English translation — תולדות ב

Sicha in <pg>110</pg>

A.

"And her days were fulfilled to give birth, and behold, twins were in her womb"<sup>1</sup>,

And Rashi explained: "And her days were fulfilled,

But regarding Tamar it is written<sup>2</sup>

And it was at the time of her giving birth, that her days were not fulfilled, for she gave birth to them at seven months."

And it requires explanation:

It has been explained many times,

that when there is a contradiction between two verses,

Rashi's way is to resolve it in the second verse,

in the place where the contradiction arises.

And if so, it is difficult in our case — what did Rashi see to stop here on the difference between the language of the verse here and the language of the verse later regarding Tamar?

And in particular at the time of the verse

(the above)

"And it was at the time of her giving birth"

(in Parshat Vayeishev)

Rashi returns to resolve this change

("And regarding Rivkah it says 'and her days were fulfilled to give birth' — below for full-term, and here for premature")

— And if so, it is most puzzling why he needed to explain it also here,

before the question of the change between the two verses arises?

Also, one must be precise in Rashi's wording here — that he explains only the verse about Tamar "that her days were not fulfilled, for she gave birth at seven months",

for seemingly he should have first explained our verse,

that Rivkah gave birth at full term,

and afterwards add "but Tamar's days were not fulfilled etc.".

And even more perplexing: Rashi's source is the Midrash Rabbah on this verse³

— and there the language is "here lacking and here full",

while Rashi explains only the language of the verse of Parshat Vayeishev,

and regarding Rivkah he explains nothing!

Superficially one can say simply,

that regarding Rivkah there is no need to explain that "here full",

since it is explicit in the verse "and her days were fulfilled to give birth",

and all the novelty is only in the explanation of "at the time of her giving birth" of Tamar,

that the verse changes its language because "her days were not fulfilled

(for at seven months she gave birth to them)

".

But in addition to this,

that by this the above difficulty will be greatly increased — what is Rashi's compulsion here to explain the verse of Tamar later

(since the verse here does not require any explanation to resolve it,

but only the aspect of the change of Tamar)

— behold, Rashi himself states later in Parshat Vayeishev

(approximately)

the language of the midrash³

"There [it is written] plene and here defective",

and since here he does not descend to detail that "here [it is written] plene"

(because it is superfluous as above),

why is it different regarding Tamar that he explains "and there [it is written] plene"

(after he brings there the language of the verse "And her days were fulfilled etc.")?

2.

Afterwards Rashi quotes "and behold, twins" and explains "defective⁴,

and by Tamar²

twins plene because both of them were righteous, but here one righteous and one wicked".

And also in this it will be clarified,

in the manner mentioned above,

what did Rashi see to stand here on the change later<pg>111</pg>

("Twins full")

regarding Tamar?

And especially that in Parshat Vayeishev there Rashi resolves

(on the verse)

also this change.

Also needs explanation in the very interpretation of this that the word "תאומים" here is "חסר":

It has been explained many times — and so have several commentators of Rashi⁵

— that the variations of "מלא" and "חסר" in themselves are not a matter that arouses difficulty in the plain sense of Scripture

(therefore, as a rule, Rashi does not explain the reason for the missing letters etc. that are in Scripture),

and in a place where Rashi explains their reason,

this is only because through this a difficult thing in the plain sense of Scripture is explained.

And based on this, one must understand in our case — what is difficult in the language of the verse "והנה תומם בבטנה" that because of this Rashi infers that "תומם" is written "חסר"?

3.

And one must say the explanation in all this:

Rashi's intention in his commentary on "and the days were fulfilled" is to resolve

(not the difficulty of the change in the study of the verse of Parshat Vayeishev,

but)

a question that arises here,

and it is — that the words "and the days were fulfilled" appear as superfluous — for at first glance, what does it inform us?

Is it not self-evident that the birth

(in the usual manner)

is after the days were "fulfilled" for giving birth — therefore we have not found until here,

in all the places where the matter of birth is mentioned,

that the text precedes this with "and the days were fulfilled" and the like.

