When Less Means More
Project Likkutei Sichos | August 15, 2025
Print This Article
View Original PDF

When Less Means More

Project Likkutei Sichos | December 10, 2025

1. RASHI’S PLACEMENT OF COMMENTARY

In our parshah, when Moshe recounts how he ascended {Mount Sinai} to receive the לוּחוֹת {Tablets} from Hashem, the terms “the לוּחוֹת {tablets} of stone” and “the לוּחוֹת {tablets} of the covenant,” appear several times. Rashi quotes the word “לֻחֹת” and explains: “לֻחֹת is written {in its deficient form}, indicating that they were both equal.”

Rashi does not specify which verse he is quoting the word “לֻחֹת” from, but from where he places his commentary — between his explanation of verse 9 and verse 18 — it is clear that he is commenting on the word “לֻחֹת” that appears between these two verses.

[Between these verses, this word appears several times — in verse 10: “And Hashem gave me the two לוּחֹת of stone, written...”; in verse 11: “At the end of forty days and forty nights, Hashem gave me the two לֻחֹת of stone, the לֻחוֹת of the covenant”; in verse 15: “I turned and descended from the mountain... and the two לוּחֹת of the covenant were on my two hands”; {and finally} in verse 17: “I grasped the two לֻחֹת... and I threw them... and I shattered them before your eyes.” Thus, we must conclude that Rashi refers either to one of these specific verses, or {more generally} to the word “לוּחֹת” written in its deficient form throughout all these verses.]

But evidently, he is not referring to the two instances where the word “לוּחֹת ” appears in deficient form at the beginning of verse 9: “When I ascended the mountain to take the לוּחֹת of stone, the לוּחֹת of the covenant...” because Rashi writes his explanation of the word “לוּחֹת” after his commentary on “And I remained on the mountain,” which appears later in verse 9.

We need to clarify: Rashi already says this teaching that the deficient spelling of the word “לֻחֹת” teaches that “they were both equal” earlier, in Parshas Ki Sisa, on the verse “And He gave to Moshe, when He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, two לֻחֹת of testimony, לֻחֹת of stone” — {where he explains} “לֻחֹת is written, indicating that they were equal.” However, since the previous explanation was stated many parshiyos earlier, spanning more than two chumashim, Rashi repeats this explanation again in our parshah, as we find several times that this is his practice in his commentary.

But why does Rashi offer the explanation on one (or all) of the later verses (10, 11, 15, 17) and not immediately where the word “לוּחֹת” appears in deficient form for the first time (in verse 9)?

2. WHY NOT EARLIER

Moreover: If Rashi deems it necessary to repeat his explanation (which already appeared in Parshas Ki Sisa) after such a lengthy gap (between the book of Shemos and the book of Devarim), he should have done this earlier (not in our parshah, Eikev, but) in Parshas Vaeschanan. There, too (after the Ten Commandments), the verse says “לֻחֹת” in the deficient form: “And He wrote them on two לֻחֹת of stone and gave them to me.”

In truth, we can ask the same question about Rashi’s explanation the first time, in Sefer Shemos in Parshas Ki Sisa: Even there, it is not the first time the word “לֻחֹת ” appears in deficient spelling. The Torah already uses this spelling earlier in Parshas Mishpatim: “And I will give you the לֻחֹת of stone...,” where the word “לֻחֹת” appears in deficient spelling (missing both vavs), exactly as in Parshas Ki Sisa. If so, why doesn’t Rashi explain this in Parshas Mishpatim, where the word “לֻחֹת” appears in deficient spelling for the first time, rather than waiting until Parshas Ki Sisa?

3. WHY CHANGE THE SPELLING

A simple explanation may be proposed. There is a well-known principle that the full or deficient spelling itself does not pose any difficulty in pshuto shel mikra that Rashi would need to explain (as evident from the fact that Rashi generally does not explain full and deficient spellings in the Torah). Nevertheless, in our parshah, Rashi does explain the deficient spelling because within that same verse (verse 11) the Torah changes the spelling: “the two לֻחֹת of stone, the לֻחוֹת of the covenant” — first a (completely) deficient spelling and immediately afterward a full spelling (with the second vav). Therefore, Rashi explains that the verse intends to emphasize the deficiency: “לֻחֹת is written, indicating that they were both equal.”

