ויאמר צדקה ממני. לא כמדת הקדוש ברוך הוא מדת בשר ודם אדם בא לפני הדיין אם הוא מודה בפשעו הורגו אבל הקב"ה ומודה ועוזב ירוחם. ומיד שראה ראובן שיהודה הודה עמד הוא והודה על בלבול יצועי אביו. וזה שאמר אליפז לאיוב אשר חכמים יגידו ולא כחדו מאבותם אלו יהודה וראובן ולפיכך להם לבדם נתנה הארץ ולא עבר זר בתוכם. וזהו כשברכם משה רבינו ע"ה שאין הפסקה ביניהם שנא' יחי ראובן ואל ימות וכו' וזאת ליהודה ויאמר שמע הרי לא עבר זר בתוכם: ויאמר צדקה ממני, he (Yehudah) said: “she is more righteous than I am. ”G–d’s methods when sitting in judgment cannot be compared to the way a human judge deals with offenders. When a human judge tries a case, and the accused party admits his guilt, the judge proceeds to carry out the penalty for the offence in question, having proven that he did not act arbitrarily. In other words, if the offence carries the death penalty, it is carried out forthwith. According to Proverbs 28,13, this is not G–d’s way of dealing with the guilty party Solomon describes it as: ומודה ועוזב ירוחם, “if he confesses and abandons sin, he will experience mercy.” As soon as Yehudah’s brother Reuven heard about how he had publicly acknowledged being the father of Tamar’s unborn children, he himself acknowledged his guilt in defiling his father’ couch. (Yaakov’s words in Genesis 49,4) This is also what Eliphas said to Job (Job 15,18) אשר חכמים יגידו ולא כחדו מאבותם, “that which the wise men have transmitted from their fathers and have not withheld it.” The wise men that Job referred to are none other than Yehudah and Reuven. This is why the descendants of those two sons of Yaakov were the only ones whose territory was never invaded by aliens [prior to the building of Solomon’s Temple? Ed.] (compare Moses’ blessing in Deuteronomy 33, 6-7)
צדקה ממני. פי' כתרגומו ממני הרה ותימה דאדרבא זנות גדול הוא לזנות מחמיה. וי"ל שכך היה דרכן כי כאשר לא היה אחים למת היה הקרוב יותר מייבם וה"ק צדקה ממני כי על כן לא נתתיה לשלה בני ועלי היה ליבם שלא ראיתי שיעשה שלה היבום ובשעה שאמר יהודה צדקה ממני אמר לו הקב"ה אתה הצלת ארבע נפשות ג' מאש ואחד מן הבור חייך שאציל בניך אחד מן הבור ושלשה מן האש שנא' ויהיו שם מבני יהודה דניאל חנניה מישאל ועזריה מבני חזקיה לא נאמר אלא מבני יהודה. דניאל מן הבור חנניה מישאל ועזריה מן האש. ד"א צדקה ממני ממני היא הרה ובקידושין באתי אליה כדפרי' לעיל ולא בזנות. וקשה להרב משה הרי אין קידושין תופסין בכלתו ולפי מאי דמסיק במס' סוטה יתומה אני ניחא וגם שם פירש"י יתומה אני וקדושי בנך אינן קדושין כי אפי' ממאנת בו עתה ונמצא שלא היתה כלתו. ולהא ניחא נמי דברי המפרשים ולא יסף עוד לדעתה לא פסק מלבא עליה. ונ"ל דהך שיטה אתיא כמאן דאמר אפילו בנה מורכב על כתפה יכולה למאן. ד"א צדקה ממני אפי' אם היתה מעוברת לא נתחייבה כדין בת כהן דבית דינו של שם גזרו דוקא על עכו"ם הבא על בת ישראל ולא על ישראל הבא על בת ישראל. וכן איתמר בע"ז פרק אין מעמידין זנות בית דינו של שם גזרו וכו': צדקה ממנו, the meaning is as per Targum, i.e. “she has become pregnant from me.” We are puzzled by this commentary, as if true, the sin of sleeping with one’s father-in-law is far greater than that of sleeping with a total stranger. We must assume therefore, that prior to the giving of the Torah, the way the system of the Levirate marriage was practiced was that in the absence of the deceased husband of the widow having any siblings, another close family member would perform that rite with the widow in order to ensure that the name of the deceased would be preserved thereby. Yehudah’s statement at the time when Tamar explained her complaint that she had not been given as a wife to Shelah, must therefore be explained as follows: “actually, seeing that at the time Onan died Shelah was not yet old enough to perform these rites it was my duty to have done so, especially as I could not be sure he would do so even when he would grow up.” At the time when Yehudah, through sleeping with Tamar had actually fulfilled the required rite though not having been aware of it, G–d said to him: “by doing so you saved four lives from death. One was saved from dying in a pit and three were saved from dying by being burned to death. This is based on Daniel 1,6: ויהי בהם מבני יהודה דניאל, חנניה, מישאל, ועזריה, there were among them from the descendants of Yehudah: ‘Daniel, Chananyah, Mishael and Azaryah.’ The verse does not trace their ancestry to Chizkiyah, but to Yehudah. Daniel was saved from a pit, the other three from a fiery furnace. An alternate explanation of the words: צדקה ממנו, “she became pregnant from me.” Yehudah claimed that he had married her legally by betrothing her with his ring, as mentioned earlier in my commentary. Rabbi Moshe queries this interpretation claiming that such a betrothal is invalid when performed by the father-in-law. He bases himself on the Talmud, tractate Sotah folio 10, the Talmud, quoting the dialogue between Yehudah and Tamar there claims that when Yehudah asked her about her marital status, including asking her whether perhaps her father had accepted a token of betrothal on her behalf, she responded by saying that this was impossible as she was an orphan. Rashi on the Talmud there explains that even if she had been betrothed by her father, had he lived, such a betrothal would have been invalid as she would have had to be a minor for such a betrothal to have any legal significance. She is quoted as having told Yehudah that she was completely and legally available and was not ritually impure either. At any rate, when the Torah subsequent to the revelations after the trial writes that Yehudah ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, this line has to be understood that he did not stop to have marital relations with her, as he had now found out that everything had been legal to begin with. (verse 26) According to our author this latest interpretation follows the view expressed in the Talmud tractate Yevamot folio 100, that even a woman with an infant on her shoulder is believed when she claims that her betrothal at the time had been illegal.