Likkutei Sichos Vol. 30 – Vayeishev 2
1. In the story of the birth of Peretz and Zerach (the sons of Yehudah and Tamar), our parsha states: “And it came to pass, as she gave birth, that he put out a hand (one of them extended his hand outside), and the midwife took and tied a scarlet thread on his hand, saying, ‘This one came out first.’ And it came to pass, as he drew back his hand (after she had tied the thread on his hand, he drew it back), that behold, his brother came out… and he called his name Peretz. And afterward his brother came out, upon whose hand was the scarlet thread, and he called his name Zerach.”
On the words “upon whose hand was the scarlet thread,” Rashi comments: “Four ‘hands’ are written here, corresponding to the four items of cherem (banned property) that Achan, who descended from him, misappropriated. And some say, corresponding to the four things he took: a Babylonian garment, two pieces of silver of two hundred shekels, and a tongue of gold.”
At first glance, this is puzzling: how does this explanation fit with the principle that Rashi has stated many times, that his commentary on the Torah comes only to explain the plain meaning of the verse? For this explanation—that the four times the word “hand” appears here allude to “the four items of cherem that Achan misappropriated” (or “the four things he took”)—seems to be merely a hint, with no connection to the straightforward interpretation of these words.
It is also difficult to say that, in the context of the simple meaning (peshat), this resolves the repetition of the word “hand” four times, as if it were an unnecessary redundancy in the text—for if that were the case, Rashi should have prefaced his comment with “Our Sages expounded” or the like, as is his practice whenever he brings an aggadic interpretation that resolves the wording of the verse.
Furthermore, according to the simple meaning, the repetition of the word “hand” four times is not an excessive redundancy in the text. The first and third instances (“he put out a hand,” “as he drew back his hand”) are clearly necessary for the flow of the story; the only possible redundancy is in the second instance, “and she tied the scarlet thread on his hand,” where instead of the two words “on his hand,” it could have simply said “on him”—a difference of just one word! This is not a redundancy that demands explanation, for (according to the plain meaning of the verse) the addition of a single word is justified for the sake of clarity.
However, regarding the fourth instance (“and afterward his brother came out, upon whose hand was the scarlet thread”), it would seem that not only is the word “hand” redundant, but the entire phrase “upon whose hand was the scarlet thread” is superfluous, since it is clear from the context 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. Based on this, one might suggest that this redundancy teaches us about the other “hands”—that there is a hint in the fact that “four ‘hands’ are written here”—“corresponding to the four items of cherem… the four things.”
But upon closer examination, even in the fourth instance there is no redundancy (in terms of the plain meaning, that would require explanation), because:
(a) In these words—“upon whose hand was the scarlet thread”—the verse is coming to emphasize the reason for the naming of Zerach (which is stated immediately afterward), as Rashi explains: “‘And he called his name Zerach’—because of the shining appearance of the scarlet thread.”
(b) And more importantly: we find many times that the Torah repeats a matter (even if this involves the redundancy of several words)—for the sake of additional clarification, or even just for the beauty of the language.
For example, in Parshas Bereishis: “And G‑d completed on the seventh day His work… and He rested on the seventh day… and G‑d blessed the seventh day…”—three times “on the seventh day,” and Rashi does not explain the reason for this repetition (even though it could have been written, “And G‑d completed on the seventh day His work… and He rested on it from all His work… and G‑d blessed it and sanctified it…”—and there would be no doubt that the subject is “the seventh day”)!
It must therefore be said that such a redundancy does not present a difficulty in terms of the plain meaning—and that is why we do not find, in our parsha, that the commentators who focus on the simple meaning raise the issue that “four ‘hands’ are written here,” even though one could say they relied on Rashi. Thus, the question returns to its place.
2. We must also understand several details in this Rashi commentary, among them:
a) What is the precision in the wording “four ‘hands’ are written here” (as if they are four different hands)? For Rashi’s intent is to the four times the word “hand” appears—so he should have said, “the word ‘hand’ is written four times,” or “four times ‘hand’ is written here,” or the like. Especially since “four hands” is a phrase the verse uses elsewhere with a different meaning—namely, as parts or portions.
b) Why did Rashi need to bring two explanations?—As has been explained many times, whenever Rashi brings two explanations, it is because each one has a difficulty that the other does not, but the first explanation is closer to the plain meaning, and therefore he brings it first.
c) In the first explanation, Rashi does not specify which are the four bans (cherem) that Achan violated, whereas in the second explanation, Rashi details the four things that he took—“a Babylonian garment and two pieces of silver… and a tongue of gold”!