For this reason, Rashi does not explain this in verse 9 of our parshah — “When I ascended the mountain to take the לוּחֹת of stone, the לוּחֹת of the covenant” — because in this verse the word “לוּחֹת” appears both times in deficient spelling. Similarly, he does not explain this earlier in Parshas Vaeschanan (where the verse states, “And He wrote them on two לֻחֹת of stone”) or in Parshas Mishpatim (which precedes Parshas Ki Sisa). In these places the word appears only once, and there are no changes within the same verse.

However, this explanation is insufficient for the following reasons:

  • In Parshas Ki Sisa, although the word appears twice in the same verse — “לֻחֹת of testimony, לֻחֹת of stone” — in both instances it is written in deficient spelling. As such, there are no changes in the verse to serve as emphasis — and yet Rashi explains this matter there.
  • In any case, we can ask this question about the verses themselves in our parshah: Why does the Torah vary the spelling and allude to the concept of “they were both equal” specifically in the later verse (11) and not in the earlier verse (9), where the same word appears twice?

[On this basis we can understand why the aforementioned questions cannot be answered by suggesting the following: There are many varying opinions about the tradition of words spelled in deficient or full form. {Based on this variability,} one might suggest that according to Rashi, the tradition dictates that in Parshas Ki Sisa the verse writes this word once in the full form (“לֻחוֹת”) and once in the deficient form (“לֻחֹת”) (unlike the versions available to us). In contrast, in our parshah, Rashi maintains that {in verse 9} (before the words, “I remained on the mountain”) the verse writes “לֻחֹת” in the deficient form twice. This answer does not hold up, because the question remains about the verse itself (as mentioned above): Why does the Torah change the spelling specifically in verse 11 (and similarly in Parshas Ki Sisa) to emphasize “לֻחֹת is written, indicating that they were both equal,” and not earlier in verse 9 where the Torah writes the same words: “the לוּחֹת of stone, the לוּחֹת of the covenant”?]

4. DIFFERENCES IN RASHI’S WORDING

We will understand this by first examining Rashi’s wording when addressing deficient (and full) spelling throughout his commentary on the Torah. We find different expressions:

Sometimes Rashi says “deficient of vav,” “written deficiently,” and similar phrases. Other times, he simply notes the word as it is written in the verse without emphasizing that it is “deficient of vav,” “written deficiently,” or similar terms — as in our parshah {where he simply says}: “לֻחֹת is written.”

Since Rashi’s language is extremely precise, we can conclude that even these differences in his wording are intentional and significant. This is especially true since these are variations that we find throughout Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, sometimes using the first manner and sometimes using the second.

5. WHEN THE SPELLING DOES NOT FIT THE MEANING

We can posit an explanation by elaborating on the above principle (mentioned at the beginning of Section 3): Full and deficient spelling on its own does not present any difficulty in pshuto shel mikra, which Rashi would need to explain to a novice student of Scripture. [However, when there is another issue in understanding pshuto shel mikra that can be resolved through an explanation of the full or deficient spelling, then Rashi addresses it.]

This principle, however, applies only in cases where there is no contradiction or difficulty with the full or deficient spelling itself (where the only question is “why did the verse write the word in this particular spelling?”). However, when based on the verses’ meaning, the word should have been written specifically in full spelling and not in deficient spelling (or vice versa), then Rashi addresses this.

The reason for this is that variations in full and deficient spelling are not a separate aspect of Torah, detached from “pshuto shel mikra” (which Rashi refers to only when they help resolve a difficulty in pshuto shel mikra — just as he brings “Aggadah that resolves the words of Scripture”). Rather, within pshuto shel mikra, too, we can appreciate that the full or deficient spelling of a word in the Torah is not just a detail in how this word is written, but carries significance for the content of the word and the verse. In other words, the different spellings — whether full or deficient — point to a difference in the meaning of the word or the verse.

However, the explanation and reasoning that clarifies what the deficient (or full) spelling teaches us, is not necessary when studying pshuto shel mikra. Rather, it belongs to the other methods of Torah study.

Therefore, when the content of the verse calls for the word to be written in its full form — because the content of the verse leads us to expect that in this context, there should be no “deficiency” — yet it appears in deficient form, Rashi must answer the (novice student’s) question: “Why does the verse write the word in deficient form?”

