Rebbi and Antoninus as the answer to Rivka's worries

Rivka was troubled by the pains she experienced in pregnancy, וַיִּתְרֹֽצְצ֤וּ הַבָּנִים֙ בְּקִרְבָּ֔הּ וַתֹּ֣אמֶר אִם־כֵּ֔ן לָ֥מָּה זֶּ֖ה אָנֹ֑כִי, to the point of regretting the whole thing, as Rashi comments, למה זה אנכי – מתאוה ומתפללת על ההריון. The gemara in Brachos (10) tells us that Chizkiyahu did not want to have children because he saw that Menashe would come from his offspring. Yeshayahu haNavi came to him with the message בַּהֲדֵי כַּבְשֵׁי דְרַחֲמָנָא לְמָה לָךְ? You have no business getting involved in Hashem's plans. It's not your job to make cheshbonos based on what you think the better or worse outcome might be. Your job is to do the mitzvah you were commanded to do and then leave the rest up to Hashem. Yet here we see that Rivka made also made a cheshbon, like Chizkiyahu, and thought maybe it would have been better to not have children.

The Brisker Rav explained that there is a difference between Rivka and Chizkiyahu. Chizkiyahu was metzuveh in peru u'revu, so he had no choice. Rivka, as a woman, was not obligated in peru u'revu. Therefore, she argued that b'shlama Yitzchak Avinu who is metzuveh, he has to do what he has to do, but למה זה אנכי, I have no mitzvah, so why should I have to have anything to do with it.

Riva consulted a navi and was told that the explanation of her strange and difficult pregnancy pains is that "shnei goyim b'bitneich."

How did that answer allay Rivka's worries? The simplest explanation is that Rivka assumed she was carrying a single baby, and was concerned with the unusual pains she was experiencing. The navi (they didn't have an ultrasound) revealed that she was having twins, and that's why the pregnancy was more difficult. As Rashbam writes, שני גוים – אל תיראי, כי צער העיבור שלך בשביל ששני תאומים יש בבטנך, שמרובה צער העיבור של שנים מעיבור אחד.

This approach is not very satisfying. Was there no one else in the area who had carried twins or a midwife who had delivered twins who could have advised Rivka that her pains were normal for such a pregnancy? And if the fact that she is carrying twins alone is the answer to her fears, why does the Torah continue and tell us that the two babies will become different nations, etc.? What does that have to do with what Rivka wanted to know? Rashbam addresses the point: ומתוך שהנביא התחיל לומר לה, גמר ופירש לה כל העתידות.

If the answer to Rivka given in the pesukim seems perplexing enough, Chazal go a step further and tell us that "shnei goyim b'bitneich" refers to Antoninus and Rebbe, as the gemara (A"Z 11a) quoted by Rashi relates:

אָמַר רַב יְהוּדָה אָמַר רַב: אַל תִּקְרֵי ״גּוֹיִם״ אֶלָּא ״גֵּיִים״, זֶה אַנְטוֹנִינוּס וְרַבִּי, שֶׁלֹּא פָּסְקוּ מֵעַל שׁוּלְחָנָם לֹא חֲזֶרֶת וְלֹא קִישּׁוּת וְלֹא צְנוֹן, לֹא בִּימוֹת הַחַמָּה וְלֹא בִּימוֹת הַגְּשָׁמִים,

Chazal apparently understood that to answer Rivka's concerns it was not only not enough to tell her that she was carrying twins, not only not enough to tell her that each will become a great nation in its own right, but she had to be given an almost prophetic vision of generations later Rebbi and Antoninus sharing great success and chashivus, as demonstrated by the table they were able to set (see Gur Aryeh).

Clearly Chazal must have understood that Rivka was worried about more than pregnancy aches and pains.

We have what Chazal understand to be the answer to her questions and concerns. It's up to us to play Jeapordy and figure out the question Rivka was asking. I want to explore two possibilities, both of which revolve around the idea of cooperation:

First, the explanation of Chida, who writes that what bothered Rivka was the fact that even if she were carrying twins, it makes no sense that two such completely different children should come from the same womb. When she passed a beis avodah zarah, one baby got excited; when she passed a beis medrash, the other got excited. This is not the pattern of the Avos' family. Yishmael came from a different mother than Yitzchak. Should not Eisav come from a different mother than Yaakov?

Hashem answered Rivka's worry by showing her Antoninus, who served Rebbi with respect and admiration. Eisav and Yaakov are not like Yishmael and Yitzchak. There *can* be cooperation between the two, albeit not in their lifetimes, and perhaps not for generations later, but the fact that there can be this relationship is not coincidence. It's because "shnei goyim b'bitneich," it's because both Yaakov and Eisav come from the same root, the same womb, that there exists the potential for harmony between them. Maharal writes that Chazal single out Rebbi and Anotinus because they were contemporaries, and thus parallel Yaakov and Eisav who were twins. Rivka is being shown the potential that exists in Yaakov and Eisav, even though the reality is, as we know from history, that harmony was more an exception than the rule.

A second approach appears in the Be'er Mayim Chaim from the Chernobeler. In order to get inside his worldview and the framework for his thinking, let me preface how he handles a side question on this gemara raised by Tos. Tos asks: The gemara (Kes 104) tells us that on his deathbed Rebbi said that he did not get one drop of enjoyment from anything in olam ha'zeh. Doesn't this conflict with the portrayal of Rebbi here as sharing a lavish table with Antoninus?

