Parshas Toldos
1. “And her days were fulfilled to give birth, and behold, there were twins in her womb.” Rashi comments: “And her days were fulfilled—but regarding Tamar it is written, ‘And it was at the time of her giving birth,’ for her days were not fulfilled, since she gave birth at seven months.”
This requires explanation:
It has been explained many times that when there is a contradiction between two verses, Rashi’s approach is to resolve it at the second verse, at the place where the contradiction arises. If so, the question here is: why does Rashi choose to address here the difference in language between the verse here and the verse later regarding Tamar?
This is especially puzzling since, on the verse “And it was at the time of her giving birth” (in Parshas Vayeishev), Rashi again resolves this difference (“And regarding Rivkah it says, ‘And her days were fulfilled to give birth’—there, it refers to a full term, and here, to a shortened term”). If so, it is even more surprising: why did he feel the need to explain it here as well, before the question of the difference between the two verses even arises?
It is also necessary to examine Rashi’s wording here—he explains only the verse regarding Tamar: “her days were not fulfilled, for she gave birth at seven months.” Seemingly, he should have first explained our verse, that Rivkah gave birth at full term, and only afterwards added, “But Tamar’s days were not fulfilled, etc.”
It is even more puzzling: Rashi’s source is in Bereishis Rabbah on this verse—and there the wording is “there, it is shortened; here, it is full,” whereas Rashi explains only the wording of the verse in Parshas Vayeishev, and regarding Rivkah he does not explain anything!
One might suggest simply that regarding Rivkah, there is no need to explain that “here it is full,” since the verse explicitly says, “And her days were fulfilled to give birth,” and the entire novelty is only in the explanation of “at the time of her giving birth” regarding Tamar, where the verse changes its language because “her days were not fulfilled (for she gave birth at seven months).”
But in addition to this, according to this, the earlier question is even stronger—what compels Rashi here to explain the verse regarding Tamar that appears later (since our verse does not require any explanation to resolve it, only to address the difference in Tamar’s case)? After all, Rashi himself, later in Parshas Vayeishev, uses the language of the Midrash, “there, it is full; here, it is shortened,” and since here he does not go into detail that “here it is full” (because it is unnecessary, as explained above), why is it different regarding Tamar, where he explains “and there, it is full” (after bringing the verse “And her days were fulfilled, etc.”)?
2. Afterwards, Rashi quotes, “And behold, there were twins,” and explains: “It is written deficiently, but regarding Tamar, ‘twins’ is written in full, because both were righteous, whereas here, one was righteous and one was wicked.”
This too requires clarification, similar to the above: why does Rashi choose to address here the difference that appears later (“twins” written in full) regarding Tamar? Especially since, in Parshas Vayeishev, Rashi again resolves this difference there as well.
It also needs explanation regarding Rashi’s very interpretation here, that the word “twins” is written deficiently:
It has been explained many times—and so write several commentators on Rashi—that the differences of “full” and “deficient” spellings, in and of themselves, do not present a difficulty in the plain meaning of the verse (which is why Rashi generally does not explain the reason for deficient spellings, etc., in Scripture); and where Rashi does explain their reason, it is only because this clarifies something that is difficult in the plain meaning of the verse. According to this, we need to understand in our case—what is difficult in the wording of the verse “and behold, there were twins in her womb” that causes Rashi to note that “twins” is written deficiently?
3. The explanation of all this is as follows:
Rashi’s intent in his commentary on “And her days were fulfilled” is to answer (not the difficulty of the difference in studying the verse in Parshas Vayeishev, but rather) a question that arises here, namely—that the words “And her days were fulfilled” seem superfluous. What is this teaching us? Is it not self-evident that birth (in the usual way) occurs after the days of pregnancy are fulfilled? That is why, until now, in all the places where birth is mentioned, the Torah does not preface it with “And her days were fulfilled” or similar wording. What is the verse adding here by stating, “And her days were fulfilled”?