6. EXAMPLES OF CONTEXTUAL CONTRADICTION

Here are several examples of this:

  • The first time that Rashi explains a “deficient” spelling: Regarding the verse “Let there be מְאֹרֹת {luminaries} in the firmament of heaven...,” Rashi states: “Written deficient of vav because it {the fourth day} is a יוֹם מְאֵרָה {cursed day}....” The content of these verses (which deal with Hashem’s creation during the six days of Creation) aims to emphasize the greatness of the things that Hashem created. This is especially true regarding the creation of the luminaries, as the Torah states about them (and regarding all of Creation): “Hashem saw that it was good.” If so, the verse should have written the word “מְאוֹרוֹת” in the full spelling (or at least with one vav, as it appears in the next verse) in order to emphasize this perfection.
  • In Parshas Noach, after the flood, the Torah says: “Hashem smelled the pleasing fragrance and Hashem said in His heart: ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man’s heart is evil מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו {from his youth}. I will never again strike....’” Rashi explains: “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו is written {in its deficient form, indicating that} מִשֶּׁנִנְעַר {from when he begins stirring} to leave his mother’s womb, the evil inclination is placed within him.” Since the Torah provides the reason for “I will never again curse” — namely, “for the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” — why does the deficient spelling appear, which would indicate deficiency in the word “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו,” as though “the inclination of man’s heart” is not actually evil “from his youth” but only becomes so later? This would contradict the verse’s meaning!
  • Similarly, we find later in Parshas Chayei Sarah, regarding the words, “Ephron יֹשֵב {was seated},” that Rashi says: “Written deficiently, {indicating that} on that very day....” This explanation is necessary because in the verses that follow, the Torah describes the greatness of Ephron (and the Children of Ches) — namely, that Ephron agreed to (not only sell, but more than that, to) give the Cave of Machpelah to Avraham for Sarah’s burial. If so, why does the word “יֹשֵב” appear in deficient spelling regarding Ephron at the beginning of the narrative, thus indicating a deficiency in him?

7. THE PATTERN REVEALED

Based on this, we can appreciate the variations in the wording of Rashi’s commentary, where sometimes he says “deficient of vav,” “written deficiently,” and similar expressions, and sometimes he does not:

When the deficient spelling in the verse indicates a deficiency in the meaning of the word (or the matter) then, Rashi says “written deficiently” and similar expressions.

However, when the deficient spelling does not express a deficiency, but rather conveys something else, or emphasizes a particular point in the matter itself — Rashi does not say “written deficiently,” (because there is no [explicit] deficiency here). Rather, he simply highlights the unusual spelling of the word to hint at its special meaning.

In the examples cited above:

  • In his first explanation of “Let there be מְאֹרֹת ,” Rashi says “Written deficient of vav because it {the fourth day} is a cursed day {יוֹם מְאֵרָה}, when children are susceptible {to disease},” clarifying that there is a deficiency in the word “מְאֹורֹות.”
  • Similarly, in the verse, “Ephron יֹשֵב {was seated},” Rashi says, “written deficiently” — because this expresses a deficiency in Ephron, in the way he was sitting — “on that very day they appointed him as officer over them. Because of the high standing of Avraham who needed him {to purchase the land}, he was elevated to an important position.” Meaning to say, the Torah hints that Ephron in his own right was “deficient” — he was not distinguished among the Children of Ches, but “because of the high standing of Avraham who needed him, he was elevated to an important position” — only then did his {authoritative} “sitting” begin.
  • By contrast, in Parshas Noach, regarding the word “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו,” Rashi writes, “מִנְּעֻר ָ֑יו is written — {indicating that} from when he begins stirring to leave...,” and does not say “written deficiently,” “deficient of vav,” or similar expressions, because here the matter does not express a deficiency in “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו.” On the contrary — this enhances the verse’s meaning and reasoning, strengthening the defense for mankind by clarifying that from the very moment one “begins stirring to leave his mother’s womb, the evil inclination is placed within him,” (and not merely from his youth). This bolsters the reason given in the verse: “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

Similarly, in many other places where Rashi does not say “written deficiently,” it is for this reason. For example, the first instance in the Torah (several verses after the explanation of “מְאֹרֹת written deficient of vav”) where Rashi explains the matter of “deficient” without noting the word “deficient”:

Regarding the word “הַתַנִינִִ֖ם {sea monsters},” Rashi quotes an Aggadic teaching: “This refers to the Leviathan and its mate, which He created male and female, but He killed the female and preserved her for the righteous in the future era. For if they were permitted to reproduce, the world could not have endured in their presence. Therefore, it is written הַתַנִינִִ֖ם” — and he does not note “written deficiently.” This is because the deficient spelling of הַתַנִינִִ֖ם, stemming from “He killed the female,” does not indicate any “deficiency” in the Holy One’s creation. On the contrary, through this action Hashem ensured the world’s endurance (and even regarding the female herself {this is not a deficiency} because “He preserved her for the righteous in the future era”).

