#eisav

Eisav: Those are his eyes! I haven’t seen him in a while, okay?

Yitzchak: It looks just like him to me!

Eisav: Thank you! I worked really-

Eisav:

עַל כֵּן לֹא יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר עַל כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (בראשית לב, לג)THEREFORE, THE BNEI YISRAEL MAY NOT EAT THE GID HANASHEH, WHICH IS ON THE SOCKET OF THE HIP, UNTIL THIS DAY (BEREISHIS 32:33)

In the middle of the night, Yaakov encounters an angel of G-d, wrestles with him, and wins. But the angel, who is Eisav’s spiritual source and advocate on High, wounds Yaakov's sciatic nerve. In commemoration, the Torah prohibits eating this nerve in any animal.

The significance of this mitzvah is explained in the Sefer Hachinuch (Mitzvah 3):

This mitzvah serves as a reminder to the Jewish people that though they will suffer many hardships in their exiles, at the hands of the nations and at the hands of the children of Eisav, they should be confident that they will never be wiped out.

The prohibition of eating the sciatic nerve seems to be a mere technicality in the laws of kosher, applicable only to the precise nerve that the angel wounded, which is itself only a minor detail in the story of Yaakov’s miraculous salvation. Why do we commemorate such a crucial aspect of Jewish faith—our eternal hope of survival—with a law so narrow in scope?

The emphasis that this mitzvah places on one detail is, in truth, extremely significant. It highlights that G-d's providence and concern for the Jewish people extends even to the most minor details in their lives!

Although the Baal Shem Tov taught that every aspect of creation is orchestrated by Divine Providence and serves a specific role in the Divine plan, the significance of every detail before G-d still varies, depending on how central a role it serves in the ultimate purpose of creation.

When it comes to details that affect the life of a Jew, however, there are no such distinctions; a nerve in a Jew’s hip is as significant to G-d as the entire creation. Since every Jew is uniquely chosen and cherished by G-d, and imbued with a soul that is essentially one with G-d Himself, even the seemingly minor details in the life of a Jew are of infinite significance before G-d.

וַיַּרְא יַעֲקֹב כִּי יֶשׁ שֶׁבֶר בְּמִצְרָיִם וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב לְבָנָיו לָמָּה תִּתְרָאוּ (בראשית מב, א) And Yaakov saw that there was grain being sold in Egypt. Yaakov said to his sons, “Why should you purport [to be content]?” (Bereishis 42:1)

When hunger came upon the Land of Canaan, Yaakov encouraged his sons to travel to Egypt to buy grain. According to Rashi, Yaakov and his family still had food, but Yaakov said to his sons, “Why should you show yourselves before the sons of Yishmael and the sons of Eisav as though you are sated?”

Why does Rashi say that Yaakov was concerned about the resentment of the sons of Yishmael and Eisav, who lived some distance from Yaakov, and not of the envy of his immediate neighbors in the Land of Canaan? Implied is that Yaakov was not truly concerned about envy, (and rightfully so, as Yaakov and his family did not really have that much food themselves.) Rather, he was concerned about criticism and accusations that would come specifically from the children of Yishmael and Eisav.

The source of his concern was that despite their limited supply of food, his sons were entirely content, as though they had all the grain that they would ever need. They were confident that G-d would provide for their needs miraculously, without requiring them to relocate, or even to travel to Egypt to buy food.

Yaakov was concerned that such behavior might draw unwanted attention from the sons of Yishmael and Eisav. For had there not been other famines in the Land of Canaan, due to which Avraham and Yitzchak had indeed been forced to move—Avraham to Egypt, and Yitzchak to Gerar? “Do the sons of Yaakov think that they are more worthy than our common grandparents, the saintly Avraham and Yitzchak, that G-d will provide for them without requiring them to relocate?,” the sons of Yishmael and Eisav would ask.