[Targum Yonasan here writes, “And the two hundred and seventy days of her pregnancy were completed for her to give birth,” meaning that the nine months of pregnancy were nine full months (and she did not give birth in the middle of the ninth month).
However, aside from the fact that this explanation depends on the dispute whether a woman who gives birth in the ninth month gives birth “incomplete” (before the full nine months) or not—and according to the opinion that she does not give birth “incomplete,” every birth (in the ninth month) is after nine full months—still, the main question remains: after all is said and done, what practical difference does it make whether she gave birth after nine full months or not?]
To this, Rashi answers: “But regarding Tamar it is written, ‘And it was at the time of her giving birth,’ when her days were not completed, etc.” In other words, the words “and her days were fulfilled” are written here only to teach us the intent behind the change in wording regarding Tamar—“And it was at the time of her giving birth”—that there (by Tamar) the birth was not in the manner of “and her days were fulfilled.”
That is: were it not for the verse here stating “and her days were fulfilled” (regarding Rivkah), we would not have inferred that the intent of the words “at the time of her giving birth” (regarding Tamar) is “before the days were completed” (and we would have interpreted the verse simply, that only at the time of her giving birth did Tamar discover that there were twins in her womb). But after the Torah uses the expression “and her days were fulfilled” by Rivkah, whereas by Tamar it says “And it was at the time of her giving birth” (instead of “and her days were fulfilled to give birth”), this difference between the verses teaches us that by Tamar “her days were not fulfilled.”
This also simply explains the difference in Rashi’s wording—here he explains only “And it was at the time of her giving birth” regarding Tamar, whereas in Parshas Vayeishev he writes, “There it is for completed months, and here for incomplete months.” For here, in our parsha, Rashi’s intent is to answer the superfluity of “and her days were fulfilled,” and so he explains that it comes to teach us the meaning of “And it was at the time of her giving birth” that is said regarding Tamar (and therefore there is no need to write anything about “and her days were fulfilled”); whereas later, in Parshas Vayeishev, Rashi’s intent is to address the change in wording between the two places—and accordingly, he writes there, “There it is for completed months, and here for incomplete months.”
4. However, this is still not understood:
a) Since the words “and her days were fulfilled” are written here only to clarify the intent of the verse regarding Tamar—why are they stated specifically in our parsha regarding Rivkah, and not in the birth that is adjacent to the birth of Peretz and Zerach (the birth of Er and Onan, or the birth of Shelah), where the difference would be even more striking (that in the very same parsha the Torah changes its wording from one birth to another)?
b) In the content of the matter, it is not understood—what practical difference is there that Tamar “her days were not fulfilled, for she gave birth at seven months”? After all, the Torah does not recount every detail of the events of the Patriarchs and the tribes, etc., but only those relevant to the content of the stories.
c) After Rashi has explained that from the precision of the verses we learn that there is a birth in the manner of “completed” months and a birth in the manner of “incomplete” months, there is room to wonder: since Rivkah’s pregnancy was with great pain (even more than the general pain of “I will greatly increase your pain and your pregnancy”), as it says, “And the children struggled within her (until) she said, ‘If so, why am I thus?’” and Rashi explains, “She said, ‘If so, the pain of pregnancy is so great, why then do I desire and pray for pregnancy?’”—why did G‑d arrange that this righteous woman should suffer the pain of pregnancy for such a long time, and not give birth before her days were fulfilled, at seven months?
And to resolve these questions, Rashi continues in his next comment: “And behold, twins—written deficiently; but regarding Tamar it is written ‘twins’ in full, because both were righteous, whereas here one was righteous and one was wicked.” That is: after seeing that the verse distinguishes between the two births of Rivkah and Tamar in order to teach that one was after completed months and one after incomplete months—it is reasonable to say that we should also compare and analyze the other differences between them: here it says “twins” written deficiently, and by Tamar “twins” written in full. For this emphasizes that the entire intent of the verse here is to compare the two births and highlight the differences between them, that even though both gave birth to twins, nevertheless there was a fundamental difference between them.
