yehudah

Rebbi Ḥanina bar Yaqqa in the name of Rav Yehudah: The roots of wheat split the earth to a depth of 50 cubits. The soft roots of a fig tree split rock. It has been stated: Rebbi Ismael ben Eleazar says, the earth drinks only according to its hardness. If this is so, what do the roots of the carob do? What do the roots of the sycamore do? Rebbi Ḥanina said, once every thirty days the abyss wells up and drenches them. What is the reason? (Is. 27:3) “I, the Eternal, watch over it and water it in moments.”

In the house of Yannai they said, if she is sitting on the birthing stool. Hence, before that he should pray, because of (Jer. 18:6) “Lo, like clay in the potter’s hand …” Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of the house of Yannai: The main pregnancy of Dinah was as a male. After the prayer of Rachel, she became a female. That is (Gen. 30:21): “Afterwards, she gave birth to a daughter and called her name Dinah.” After the prayer of Rachel, she became a female. And Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of the house of Rebbi Yannai: Our mother Rachel was of the early prophetesses. She said, another one will be from me. That is what is written (Gen. 30:24): “May the Eternal add me another son.” She did not say other sons, but another son will be from me.

In the house of Yannai they said, if she is sitting on the birthing stool. Hence, before that he should pray, because of (Jer. 18:6) “Lo, like clay in the potter’s hand …” Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of the house of Yannai: The main pregnancy of Dinah was as a male. After the prayer of Rachel, she became a female. That is (Gen. 30:21): “Afterwards, she gave birth to a daughter and called her name Dinah.” After the prayer of Rachel, she became a female. And Rebbi Yehudah ben Pazi in the name of the house of Rebbi Yannai: Our mother Rachel was of the early prophetesses. She said, another one will be from me. That is what is written (Gen. 30:24): “May the Eternal add me another son.” She did not say other sons, but another son will be from me.

Rebbi Tanḥuma ben Yehudah said, (Ps. 56:11) “In God I will praise words, in the Eternal I will praise words.” On measures of judgment as on measures of mercy I shall praise words.

It was stated: He who urinates turns his face towards North. He who spreads his feet turns his face towards South. Rebbi Yose bar Abun said, this baraita is from Mount Scopus towards the interior. Rebbi Aqiba says, everywhere but only where there is no wall. If was stated: He who spreads his feet should not face East with his back facing West but at an angle. Rebbi Yehudah says, when the Temple exists. Rebbi Yose said, from Mount Scopus towards the interior. Rebbi Aqiba says, everywhere but only where there is no wall.

It was stated: Nobody should enter the Temple Mount in shoes, with dust on his feet, or his coins tied up in his head-scarf, or his money belt on him outside. What is the reason? (Eccl. 4:17) “Watch your feet when you go to God’s house.” Rebbi Yose ben Yehudah says (Esth. 4:2): “He came as far as the king’s gate because nobody may enter the king’s gate in sackcloth.” He said, if it is so for a foul smelling drop, so much more for the gate of the Omnipresent!

How much rain should fall that it is considered fertilizing? If it fills a vessel of three handb̮readths, the words of Rebbi Meïr. Rebbi Yehudah says, the first rainfall one handb̮readth, the second one two hand breadths, and the third one three handb̮readths. It has been stated: Rebbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, there is no handb̮readths that falls from above that the earth does not raise two handb̮readths towards it. What is the reason? The deep calls to the deep by the sound of Your water spouts.

Rebbi Levi said, they found a genealogical scroll in Jerusalem and in it was written: Hillel from David, Ben Yaṣaf from Asaph, Ben Ṣiṣit Hakkeset from Abner, Ben Qubisin from Ahab, Ben Kalba Savua` from Kaleb, Rebbi Yannai from Eli, Men Yehudah from Sepphoris, the Elder Rebbi Ḥiyya from the sons of Shephatya ben Abutal, Rebbi Yose ben Rebbi Ḥalaphta from the sons of Yonadav ben Rekhav, Rebbi Neḥemiah from Nehemiah the governor.

“The daily sacrifice ceased.” Rebbi Simon said in the name of Rebbi Joshua ben Levi: In the time of the hellenistic government they lowered them two boxes with gold and they gave them two lambs to pull up. Once they lowered them two boxes with gold and they gave them two kid goats to pull up. At that moment the Holy One, praise to Him, enlightened their eyes and they found two lambs in the hall of lambs. About that time did Rebbi Yehudah bar Abba testify that the perpetual morning sacrifice was brought at four hours. Rebbi Levi said: Also in the days of the present evil government they lowered them two boxes with gold and they gave them two kid goats to pull up. Once they lowered them two boxes with gold and they gave them two swine to pull up. They did not manage to get to half the height of the wall when the swine (damaged) [clawed] the wall and jumped 40 parasangs from the Land of Israel. At that time the sins caused that the perpetual sacrifice was stopped and the Temple destroyed.

