrin, it is made clear that a childless brother’s widow of the Sons of Noah is not at all liable to any punishment for harlotry. It appears to me that since Judah was a chief, an officer, and a ruler of the land, his daughter-in-law who committed harlotry against him was not judged by the same law as other people, but as one who degraded royalty. It is for this reason that it is written, And Judah said: Bring her forth, and let her be burnt, for the people came before him to do unto her in accordance with his command, and he declared her guilty of a capital crime because of the superior rank of royalty. Thus he judged her as if she had profaned her father in respect of his priesthood, but this was not the judgment meted out to commoners. In line with the literal interpretation of Scripture, it is possible that their law was similar to that which is presently customary in some of the countries of Spain, i.e., that a married woman who commits a faithless act is turned over to her husband who decrees death or life for her, as he wishes. Now Tamar was designated for his son Shelah, and in the eyes of their laws she was considered as a married woman.

SHE IS RIGHTEOUS FROM ME. “She is righteous in her words. From me is she with child. Our Rabbis expounded that a bath kol (a Divine voice) came forth and said the word mimeni, i.e., ‘From Me and from My authority did these events unfold.’” This is Rashi’s language. The correct interpretation is that it is similar to the verses: Men more righteous and better than he; And he [Saul] said to David, Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rendered unto me good, whereas I have rendered unto thee evil. Here too the meaning is: “She is more righteous than I, for she acted righteously and I am the one who sinned against her by not giving her my son Shelah.” The purport of the statement is that Shelah was the brother-in-law, [hence he was the first designated to marry her], and if he did not wish to take her as his wife, his father is next in line to act as the redeemer, as I have explained above when I discussed the law of marrying a childless brother’s widow. AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE (‘v’lo yasaph’). After having established progeny for his children, he did not wish to be with her again even though this was dependent upon his wish as she was not forbidden to him, being, in fact, considered as his wife, as is the law when the widow of a childless man has relations with a relative. This is the reason for the explanation given by a certain Sage, who explains the verse as saying, “And he did not cease to know her,” since here the expression used is, v’lo yasaph, and elsewhere it is written, A great voice ‘v’lo yasaph’. [with a kamatz], meaning “and it did not cease,” or “it did not diminish in strength,” unlike the human voice which decreases and eventually stops completely. Here also the identical expression, v’lo yasaph [with a patach], means “and he did not cease.”

HOW HAST THOU BURST FORTH? THIS BURSTING UPON THYSELF (‘PARATZTA ALECHA’). “What a strong effort you have made!” thus the language of Rashi. But the word paretz, wherever used, signifies the breaching of a fence and passing through, just as: I will break down (‘p’rotz’) the fence thereof; Why hast Thou broken down (‘paratzta’) her fences? And in the language of the Rabbis: “Pirtzah (a breach in a wall) calleth forth to the thief.” Indeed, the Sacred Language uses the term p’rotz when referring to anything that oversteps its boundary: And thou shalt break forth (‘upharatzta’) to the west, and to the east; And the man broke forth (‘vayiphrotz’) exceedingly., 30:43. Here referring to an unusual increase in wealth. It is thus clear that the word p’rotz is used to refer to anything which breaks forth from its normal boundary. It is for this reason that the verse here is saying, at the time that the first child drew back his hand, and this one hurriedly came out, “What great breach hast thou made in the fence in order to hurry out before him?” The verse says, alecha (upon thee), to indicate that ‘the fence’ was upon him, and he was imprisoned in it. The sense of the verse is thus: “What great breach did you take upon yourself to make in the fence, with the result that you came out of it?” Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said in explanation of the verse: “Mah paratzta? What have you broken, in the manner of a man who makes a breach in a fence and exits through it, and now the responsibility for this breach is upon you.” There is no point to this interpretation. In the Midrash of Rabbi Nechunya ben Hakaneh. there is mentioned a mystic principle in connection with the name of these children, Peretz and Zerach. Thus they said: “He was called Zerach (shining) on account of the sun which always shines, and Peretz (breaking) on account of the moon which is sometimes dismantled and sometimes whole. Now was not Peretz the firstborn, and yet the sun is greater than the moon? This presents no difficulty, for it does indeed say, And he [Zerach] put out his hand, and it is further written, And afterwards came out his brother.”, thus indicating the importance of his having put out his hand first. Now according to their opinion, the moon is associated with the name Peretz on account of the kingdom of the House of David. Peretz and Zerach were born twins since the moon functions by means of the sun. Thus Peretz is the twin of Zerach who gives forth the hand, while he is the firstborn by virtue of the power of the Supreme One, as is said, I also appoint him first-born. This is the purport of the saying of the Sages with respect to the Sanctification of the Moon: “David King of Israel lives and exists.” The man learned [in the mystic teachings of the Cabala] will understand.