In truth, there had been other factors that motivated Avraham and Yitzchak’s relocation during the famine (see Rashi on Bereishis 12:10). However, being as the children of Yishmael and Eisav might not be aware of those reasons, Yaakov told his sons not to appear as though they regard themselves as more worthy than Avraham and Yitzchak, and therefore to travel to Egypt to restock on provisions the natural way. If not for this concern, however, Yaakov too would agree that they could remain in Canaan and be confident that G-d would provide for them miraculously.

וַיֵּשֶׁב יַעֲקֹב . . אֵלֶּה תֹּלְדוֹת יַעֲקֹב (בראשית לז, א-ב) And Yaakov dwelled...these are the descendants of Yaakov (Bereishis 37:1-2)

The Torah relates the events the events of Yaakov's life in detail, then pauses briefly to give an account of Eisav’s family and where they settled, and then resumes the story of Yaakov. Rashi explains:

The Torah describes Eisav’s settlements and his descendants only briefly. ...It describes Yaakov’s settlements, the growth of his family, and all the events that brought these about in detail, since their importance before G-d warrants dwelling upon them at length. …...This can be compared to a pearl that falls into the sand: A person searches in the sand and sifts it with a sieve until he finds the pearl. Upon finding it, he casts the pebbles from his hand and keeps the pearl.

Rashi’s analogy, which compares the history of the Jewish people vis-à-vis the other nations to a pearl lost in the sand, is not only a reference to the Torah’s detailed account of Yaakov’s life in contrast to its abbreviated history of Eisav. Rather, this analogy also alludes to the Jewish people’s task throughout history—to sift through “the settlements of Eisav.” The search for the pearl symbolizes our mission to find the holiness—the G-dly meaning and potential—hidden in the mundane world with which we constantly engage.

This explains a detail in Rashi’s parable that seems otherwise superfluous. In order to illustrate that the sand that a person sifts through is of little value in comparison to the object he is searching for, why was it necessary to note that upon finding the pearl one “casts away the pebbles?” Is it not obvious that once one has a pearl in his hands, he loses all interest in the pebbles and sand he was sifting through to find it?

By including this detail, however, Rashi teaches us that “casting away the pebbles” is indeed a crucial component of our mission. For in order to extract and elevate—and  indeed be elevated by—the sparks of G-dliness found in the mundane world, we must be certain that “the pebbles”—the material setting in which those sparks lay hidden—are not what actually appeals to us. Otherwise, the materialism of the world will draw us in, instead of allowing us to draw outthe good elements that it contains. Only if we cast away any personal interest in “the settlements of Eisav,” can we successfully extract and benefit from “the pearls,” the great spiritual wealth that is hidden therein.

וַתֵּצֵא דִינָה בַּת-לֵאָה אֲשֶׁר יָלְדָה לְיַעֲקֹב לִרְאוֹת בִּבְנוֹת הָאָרֶץ (בראשית לד, א) And Dinah, the daughter of Leah—whom she had borne to Yaakov, went out to see the daughters of the land. (Bereishis 34:1)

The story of Dinah’s abduction began when “Dinah, the daughter of Leah….went out to see the daughters of the land,” and was seen by Shechem. Rashi takes note of the Torah’s emphasis that Dinah was Leah’s daughter, and explains that Dinah inherited her social nature from her mother: “She is identified as ‘the daughter of Leah’ because she ventured out. For Leah, too, was an “out-goer,” as it is written, “And Leah went out to greet him” (Bereishis 30:16). Regarding her it has been said, “Like mother, like daughter.”

A simple reading of this Rashi might suggest that the Torah associates these two “out-goers” disapprovingly, emphasizing that their public presence is considered excessive by the Torah’s standards of modesty. But notwithstanding the value of this lesson in modesty, would the Torah go out of its way to disparagingly point out that not only Dinah but Leah too was an “out-goer”, when “the Torah avoids even the shaming a non-kosher animal” (Bava Basra 123a)?

