1.        The MT of Genesis 38:15 reads as follows: hynp htsk yk hnwzl hb#$xyw hdwhy h)ryw “When Judah saw her (Tamar), he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face.” At first blush, the statement seems fairly straightforward: the veiled face of Tamar leads Judah to conclude that she is a common prostitute. But as Judah himself later discovers, appearances can be deceptive, and such is also the case as one delves into the exegetical history of this passage. Here the reader encounters a variety of interpretive expansions, all of which turn, implicitly or explicitly, on the causal relationship introduced by theyk clause of the second half of the verse. Previously (v. 14), we learn that Tamar had donned a veil (Py(cb sktw), covered herself up (Pl(ttw), and taken a roadside posture, but it is only the first of these acts that is mentioned in Judah’s inference in verse 15. ^[1] Thus it is with some warrant that biblical scholars, past and present, have associated the garment with the profession; that is, it was the veil of Tamar that signaled to Judah her status as a prostitute. ^[2] Others, however, have disputed this reading of the verse, citing biblical and ancient Near Eastern evidence to indicate that the veil itself was not diagnostic, but simply allowed Tamar to conceal her identity. ^[3] Following this view, while it is reasonable to assume, at least from the biblical text, that prostitutes did in fact adorn themselves in a distinctive manner (e.g., Jer 4:30; Ezek 23:40), their identity as such appears not to be linked to a veil. ^[4] In addition to the biblical passages, the most frequently cited evidence are those Middle Assyrian laws governing the use of veils among various classes of women. Here prostitutes, female slaves, unmarried hierodules (qadiltu), and concubines unaccompanied by mistress--unlike married hierodules, widows, daughters, and accompanied concubines--are prohibited from appearing veiled in public. ^[5] Others, however, have cautioned that customs may vary regionally and we should not assume that those of Assyria applied equally to ancient Israelite society. ^[6] One thus encounters two plausible explanations of the verse in the scholarly literature (referenced in notes 2 and 3), the first more of a plain sense reading of the verse in isolation, the second more comparative in orientation, drawing upon other biblical texts and Middle Assyrian law. But there is yet another body of evidence, rarely mentioned in the literature on these verses, that bears directly on how one understands Tamar’s actions.

2.        It is somewhat surprising to find that the majority of commentaries of the last century (e.g., Driver, Westermann, Von Rad, Spieser, Vater, Wenham), as well as a recent major study of Genesis 38 in particular (Menn, Judah and Tamar, see note 3), fail to note the addition to 38:15 in the Septuagint and Vulgate (cited in the apparatus of Kittel’s Biblica Hebraica, but omitted in Biblica Hebraica Stuttgartensia). ^[7] By way of extension at the end of the verse, the LXX adds kai\ ou)k e)pe/gnw au)th/n (“and he did not recognize her”). ^[8] The Vulgate follows with the passive ne cognosceretur (“she was not recognized”), while the Vetus Latina reflects the LXX more closely: cooperuerat enim faciem suam et non cognovit eam (“because she had covered her face and he did not recognize her” - Codex Lugdunensis [Lyon] and the Latin text of Jubilees); compare igitur ne cognoscatur, faciem velamine obscurat (“therefore, in order not to be recognized, she covers [her] face with a veil” - Zeno, Bishop of Verona). ^[9] The addition is absent in the Samaritan Pentateuch, Syriac, and Targum Onqelos. ^[10] With the LXX, the expanded verse then reads as follows: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute, for she had covered her face and he did not recognize her.” Here they k clause is explained: Tamar covered her face to conceal her identity. Presumably, had she not do so, Judah would have recognized her. Thus, following the LXX, the veil was not diagnostic of prostitution. But if not the veil, then what, one may ask, led Judah to consider her a prostitute? The success of Tamar’s stratagem, as described in unexpected, but necessary, detail in verse 14, hinged upon two interrelated components: cover-up and location. While the first concealed her identity, it was the second that conveyed her harlot status. ^[11] So concluded Rashi, who commented as follows:Pl(ttw- “she covered her face so that he did not recognize her” . . . hnwzl hb#$xyw- “because she was sitting at the crossroads”: hynp htsk yk- “and he was unable to see her  (face)  and  (therefore could not) recognize her   (hrykhlw htw)rl lwky )lw).” ^[12]

