Monday, March 19th | 3 Nisan 5778


Be in the know!

Get our exclusive daily news briefing.

December 10, 2014 3:37 pm

The Heroism of Tamar

avatar by Jonathan Sacks

Email a copy of "The Heroism of Tamar" to a friend

A Torah scroll. Photo: Wikimedia Commons.

This is a true story that took place in the 1970s. Rabbi Dr Nahum Rabinovitch, then Principal of Jews College, the rabbinic training seminary in London where I was a student and teacher, was approached by an organization that had been given an unusual opportunity to engage in interfaith dialogue. A group of African bishops wanted to understand more about Judaism. Would the Principal be willing to send his senior students to engage in such a dialogue, in a chateau in Switzerland?

To my surprise, he agreed. He told me that he was sceptical about Jewish-Christian dialogue in general because he believed that over the centuries the Church had been infected by an anti-Semitism that was very difficult to overcome. At that time, though, he felt that African Christians were different. They loved Tanakh and its stories. They were at least in principle open to understanding Judaism on its own terms. He did not add, though I knew it was in his mind since he was one of the world’s greatest experts on Maimonides, that the great twelfth century sage held an unusual attitude to dialogue.

Maimonides believed that Islam was a genuinely monotheistic faith while Christianity in those days was not. Nonetheless, he held it was permitted to study Tanakh with Christians but not Muslims, since Christians believed that Tanakh (what they called the Old Testament), was the word of God while Muslims believed that Jews had falsified the text.

So we went. It was an unusual group: the semikhah class of Jews College, together with the top class of the yeshiva in Montreux where the late Rabbi Yechiel Weinberg, author of Seridei Esh and one of the world’s foremost halakhists, had taught. For three days the Jewish group davenned and bentsched with special intensity. We learned Gemarra each day. For the rest of the time we had an unusual, even transformative, encounter with the African bishops, ending with a Hassidic-style tisch during which we shared with the Africans our songs and stories and they taught us theirs. At three in the morning we finished by dancing together. We knew we were different, we knew that there were deep divides between our respective faiths, but we had become friends. Perhaps that is all we should seek. Friends don’t have to agree in order to stay friends. And friendships can sometimes help heal the world.

On the morning after our arrival, however, an event occurred that left a deep impression on me. The sponsoring body, a global Jewish organization, was a secular one, and to keep within their frame of reference the group had to include at least one non-orthodox Jew, a woman studying for the rabbinate. We, the semikhah and yeshiva students, were davenning the morning service in one of the lounges in the chateau when the Reform woman entered, wearing tallit and tefillin, and sat herself down in the middle of the group.

This is something the students had not encountered before. What were they to do? There was no mechitzah. There was no way of separating themselves. How should they react to a woman wearing tallit and tefillin and praying in the midst of a group of men? They ran up to the Rav in a state of great agitation and asked what they should do. Without a moment’s hesitation he quoted to them the saying of the sages: A person should be willing to throw himself into a furnace of fire rather than shame another person in public. With that he ordered them back to their seats, and the prayers continued.

The moral of that moment never left me. The Rav, for the past 32 years head of the yeshiva in Maaleh Adumim, was and is one of the great halakhists of our time. He knew immediately how serious were the issues at stake: men and women praying together without a mechitzah between them, and the complex question about whether women may or may not wear a tallit and tefillin. The issue was anything but simple.

But he knew also that halakhah is a systematic way of turning the great ethical and spiritual truths into a tapestry of deeds, and that one must never lose the larger vision in an exclusive focus on the details. Had the students insisted that the woman pray elsewhere they would have put her to shame, the way Eli did when he saw Hannah praying and thought she was drunk. Never, ever shame someone in public. That was the transcending imperative of the hour. That is the mark of a great-souled man. To have been his student for more than a decade I count as one of the great privileges of my life.

The reason I tell this story here is that it is one of the powerful and unexpected lessons of our parsha. Judah, the brother who proposed selling Joseph into slavery (Gen. 37: 26), had “gone down” to Canaan where he married a local Canaanite woman. The phrase “gone down” was rightly taken by the sages as full of meaning. Just as Joseph had been brought down to Egypt (Gen. 39: 1) so Judah had been morally and spiritually brought down. Here was one of Jacob’s sons, doing what the patriarchs insisted on not doing: marrying into the local population. It is a tale of sad decline.

He marries his firstborn son, Er, to a local woman, Tamar. An obscure verse tells us that he sinned, and died. Judah then married his second son, Onan, to her, under a pre-Mosaic form of levirate marriage whereby a brother is bound to marry his sister-in-law if she has been widowed without children. Onan, reluctant to father a child that would be regarded as not his but his deceased brother’s, practised a form of coitus interruptusthat to this day carries his name. For this, he too died. Having lost two of his sons Judah was reluctant to give his third, Shelah, to Tamar in marriage. The result was that she was left as a “living widow,” bound to marry her brother-in-law whom Judah was withholding, but unable to marry anyone else.

After many years, seeing that her father-in-law (by this time a widower himself) was reluctant to marry her to Shelah, she decided on an audacious course of action. She removed her widow’s clothes, covered herself with a veil, and positioned herself at a point where Judah was likely to see her on his way to the sheep-shearing. Judah saw her, took her to be a prostitute, and engaged her services. As surety for the payment he had promised her, she insisted that he leave his seal, cord and staff. Judah duly returned the next day with the payment, but the woman was nowhere to be seen. He asked the locals the whereabouts of the temple prostitute (the text at this point uses the wordkedeshah, “cult prostitute,” rather than zonah, thus deepening Judah’s offence), but no one had seen such a person in the locality. Puzzled, Judah returned home.

