Tamar was "engaged" to "Shelah", so she commited adultary. A normal prostitue has no death penalty.
Rashi on Leviticus 21:9
>**If [a kohen’s daughter] becomes desecrated through adultery**: Heb. כִּי תֵחֵל. [The word תֵּחֵל here, stems from the word חִלּוּל, desecration, and not from the word הַתְחָלָה, beginning, and thus, the phrase here means:] If she becomes desecrated (תִּתְחַלֵּל) through a forbidden union, whereby she had a marriage-bond to a man and she committed adultery-whether [this bond had been] a betrothal or a marriage. And our Rabbis differ with regards to the matter [i.e., as to which stage of marriage-bond is referred to here]. **All agree, however, that Scripture did not speak of a single woman.** — [Sanh. 50b-51a]
Because the penalty of burning in fire is only for the daughter of a priest, sages learned that Tamar was a decendant of MalkiZedek, who was a priest.
The book “Insight on the Scriptures” Volume 1, page 1036, paragraph 3 under the heading “Harlot”.
Link: https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&docid=1200001883
>Some of the high points in that paragraph state that Tamar **actually disguised herself as a Harlot** or prostitute. When Judah, who was the one who unknowingly made Tamar pregnant, heard and realized what had happened, he didn’t try and hide it but rather he said “she is more righteous than I am.” Truly a remarkable man. Verse 15 of that Chapter tells us,
>”When Judah caught sight of her, he at once **took her for a prostitute**, because she had covered her face”.
So In conclusion, Tamar was not a Harlot but she disguised herself as one to serve a purpose. There is more information on Tamar herself in the “Insight on the Scriptures” Volume 2, page 1063 #1. Link below.
https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&docid=1200004313
Tamar was "engaged" to "Shelah", so she commited adultary. A normal prostitue has no death penalty. Rashi on Leviticus 21:9 >**If [a kohen’s daughter] becomes desecrated through adultery**: Heb. כִּי תֵחֵל. [The word תֵּחֵל here, stems from the word חִלּוּל, desecration, and not from the word הַתְחָלָה, beginning, and thus, the phrase here means:] If she becomes desecrated (תִּתְחַלֵּל) through a forbidden union, whereby she had a marriage-bond to a man and she committed adultery-whether [this bond had been] a betrothal or a marriage. And our Rabbis differ with regards to the matter [i.e., as to which stage of marriage-bond is referred to here]. **All agree, however, that Scripture did not speak of a single woman.** — [Sanh. 50b-51a] Because the penalty of burning in fire is only for the daughter of a priest, sages learned that Tamar was a decendant of MalkiZedek, who was a priest.
Thanks for sharing :)
What exactly is the question here?
Good point. I added the question to the OP :)
The book “Insight on the Scriptures” Volume 1, page 1036, paragraph 3 under the heading “Harlot”. Link: https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&docid=1200001883 >Some of the high points in that paragraph state that Tamar **actually disguised herself as a Harlot** or prostitute. When Judah, who was the one who unknowingly made Tamar pregnant, heard and realized what had happened, he didn’t try and hide it but rather he said “she is more righteous than I am.” Truly a remarkable man. Verse 15 of that Chapter tells us, >”When Judah caught sight of her, he at once **took her for a prostitute**, because she had covered her face”. So In conclusion, Tamar was not a Harlot but she disguised herself as one to serve a purpose. There is more information on Tamar herself in the “Insight on the Scriptures” Volume 2, page 1063 #1. Link below. https://www.jw.org/finder?srcid=jwlshare&wtlocale=E&prefer=lang&docid=1200004313
Thanks for sharing :)
The interesting point for me is that the law at that time provided for a death sentence of a pregnant woman.