In the end of Parashat Toledot we read that in the aftermath of the episode of the “stolen” blessing, both Rivka and Yitzchak instruct Yaakov to leave home and take refuge in the home of Rivka’s brother, Lavan. The Torah writes: “Yitzchak sent Yaakov, and he went to Padan Aram, to Lavan, the son of Betuel the Aramean, the brother of Rivka, the mother of Yaakov and Esav” (28:5).
Rashi notes the peculiarity of the Torah’s “reminder” in this verse that Rivka was Yaakov and Esav’s mother (“the mother of Yaakov and Esav”). The Torah had just related the story of the blessing, which involved all four members of the family – Yitzchak, Rivka, Yaakov and Esav – and their relationships to each other are perfectly clear. It thus seems difficult to understand why the Torah found it necessary to inform us that Rivka was Yaakov and Esav’s mother. Rashi tells us that he found no answer to this question: “I don’t know what this teaches us.” (Rav Chaim Chavel, in his annotation to Rashi’s commentary, notes that this comment by Rashi does not appear in earlier editions of the work.)
Other commentators, however, suggested possible reasons for why the Torah added this phrase. Chizkuni claims that when mentioning Lavan, the Torah seizes the opportunity to answer a question that may have vexed some readers – how a sinful man like Esav could emerge from two such righteous parents, Rivka and Yitzchak. The Torah notes that Lavan was the brother of the mother of Yaakov and Esav; sinfulness was thus already “in the family,” so-to-speak, and this could account for the emergence of Esav.
Chizkuni then proposes a second, more satisfying, explanation, claiming that the phrase “the mother of Yaakov and Esav” emphasizes the concern for both her sons that drove Rivka to send Yaakov away. Rivka acted not only out of concern for Yaakov, but also out of concern for Esav. Several verses earlier (27:45), we read that when Rivka approached Yaakov and ordered him to leave, she said, “Why should I be bereaved of you both on the same day?” Chizkuni, commenting on that verse, follows Rashi’s interpretation, that if Esav would have killed Yaakov, then Yaakov’s children would have then immediately killed Esav in retaliation. Rivka was thus concerned about both her sons, and the Torah therefore emphasized that she sent Yaakov away as “the mother of Yaakov and Esav.”
In a slightly different vein, the Italian exegete Rav Eliyahu Benamozegh (1822-1900), in his Eim La-mikra, explained that if Esav had killed Yaakov, then Rivka would have truly lost not only Yaakov, but also Esav, whom she would never again have been able to accept as a son. Professor Nechama Leibowitz cites this comment in the context of the explanation offered by the Tzeida La-derekh to the phrase “the mother of Yaakov and Esav.” The Tzeida La-derekh explains that Rivka here set out both to protect Yaakov from becoming a murder victim, and to protect Esav from becoming a murderer. She acted as a mother to both her children – seeking to ensure Yaakov’s physical safety and prevent Esav’s moral decline.
Nechama Leibowitz noted the significance of this point at the conclusion of the story of Yitzchak’s blessing. Throughout this incident, Rivka acted on Yaakov’s behalf, working to ensure that he received the blessing that she thought was rightfully his, and even going to so far to accept full culpability for the potential repercussions of this ruse – “your curse is upon me, my son” (27:13). As the story concludes, the Torah adds a brief comment to emphasize that Rivka was not concerned only with Yaakov. She was “the mother of Yaakov and Esav,” as worried about losing Esav as she was about losing Yaakov. Rivka acted here as a mother to both her children, acting boldly to protect Yaakov and to protect her relationship with Esav. Lest one mistakenly conclude that Rivka showed no concern at all for Esav, and acted only as “the mother of Yaakov,” the Torah stresses that she was truly “the mother of Yaakov and Esav,” equally concerned about them both.