3.        Prior to Rashi, a number of targumim and midrashim, in their attempts to explain Judah’s perception of Tamar in verse 15, disassociate the veil from harlotry, albeit in different ways and for different reasons. The focus shifts from Tamar’s roadside guise when she encountered Judah to her reserved habit of dress while in his house. ^[13] Targum Neofiti adds: “...thought her to be a prostitute, because she was veiled (lit. “covered of face”) in the house of Judah and Judah had not known her.” ^[14]  The translation, however, is not entirely consistent at this point. Verse 15 of Neofiti implies that Judah did see Tamar’s face, apparently for the first time, but that he failed to recognize her because it was her custom to veil herself while in his house. By contrast, verse 14 states explicitly that she covered herself (hb tp+(t)w hdydrb tyyskw). Leaving aside this inconsistency, while the gloss in v.15 provides a reason for Judah’s inability to recognize Tamar, it does not correlate the veil with the attire of a prostitute, but with that of a modestly dressed widow in his household. A somewhat different explanation is offered in TargumPseudo-Jonathan: “Judah saw her, and in his eyes he compared her to a harlot, because she was of sullen[?] appearance in the house of Judah and Judah had not loved her.” ^[15] But this explanation makes little sense contextually (how does it account for Judah’s taking her to be a prostitute?) and is unique to Pseudo-Jonathan. ^[16] While the targum explicitly describes how Tamar covered herself with a veil and subsequently removed it (vv.14, 19), the above rendering of v.15 fails to explain the relevance of her change of clothing. Are we to infer that prostitutes generally exhibited a sullen appearance (Nyp) tsy(k),or does the targumist wish to convey that Judah’s unfavorable attitude toward Tamar, formed while she lived in his house, caused him at this point (assuming of course that he recognized her when he saw her) to treat her as a common prostitute? A more plausible solution for the contextually problematic tsy(kmay be textual corruption: instead of s(k “to be angry,” others have suggested the verb y sk “to cover.” ^[17] But even with the proposed emendation, the targum’s meaning is by no means obvious. Nevertheless, for our purpose it is significant that both Neofiti and Pseudo-Jonathan avoid the conclusion that Tamar’s donning of a veil was in some fashion indicative of her status as a prostitute. On the contrary, both assume, at least in v.15, that she was not veiled when she encountered Judah by the road.

4.        Genesis Rabbah (85.8) provides two contrasting interpretations. ^[18] The first echoes Neofiti in commenting that Tamar was not recognized because she had covered her face while in her father-in-law’s house  (hymx tybb )yh#$ d( hynp htsk yk). The midrash cites the expansion as an object lesson: a man should acquaint himself with female relations so as to avoid unintentional incest. The gloss in this case highlights Judah’s guilt in the matter for not having done so. ^[19] The second interpretation explains that Judah initially took no notice of Tamar since she had covered her face, thus, he thought to himself, she could not be a prostitute ()hmt) hynp hskm htyh hnwz htyh wly) rm) hynp htsk#$ Nwyk xyg#$h )l hdwhy h)ryw). ^[20] This explanation assumes that prostitutes by definition were not veiled and clashes with the unambiguous biblical statement that Judah considered her to be one. ^[21] Judah’s character remains unblemished insofar as he initially resists communication with a modestly dressed woman, not a prostitute. ^[22] As the midrash continues, Judah’s noble unwillingness is overcome by an angel of desire (hw)th l( hnwmm )wh#$ K)lm), who compels him to turn aside and proposition Tamar, thus insuring the birth of Perez and, more to the point, the emergence of the Davidic line. ^[23] Likewise, Sforno (15^th-16^th cent. Italy) comments on 38:16 that Judah’s inability to recognize Tamar is a turn of events brought about by God in order that the righteous messiah might emerge from Judah, a more worthy ancestor than Selah (in Miqra’ot Gedolot sub )yh wtlk yk (dy )l yk).

5.        In his comments on 38:15, Ramban (13^th cent. Spain) repeats, but takes issue with, the views of Rashi and the midrash: given that Tamar covered her face while in his house (so the targumim and midrash), how could Judah have recognized her even if she had been unveiled? Therefore, according to Ramban, the veil was not intended for concealment. Rather, the plain sense of the verse (+#$ph) dictates that Judah concluded she was a prostitute because of her veiled face, and, furthermore, it was the custom of prostitutes to take their place by the roadside with the face partly veiled (Mynph tcq hskm). ^[24] Thus, with respect to the two key acts of Tamar mentioned above, her veiled face and location, Ramban stands alone insofar as he accepts the diagnostic importance of both; each contributed to Judah’s inference of harlotry.

