English translation — אמור א

Even if one will teach,

that according to R. Yehudah indeed Yehudah did not guard the prohibition of yevamah to the marketplace

(and one will distinguish between the positive command "yevamah yavo aleha" and the prohibition "lo tiheyeh eshet hamet hachutza etc.": or one will explain,

that by saying "vayebem otah" Yehudah was not fulfilling the mitzvah of yibum,

but only because that was then the custom¹⁸),

according to which one could have answered that the explanation "lo pasak" comes out only according to R. Yehudah,

in contrast according to R. Nechemyah "lo yasaf" will be interpreted,

as Rashi teaches in his first commentary: "lo hosif"¹⁹

will however still remain difficult²⁰

: according to the view of R. Nechemyah that the tribes had

(then)

fulfilled the entire Torah before it was given,

it comes out that before this Yehudah had transgressed a prohibition in the matter of Tamar

(it is only that the prohibition was committed unintentionally,

because "lo yada ki kalato hi"²¹)

— and how is it possible to say

(a)

that one should from Above²²

lead him to this²³

(b)

and that King David etc. until King Mashiach should come from a union which is forbidden — according to the conduct that they had taken upon themselves²⁴?

6.

One must, however, still understand: if as a bat kohen shezinah, Tamar then indeed came to burning,

why did the punishment not come to her more after Yehuda confessed "mimeni hi me'uberet"<sup>49</sup>?

The explanation is: on "haz'onah ya'aseh et achoteinu"<sup>50</sup>

Rashi says: "haz'onah — hefker"<sup>51</sup>.

And the explanation of this is,

that "zonah" means specifically one who makes herself <b>hefker</b> to promiscuity.

(And therefore it says by Dinah "haz'onah",

with a khaf hadimyon,

because by her it happened through coercion).

From this is understood regarding our matter: At the time when it became known that Tamar was pregnant,

it was assumed that "Tamar <b>committed harlotry</b> etc. she is pregnant <b>through harlotry</b>"¹.

But when Yehuda made known that "she is pregnant <b>from me</b>",

it was realized that she is not a wanton woman,

she did not deserve any punishment⁵².

7.

It has already been said many times,

that when Rashi quotes an interpretation from Chazal in the Gemara or Midrash,

he does not bring down the name of the author of the statement even then when in the Gemara or Midrash it is given — except in a case where through this a certain difficulty in the interpretation is resolved

(only because the difficulty is not a severe one,

not necessary in the manner of study of the <b>plain meaning</b> of Scripture — Rashi does not find it necessary to clarify it explicitly and contents himself only with a hint to the resolution by giving the name of the author of the statement).

One must say,

that Efrayim Makshaah in the name of R' Meir holds: when someone finds himself in another's house,

he must conduct himself according to all the stringencies and enhancements like the householder — even if from his own perspective the guest is far from such conduct.

Consequently, the reason is understood why Avraham did not give the guests from the bread,

because being then &lt;b&gt;in his house&lt;/b&gt;

(of Avraham)

they also would have needed to be careful to eat unconsecrated food in purity&lt;sup&gt;64&lt;/sup&gt;.

And through these two statements of Efrayim Makshaah in the name of R' Meir,

it becomes understood why they judged Tamar for burning:

9.

The Alter Rebbe rules halachically⁶⁸

"She shall not be said to be profaning her father except when she committed adultery with witnesses and warning, and when they testified before the Sanhedrin⁶⁹.

According to this, the difficulty arises: How was Tamar judged for burning as a daughter of a kohen?

This punishment comes to her only because of that which "she profanes her father"⁷⁰

— and by Tamar there were no witnesses nor warning nor testimony before the Sanhedrin⁷¹?

This difficulty Rashi addresses by that which he adds to the words "Ephraim Maksaa said in the name of R' Meir": because Ephraim Maksaa follows his own approach,

that even when the connection is very distant

(in reality,

time or subject),

there still remains a bond and connection — and therefore even when she committed adultery not in the presence of witnesses etc., still "she profanes her father",

and therefore the verdict is "take her out and let her be burned".

11.

With this will also be understood the two "opposite reasonings" that were regarding Tamar: initially it was assumed that because "Tamar your daughter-in-law has played the harlot" it must be "bring her out,"

and as the Zohar explains — in exile; and afterwards, in connection with this very matter of Tamar herself,

a Bat Kol issued forth "from Me and from My side the words came forth etc. to establish kings in Israel"⁷⁹,

that this was entirely in order that Peretz etc. should be born, up to Mashiach,

whose essence is <b>redemption</b>.

But the explanation is: the entire intention of the exile that came "because of our sins"⁸⁰

— is in order that through the refinement of the darkness of exile, the advantage of the light in the future redemption should emerge.