<HTML>
Esau and the Jewish Question
It seems to me that there are several parts to Debbie Niderberg's question
about Esau:
A. Was he really bad?
B. If not, who has been smearing his reputation?
C. Even if that blackened reputation is deserved, does it serve a valid
educational purpose to perpetuate it?
Esau seems to have come by his notoriety in several stages.
Stage One:
1. The Torah reports Esau as threatening Yaakov's life.
2. Amalek, nemesis of Israel, is a descendant of Esau.
3. While we are commanded to refrain from hating Edomites, in general, we
are commanded to wage an eternal war against Amalek.
4. This makes precision in Edomite genealogy a necessity. [Small wonder
that RAMBAM adduces "veTimnah hayta pilegesh leElifaz ben Esav" as equal
in importance to Anokhi?]
Stage Two:
5. The Tanakh reports on numerous attacks by Edom on Israel.
6. The Edomites participated--gratuitously--with the Babylonians in the
destruction of the first Temple.
7. As a result, the ultimate triumph of God [good] is identified in Tanakh
with Esau's defeat. We cite it daily in tefillah: ve'alu moshi'im behar
Tziyon lishpot et har Esav, vehayta laShem hamelukhah.
Stage Three:
8. During the second Temple period, Hazal identified Edom with Rome.
9. Rabbi Shimon bar Yohai, inter. alia., is reported--in this context--to
have said: "Halakhah, Esav sonei leYaakov."
10. In the near post-second Temple period, the identification of Edom=Rome
was extended into Edom=Rome=Christendom.
[There is a detailed scholarly treatise on the subject by Gerson D.
Cohen.]
Stage Four:
11. That designation lasts throughout the Middle Ages--as testified to,
most recently (on the calendar, that is), by the concluding line of Ma'oz
Tzur: "deheh admon betzel tzalmon:" Admon=Esau (admoni)=Christendom.
[Correspondingly, Islam assumed the designation of Yishmael.]
The balance of the question--pertaining to the educational value of
perpetuating the evil of Esau--is far more intricate and can be addressed
here only schematically:
· There is evil in the world.
· Evil does not emanate from God (who proclaimed all creation TOV) but
from man.
· Some men (may George Orwell forgive me) are more evil than others.
· The legacy of truth and good was passed from Avraham to Yitzhak to
Yaakov.
· The legacy of evil was passed from Esav to Eliphaz to Amalek.
· Not all the descendants of Esav are evil, just as not all the
descendants of Yaakov are good.
· It nevertheless behooves us, in developing our legacy of truth and good,
to avoid "Amalek," the legatee of evil.
Our educational challenge is to assist our students to identify "Amalek."
During the Holocaust, for instance, the Nazis, yimah shemam, were often
identified with Amalek. [Not, to my knowledge, with Edom.]
The RAV--citing the authority of Reb Chaim Brisker--maintained that Amalek
is anyone bent on gratuitous destruction of the Jewish nation, and
identified Amalek (in his Kol Dodi Dofek) with Nasser and the Mufti of
Jerusalem.
Who is Amalek today?
Try the students on this one--see what they say.
Some will probably name Saddam Hussein and Muamar Gaddafi.
Others may suggest Hafez alAsad or Yassir Arafat.
I think that a productive discussion can come of the question whether the
aforementioned fit the RAV's definition of "Amalek" or whether their
actions/intentions are political-military rather than racial-genocidal?</HTML>
