Avodah Mailing List

Volume 41: Number 3

Mon, 09 Jan 2023

• 1. Re: Tamar Not Embarrassing Yehudah (Zvi Lampel)
• 2. Subjectivity-from the OU (Joel Rich)
• 3. Re: Tamar Not Embarrassing Yehuda (Zvi Lampel)
• 4. Mama Leah (Akiva Miller)

I'm changing the Subject Line back to the original one (vs. ''Yehuda
Tamar'') to make it easier to follow the discussion.

Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2023 11:56:52 +1100
> From: "Rabbi Meir G. Rabi" <meir...@gmail.com>
>
>
> Probably this is not a case of the Beis DIn [as per the Maharam Shif, thank
> you Rabbi Lampel] but of the court of public opinion - there would be
> insufficient evidence to prove Y is the father but enough dirt to cause
> character assassination, probably lifelong.


I think it's evident from the mefarshim and Chazal that the people involved
with the serayfa and informed of the apparent situation calling for it were
not tongue-wagging spectators off the streets, but members of a responsible
court of law. Tamar's accusation would not be public knowledge.

And perhaps the main issue was
> his deceiving T and holding her hostage - is there any suggestion in Chazal
> that he was wrong on this count or is there no need to say the obvious?
> Therefore, the reference from the Abarbenel, thank you Rabbi Lampel, seems
> a little jarring - even if he feared she was the cause of the death of his
> first two sons, was it right to hold T hostage and deceive her?
>

I think this is clearly implicit in the pesukim, to which the Abarbanel
referred. Yehuda kept his third son from performing yibum with Tamar
because his first two sons died after doing so. He failed to realize the
fault was with his sons. When he saw she became pregnant from him and he
was still alive, he realized "Tzadka mimeni," she was more correct than I
was.

>
> It seems that sometimes [often] people only realise and reach their
> potential when put to the test, when put under pressure ...
> Perhaps we might consider that Y also failed to recognise and realise his
> greatness until ...he declared Tzadka MiMeni.
>

I think that this is clearly the case.

Perhaps we might consider that Y also failed to recognise and realise his
> greatness until T set him up and he declared Tzadka MiMeni.


That that was her plan? To elevate him?

>
> As for T relying on his integrity to save her life - that is prohibited in
> Halacha. Not only for her to herself but also for her to place Y in such a
> terrible position - Lifney Iveir.
>

This is another difficult issue. I referred to it previously and provided a
link to an audio discussing it.

>
> Which also seems to fit into Chazals understanding that she LOST the
> passport and drivers licence - because she fully intended to submit them to
> Y and was certain that he would either marry her himself or to Sheilo


But as you go on to say (and said  previously) " she could have, SHOULD
have,
conveyed that message to him even without the passport - she certainly knew
enough detail to convince him that her story was true. "


> or
> send her away with a chaperone to either return with husband or with an
> adopted baby or not return at all.
>

I'm not following that last piece....

>
> When she lost them she had no option - could not escape as a lone
> unprotected woman, so she just awaited her fate recognising that the lost
> passport was Min HaShamayim - as was her falling pregnant, even though she
> engineered the setup.
>

Yes, but again this is disregarding the idea that "she could
have...conveyed that message to him even without the passport - she
certainly knew
enough detail to convince him that her story was true. "

Perhaps we can say that knowing the details without the evidence would not
convince Yehuda. He may think she got that information (but not the
evidence) through hearing it from that kedaysha, and appropriated it to
make a claim that would keep Yehuda having intimacy with her for real.

>
> As to Rabbi Lampels query - what is the intent within T words, Haker Ess
> BoraAcha VeAl Tisbayeish MiBasar VeDam perhaps the meaning is don not just
> DO the right thing, BE PROUD of doing the right thing - be proud when
> serving HKBH particularly when it is difficult.
>

Nice.

>
> Halachah actually requires [yes yes, I know some opinions disagree - but I
> do not get it, why in all other matters do we pursue every possible
> opinion, certainly the major ones, but in matters such as these we take the
> easy escape route??] that one PUBLICLY declare their transgressions that
> are interpersonal, especially when the injury was of a public nature - the
> purpose is not to shame but to ELEVATE. You are a human, humans sin; but
> only angelic Gd fearing people have the perspective that allows them to
> realise that when they publicly admit they are sanctifying HKBHs
> reputation.
>

Yes. But are you saying that that was Tamar's concern, rather than just
saving her life?

>
> Rabbi Lampel, can you please explain your comment - had T told Y BEFORE she
> was noticeably pregnant, that would have destroyed their relationship - why
> was it different when she made the revelation, privately, AFTER it was
> common knowledge. If anything he would have MORE DISTRESSED that she did
> NOT disclose it earlier when he would have had a chance to remain
> anonymous.
>
> Unless, he would NOT BELIEVE that she was pregnant.


Yes, that's what I meant. He would not believe her and think that she was
willing to kill him to try once again to have child.

But in that case he
> could at least send her away with a chaperone or go away with her and
> Sheilo for an extended period.
>

That would not accomplish her goal.