With this, the above questions are answered: the wonder as to why specifically by Rivkah it says the extra phrase “and her days were fulfilled” (to teach us that regarding Tamar, the birth was in a manner that “her days were not fulfilled”), as well as the reason and cause for the difference between them (that one was after completed months and one after incomplete months)—all of this is resolved by the second difference between them, that here it says “twins” written deficiently, and by Tamar “twins” written in full—“because there (by Tamar) both were righteous, but here one was righteous and one was wicked.” That is: since in Tamar’s birth both were righteous, she merited that the pain of pregnancy was eased for her and she gave birth at seven months, whereas by Rivkah, since one of her children was wicked—she did not merit this, and therefore “her days were fulfilled to give birth.”
According to this, we can also understand—why do we need this verse, “and her days were fulfilled to give birth, and behold, twins in her womb”? After all, Rivkah already knew this, as is explicit earlier: “And the children struggled within her… and G‑d said to her, ‘Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples…’” What then is the verse adding here? Based on the above, it is understood: the words “and behold, twins in her womb” are only giving the reason for “and her days were fulfilled to give birth”—that the reason she gave birth after completed months and not at seven months like Tamar is because “twins—written deficiently—were in her womb.”
5. Based on the above, we can further clarify a precision in Rashi’s wording here, where he concludes, “but by Tamar… for she gave birth to them at seven months,” and does not write concisely (similar to the wording of the Midrash here, and so too is the wording of Rashi himself in Parshas Vayeishev, as mentioned above), “for she gave birth after incomplete months.”
Simply, one could say that Rashi does not use the term “incomplete months” here because it is not a clear expression (for a five-year-old learning Chumash), and therefore he explains here that she gave birth at seven months, whereas in Parshas Vayeishev he abbreviates and writes “incomplete months”—relying on his explanation here.
But this is still not fully resolved, because in the word “incomplete” (חסרים) we find (in the commentaries) two explanations: 1) as Rashi explains—that it means birth at seven months; 2) that the nine months were not complete (and according to the opinion that even one who gives birth at nine months gives birth in a partial month). If so, what is the reason that Rashi determines here that the intent is birth at seven months?
And even if there is some proof for this from elsewhere—why does Rashi need to decide and enter here into the details of the distinction, whether the lack was in days alone or in months—“she gave birth at seven months”?
However, based on what was explained above in clarifying the sequence of Rashi’s two explanations, it can be said that this is an introduction to Rashi’s second comment, where he specifies “twins written deficiently,” that the necessity to be precise in this way is because of the difficulty with “and her days were fulfilled”—that Rivkah did not give birth at seven months like Tamar, and suffered the pain of pregnancy for two additional months, and it must therefore be that this is because here it was “deficient,” and the deficiency was—“here one was righteous and one was wicked.”
6. But still, there is a question regarding Rashi in Parshas Vayeishev:
After Rashi has already explained in our parsha the difference between the two births [and in both details: the time of birth—completed or incomplete months; the difference in the children—“twins written deficiently” because one was wicked, or “twins” written in full because both were righteous], why does Rashi repeat and explain all this again in Parshas Vayeishev?
It can be explained as follows: when learning in Parshas Vayeishev the details of the story about Tamar’s pregnancy—a great wonder arises: Rivkah’s pregnancy was with utmost modesty (in addition to the fact that it came as a result of the prayers of righteous people), whereas Tamar’s pregnancy was in the opposite manner—so how is it possible that Rivkah suffered the pain of pregnancy for full days (and months), and Tamar gave birth “after incomplete months,” at seven months?