6.        If we move a bit further down to the Christian commentators of the Reformation period, while they did not mince words when it came to the proliferation of brothels in their time, neither Luther nor Calvin saw the veil of Tamar as a telltale sign of prostitution. ^[25] In his comments on Gen. 38:14, Luther explains the separate dress associated with the married woman, the virgin, and widows. ^[26] The Py(c of Tamar is described by the reformer as a large cloth with which the woman would bind her hair and cover the head completely down to the shoulders, the same as that worn by Rebecca (Genesis 24) to signify her “reverence and modesty.” Luther then draws the reader’s attention to a contemporary parallel: “Even today, in some parts of Germany, head coverings which veil the neck and the mouth so that only the eyes appear are in use.” ^[27] In Genesis 38, Tamar exchanges her widow’s garments for more “festive garb,” apparently in keeping with the festive time of year (following his earlier comments on 38:12). She “not only covered her head with the honorable robe of a matron but also adorned her whole body elegantly and in festive manner”; in this fashion, she was “adorned and decked out to excite Judah,” but not as a whore. ^[28] So why then, Luther wonders, did Judah not recognize Tamar, at least from her voice or the exposed eyes? He is somewhat puzzled by this and attributes it to the focused imagination of Judah, which was blind to all else, or to the miraculous intervention of God--or the work of the Devil. Regardless, for him the costume of Tamar plays no role in Judah’s perception of her as a prostitute.

7.        In his commentary on Genesis, Calvin contrasts the veil of Tamar with the dress of prostitutes of his time: “When it is said she veiled her face, we hence infer that the license of fornication was not so unbridled as that which, at this day, prevails in many places.” He implies that the whores of his day do not bother with a veil, unlike Tamar, who is fully aware of her sin and puts on a veil to hid her shame: “the veil of Tamar shows that fornication was not only a base and filthy thing in the sight of God and the angels; but that it has always been condemned, even by those (i.e., Tamar) who have practised it.” ^[29] As for Judah’s inability to recognize Tamar, Calvin attributes this to the hand of God. ^[30]

8.        Thus far, I have highlighted some of the religious motivations behind the separation of the veil from prostitution (upholding Judah’s character, moral exhortation), and have touched upon other factors that appear to have influenced the above interpretations, for example, exegetical considerations (LXX) or contemporary practice (Ramban, Luther). It is to the last of these, contemporary custom, that I now turn in a more sustained way with a brief historical survey of the veil’s usage and meaning--from Assyria to Arles--particularly as it relates to social status and prostitution. Such contextualization of the interpretive life of Genesis 38:15 illuminates possible reasons for the lack of correlation between Tamar’s veil and prostitution in the exegetical tradition. First, a brief word on the veil is necessary.

9.        In using the term veil, I do not assume that the face itself must necessarily have been covered. Over the centuries, one finds evidence for a wide variety of veils or coverings, whether one wished simply to cover the top of the head, conceal the hair, or all or a part of the face (note already Ramban or Luther above). ^[31] Some veils were transparent (silk), and thus concealed little, while others masked the identity of the wearer. ^[32] Moreover, modern analogies suggest that veils could be manipulated, depending on the company or other circumstances. ^[33] We of course do not know how ancient readers or hearers of the Genesis story would have envisioned the veil of Tamar, but the text implies that it was substantial enough to conceal her identity. Additionally, the text also leads the reader to assume that Tamar retained some type of covering during intercourse, given Judah remained unaware of her identity until it was too late.

10.      As mentioned above, Middle Assyrian law prohibits prostitutes, slave women, concubines unaccompanied by their mistress, and unmarried hierodules from appearing unveiled in public. Those who do so are subject to severe punishments, including fifty blows, pitch poured over the head, and the cutting off of one’s ears. ^[34] The law, as Lerner observes (building on the conclusions of Miles and Driver), serves to institutionalize class distinction for women, here distinguished via their “sexual activities”: “Domestic women, sexually serving one man and under his protection, are here designated as ‘respectable’ by being veiled; women not under one man’s protection and sexual control are designated as ‘public women,’ hence unveiled.” ^[35] Likewise, van der Toorn has identified appurtenance as the primary symbolic meaning associated with veiling. ^[36] The punishments are equally harsh for those men who fail to take the appropriate action against violators (fifty blows, pierced ears with thread drawn behind the back etc.). This, however, raises the issue of identification: how did one determine that a particular woman was illegally veiled? Lerner assumes that the veil must have covered the face, head, and figure, and thus, in the case of the female slave and slave concubine, would have hidden any visible distinguishing marks, but others maintain that the veil in the ancient Near East only partially covered the face. ^[37] Regardless, the Mesopotamian prostitute would have been recognized by her dress, possibly hairstyle (thus no veil), and location. ^[38]

