Judah's family - Complex and Troubled

Torah Study with Rabbi Marder 6 July 2013

• Recall Judah’s “descent” spiritually and physically, paralleling Joseph taken down to Egypt.
• 38:6 – And Judah took a wife for Er, his firstborn, named Tamar.
• Tamar is the first woman named in this story.
• In 2 Samuel 13, David had a daughter Tamar.  This name appears in only the Davidic stories.  However, this Tamar was the ancestress of David.
• Who is this Tamar?
• Sages want to distinguish her from Canaanites.  Yet the text never mentions Tamar’s background.  The context implies that she is Canaanite; indeed, if she had been kin, there would have been mentioned, so she must have been foreign [Eskanazi, The Torah.  A Women’s Commentary, pages 216, 229]
• Midrash Lekach Tov  – she had a desire to link with Judah’s family.  

Elie Munk [The Call of the Torah, page 515] writes, ”Some compare Tamar’s character to Rebecca’s.  Both were motivated by a great determination, both did not hesitate to resort to ruse:

• “One in order to ensure that the paternal blessing would go to the son who she know was the most worth of it [Rebecca and Jacob]
• “The other to ensure her perpetual attachment to the family of Abraham [Tamar and husbands Er and Onan -- verses 7 and 8 below]

“Even after losing both her husbands, Judah’s sons, Tamar had but one desire: to have the joy of founding a branch in the holy family of the patriarchs.”  

• Tamar (תָּמָר) means a date palm – tall and graceful, beautiful.  The tree is used as a royal symbol in the Near East [Eskanazi, The Torah.  A Women’s Commentary, page 216]
• Her father is not mentioned because Judah chose her not for her father (unlike Judah’s wife, who had a wealthy father).
• 38:7 - Now Er, Judah's firstborn, was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and the Lord put him to death.
• Order of letters of עֵר and word for evil, רַע are reversed – interesting wordplay
• What did he do (or not do) to be called “evil in the eyes of God?”  
• The firstborn always seems to be judged more harshly [behavior more heavily scrutinized?] than siblings.
• A phrase to explain the inexplicable, especially death; this idea survives today as the phrase “act of god.”
• To help describe what actually happened.  Er’s bad behavior was apparent only to God, in this case, sexual behavior.
• Rashi - [His evil was] like the evil of Onan, [namely], that he wasted his semen, as it is written in connection with Onan: “and He put him to death also,” meaning that, as Er’s death, so was Onan’s death. [From Yevamot 34b – see 38:9 below].  This would be coitus interruptus, a primitive form of birth control.  Er did not want the trouble of raising children; he was interested in his own comfort and convenience.
• Joseph Shor [Yoseph Ben Isaac Bekor Shor of Orleans, France; 12th century]: Tamar was too beautiful to impregnate. Rashi - Now, why should Er waste his semen? So that she (Tamar) would not become pregnant and her beauty impaired.  A very selfish attitude!
• See Midrash, which creates Er as a literary character from nothing; there is no text on Er in Torah.
• Midrash Rabbah 85:4 explains Er’s sin.  “He would low in the gardens and pour out on the dunghills.”  This means, “At the end of cohabitation, he would spill his seed upon the ground.  

Alternatively, it means that he cohabited unnaturally.”  (He was intimate with her in an unnatural way,” writes Rashi on 1 Chronicles 2:3).  In either case, Er did not want his wife to bear children. 

• The Midrash cites Talmud Y’vamot 34b: Er died for the same transgression as Onan, namely, spilling seed on ground.

[The source for] Onan's [guilt] may well be traced, for it is written in Scripture, that he spilt it on the ground; whence however, [that of] Er?  R. Nahman b. Isaac replied: It is written, And He [God] slew him also; he also died of the same death [for the same offense].

[The reason for] Onan's [action] may well be understood, because he knew that the seed would not be his; but why did Er act in such a manner? — In order that she might not conceive and thus lose some of her beauty.

• Robert Alter on firstborn sons – reversal of primogeniture is a continuing theme; as a firstborn, Er must be removed to maintain the story [!].

