Esau

Esau/Edom is viewed negatively already in later biblical texts and throughout rabbinic literature, becoming a symbol of Israel’s oppressors. Marat Kila, an otherwise unknown woman, is quoted in a 15^th century supercommentary on Rashi offering a positive reading of Esau’s actions.

Jacob’s standoff with Esau, including dividing his camp in two so that if one should be attacked, “the camp which is left shall escape” (Genesis 32:9), is seen as a precursor and strategy for Jewish survival throughout the generations. This story and verse played a significant role in the attitude of Orthodox Jewry toward America.

Why are Israelites blessed with agricultural abundance while the Edomites live in a semi-arid land and are forced to hunt? Isaac’s blessing is an etiological story to explain this reality from an Israelite perspective.

The patriarchs Isaac and Jacob are both described as blind from old age when they give blessings to the next generations. Eli the priest and Ahijah the prophet are also blind. How did the biblical authors use disability as a narrative device?

Esau, Jacob’s twin brother, is the ancestor of Edom, Israel’s southern neighbor. The Edomites worshiped the god Qos/Qaus, who emerged around the same time and place as YHWH in the Late Bronze Age, and who was very popular in Persian Period Yehud. And yet, unlike other foreign gods, the Bible never mentions the god Qos. Why?

Esau’s attempt to block Jacob’s burial at the Cave of Machpelah ends in his gruesome death.

Upon meeting again after twenty years, Esau approaches his brother with a buoyant spirit and a warm embrace. Jacob, however, is formal and submissive. Why doesn’t he reciprocate Esau’s overtures?

In the Torah, Nimrod and Esau are hunters, Isaac enjoys game, and the legal collections take it for granted that hunting for food is common and permissible. Once Judaism decided that even wild animals must be ritually slaughtered, the Jewish attitude towards hunting took a sharp negative turn.

Why does Esau in Jewish tradition come to be known as עשו הרשע “Esau the Wicked”? The answer has to do with the history of Judea’s relationship with Esau’s eponymous descendants, the Edomites, and the connection Jews made between them, Rome, and Christianity. The negative view of Esau is expressed nowhere more forcefully than in Rashi’s commentary.

Traditional commentators have grappled with why Jacob risks Esau’s wrath by sending him a message that he is on his way. Understanding the history of the text shows that in an older version of this story, Jacob had no choice: he was heading to his parents’ home in the Seir region.

A rose by any other name

Behind the story of Jacob’s struggle with his older twin Esau, stands a political allegory, reflecting how Israel (=Jacob) first dominated Edom (=Esau) in the 10th-9th centuries B.C.E. and then lost control over it in the late 8th century.

Esau’s plan to kill Jacob and his “dotted” kiss upon their reunion has been cited by rabbinic authorities, such as Rav Moshe Feinstein, as evidence that antisemitism is inherent. This idea is not found in the Torah or the Talmud.

The different usages of the names Jacob and Israel reflect a geographic divide between the northern and southern kingdoms’ stance toward this patriarch.

In the Bible, Esau is the ancestor of the Edomites who live on Mount Seir, southwest of Judah. So how did the rabbis come to associate Esau and Edom with Rome? Two main factors are at work here: Christianity and Herod.

Clothing, beginning with Joseph’s coat, functions both as a marker of distinction and as the source of undoing in the Joseph story. Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer adds layers of history to this coat: it is the original garments made from the sloughed skin of the serpent that God gave to Adam and Eve, which was then worn by Nimrod, Esau, and Jacob. Midrash Tanchuma claims it to be the (future) High Priest’s tunic.

Esau’s kiss to Jacob is written with scribal dots over the word וַׄיִּׄשָּׁׄקֵ֑ׄהׄוּׄ, “and he kissed him.” Traditional commentators suggest this hints to Esau’s feelings or state of mind. Critical scholarship, however, points to something much more prosaic, a question of syntax.

Reactive vs. Goal-oriented