English translation — וישב ב

Sicha b<pg>184</pg>

A.

In the story of the birth of Peretz and Zerach

(the sons of Yehudah and Tamar)

it is said in our parshah<sup>1</sup>

: And it was at her giving birth, and he put forth a hand

(the one put his hand outward<sup>2</sup>)

And the midwife took and tied on his hand a crimson thread, saying, This one came out first,

And it was as he drew back his hand

(after she tied the crimson thread on his hand, he returned it<sup>2</sup>)

and behold, his brother came out etc. and she called his name Peretz,

And afterward his brother came out, on whose hand was the crimson thread, and she called his name Zerach.

On the words³

"Which was by his second hand" Rashi: Four hands are written here corresponding to the four bans that Achan stole, who descended from him.

And some say corresponding to the four items that he took, a cloak⁴

Shinar and two⁵

Pieces of silver of two hundred shekels and a tongue of gold.

And at first glance, one must wonder,

How does this interpretation fit with the rule that Rashi established many times⁶,

That in his commentary on the Torah he came only for the plain meaning of the verse — for this interpretation in the verse,

That the four times that "hand" is said here correspond to "the four bans that Achan stole"

(Or "the four items that he took"),

At first glance is only a mere hint that has no connection to the plain interpretation of these words.

And it is very forced to say that in learning according to the simple meaning

(Rashi)

is resolved by this the duplication of the word "hand" four times,

which is superfluous language in the verse — for it should have added "our Rabbis expounded" and the like,

as is his way everywhere that he brings "Aggadah<sup>7</sup>

that settles the words of the verse",

Furthermore,

according to the simple meaning there is no superfluity in the verse in the duplication of the word "hand" four times — because the first and third times

("And he gave his hand",

"And it was when he drew back his hand")

are necessary simply for the continuation of the story; the superfluity in the second time "And she tied on his hand" is only that instead of the two words "on his hand" it would have been possible to write only the word "on him" — a "space" of one word! And this is not a superfluity requiring explanation,

for

(according to the simple meaning of the verse)

it is fitting to add one word for greater clarity.

However, regarding the fourth time

("And after that his brother came out, upon whose hand was the scarlet thread")

at first glance there is room to say,

that not only the word "his hand" is superfluous,

but rather all four words "upon whose hand was the scarlet thread" are superfluous<sup>8</sup>,

for it is clear from the continuation of the verses that "his brother"

(who came out last)

is the one "upon whose hand was the scarlet thread",

and there is no need for this sign; and based on this there is room to explain at first glance that this superfluity teaches us about the other "hands"<sup>9</sup>,

that there is a hint in this that "four hands are written here" — "corresponding to four bans..

four things".

But when you examine carefully,

even in the fourth time there is no superfluity here

(according to the simple meaning,

which requires explanation)

— because:<pg>185</pg>

(a)

In these words — "which was upon the hand of the second" — the verse comes to emphasize the reason for the naming of "Zerach"

(which is stated in the verse immediately after this),

and as Rashi explains: "And he called his name Zerach — because of the shining of the appearance of the second [scarlet thread]"¹⁰.

(b)

And the main point: we find several times that the verse repeats a matter

(even though there is in this a superfluity of a few words)

— for the sake of additional clarification or even merely for the beauty of the language.

For example — in Parshas Bereishis¹¹

: "And God finished on the seventh day His work etc. and rested on the seventh day etc. and God blessed the seventh day etc." — three times "on the seventh day",

and Rashi there did not explain the reason for this repetition¹²

(for it would have been possible to write "And God finished on the seventh day His work etc. and rested on it from all His work etc. and God blessed it and sanctified it etc." — and there would be no doubt that the reference is to "on the seventh day")

!

And it must be said,

that this kind of redundancy is not a difficulty according to the plain meaning — therefore we do not find in our case in our parshah,

that the simple readers of the verse will stand on this that "four hands are written here",

even though it can be said that they relied on Rashi — and the difficulty returns to its place.

2.

Also, one must understand several precise points in Rashi's commentary — and among them:

a)

What is the precision of the wording "four hands are written here"

(as if they are four different hands)?

And behold, Rashi's intention is for four times "hand" — and if so, it should have said "hand is written four times"¹³,

or "four times hand is written here"¹⁴

and the like¹⁵?

And especially that "the four hands" is the language of the verse in a different commentary — parts¹⁶.

b)

Why did Rashi need two explanations?

— And as has been explained many times,

that when Rashi brings two explanations,

it is because in each one there is a difficulty that is not in the other,

except that the first explanation is closer to the plain meaning and therefore he brings it first.

c)

In the first explanation Rashi did not detail which are the four devoted things that Achan stole,

whereas in the second explanation Rashi details the four items that he took — "a mantle of Shinar and two pieces of silver..

and a tongue of gold"!