Tosfos answers that the table was set lavishly for the guests and others, but Rebbi himself did not partake. In a similar vein, Maharal in Gur Aryeh suggests that setting the table with the hard to get radishes and lettuce was all for show, but not for consumption:

והשתא נראה מה שאמר רבי בשעת פטירתו שלא נהנה מן העולם הזה אפילו באצבע קטנה, זה אין דומה לזה, דצנון וחזרת אין זה הנאה כלל, אלא שהיה בוחר בזה להחשיב את עצמו, והוא דרך החשובים כאשר ראוי לפי חשיבות הנפש שלהם, אבל שיהיה נוטה אחר הנאתו ותאותו – לא נטה

Here's the Be'er Mayim Chaim's answer:

ובזה אפשר לתרץ קושיות התוספות שם בעבודה זרה (י"א.) שכתבו על הא דאמרינן שלא פסקה מעל שולחנם לא צנון וכו' וזה לשונם: ואף על גב שרבי לא נהנה מן העולם אפילו באצבע קטנה מכל מקום אוכלי שולחנו היו רבים עד כאן. ולדברינו בלא זה ניחא כי יוכל להיות שיאכל האדם כל מעדנים ומטעמים שבעולם ולא יהנה מהם כל עיקר מרוב הפחד והאימה ושבירת התאוה בימים רבים כאמור.

Rebbi did in fact take part in consuming the delicacies that were put out. However, that does not mean he had hanaah. Let me give you a mashal. If you have ever had the experience of having to attend a dinner event for some organization where you have to sit through hours of speeches while eating your food, you know very well what it means to attend a banquet but have no hanaah from any of it : )

For Rebbi, eating was part and parcel of his avodas Hashem. Every piece of food was an opportunity to sanctify gashmiyus. Every piece of food was consumed l'shem Shamayim. If that's what you have on your mind with every bite that you eat, then eating is avodah -- it's not hanaah.

The Be'er Mayim Chaim is so enveloped in this mindset that he cannot fathom why Tos did not give this answer, a point I'll come back to:

ואנכי לא זכיתי להבין דברי קדשם כי האם אפשר שרבי לא אכל כל ימיו והיה מתענה או לא בא אל אשתו מעודו והרי היה לו בנים ומוכרחים אנו לומר שבודאי עסק בכל דברי העולם כבני אדם רק שלא נהנה מהם. והדמיון לזה הוא כמו שאמר רבי אליעזר (נדרים כ':) ודומה עלי כמי שכפאו שד. הרי שלא היה רצונו בשום אופן לתאוה ולא היה חומד ומתאוה אליה כלל כי היה מאוס אצלו בתכלית המיאוס כי הנה תאות אשה לחמת מלא צואה דימוה חז"ל (שבת קנ"ב.).

With this background, coming back to Rivka's worries and pains, he writes:

Yaakov and Eisav were in constant conflict, even in the womb. If one gave an inch, the other pounced on it and grabbed it. Why was Yaakov, wondered Rivka, so intent on capturing what Eisav had? As Chasam Sofer asks, it would seem that Yaakov and Eisav should be able to split things evenly, with one taking olam ha'zeh and the other olam ha'ba, and shalom for all involved.

The chiddush revealed to Rivka s that to be a Yaakov Avinu does not mean giving up olam ha'zeh, but rather utilizing it as a tool l'shem shamayim. "Shnei goyim b'bitneich" -- both Yaakov and Eisav share the same womb, live in the same world of olam ha'zeh. The difference between them is what they want to achieve. You can and will have in the future two people sitting at the same table, Rebbi and Antoninus, each with the same food in front of them, each partaking of the same meal, yet they will be world's apart. One has no personal hanaah from the experience at all; one revels in his enjoyment of the meal. One sees the world through the lens of avodas Hashem; one sees it through the lens of serving himself.

The Chernobeler also see the lesson of Yaakov and Eisav both being בְּבִטְנֵךְ as one of cooperation, but not cooperation between Eisav and Yaakov, like the Chida suggests, but cooperation between Yaakov's own holy neshoma and his guf, which is bound to olam ha'zeh, the same world as Eisav.

The Chernobeler's answer requires accepting an entire framework and view of how to relate to gashmiyus which does not sit very well with the world of Lithuanian mussar. R' Shteinman in Ayeles haShachar notes that despite the Chernobeler's bewilderment at Tos, as he writes לא זכיתי להבין דברי קדשם, the fact still remains that Tos does not offer the Chernobeler's answer. This indicates, says R' Shteinman, that they do not buy into this world view. It is impossible to enjoy all the luscious treats of olam ha'zeh and remain immune from getting any pleasure or enjoyment from the experience. It's a nice theory, but it does not comport with reality.

Lulei d'mistafina to stick my head between these mountains, I would point to the gemara of מתעסק בחלבים ועריות חייב שכן נהנה as a proof to R' Shteinman. A person cannot claim as an out that true, they ate cheilev, but had no enjoyment from the experience and therefore is patur. The enjoyment is inevitable, as we cannot escape our human nature.