Kavanot: פרשת תולדות תשפ״ד

At the end of this week’s parsha, Yaakov is sent away from home to Aram Naharaim:

We know the context of that; Esav wants to kill him:

Even though Esav is furious at Yaakov for stealing his blessings, he doesn’t chase after him to kill him. He just hears what seems to be Rivkah’s ruse (we need to get Yaakov married already), and thinks, “I guess Abba and Ima don’t like my Hittite wives”.

There is an aggadah that Esav sent his son to kill Yaakov:

But even then, it doesn’t sound so serious. העני חשוב כמת: as long as Yaakov doesn’t leave with any money, Esav is happy.

But I want to focus on something else, something that bothers Rashi:

Rashi uses that expression in one other place in the Torah:

All the commentators are bothered by this. Rashi doesn’t comment on every word of the Torah; if he didn’t know what to say, why say anything?

It is certainly a striking phrase that warrants comment, and many explanations have been given. One explanation is that it is foreshadowing who Lavan is:

Rivkah’s children will have some of their uncle’s personality, and conversely, their uncle will share some of their character traits. Both the trickiness and the murderous rage are going to come up again.

The Maharal says that אם יעקב ועשו tells us why Yaakov had to go back to Avraham’s family for a wife:

Yitzchak had initially thought the בחירה process would end with his children, and both could be blessed, but he now realizes that there needs to be another generation. Yaakov will repeat the process that we saw in חיי שרה.

Nechama Leibowitz proposes what seems to me to be the most reasonable explanation: אם יעקב ועשו means she was the mother of both of them. She loved both of her sons (she had a favorite, perhaps, but still loved both of them).

Sending Yaakov away, for just a short time, would save both of their lives. She was acting as the mother of both Yaakov and Esav. She knows that Esav’s anger will dissipate, since he isn’t interested in the ברכה per se; he just wants stuff. As soon as he realizes that Yaakov is only getting the spiritual inheritance, not the family fortune, Esav loves Yaakov again. That’s why העני חשוב כמת. We see this when they meet again in פרשת וישלח:

That’s nice. But then why doesn’t Rashi say that? He usually isn’t reticent about bringing multiple interpretations, if they are all relevant to his didactic mission. All the commentators on Rashi offer explanations for אם יעקב ועשו, but I have found no one who addresses איני יודע מה מלמדנו. So I’m going to propose an explanation. איני יודע מה מלמדנו is not asking what the text means. We understand that. Rivkah is acting as the mother of both of her children. That is also implied פסוק מב:‎‎ ויגד לרבקה את דברי עשו בנה הגדל; ותשלח ותקרא ליעקב בנה הקטן. Rashi is asking “What does the text come to teach us”. Esav is our brother. Now what?

As we said in פרשת וישלח תשפ״ג, we don’t read the story of Esav and Yaakov as the story of two brothers. We read it as the story of the relationship of the Jews to “Western Civilization”. Edom is Rome.

Note that both names in the last pasuk are read as Rome: אַלּוּף מַגְדִּיאֵל אַלּוּף עִירָם זה רומי. The midrash explains the name עירם:

The Maharal explains the name מגדיאל:

Midrashically, there are two approaches to our “ twin” Rome/Edom/Christianity/Western Civilization. There is עירם, the one who piles up treasure for מלך המשיח. They only have value for what we can get out of them. And there is מגדיאל, the one whom G-d has made great. They have their own inherent value and should be appreciated for that. Do we take from or participate in? Do we see our relationship as fundamentally mercantile, since that is all that they value? Or do we both have something to learn and something to offer? That dialectic has always been part of our understanding of our relationship with the outside world.

The haftorah this week makes it sound simple.

But Rashi is telling us that the Torah emphasizes that רבקה is אם יעקב ועשו. There is no simple answer. איני יודע מה מלמדנו.