Printed from chabad.org
All Departments
Jewish Holidays
TheRebbe.org
Jewish.TV - Video
Jewish Audio
News
Kabbalah Online
JewishWoman.org
Kids Zone
E-mail

In many respects, the Torah's account of Isaac's family reads like a replay of Abraham's. Many years of childlessness are followed by the birth of two sons--the elder one wicked and the younger one righteous. Isaac favors the elder son, Esau, much as Abraham is sympathetic toward his elder son, Ishmael, while Rebecca, like Sarah, perseveres in her efforts to ensure that the younger, righteous son is recognized as the true heir of Abraham and the sole progenitor of the "great nation" which G-d promised to establish from his seed.

There is, however, a significant difference between the two sets of brothers.

Ishmael and Isaac were born of two different mothers: Ishmael was the son of Hagar, a former Egyptian princess still attached to her pagan ways, while Isaac was the son of the righteous Sarah. Furthermore, Ishmael was born when Abraham was still Abram and still uncircumcised, and can be said to belong to his father's imperfect past (Abraham was born into a family of idolaters and is even described as having himself worshipped idols in his youth), while Isaac was conceived after Abraham had attained the perfection signified by his name change and circumcision.

On the other hand, Esau and Jacob were twins, born of the same righteous mother and raised in the same holy environment. Their father, Isaac, was "a burnt-offering without blemish" who was circumcised on the eighth day of his life and who never set foot outside of the Holy Land. Unlike his father, he had no idolatrous past and no "pre-Isaac" period in his life. So where did Esau's "evil genes" come from?

Even more puzzling is the fact that Esau's wickedness seems predestined from the womb. If Esau had turned bad later in life, we might attribute this to the fact that every man is given absolute freedom of choice to be righteous or wicked. But how are we to explain Esau's gravitation to evil even before he was born?

The Lubavitcher Rebbe explains that the fact that Esau was naturally inclined toward idolatry was not, in and of itself, a negative thing. It meant that his ordained mission in life was the conquest of evil rather than the cultivation of good.

Jacob and Esau are the prototypes for two types of souls, each with a distinct role to play in the fulfillment of the Divine purpose in creation. Maimonides calls these two spiritual types "the perfectly pious" and "the one who conquers his inclinations"; Rabbi Schneur Zalman refers to them as the "Tzaddik" and the "Beinoni." Humanity is divided into these two types, writes Rabbi Schneur Zalman in his Tanya, because "there are two kinds of gratification before G-d. The first is generated by the good achieved by the perfectly righteous. But G-d also delights in the conquest of evil which is still at its strongest and most powerful in the heart, through the efforts of the ordinary, unperfected individual."

Thus Rabbi Schneur Zalman explains the Talmud passage which cites Job as crying out to G-d: "Master of the Universe! You have created righteous people, and You have created wicked people!" The actual righteousness or wickedness of a person is not predetermined by G-d--in the words of Maimonides, free choice is "a fundamental principle and a pillar of the Torah and its commandments," without which "What place would the entire Torah have? And by what measure of justice would G-d punish the wicked and reward the righteous?" Yet Job is right--G-d does indeed create "righteous people" and "wicked people" in the sense that while certain souls enjoy a life wholly devoted to developing what is good and holy in G-d's world, other souls must struggle against negative traits and ominous perversions implanted within them in order to elicit that special delight that can come only from the conquest of evil.

This, says the Lubavitcher Rebbe, is the deeper significance of Rashi's commentary on the opening words of our parshah. Citing the verse, "And these are the generations of Isaac," Rashi comments: "Jacob and Esau who are mentioned in the parshah." The simple meaning of this commentary is that the word toldot ("generations") can also refer to a person's deeds and achievements (cf. Rashi's commentary on Genesis 6:9); Rashi is telling us that here the word toldot is to be understood in its literal sense--the children of Isaac, though these are named only further on in the parshah.

On a deeper level, says the Rebbe, Rashi is addressing the question: How does an "Esau" come to be a descendant of Isaac and Rebecca? How do two perfectly righteous individuals produce an offspring who is evil from birth?

So Rashi tells us: the "generations of Isaac" are the "Jacob and Esau who are mentioned in the parshah." The wicked Esau we know is not a product of Isaac but the result of Esau's own failure to overpower his negative inclinations. The Esau of the parshah--Esau as viewed from the perspective of Torah, where everything is seen in its innermost and truest light--is not evil, but the instrument of conquest over evil. The Esau of the parshah is the purveyor of the "second delight" and an indispensable element of the purpose of life on earth.