It was objected: A Sukkah which is higher than twenty amos is pasul And Rabi Yehudah [says] it is kosher up to forty or fifty amos

Rabi Yehudah says: ‘It happened with Queen Heloni in Lud that her Sukkah was higher than twenty amos, and the elders nevertheless were going in and out of it and spoke not a word to her [in disagreement]’. They [the Chachamim] said to him: Is this proof? She was a women, and therefor free from the [mitzvah] of Sukkah He answered them: ‘Did she not have seven sons? And besides, ... she did nothing except in accordance with the command of the Chachamim’.

Our Rabbis taught: It once happened to Rabbi Eliezer, that he rested in the upper Galilee, and they asked him about thirty laws of the laws of Sukkah. For twelve, he said to them "I know (lit. I have heard)," and for eighteen, he said to them "I do not know." Rabbi Yose the son of Rabbi Yehudah says, "The matters are switched; for eighteen, he said to them "I know," and for twelve, he said to them "I do not know."

Mishnah: A Lulav that is stolen or dried is invalid; [A Lulav] of a worshipped tree or a wayward city is invalid; [If a Lulav's] top was cut off, or its leaves were detaching, it is invalid; If it's leave were separating [from one another], it is valid; Rabbi Yehudah says One should tie it [additionally] from the top. The fronds of the Iron Mountain are valid. A Lulav that has three hand-breadths, so that one can shake it, is valid.

It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."

It was taught, "Dried are invalid; Rabbi Yehudah validates." Rava said, "This argument is regarding the Lulav, For the Sages thought, 'We compare the Lulav to the Etrog: Just like the Etrog requires beauty, so too the Lulav requires beauty.' And Rabbi Yehudah thought, 'We do not compare the Lulav to the Etrog.' But regarding the Etrog, everyone agrees that beauty is required."

And regarding the Lulav, Rabbi Yehudah does not require beauty? And isn't it taught, "Rabbi Yehudah says [about a Lulav whose leaves are splitting], 'He should tie it on top' [presumably to add beauty]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

And regarding the Lulav, Rabbi Yehudah does not require beauty? And isn't it taught, "Rabbi Yehudah says [about a Lulav whose leaves are splitting], 'He should tie it on top' [presumably to add beauty]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

No. As it is taught is his reasoning: "Rabbi Yehudah says in the name of Rabbi Tarfon, 'Palm fronds (Kapot)'- if they were splitting, he should tie them (Yikhtephenu, from root K.p.t)."

And he doesn't require beauty? And isn't it taught, "We only bind the Lulav with its species; the words of Rabbi Yehudah [presumably because it looks nice]?" What is his reasoning? [Is it] not because he requires beauty?

But regarding a Etrog, does Rabbi Yehudah really require beauty? And isn't it taught, "[Regarding] the four species in the Lulav [bundle], just as we may not take away from them, so too we may not add. If he could not find a Etrog, he should not bring: not a quince, not a pomegranate, and not any other thing. Wilted ones are valid, but dried ones are invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Even dried [plants are valid].

But regarding a Etrog, does Rabbi Yehudah really require beauty? And isn't it taught, "[Regarding] the four species in the Lulav [bundle], just as we may not take away from them, so too we may not add. If he could not find a Etrog, he should not bring: not a quince, not a pomegranate, and not any other thing. Wilted ones are valid, but dried ones are invalid. Rabbi Yehudah says, "Even dried [plants are valid].

And Rabbi Yehudah said, 'It once happened,

Still, as it taught, Rabbi Yehudah says [that] Even dried ones are valid. Does [this] not [refer] to the Etrog? No. [This refers] to the Lulav.

A Master said, "Just like we do not take away from the [four species], so too we do not add to them." This is obvious [seeing as we are not allowed to add to commandments]! You might have said, Seeing as Rabbi Yehudah said that a Lulav [bundle] needs binding, if you bring another species [outside of the bundle], than [you might think that] this [i.e. the Lulav bundle] is one group, and this [i.e. the new species] is one group. We learn from the [above statement that you cannot add to the four species].

Come and hear: "An old Etrog is invalid, and Rabbi Yehudah validates it." This is a rejection of Rava, and [his opinion that Rabbi Yehudah invalidates a dry Lulav] is rejected.

