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.

Rav Mesharshiyya raises an objection to the statement of Rabbi Yonatan from a baraita: Our Sages relied on the statement of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel and on the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, who would say: One does not issue a decree upon the congregation unless the majority of the congregation is able to withstand it.

(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.”

(8) Another matter: “The son of an Israelite woman…went out” – that is what is written: “I again saw all the oppressed” (Ecclesiastes 4:1). Daniel the tailor interpreted the verse regarding mamzerim. “Behold the tears of the oppressed” (Ecclesiastes 4:1) – the parents of these performed transgressions, and these miserable ones, why is it their concern? So, the father of this one consorted with a forbidden woman; what did this one do, and why is it his concern? “But there is no comforter for them” (Ecclesiastes 4:1).
“And power from the hand of their oppressors” (Ecclesiastes 4:1) – from the hand of the Great Sanhedrin of Israel that comes upon them by the authority of the Torah and distances them, because of: “A mamzer shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord” (Deuteronomy 23:3). “But there is no comforter for them” (Ecclesiastes 4:1) – the Holy One blessed be He says: It is incumbent upon Me to comfort them, as in this world they are tainted, but in the future, Zechariah said: I see it and it is all pure gold.

Over time, even a sage who is mentioned only once in the Talmud is granted the authority to disagree with the words of the prophets. The very fact that his name is engraved in the national pantheon—the Talmud—serves as proof. The juxtaposition that Bialik creates between the words of Ezekiel and those of Daniel the Tailor makes it possible to interpret their teachings together. We find that Daniel the Tailor embraces the moral principle articulated by Ezekiel and adapts it to his own era, arguing that mamzerim are also held accountable for the sins of their parents. “The tears of the oppressed,” he insists, will ultimately prevail over those who perpetuate injustice—the representatives of strict preservation of biblical law in its literal form: the Great Sanhedrin.

Bein HaShitin on Halakhah and Aggadah

Commentary

Composed: (c.2006 – c.2010 CE)