Genesis 38:26

Gen 38:26 And Judah acknowledged [them], and said, She hath been more righteous than I; because that I gave her not to Shelah my son. And he knew her again no more.

Ver. 26. She hath been more righteous than I.] A free confession, joined with confusion of his sin; for he knew her no more. This was, to "confess and forsake sin," as Solomon hath it. {Pro 28:13} Not like that of Saul; "I have sinned, yet honour me before the people": {1Sa 15:30} or that of those in the wilderness; "We have sinned; we will go up": they might as well have said, We have sinned, we will sin. {Deu 1:41} The worser sort of Papists will say, When we have sinned, we must confess; and when we have confessed, we must sin again, that we may also confess again, and make work for new indulgences and jubilees; making account of confessing, as drunkards do of vomiting. {a} But true confession goes along with hatred, care, apology.

{a} Sandys’s Relation of West. Relig., sec. 8.

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.

Gen 38:26. And Judah acknowledged them — His guilty conscience and the horror of so foul a fact, together with the sudden surprise, forced him to make an immediate and ingenuous confession. She hath been more righteous than I — This he says because he had broken his word with her in withholding Shelah from her, whom he had promised; whereas she had kept her faith with him, and had lived as a widow honestly; besides, she had committed the fact out of desire to have a child, he to satisfy his lust. She was, however, more guilty than he in another respect, as having knowingly committed both adultery and incest, when he designed neither. And he knew her again no more — Thus showing the sincerity of his confession, by forsaking the sin confessed, the only sure way of showing it.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

38:26 She is more righteous than I am: Judah acknowledged that he had shirked his responsibility to provide an heir. It was sinful for Judah to go to a prostitute, but Tamar had a legal right to be the mother of Judah’s child and had acted on that right. In the book of Ruth, the elders analogously blessed the marriage of Boaz and Ruth, praying that God would make Ruth like Tamar (Ruth 4:12; cp. Matt 1:3, 5).

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

For the horror of the sin condemned him.

That is, she ought rather to accuse me than I her.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

Verse 26. She hath been more righteous than I] It is probable that Tamar was influenced by no other motive than that which was common to all the Israelitish women, the desire to have children who might be heirs of the promise made to Abraham, &c. And as Judah had obliged her to continue in her widowhood under the promise of giving her his son Shelah when he should be of age, consequently his refusing or delaying to accomplish this promise was a breach of truth, and an injury done to Tamar.

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

26. And Judah acknowledged them. The open reproach of Tamar proceeded from the desire of revenge. She does not seek an interview with her father-in-law, for the purpose of appeasing his mind; but, with a deliberate contempt of death, she demands him as the companion of her doom. That Judah immediately acknowledges his fault, is a proof of his honesty; for we see with how many fallacies nearly all are wont to cover their sins, until they are dragged to the light, and all means of denying their guilt have failed. Here, though no one is present who could extort a confession, by force or threats, Judah voluntarily stoops to make one, and takes the greater share of the blame to himself. Yet, seeing that, in confessing his fault, he is now silent respecting punishment; we hence infer, that they who are rigid in censuring others, are much more pliant in forgiving themselves. In this, therefore, we ought to imitate him; that, without rack or torture, truth should so far prevail with us, that we should not be ashamed to confess, before the whole world, those sins with which God charges us. But we must avoid his partiality; lest, while we are harsh towards others, we should spare ourselves. This narrative also teaches us the importance of not condemning any one unheard; not only because it is better that the innocent should be absolved than that a guilty person should perish, but also, because a defense brings many things to light, which sometimes render a change in the form of judgment necessary.

She hath been more righteous than I. The expression is not strictly proper; for he does not simply approve of Tamar’s conduct; but speaks comparatively, as if he would say, that he had been, unjustly and without cause, angry against a woman, by whom he himself might rather have been accused. Moreover, by the result, it appears how tardily the world proceeds in exacting punishment for crimes, where no private person stands forward to avenge his own injury. An atrocious and horrible crime had been committed; as long as Judah thought himself aggrieved, he pressed on with vehemence, and the door of judgment was opened. But now, when the accusation is withdrawn, both escape; though certainly it was the duty of all to rise up against them. Moses however intimates that Judah was sincerely penitent; because “he knew” his daughter-in-law “again no more.” He also confirms what I have said before, that by nature men are imbued with a great horror of such a crime. For whence did it arise, that he abstained from intercourse with Tamar, unless he judged naturally, that it was infamous for a father-in-law to be connected with his daughter-in-law? Whoever attempts to destroy the distinction which nature dictates, between what is base and what is honorable, engages, like the giants, in open war with 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.

