Ruth & Tamar: Repairing a world that has fallen apart. (Copy without Psukim for Printing)

They are all episodes in the history of a single family. Lot is the father of Moab and thus the ancestor of Ruth, whilst Judah is the father of Perez and thus the ancestor of Boaz… We have here the story of a single clan (that of Abraham and his nephew Lot) which separates (Gen. 13:11) at an early stage and is then reunited in the persons of Ruth and Boaz.

~Harold Fisch, “Ruth and the Structure of Covenant History”

Royal Propaganda in the Story of Yehuda and Tamar, by Dr. Brachi Elitzur

...[I]n contrast to the midrashic treatment of other biblical stories, in which we find a balance between teachings that criticize the actions of the characters involved and others that seek to justify or mitigate them, in the Talmudic teachings about Yehuda and Tamar originating in Eretz Yisrael, there is a manifest effort to rebut a number of teachings that are critical, while at the same time taking pains to justify each and every step taken by the characters – even those which appear to be depicted in a negative light in the text. These teachings present the entire process as a Divine plan which they carried out...

The idea of the chain of events in this unit as a realization of a Divine prophecy is developed further by R. Shmuel bar Nachman in another teaching in which he explains the necessity of this story for the realization of the Divine vision. In his view, the stories detailing the sale and its attendant circumstances create the conditions for realization of the prophecies of subjugation and redemption, while the story of Yehuda and Tamar lays the groundwork for the eternal redemption:

R. Shmuel bar Nachman offered the following interpretation: “For I know the thoughts that I think concerning you, says the Lord; thoughts of peace and not of evil, to give you a future and a hope” (Yirmiyahu 29:11): The brothers were busy with the sale of Yosef, and Yaakov was busy with his sackcloth and fasting, and Yehuda was busy taking a wife, and the Holy One, blessed be He, was creating the light of the King Mashiach: “And it was at that time…” [This represents the realization of the verse,] “Before she suffered birth-pangs, she already gave birth” (Yeshayahu 66:7) – before the later enslaver of the people [Pharoah] was born, the redeemer had already appeared: “And it was at that time…" (Bereishit Rabba 85:1-2, pp. 1030-1031)

Sefer Bereishit, as commentators and scholars have pointed out, chronicles the history of the chosen individuals.[9] The narratives here offer positive or negative descriptions of the chronicles of the chosen ones, the tremendous potential of humanity as a whole, and its fulfillment or failure depending on its actions... The stories about Yosef cover the final part of the history of the chosen individuals of Sefer Bereishit. The choice as to the family nucleus where the “Divine aspect” will be focused has already been made,[10] but the choice of leadership dynasty has yet to be decided. The stories of Yosef deal with the struggle among the brothers over the leadership...

There are two potential leaders. The first is Reuven, who – as the firstborn – would seem to be the natural heir, but the episode concerning Bilha places his candidacy in question. The second is Yehuda, who is next in line once Shimon and Levi lose their chances at this sought-after position following their massacre of the men of Shekhem. The words and actions of Reuven and Yehuda are the only indications of this competition that are documented in the years in between the sale of Yosef and Yaakov's declaration as to the identity of the head of the royal dynasty – while in the background, without the brothers' knowledge, there also lurks Yosef's candidacy.[11] A comparison between Yehuda and Reuven demonstrates Yehuda's superior persuasive powers (his idea of selling Yosef supersedes Reuven's suggestions and his attempt to save him), his taking responsibility for misdeeds ("God has found the transgression of your servants," as opposed to, "Did I not tell you…"), and his better insight ("I shall be his surety," as opposed to, "Slay my two sons"). But the episode of Yehuda and Tamar, sitting in the midst of the story of the sale, threatens to tip the scale back in favor of the other two candidates. Does Yehuda's faulty conduct in this crisis not balance out his finer qualities and advantages, such that his chances for leadership are damaged? Yaakov's decision, articulated in his blessing to Yehuda, becomes a firm fact with the anointing of David and the promise of the eternal dynasty...

What remains, then, is for Chazal to explain the ultimate choice of Yehuda and to prove that Yehuda, "who was elevated through her,” fulfilled through his actions the Divine plan of creating the light of Mashiach. The story of Yehuda and Tamar is the decisive moment in which Yehuda is chosen as the sole candidate worthy of leadership from among Yaakov's twelve sons.

R. Elazar said: … Why did the Holy One, blessed be He, award the crown to Yehuda? After all, he was not the only mighty one among the brothers – for were Shimon and Levi, and the others, not mighty warriors? But he made a true judgment concerning Tamar, and was therefore made the judge for the entire world… How so? Yitzchak and Yaakov sat there, along with all his brothers, and they were covering for him, but Yehuda acknowledged the facts and stated the matter as it truly was, saying, “She has been more righteous than I” – and the Holy One, blessed be He, made him ruler." (Shemot Rabba 30:19)