Therefore, Rashi needed to repeat and emphasize in Parshas Vayeishev that despite the manner of Tamar’s pregnancy, the meaning of “and it was at the time of her giving birth” is “after incomplete months” (in contrast to Rivkah, where it was “after completed months”)—and the reason for this is because of the children, as the verse continues, “and behold, twins in her womb”—“written in full, and elsewhere ‘twins’ is written deficiently because one was wicked, but here both were righteous.”
7. However, this matter itself seemingly requires explanation—how is it possible that specifically from the pregnancy of Rivkah, which was with utmost modesty and holiness, were born “twins written deficiently,” “one righteous and one wicked”?
It can be explained (according to the inner dimension of the matter) based on what is explained elsewhere regarding the words of our Sages (cited in Rashi) on the verse “and the children struggled within her,” that already in his mother’s womb, Esav “ran” towards idolatry. This is puzzling: how is it possible that the son of Yitzchak and Rivkah, who was born in utmost holiness and purity, should have a natural inclination toward idolatry, to the extent that this was the very nature of his soul even before he was born, while still in his mother’s womb (Rivkah’s “domain”)?
This is explained as follows: the fact that Esav was born with such a nature was in order that he could attain the level of “one who conquers his inclination.” As the Rambam explains at length in Shemoneh Perakim regarding the two types of those who serve G‑d: the “perfectly pious one,” who from the outset has no inclination toward evil and desires only good, and the “one who conquers his inclination,” who “desires evil actions… but conquers his inclination.” So it is with Esav: the fact that he was born with a nature to “run” toward idolatry was because he possessed the spiritual powers necessary to be “one who conquers his inclination.” Had he fulfilled this purpose, not only would he have been equal to Yaakov, but even greater—for, as the Rambam explains there, “one who conquers his inclination” is “more important and more complete” than the “perfectly pious one.”
From this, we can also understand Rashi’s wording on the verse “and behold, twins in her womb”—that “here, one is righteous and one is wicked.” The intent is not that he was actually wicked in deed, but rather that he was born with a nature inclined toward evil; yet together with this, he was given the necessary powers to conquer his inclination.
This is also the inner connection between the two matters in this verse: (a) “And her days were fulfilled to give birth”—a birth after full months (and not after seven months, as with Tamar); (b) “twins written deficiently,” because “one is righteous and one is wicked” (unlike Tamar, where both were righteous). Both are interdependent and for the good: “And her days were fulfilled” simply indicates a matter of completeness (the opposite of a birth “after incomplete months”), and the concept of completeness is that from this pregnancy came “twins written deficiently… one righteous and one wicked”—which is the ultimate perfection, the union of the two qualities of the “perfectly pious one” and “one who conquers his inclination.”
[On a deeper level, one can say that the fact that “twins is written deficiently” (that there is an aspect of deficiency here) is only from the perspective of the children, Yaakov and Esav, in that Esav had a nature inclined toward evil. However, from Rivkah’s perspective, there is no deficiency at all; for her, there is only “fullness” and completeness (“and her days were fulfilled”), for from her side there is no aspect of evil (in actuality), but only the advantage and elevation that comes through the service of “conquering one’s inclination.”]
It can further be said that this is also the (inner) reason why already with Rivkah the verse alludes to the birth of Tamar—“that both were righteous”—because the nullification of Esav’s evil (which is Esav’s rectification) will actually come about through “the offspring of Peretz” (the son of Tamar), our righteous Moshiach, when the prophecy will be fulfilled: “And saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esav, and the kingdom shall be the L‑rd’s,” speedily in our days, truly.
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Toldos 5744, Shabbos Parshas Re’eh 5743)
Key Lesson
Rivkah carried her twins to full term while Tamar gave birth at seven months, and the difference lies in the children: “twins” is written deficiently because here one was righteous and one wicked. Yet this too is for the good. Esav was born with a nature inclined toward evil so that he could attain the level of “one who conquers his inclination,” which the Rambam calls more complete than the “perfectly pious one.” A nature inclined toward evil is not a verdict: it comes together with the powers to conquer it.