It is even more puzzling: In Bereishis Rabbah—which is, apparently, the source of this Rashi—the order is the opposite: In the first explanation, the bans that Achan violated are specified—“And these are the four: the ban of Amalek, the ban of Sichon and Og, the ban of Jericho, and the ban of the Canaanites (some versions: Midian)”; whereas in the second explanation there, it only says, “corresponding to four things… as it says, ‘and I saw among the spoils a goodly Babylonian garment, etc.’” (without quoting the rest of the verse where the other items are specified)!
3. The explanation of all this may be as follows:
Rashi’s intent in this commentary is not to resolve a redundancy in the wording of the verse, but rather to explain a general concept in this story: Even when learning according to the plain meaning, it is understood that the stories of the Torah in general, and especially those of the Patriarchs and the tribes, are written to teach us and convey a particular message—whether it is something relevant to knowing their own lives, or it is in the category of “the deeds of the fathers are a sign for the children,” an event that hints at occurrences that will happen to their descendants after them.
—As we find many times in Rashi’s commentary on the previous parshiyos (where he explains several events of the Patriarchs as alluding to things that would happen in the lives of their children), and especially in a similar event earlier—at the birth of Yaakov and Esav: “And afterwards his brother emerged, and his hand was grasping Esav’s heel,” where Rashi explains the content of this event in detail: “It was just that he was holding him back, for Yaakov was formed from the first drop, etc., and Yaakov came to hold him back so that he would be first to be born, as he was first to be conceived, and he would open the womb and rightfully take the birthright,” and Rashi also explains the reason he was grasping “Esav’s heel”—“a sign that this one will not complete his reign until that one stands and takes it from him”—
Therefore, we must understand in our case—what is the content of this story about the birth of Peretz and Zerach, which the Torah comes to teach us: that at first “one put out his hand, and after the midwife tied a scarlet thread on his hand, he drew it back,” and his brother emerged, and afterwards the one “on whose hand was the scarlet thread” came out—what is the reason that Zerach emerged last, even though he put out his hand first?
[And one cannot say that here too Peretz held back Zerach so that he would be born first and be the firstborn—for in the case of Yaakov and Esav, since Esav was wicked, it is understandable that Yaakov did not want Esav to be born first (and likewise, on the other side—Esav, being wicked, did not allow Yaakov to be born first); but in our case, Rashi has already explained—both in Parshas Toldos and here in our parsha—that “both were righteous,” so why did Peretz come out before Zerach, who put out his hand first?]
This is what Rashi explains in his commentary:
“Four ‘hands’ are written here, corresponding to the four bans that Achan violated, who was descended from him”—that is, the point of this story is a “sign” that hints and is connected to a “son” many generations later; and therefore Zerach was pushed aside and came out last and did not merit the birthright, because from him would descend Achan, who violated four bans.
4. According to this, we can also answer why Rashi does not preface here with “And our Sages expounded” (and similar phrases):
Rashi writes such an introduction in places where there is a difficulty in the wording of the verse that can only be resolved through a derash or hint; but in our case, Rashi is not coming to remove the verses from their plain meaning (nor is he coming to expound on a redundancy in the verse), but rather his intent is to explain the “sign” in this event (as mentioned above, that this is customary (also) according to the plain meaning of Scripture—that there is content and an allusion in such an event; as with “and his hand was grasping Esav’s heel,” where Rashi explains (as above), “a sign that this one will not complete his reign, etc.,” and does not preface that this is an aggadah or a derashah).
This is the precision in Rashi’s wording—“Four ‘hands’ are written here” (and not “Four times it says ‘hand’” or similar expressions)—to emphasize that his intent is not simply the repetition of the word in the verse, but rather that in this birth, there are “four hands” written—four different aspects of “hand” (“yadot” in the plural): “and he put out his hand,” “and she tied on his hand,” “as he drew back his hand,” “upon whose hand was the scarlet thread.”
And since this is so, it is reasonable to say that the content and the “sign” also allude to a future event connected to “hand,” and specifically related to the number four. Therefore, Rashi explains: “corresponding to the four bans that Achan violated… four things that he took.”
With this, we can also understand the reason for the preference of Rashi’s first explanation over the second: since “four hands are written here”—four matters connected to “hand,” each with a different content (“and he put out,” “he drew back,” etc., as above)—it is reasonable to say that also in the “sign,” four different events occurred. Therefore, Rashi’s first explanation is “corresponding to the four bans that Achan violated,” which are four distinct actions at four different times. In contrast, according to the second explanation, that they correspond to “the four things that he took,” there are not four separate takings (“hands”), but rather four details within a single act of taking.