“It seems almost sufficient merely to be firstborn in order to incur God’s displeasure: though the firstborn is not necessarily evil, he usually turns out to be obtuse [Esau?], rash [Reuben], wild [Ishmael?], or otherwise disqualified from carrying on the heritage.  

“It is noteworthy that Judah, who invented the lie that triggered his own father’s mourning for a dead son, is bereaved of two sons in rapid sequence.  In contrast to Jacob’s extravagant grief, nothing is said about Judah’s emotional response to the losses.” [Alter, The Five Books of Moses, page 215]

• 38:8 - So Judah said to Onan, "Come to your brother's wife and perform the rite of the levirate, and raise up progeny for your brother."  

Er dies without a child and sets in motion the Levirate Law.

• Review of marriage/sex laws
• Leviticus 18:16 and 20:21 say in essence, do not have sex with your brother’s wife (sister-in-law).
• Deuteronomy 25:5ff sets forth the requirements for a levirate marriage.  In essence, a widow must marry her brother-in-law, i.e., within the clan and not a stranger, to retain the property within the clan.  This is considered a mitzvah (Midrash Rabbah 85:5).  Although the brother-in-law must marry the widow, he can refuse after a humiliating ceremony (Deuteronomy 25:7-10).
• The conflict between these two laws is resolved by stating that the prohibition of marrying brother’s wife has one exception.  There are precedents in other ancient Near East laws [Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary. Genesis, page 266]
• The Deuteronomic passage could also be a protest against the Leviticus law; the Deuteronomy passage [effectively] overturned the earlier laws.  Plaut writes [The Torah.  A Modern Commentary, Revised Edition, page 1341], “Levirate marriages were performed for many centuries … But there was increasing doubt whether they were socially desirable, especially in view of the express statement in Leviticus 18:16 that forbids an man to marry his brother’s wife …The levirate law [Deuteronomy 25:5-6] permits such marriages—and, in fact, demands it when the widow has n children; but the exception does not fully relieve the sense of aversion that Leviticus 18 expresses.”  In later years, levirate marriage became the exception, not the rule.  Some authorities now ban the practice.  But some mystics still favor the practice as a way to reincarnating the dead person’s soul.
• The purpose of Levirate marriage is to make sure that the brother’s name will not disappear (Deuteronomy 25:6).  But in Ruth 4, the baby is named for grandmother-in-law (Naomi), not the father.  Idea is that people should not leave this world without a legacy, i.e., a child.  Indeed, there is no obligation to name children from a levirate marriage after the dead brother [Sarna].
• Hirsch [page 725] on Levirate marriage – purpose of marriage is to procreate; marriage is truly fulfilled when children are produced to carry on family’s righteous traits.  Levirate marriage is important to fulfill the main purpose of marriage.
• “[Levirate marriage] is a mitzvah that was sanctified by custom in the House of Ya’akov even before the Law giving, a mitzvah based entirely on the most moral conception of marriage and family life.

“Now, the moral character of marriage is connecting with its ultimate purpose, the begetting and rearing children.  A marriage that fails to attain this objective is incomplete, then, as regards its moral aspect. … This defect can be made good” one of the closes relative should continue the marriage with the childless widow.“