And even more perplexing: in Bereishis Rabbah¹⁸

— simply,

the source of this Rashi commentary — is in the opposite manner: in the first commentary the bans that Achan violated are detailed — "And these are the four,

the ban of Amalek and the ban of Sihon and Og and the ban of Jericho and the ban of the Canaanites

(other version: of Midian¹⁹)

",

whereas in the second commentary there it is stated only "corresponding to four things..

as it is said²⁰

And I saw among the spoil a goodly Shinar mantle etc.'"

(without copying the continuation of the verse in which the rest of the things are detailed²¹)

!<pg>186</pg>

3.

And one can say the explanation of all this:

The intention of Rashi in this explanation is not to resolve an excess in the language of the verse,

but rather to explain a general matter in this story: also in study according to the plain meaning it is understood,

that in the stories of the Torah in general²²,

and of the Patriarchs and the Tribes in particular,

the verse comes to teach us and inform us of a specific content — whether a matter relating to knowledge of their lives,

or that this is in the category of "the deeds of the Patriarchs are a sign for the children",

a matter hinting at the events of their children after them

— and as we find several times in Rashi's commentary in the previous portions²³

(that he explains several events of the Patriarchs how they hint at things that will come to be in the lives of their children),

and especially in an event similar to this above — at the birth of Jacob and Esau: "And after that his brother came out, and his hand was holding onto the heel of Esau"²⁴,

that Rashi explained there²⁵

the content of this matter and in detail: "He was justified in holding onto him to delay him,

Jacob was formed from the first drop etc. and Jacob came to delay him so that he would be first to birth as first to formation and would release her womb and take the birthright justly",

and also Rashi explained the reason that he was holding "onto the heel of Esau" — "a sign that this one is not sufficient to complete his kingdom until that one stands and takes it from him" —

And thus it is necessary to understand in our case — what is the content of this story regarding the birth of Peretz and Zerach,

that which the verse comes to teach us,

that initially "he put out his hand outward and after he tied upon his hand the second one he returned it" and his brother came out,

and after that came this one "upon whose hand was the second one",

and what is the reason that Zerach came out last even though he put out his hand first?

[And one cannot say that here too Peretz held back Zerach&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;

so that he would come out first and he would be the firstborn&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

— for regarding Yaakov and Esav,

behold since Esav was wicked,

the reason is understood that Yaakov did not want Esav to come out first&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

(and likewise conversely — Esav,

because he was wicked,

did not allow Yaakov to come out first)

; but in our case,

behold Rashi already explained — both in the portion of Toldos&lt;sup&gt;29&lt;/sup&gt;

and here in our portion&lt;sup&gt;30&lt;/sup&gt;

— that "both of them are righteous",

and why did Peretz come out before Zerach who put out his hand first?].

And this matter Rashi explains in his commentary³¹

:<pg>187</pg>

"Four hands are written here,

corresponding to four bans that Achan violated who descended from him",

that is,

that the meaning of this story is a "sign" alluding and relating to the "son" after several generations; and therefore Zerach was pushed off and came last and did not merit the birthright³²,

since from him descended³³

Achan who violated the four bans³⁴.

4.

Based on this, the reason is also resolved why Rashi did not preface here "and our Rabbis expounded"

(and the like)

:

Rashi writes such an introduction in a place where there is a difficulty in the language of the verse,

which is resolved only through homiletic interpretation or allusion; but in our case, Rashi did not come to remove the verses from their plain meaning

(and also — he did not come to expound an extra element of the verse),

rather his intention is to explain the "sign" in this event

(and as above,

that it is usual

(also)

according to the plain meaning of the verse,

that there is content and allusion in this event,

and like "and his hand was holding the heel of Esau" that Rashi explained

(as above)

"a sign that this is not enough to finish his kingdom etc.'",

and he did not preface that this is an aggadah or homiletic interpretation).

And this is the precision of Rashi's language — "four hands are written here"

(and not "four times is written 'hand'" and the like)

— to emphasize,

that his intention is not regarding the mere repetition in the language of the verse,

but rather,

that in this birth are written "four hands" — four different matters of "hand"

("hands" plural form)

— "and he gave his hand",

"and she tied it on his hand",

"as he drew back his hand",

"which was on his other hand";

And since this is so,

it is reasonable to say,

that the content and the "sign" also hint to a future event related to "hand",

and connected to the number four — and therefore Rashi explained "corresponding to four bans that Achan violated..

four things he took".

And with this is also understood the reason for the superiority of Rashi's first explanation over the second explanation: since "four hands are written here" — four matters in connection with "hand" and each with a different content

("He gave",

"returns" etc.,

as above)

— it is reasonable to say,

that also in the "sign" four different events occurred; and therefore Rashi's first explanation is "corresponding to the four trespasses that Achan committed",

which are four different actions,

at four different times; unlike the second explanation,

which is corresponding to "the four things that he took",

there are not here four takings

("hands")

different,

but rather four details in one taking.