11.      Outside Mesopotamia, we have little evidence for the distinctive dress of prostitutes in the ancient Near East prior to the Greco-Roman period. Egyptian artistic convention represents them as covering less, not more. Women were not veiled in ancient Egypt and prostitutes, at least as depicted on a recently published New Kingdom papyrus (perhaps portraying scenes from a brothel) and ostraca (Deir el-Medina), wear little to nothing at all. ^[39] In Greek literary tradition, particularly Homer, the veil (krh/demnon) signified sexual chastity and purity, traits obviously not associated with the celebrated heteraia of literature or art. ^[40] With regard to the latter, mention must be made of the numerous examples of heteraia, usually naked, depicted on red-figure vase paintings and drinking cups (6th-5th centuries BCE). Other than catering to their male clients, the paintings depict heteraia engaged in various domestic activities, for example spinning or washing. ^[41] Needless to say, veiling, or covering or any sort for that matter, plays no role in identification; in fact, precisely the opposite is the case. Their status as heteraia, where not obvious with clients, is signaled by their nudity and pose. ^[42]

12.      In Greco-Roman Egypt, prostitutes were recognized by their see-through garments, ornaments on the ankles or feet, or even messages such as “follow me” imprinted on the soles of their sandals. ^[43] The available evidence indicates that Alexandria in particular was a major center for prostitutes in the Roman east, and the translators of the Greek Genesis were probably not oblivious to their presence or appearance. ^[44] Thus, without disputing the exegetical motivations isolated by Wevers (see note 10 above), the LXX expansion to Genesis 38:15 could reflect as well the translators’ knowledge of current practice in that veils were not a part of the prostitute’s dress; therefore, it was necessary to clarify that Tamar’s veil was required only for concealment.

13.      In Roman society, the social standing of the respectable and morally upright woman--the mater familias or matrona--stood in stark contrast to that of the disreputable prostitute (meretrix), a distinction reinforced in Roman law by way of the lex Iulia de adulteriis coercendis of Augustus (ca. 18 BCE). ^[45] The lex Iulia equates the status of the adulterous woman to that of a prostitute. The juxtaposition of matrona/meretrix, drawn also in literary contexts (e.g., Plautus, Cicero, Horace), focused especially on garments as markers of the respective positions. The matrona was identified by her stola (a long outer dress with decorated hem) and vittae (ribbons or bands worn in the hair), while the prostitute wore a toga. Those women convicted as adulterers were required to don the toga in order to differentiate them from respectable women. ^[46] The lex Iulia also addressed the problem of matrons appearing in public without their stolae, or even dressing outright as prostitutes. ^[47] Later, in the 6^th century Code of Justinian (Corpus iuris civilis), we find a type of “enforced chastity” for the adulteress, and possibly the repentant prostitute as well, who were compelled to put on a veil. ^[48] In the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire, sufficient evidence exists to show that women generally were veiled in public and could be divorced or punished if they appeared otherwise. ^[49]

14.      Christianity as well followed current practice, albeit often with different justification. Paul’s oft-cited admonition that women cover their heads (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) was in keeping with his own tradition, but he, like others to follow, felt the need to offer various theological reasons for the practice. ^[50] In his treatise on veiling (De virginibus velandis), the early Church father Tertullian (2d-3d cent.) recommended that all Christian women be fully veiled, not simply to accommodate custom, but because it is the will of Christ, their Espoused. ^[51] Likewise, Athanasius (4^th cent.) exhorted virgins to let their “face be veiled and downcast” in their encounter with others. ^[52] In his Apostolic Tradition, Hippolytus (4^th cent.) advised that men and women be segregated while in church, without greeting one another, and that the head of the women be covered completely. ^[53] These few representative citations allow us to place the expansions in the Vetus Latina and Vulgate in some perspective. If they were not simply following the LXX at that point, Jerome and the early translators could have been motivated by the need to clarify for their readers Tamar’s use of a veil, for them a symbol of purity and chastity, not prostitution.