• However, according to the Zohar, the principal purpose of marriage is for companionship, not procreation.  “It is not good for a man to be alone.”  [Genesis 2:18]
• Some say that Judah was the first to invoke the levirate marriage rule as a divine commandment.  However, the rule was an ancient custom before biblical times.  “Levirate marriage was a vestige of fraternal polyandry – namely whereas a woman once married several brothers at a time, later she only married them in succession … In polyandry, men share the same woman in a ‘bond of brotherhood;’ it is ‘part of the relation of tribal brotherhood’ designed to ‘promote good fellowship among brothers.’  The woman was acquired in marriage, not for an individual man, but fore an entire household.”  The eldest brother contracted the marriage and younger brothers shared the wife.  “With the rise of individual economic interests, and the consequent breaking of the communal fraternal household, polyandrous marriage is necessarily broken up.” [Antonelli, Judith S. In the Image of God. A Feminist Commentary on the Torah.  Jason Aronson Inc., 1995. Pages 104-105, citing Briffault, Robert.  The Mothers. NY: Macmillan, 1927.  Italics in original; underlining added.]  According to this viewpoint, Onan must have been asserting his “individual economic interests” in 38:9.
• 38:9 - Now Onan knew that the progeny would not be his, and it came about, when he came to his brother's wife, he wasted [his semen] on the ground, in order not to give seed to his brother.
• 38:10 - Now what he did was evil in the eyes of the Lord, and He put him to death also.
• Why was Onan unwilling to marry?
• He does not wish to diminish his future property, i.e., split an inheritance with an heir.
• Ramban states that any baby would be an incarnation of his brother’s soul, i.e., the baby would not be totally Onan’s.  Ramban’s commentary [on 38:8] does not exactly say this.  Instead:
• He first cites Rashi, The son shall be called by the name of the deceased. [From Targum Jonathan ben Uzziel], i.e., Ur.
• Ramban disagrees, citing Y’vamot 24a, which states that the brother-in-law (levir) is not obligated to name the son after the deceased brother.  He further offers the example of Ruth and Boaz, whose child was not named for Ruth’s deceased husband (Ruth 4:17).
• Ramban then pointedly asks, “Now what evil did [Onan] think would befall him if his son would be named after his fathering a son?  On the contrary, most people desire to do such a thing.”
• Furthermore, Ramban continues, the text reads, “Onan knew,” suggesting that that “having a child would make it impossible for him to avoid the situation of ‘establishing offspring’ for his brother.” [Footnote in Artscroll/Mesorah edition]  The text does not read, “Onan said,” which would imply that Onan objected about being forced to comply with the levirate rule.  Instead, Onan had full knowledge that the seed would not be his.
• Ramban continues to discuss the virtues and value of levirate marriage and the “mystical concept” of transmigration of souls – see below.  
• The concept of transmigration of souls is that the soul can be reincarnated in someone else.
• According to Abarbanel, a dead person soul is passed to and through his brother who then transfers it to a child.  Abarbanel’s words, as cited in Munk’s commentary on 38:8 – “the soul of the one who died before it fulfilled its destiny on earth finds it most perfect reincarnation in the body of his brother.”
• To Ramban, levirate marriage is based on a “great mystical concept … pertaining to the genesis of a human being.”  He does not state what this mystical concept in this commentary.  However, from his commentary on Job 33, he describes how the “soul of the deceased brother enters and inhabits the body of the infant born through the union of his widow with the brother (or some other relative of the deceased).  [Footnote in Artscroll/Mesorah edition]  
• Robert Alter [The Five Books of Moses] writes, “Onan is troubled by the role of sexual proxy, which creates a situation in which the child he begets will be legally considered his dead brother’s offspring.”  In other words, he’s just selfish [Artscroll, The Chumash].  
• Yet Onan might have been motivated by practical concerns.  Why should he produce an heir for his dead brother’s estate, which is in the community’s interests but not in his own personal interest? [Eskenazi, The Torah.  A Women’s Commentary]
• What did he actually do?  
• Rashi - He practiced coitus interruptus. [From Genesis Rabbah 85:5]
• Onanism -  Me’Am Lo’Ez devotes 10 pages of text to the “sin” of masturbation, including remedies and repentance.  But Eli Munk does not consider “Onanism” to be masturbation.  Is this gonna be fun or what?

