We read in Parashat Toledot of Esav’s “sale” of the birthright to Yaakov, his younger twin. The Torah relates that Esav returned home famished and weary from the hunt, and found Yaakov preparing a lentil stew. Esav begged his brother for some food, and Yaakov agreed only after Esav promised on oath to relinquish the birthright to him.
In formulating his request to Yaakov, Esav said, “Hal’iteini na min ha-adom ha-adom ha-zeh ki ayeif anokhi” (“Please give me this red stuff so I can gulp it down, for I am weary” – 25:30). Curiously, Esav did not bother to identify the food he requested, and simply called it “ha-adom ha-adom ha-zeh” (“this red stuff”). The Torah then adds, “his name was therefore called ‘Edom’.” It appears that Esav and his progeny became known by the name “Edom” (related to the word “adom” – “red”) because of his choice of words when expressing his request to Yaakov, referring to the lentils as “ha-adom ha-adom ha-zeh.”
Why was this reference to the lentils worthy of perpetuation by the assignment of a new name for Esav? Furthermore, Esav was born with a reddish countenance – “admoni” (25:25) – and it seems far more likely that this accounted for his being named “Edom,” rather than his comments to Yaakov requesting red lentil stew.
In response to these questions, Abarbanel advances an entirely different interpretation of this verse, claiming that Esav’s name was not called “Edom” as a result of this incident. Rather, the final clause of this verse (“al kein kara shemo edom”) serves to explain why Esav referred to the food Yaakov was preparing with the word “edom,” rather than specifying that it was lentils. The reason, according to Abarbanel, is that, as Esav himself describes, he was “weary.” Esav was simply too weak to pay attention to the kind of food Yaakov prepared, and took note only of its most obvious property – its color. He therefore asked Yaakov for simply “this red stuff,” as he was unable to speak in specific terms. Thus, according to Abarbanel, we should read this verse as, “‘Please give me this red stuff so I can gulp it down, for I am weary’ – and for this reason [because he was weary] he called itedom [instead of calling it ‘lentils’].”
Be that as it may, one might wonder why the Torah found this point significant. Whether we accept Abarbanel’s reading, or the conventional understanding, that Esav was named “Edom” because of his comments to Yaakov in this incident, why is it important to emphasize the fact that Esav called the lentils “red stuff” instead of specifying? How does this lack of specificity on Esav’s part shed light on him or upon this incident generally?
One explanation, perhaps, is that vague speech might be characteristic of Esav’s persona as depicted byChazal. Many passages in the Midrashim depict Esav as a crude, brutish, unrefined character. He spent most of his time hunting for food and engaging in unrestrained violence and illicit, nonconsensual relationships – activities that, to a large extent, characterize animal life. Indeed, the Torah’s description of Esav at birth as covered with hair (25:25) brings to mind an image of a human being who resembles a beast. Chazal further developed this image through their vivid descriptions of Esav’s brutish conduct.
Among the most obvious distinctions between the human being and the animal kingdom is in the area of communication. Beasts communicate by producing vague, undeveloped sounds, whereas human beings are capable of using words to convey specific messages and information. Using sharp, specific language as a means of expression thus perhaps signifies a more developed level of humanity, a further step away from the animal kingdom. The more specific the language people use, the more they have developed their human qualities and raised themselves above the animal world, where simple noises are used to transmit general messages. Possibly, then, Esav’s description of his brother’s food as “this red stuff” as opposed to “this lentil stew” was a reflection of his brutish character. His speech, like his conduct, was crude and undeveloped. He did not make a point to speak with clear, specific terms, and instead expressed himself with vague, nonspecific language. This lack of linguistic development reflected the underdevelopment of his human character generally, and his resemblance to the animal kingdom.