In this also lies the deeper deeper meaning of the Midrash that describes Jacob and Esau fighting in the womb "over the inheritance of the two worlds" (i.e., the material world and the "world to come"). This would seem to be one area in which they would have no quarrel: the Esau we know desires the materialism of the physical world and shuns everything that is G-dly and spiritual, while the reverse is true of Jacob. So what were they fighting over?

Explains the Rebbe: The "world to come" is not a reality that is disconnected from our present existence. Rather, it is the result of our present-day efforts in dealing with and perfecting the material world. The world of Moshiach is the culmination of all positive achievements of history, the era in which the cosmic yield of mankind’s every good deed will come to light.

In other words, our present world is the means and the "world to come" is the goal. This is the deeper significance of Jacob’s claim on the "world to come," and Esau’s (and here we speak of the “Torah’s Esau,” the righteous conqueror of his inclinations) preference for the present world. Jacob sees perfection as the only desirable state of man, while Esau sees the struggle with imperfection as desirable in and of itself.

Yet both Jacob and Esau recognize the necessity for both of “the two worlds,” for the process and its outcome. The “perfectly pious” man also requires the material world as the vehicle that leads to ultimate perfection. And the “conqueror” also sees perfection as the goal to which his efforts lead. For although his purpose in life is defined by the process itself, a process, by definition, must have a goal.

So this is their "fight." Jacob and Esau each lay claim to both worlds as part of their life’s endeavor. But their priorities are reversed. To the Jacobs of the world, the material world is but a tool, a means to an end. To its Esaus, man’s material involvements and the struggles they entail are what life is all about. A futuristic vision of perfection is necessary, but only as a reference-point that provides coherence and direction to the “real” business of life.

The tension between them over their differing visions of the “two worlds” is not a negative thing. It is the result of two world views, both positive and necessary, both indispensable components of man’s mission in life.

© Copyright, all rights reserved. If you enjoyed this article, we encourage you to distribute it further, provided that you comply with Chabad.org's copyright policy.
E-mail
1000 characters remaining
Email me when new comments are posted.
Sort By:
Discussion (23)
November 1, 2013
Manifestation of the Thought and Will of G-D
I strongly believe that what happened between Jacob and Esau is not a coincidence, it was well determined and approved by G-D spiritually before it took place in the physical. Rivka was just used by G-D as instrument of righteousness to bring into manifestation His Thought in paving the path way for the Jews. G-D could decide to use any means and any body to manifest is plans. G-D sees the end from the beginning, He knew the spiritual and physical inclination of both Jacob and Esau even before they were born so Rivka's action was in line with
G-D's Plans for the Jews.
Rebecca (Rivka) I. Ukwunna
Houston Texas
November 15, 2012
The Jacob and Esau duality in all of us
Do we not all sell our birthrights as Jewish souls in one way or another every day in our journey through the physical, material world? Do we no all aspire to acknowledge that there is always a price to pay for everything? At issue here, it seems to me, is recognizing our spiritual capital and how it is best expended.
Steven Hurwitz
Arlington, Georgia
November 15, 2012
G-d allows both Jacob and Esau free choice to chose their actions.
It's obvious that both Jacob and Esau were mindful of how their grandfather Abraham lived, when he was a gentile named Abram, then when he chose to obey G-d. It was when Abram did this his name became Abraham, and when he crossed the water, he became the first Hebrew, he chose to leave a wicked life style, for a land ( Israel ) and to honor G-d.
Jacob remembered this, but Esau is acting like those which his grandfather Abraham left, Esau made his choice it was the wrong one, only repenting as Job did, could correct such mistakes but did Esau have a humble spirit!, Two brothers can have the same parents, one can choose to obey G-D. Whilst the other chooses not to. Both will live out their choices which have spiritual consequences.
Kenny
England
November 7, 2010
This is what I think
So, JDR, what if Esau is given or has been given 'another chance' at some point in time and he completely blows it - showing his ignorance of and lack of concern for the value of his own birthright and that which goes along with it, thus despising his birthright all over again absent any 'treachery' on the part of Jacob. What then?