The Roles the brother's play in Joseph's path

Torah Study with Rabbi Marder - 29 June 2013

Genesis 38:1-8

• Naomi Rosenblatt [Wrestling with Angels, pages 327ff] on Joseph’s adolescence – did he ever grow out of it?  
• Up to age 18 months, narcissism defines a child’s character.  This “inflated sense of self fades and the child comes to understand that he is not the center of the universe.”  Unfortunately, Joseph never realized that his exaggerated self-love would become self-destructive.
• However, self-love can be valuable to keep one’s self-esteem, respect, and confidence.
• Life is a balancing act between “giving ourselves enough love to nurture and protect ourselves from rejection, without allowing self-love to become what Oscar Wilde described as the ‘beginning of a lifelong romance.’ ”... 
• Chapter 38 is a deliberate literary device and is not isolated from preceding and following narratives.
• It’s an interlude that intensifies sense of suspense.  One wag suggested it was like at TV show, where a commercial interrupts the narrative; or “we’ll be right back after these messages.”
• Common themes and key words and concepts that connect this chapter to the following and to previous chapters [Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary. Genesis, pages 263-264]
• יָרַד, go down, descend, demote – also appears in 37:35 and 39:1
• קָרָא, named –appears in 37:32-33 and 38:25-26
• נחם, comfort, console –37:35 and 38:12
• ערב, pledge –38:17,18, 20; 43:9; and 44:32
• Kid from a flock –37:31 and 38:17,20
• Deception and evidence – 37:32-33; 38:25-26
• Female temptation 
• Place names seem mystifying  [Sarna, page 264].
• All are in the territory of the tribe of Judah.
• Events and places are connected to the later life of David – see note on “Adullam” below.
• This chapter marks the descent of Tribe of Rueben and ascent of Judah, the eponymous ancestor of the Jews.  

Leon Kass (The Beginning of Wisdom, pages 526ff) writes that the key question in the narrative is whether Jacob’s family can “hold itself together without fratricide and within the covenant; and if so, under whose leadership this can be accomplished.”  Originally, the successor to Jacob was to have been Joseph, but although an extraordinary person, was not leadership material.  He sought moral advantages with innuendo about his brothers and boasted to all about his dreams of grandeur, having no idea of how arrogant his behavior was to others.  Furthermore, what kind of a person can lead a family or nation if he is presumed to be dead?  

“But if not Joseph, then who?”

