Genesis 38:15

Gen 38:15 When Judah saw her, he thought her [to be] an harlot; because she had covered her face.

Ver. 15. He thought her to be an harlot.] Because she sat in an open place: first, In bivio, saith Junius, where there is liberty of looking every way; the guise and garb of harlots. {Pro 7:12; Pro 9:14 Eze 16:24-25} Next, she sat covered: whores were not altogether so shameless then as now: they shun not to be seen with bold and bare faces, breasts, and wrists. {a} Such a sight may soon inflame a Judah; nay, occasion a Job to break his covenant. {Job 31:1} The ivy bush showeth there is wine within: which, though no evil follow upon it; yet the party shall be damned, saith Jerome, because she offered poison to others, though none would drink it. See Isa 3:16.

Because she had covered her face.] Some read, Because she had coloured or painted her face. But that he knew her not by her voice one would wonder. Surely, he was so set upon the satisfying of his lust that he minded nothing else. Lust is blind; "and if the blind lead the blind," &c.

{a} Hos 2:2 - "Let her take away her fornication from her face, and her adultery from between her breasts"; laid out, and painted, or patched.

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Verse 15. Thought her to be a harlot] See the original of this term, Ge 34:31. The Hebrew is זונה zonah, and signifies generally a person who prostitutes herself to the public for hire, or one who lives by the public; and hence very likely applied to a publican, a tavern-keeper, or hostess, Jos 2:1; translated by the Septuagint, and in the New Testament, πορνη, from περναω, to sell, which certainly may as well apply to her goods as to her person.

It appears that in very ancient times there were public persons of this description; and they generally veiled themselves, sat in public places by the highway side, and received certain hire. Though adultery was reputed a very flagrant crime, yet this public prostitution was not; for persons whose characters were on the whole morally good had connections with them. But what could be expected from an age in which there was no written Divine revelation, and consequently the bounds of right and wrong were not sufficiently ascertained? This defect was supplied in a considerable measure by the law and the prophets, and now completely by the Gospel of Christ.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. When Judah saw her. It was a great disgrace to Judah that he hastily desired intercourse with an unknown woman. He was now old; and therefore age alone, even in a lascivious man, ought to have restrained the fervor of intemperance. He sees the woman at a distance, and it is not possible that he should have been captivated by her beauty. The lust kindles him as a stallion neighs when it smells a mare. Hence we gather, that the fear of God, or a regard to justice and prosperity, cannot have flourished greatly in the heart of one who thus eagerly breaks forth to the indulgence of his passions. He is therefore set before us as an example, that we may learn how easily the lust of the flesh would break forth, unless the Lord should restrain it; and thus, conscious of our infirmity, let us desire from the Lord, a spirit of continence and moderation. But lest the same security should steal over us, which caused Judah to precipitate himself into fornication; let us mark, that the dishonor which Judah sustained in consequence of his incest, was a punishment divinely inflicted upon him. Who then will indulge in a crime which he sees, by this dreadful kind of vengeance, to be so very hateful to God?

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(15) Because she had covered her face.—The Jewish commentators all agree that this was not the custom of harlots; and as Judah, in Gen_38:21, calls her kedeshah, one consecrated, he probably thought that she was a woman performing the vow required of every female votary of the Phœnician Venus (Astarte), once in her lifetime (Herod. i. 199). Hence the hire was a kid to be sacrificed to the goddess. As for Tamar her object was to assert her claim to the inheritance of ‘Er. Lange considers that the wickedness of ‘Er had caused him, equally with Onan, to neglect her, and that consequently there was no real incest. This is made probable by her immediate conception.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

15. covered her face] Cf. Pro_7:10. The attire indicated the character she had assumed.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

And he turned unto her by the way,.... Which led to her; he turned out of the way in which he was to that where she sat; and very probably it was at some little distance from the way, and therefore he turned aside to it, his lust towards her being excited at the sight of her; perhaps he left his friend Hirah the Adullamite, and sent him on his way, while he committed the following crime:

and said, go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; that is, lie with her:

for he knew not that she was his daughter in law; or otherwise, it is suggested by the historian, he would not have offered such a thing to her; but though this may excuse him from wilful incest, yet not from fornication; for he took her to be an harlot, and however knew she was not his wife, and whom he ought not to have had any concern with in such a manner:

and she said, what wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? perhaps she said this with a very low voice, that he might not know her by it; and she behaved like an harlot by requiring an hire, on condition of which she consented: she knew Judah though he did not know her, and therefore cannot be excused from wilful incest: some indeed extenuate her crime, by supposing that she, though a Canaanite, was become a proselyte to the true religion by marrying into Judah's family, and had knowledge of the Messiah being to be born of Jacob's line; and therefore was desirous of being the mother or ancestor at least of that great Person, and so took this method; that since she could not have the son for her husband, was desirous of enjoying the father, not for the gratification of her lust, but in hopes of the promised seed; and accordingly she has a place in the genealogy of the Messiah, Mat 1:3.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

And was doubtless careful not to discover herself by her voice.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

15. A harlot — The word here used is זונה, the common Hebrew word for harlot. But Judah’s friend Hirah uses (Gen_38:21) a different word, though our translators have rendered it just the same. There the Hebrew word is קדשׁה, a consecrated woman, that is, a woman consecrated to Astarte, the Canaanitish Venus; one who prostituted herself in the name of religion. Thus it appears that this abominable worship was at that time prevalent in Canaan, and Judah had become acquainted with its ways, though he did not call the woman thus devoted by the word that designated her as one sacred to Astarte. He regarded her as a prostitute, because she had covered her face, and he had come to know that this was the practice of women thus consecrated to lust. But to him she was only a harlot, while to his friend she was supposed to be a kedeshah.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