5.

However, nevertheless Rashi was not satisfied with the first explanation and also brings the words of the "some say" — "corresponding to the four things that he took" — because there is an advantage

(also)

in the second explanation.

And one can say,

Rashi hints at this by means of the change

(the above section 2),

that in the first explanation he did not detail the bans and in the second explanation he detailed the four things.

And the explanation in this:

The reason simply why Rashi did not specify what are the four bans is — because in the plain sense of the verse there is no determination what are the bans with which Achan trespassed,

since in the verse it is only explained regarding the trespass of the ban of Jericho,

but not regarding the other trespasses³⁵.

<pg>188</pg>

And although from Achan's statement³⁶

"And such and such I did" we know

(as Rashi explains there)

that he trespassed "also with other bans" — nevertheless we do not know from this

(a)

with how many bans he trespassed³⁷,

(b)

and with which bans he trespassed

[and some say that he trespassed with three or five bans³⁸,

and we also find a lengthy discussion among the commentators³⁹

what are the bans].

And this is the advantage of the second interpretation over the first interpretation — because the

(four)

things that he took are explicit in the plain meaning of Scripture.

And therefore Rashi is precise to detail the four things — because superficially it is explicit in Scripture&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

only three things: "one good Shinar garment and two hundred shekels of silver and one tongue of gold"

(garment,

silver,

gold),

and therefore Rashi details and explains that there were here "two pieces of silver of two hundred shekels"&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;.

But not so the four trespasses of Achan

(which in the first interpretation),

as above,

that we do not find them detailed in the plain meaning of Scripture.

6.

And additionally one can say,

And with an introduction: it is understood and simple,

that this that Zerach did not merit the birthright because Achan came out from him,

is specifically because the deeds of Achan

(that are hinted at in the four hands written here)

harmed all of Israel⁴¹,

this is not a matter of his private sin but a sin that touches the entire collective.

[For it is simple,

that what one of the issue of Zerach's loins is wicked

(and even a very great wicked one)

this is not a reason that because of this Zerach should lose his birthright,

and all the more so and how much more so that the verse would relate about this immediately at the birth of Zerach].

And this is the difficulty in Rashi's first explanation

(therefore Rashi was not satisfied with it alone),

that according to it were hinted here

(also)

the three trespasses of Achan,

that did not affect all of Israel&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

but rather they are his private sins

(and until the text descended to tell about them)

— and if so, why did the text hint them in the birth of Zerach as a cause for the loss of the birthright?

But not so according to the second explanation that the hint in "four hands" is only in connection to the trespass in the ban of Jericho,

that affected all of Israel as recounted in its place

(in the book of Joshua)&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

The meaning of the verse according to Rashi:

It is stated in the Bahir⁴³,

that "Zerach" and "Peretz" are sun and moon,

and their significance of sun and moon in the service of G-d⁴⁴

— "sun" alludes to the service of the righteous,

whose service is "perpetual in their order",

without change

(like the light of the sun which has no changes),

and moon alludes to penitents

(like the birth and filling of the moon which comes after its waning).

And therefore from Peretz

(which is opposite)

Lechem came out from

the house of David — that David "established the work of repentance"⁴⁵,

until King Moshiach — that one of the innovations of Moshiach is,

as the statement of the Zohar⁴⁶,

Moshiach came to bring back the righteous in repentance,

that even the righteous will attain the level of repentance.

And this is hinted in the name "Peretz" — on account of "you have broken through a breach"⁴⁷,

which indicates a matter of breaking through the fence⁴⁸,

that this is the matter of the service of repentance⁴⁹,

which is "with strength" in general and "with greater strength"⁵⁰,

above measure and limitation⁵¹

("with all your might").

And the reason that Peretz came out first and he was the firstborn⁵²

— because the service of repentance is higher than the service of the righteous,

and as the saying⁵³

"In the place where penitents stand, even completely righteous people cannot⁵⁴

stand."

And with this is also understood the hint in the story of the manner of the birth of Peretz and Zerach:

Since the sun shone

(Mitzas)

its essence is the service of the righteous,

therefore he began to go out first,

for the beginning and first intention is,

that each and every one should be in the level of a righteous person⁵⁵

; but through the fact that Achan came out from him,

it was necessary to reveal the virtue of repentance⁵⁶

[And according to the simple meaning of the matter,

that Achan was a penitent,

who confessed his sins and has a portion in the World to Come⁵⁷]

— and this is from the essence of Peretz — "You have broken through a breach upon yourself",

the rectification of "Achan" through breaking the fence,

through the service of repentance.

(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev and Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5731,

5746)