• Reuben?  He’s well meaning but inept.
• Simeon and/or Levi?  Each is too violent and hot headed [recall the reaction to Sh’chem]
• Judah seems to be the only viable candidate, despite the problems he will encounter, such as leaving his brothers after the pit episode and the encounter with Tamar.  [There are eight other brothers that Kass does not mention, suggesting that they were unqualified.]
• 38:1 - Now it came about at that time that Judah was demoted by his brothers, and he turned away until [he came] to an Adullamite man, named Hirah.
• “Demoted” - וַיֵּרֶד, Judah descended (went down) from his brothers; some say that he literally went down from the hill country of Hebron in 37:12, 14, 32 [Sarna, page 265]
• To Rashi, the descent is spiritual, not physical.  Why was this section placed here, where it interrupts the section dealing with Joseph? To teach us that his (Judah’s) brothers demoted him from his high position when they saw their father’s [Jacob’s] distress. They said, “You told [us] to sell him. Had you told [us] to return him, we would have obeyed you.” [From Tanchuma Buber, Vayeshev 8].  In other words, the brothers are blaming Judah for the whole episode.
• Sforno builds on Rashi’s commentary [cited in Munk, The Call of the Torah], “[Judah’s] culpability [for what he did to Joseph] was great and his wrongdoing in destroying the peace of the family now turned against him. Right in his own household death and jealousy among the brothers broke out. ‘Measure for measure’ – with the loss of his ownsons Judah will come to know the cruel suffering he has caused his father.”
• Others link Judah’s descent to Joseph’s descent into Egypt (into slavery) [Midrash Rabbah 85:2, which states that both suffered spiritual declines].  The Midrash also relates the descent to the incident with Judah and Tamar in this chapter and with Joseph and Potiphar’s wife in chapter 39.  Ibn Ezra (cited in The Soncino Chumash) agrees: “the purpose of narrating the incident at this point is to contrast Judah’s conduct in the matter of Tamar with Joseph’s in connection with Potiphar’s wife.”
• Yet another explanation of Judah’s descent can be found in his marriage to a Canaanite woman in 38:2 [Midrash Rabbah 85:2].
• In his Torah Through a Zionist Vision, pages 111-112, [BS1225.53 .F434 2008] Abraham Feder writes about changing from a save-me-from-my-brother (fear, antagonism) feeling to a seeking-and-searching-for-my-brothers’ mentality – a journey from fear to love.  The act of  “going down” can transform attitudes from fear to love.  Joseph and Judah have to be “brought down” to a level of humility to reach maturity and realize bad behavior -- descent for the sake of ascent; or, go down to grow higher.
• In the case of Joseph, he “descends” from a position of having a “tactless and graceless exhibition of his visionary talents” to being thrown in a pit, being sold to slavery, and coping with Potiphar’s wife.
• Judah is transformed from the first-born leader to one without the persuasive power to save Joseph and then to the mistreatment of Tamar.
• Both Joseph and Judah, after reaching the bottom and being humbled, develop a sense of empathy and an ability to cope with their crises.  Joseph overcomes the temptations of Potiphar, idolatry, and the cruelty of imprisonment to become Pharaoh’s vizier.  Judah admits his faults in the Tamar episode and goes on to father the line of David, through Peretz, Boaz, and Ruth.
• Another view: Judah turned away in disgust (Rashi) from his brothers.  In his Self, Struggle & Change, (page 162) Norman J. Cohen writes, “Castigated by his brothers for not meeting the responsibilities he bore [presumably as first-born and leader for not doing more to save Joseph], Judah distanced himself from them.  It was almost as if he had been banished form their midst.”  However, the verb וַיֵּרֶד suggests that Judah took the initiative and separated himself from his brothers.  This “tells us much about Judah’s moral condition [at least with respect to his family].”
• Etz Hayim (citing Tanhuma Solomon Buber edition) provides a concise summary of Judah’s situation: “He left either out of feelings of guilt for what he had done with Joseph or because his brothers blamed him.
• Adullam is a real place, located about 18 kilometers northwest of Hebron, that would later be king David’s cave hideout -- 1 Samuel 22:1; 2 Samuel 2:13. This place also appears in Joshua 12:15, Micah 1:15, and Nehemiah 11:30.
• חִירָה, Hirah [Chirah]
• Linked to חִירָם Hiram, King of Tyre and an ally of Solomon, who supplied cedars of Lebanon for the Temple construction (1 Kings 7:13ff).  Midrash Rabbah 85:4 records a debate about Chirah’s identity.
• He was the same person as Hiram because he was friendly to both Judah and his descendants David and Solomon (1 Kings 5:15).  If this were the case, he would have lived 1,200 years; the Midrash does the math.
• Accordingly, others say that Chirah was someone else [but the Midrash gives no details].
• According to Rashi, Judah entered into business partnership with Chirah.
• 38:2 - And there Judah saw the daughter of a merchant [כְּנַעֲנִי אִישׁ, “eesh Canaani”] named Shua, and he took her and came to her.
• From Midrash Rabbah 85:2
• כְּנַעֲנִי אִישׁ in this context cannot be a Canaanite man because it would be inconceivable that Judah or any of Jacob’s sons would associate or marry a Canaanite woman.  Furthermore, all peoples in that area were “Canaanites” and Shua was from Adullam, one of the many cities in Canaan, so labeling Shua a Canaanite would provide no new information.  In fact, Shua came from a different country and was not a Canaanite.
• Prohibition against marrying Canaanite – in this context
• Also, the name שׁוּעַ refers to a man of distinction, denoting nobility (Isaiah 32:5 and Job 34:19 [?]).  “By identifying the Adullamite man in this way, Scripture means to convey that the Children of Israel were held in such high regard that the most important people wished to become a part of their family (Eitz Yosef).”
• The Midrash further justifies the meaning “merchant” by listing other places in Scripture and Talmud where Canaani means “merchant”.
• Hosea 12:8 - A trafficker [כְּנַעַן] who has deceitful scales in his hand; he loves to oppress.  This is not the best image; the context is Hosea describing the deceit among the people Israel that precludes God’s mercy [Soncino].
• Isaiah 23:8 – Who planned this on the royal Tyre, whose merchants were princes, whose traffickers [כִּנְעָנֶיהָ, literally, “her Canaanites”] were the honored of the earth?
• Context of Isaiah 23: an enemy has attacked the commercial trading city-state of Tyre.  This chapter is a lament for this incident, but it is not clear whether it’s history or prophecy [Berlin, The Jewish Study Bible, page 827].
• The word is used in parallel with סֹחֲרֶיהָ “sokherha,” a merchant.
• This use appears to have a more favorable connotation than in Hosea.  The Canaanites were traders throughout the Mediterranean.   According to Soncino, this appears to be the source for the interchangeability of “Canaanite” and “merchant.” 
• Zechariah 14:21 - Yea, every pot in Jerusalem and in Judah will be holy to the Lord of Hosts, and all who sacrifice will come and take of them and cook in them; and there will no longer be a trafficker [כְנַעֲנִי] in the House of the Lord of Hosts on that day.  
• Rashi explains, “They will not require trafficking, as in Isaiah 23:8 [above].  Another explanation: There is no poor man here.”
• Context: the prophet is describing the events that will lead to Jerusalem becoming the center of the world where God reigns over all [Berlin, page 1265].
• “The money-making merchant, who exploited the pilgrims to the Sanctuary with the sale of animals and vessels, will disappear from the Temple.”  These “Canaanites” were skillful traders but did not respect Jewish traditions.  Such “trafficking” associated with worship at the Temple would be considered unworthy in the age predicted by Zechariah [Soncino].  In other words, “Canaani” in this context has an unfavorable connotation.
• Other references [The Soncino Chumash]: Proverbs 31:24 and Job 40:30; also Nehemiah 13:16 ff
• Talmud Pesachim 50a [Schottenstein/Artscroll edition plus footnotes] puts it all together.  A “Canaani” is a merchant, not a Canaanite (in violation of Abraham’s dictum for bidding marriage to a Canaanite).

