Vayeshev Answers

VaYeshev  5728

בראשית פרק לח

(א) וַיְהִי בָּעֵת הַהִוא וַיֵּרֶד יְהוּדָה מֵאֵת אֶחָיו וַיֵּט עַד אִישׁ עֲדֻלָּמִי וּשְׁמוֹ חִירָה:

(ב) וַיַּרְא שָׁם יְהוּדָה בַּת אִישׁ כְּנַעֲנִי וּשְׁמוֹ שׁוּעַ וַיִּקָּחֶהָ וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ:

(ג) וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַיִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ עֵר:

(ד) וַתַּהַר עוֹד וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ אוֹנָן:

(ה) וַתֹּסֶף עוֹד וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא אֶת שְׁמוֹ שֵׁלָה וְהָיָה בִכְזִיב בְּלִדְתָּהּ אֹתוֹ:

(ו) וַיִּקַּח יְהוּדָה אִשָּׁה לְעֵר בְּכוֹרוֹ וּשְׁמָהּ תָּמָר:

(ז) וַיְהִי עֵר בְּכוֹר יְהוּדָה רַע בְּעֵינֵי יְקֹוָק וַיְמִתֵהוּ יְקֹוָק:

(ח) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה לְאוֹנָן בֹּא אֶל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיךָ וְיַבֵּם אֹתָהּ וְהָקֵם זֶרַע לְאָחִיךָ:

(ט) וַיֵּדַע אוֹנָן כִּי לֹּא לוֹ יִהְיֶה הַזָּרַע וְהָיָה אִם בָּא אֶל אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו וְשִׁחֵת אַרְצָה לְבִלְתִּי נְתָן זֶרַע לְאָחִיו:

(י) וַיֵּרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְקֹוָק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה וַיָּמֶת גַּם אֹתוֹ:

(יא) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה לְתָמָר כַּלָּתוֹ שְׁבִי אַלְמָנָה בֵית אָבִיךְ עַד יִגְדַּל שֵׁלָה בְנִי כִּי אָמַר פֶּן יָמוּת גַּם הוּא כְּאֶחָיו וַתֵּלֶךְ תָּמָר וַתֵּשֶׁב בֵּית אָבִיהָ:

(יב) וַיִּרְבּוּ הַיָּמִים וַתָּמָת בַּת שׁוּעַ אֵשֶׁת יְהוּדָה וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוּדָה וַיַּעַל עַל גֹּזֲזֵי צֹאנוֹ הוּא וְחִירָה רֵעֵהוּ הָעֲדֻלָּמִי תִּמְנָתָה:

(יג) וַיֻּגַּד לְתָמָר לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה חָמִיךְ עֹלֶה תִמְנָתָה לָגֹז צֹאנוֹ:

(יד) וַתָּסַר בִּגְדֵי אַלְמְנוּתָהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ וַתְּכַס בַּצָּעִיף וַתִּתְעַלָּף וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּפֶתַח עֵינַיִם אֲשֶׁר עַל דֶּרֶךְ תִּמְנָתָה כִּי רָאֲתָה כִּי גָדַל שֵׁלָה וְהִוא לֹא נִתְּנָה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה:

(טו) וַיִּרְאֶהָ יְהוּדָה וַיַּחְשְׁבֶהָ לְזוֹנָה כִּי כִסְּתָה פָּנֶיהָ:

(טז) וַיֵּט אֵלֶיהָ אֶל הַדֶּרֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר הָבָה נָּא אָבוֹא אֵלַיִךְ כִּי לֹא יָדַע כִּי כַלָּתוֹ הִוא וַתֹּאמֶר מַה תִּתֶּן לִּי כִּי תָבוֹא אֵלָי:

(יז) וַיֹּאמֶר אָנֹכִי אֲשַׁלַּח גְּדִי עִזִּים מִן הַצֹּאן וַתֹּאמֶר אִם תִּתֵּן עֵרָבוֹן עַד שָׁלְחֶךָ:

(יח) וַיֹּאמֶר מָה הָעֵרָבוֹן אֲשֶׁר אֶתֶּן לָּךְ וַתֹּאמֶר חֹתָמְךָ וּפְתִילֶךָ וּמַטְּךָ אֲשֶׁר בְּיָדֶךָ וַיִּתֶּן לָּהּ וַיָּבֹא אֵלֶיהָ וַתַּהַר לוֹ:

