Yaakov approaches his impending meeting with Esav with trepidation. Parshat Vayishlah relates: “Then Jacob was greatly afraid and distressed.” The distress signals expressed by Yaakov are clearly visible to us and they reflect the great concerns and frightening scenarios that are running through his mind.
The multiple preparations that Yaakov makes for the meeting are a model of strategic planning that includes a set of possible options. Yaakov appears to be anticipating a difficult confrontation – perhaps even a military clash – with Esav.
It should be noted that Yaakov’s concerns do not arise in a vacuum. The two brothers share a common history, and Yaakov is well-aware of Esav’s vow to take revenge and kill him for stealing the blessings. At the same time, Yaakov has made a decision to return to the Land of Israel and to settle there, establishing a place for himself and his family in his native land. As far as Yaakov is concerned, he has no choice but to return home. Life in exile was temporary and although it was a convenient escape from Esav's terror, his longing to return home to his father gave him no rest. After many years, he has returned home, to the Land of Israel, and with it, to the confrontation with Esav and the difficult relationship that he remembers.
An overview of what happens in this story can shed light on more general questions of conflict resolution.
Yaakov anticipates a struggle.
Something very different takes place, however: “Esav ran to greet him. He embraced him and, falling on his neck, he kissed him; and they wept.” Immediately afterwards we are told: “Looking about, he saw the women and the children. “Who,” he asked, “are these who belong to you?” It turns out that far from being violent, Esav is excited to see his long-lost brother. By all appearances, he is a doting uncle.
Yaakov’s response to Esav’s question is: “The children with whom God has favored your servant.”
This back-and-forth brings to light a clear distinction between the approaches of Yaakov and Esav. While Esav asks “who are these who belong to you?,” Yaakov answers that they are a gift from God – not something that he owns. In these succinct words, their radically different worldviews are laid bare. And yet the encounter between the two brothers was necessary, because it changed Yaakov’s initial simplistic understanding of his relationship with his brother. In his mind he imagined Esav to be a murderous demonic character, but reality turned out to be more complicated. What emerges from the reunion may not be entirely reassuring, but it certainly brings out the complexity of the relationship between the two brothers.
The Torah seeks to create a sense of dissonance between the preparation for the encounter and the encounter itself, between Yaakov’s assessment of Esav and the real Esav, between the description of the conflict as Yaakov imagined it prior to the meeting and the conflict itself following the encounter.
The brother’s relationship could not be clarified without a face-to-face meeting. Generally speaking, long-standing disputes cannot be settled by means of internal discussions under circumstances influenced by previous, simplistic perspectives. It seems that there is no substitute for a direct encounter – for all its complexity – if one is to understand the different viewpoints, the diverse perspectives and so forth.
The meeting between the brothers ends with no clear conclusion. While Esav offers to accompany him, Yaakov declines and they go their separate ways.
Before they separate, however, Yaakov does promise to meet with Esav again: “until I come to my lord in Seir.” The commentaries question how Yaakov could have made such a commitment, when we do not find that he ever makes any attempt to fulfil it. The Talmud Yerushalmi (Avoda Zarah, Chapter 2) writes: We have reviewed the entire Torah and have not found that Yaakov ever went to visit Esav!” Many different answers are offered to this question.
One possibility is that Yaakov really had planned to make his way to Seir, but once Yitzhak passed away, the brothers met at his funeral obviating the need for another meeting.
Another possibility is that Yaakov told Esav that he would meet him in Seir out of politeness, but that both he and Esav understood that the invitation and the agreement to visit were made in the realm of courtesy, and not meant to actually be carried out.
A third possibility is that even after the pleasant encounter, Yaakov still feared that Esav planned to carry out an attack against him and his family. Yaakov’s strategy was to assure Esav that they would yet meet again, hoping that if Esav really wanted to kill him, he would decide that there would be better opportunities to do so in the future. According to this approach, Yaakov never had any intention of fulfilling his promise, which was made under the duress of threatening circumstances.
Underlying each of these three approaches are a series of basic assumptions. According to the first approach, the relationship between the brothers was now a positive one, the differences between them notwithstanding. Yaakov truly planned to renew contact with his brother.
The second approach assumes that the historic meeting that took place between the brothers closed with mutual respect and a diplomatic avoidance of the differences that remained between them.
According to the third approach, it is clear that the earlier hatred still remains, and that a few hugs, kisses and tears will not change that reality. The desire for revenge still controls who Esav is, and the Torah’s depiction of a warm reunion is nothing but an illusion.
How is it that a single biblical story can be understood in radically different ways? How can different commentaries read the same words and for one to decide that they show understanding and forgiveness, while another sees a “cold war” and a third sees evidence of antipathy?
It appears that the commentaries do not view this story as merely describing the interaction between two brothers, rather they consider it a formative historical event defining the relationship between Israel and the nations of the world. Rabbi Hayyim David haLevi writes as follows:
“The main episode in Yaakov’s life, the one that symbolizes the events of the nation, is the story that opens Parashat VaYishlah. The midrash describes how Rabbi Yehudah HaNassi would review this story every time he was to interact with foreign powers, deriving the methods with which to best deal with them (Bereishit Rabbah, 78:15). Even the letters that he wrote to the monarch made use of terminology from this parasha, writing: ‘from your servant Yehudah to my lord, the king, Antoninus’ just as Yaakov said: ‘To my lord Esav, thus says your servant Yaakov’ (Bereishit Rabbah, 75:5). For our sages saw this parasha as foreshadowing everything that occurred in the exile of Rome, and they endeavored to model their own actions based upon it, just as Yaakov did, until he succeeded in returning to the land of his fathers.”
(Responsa “Aseh Lekha Rav” 4:7)
Anyone reading this story recognizes that there is a deeper meaning beyond the story itself, and since these are questions of national significance, the dry facts become less important and the interpretation given to them is truly the point of departure. This is what leads to interpretive diversity.
Is there a way to interpret this story in a positive, optimistic manner?
Some would say that this meeting opens the path towards the elimination of dehumanization of “the other,” allowing for the creation of bridges between differing world views.
Some would say that a successful, sincere personal interaction is a positive step, but, on its own, cannot resolve deep conflicts, since it does not erase the differences in fundamental beliefs.
And there are those who would say that by means of personal relationships, we can at least manage to behave in a correct fashion towards those with whom we disagree.
But perhaps, at some point in the future, the secret of Yaakov’s promise of “until I come to my lord in Seir” will be fulfilled, when the time is right.
~~~
This essay was inspired by my colleagues at the Religious Leadership Forum for Discussion of the Arab-Israeli conflict.