... The exegetical explanation offered above raises the obvious question of why it is specifically the Sages of Eretz Yisrael during the Talmudic period who are such stanch defenders of Yehuda. From various Talmudic testimonies it appears that in the early Talmudic period, the status of the office of Nasi was weakened. This resulted from the difficulty of adjusting to the absence of R. Yehuda ha-Nasi, who had displayed exemplary leadership, and the unfulfilled expectations that the leadership of his son and grandson (R. Yehuda Nesia) would continue to combine tremendous Torah knowledge with extensive and fruitful contacts with the Roman authorities... The Nasi was regarded as being a descendant of the house of David.[13]It seems that during this period, there developed amongst the opposition to the Nasi a tendency to undermine the importance of Davidic lineage as a decisive parameter in the choice of leadership through demonstration of its deficiencies as documented in Tanakh. The mushrooming of defensive midrashim surrounding the story of Yehuda and Tamar (and in teachings about Ruth and about David) in the rabbinic literature originating in Eretz Yisrael during the early Talmudic period would therefore seem to be a response on the part of the supporters of the leadership to the attempts at deposing descendants of Davidic lineage from the seat of the Nasi by claiming that the dynasty itself was flawed. The story of Yehuda and Tamar proves that specifically in a clouded reality, in which the candidate's abilities are uncertain, we see the budding of the eternal royal dynasty in accordance with the Divine choice:

“And Yehuda saw there” – There is one who engaged in forbidden sexual relations and prospered, while another engaged in forbidden sexual relations and was lost… The one who was lost was Zimri, while the one who prospered was Yehuda, from whom there emerged Peretz and Chetzron, who would ultimately produce David and the King Mashiach, who is destined to redeem Israel. See how many twists and turns the Holy One, blessed be He, had to bring about for the King Mashiach – he of whom it is said, “And the spirit of God shall rest upon him” (Yeshayahu 11:2) - to be born of Yehuda. (Tanchuma [2], Vayeshev 13)

Rabbinic Readings of Ruth, Jonatha Magonet, European Judaism 40:2, 2007

There is one further theme that was of concern to the rabbis, which once again reverts back to Ruth's status as a Moabitess. How could the ancestress of King David, and indeed of the longed for Messiah, have come from such a background? The problem is compounded, as explicitly noted in the Book of Ruth itself, by the equally scandalous background of Boaz as a descendant of the illicit relationship between Judah and Tamar. Indeed the story of both women, Ruth and Tamar, outsiders who take action to ensure the continuity of the family line, invites comparison. A number of Midrashim reflect on David's struggle to be accepted as king because of this background, especially Ruth's Moabite status. Finally, however, because God elevated him to kingship, this

past was now overcome. This is illustrated in a rabbinic reading of Psalm116: 16,'You have loosed my bands'.

David said to God: You have loosed the bands that constrict me on account of Tamar, of whom it is written, 'You shall not uncover the nakedness of your daughter-in-law (Lev. 18:15). You have also loosed the bands that constrict me on account of Ruth the Moabitess (Midrash Psalms 116:19)/

In my own reading of the Book of Ruth, the author is similarly concerned with correcting both of these previous incestuous events: Lot and his daughters and Judah and Tamar. The past cannot be removed, but it can be repaired when the descendants of those events re-enact them, but behave this time in an exemplary fashion. Hence the encounter on the threshing floor where nothing

untoward actually happens; only after marriage is it explicitly stated that intercourse took place leading to an immediate pregnancy. Thus the family tree at the end of the Book leading to David, expresses a longing for a future messianic redemption.

This reading of the Book finds its echo in certain rabbinic teachings that became even more developed in the mystical tradition. Commending on a phrase in Job, “Who can withdraw purity from impurity, not one? (Job 14:3): a Midrash explains:

Abraham came from Terah, Hezekiah from Ahaz, Josiah from Amon, Mordechai from Shimei, Israel from idolaters, the world to come from this world. Who could to this? Who could command this? Who could decree this? No one [but God] the unique One of the world! (Bamidbar Rabbah 19:1).

The Sins of Biblical Figures, Part 4 of 4, by Rav Amnon Bazak

[T]he Tanakh teaches us that even great people make mistakes, succumb to temptation, or commit transgressions; and that the way to deal with sin is through genuine repentance, which may always be accepted. However, we do not start out with this important educational message and then seek support for it in the text; rather, we learn the text and deduce this message from it. Chazal's teaching that "If someone is greater than his fellow, then his evil inclination is likewise greater" (Sukka 52a) is no empty statement. This message is a central one both in the midrashim and in the approach of the commentators over the generations. Biblical characters are complex, and it is difficult to find a single one of them who is described and depicted in a purely positive manner throughout. It is no coincidence that Chazal name only four individuals who died without sin – all four of them playing only a very minor role in the narratives of the Tanakh.

Rav Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, one of the greatest commentators in recent generations, expressed this view most eloquently:

"The Torah never presents our great men as being perfect… The Torah never hides from us the faults, errors and weaknesses of our great men. Just by that it gives the stamp of veracity to what it relates. But in truth, by the knowledge which is given us of their faults and weaknesses, our great men are in no wise made lesser but actually greater and more instructive. If they stood before us as the purest models of perfection we should attribute them as having a different nature, which has been denied to us… It may never be our task to whitewash the spiritual and moral heroes of our past, to appear as apologists for them. Truth is the seal of our Torah, and truthfulness is the principle of all its true and great commentators and teachers." (Commentary on Bereishit 12:10-13)