Come and hear: "An old Etrog is invalid, and Rabbi Yehudah validates it." This is a rejection of Rava, and [his opinion that Rabbi Yehudah invalidates a dry Lulav] is rejected.

But do we not teach, "[An Etrog] green as turquoise, Rabbi Meir validates, and Rabbi Yehudah invalidates?" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it has not ripened yet [and is not a complete Etrog].

Come and hear, "The minimum size of an Etrog: Rabbi Meir says, 'Like a walnut;' Rabbi Yehudah says, 'Like an egg.'" Is [Rabbi Yehudah's opinion] not because he requires beauty? No. It is because it is not fully ripened [and is not considered a complete Etrog].

Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says, 'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].

Come and hear: "And [regarding] a big [Etrog, the maximum is small enough] so that he can hold two in his one hand; the words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Yose says, 'Even [if the Etrog is so big that he can only hold] one in his two hands.'" What is the reasoning [of Rabbi Yehudah]? Is it not because he requires beauty? No. Seeing as Rabba said, "The Lulav [is held] the right [hand] and the Etrog is in the left." Sometimes, they will be switched, and so you will flip them, and [if the Etrog is as large as Rabbi Yose allows,] you will invalidate it [by dropping it and breaking the Pitom].

That means [according to Rabbi Yehudah, a fruit] that dwells ['HaDar'] on its tree from year to year.

R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, a false witness pays proportionally. What does proportionally mean? If you say this one pays half and this one pays half, then we've already learnt this! 'We divide money and we don't divide lashes.'

GEMARA: R' Yehudah said, Shmuel said, the Sabbatical year clears a ten-year loan.

Some say, R' Yehudah said in the name of R' Shmuel a loan for ten years is not cancelled. And even though eventually he will come to collect, however you cannot collect it.

And R' Yehudah said in the name of R' Shmuel, He says to his fellow, [I will lend money] only on condition that the Sabbatical year does not cancel, the Sabbatical still cancels. Is this to say that Shmuel explains this as a condition that is against the Torah? And all conditions that contradict the Torah are null and void.

R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, opening the neck of a new garment on Shabbat is forbidden. R' Kahana argued, and what is the difference between this and opening a barrel? He replied to him, one is all connected, whereas one is not all connected.

And R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, one kortob of wine fell in three logs of water, and it looks like wine, and this fell in a mikvah, it [the mikvah] is not impure. R' Kahana argued, and what is the difference between this and coloured water? As we learnt, R' Yosi says, coloured water makes a mikvah impure. Rava said to him, there it is called coloured water, here it is called diluted wine.

R' Yehudah said in the name of Rav, a barrel full of water that falls into the Mediterranean Sea and someone immerses, it is not considered valid because we are afraid three logs of water are in one place and this applies specifically to the Sea, which is stationary, but does not generally apply to rivers.

There are those that learn that what Ulah taught from what has been taught, 'And ye shall let nothing of it remain until the morning; but that which remaineth of it until the morning' etc. Scripture came to give an action after the forbidden sin, meaning there aren't lashes. These are the words of R' Yehudah.

R' Akiva says, No. This isn't the source, rather it's from the fact that there is no forbidden action, and a sin without an action has no lashes [as a punishment]. It seems from what R' Yehudah explained that a sin without action, there are lashes. From where is this?

If others [a third set] came and were found to be zomemim [by the testimony of the second set], if others came and were found to be zomemim, even if there were one hundred [sets of witnesses], they all get executed. Rebbi Yehudah says, this group [the second set] is considered to be a 'plotting group' and no one gets executed besides for the first set of witnesses.

Let's say that Reish Lakash [the woman is established to bring in false witnesses] holds like Rebbi Yehudah [It's a plotting group] and Rebbi Yochanon [not all of Israel has been established] holds like the Rabbis [all the witnesses are executed].

And Rebbi Yochanon would say to you, I can even say like Rebbi Yehudah that Rebbi Yehudah only said [that we don't believe the witnesses] over there, because we can't expect the whole world to have been by them [the same two witnesses]. But over here [by this woman], these [witnesses] knew their testimony, and these [witnesses] did not know their testimony.

And Rebbi Yochanon would say to you, I can even say like Rebbi Yehudah that Rebbi Yehudah only said [that we don't believe the witnesses] over there, because we can't expect the whole world to have been by them [the same two witnesses]. But over here [by this woman], these [witnesses] knew their testimony, and these [witnesses] did not know their testimony.

We learned in a beraisa: Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavai said I will not seek comfort until I execute a zommeim witness, to go against the Tzudukim, who say zommemim witnesses aren't executed unless they succeeded in having their victim executed.