We must say that the Torah associates Dinah’s conduct with Leah’s not as a source of criticism, but as a source of praise. Namely, that just as Leah “went out” with admirable motives, (see Rashi, Bereishis 30:17: “she desired and was seeking means to increase the number of tribes,”) so was Dinah’s excursion with noble intentions.

What indeed were Dinah’s intentions?

In his commentary on Bereishis 32:33, Rashi relates that when Yaakov prepared his family to meet Eisav, he hid Dinah in a crate so that Eisav would not see her and desire to marry her. Rashi adds that Yaakov was punished for doing so, because had they married, Dinah might have had a positive influence on Eisav. Now, if Dinah’s chances of affecting the wicked Eisav were slim, Yaakov would certainly not have been punished for not allowing her to marry him! Evidently, Dinah’s remarkable character made for a strong case that she was more than likely to succeed in transforming the wicked Eisav.

In view of that, we can understand that Dinah’s excursions and socializing were motivated by her ability to affect people outside the pure environment of her family. She did not go out “to see the daughters of the land” in order to see and be seen among them or to acquaint herself with their ways, but to attract them to hers—the righteous path of Yaakov.

Indeed, like her mother, Dinah went out with the purest of intentions.

וַיְהִי כִּי זָקֵן יִצְחָק וַתִּכְהֶיןָ עֵינָיו מֵרְאֹת (בראשית כז, א) It came to pass when Yitzchak was old, and his eyes were too dim to see (Bereishis 27:1)

The Torah tells us that Yitzchak was blind in his old age. According to one explanation brought by Rashi, G-d caused this to happen “in order to enable Yaakov to take the blessings.”

Now, to say that blindness is debilitating is an understatement. As Rashi comments regarding Yitzchak’s blindness, “Because Yitzchak’s eyes had become dim and he was confined to his house, he was like a dead person” (Rashi, Bereishis 28:10). But because Yitzchak desired to bestow the greatest blessings upon Eisav, not knowing the extent of his wickedness, G-d caused him to be blind in order for Yaakov to successfully disguise himself as Eisav and receive the blessings instead.

Was there really no other way to ensure that Yaakov would receive the blessings and not Eisav? Yitzchak was 123 years old at the time of the blessings, and he lived until the age of 180. So for fifty-seven years he suffered from blindness, confined to his house, “as good as dead,” all because he was unaware of Eisav’s wickedness.  Couldn’t G-d simply inform Yitzchak that Eisav wasn’t worthy of the blessings he intended for him, just as G-d had appeared to Yitzchak and communicated with him on other occasions?

(Moreover, Yitzchak already had suspicions about Eisav. He disapproved of Eisav’s wives [Bereishis 26:35] and he was aware that Eisav did not have the praise of G-d at the tip of his tongue [see Rashi, Bereishis 27:21]. So why did G-d not reveal to him the whole truth about Eisav instead of causing him to be blind for the last 57 years of his life?)

From here we see the extents one must go to avoid lashon hara, speaking negatively about another Jew. For in order for Yaakov to receive the blessings he deserved, G-d deemed it preferable to cause Yitzchak to be blind for over five decades than to tell Yitzchak lashon hara about the wicked Eisav!

If this is so with regard to Eisav, then how careful must we be when speaking about our fellow Jews, the most sinful of which are certainly not nearly as wicked as Eisav was?

עֵשָׂו לָקַח אֶת נָשָׁיו . . וְאֶת בָּשְׂמַת בַּת יִשְׁמָעֵאל - בראשית ל"ו, ב-ג 

Eisav chose his wives... and Bosmat daughter of Yishmael. (Bereishit 36:2-3)

Elsewhere, the Torah calls her מָחֲלַת, Mochalat. ...There are three whose sins are forgiven: A convert, someone promoted to a high position, and one who marries. The proof is derived from here; she was called Mochalat because her sins were forgiven (נְמְחֲלוּ in Hebrew, from which the name מָחֲלַת is derived.) —Rashi

By marrying a woman from the family of Avraham, Eisav sought to convince his parents that he was pursuing a more righteous life. Rashi (28:9) sums up Eisav's hypocrisy, saying, "he added wickedness upon his wickedness, for he did not divorce his other wives."