(יט) וַתָּקָם וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתָּסַר צְעִיפָהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ וַתִּלְבַּשׁ בִּגְדֵי אַלְמְנוּתָהּ:

(כ) וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוּדָה אֶת גְּדִי הָעִזִּים בְּיַד רֵעֵהוּ הָעֲדֻלָּמִי לָקַחַת הָעֵרָבוֹן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מְצָאָהּ:

(כא) וַיִּשְׁאַל אֶת אַנְשֵׁי מְקֹמָהּ לֵאמֹר אַיֵּה הַקְּדֵשָׁה הִוא בָעֵינַיִם עַל הַדָּרֶךְ וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא הָיְתָה בָזֶה קְדֵשָׁה:

(כב) וַיָּשָׁב אֶל יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא מְצָאתִיהָ וְגַם אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם אָמְרוּ לֹא הָיְתָה בָזֶה קְדֵשָׁה:

(כג) וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה תִּקַּח לָהּ פֶּן נִהְיֶה לָבוּז הִנֵּה שָׁלַחְתִּי הַגְּדִי הַזֶּה וְאַתָּה לֹא מְצָאתָהּ:

(כד) וַיְהִי כְּמִשְׁלֹשׁ חֳדָשִׁים וַיֻּגַּד לִיהוּדָה לֵאמֹר זָנְתָה תָּמָר כַּלָּתֶךָ וְגַם הִנֵּה הָרָה לִזְנוּנִים וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵף:

(כה) הִוא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה וַתֹּאמֶר הַכֶּר נָא לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה הָאֵלֶּה:

(כו) וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי כִּי עַל כֵּן לֹא נְתַתִּיהָ לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ:

(כז) וַיְהִי בְּעֵת לִדְתָּהּ וְהִנֵּה תְאוֹמִים בְּבִטְנָהּ:

(כח) וַיְהִי בְלִדְתָּהּ וַיִּתֶּן יָד וַתִּקַּח הַמְיַלֶּדֶת וַתִּקְשֹׁר עַל יָדוֹ שָׁנִי לֵאמֹר זֶה יָצָא רִאשֹׁנָה:

(כט) וַיְהִי כְּמֵשִׁיב יָדוֹ וְהִנֵּה יָצָא אָחִיו וַתֹּאמֶר מַה פָּרַצְתָּ עָלֶיךָ פָּרֶץ וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ פָּרֶץ:

(ל) וְאַחַר יָצָא אָחִיו אֲשֶׁר עַל יָדוֹ הַשָּׁנִי וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ זָרַח: ס

Alef.

1.  The similarity between Rut and Tamar is that these were women who were being excluded from participating in the formation of the Jewish people by having children. Rut’s exclusion was her non-acceptance by the general population as well as by Ploni Almoni, the closest relative who was in line to fulfill the institution of levirate marriage. The text does not state whether or not Tamar was Jewish—since there is no implication of conversion for Tamar as there is with respect to Rut according to Yevamot 47b:

רות פרק א

(טז) וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת אַל תִּפְגְּעִי בִי לְעָזְבֵךְ לָשׁוּב מֵאַחֲרָיִךְ כִּי אֶל אֲשֶׁר תֵּלְכִי אֵלֵךְ וּבַאֲשֶׁר תָּלִינִי אָלִין עַמֵּךְ עַמִּי וֵאלֹקיִךְ אֱלֹקי:

(יז) בַּאֲשֶׁר תָּמוּתִי אָמוּת וְשָׁם אֶקָּבֵר כֹּה יַעֲשֶׂה יְקֹוָק לִי וְכֹה יֹסִיף כִּי הַמָּוֶת יַפְרִיד בֵּינִי וּבֵינֵךְ:

it could be assumed that Tamar was “Jewish” by being somehow related to the family. But then again, since this is before the Tora was given, perhaps the normal rules did not apply in the case of Tamar. Nevertheless in the end, both Rut and Tamar refused to accept their exclusion and found means by which they would be accepted and have children who would be considered part of the Jewish nation.

2.  In Beraishit 38, v. 11 reflects Tamar’s initial patience and her readiness to wait until Sheila will reach marriageable age. However, v. 14 shows that she realizes that when Sheila reaches the proper age and Yehuda gives no indication that he was going to allow Sheila to marry Tamar, she takes things into her own hands. V. 24-5 describe how Tamar risked her life by confronting Yehuda when she was pregnant, and was fortunate that Yehuda was prepared to admit how he had wronged her, both by refusing Sheila, and then being intimate with her when she pretended to be a prostitute.

