The Denigration of Esau

The reference supplied for each is an example of the epithet used often for these individuals.

Nimrod is another biblical innocent (Gen 10:8-12) who ends up being vilified by the rabbis, seen as a rebel against God and the king who ordered Abraham thrown into the fiery furnace. See BerRab 38:13; 44:2.

Richard Elliot Friedman points out that the text is ambiguous and could be read either way, that “the elder will serve the younger” or that “the elder the younger will serve”; see Richard E. Friedman, Commentary on the Torah (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), 88. The former is the usual understanding.

Clearly the story, with its folk etymology, was invented to explain the name; it is difficult to imagine how such a thing could actually happen.

Editor’s note: Even before the midrash, that will be mentioned below, the ancient Masoretes had a problem with this verse and put dots over the word “and he kissed him.” For a discussion of this, see Albert Baumgarten, “Why Is Esau’s Kiss Dotted?” TheTorah (2018).

Editor’s note: For some discussion of how this relationship is reflected in the Genesis narrative, see Marvin A. Sweeney, “Israel’s History as a Family Narrative,” TheTorah (2015).

Editor’s note: For some discussion of Hebron’s history and archaeology, see David Ben-Shlomo, “The Ancient City of Hebron,” TheTorah (2018).

Editor’s note: For a discussion of Herod’s Jewishness, see Evie Gassner, “How Jewish Was Herod?” TheTorah (2019).

Gerson D. Cohen, “Esau as Symbol in Early Medieval Thought,” in Studies in the Varieties of Rabbinic Cultures (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1991), 243–269 [p. 245].

Bereshit rabbah 65:21; ed. Theodor-Albeck, 740.

The rest of the midrash is full of comments about Esau, most of which, but not all, put him in a very negative light.

Editor’s note: For a more detailed treatment of the development of this typology, see Malka Zeiger Simkovich, “Esau the Ancestor of Rome,” TheTorah (2018).

For more on this theme, see, most recently, Malachi Haim Hacohen, Jacob & Esau: Jewish European History Between Nation and Empire (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 55-90.

And indeed in his other commentaries as well, wherever Esau or Edom is mentioned.

This opinion was most forcefully promoted by the renowned Bible scholar and teacher, Nechama Leibowitz in many of her writings; see e.g., Nechama Leibowitz and Moshe Ahrend, פירוש רש"י על התורה: עיונים בשיטתו [Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah: studies in his method] (Tel-Aviv: Open University, 1990), 2.363–364:

Rashi resorts to midrashim only when they answer a question raised by the text, when they resolve a difficulty, solve a problem, or fill in a gap, i.e., when they help the reader to understand the text. He does not cite midrashim in order to decorate the words of Torah with pearls of rabbinic wisdom, nor for homiletical reasons or to teach a moral lesson and so forth (translation mine).

Recently, scholars such as Avraham Grossman have pushed back against this view, arguing that Rashi had other concerns on his agenda that sometimes led him to read against the peshat. See, e.g., Avraham Grossman, “פולמוס דתי ומגמה חינוכית בפירוש רש"י לתורה” [Religious Polemic and Pedagogical Orientation in Rashi’s Commentary on the Torah], in פרקי נחמה: ספר זכרון לנחמה ליבוביץ [Pirkei Nechama: Professor Nechama Leibowitz Memorial Volume], ed. Moshe Ahrend, Ruth Ben-Meir, and Gavriel H. Cohn (Jerusalem: Jewish Agency for Israel, 2001), 187–205.

I am following here, with some modifications, the analysis of Ronen Lubitch, “יעקב ועשו בשיטתו הפרשנית של רש"י: עיון בשאלת היחס לנוצרים והערה חינוכית בצדו” [Jacob and Esau in the Exegetical Methodology of Rashi: An Inquiry into the Question of the Relation to Christianity along with an Educational Comment], שנתון שאנן [Sha’anan Annual] 13 (2007–2008): 71–107 [83–90]. See also Avraham Grossman, “אומות העולם במשנתו של רש"י: מגמות פולמוסיות בפירושו למקרא [The Gentiles in Rashi’s Religious Thought: Polemical Trends in His Bible Commentary], in דבר דבור על אופניו: מחקרים בפרשנות המקרא והקוראן בימי הביניים, מוגשים לחגי בן־שמאי [A Word Fitly Spoken: Studies in Mediaeval Exegesis of the Hebrew Bible and the Qur`an - Presented to Haggai Ben-Shammai], ed. Meir M. Bar-Asher, Simon Hopkins, Sarah Stroumsa, and Bruno Chiesa (Jerusalem: Ben Zvi Institute, 2007), 97-125 [esp. 109-112].

