Parashat Toledot tells of the birth of Yaakov and Esav, describing the latter as “admoni,” or “reddish” (25:25). Rashi, based on a number of Midrashic sources, writes that Esav’s reddish complexion at birth reflected his violent nature, as red symbolizes bloodshed.
A comment in the Midrash Ha-gadol perhaps sheds further light on the significance of Esav’s reddish color: “Rav Yehuda said: If you see a person whose face is red, he is either a completely wicked person like Esav, or a completely righteous man like David.” The Midrash notes that David, like Esav, is described as reddish (“admoni im yefei enayim” – Shemuel I 16:12). Accordingly, the Midrash establishes that a reddish complexion reflects either a sinful nature, like Esav’s, or a righteous nature, like David’s.
It seems that both Esav and David were born with an unusual abundance of passion, energy and zeal, as reflected by their red color. Esav channeled his passion toward sin, whereas David used his passion in the service of the Almighty, becoming a military hero who led Benei Yisrael to victory over its vicious foes, and through poetry and song which he composed and sang to give praise to God.
This contrasting parallel between Esav and David is noted as well by a different Midrashic passage (Bereishit Rabba 63), which relates that when the prophet Shemuel first saw David, he observed his reddish complexion and presumed that he was a murderer, like Esav. God then said to the prophet, “Esav kills based on his own decision, but this one kills based on the decision of the Sanhedrin.” Indeed, David was born with similar tendencies to Esav’s. The difference is that David succeeded in channeling that passion and energy into his service of God, rising to the occasion to rescue Benei Yisrael from the Philistine threat, killing “based on the decision of the Sanhedrin.” Esav, however, applied his talents and passionate tendencies indiscriminately, wantonly murdering innocent victims.
The contrast between these two figures reflects not only the importance of channeling talents and energies toward the right direction, but also, more specifically, the need to exercise care when applying passion and zeal. The Midrash emphasized that David ensured to act “based on the decision of the Sanhedrin.” He succeeded in confining his passion to the “four cubits of Halakha,” to the areas where passion is warranted and even desirable. Even when it comes to religious zeal, there is the risk of misapplying it outside the “decision of the Sanhedrin,” beyond the parameters established by Halakha. It is perfectly legitimate – and even admirable – to display the “redness” of Esav, to live with strong fervor and passion, and certainly to live with religious enthusiasm and zeal – so long as it is used properly. As reflected by the famous tragedy of Nadav and Avihu, a forbidden act performed as an expression of religious devotion is entirely illegitimate. David was wise enough, and disciplined enough, to channel his “admoni” tendencies toward the areas permitted by the “Sanhedrin,” thus demonstrating the importance of keeping one’s religious passion within the accepted parameters of normativeHalakha.