3.  Differences between the stories of Tamar and Rut:

i. The contexts of the original marriages:

T—a wife for Yehuda’s sons           R—a wife for Naomi’s son, once the family       once Yehuda left his brothers           relocated to Moav.

       following the sale of Yosef.

ii. The fathers of their pregnancies:

          T—her father-in-law Yehuda           R—her wealthy relative Boaz who

       who is intimate with her                      appreciates her kindnesses to her following the death of his wife           mother-in-law Naomi, and offers to

       and her masquerading as a                  marry her under the rubric of levirate prostitute.                                               marriage.

iii. The types of society:

          T—herders, with Yehuda sending a    R—farmers, with the poor, including Rut, kid (v. 20) to pay for his dalliance      gleaning in the fields.

                and redeeming his collateral.

iv. The means by which they elicit contact with the men who father their children:

          T—pretends to be a prostitute.            R—comes to Boaz’ small hut in the middle

                                                                                    of the night during the harvest season.

v. Number of children that they had:

           T—twin boys, one of whom was an     R—one son, who is an ancestor of David  ancestor of Moshiach.                             and therefore the Moshiach.

4. The differences between Beraishit 38:11 and Rut 1:8 could be:

i. Yehuda’s instructions to Tamar appeared at the outset to be only temporary, while     Naomi meant for both sisters to return to Moav for good and never rejoin her

      family.

ii.  Tamar is told to return to her father’s house, while Rut and her sister are told to return to their mother. The difference might have to do with who will support Tamar while she awaits Sheila to come of age—the father is responsible for support. As for Rut and her sister, perhaps it is to emphasize that they should preserve their own family religious traditions, and these are determined by the mother.

Beit.

1.  The question regarding the Chapter 38 is when did it take place vis-à-vis the story that immediately precedes it, i.e., the selling of Yosef into slavery. Both of them admit to the possibility that it took place significantly before Yehuda recommended that instead of killing Yosef, the brothers should sell him. RaShI understands that there is a cause-and-effect relationship, with the effects of the report of Yosef’s demise at the hands of a wild animal upon Yaakov causing the brothers to turn on Yehuda and blame him for not talking them out of the adventure. For this reason, Yehuda went down in his brothers’ esteem. But if the incident with Tamar happened prior to Yosef’s being sold, the cause-and-effect relationship breaks down.

2.  The context of the verse in Devarim 10:8 is:

דברים פרק י

(א) בָּעֵת הַהִוא אָמַר יְקֹוָק אֵלַי פְּסָל לְךָ שְׁנֵי לוּחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וַעֲלֵה אֵלַי הָהָרָה וְעָשִׂיתָ לְּךָ אֲרוֹן עֵץ:

(ב) וְאֶכְתֹּב עַל הַלֻּחֹת אֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ עַל הַלֻּחֹת הָרִאשֹׁנִים אֲשֶׁר שִׁבַּרְתָּ וְשַׂמְתָּם בָּאָרוֹן:

(ג) וָאַעַשׂ אֲרוֹן עֲצֵי שִׁטִּים וָאֶפְסֹל שְׁנֵי לֻחֹת אֲבָנִים כָּרִאשֹׁנִים וָאַעַל הָהָרָה וּשְׁנֵי הַלֻּחֹת בְּיָדִי:

(ד) וַיִּכְתֹּב עַל הַלֻּחֹת כַּמִּכְתָּב הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק אֲלֵיכֶם בָּהָר מִתּוֹךְ הָאֵשׁ בְּיוֹם הַקָּהָל וַיִּתְּנֵם יְקֹוָק אֵלָי:

(ה) וָאֵפֶן וָאֵרֵד מִן הָהָר וָאָשִׂם אֶת הַלֻּחֹת בָּאָרוֹן אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתִי וַיִּהְיוּ שָׁם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוַּנִי יְקֹוָק:

(ו) וּבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל נָסְעוּ מִבְּאֵרֹת בְּנֵי יַעֲקָן מוֹסֵרָה שָׁם מֵת אַהֲרֹן וַיִּקָּבֵר שָׁם וַיְכַהֵן אֶלְעָזָר בְּנוֹ תַּחְתָּיו:

(ז) מִשָּׁם נָסְעוּ הַגֻּדְגֹּדָה וּמִן הַגֻּדְגֹּדָה יָטְבָתָה אֶרֶץ נַחֲלֵי מָיִם:

(ח) בָּעֵת הַהִוא הִבְדִּיל יְקֹוָק אֶת שֵׁבֶט הַלֵּוִי לָשֵׂאת אֶת אֲרוֹן בְּרִית יְקֹוָק לַעֲמֹד לִפְנֵי יְקֹוָק לְשָׁרְתוֹ וּלְבָרֵךְ בִּשְׁמוֹ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה:

(ט) עַל כֵּן לֹא הָיָה לְלֵוִי חֵלֶק וְנַחֲלָה עִם אֶחָיו יְקֹוָק הוּא נַחֲלָתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר יְקֹוָק אֱלֹקיךָ לוֹ:

(י) וְאָנֹכִי עָמַדְתִּי בָהָר כַּיָּמִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים אַרְבָּעִים יוֹם וְאַרְבָּעִים לָיְלָה וַיִּשְׁמַע יְקֹוָק אֵלַי גַּם בַּפַּעַם הַהִוא לֹא אָבָה יְקֹוָק הַשְׁחִיתֶךָ:

(יא) וַיֹּאמֶר יְקֹוָק אֵלַי קוּם לֵךְ לְמַסַּע לִפְנֵי הָעָם וְיָבֹאוּ וְיִירְשׁוּ אֶת הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּעְתִּי לַאֲבֹתָם לָתֵת לָהֶם: פ

The order of the verses suggests that HaShem replaced the Bechorim with the Levi’im only after Aharon’s death and his being replaced by Eliezer. Yet in the Tora itself, the choosing of the Levi’im is recorded in BaMidbar 8:5 ff. with Aharon’s death being recorded in BaMidbar 20:22 ff.

Gimel.

1. RaMBaN’s attack on RaShI is that the Halacha is not that the child that is produced as the result of a levirate marriage must be named for the original husband who died. This is demonstrated textually and logically:

i.  Although Boaz treated Rut as Machlon’s Yevama, the child that resulted was named Oved and not Machlon.

ii. When the Tora recounts why Onan did not wish for Tamar to get pregnant, RaMBaN cannot imagine it was because he would have to name the child for Ehr, Tamar’s originaly husband. In fact, it is the custom to name children after deceased relatives.

2.  Mizrachi says two things in defense of RaShI’s interpretation:

i. RaShI certainly must have known of the Gemora’s clear statement in Yevamot 40a to the effect that what is meant by the Tora’s terminology is that the inheritance will be known as belonging to the deceased husband’s line, as opposed to having to name the child with the deceased husband’s name.

ii. RaShI himself in his commentary to Devarim 25:6 quotes this same Gemora. Consequently, instead of RaMBaN questioning RaShI’s meaning in his comment to Beraishit 38:8, he should have asked doesn’t RaShI contradict himself when one compared the interpretation of Devarim 25:6 with that of Beraishit 38:8?

3. Mizrachi quotes the Gemora in Yevamot to demonstrate that there should be no doubt in terms of RaShI’s meaning when he makes his comment on Beraishit 25:6. If RaShI knows the Gemora, then his commentary on Chumash has to be viewed in light of this.

4.  Be’er Yitzchak’s interpretation of RaShI, defending him from RaMBaN’s critique states as follows:

i.  Even if after the Tora was given, as reflected in Yevamot and Devarim, there was no necessity to call the first child by the name of the deceased, before the Tora was given, as in the period when the story of Yehuda and Tamar takes place, this was the practice. Consequently RaShI on Beraishit 38:8 is reflecting the contemporary practice.

ii. As for Onan’s reluctance, there is a difference when on can freely choose to name a child after a deceased relative and one is forced to do so. Since Onan thought he had no other option, he was resentful and therefore tried to short circuit the entire process.

Daled.

1. The difference between the Peshat of RaShI and the Midrash is the question of when did Tamar cover her face. According to the Peshat, she covered her face at the crossroads, and for this reason Yehuda did not recognize her. According to the Midrash, the face covering was done in Yehuda’s household due to her modesty. Consequently Yehuda had never gotten a good look at Tamar and when she sat at the cross-roads, even without her face being covered, Yehuda did not recognize her.