Maybe after lives have been ruined and souls ripped up, violated, and exploited by Esau's ignorance, then certain parties will understand why things went the way they did in the first place.

Although it seems unfair to me that some would have to suffer for this realization to take place.
Lisa
Monterey, CA
November 6, 2010
Deceit is not a rightful means to fulfill prophecy
'Cursed be the deceiver' we read in Haftora to Toldos, no coincidence.

Rivka has not been told explicitly to go and stage the trick with goat skin to deceit Isaac. In fact, she hasn't been told to do anything at all. All she's been told is that two nations are on her womb, and the older will serve the younger. Righteous person trusting G-d will keep that in mind, and watch things unfold in a natural way, rather than employ deceitful means. When David as an example, was anointed for kingship, he didn't act in any way to "enforce prophecy", in contrary, he stood off and let prophecy to fulfill from Above.

We are explicitly prohibited to say or do what prophecy is not telling us to do, in other words, we are prohibited to step into the shoes of Divine and act from our own understanding. That's what Rivka did. And, notably, deceit has never led to peace. We see the process of de-evolution, our descending continues from one parsha to the next, and deceit is always a culprit.
Miriam Esther
Watertown, MA
November 6, 2010
Honoring our Patriarchs
Yakov was a tzadik, and Esav a rasha. Esav returned from the fields after having committed several capital crimes, including murder. He found his brother Yakov cooking lentils, a dish served to mourners. This day was the day Avraham died, and was a day that brought the birthright closer. Esav rejected his birthright, not for a plate of lentils, but because he did not want the suffering he knew would go along with it. I know i've not scratched the surface.
We who are Jewish base our understanding not on the written law, a literal translation of the bible alone, but also on the oral law. This is what differentiates us from other religions who have "taken" freely from our Torah. As a Jew going on a Jewish website, I'd like not to read any comments that denigrate our Patriarchs. I look to this website for authentic Judaism, and some of the previous postings don't belong her for their disrespect, let alone their complete falisies.
Anonymous
Brooklyn, NY
November 22, 2009
Theft of Birthright MkII
That is hardly the point. When a statutory crime is committed do we ask the victim for validation of the statute? A comment after the fact is a point of psychological self comfort or bluff for enduring a loss. If the birthright was such a bother why was it not traded before this point?

When someone is cheated today in this manner will it rest on such principles as these? The victim comes to court and says 'Your honour I was dying of thirst and traded some of my land for a drink (from my brother no less!) but even though the trade is manifestly unfair I didn't want this land anyway???

I can see the opportunities for abuse will be endless if this behaviour was deemed legally and morally acceptable!! Who would ever choose to live under these social conditions and their obvious consequences??
JDR
Melbourne, Vic/Australia
November 20, 2009
Did Eisav give away the brthright under duress?
Take a look at verse 34:
"And Jacob gave Esau bread and a pottage of lentils, and he ate and drank and arose and left, and Esau despised the birthright."

We see from here that even after he ate, drank, and left he still despised the birthright. Various commentators learn from here that Eisav reaffirmed the rejection of the birthright after he had eaten, i.e. when he was no longer under duress.
Menachem
san diego, ca
November 20, 2009
Theft of Birthright
A contract made under duress is not a valid contract. It reflects poorly on 'righteous' Jacob to take advantage of his brothjer's disadvantage and Esau is justified in his anger. The 'reasoning' about freewill and congenital good and evil is circular, self-serving, unconvincing and contradictory.

There is no homelitic merit in this story at face value and the 'good and evil' drivel is just a self-defeating diversion to make a bad thing look good. This attitude only softens the mind to endure ever greater cultist contortions.
JDR
Melbourne, Vic/Australia
April 23, 2009
A second look
Finally I have peace with the text. Upon reading the article again today, I find that I am able to understand the principle of two types of souls in the world. I find that if I don't perceive the text as a true "story" of Jacob and Esau, and see it as more of a parable, it makes more sense. I can even see the two souls working out their roles in my life and the lives of others I know. My question is should I percieve the text as a parable, or is this text a telling of an actual occurence. If so, should I understand that G-d looks beyond the technicalities of the issues- even if they are apparently filled with sin - if the goal is in line with the person's assignment to either perpetuate good or overcome evil?
Michelle
Baltimore, MD
Show all comments
This page in other languages
FEATURED ON CHABAD.ORG