8. VIRTUOUS

Based on all the above, we can now answer our question about the word “לֻחֹת”:

Rashi’s intention is not simply to explain why the word “לֻחֹת” is written in deficient form, just as he does not explain deficient and full spellings in other places. Rashi clarifies the meaning behind the spelling only when the Torah uses the spelling to emphasize a specific virtue in the matter — and we find this only in Parshas Ki Sisa and our parshah.

In contrast, in the earlier places in the Torah — both in Parshas Mishpatim (which precedes Parshas Ki Sisa) and in Parshas Vaeschanan (which precedes our parshah, Eikev) — the Torah does not intend to emphasize the virtue of the Luchos. Therefore, Rashi does not address the deficient spelling of the word “לֻחֹת,” as will be explained below.

9. DESCRIBING THE VIRTUE

In Parshas Ki Sisa, the verse says: “And He gave to Moshe, when He finished speaking with him... two לֻחֹת of testimony, לֻחֹת of stone, written with the finger of Hashem” — emphasizing the tremendous virtue of the Luchos.

This emphasis is even more pronounced in our parshah, where it states: “And Hashem gave me the two לוּחֹת of stone written with the finger of Hashem, and on them was written according to all the words that Hashem spoke with you on the mountain from amid the fire....” Following this: “At the end of forty days and forty nights, Hashem gave me the two לֻחֹת of stone, the לֻחוֹת of the covenant.” These verses all continue from: “In Chorev you angered... when I ascended...” and lead directly to: “‘Go, descend...’ And I turned and descended from the mountain... and the two לוּחֹת of the covenant were on my two hands. I saw that you had sinned... And I grasped the two לֻחֹת and I cast them from my two hands and I shattered them before your eyes.”

That is, Moshe’s intention was to describe the tremendous and wondrous virtue of the Luchos, and to emphasize that despite this, the Jewish people’s sin caused their breaking — “and I shattered them before your eyes.” Therefore, (at least) in these two verses the word “לוּחֹת” should not have appeared in deficient spelling, which would indicate a deficiency in them; rather, this word should have been written in full spelling — לוּחוֹת.

Thus, Rashi explains: “לֻחֹת is written” — clarifying that there is no “deficiency,” (no lack), but on the contrary — the spelling serves to emphasize a virtue the Luchos contained: “that they were both equal” — a fact that emphasizes their Divine nature:

In addition to the fact that it is very difficult (even impossible) for a human to make two things exactly equal, down to the minutest detail, there was something wondrous about the Luchos: The Ten Commandments were written on both Luchos, “five commandments written on one tablet and five on the other,” but the first five commandments contain many more words and letters than the last five commandments — yet “they were both equal,” one was not larger than the other.

[In simple terms: The script on both Luchos was identical (the letters were the same size), rather than what might seem necessary — having the first tablet written in smaller letters and the second tablet in larger letters. Presumably, even the space between the words and letters was identical on both Luchos.]

Additionally, it is important to note the miracle that they were “inscribed on both their sides.” As Rashi explains: “The letters could be read from both sides; it was a miraculous phenomenon."

Thus, this idea aligns with the content of the subsequent verses, which emphasize the virtue of the Luchos that Hashem gave to Moshe, and thereby add to the severity of the “words of rebuke” that Moshe told them, warning them to “Remember, do not forget... in Chorev you angered...” — referring to them causing the breaking of the Luchos.

In contrast, in Parshas Vaeschanan before this, when the word “לֻחֹת” appears in deficient form, the content of the verses is: “These words Hashem spoke to your entire congregation... and He wrote them on two לֻחֹת of stone and gave them to me.” Here there is no discussion about the special virtue of the Luchos. Similarly, in Parshas Mishpatim: “And Hashem said to Moshe: Come up to Me to the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the לֻחֹת of stone and the Torah and the commandments which I have written to instruct them” — there is no emphasis here on the virtue of the Luchos.