2.  The reason why RaShI quotes the Midrash in addition to the Peshat is because the term “כסתה” is the past tense, rather than the present or the gerund, i.e., “she was covering”. If it is a reference to something that had happened in the past, keeping in mind that she had been out of Yehuda’s household from the time Onan died, all the while awaiting Sheila coming of age, it was some time in the past when she had acted this way and making this the basis for why Yehuda did not recognize her.

3.  Perhaps R. Avraham ben HaRaMBaM couldn’t imagine that Yehuda would not have recognized his daughter-in-law’s face after all the time she was married to his two sons, and his also having selected her to begin with the marry his first son. It makes more sense to this commentator that the covered face was a sign of the woman’s profession rather than a reference to how she had conducted herself while married to his two sons.

Heh.

1. The concept underlying this Midrash is the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, i.e., the manner in which you treat others will be how you yourself will be treated. Yehuda misled his father improperly when he participated in the plot to misrepresent what had happened to Yoseph. So now he is being presented in the same way with compromising evidence of his malfeasance and will have to own up to his inappropriate behavior vis-à-vis Tamar.

2. 

בראשית פרק לח (יב) וַיִּרְבּוּ הַיָּמִים וַתָּמָת בַּת שׁוּעַ אֵשֶׁת יְהוּדָה וַיִּנָּחֶם יְהוּדָה וַיַּעַל עַל גֹּזֲזֵי צֹאנוֹ הוּא וְחִירָה רֵעֵהוּ הָעֲדֻלָּמִי תִּמְנָתָה: (יג) וַיֻּגַּד לְתָמָר לֵאמֹר הִנֵּה חָמִיךְ עֹלֶה תִמְנָתָה לָגֹז צֹאנוֹ: (יד) וַתָּסַר בִּגְדֵי אַלְמְנוּתָהּ מֵעָלֶיהָ וַתְּכַס בַּצָּעִיף וַתִּתְעַלָּף וַתֵּשֶׁב בְּפֶתַח עֵינַיִם אֲשֶׁר עַל דֶּרֶךְ תִּמְנָתָה כִּי רָאֲתָה כִּי גָדַל שֵׁלָה וְהִוא לֹא נִתְּנָה לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה: (כ) וַיִּשְׁלַח יְהוּדָה אֶת גְּדִי הָעִזִּים בְּיַד רֵעֵהוּ הָעֲדֻלָּמִי לָקַחַת הָעֵרָבוֹן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה וְלֹא מְצָאָהּ:… (כב) וַיָּשָׁב אֶל יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא מְצָאתִיהָ וְגַם אַנְשֵׁי הַמָּקוֹם אָמְרוּ לֹא הָיְתָה בָזֶה קְדֵשָׁה: (כה) הִוא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה וַתֹּאמֶר הַכֶּר נָא לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה הָאֵלֶּה: (כו) וַיַּכֵּר יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר צָדְקָה מִמֶּנִּי כִּי עַל כֵּן לֹא נְתַתִּיהָ לְשֵׁלָה בְנִי וְלֹא יָסַף עוֹד לְדַעְתָּהּ:

בראשית פרק לז (יב) וַיֵּלְכוּ אֶחָיו לִרְעוֹת אֶת צֹאן אֲבִיהֶם בִּשְׁכֶם: (יט) וַיֹּאמְרוּ אִישׁ אֶל אָחִיו הִנֵּה בַּעַל הַחֲלֹמוֹת הַלָּזֶה בָּא: (כג) וַיְהִי כַּאֲשֶׁר בָּא יוֹסֵף אֶל אֶחָיו וַיַּפְשִׁיטוּ אֶת יוֹסֵף אֶת כֻּתָּנְתּוֹ אֶת כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים אֲשֶׁר עָלָיו: (כט) וַיָּשָׁב רְאוּבֵן אֶל הַבּוֹר וְהִנֵּה אֵין יוֹסֵף בַּבּוֹר וַיִּקְרַע אֶת בְּגָדָיו: (ל) וַיָּשָׁב אֶל אֶחָיו וַיֹּאמַר הַיֶּלֶד אֵינֶנּוּ וַאֲנִי אָנָה אֲנִי בָא: (לב) וַיְשַׁלְּחוּ אֶת כְּתֹנֶת הַפַּסִּים וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶל אֲבִיהֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ זֹאת מָצָאנוּ הַכֶּר נָא הַכְּתֹנֶת בִּנְךָ הִוא אִם לֹא: (לג) וַיַּכִּירָהּ וַיֹּאמֶר כְּתֹנֶת בְּנִי חַיָּה רָעָה אֲכָלָתְהוּ טָרֹף טֹרַף יוֹסֵף:

Vav.