5. Nevertheless, Rashi is not satisfied with only the first explanation and also brings the words of “some say”—“corresponding to the four things that he took”—because there is an advantage (also) in the second explanation.
It can be said that Rashi hints at this through the difference (mentioned above in section 2), that in the first explanation he does not specify the bans, while in the second explanation he details the four items.
The explanation is as follows:
The simple reason why Rashi does not specify what the four bans are is because, according to the plain meaning of the verse, it is not clear what the bans that Achan violated were, for in the verse it is explicit only regarding the violation of the ban of Jericho, but not about other violations.
And even though from Achan’s statement, “and thus and thus I have done,” we know that he also violated “other bans”—nevertheless, from this we do not know (a) how many bans he violated, and (b) which bans he violated [to the extent that some say he violated three or five bans, and there is also a lengthy debate among the commentators as to what the bans were].
This is the advantage of the second explanation over the first—because the “(four) things that he took” are explicit in the plain meaning of the verse. Therefore, Rashi is precise to specify the four items—because at first glance, the verse mentions only three things: “one beautiful Shinar cloak, two hundred shekels of silver, and one wedge of gold” (cloak, silver, gold). Therefore, Rashi specifies and explains that there were “two pieces of silver, each of two hundred shekels.”
In contrast, the four violations of Achan (in the first explanation), as mentioned above, are not specified in the plain meaning of the verse.
6. Furthermore, it can be said, by way of introduction: It is understood and obvious that the reason Zerach did not merit the birthright because Achan would descend from him is only because Achan’s actions (which are alluded to in the four “hands” written here) affected the entire Jewish people; this is not a matter of his personal sin, but a sin that concerns the entire community.
[It is self-evident that if one of Zerach’s descendants was a wicked person (even a very great evildoer), this alone would not be a reason for Zerach to lose his birthright, and certainly not for the Torah to recount this immediately at Zerach’s birth.]
This is the difficulty in Rashi’s first explanation: according to it, the verse alludes here (also) to the first three violations of Achan, which did not affect the entire Jewish people but were his personal sins (to the extent that the verse does not even bother to recount them)—if so, why would the verse allude to them at Zerach’s birth as a reason for losing the birthright?
In contrast, according to the second explanation, the hint in the “four hands” refers only to the violation of the ban of Jericho, which affected the entire Jewish people, as recounted in its place (in the book of Yehoshua).
7. The inner dimension of Torah in this Rashi:
It is written in Sefer HaBahir that “Zerach” and “Peretz” correspond to the sun and the moon. The significance of the sun and the moon in the service of G‑d is as follows: “Sun” alludes to the service of the righteous (tzaddikim), whose avodah is “the continual offerings in their order,” without change (just as the light of the sun is constant and unchanging). The moon, on the other hand, alludes to those who return in teshuvah (baalei teshuvah), like the renewal and fullness of the moon that comes after its diminishment.
Therefore, from Peretz (who corresponds to the moon) came the kingdom of the House of David—for David “established the yoke of teshuvah,” all the way to King Moshiach, about whom one of the innovations is, as the Zohar says, “Moshiach will come to bring the righteous themselves to teshuvah”—that even tzaddikim will attain the level of teshuvah. This is hinted at in the name “Peretz”—from the phrase “you have burst forth a breach upon you,” which indicates the idea of breaking through boundaries. This is the concept of the avodah of teshuvah, which is “with strength” in general, and “with even greater strength,” beyond all measure and limitation (“with all your might”).
The reason Peretz emerged first and is the firstborn is because the avodah of teshuvah is higher than the avodah of the tzaddikim, as it is said: “In the place where baalei teshuvah stand, even the completely righteous cannot stand.”
With this, we can also understand the allusion in the story of the birth of Peretz and Zerach:
Since Zerach (in his own right) represents the service of the tzaddikim, he began to emerge first, for the initial and primary intent is that each and every person should be on the level of a tzaddik. But because Achan descended from him, it became necessary to reveal the greatness of teshuvah [and in the literal sense, Achan was a baal teshuvah, for he confessed his sins and has a share in the World to Come]—and this is the idea of Peretz—“you have burst forth a breach upon you,” the rectification of “Achan” through breaking through boundaries, through the avodah of teshuvah.
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayeishev and Shabbos Parshas Mikeitz 5731, 5746)