15.      Rabbinic tradition offers no specific law stipulating that women should be veiled outside the home, but the rabbis appeal to traditional practice of the time. For example, a husband may divorce his wife if she appears in public unveiled, a violation of Jewish practice (M. Ketubot 7.6,). In the gemara (Bab. Ket. 72a), the question is raised as to whether or not the prohibition is based on the Torah (implied in Numbers 5:18 according to the school of R. Ishmael) and, if so, the reason then for the appeal to Jewish practice alone. Other passages in the Talmud reinforce the importance of women going out with heads covered and we have no reason to doubt that the custom was prevalent in Jewish society, both east and west (Medieval manuscript illuminations, from the 13^th to the 16^th centuries, as a rule depict Jewish women with their heads covered). ^[54] In the light of this, the targumic expansion (Neofiti, Pseudo-Jonathan, and echoed in Genesis Rabbah) may have derived, in part, from uneasiness with the implication that Tamar’s veil signaled anything other than a properly attired widow under the protection of her father-in-law, a widow whose modesty caused her to remain veiled even while not in public. The second interpretation in Genesis Rabbah--Judah did not consider her a prostitute because of her veil–appears to be an attempt not only to redeem Judah’s character, but also to align the verse with contemporary practice. As for Rashi and Ramban, both refer to the dress of their time, although the former does not do so within the context of Genesis. In his commentary on the Talmud, Rashi explains )mwnyh (M. Ket. 2.1 with gemara in Bab. Ket. 17b) as “a veil on the woman’s head which covers her eyes just as is done in these parts.” ^[55] Thus, his comments on Tamar’s veil as a means of concealment, not the sign of a prostitute, could reflect as well his knowledge of local custom in northern France of the 11^th century. We saw above Ramban’s opinion that the prostitute sat at the roadside with face partly veiled. The larger context of his description is instructive: “The reason for the covering of the face is that it was the way of the harlot to sit at the crossroads 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.” ^[56] One suspects that Ramban has in mind contemporary practice, and, indeed, his later comments regarding male prostitutes who still veil their faces in his day confirm this impression. ^[57]

16.      The institutional and civic need to maintain proper distance between classes via restrictions on dress arguably reached its zenith with the sumptuary laws in late Medieval and Renaissance Europe. ^[58] As with the Middle Assyrian and Roman legislation, the purpose of these laws was to provide clear demarcation of status, to address the issue of “women out of place, pretending to be what they are not.” ^[59] While applicable only to that segment of society that could afford such luxury items, particular statutes were aimed at regulating the dress of the well-to-do prostitute. These parallel similar requirements, often religiously sanctioned, imposed on Jewry under Christianity and Islam. ^[60] A survey of sumptuary laws in countries such as Italy, France, England, Spain, and Germany reveals a variety of restrictions (e.g., regulating furs, silk linings, colors, belts, types of fabrics, use of gold and silver in ornaments, buttons, décolletage, openings or slits in garments, jewelry, platform shoes, etc.). ^[61] Prostitutes in particular were required to wear certain garments or distinctive markings on their clothing as a means of identification (e.g., a cord or silk belt, striped hoods, a neckband or cloak of a particular color, a sleeve of different color/material or with a specific marking, special ornaments, bells, etc.). ^[62] These laws varied widely from one region to the next, depending on local preference and the evolving styles of dress. In some cases (Arles, Siena, Venice, Ferrara), specific laws were enacted which banned the more elaborate and less transparent veils. Authorities feared that the anonymity afforded by these could hide or encourage inappropriate behavior. ^[63] It is not that one never encounters isolated cases where prostitutes could be veiled, but the garment in and of itself does not emerge as a sign of the profession. Rather, if covered at all, the prostitute would have been recognized as such by the color of or marking on her veil.

17.       While the evidence is chronologically and geographically sporadic, the above necessarily brief overview of the veil’s usage nevertheless highlights a number of recurring themes regarding its meaning and symbolism. ^[64] In fact, the Assyrian laws constitute the beginning of, or at least attest to, a socio-legal tradition that endures, mutatis mutandis, into the modern era wherein veiling may denote social status, ownership, decency, chastity, or modesty. ^[65] What is lacking is a clear or decisive link between the veil and the prostitute. This is not to say that prostitutes did not at various times or places wear veils, but they were certainly not alone in this.

18.      We have observed how a number of ancient translators and later commentators puzzled over the events of 38:15--why didn’t Judah know it was Tamar and what led him to believe she was a prostitute?--and sought to clarify the verse via expansion or commentary. While their answers to these questions differed, it is significant that in all but one case (Ramban), they avoided linking the veil to her guise as a prostitute. This interpretive tendency accords well with our conclusions regarding the veil and prostitution. Thus, the familiar interpretation of Tamar’s tactics--Judah believed her to be a prostitute because of the veil--should, I believe, be reconsidered. Rather, the separation of shroud from profession in the exegetical tradition (long before the discovery of and current appeal to Assyrian law) and the absence of a link historically between the veil and prostitute provide compelling historical precedent for the reading that Tamar’s shroud was not decisive for Judah’s perception of her as a prostitute. In other words, the veil of Tamar concealed more than it revealed.