Perhaps he had in mind the French nobility of his day. Regarding Jewish attitudes to hunting, see L.I. Rabinowitz, “Hunting: Postbiblical Views,” EJ², vol. 9 (Detroit: Gale, 2007) 621-622.

Presumably, deceit and entrapment.

Cf. Rashi’s comment in a similar vein on Hosea 12:10.

This seems to be referring back to Tanḥuma Toledot 8; see v. 27 above.

Another possibility is that Rashi understood ki here as “despite”: Isaac loved Esau despite his attempts to deceive him. For this use of ki, cf. Ps 25:11, וְסָלַחְתָּ לַעֲו‍ֹנִי כִּי רַב הוּא, “pardon my iniquity though it be great.”

In the verse in Jeremiah, the word ‘ayef “tired” is used together with horgim, killers. The midrash then applies this verse to our verse in Genesis to imply that Esau was also tired from killing. Note that Rashi uses the harsher word רציחה (murder) rather than הריגה (killing) the word we would expect based on the verse in Jeremiah.

A common technique among medieval exegetes, as the biblical vocabulary was rather limited and there are many hapaxes. Using Rabbinic Hebrew and other Semitic languages could sometimes help clarify these words.

He could also be commenting on the precariousness of his profession: Every day I endanger my life, hunting in the forest full of wild animals. I could die any day. Why should I care about my father’s inheritance? See Rashbam ad loc., in the name of his father, Meir.

He is referring to the temple cult.

Cf. his comment on Ezek 35:6, in a prophecy on Mt. Seir:

בזית את הבכורה שעבודתי היתה מסורה להם ושנאת להיות מלכלך עצמך בדם קרבן עבודתי ולכלוך דם הרוגים ירדפך….

You spurned the birthright, which entailed the service to Me and you despised having to dirty yourself with the blood of My sacrificial cult; therefore, the dirty blood of the slain will pursue you.

Cf. Lubitch, “Jacob and Esau,” 97.

Following the Sifrei and taking it further, Rashi calls into question the genuineness of the kiss. See discussion in Marty Lockshin, “‘Esau Hates Jacob’: But Is Antisemitism a Halakha?” TheTorah (2016). Notably, Rashi does not quote the even harsher interpretation, found in Tanḥuma Va-yishlaḥ 4, which states that the kiss was not sincere and that Esau actually tried to bite Jacob and was crying because God made Jacob’s neck hard like marble and he broke his teeth; Jacob was crying because he was afraid that Esau would try to bite him again. Perhaps this midrash was too far-fetched for Rashi because it would have required a miracle.

Especially notable is his comment on Jacob’s deception of Isaac (Gen 27:35), במרמה. בחכמה , “In deceit—In wisdom.” On the various attempts to understand this act of deception and defend or criticize it, see Lubitch, 90–92.

Shaye J. D. Cohen, “Does Rashi’s Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity? A Comparison of Rashi with Rashbam and Bekhor Shor,” in The Idea of Biblical Interpretation Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel, ed. Hindy Najman and Judith H. Newman (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 449–472.

See Grossman, “The Gentiles in Rashi’s Religious Thought,” 111. I would also question the view that Rashi wasn’t concerned with Christianity in his Torah commentary because it was written before the First Crusade. Editor’s note: For further discussion on Rashi’s response to Christianity in his commentaries, see Yedida Eisenstat, “Does Rashi’s Torah Commentary Respond to Christianity?” TheTorah (2018); Marty Lockshin, “Rashi on the Torah: What Kind of Commentary Is It?” TheTorah (2019) [addendum]. For a discussion of the explicit polemics against Christianity in the generation after Rashi, see Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Torah Is Not an Allegory,” TheTorah (2018).

This portrayal of Esau has been very influential throughout the ages, but it is not the only one. Other exegetes, such as Rashbam and Ibn Ezra, portray him more sympathetically. Some sages even praise Esau for his good qualities, especially for the honor he consistently showed to his father (see BerRab 65:15). Rashi ignores this view in his commentary.