1.

• Beraishit 38:1 And it came to pass at that time, that Judah went down from his brethren, and turned in to a certain Adullamite, whose name was Hirah. √

The term “turning” when applied to a person suggests leaving one thing for another. Since it was not clear whom Yehuda was turning from, RaShI explains that it was from his brothers.

• Ibid. 16 And he turned unto her by the way, and said: 'Come, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee'; for he knew not that she was his daughter-in-law. And she said: 'What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me?' √

As in the comment above, since Yehuda had to be leaving something in order to turn towards Tamar, RaShI explains he turned from the path upon which he was proceeding to the path wherein Tamar sat.

• Ibid. 12:8  And he removed from thence unto the mountain on the east of Beth-el, and pitched his tent, having Beth-el on the west, and Ai on the east; and he builded there an altar unto the LORD, and called upon the Name of the LORD.

“Pitching a tent” is an idiom that is not in need of explanation.

• Ibid. 26:25 And he builded an altar there, and called upon the Name of the LORD, and pitched his tent there; and there Isaac's servants digged a well.

See comment immediately above on 12:8.

• BaMidbar 20:21 Thus Edom refused to give Israel passage through his border; wherefore Israel turned away from him.

Since it is clear in this verse from whom Israel was turning, i.e., Edom, there was no need for an interpretive comment.

• Ibid. 22:33 and the ass saw me, and turned aside before me these three times; unless she had turned aside from me, surely now I had even slain thee, and saved her alive.'

The donkey was not turning from one path to another, but rather was refusing to proceed straight ahead as Bilaam thought it should. So it wasn’t turning towards something, but rather away from something else, and the Tora text makes clear that an Angel was blocking the way, one that could at first only be seen by the donkey and not its rider.

• Tehillim 40:2 I waited patiently for the LORD; and He Inclined unto me, and Heard my cry. √

Here there is the anthropomorphic problem, i.e., if God has no body, then how does He Turn towards one thing or another? RaShI explains that the meaning is that HaShem Deliberately Paid attention to my prayer (even the word “His Ear”) is also an anthropomorphism!).

• Ibid 73:2 But as for me, my feet were almost gone; my steps had well nigh slipped. √

In this context the verb is being used not for anything directional but rather, according to RaShI in a figurative sense, i.e., that the “walker” is no longer following the path of HaShem.

2.

Beraishit 38:11  Then said Judah to Tamar his daughter-in-law: 'Remain a widow in thy father's house, till Shelah my son be grown up'; for he said: 'Lest he also die, like his brethren.' And Tamar went and dwelt in her father's house. 

RaShI is bothered that the verse appears to contradict itself. On the one hand, Yehuda tells Tamar that she should wait until Sheila is old enough to marry her, and then it states that Yehuda had no intention of ever allowing Sheila to marry Tamar. Consequently, RaShI explains that Yehuda disingenuously told Tamar something that would appease her in the meantime, but from the get-go he never intended to go through with this.

3.   In all of these cases, there is an implied change of location or direction, but it is unclear from where to where these changes are taking place.

• Beraishit 38:12 And in process of time Shua's daughter, the wife of Judah, died; and Judah was comforted, and went up unto his sheep-shearers to Timnah, he and his friend Hirah the Adullamite.

RaShI explains that the location where the sheep shearers were located was in Timnah. The verse is to be understood as if it said, “And he went up to Timnah, unto his sheep-shearers”.

• Ibid. 24:18 And she said: 'Drink, my lord'; and she hastened, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink.

RaShI had to explain where the pitcher probably originally was in order to allow for lowering.

• Ibid. 19:3  And he urged them greatly; and they turned in unto him, and entered into his house; and he made them a feast, and did bake unleavened bread, and they did eat. 

RaShI assumes that they were going along the main thoroughfare, and in order to enter Lot’s house, they had to turn away from it.

• Shemot 3:3 And Moses said: 'I will turn aside now, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt.'

In the desert, there are not defined paths. So what was he travelling on originally that would require him to turn aside?RaShI merely says that the act of trying to get closer to the burning bush qualifies as “turning aside”.