From where do we know that the word kenaani can refer to a merchant?	Or does it mean a resident of Canaan?
The Gemara answers: it is written “Judah saw there the daughter of a prominent ‘kenaani’ and he married her.  What is meant by ‘kennani’ in this verse [38:2]?  If you say it literally means a Canaanite, how can that be?  It is possible that after Abraham came and warned Isaac not to marry a Canaanite, and after Isaac came and likewise warned Jacob not to marry a Canaanite, would Judah then go and marry a Canaanite?!  Of course not!  Therefore, the word kenaani in this verse clearly does not refer to a Canaanite.	Genesis 24:3 Genesis 28:1
Rather, R’Shimon ben Lakish said: the verse refers to the daughter of a prominent merchant … as it is written: A merchant with scale of deceit in his hand.	Hosea 12:8
The Gemara continues with references to Isaiah 23:8 and Zechariah 14:21, presented above.

• Who is the woman, asks Radak.  Ramban answers – Judah wanted to marry a rich man’s daughter; she would be named Bat Shua as in 1 Chronicles 2:3.  Bat Sheva, whom David seduced in 2 Samuel 11, is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3.5 as Bat Shua.  Recall that David is one of Judah’s descendants.
• Judah was intimate with Bat Shua.
• Radak – this is a legitimate cohabitation; marriage first, then intimacy
• Verb וַיִּקָּחֶהָ could also mean, “marry.”
• Elie Munk (The Call of the Torah, page 514) asks why the text goes to such length to say that Shua is a merchant although his is called a “Canaanite.”  His answer is based on the fact that the ancestors of David and the Messiah would come from non-Israelites as well as Israelites.  This gave David insight into sin and family dynamics.  

Munk writes, “By stressing the Canaanite origins of Judah’s wife, … the Torah [draws] our attention to [the fact that] the royal lineage of the house of David … descended on the maternal side from the perverse city of Sodom [19:15].  It goes back to the daughter of Lot who, through an incestuous union, gave birth to Moab, the forefather of a nation from which descended Ruth, David’s ancestor.  Just as the maternal side of the dynasty of the future messianic king was tainted by sin, so too the paternal side was affected by Judah’s wrongdoing.  He married a Canaanite woman and this was the beginning of his ‘fall’; he cohabitated with his daughter-in-law [Tamar] and from this forbidden union came Peretz, the paternal ancestor of David (Ruth 4:18-22).”

