More Righteous Than I: What Tamar Teaches About LGBTQ+ Belonging

(24) About three months later, Judah was told, “Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot; in fact, she is pregnant from harlotry.” “Bring her out,” said Judah. “She should be burned!” (25) As she was being brought out, she sent this message to her father-in-law, “It’s by the man to whom these belong that I’m pregnant.” And she added, “Examine these: whose seal and cord and staff are these?” (26) Judah recognized them, and said, “She is more in the right than I, inasmuch as I did not give her to my son Shelah.” And he was not intimate with her again.

Judah said: “She is more righteous than I [mimmenni].” The word “mimmenni” can also be understood as “from me,” with Judah thereby admitting that he is the father. The Gemara asks: From where did he know that it was in fact from him that Tamar was pregnant? The Gemara answers: A Divine Voice went forth and said: From Me these hidden matters emerged, and this woman will be the mother of royalty, which requires that Judah be the father. The same verse continues: “And he knew her [leda’atah] again no more [velo yasaf],” seemingly indicating that Judah did not engage in sexual intercourse with Tamar again. Shmuel the Elder, father-in-law of Rav Shmuel bar Ami, says in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Ami: The verse actually means that once he knew of her that her intentions were for the sake of Heaven, he did not desist from engaging in sexual intercourse with her again, as it is written here: “Velo yasaf od leda’atah,” and it is written there at the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke unto all your assembly in the mount out of the midst of the fire, of the cloud, and of the thick darkness, with a great voice and it went on no more [velo yasaf]” (Deuteronomy 5:18), which is interpreted to mean: A great voice that did not cease.

(5) When brothers dwell together and one of them dies and leaves no offspring, the wife of the deceased shall not become that of another party, outside the family. Her husband’s brother shall unite with her: he shall take her as his wife and perform the levir’s duty. (6) The first child that she bears shall be accounted to the dead brother, that his name may not be blotted out in Israel. (7) But if that party does not want to take his brother’s widow [to wife], his brother’s widow shall appear before the elders in the gate and declare, “My husband’s brother refuses to establish a name in Israel for his brother; he will not perform the duty of a levir.” (8) The elders of his town shall then summon him and talk to him. If he insists, saying, “I do not want to take her,” (9) his brother’s widow shall go up to him in the presence of the elders, pull the sandal off his foot, spit in his face, and make this declaration: Thus shall be done to the man who will not build up his brother’s house! (10) And he shall go in Israel by the name of “the family of the unsandaled one.”

(16) Do not uncover the nakedness of your brother’s wife; it is the nakedness of your brother.

(3) I declare, “Your steadfast love is confirmed forever;
there in the heavens You establish Your faithfulness.”

“Did you warn him?” From where warning? Rebbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rebbi Jonathan: A man who would take his sister …, it is ḥesed. Rebbi Bun said, Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister. It is charitable, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; I said, the world was to be built on ḥesed.

It is written, the genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover, and it is written, if a man take a woman and her mother, it is taboo. Everywhere is written lying with, but here is written taking, to teach you that he cannot be [criminally] liable for the second woman unless she be taken by him. Or maybe he is [criminally] liable only by marriage? We already said that there is no valid incestuous marriage. But is it not written: Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner? This comes to tell that she was permitted to him before his father married her. But is it not written: If a man take his brother’s wife? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is understood by levirate. But is it not written: You should not take a woman in addition to her sister? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is understood after her sister’s death. But is it not written: A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, it is ḥesed? That you should not say that Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister, it is charitable, I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; I said, the world was built on ḥesed. But is it not written: Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her, the betrothal is valid.

(18) God ה׳ said, “It is not good for the Human to be alone; I will make a fitting counterpart for him.”

“I returned and saw all the oppressions that are performed under the sun; and behold the tears of the oppressed, and they have no one to comfort them; and their oppressors possess power, but they have no one to comfort them” (Ecclesiastes 4:1).

Daniel the tailor interpreted the verse regarding mamzerim. These [the oppressed] are the mamzerim themselves, and who is it [who oppresses him]? It is the one who engaged in relations with a woman who is forbidden to him and begot him. What sin did this one [the mamzer] commit, and what is his connection to it? Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi said: Even the mamzer enters the World to Come, as it is written: “And behold the tears of the oppressed...” The Holy One blessed be He says: In this world they are unfit [to enter the community], but regarding the future, Zechariah said: I have seen it and they are pure gold, as it is stated: “And behold a candelabrum entirely of gold…and there are two olives upon it [with its bowl [gulah] at its top]” (Zechariah 4:2). Two amora’im [explain the latter phrase of the verse]; one says: Its exile [gola] and one says its Redeemer [go’ala]. The one who says gola, it is the exile in Babylon and the exile of the Divine Presence with them. The one who says go’ala, it is redemption, as it is written: “Our Redeemer, the Lord of hosts is His name” (Isaiah 47:4), and it is written: “The one who breaks out will go up before them…[with the Lord at their head]” (Micah 2:13).