26. more righteous] Judah acknowledges that Tamar had a claim upon the observance of marriage customs, and that he had done wrong in neglecting her, and in ignoring the sacred obligations of tribal “levirate” marriage, upon which depended the very existence of an Oriental community. The Heb. verb means “to be right, to have right on one’s side”; and Judah’s words might be rendered “she is in her rights as against me” (cf. Davidson’s Theology of the O.T., p. 267).

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 it came to pass in the time of her travail,.... When her time to bring forth was come, and her pains were on her, and her midwife with her:

that, behold, twins were in her womb; which the midwife could discover before the birth of either.

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

Juster. For Juda had been guilty of injustice; and had thus exposed her to the danger of following a life of lewdness. (Haydock) --- She remained a widow afterwards, as she was now rendered unfit to be married either to Juda or Sela. The latter married another woman, Numbers xxvi. 19. (Calmet) --- While Juda was engaged in this unlawful commerce, and yielded to the temptation, Joseph was triumphing over a much greater temptation, in rejecting the solicitations of his master’s wife. (Haydock)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

His guilty conscience, and the horror of so foul a fact, together with his sudden surprisal, forced him to an ingenuous confession, whereas he might have used many pretences and evasions, which would easily have prevailed with such partial judges.

She hath been more righteous than I. She was more unchaste, because she knowingly committed adultery and incest, when he designed neither; but he was more unjust, because he was the cause of her sin, both by withholding Shelah from her, who was hers both by right and by Judah’s promise, and by whom her chastity should have been preserved; and by his solicitation and encouragement of her to the sin.

He knew her again no more; showing the sincerity of his confession by his forsaking of the sin confessed. See Job 34:32. And it may be probably concluded, that he neither knew her nor any other woman afterward, because there is no mention of any child which he had after this time.

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

26. More righteous than I — “Judah not only saw his guilt, but he confessed it also, and showed, both by this confession and also by the fact that he had no further conjugal intercourse with Tamar, an earnest endeavour to conquer the lusts of the flesh, and to guard against the sin into which he had fallen. And because he thus humbled himself, God gave him grace, and not only exalted him to be the chief of the house of Israel, but blessed the children that were begotten in sin.” — Keil.

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

And Judah acknowledged (or discerned, ut supra, i.e. recognized) them, and said, She hath been more righteous than I; though Tamer was far from innocent (vide vex. 16), she was by no means as culpable as Judah because that (KeAlAyKi, for, for this cause, i.e. that so it might hap, pen to me: vide (Gen_18:5) I gave her not to Shelah my son. And (in token of his penitence) he knew her again no more.

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

צדקה SHE IS RIGHTEOUS (right) in what she has said

ממני FROM ME is she with child. Our Rabbis, of blessed memory, explained this to mean that a Bath-kol came forth and said the word ממני — from Me and by My agency have these things happened: because she proved herself a modest woman whilst in her father-in-law’s house I have ordained that kings shall be descended from her, and I have already ordained that I would raise up kings in Israel from the tribe of Judah (Genesis Rabbah 85:11) (therefore I have brought it about that these two persons who are to be the ancestors of kings should unite to become so).

כי על כן לא נתתיה BECAUSE THAT I GAVE HER NOT — For (כי) she has acted rightly, because (על כן) I did not give her to Shelah, my son.

ולא יסף עוד AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE — Some explain that ולא יסף means he did not continue to know her (Sifrei Bamidbar 88): others explain that it means he did not cease to know her (Sotah 10b). An exactly similar instance occurs in reference to Eldad and Medad (Numbers 11:25), where ולא יספו which some translate “and they did not continue to prophesy” is translated in the Targum by “and they did not cease to prophesy”.

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.

SHE IS RIGHTEOUS FROM ME. “She is righteous in her words. From me is she with child. Our Rabbis expounded that a bath kol (a Divine voice) came forth and said the word mimeni, i.e., ‘From Me and from My authority did these events unfold.’” This is Rashi’s language.The correct interpretation is that it is similar to the verses: Men more righteous and better than he; And he [Saul] said to David, Thou art more righteous than I; for thou hast rendered unto me good, whereas I have rendered unto thee evil. Here too the meaning is: “She is more righteous than I, for she acted righteously and I am the one who sinned against her by not giving her my son Shelah.” The purport of the statement is that Shelah was the brother-in-law, [hence he was the first designated to marry her], and if he did not wish to take her as his wife, his father is next in line to act as the redeemer, as I have explained above when I discussed the law of marrying a childless brother’s widow.