1. RASHI’S PLACEMENT OF COMMENTARY

In our parshah, when Moshe recounts how he ascended {Mount Sinai} to receive the לוּחוֹת {Tablets} from Hashem, the terms “the לוּחוֹת {tablets} of stone” and “the לוּחוֹת {tablets} of the covenant,” appear several times. Rashi quotes the word “לֻחֹת” and explains: “לֻחֹת is written {in its deficient form}, indicating that they were both equal.”

Rashi does not specify which verse he is quoting the word “לֻחֹת” from, but from where he places his commentary — between his explanation of verse 9 and verse 18 — it is clear that he is commenting on the word “לֻחֹת” that appears between these two verses.

[Between these verses, this word appears several times — in verse 10: “And Hashem gave me the two לוּחֹת of stone, written...”; in verse 11: “At the end of forty days and forty nights, Hashem gave me the two לֻחֹת of stone, the לֻחוֹת of the covenant”; in verse 15: “I turned and descended from the mountain... and the two לוּחֹת of the covenant were on my two hands”; {and finally} in verse 17: “I grasped the two לֻחֹת... and I threw them... and I shattered them before your eyes.” Thus, we must conclude that Rashi refers either to one of these specific verses, or {more generally} to the word “לוּחֹת” written in its deficient form throughout all these verses.]

But evidently, he is not referring to the two instances where the word “לוּחֹת ” appears in deficient form at the beginning of verse 9: “When I ascended the mountain to take the לוּחֹת of stone, the לוּחֹת of the covenant...” because Rashi writes his explanation of the word “לוּחֹת” after his commentary on “And I remained on the mountain,” which appears later in verse 9.

We need to clarify: Rashi already says this teaching that the deficient spelling of the word “לֻחֹת” teaches that “they were both equal” earlier, in Parshas Ki Sisa, on the verse “And He gave to Moshe, when He finished speaking with him on Mount Sinai, two לֻחֹת of testimony, לֻחֹת of stone” — {where he explains} “לֻחֹת is written, indicating that they were equal.” However, since the previous explanation was stated many parshiyos earlier, spanning more than two chumashim, Rashi repeats this explanation again in our parshah, as we find several times that this is his practice in his commentary.

But why does Rashi offer the explanation on one (or all) of the later verses (10, 11, 15, 17) and not immediately where the word “לוּחֹת” appears in deficient form for the first time (in verse 9)?

2. WHY NOT EARLIER

Moreover: If Rashi deems it necessary to repeat his explanation (which already appeared in Parshas Ki Sisa) after such a lengthy gap (between the book of Shemos and the book of Devarim), he should have done this earlier (not in our parshah, Eikev, but) in Parshas Vaeschanan. There, too (after the Ten Commandments), the verse says “לֻחֹת” in the deficient form: “And He wrote them on two לֻחֹת of stone and gave them to me.”

In truth, we can ask the same question about Rashi’s explanation the first time, in Sefer Shemos in Parshas Ki Sisa: Even there, it is not the first time the word “לֻחֹת ” appears in deficient spelling. The Torah already uses this spelling earlier in Parshas Mishpatim: “And I will give you the לֻחֹת of stone...,” where the word “לֻחֹת” appears in deficient spelling (missing both vavs), exactly as in Parshas Ki Sisa. If so, why doesn’t Rashi explain this in Parshas Mishpatim, where the word “לֻחֹת” appears in deficient spelling for the first time, rather than waiting until Parshas Ki Sisa?

3. WHY CHANGE THE SPELLING

A simple explanation may be proposed. There is a well-known principle that the full or deficient spelling itself does not pose any difficulty in pshuto shel mikra that Rashi would need to explain (as evident from the fact that Rashi generally does not explain full and deficient spellings in the Torah). Nevertheless, in our parshah, Rashi does explain the deficient spelling because within that same verse (verse 11) the Torah changes the spelling: “the two לֻחֹת of stone, the לֻחוֹת of the covenant” — first a (completely) deficient spelling and immediately afterward a full spelling (with the second vav). Therefore, Rashi explains that the verse intends to emphasize the deficiency: “לֻחֹת is written, indicating that they were both equal.”

For this reason, Rashi does not explain this in verse 9 of our parshah — “When I ascended the mountain to take the לוּחֹת of stone, the לוּחֹת of the covenant” — because in this verse the word “לוּחֹת” appears both times in deficient spelling. Similarly, he does not explain this earlier in Parshas Vaeschanan (where the verse states, “And He wrote them on two לֻחֹת of stone”) or in Parshas Mishpatim (which precedes Parshas Ki Sisa). In these places the word appears only once, and there are no changes within the same verse.