And what does the text innovate here that "and the days were fulfilled"?

[In Targum Yonasan here it says "and completed were two hundred and seventy days of her pregnancy to give birth",

and that is that the nine months of pregnancy were nine complete months

(and she did not give birth in the middle of the ninth month).

But besides that this explanation depends on the dispute⁶

whether a woman who gives birth at nine months gives birth in parts or not; and according to the one who says she does not give birth in parts,

every birth

(at nine months)

is at nine complete months⁷

— behold still the main question stands in its place: after all what is the practical difference if she gave birth at nine complete months or not⁸?].

And on this Rashi explains — "But by Tamar it is written 'And it came to pass at the time of her giving birth' that her days were not completed etc.',"

That is: the words "and her days were completed" are not written here except to teach us the intention of the change regarding Tamar,

"And it came to pass at the time of her giving birth",

that there

(by Tamar)

the birth was not in the manner of "and her days were completed".

That is: were it not for the writing here "and her days were completed"

(by Rebecca),

we would not know to be precise that the intention of the words "at the time of her giving birth"

(by Tamar)

is "for those lacking"

(and we would interpret the verse according to its simple meaning,

that only at the time of her giving birth did Tamar know that twins were in her womb)⁹

; but after it was said by Rebecca the language "and her days were completed" but not so<pg>112</pg>

By Tamar it is written "And it came to pass at the time of her giving birth"

(instead of "And her days were fulfilled to give birth"),

behold, this difference between the verses teaches us,

that by Tamar "her days were not fulfilled."

And it is resolved simply the reason for the difference in Rashi's language — that here he explains only "And it came to pass at the time of her giving birth" of Tamar, whereas in Parshat Vayeishev he writes "There for the full-term and here for the premature" — because here in our parshah Rashi's intention is to resolve the redundancy of "And her days were fulfilled",

and on this he explains that it comes to inform us of the interpretation of "And it came to pass at the time of her giving birth" that is said regarding Tamar

(and therefore there is no need to write anything regarding "And her days were fulfilled"),

but not so there in Parshat Vayeishev Rashi's intention is to settle the difference in language between the two places — and accordingly he writes there¹⁰

"There for the full-term and here for the premature."

4.

But it is still not understood:

a)

Since the words "and the days of" were not brought here except to indicate the intention of the verse regarding Tamar — why were they said specifically in our parshah regarding Rivkah,

and not in the birth adjacent to the birth of Peretz and Zerach

(in the birth of Er and Onan or in the birth of Shelah¹¹),

where the change would have been more prominent

(in that same parshah itself the scripture changes its language between birth and birth)?

b)

In the content of the matter it is not understood — what is the practical difference that Tamar "her days were not fulfilled because you gave birth at seven months"⁸

(And the Torah does not relate all the details of the events of the Patriarchs and the tribes etc.,

but only those that are relevant to the content of the stories).

c)

After Rashi explains that from the precision of the verses we learn that there is birth in a manner of "full" and in a manner of "deficient",

there is room to wonder: since Rivkah's pregnancy was with great pain

(more even than the general pain of "I will greatly multiply your pain and your pregnancy"¹²),

and as it is written¹³

"and the children struggled within her

(until)

and she said, if so, why am I this",

and in Rashi "and she said, if so, great is the pain of pregnancy,

why am I this desiring and praying for pregnancy" — why did the Holy One, blessed be He, cause that this righteous woman suffer the pain of pregnancy for such a long time,

and not give birth before her days were fulfilled,

at seven months?

And in order to settle these questions, Rashi continues in the passage after this: "And behold, Tomam — deficient,

and by Tamar, Teomim full, because both of them were righteous,

but here one is righteous and one is wicked."