Three months later he heard that Tamar was pregnant. He leapt to the only conclusion he could draw, namely that she had had a physical relationship with another man while bound in law to his son Shelah. She had committed adultery, for which the punishment was death. Tamar was brought out to face her sentence. She came, holding the staff and seal that Judah instantly recognised as his own. She said, “I am pregnant by the person to whom these objects belong.” Judah realised what had happened and said, “She is more righteous than I” (Gen. 38: 26).

This moment is a turning-point in history. Judah is the first person in the Torah explicitly to admit he was wrong. We do not realise it yet, but this seems to be the moment at which he acquired the depth of character necessary for him to become the first real baal teshuvah. We see this years later, when he – the man who proposed selling Joseph as a slave – becomes the man who is willing to spend the rest of his life in slavery so that his brother Benjamin can go free (Gen. 44: 33). I have argued elsewhere that it is from here that we learn the principle that a penitent stands higher than even a perfectly righteous individual. Judah the penitent becomes the ancestor of Israel’s kings while Joseph, the righteous, is only a viceroy, mishneh le-melekh, second to the king.

Thus far Judah. But the real hero of the story was Tamar. She had taken an immense risk by becoming pregnant. Indeed she was almost killed for it. She had done so for a noble reason: to ensure that the name of her late husband was perpetuated. But she took no less care to avoid Judah being put to shame. Only he and she knew what had happened. Judah could acknowledge his error without loss of face. It was from this episode that the sages derived the rule articulated by Rabbi Rabinovitch that morning in Switzerland: Rather risk being thrown into a fiery furnace than shame someone else in public.

It is thus no coincidence that Tamar, a heroic non-Jewish woman, became the ancestor of David, Israel’s greatest king. There are striking similarities between Tamar and the other heroic woman in David’s ancestry, the Moabite woman we know as Ruth.

There is an ancient Jewish custom on Shabbat and festivals to cover the challot ormatzah while holding the glass of wine over which Kiddush is being made. The reason is so as not to put the challah to shame while it is being, as it were, passed over in favour of the wine. There are some very religious Jews, sadly, who will go to great lengths to avoid shaming an inanimate loaf of bread but have no compunction in putting their fellow Jews to shame if they regard them as less religious than they are. That is what happens when we remember the halakhah but forget the underlying moral principle behind it.

Never put anyone to shame. That is what Tamar taught Judah and what a great rabbi of our time taught those who were privileged to be his students.

Share this Story: Share On Facebook Share On Twitter Email This Article

Let your voice be heard!

Join the Algemeiner

    Yoel Nitzarim:
    I am not connected with Chabad in any way, although “some of my [best] friends are Chabad”. First, as far Halacha is concerned, the blessings of a Cohen who is not observant is as good as the blessings of ANY Cohen – the exeptions are: a Cohen who has killed a person, a Cohen who is married to a divorcee, a drunken person [OC 128,40]. thus the person who said that “because I was considered unworthy of channeling such prayers not having been successful financially in life” was wrong. I don’t know why anyone would say such a thing. It IS customary in many Chassidic – and other – synagogues that one does not do Birkat Cohanim on Simchat Torah, because it is a presumption that ALL are drunk. Perhaps the person who gave the silly explanation was drunk himself.

  • Joy D. Brower

    Not being familiar with these stories, homilies and cautionary tales, I found the entire discussion – including the comments! – to be wonderfully informative, sensible and sensitive! The basic rule is how to show respect for one’s fellow man – and, in particular, one’s fellow (or sister) Jew. Just basic common sense with a fine example of how to live by the Golden Rule!

  • Yoel Nitzarim

    What a spectacular story and commentary, Rabbi! Having personally been the recipient of emotional homicide at the time during which I was to perform my duties as a kohen on Simhat-Torah, I can comprehend the gravity of the lesson first-hand. Half of the congregation in this Chabad synagogue had left the sanctuary before I engaged in the blessings because I was considered unworthy of channeling such prayers not having been successful financially in life, even though I was an English instructor at a local community college. It was and continues to be the most painful endeavour I have ever undertaken to this very day.

    • bucky

      I do not know of any Chabad synagogue nor any self respecting person that would engage in this behavior. Nor any minhag that the Cohen has to be financially successful. Now, if by chance you were not shomrei Torah u Mitzvos at the time, I can see some may have a problem with you duchening, but as far as your financial state, I am incredulous as to whether that was the reason.

      This being Simchas Torah, it is most likely that half the congregation was out drinking heavily, as Chabad is wont to do, and it had nothing to do with you or your perceptions.

      • Milhouse

        1. On simchat torah duchening is in shacharit rather than musaf, when the drinking has not yet begun.

        2. There is no requirement that a cohen be observant in order to duchen. The only disqualifying conditions are that he is married to someone whom a cohen may not marry (living with her is OK, so long as they’re not married), or that he has killed someone.

        3. The most likely explanation is that the story is a fabrication. Just because someone claims something happened doesn’t make it true. If by some chance something like this did happen, then the most likely explanation is either that he is not a cohen, or that he is under a cherem for something he has done.

    • Chabadnik

      Oy Dear Holy Jew!
      The custom amongst Chabad Chassidim, and I believe many other chassidic sects is to abstain from Birkat Kohanim on Simchat Torah, as it is Forbidden for a Kohen to Bless while drunk, and as alcoholic embibement is customary on Simchat Torah, the Minhag has become to abstain entirely from Birkat Kohanim on Simchat Torah – I imagine that those fellows that left the synagogue actually intended to NOT embarrass you by educating you in this public forum of their customs, they preferred just to leave.

  • Harold Krongelb

    The Rav’s answer is brilliant. It is most unfortunate that more Jews do not follow this basic principle. Jews have enough enemies out there. There is no need to shame fellow Jews.