• 38:3 - And she conceived and bore a son, and he named him Er.
• 38:4 - And she conceived again and bore a son, and she named him Onan.
• 38:5 -Once again she bore a son, and she named him Shelah, and he (Judah) was in Chezib when she gave birth to him.
• First son is called עֵר, but no explanation given for this name, which means awake.  Also related to a word for childless or barren.  Was this an unconscious prophecy for this dude dying young and childless?  Midrash Rabbah 85:4 – Judah named him “Er” based on events that would soon occur [in 38:7].  The name is related to hu’ar [?], empty out of the world, meaning that he died young.
• The second son is named אוֹנָן, “Onan”, related to root for strength or vigor; but actually means sorrow or pain, like Rebecca’s childbirth pain.  The name also conveys a sense of mourning and grief from a premature death (האֲנִינָ).  Midrash Rabbah 85:4 – Tamar named him with prophetic insight because of his early death in 38:10.
• Excerpt from Freakeconomics on naming children and their future … bottom line: names have no effect on child’s future socio-economic status. [http://www.freakonomics.com/2013/04/08/how-much-does-your-name-matter-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/, 3 July 2013] 

However, Midrash Rabbah 85:3 comments that Er’s and Onan’s premature deaths at age seven were primarily the result of Judah’s sins, since they were too young to be liable for their offenses (38:7,9).

• Judah’s third son is שֵׁלָה (Shelah)
• This name (from his wife) means drawn out (of the womb).  
• The wife’s reasoning, according to Midrash Rabbah 85:4, is that he would establish a genealogical chain in the world (שַׁלשֶׁלֶת), i.e., he would bear children, unlike his brothers.  Was Tamar prophetic or what?  Today, she could be a successful bookie or stockbroker.
• Others say that the name comes from the root for deceiving or disappointing (כזב  or שלה), i.e., the wife was displeased that Judah was not present at Shelah’s birth [Sarna, JPS Torah Commentary]. Furthermore, had Judah been present, he would not have agreed to this name [The Soncino Chumash, citing Sforno].
• Location is כְזִיב, a real place, where Bar Kochba was born; his enemies called him “Bar Chazeev.”  From the Jewish Encyclopedia: Bar Kokba, the hero of the third war against Rome, appears under this name only among ecclesiastical writers: heathen authors do not mention him; and Jewish sources call him Ben (or Bar) Koziba or Kozba. Many scholars believe this name to have been derived from the city of Chezib (Genesis 38:5) or Chozeba (I Chronicles 5:22), although it is more likely that it was simply the name of his father. [http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/2471-bar-kokba-and-bar-kokba-war, 3 July 2013]
• Rashi asks why this place?  The name of the place [was] Chezib because she stopped giving birth; [this is] an expression similar to “You are to me as a failing spring (אַכְזָב)” (Jeremiah 15:18);“whose water does not fail (יְכַזְבוּ)” (Isaiah 58:11). Otherwise, what does Scripture intend to tell us? Moreover, in Genesis Rabbah (85:4) I saw: And she named him Shelah… She stopped [bearing].  She will have no more children, setting the stage for upcoming events (Tamar).
• Ramban has a field day with this place name.  He disagrees with Rashi (above) and other explanations by Radak and Ibn Ezra.
• To counter Rashi, Ramban comments: the text does not state that this was the last birth of Judah’s wife.  Even if it were, stopping after three children hardly warrants special mention.
• Radak (also Rav Yosef Behor-Schor, 12^th century, France) states that the prevailing custom was for the father to name the first son, the mother the second, and alternating thereafter.  However, at the third birth, Judah was not present in Chezib; thus, the wife named the newborn.  Ramban rejects this, stating that Judah was in Chezib when the birth occurred.  Furthermore, there should be no need to explain the breach of a minor custom.
• Ibn Ezra’s commentary is that all of Judah’s sons were born in Chezib, thus justifying the mention of that place name.
• Ramban’s own explanation of Shelah is that the word denotes something that stops and becomes undependable, citing 2 Kings 4:28, and is related to a similar word for one who acts inadvertently, i.e., when conscious thoughts become undependable.  Chezib is close to the root כזב, which has a similar connotation.  Thus, since the wife was in Chezib when she gave birth, the son received a name that reflected that place.  

Does this suggest that the name was given inadvertently?  Unconsciously?  “Oh, by the way, your name is “Selah.”

Also, Ramban and Midrash Rabbah 85:4 footnotes seem to imply that “chezib” can refer to the situation -- i.e., no more births – or to the place name.  It’s unclear which came first, i.e., the place was named Judah’s wife having no more children or the name was there already when the wife gave birth for the last time.