Immediately Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi accepted upon himself to only issue halachic rulings in front of Shimon ben Shatach, and for all the remaining days of Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice would ring out. And the passerby thought to themselves, saying that it was the voice of the killed. He told them, it's my voice. I'll bring you a proof, that tomorrow when I die the voice will no longer be heard.

Immediately Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi accepted upon himself to only issue halachic rulings in front of Shimon ben Shatach, and for all the remaining days of Rebbi Yehudah ben Tavi, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that witness, and his voice would ring out. And the passerby thought to themselves, saying that it was the voice of the killed. He told them, it's my voice. I'll bring you a proof, that tomorrow when I die the voice will no longer be heard.

He answered That was Rebbi Yosi bar Yehuda, That we learned in a beraisa, Rebbi Yosi bar Yehudah says, A sage does not require a warning because a warning is only given to differentiate between purpose and accident.

But it was stated: Rav Yitzhak bar Yoseph said [in the name of] Rabbi Yohanan: Rebi, and Rabbi Yehudah ben Roetz, and the School of Shammai, and Rabbi Shimon, and Rabbi Akiva, all of them hold that the pronunciation [how we actually read the word] is what matters! This is why Rebi said "and furthermore!" [He needed to give another reason because in general he does hold that pronunciation is what matters.]

Mishnah: "The blind person is not exiled—words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: He is exiled. The hater is not exiled. Rabbi Yose says: "The hater is put to death because he is like a forewarned [ox]". Rabbi Shimon says: "There are haters which are exiled and haters which are not. This is the rule: Anyone for whom it is possible to say that they knew they were killing is not exiled; that they didn't know they were killing, behold they are exiled."

Gemara: Our rabbis taught [in a baraita]: "'Without vision' (Numbers 35:23)—to exclude the blind person—words of Rabbi Yehudah. Rabbi Meir says: '"Without vision" (Numbers 35:23)—to include the blind person.'"

What's the reason of Rabbi Yehudah? As it is written: "When he comes with his friend into a forest" (Deuteronomy 19:5)—even the blind person is included. "Without vision"—excludes him.

And Rabbi Yehudah?: "Without knowledge"—[this verse] comes to exclude the one who intends.

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

"Rabbi Yose says: The hater is killed." etc. But they didn't warn him? [In order to be executed in Jewish law, one has to be warned that their action is punishable by death by two witnesses]. Our mishnah is Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah, as it is taught [in a baraita]: Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: "A colleague does not need warning because warning was only given to distinguish between accidental and intentional." [And we assume that colleagues know the law and are thus, if sinning, sinning intentionally].

Rabbi Yose bar Yehudah says: 'Originally, both unintentional and intentional [murderers] would rush to the cities of refuge, and the courts would send for them and bring them out of there [for judgement]. One who was liable for death by the court, they would put him to death; one who was not liable for death they would exempt him; one who was liable for exile, they would return him to his place, as it is said: "The congregation will return him to the city of his refuge" (Numbers 35:25).'"

(Joshua 24,26) "And Yehoshua wrote these words in the Torah scroll of God". Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Nechemiah argue [abut what "these words" refers to]. One says, The eight verses [that are after Moshe Rabeninu died]. And one says, [The passage of the] cities of refuge.

A [Torah] scroll that was tied with flax is subject to a dispute between Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Meir one says, it is valid. And one says, it is invalid.

And [what is] Rebbi Yehudah['s reason]? The Torah says elsewhere (Numbers 35, 32) "to dwell in the dwellings of the land until the death of the priest etc.". And [what does] the other opinion [do with this verse]? From the fact that it doesn't say "high", it must be referring to one of [the three already mentioned].

And they both derive their views from [the same statement] of Rebbi Yehudah. For It was taught in a barasia, (Exodus 12, 10) "And do not leave anything over until morning. And anything leftover until morning [must be burned in fire] etc." the Torah comes to give a positive commandment following a negative commandment to teach that he is not liable to malkus. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yochanon expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a questionable warning constitutes as a valid warning.

And they both derive their views from [the same statement] of Rebbi Yehudah. For It was taught in a barasia, (Exodus 12, 10) "And do not leave anything over until morning. And anything leftover until morning [must be burned in fire] etc." the Torah comes to give a positive commandment following a negative commandment to teach that he is not liable to malkus. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yochanon expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a questionable warning constitutes as a valid warning.

