Our Gemara on amud aleph describes a marketplace custom and procedure that confers enough intent so that acquisitions are binding, as if a kinyan or contract was made:

 

אָמַר רַב פַּפִּי מִשְּׁמֵיהּ דְּרָבָא: הַאי סִיטוּמְתָּא – קָנְיָא. לְמַאי הִלְכְתָא? רַב חֲבִיבָא אֲמַר: לְמִקְנֵיא מַמָּשׁ.

 

Rav Pappi said in the name of Rava: In this case of labeling an item with a marker [situmta], which was commonly used to indicate that specific merchandise had been sold, even though the buyer had not yet paid and the item was still located in the seller’s warehouse, the labeling effects acquisition of the merchandise for the buyer. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha was this said? What is the significance of this acquisition? Rav Ḥaviva said: It means to actually effect acquisition, in other words, that the merchandise belongs to the buyer for all intents and purposes

 

What does this word, “Situmta“ mean? Rashi tells us that it was a kind of seal that merchants would put on merchandise such as barrels of wine in order to identify the company, for shipping so to speak. This is why the placing of the Situmta on the barrel of wine indicates a finality of sale.

 

What is the etymology of this word? Menachem Ben Saruk in his Midrash Sechel Tov (Bereishis 74:21) relates it to the Hebrew word “satum”, which means closed or sealed. He also related it to the verb (Vayistom) that described Esav’s state of mind in regard to his brother Yaakov, who just recently stole his rights to the first born (Bereishis 27:41). Similarly, the brothers feared Yoseph’s reprisal after their father died, and they said ״lu yistemenu”, perhaps he will bear a grudge (ibid 50:15). The seal or “situm” means to guard and hold enmity sealed up inside the heart. We find in Hebrew synonyms for bearing a grudge that also involves keeping, or guarding something. Bearing a grudge is Netira in Hebrew, and in Aramaic it means to watch.

 

There is one other area in Rabbinic literature where we find the word Situmta. The Targum Yonasan (Bereishis 38:25) describes the signet ring that Yehuda gave as a security deposit to the person he believed was prostitute, as a Situmta. We are familiar with the story: Tamar, was yearning to be the matriarch of the tribe of Yehuda, via performing Yibum with Yehuda. But Yehuda was stalling and avoiding her. She therefore masqueraded as a prostitute, soliciting Yehuda after his wife died. 

 

When the clan discovers that Tamar was pregnant it was evidently considered an adulterous act.  Due to their interpretation of marriage bonds in their times, a woman awaiting consummation in a Levirate status, was still considered married. She was liable for the death penalty but refused to divulge Yehuda’s identity, which would’ve exonerated her because he was a legitimate relative to perform the levirate rite at that time. She gives Yehuda the option to confess by showing him the objects of Security that he gave her, including the ring, Situmta. Prior to this, Yehuda was unaware that the prostitute was none other than his daughter-in-law.

 

Yehuda was facing extreme embarrassment where he would have to publicly admit that he had some kind of sexual liaison outside of marriage in order to walk back these adulterous allegations against his daughter-in-law and mother of his future children. According to the Targum Yonason, Yehuda reasoned as follows: 

 

It is better for me to be ashamed in this world that passeth away, than be ashamed in the faces of my righteous fathers in the world to come. 

 

The odd part about this is, why is Yehuda preoccupied with fear of being ashamed of his father, grandfather, and great grandfather in the world to come? Should not Yehuda be ashamed of God himself right now? The Gemara (Bava Kama, 79b) tells us that the Gazlan thief is punished less severely than the cat burglar because it is especially disrespectful that the burglar attempted to hide his behavior from people, but was not shamed in front of God.

 

I believe the answer to this question is simple. Yehuda was not trying to hide from God, he knew that God was all knowing. On the other hand, his father, grandfather, and great grandfather were unaware of his trespasses and indiscretions. If he committed this cover-up at the expense of another person’s life, he would not be able to face his ancestors in the world to come. If you should ask, considering that his grandfather and great grandfather were in the world to come, wouldn’t they be aware and know about his sins right now? The answer is, no.  The Gemara Berachos (18b) discusses a number of incidents with various sagely and pious persons, the dead and the living.

 

In one case, a man receives messages from a deceased person regarding the future growing season. In another, the location of buried treasure is revealed. And in yet another scenario, the sons of the deceased Rabbi Chiyya wonder if he knows of their plight. For each scenario, a qualifying distinction is made. Tosafos Sotah (34b, “Avosay”) understands that the conclusion of the discussion in Gemara Berachos is that ordinarily the dead do not have knowledge of the goings on in this world.

 

This Targum Yonasan supports the conclusion of Tosafos, and therefore Abraham and Isaac would not be aware of Yehuda’s sinful coverup until he would come to the next world.