However, this explanation is insufficient for the following reasons:

  • In Parshas Ki Sisa, although the word appears twice in the same verse — “לֻחֹת of testimony, לֻחֹת of stone” — in both instances it is written in deficient spelling. As such, there are no changes in the verse to serve as emphasis — and yet Rashi explains this matter there.
  • In any case, we can ask this question about the verses themselves in our parshah: Why does the Torah vary the spelling and allude to the concept of “they were both equal” specifically in the later verse (11) and not in the earlier verse (9), where the same word appears twice?

[On this basis we can understand why the aforementioned questions cannot be answered by suggesting the following: There are many varying opinions about the tradition of words spelled in deficient or full form. {Based on this variability,} one might suggest that according to Rashi, the tradition dictates that in Parshas Ki Sisa the verse writes this word once in the full form (“לֻחוֹת”) and once in the deficient form (“לֻחֹת”) (unlike the versions available to us). In contrast, in our parshah, Rashi maintains that {in verse 9} (before the words, “I remained on the mountain”) the verse writes “לֻחֹת” in the deficient form twice. This answer does not hold up, because the question remains about the verse itself (as mentioned above): Why does the Torah change the spelling specifically in verse 11 (and similarly in Parshas Ki Sisa) to emphasize “לֻחֹת is written, indicating that they were both equal,” and not earlier in verse 9 where the Torah writes the same words: “the לוּחֹת of stone, the לוּחֹת of the covenant”?]

4. DIFFERENCES IN RASHI’S WORDING

We will understand this by first examining Rashi’s wording when addressing deficient (and full) spelling throughout his commentary on the Torah. We find different expressions:

Sometimes Rashi says “deficient of vav,” “written deficiently,” and similar phrases. Other times, he simply notes the word as it is written in the verse without emphasizing that it is “deficient of vav,” “written deficiently,” or similar terms — as in our parshah {where he simply says}: “לֻחֹת is written.”

Since Rashi’s language is extremely precise, we can conclude that even these differences in his wording are intentional and significant. This is especially true since these are variations that we find throughout Rashi’s commentary on the Torah, sometimes using the first manner and sometimes using the second.

5. WHEN THE SPELLING DOES NOT FIT THE MEANING

We can posit an explanation by elaborating on the above principle (mentioned at the beginning of Section 3): Full and deficient spelling on its own does not present any difficulty in pshuto shel mikra, which Rashi would need to explain to a novice student of Scripture. [However, when there is another issue in understanding pshuto shel mikra that can be resolved through an explanation of the full or deficient spelling, then Rashi addresses it.]

This principle, however, applies only in cases where there is no contradiction or difficulty with the full or deficient spelling itself (where the only question is “why did the verse write the word in this particular spelling?”). However, when based on the verses’ meaning, the word should have been written specifically in full spelling and not in deficient spelling (or vice versa), then Rashi addresses this.

The reason for this is that variations in full and deficient spelling are not a separate aspect of Torah, detached from “pshuto shel mikra” (which Rashi refers to only when they help resolve a difficulty in pshuto shel mikra — just as he brings “Aggadah that resolves the words of Scripture”). Rather, within pshuto shel mikra, too, we can appreciate that the full or deficient spelling of a word in the Torah is not just a detail in how this word is written, but carries significance for the content of the word and the verse. In other words, the different spellings — whether full or deficient — point to a difference in the meaning of the word or the verse.

However, the explanation and reasoning that clarifies what the deficient (or full) spelling teaches us, is not necessary when studying pshuto shel mikra. Rather, it belongs to the other methods of Torah study.

Therefore, when the content of the verse calls for the word to be written in its full form — because the content of the verse leads us to expect that in this context, there should be no “deficiency” — yet it appears in deficient form, Rashi must answer the (novice student’s) question: “Why does the verse write the word in deficient form?”

