According to the teaching of the Rabbinic Sages, Jacob prepared himself for the meeting with his brother, Esau, in three ways – he prepared a gift, he prayed and he made preparations for battle. This three-pronged complicated plan serves as testimony to the concerns and doubts that plagued Jacob as he prepared for this event. Of the three, turning to God in prayer seems to be the most obvious approach, inasmuch as God has served to protect Jacob throughout his sojourn over the years. The gift is a practical, physical act that Jacob chooses in the hope that he will be able to gain peace and avoid the final possibility – the battle – that he fears. Only if left with no choice will Jacob fight to protect his family.
When preparing the gift, it is interesting to examine how Jacob chooses to act. Jacob does not bring the gift himself, rather he attempts to avoid a face-to-face interaction, and send the gifts with a series of messengers who are asked to go and meet Esau.
The concept of having an agent substitute for one’s own direct participation is commonplace in rabbinic literature, where it is applied in a wide variety of situations. According to Jewish law, although a person can ordinarily appoint an agent to carry out a given act on his behalf, it will not work in all cases. Just as you cannot appoint someone to eat on your behalf, similarly you cannot appoint someone to lay tefillin on your behalf. Nevertheless, an agent can be appointed to sell hametz, to deliver a divorce document, and even – theoretically – for a man to betroth a woman. The agent represents the person who appoints him, and therefore must understand his role and what he is meant to do. The agent acts as the long arm of the person who appointed him, and it is his responsibility to carry out his role in as exact a manner as he can.
The fact that Jewish law recognizes the validity of an agent acting on another’s behalf does not free us from asking who might choose to appoint an agent rather than perform the job himself, and why would he might choose to do so. In the context of marriage, the Talmud teaches “it is more fitting that the mitzva be performed by the man himself than by means of his agent” (Bavli Kiddushin 41a), since it is obvious that under normal circumstances we understand that something is “lost” if the groom does not appear at the wedding. We anticipate that a man planning to marry a woman will take the ceremony seriously, will meet his soon-to-be wife and look her in the eyes as they prepare for a life together. We want the act to be a personal, intimate act, even if the letter-of-the-law would permit an agent to accomplish it.
Why, then, might someone decide to appoint an agent to perform his obligation?
There can be many reasons why someone might choose to appoint an agent, depending on the specific situation.
In the case of divorce, for example, we can easily understand why the man may not want to interact directly with the woman. The husband wants to avoid direct contact; he does not want to face his wife’s withering gaze. Similarly, when a supervisor must fire a worker, he cannot relish the task, and will do everything in his power to pass that responsibility onto others. People often try to avoid performing unpleasant acts.
But there are other reasons that a person may choose an agent to represent him. Sometimes a person is simply too busy or distracted to take care of certain things. A high-level executive, for example, may not have the time or the inclination to worry about mundane tasks, so he hires workers to do them, allowing him to focus on his more pressing concerns. In such cases, even personal obligations may be turned over to representatives for them to deal with.
On occasion, it is not the status of the person appointing the agent that requires another to act on his behalf, rather it is the status of the recipient. Sometimes it is simply impossible to reach out to someone on a personal level, and delivery of a gift or a message can only be done through intermediaries.
We have observed three reasons that an agent may be appointed to act in the place of the primary person – a lack of comfort with performing the task, a person who is too busy or important to deal with the task on his own and when the recipient can only be approached by a third-party. All three of these can be read into the interaction between Jacob and Esau when Jacob sends gifts to Esau by means of an intermediary.
First – we can assume that Jacob fears the meeting with his brother. He wants to avoid looking into the eyes of his brother, from whom he took both the birthright and their father’s blessing before escaping like a robber in the night. This presents a problem, however, for with regard to gifts – as in cases of betrothal – if the gift is not hand-delivered, only a small part of the intention of the gift can be fulfilled. The object may change hands, but the intimacy that is part of personal gift-giving is left out. That absence is evident in our story.
Second – it is possible that Jacob chooses to send the gifts in this fashion because he wants to also send the message that he is now in a different stage of life. He is coming to meet Esau, not as a simple, naïve yeshiva student, but as a man with wives and children, with wealth, and a large contingent of supporters. He is not someone to be trifled with. Any threat or attack would be viewed as a casus belli, and his personal army would intervene.
Finally – Jacob may want to deliver a message to Esau that he recognizes that his status has changed and cannot view the upcoming meeting as a simple reunion between brothers. As a powerful and important man, it is difficult for Jacob to approach him. After all, Esau rules over vast lands and has his own extended family – how could Jacob approach him directly with a gift?
It appears that of the three possibilities, Esau chose to accept the last one, in saying “I have enough, my brother; let what you have remain yours” (Genesis 33:9). He is not an ordinary man; he is an important person, who possesses great wealth. Jacob, in turn, presents himself in a similar fashion, saying “Please accept my present which has been brought to you, for God has favored me and I have plenty” (Genesis 33:11).
The narrator, however, shares another perspective, and tells the reader of Jacob’s fears. We learn that as Esau approaches, Jacob becomes more and more concerned, and he begins to plan for every eventuality, given the impending disaster. It is clear that the Torah is suggesting that by sending gifts, Jacob hoped to avoid a direct interaction.
Ultimately, the discussion that takes place between Jacob and Esau surrounding the gifts was not a conversation between two brothers, but between two people who viewed themselves as princes of the land. In truth, it appears that Jacob’s ploy was successful – by using messengers to deliver the gifts and by avoiding the initial meeting, the two sides were able to present themselves as people of importance who were above the petty disagreements of children and who were past wrestling over a faint childhood memory. In the end, Jacob’s fear of intimate contact with his brother succeeded in creating a sense of distance, offering him protection from Esau’s wrath.