R’ Daniel Feldman last week spoke about an ambivalent character, Eliezer, the servant of Avraham. He warned about generalizing from one trait or one story. But now we have Esav, and Chazal identify something to condemn in every detail. Nothing ambivalent here.
What’s more, it seems as though it was all against him from the start, that he had no chance. Even in the womb he has trouble. The first, really the only, difficult pregnancy in Tanach is a difficulty caused by radically different spiritual priorities and not by indigestion.
But let’s take a closer look at the condemnation from Chazal. What are they really getting at? The Gemora in Bava Batra says that Esav’s nature starts to express itself immediately with adolescence. It lists no less than five transgressions: He had relations with a M’urasa, a women who was engaged to be married; he murdered; he denied Hashem; he denied the principle of resurrection of the dead; he denigrated the birthright of the first born. Two of these stand out. First, why can’t the Gemora just say he committed adultery? Why is the woman betrothed but not married? Second, why is the birthright the last thing in the list? This seems like a big anti-climax.
R’ Aharon Lopiansky says that the real distinction between Esav and Yaakov is an orientation toward Olam Hazeh vs Olam Haba, this world rather than the next. This is really the difference between a focus only on the here and now and a focus on a bigger picture. R’ Lopiansky uses an analogy between a child and an adult who await the same surgery. One focuses on the fear and the pain while the other sees the ultimate goal of the surgery in healing.
A child is really incapable of seeing more than this. The word for a child is “Katan,” with the root of Kaht, which means to cut into fragments. (The Nun at the end means that the child does it all of the time.) An adult, however, can put the picture together. This is why the next world is called the Olam Haemes, the world of truth. Emet is spelled with an Aleph, a Mem, and a Tav -- the beginning, middle and end letters of the Aleph Beit, the full picture.
Esav is a person of this world. Decidedly. That is what the examples in the Gemora are meant to express. He denies Hashem because he cannot relate to something beyond the here and now. Same with the resurrection of the dead: He cannot connect what happens here to later. When it says he was a murderer, it is not just a question of nullifying a life but nullifying all of the generations that would come of that life. When Kayin murders Hevel, Rashi calls attention to all of the generations that were snuffed out.
Why does the Gemora single out a betrothed woman? The consecration that takes place with Kiddushin is about the future. The couple is not yet together. But they make a pledge. We separate this under the Chuppa by about 12 minutes but in the ancient world it was 12 months. They had to put together the trousseau, etc., and then they went under the Chuppa to do Nisu’im. At the first point, however, all they have is a future, and that is what adultery during this period destroys.
The birthright, the status as a Bechor, a first born, is also about the future. Yes, it is about the first fruit. But the first born is also a quasi-parent to those who come afterward. No one calls an only child a first born even though he might technically be one. This is why Yaakov is the real Bechor. He senses the responsibility for what comes after and that nothing stands alone.
This is what the Gemora is trying to get across about Esav. He is a man of this world only. It’s true that that was his nature from the womb. But that did not have to be more than a description; it does not have to be a sentence. The test for such a person has to be about whether they can connect a decidedly this world orientation to anything bigger.
I have a friend who wrote a biography of a remarkable American Jew named Mike Tress. He was a very skilled businessman, very successful from a young age. Because of his skill set, he was put in charge of the development of the youth group of Agudath Israel in the 20s, and then he played a central role in the Vaad Hahatzala during the war, saving Jewish lives in Europe. There is a story after he passed away of a CPA who was in charge of putting his estate in order. He had access to all of Mike Tress’s financial dealings and he could coordinate them with the books of the Aguda. During the war years, first it was cash that disappeared from his accounts, then stocks, then property. Simultaneously, deposits were made at the Aguda. By the end of the war, he had emptied almost all of his portfolio to save Jewish lives.
R’ Shraga Feivel Mendelovitch, ztz’l, the Rosh Yeshiva of Torah Va’Daas in Brooklyn, once told his students that he had a dream the night before. In it, Mashiach had arrived. Kings and heads of state came to greet him, and Roshei Yeshiva and Rabbanim. The Mashiach noticed a man in the back, clean-shaven, and asked R’ Mendelovitch “who is that?” R’ Mendelovitch said, “That’s Mike Tress. He’s the one who brought you.”
Both roles -- that of dominating this world and that of framing everything in light of the next world -- will always be needed. Because both blessings were given to Yaakov, Jews will have to play both roles. Everyone knows the role played by Tzadikim. But when those who can master this world play their roles correctly, Mashiach will come, Bimheira Viymeinu.