6. EXAMPLES OF CONTEXTUAL CONTRADICTION

Here are several examples of this:

  • The first time that Rashi explains a “deficient” spelling: Regarding the verse “Let there be מְאֹרֹת {luminaries} in the firmament of heaven...,” Rashi states: “Written deficient of vav because it {the fourth day} is a יוֹם מְאֵרָה {cursed day}....” The content of these verses (which deal with Hashem’s creation during the six days of Creation) aims to emphasize the greatness of the things that Hashem created. This is especially true regarding the creation of the luminaries, as the Torah states about them (and regarding all of Creation): “Hashem saw that it was good.” If so, the verse should have written the word “מְאוֹרוֹת” in the full spelling (or at least with one vav, as it appears in the next verse) in order to emphasize this perfection.
  • In Parshas Noach, after the flood, the Torah says: “Hashem smelled the pleasing fragrance and Hashem said in His heart: ‘I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man’s heart is evil מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו {from his youth}. I will never again strike....’” Rashi explains: “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו is written {in its deficient form, indicating that} מִשֶּׁנִנְעַר {from when he begins stirring} to leave his mother’s womb, the evil inclination is placed within him.” Since the Torah provides the reason for “I will never again curse” — namely, “for the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth” — why does the deficient spelling appear, which would indicate deficiency in the word “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו,” as though “the inclination of man’s heart” is not actually evil “from his youth” but only becomes so later? This would contradict the verse’s meaning!
  • Similarly, we find later in Parshas Chayei Sarah, regarding the words, “Ephron יֹשֵב {was seated},” that Rashi says: “Written deficiently, {indicating that} on that very day....” This explanation is necessary because in the verses that follow, the Torah describes the greatness of Ephron (and the Children of Ches) — namely, that Ephron agreed to (not only sell, but more than that, to) give the Cave of Machpelah to Avraham for Sarah’s burial. If so, why does the word “יֹשֵב” appear in deficient spelling regarding Ephron at the beginning of the narrative, thus indicating a deficiency in him?

7. THE PATTERN REVEALED

Based on this, we can appreciate the variations in the wording of Rashi’s commentary, where sometimes he says “deficient of vav,” “written deficiently,” and similar expressions, and sometimes he does not:

When the deficient spelling in the verse indicates a deficiency in the meaning of the word (or the matter) then, Rashi says “written deficiently” and similar expressions.

However, when the deficient spelling does not express a deficiency, but rather conveys something else, or emphasizes a particular point in the matter itself — Rashi does not say “written deficiently,” (because there is no [explicit] deficiency here). Rather, he simply highlights the unusual spelling of the word to hint at its special meaning.

In the examples cited above:

  • In his first explanation of “Let there be מְאֹרֹת ,” Rashi says “Written deficient of vav because it {the fourth day} is a cursed day {יוֹם מְאֵרָה}, when children are susceptible {to disease},” clarifying that there is a deficiency in the word “מְאֹורֹות.”
  • Similarly, in the verse, “Ephron יֹשֵב {was seated},” Rashi says, “written deficiently” — because this expresses a deficiency in Ephron, in the way he was sitting — “on that very day they appointed him as officer over them. Because of the high standing of Avraham who needed him {to purchase the land}, he was elevated to an important position.” Meaning to say, the Torah hints that Ephron in his own right was “deficient” — he was not distinguished among the Children of Ches, but “because of the high standing of Avraham who needed him, he was elevated to an important position” — only then did his {authoritative} “sitting” begin.
  • By contrast, in Parshas Noach, regarding the word “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו,” Rashi writes, “מִנְּעֻר ָ֑יו is written — {indicating that} from when he begins stirring to leave...,” and does not say “written deficiently,” “deficient of vav,” or similar expressions, because here the matter does not express a deficiency in “מִנְעֻרָָ֑יו.” On the contrary — this enhances the verse’s meaning and reasoning, strengthening the defense for mankind by clarifying that from the very moment one “begins stirring to leave his mother’s womb, the evil inclination is placed within him,” (and not merely from his youth). This bolsters the reason given in the verse: “I will never again curse the ground because of man, for the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth.”

Similarly, in many other places where Rashi does not say “written deficiently,” it is for this reason. For example, the first instance in the Torah (several verses after the explanation of “מְאֹרֹת written deficient of vav”) where Rashi explains the matter of “deficient” without noting the word “deficient”:

Regarding the word “הַתַנִינִִ֖ם {sea monsters},” Rashi quotes an Aggadic teaching: “This refers to the Leviathan and its mate, which He created male and female, but He killed the female and preserved her for the righteous in the future era. For if they were permitted to reproduce, the world could not have endured in their presence. Therefore, it is written הַתַנִינִִ֖ם” — and he does not note “written deficiently.” This is because the deficient spelling of הַתַנִינִִ֖ם, stemming from “He killed the female,” does not indicate any “deficiency” in the Holy One’s creation. On the contrary, through this action Hashem ensured the world’s endurance (and even regarding the female herself {this is not a deficiency} because “He preserved her for the righteous in the future era”).