That is to say: after we see that the verse distinguishes between the two births of Rivkah and Tamar in order to teach that this one is for the full and this one for the deficient — it is reasonable to say that we should compare and also be precise regarding the other differences between them,

that here it is written "Tomam deficient and by Tamar Teomim full" — because by this it is emphasized,

that the entire intention of the verse here is to compare the two births and to emphasize the differences between them,

for even though both gave birth to twins,

nevertheless there was a fundamental difference between them.

And with this the above questions are resolved: the question why specifically by Rivkah was the superfluous phrase "and her days were fulfilled" stated

(to teach us that regarding Tamar the birth was in a manner of "her days were not fulfilled"),

and also the reason and cause of the change and difference between them

(that this one is for the full and this one for the deficient)

— for all this is settled by the second difference between them,

that here "Tomam deficient,

and by Tamar Teomim full" — "because

(there,

by Tamar)

both of them were righteous but here one is righteous and one is wicked",

that is to say: since in the birth of Tamar both of them were righteous,

therefore she merited¹⁴

<pg>113</pg>

that it should be easier for her the pain of pregnancy and childbirth at seven months,

but not so Rivkah, since one of her sons was wicked — she did not merit¹⁴

therefore,

and therefore "And her days were fulfilled to give birth."

And according to this is also resolved — this verse of "And her days were fulfilled etc. and behold twins were in her womb" why is it needed?

Behold Rivkah already knew about this,

as is explicit before this "And the children struggled within her etc. and Hashem said to her two nations are in your womb and two peoples etc."¹⁵,

and what does the verse here newly inform¹⁶?

And according to the above it is understood,

that what is written "and behold twins were in her womb" is only a giving of reason¹⁷

for "And her days were fulfilled to give birth",

that what she gave birth at full term and not at seven months like Tamar is because "twins — lacking — were in her womb"¹⁸.

5.

Based on the above, another precision in Rashi's language here will be sweetened,

that he concludes "But in Tamar..

for at seven months you gave birth to them",

and he did not write briefly

(like the language of the midrash here,

and so is Rashi's own language in Parshat Vayeishev,

as above)

"for at eight months you gave birth to them"?

Simply, one can say,

that Rashi did not use here "for at eight months" because this is not a clear language

(for "a five-year-old for Scripture"),

and therefore he explains here that she gave birth at seven&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;,

and in Parshat Vayeishev he abbreviates and writes "for at eight months" — because he relies on his explanation here&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;.

But still it is not entirely settled,

for in the word "missing" we find

(in the commentaries)

two explanations: a)

as Rashi — birth at seven months&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;,

b)

that there were not nine complete months

(and like the one who says that even she who gives birth at nine gives birth to a truncated term)&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;.

And if so, what is the reason that Rashi decides here that the intention is birth at seven months?

And also if there is some compulsion for this

(from another place)

— why did Rashi need to decide and enter here into the details of the distinctions in the matter,

whether the lack was only in days,

or a lack in months — "at seven months you gave birth to them"?

However, according to what we have learned in the explanation of the continuation of the two interpretations of Rashi, one can say,

that this is an introduction to the second statement in Rashi,

in which he emphasizes "Tumam chaser",

that the necessity to emphasize thus is because of the difficulty in "Vayimle'u yameha",

that Rivka did not give birth&lt;pg&gt;114&lt;/pg&gt;

for seven like Tamar,

and she suffered the pain of pregnancy for two extra months,

and it must be said that this is because there was here "chaser" and deficiency — "here one righteous and one wicked".

6.

But still it is necessary to understand in Rashi on Parsha Vayeishev:

After he already explained in our parsha the difference between the two births

[And in the two details: the time of birth — full or lacking; the difference in the newborns — "their twin was lacking" because one is wicked,

or full twins because both of them are righteous]

— why did Rashi return and explain all this on the verse in Parsha Vayeishev?

And one can say the explanation in this: When learning in Parsha Vayeishev the details of the story about the pregnancy of Tamar — a great question arises: The pregnancy of Rivkah was in the utmost modesty

(And added to this that it came as a result of the prayer of the righteous&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;),

And the pregnancy of Tamar was in an opposite manner&lt;sup&gt;24&lt;/sup&gt;

— And how is it possible that Rivkah suffered the pain of pregnancy days

(And months)

Full,

And Tamar gave birth to them "at a shortened term",

At seven months?