Yet, in reference to this marriage of convenience, or even worse, this marriage of deceit, the Torah introduces to us the amazing personal transformation that marriage effects on the couple being wed. Eisav's bride Bosmas is hintingly referred to as Mochalas, from the Hebrew word for forgiveness, to teach us that every Jewish bride and groom is cleansed from all previous sins on their wedding day. Whether one is aware of it or not, the mere desire and decision to build a Jewish family, fulfilling G-d's great command: "Be fruitful and multiply," makes a person worthy of such great spiritual elevation.

Marriage allows for new life to be brought into this world. Hence, its spiritual equivalent is the effort to "revive" another Jew's study and observance of the Torah of Life. as the Gemara declares, "He who teaches Torah to another's child, the Torah considers it as if he fathered him (Sanhedrin 19b)." It follows that the lesson learned from Eisav's marriage applies to spiritual marriage as well.

Even if you view yourself as an "Eisav", G-d forbid, do not hesitate to pursue a spiritual marriage – to draw others to the Torah way of life. If you but resolve to put yourself to the task of building a spiritual family, you will be supernaturally assisted to rise to the highest and purest spiritual heights.

וַיִּקַּח עֵשָׂו אֶת נָשָׁיו וְאֶת בָּנָיו וְאֶת בְּנֹתָיו וְאֶת כָּל נַפְשׁוֹת בֵּיתוֹ וְאֶת מִקְנֵהוּ וְאֶת כָּל בְּהֶמְתּוֹ וְאֵת כָּל קִנְיָנוֹ אֲשֶׁר רָכַשׁ בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וַיֵּלֶךְ אֶל אֶרֶץ מִפְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב אָחִיו . . וַיֵּשֶׁב עֵשָׂו בְּהַר שֵׂעִיר  - בראשית ל"ו, ו-ח 

And Eisav took his wives, his sons, and his daughters, and all the people of his household, and his cattle, and all his animals, and all his possessions that he had acquired in the land of Canaan; and he moved to another land, because of his brother Yaakov. ...and Eisav settled on mount Seir. (Beraishis 36:6-8)

Eisav's move was motivated by very practical considerations. He knew that the Land of Canaan had been promised to the descendants of Avraham, but it came with a price tag. Whoever would inherit the Promised Land would first pay off the "family debt": G-d's decree that Avraham's descendants would be "strangers in a land that is not theirs" (Beraishis 15:13). In the words of Rashi (36:7), Eisav reasoned, "Let me move away from here. I will have a share neither in the gift nor in the payment of the debt."

It seems, however, that instead of avoiding the debt by moving to Seir, Eisav could have paid the debt off with his move! G-d's decree was that Avraham's descendants would be "strangers in a land that is not theirs." In what way was Eisav moving his entire family and fortune to Seir less payment of the debt than Yaakov's family relocating to Egypt?

The answer lies in the word "strangers." The debt that was left for Yaakov to pay was not that his family would be forced to journey from their homeland, as Eisav did, but that "גר יהי' זרעך—your children will be strangers." Eisav "settled on Mount Seir." He wanted his children to have the comfort of blending in with their new neighbors and not remaining perpetual outsiders. Yaakov's children would never become citizens in their host country; the payment of the family debt meant they would remain strangers and foreigners throughout their stay in the Land of Egypt.

The same is true of us, the descendants of Yaakov, during the current exile, the debt of which we will continue to pay until the coming of Moshiach. Maintaining our uneasiness and discomfort with the mentality and norms of exile is a virtue. We must anxiously await the Geulah, Redemption, when we will truly settle in the Land of Israel, finally collecting our long-awaited inheritance.