AND HE KNEW HER AGAIN NO MORE (‘v’lo yasaph’). After having established progeny for his children, he did not wish to be with her again even though this was dependent upon his wish as she was not forbidden to him, being, in fact, considered as his wife, as is the law when the widow of a childless man has relations with a relative. This is the reason for the explanation given by a certain Sage, who explains the verse as saying, “And he did not cease to know her,” since here the expression used is, v’lo yasaph, and elsewhere it is written, A great voice ‘v’lo yasaph’. [with a kamatz], meaning “and it did not cease,” or “it did not diminish in strength,” unlike the human voice which decreases and eventually stops completely. Here also the identical expression, v’lo yasaph [with a patach], means “and he did not cease.”

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.

צדקה ממני; she is more righteous than I, for I had declared her guilty of being burned to death while she was innocent, seeing she is pregnant from me and has not acted like a harlot. Our sages in Makkot 23 as well as in Bereshit Rabbah 85,12 say that there are basically three locations where the Holy Spirit,רוח הקודש, was manifest [was needed to confirm a verdict. Ed.] One was the court of Shem, son of Noach. This is based on the word ממני in our verse not meaning “than me, Yehudah,” but “from Me, G’d.” [although Shem himself was no longer alive at the time Tamar’s trial came up, his grandson Ever, probably in conjunction with others maintained the court he had founded, which was administering the seven Noachide (universal laws for all of mankind) laws at the time. Ed.] The sages understand that when the verdict was passed on Tamar a heavenly voice was heard saying that Tamar’s pregnancy by Yehudah had been decreed by G.d, “from Me.” The second such instance was in the court conducted by the prophet Samuel. They base this on Samuel I 12,5 ויאמר עד, G’d confirming that the prophet had dealt fairly with the whole people during his being the supreme authority, before a King was appointed. Without this confirmation we only had his word for it. The third example was the court of King Solomon, during the famous trial of two women claiming a live baby as her own and the dead one as belonging to her adversary. (Kings I 3,27.) A heavenly voice confirmed Solomon’s verdict [which from a purely halachic point of view was quite unsubstantiated. Ed.] The words היא אמו, “she is his mother,” then were not said by Solomon but by G’d. G’d’s confirmation of Tamat’s innocence was needed as people could have argued that while it was true that she had slept with Yehudah, who was to say that other men had not also slept with her and that she was actually pregnant by someone else? The Talmud concludes by citing the heavenly voice as saying ממך יצאו כבושים, “secrets unknown to others are revealed by Me.” [according to Rashi on Makkot 23 the fact that in due course Tamar’s and Yehudah’s son became the forerunner of the Davidic dynasty proved that the seed she had carried was that of Yehudah, both Tamar and Yehudah being of Royal descent, -Tamar as the daughter of Malki Tzedek King of Shalem, and Yehudah by dint of the destiny predicted for him by his father on his deathbed.] There is a variant reading which says that as a result of Yehudah’s admission, G’d decided to appoint him as the founder of the future Davidic dynasties, and that the line ונכבשה הארץ לפניכם, “the land will become conquered before you,” in Numbers 32,29 is addressed to the leading tribe, Yehudah. This is based on the wordכבושים in the Talmud being read as ממך יצאו כובשים, “that conquerors will emerge from your loins.”

כי על כן לא נתתיה, as if the Torah had written כי על כן שלא נתתיה, “because I did not give her, etc., she has done this, i.e. pretended to be a harlot, because I did not give her to my son Shelah.” We find a similar construction in Exodus 13,8 בעבור זה עשה ה' לי, “on account of this (that I observe the commandment mentioned) G’d has done this for me” (taken me out of Egypt).”

ולא יסף עוד לדעתה, he did not sleep with her again seeing that even this time the act had been unintentional and in a manner not appropriate to her status. It is demeaning for a socially highly placed individual to sleep with a harlot. For Yehudah to have done so again would have been demeaning for him [as she would always be aware that the first time he had done this was in order to merely gratify a biological urge. Ed.] In the Targum we find two different versions regarding the meaning of the words ולא יסף עוד לדעתה. The second version is that Yehudah never stopped sleeping with Tamar, i.e. he treated her as his wife in every respect from then on. The reason why the Torah told us about all these details and how the seed of Yehudah became mingled with that of Ruth the Moabite, as well as how King Solomon was the son of Bat Sheva whose marriage to David did not exactly come about in a normal manner, is to show that the hand of G’d had been at work in all of these situations. G’d’s design had been that the Kingdom of Israel should be David’s on a hereditary basis forever [whenever there would be independent kings, not appointed by conquerors of the Jewish people. Ed.] The somewhat flawed lineage in Jewish kings is G’d’s device to prevent such kings from becoming proud of their pure ancestry, and considering themselves ”ancestrally“ superior to their peers. [perhaps the advice of the Shulchan Aruch that when appointing public officials of high rank one should select someone with a “skeleton in his closet,” a קופת שרצים, is based on the flaws in the ancestry of the Davidic dynasty. Ed.]

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.