When (literally, and) Judah saw her, he (literally, and he) thought her to be a harlot; literally, thought her (i.e. took her for) a harlot, like logizesqai tina de r (cf. 1Sa_1:13; Job_13:24) or to hnwOz (fem. part. of hnz; commit fornication); vide Gen_34:31because she had covered her face more meretricis.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

because she had covered her face

Judah did not think she was a prostitute just because her face was covered but also because she was sitting in the gate. AT: "because she had covered her head and sat where prostitutes often sat" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

He went to her by the road

Tamar was sitting by the road. AT: "He went to where she was sitting by the road" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

Come, please

"Come with me, please" or "Come now, please"

When Judah saw her

"When Judah saw Tamar"

his daughter-in-law

"his son's wife"

translationWords

prostitute

had relations with

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

ויחשבה לזונה AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE AN HARLOT, because she was sitting at the cross-roads.

כי כסתה פניה FOR SHE HAD COVERED HER FACE — so that he could not see her face and thus recognize her. A Midrashic explanation of our Rabbis is that כי כסתה פניה means BECAUSE SHE ALWAYS COVERED HER FACE: when she had stayed in her father-in-law’s house she had shown herself a modest woman, and therefore he did not suspect her (of being the woman who was sitting there for that evil purpose) (Sotah 10b).

Rashi on the Tanakh — English translations: “The Judaica Press complete Tanach with Rashi, translated by A. J. Rosenberg” (CC BY 4.0); “Pentateuch with Rashi's commentary by M. Rosenbaum and A.M. Silbermann, 1929-1934” (public domain); “The Metsudah Tanach series, Lakewood, N.J” (CC BY 4.0); and “The Book of Joshua, Metsudah Publications, 1997” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

AND HE THOUGHT HER TO BE A HARLOT. This was because she was sitting at the cross-roads. For she had covered her face, and he could not see her. A Midrash of our Rabbis explains: For she had covered her face, i.e., that when she stayed in Judah’s house, she had acted modestly, always covering her face, and therefore he did not suspect her. This is Rashi’s language.Now the Rabbi’s [Rashi’s]. literal interpretation is feasible since it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads, just as it is written, And she sitteth at the door of her house, on a seat in the high places of the city, to call to them that pass by, etc. Accordingly, the verse states that because her face was veiled he did not recognize her. But according to the Midrasn of our Rabbis which states that she covered her face in her father-in-law’s house, meaning that she hid herself from him while being in his house and that he never saw her face, how would he recognize her even if she were not veiled?It further appears to me to be correct, in line with the literal sense of Scripture, that the verse is stating that he thought her to be a harlot because her face was veiled, since afterwards it states, For he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law. The reason for the covering of the face is that it was the way of the harlot to sit at the cross-roads wrapped up in a veil, with part of the face and hair uncovered, gesticulating with the eyes and lips, and baring the front of the throat and neck. Now since she would speak to the by-passer in an impudent manner, catching him and kissing him, she therefore veiled part of the face. Furthermore, harlots sitting by the roadside veil their faces because they commit harlotry even with relatives. Sodomites still do it to this day in our countries, and when they return to the city they remain anonymous.Thus we have learned in a Mishnah: “There are three kinds of head-nets: that of a girl, which is susceptible to midras or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. uncleanness; that of an old woman, which is susceptible to the uncleanness of a corpse, while that of a yotza’ath chutz, [literally, ‘she who goes outside’], is not susceptible to any uncleanness.” Now a yotzath chutz refers to the harlot, the nafkat bro of Onkelos (she who goes outside)., who places the head-net on part of the head. It does not serve her the purpose of lying on it, for in that case it would be susceptible to midras-uncleanness. or Zavah — (see Leviticus 15:2-6; 25-26) — to an object which is used as a seat. An object not so used, but which serves as a garment or a container, is susceptible only to corpse-uncleanness (see Numbers 19:14-17). If it serves none of these purposes, it is not susceptible to any uncleanness. Nor does she cover her head with it, for in that case it would be susceptible to corpse-uncleanness. Instead, she uses it to dress up the ends of her hair, in order that it be partly visible from beneath the net, and this is why it is not susceptible to any uncleanness.

Ramban (Nachmanides) on the Tanakh — English translation: “Commentary on the Torah by Ramban (Nachmanides). Translated and annotated by Charles B. Chavel. New York, Shilo Pub. House, 1971-1976” (CC BY 4.0). Text via Sefaria.

ויראה....כי כסתה פניה, so that he did not recognise her. This is why he considered her a harlot, seeing that she had positioned herself so prominently at the crossroads. Had she not covered her face, he would have recognised her as his daughter-in-law and would not have slept with her. Our sages in Sotah 10 say that on the contrary, she used to keep her face covered in her father-in-law’s house and was extremely chaste. When he now saw a woman sitting at the crossroads, the last thing he would think of was that it was his daughter-in-law Tamar.

Radak on the Tanakh — English translations: “Sefaria Community Translation” (CC0 1.0 (public-domain dedication)); “Eliyahu Munk, HaChut Hameshulash” (CC BY 4.0); “Rabbi Mike Feuer, Jerusalem Anthology” (CC BY 4.0); and “R. David Kimhi on the first book of Psalms, Translated by R.G. Finch, London, 1919” (public domain). Text via Sefaria.