8. VIRTUOUS

Based on all the above, we can now answer our question about the word “לֻחֹת”:

Rashi’s intention is not simply to explain why the word “לֻחֹת” is written in deficient form, just as he does not explain deficient and full spellings in other places. Rashi clarifies the meaning behind the spelling only when the Torah uses the spelling to emphasize a specific virtue in the matter — and we find this only in Parshas Ki Sisa and our parshah.

In contrast, in the earlier places in the Torah — both in Parshas Mishpatim (which precedes Parshas Ki Sisa) and in Parshas Vaeschanan (which precedes our parshah, Eikev) — the Torah does not intend to emphasize the virtue of the Luchos. Therefore, Rashi does not address the deficient spelling of the word “לֻחֹת,” as will be explained below.

9. DESCRIBING THE VIRTUE

In Parshas Ki Sisa, the verse says: “And He gave to Moshe, when He finished speaking with him... two לֻחֹת of testimony, לֻחֹת of stone, written with the finger of Hashem” — emphasizing the tremendous virtue of the Luchos.

This emphasis is even more pronounced in our parshah, where it states: “And Hashem gave me the two לוּחֹת of stone written with the finger of Hashem, and on them was written according to all the words that Hashem spoke with you on the mountain from amid the fire....” Following this: “At the end of forty days and forty nights, Hashem gave me the two לֻחֹת of stone, the לֻחוֹת of the covenant.” These verses all continue from: “In Chorev you angered... when I ascended...” and lead directly to: “‘Go, descend...’ And I turned and descended from the mountain... and the two לוּחֹת of the covenant were on my two hands. I saw that you had sinned... And I grasped the two לֻחֹת and I cast them from my two hands and I shattered them before your eyes.”

That is, Moshe’s intention was to describe the tremendous and wondrous virtue of the Luchos, and to emphasize that despite this, the Jewish people’s sin caused their breaking — “and I shattered them before your eyes.” Therefore, (at least) in these two verses the word “לוּחֹת” should not have appeared in deficient spelling, which would indicate a deficiency in them; rather, this word should have been written in full spelling — לוּחוֹת.

Thus, Rashi explains: “לֻחֹת is written” — clarifying that there is no “deficiency,” (no lack), but on the contrary — the spelling serves to emphasize a virtue the Luchos contained: “that they were both equal” — a fact that emphasizes their Divine nature:

In addition to the fact that it is very difficult (even impossible) for a human to make two things exactly equal, down to the minutest detail, there was something wondrous about the Luchos: The Ten Commandments were written on both Luchos, “five commandments written on one tablet and five on the other,” but the first five commandments contain many more words and letters than the last five commandments — yet “they were both equal,” one was not larger than the other.

[In simple terms: The script on both Luchos was identical (the letters were the same size), rather than what might seem necessary — having the first tablet written in smaller letters and the second tablet in larger letters. Presumably, even the space between the words and letters was identical on both Luchos.]

Additionally, it is important to note the miracle that they were “inscribed on both their sides.” As Rashi explains: “The letters could be read from both sides; it was a miraculous phenomenon."

Thus, this idea aligns with the content of the subsequent verses, which emphasize the virtue of the Luchos that Hashem gave to Moshe, and thereby add to the severity of the “words of rebuke” that Moshe told them, warning them to “Remember, do not forget... in Chorev you angered...” — referring to them causing the breaking of the Luchos.

In contrast, in Parshas Vaeschanan before this, when the word “לֻחֹת” appears in deficient form, the content of the verses is: “These words Hashem spoke to your entire congregation... and He wrote them on two לֻחֹת of stone and gave them to me.” Here there is no discussion about the special virtue of the Luchos. Similarly, in Parshas Mishpatim: “And Hashem said to Moshe: Come up to Me to the mountain and remain there, and I will give you the לֻחֹת of stone and the Torah and the commandments which I have written to instruct them” — there is no emphasis here on the virtue of the Luchos.

PDF Preview
View The Full Article (PDF)
Project Likkutei Sichos | August 15, 2025