And they both derive their views from [the same statement] of Rebbi Yehudah. For It was taught in a barasia, (Exodus 12, 10) "And do not leave anything over until morning. And anything leftover until morning [must be burned in fire] etc." the Torah comes to give a positive commandment following a negative commandment to teach that he is not liable to malkus. These are the words of Rebbi Yehudah. Rebbi Yochanon expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a questionable warning constitutes as a valid warning.

And Reish Lakash as expounds thus, the reason [Rebbi Yehudah says that he isn't flogged] is because the Torah comes [with a remedial positive commandment], but if the Torah would not have came then he would be flogged. We therefore see that a lav sh'ein bo maiseh is subject to lashes.

he holds like the other opinion of Rebbi Yehudah's views, that it was taught in a baraisa If one hit this [person who might have been his father] and then hit the other [person who might have been his father], or if he cursed this one and then that one, or if he hit them both simultaneously, or cursed them both simultaneously, Rebbi Yehudah says, If it was simultaneously he is liable, if not he is exempt [because it would be only an questionable warning.]

One statement of Rebbi Yehudah is in contradiction with another statement of Rebbi Yehudah?!

One statement of Rebbi Yehudah is in contradiction with another statement of Rebbi Yehudah?!

According to Reish Lakash, there is no difficulty, it is a case of two differing opinion on what Rebbi Yehudah held. According to Rebbi Yochanon, there is no difficulty, one statement [of Rebbi Yehuda's] is his own and one is his rebbi's [Rebbi Yosi Haggilli.

And one who eats carcasses and impure animals, things that are abominable and things that creep. Rav Yehudah said, one who eats a cabbage worm is liable to malkus because of the verses that start (Leviticus 11,29) "the swarming things that swarm upon the ground". There was a person who ate a cabbage worm and Rav Yehuda gave him malkus.

Recitation on recitation is not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Shimon [who says that recitation is essential] and this is [the opinion of] the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Shimon] Placement on placement is also not a contradiction. This is [the opinion of] Rebbi Yehuda [who says that placement is not essential] and this is the opinion of the Rabbis [who argue on Rebbi Yehudah.]

What is this opinion of Rebbi Yehuda? That it was taught it a baraisa, Rebbi Yehudah says, (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place" it this is a reference to the waving. You say that it is referring to the waving or maybe it is really referring to the actual placement? But when the Torah also says, (Deuteronomy 26,4) "And he shall place", the [requirement of] placement has already been stated. So how will I maintain (Deuteronomy 26,10) "And he shall place"? It [must be referring to] waving.

But does Rebbi Yossi hold that gifts that weren't yet given are considered as if they were given? But, it was taught in a baraisa that Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Yossi, Beis Shammai and Beis Hillel did not argue about produce where the processing was unfinished when it passed through Jerusalem, that the maaser sheni from them can [still] be redeemed and eaten anywhere.

A tanna taught in the presence of Rav Chisdah, Both the barber and the one who's hair gets cut incur malkus. [Rav Chisdah] asked him, Is one who eats dates from a sieve liable? That he would say to you, who is this Tanna? It's Rebbi Yehudah, who says that a lav sh'ein bo maaseh [a prohibition without tangible action] incurs malkus.

MISHNA: One who writes a tattoo, If he inks it without needling or he needles it without inking, he isn't liable unless he both inks and needles [the tattoo] with black ink, blue ink, or anything else that leaves a mark. Rebbi Shimon ben Yehudah says in the name of Rebbi Shimon, One is not liable unless he writes the name of HaShem that it is said (Leviticus 19, 28) "And a tattoo you shall imprint in yourselves, I am the Lord".

MISHNA: How much do we flog him? Forty minus one, as the Torah says, (Deuteronomy 25,2) "In the count of forty" the number which is next to forty. Rebby Yehudah says, He is administered forty full lashes, and where is he lashes the extra one? Between his shoulders.

Rebbi Yehudah said forty full... etc. between his shoulders.: Rebbi Yitzchak said, What is the reason of Rebbi Yehuda? That it is written (Zechariah 13,6) "What are these wounds between your hands? And he will say that I was hit in the house of those who loved me." And according to the Rabbis? [Who say that there is no fortieth lash which would be administered between the shoulders.] That verse is referring to the schoolchildren.

Rebbi Elazar said, in three places the divine presence made an appearance. In the court of Shem, in the court of Shmuel HaRamasi, and in the court of Shlomo. In the court of Shem, as it is written, (Genesis 38,26) And Yehudah recognized her and said she is righteous, it is from me". How did he know? Maybe the same way that he had went to her, a different man also had went to ho her? A hevenly voice called out and said "From me" these hidden things have come forth.