>
> Furthermore, and indeed the essence of our Q - she could have, SHOULD have,
> conveyed that message to him even without the passport - she certainly knew
> enough detail to convince him that her story was true. She was NOT
> DELIBERATELY trying to publicly out T, as she handed over the evidence to
> Y. So what was her plan?
>

Answered above.

>
> Also, Rabbi Lampel, please explain because I dont follow your train of
> thought, why you write near the end of your post, that - had Y chosen to
> cover up his failure to marry T either to Sheilah or himself, would strip
> Tamar of her dignity and life, but it would leave his own public image
> unscathed. Apparently, that Yetzer Hara to not admit to his mistakes and
> failure was very, very, strong.
>

If he would cover up his failure, due to his misjudgement about his first
two sons, he would be considered lily white and she would be executed as
sinner. It had to be a very strong yetzer hara to maintain an image of
being correct even if that meant causing someone to be unjustly executed.

Thank you, Rabbi Rabi, for continuing this fascinating discussion!

Zvi Lampel

>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230105/9d9dde87/attachment-0001.htm>

*Q. I am a finicky person. Many things that I find repulsive are innocuous
for most people. Is the halacha of bal teshaktzu established by the
reaction of most people or is it applied individually for each person
according to their sensitivities?*

A. The Shach (YD 66:15) discusses eating non-fertilized eggs that had been
incubated by a chicken for three days. These eggs are no longer fresh, and
some people won?t eat them because they are stale and have an off taste.
The Shach writes that one who is not disgusted may eat them. However, one
who is finicky and is repulsed by the thought of eating old eggs may not
consume them because of *bal teshaktzu*.

Similarly, the Chochmas Adam )58:10) discusses a case of a mouse that fell
into a large pot of soup and was removed. From a *kashrus* perspective, it
is permissible to eat the soup if the ratio of soup to the mouse exceeds
sixty to one. However, if one is disgusted by the thought of eating soup
that was cooked with a mouse, eating the soup would be a violation of *bal
teshaktzu*.

*Thus, from both sources, it is clear that bal teshaktzu is relative to
each individual.*


*ME-*Any overarching insights into when we look at the individual (as here)
and when we say batla daato (we ignore his individual circumstances) and go
by your average Yossi?
KT
Joel Rich
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230106/d43fe791/attachment-0001.htm>

Meiri on Sotah 10b describes this saying as being said derech ha'a'ra, and
on Berachos 43b as being said derech tsachos.

He also gives the description of derech tsachos to three other statements
in Brachos, 10b, 55a, and 63b. Still another statement, on Brachos 55a, he
describes as being said derech ha'a'ra' .

Zvi Lampel


>
> From: "Jay F. Shachter" <j...@m5.chicago.il.us>
>> >> We are told that Tamar risked execution rather than publicly
>> >> embarrassing Yehuda.
>>
>> > Can we please stop taking these rhetorical statements literally?
>> >  no one is obliged to risk execution rather than publicly embarrass
>> > someone.
>>
>> https://www.yutorah.org/lectures/lecture.cfm/1052125/rabbi-daniel-z-feldman/parshat-vayeishev-fourth-aliyah-timeless-lessons-of-yehudah-and-tamar/
>>
>> See above link. I am also bothered by this, but as Rabbi Feldman points
>> out, rishonim and acharonim somehow eschew taking the statement
>> merely bderech guzma. Sorry.
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230107/9b202501/attachment-0001.htm>

Yaakov Avinu knew he would be dying soon, so he spoke to all of his sons,
telling them to bury him in the Machpela. He explained: (Bereshis 49:31)

"That's where they buried Avraham and Sarah, his wife.
"That's where they buried Yitzchak and Rivka, his wife.
"And that's where I buried Leah."

From the structure of this pasuk, it seems to me that Yaakov deliberately
avoided saying "Leah, my wife."

Can it be so? It makes me want to cry for Mama Leah. Even in death, Yaakov
couldn't bring himself to refer to her as his wife?

I asked several friends. One suggested that since Yaakov was speaking to
all 12 sons together, he did not want to cause any bad feelings towards
those who were from other mothers. At first that sounded reasonable, but if
so, Yaakov could have left out the word "his wife" altogether. Imagine if
he had said "That's where they buried Avraham and Sarah. That's where they
buried Yitzchak and Rivka. And that's where I buried Leah." It would have
been quite clear, and would have shown no favoritism of any kind.

But no. Instead, Yaakov deliberately chose to describe Sarah as Avraham's
wife, and Rivka as Yitzchak's wife, and to leave Leah undescribed.

Any ideas?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20230107/6cf49358/attachment-0001.htm>

------------------------------



_______________________________________________
Avodah mailing list
Avo...@lists.aishdas.org
http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah
http://lists.aishdas.org/listinfo.cgi/avodah-aishdas.org


------------------------------


*************************************

Send Avodah mailing list submissions to
	avodah@lists.aishdas.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
	http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodahareivim-membership-agreement/


You can reach the person managing the list at
	avodah-owner@lists.aishdas.org


When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Avodah digest..."

A list of common acronyms is available at
        http://www.aishdas.org/lists/avodah/avodah-acronyms
(They are also visible in the web archive copy of each digest.)