And therefore Rashi needed to repeat and emphasize in Parsha Vayeishev,

That despite the manner of Tamar's pregnancy,

The interpretation of "And it came to pass at the time of her giving birth" is "at a shortened term"

(In contrast to Rivkah who was "at a full term")

— And the reason for the matter,

That this is on account of the born ones,

As the continuation of the verse "And behold, twins were in her womb" — "Full and elsewhere their spelling is defective because one was wicked, but these both were righteous."

7.

However, superficially this matter requires explanation — how is it possible,

that specifically from the pregnancy of Rivkah,

which was in the utmost modesty and holiness,

were born "twins lacking",

"one righteous and one wicked"?

And it can be said regarding this

(according to the inner aspect of the matters)

according to what is explained elsewhere²⁵

in the explanation of our Sages, may their memory be blessed,²⁶

(and brought in Rashi's commentary)

on the verse²⁷

"and the children struggled within her",

that already in his mother's womb Esau was "running" to idolatry — for superficially it is perplexing,

how is it possible that the son of Yitzchak and Rivkah,

who was born in the utmost holiness and purity,

would have a natural inclination to idolatry,

in a manner that this was the nature of his soul even before he was born,

even while he was in his mother's womb

("her domain" of Rivkah)?

And it was explained in this,

that this that Esau was born with such a nature was so that he could attain the level of "one who conquers his inclination",

and as is explained at length in the Eight Chapters of the Rambam²⁸

regarding the two types among those who serve G-d — "the excellent pious one" who from the outset has no inclinations toward evil etc. and desires only good,

and "one who conquers his inclination" who "desires the evil actions...

and conquers his inclination".

And so it is regarding Esau,

that this that he was born with a nature to be "running" to idolatry,

was because he had the spiritual powers necessary to be "one who conquers his inclination",

and if he had fulfilled this intention then not only would he have been equal to Jacob,

but on the contrary,

as is explained in the Rambam there,

"one who conquers his inclination" is "more important and more perfect" than "the excellent pious one".

And from this it is understood also regarding Rashi's language on the verse "and behold, they were twins in her womb" — that "here one is righteous and one is wicked",

that the intention is not wicked<pg>115</pg>

In practice,

except that he was born with a nature inclined to evil²⁹,

but together with this he was given the powers necessary to conquer his inclination.

And this is also the inner connection between the two matters in this verse —

(a)

"And her days were fulfilled to give birth",

birth at full term

(and not at seven months as with Tamar),

(b)

"Twins were incomplete" because "one righteous and one wicked"

(and not like Tamar where both were righteous)

— that both depend on each other for the better: "And her days were fulfilled" simply indicates a matter of completeness

(the opposite of birth "to incomplete ones"),

and the matter of completeness is that³⁰

from this pregnancy there were "twins incomplete..

one righteous and one wicked",

that this is the ultimate completeness,

the unification of the two virtues of "the superior pious one" and "the one who conquers his inclination".

[And on a deeper level one could say,

that this that "her pregnancy was lacking"

(that there is here a matter of lack)

is only from the perspective of the born ones,

Jacob and Esau,

that by Esau there was a nature of evil,

but not so from the perspective of Rivkah there is here no lack,

and by her there is only a matter of "full" and completeness

("And her days were fulfilled"),

for from her side there is here no matter of evil

(in actuality),

but only the quality and elevation&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;

that comes through the service of "one who conquers his inclination"].

And one could say,

that this is also the reason

(the inner one)

that already by Rivkah the verse hints about the birth of Tamar "that both of them are righteous" — because the nullification of the evil of Esau

(that is his correction of Esau)

will come in actuality through "the generations of Peretz"

(son of Tamar),

Moshiach our righteousness,

when will be fulfilled the prophecy&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;

"And saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's"&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5744,

Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5743)