2020/5781
Parashat Vayishlach begins with a meeting between Yaakov and Eisav. The Torah frames this as an approaching confrontation telling the reader of Yaakov’s fear, preparations, prayers, and gifts, not to mention that we are told of Eisav’s small army with him. However, for all this buildup, the‘confrontation’ is surprisingly non-confrontational. The two brothers meet, exchange pleasantries, catch up, and head separate ways. In fact, Rabi Shimon bar Yochai (Sifrei BeMidbar 69:2) states that dots over the word “Vayishakeihu,” “and he kissed him” (BeReishit 33:4) shows that it wasgenuine, counter to one’s expectations and the opinion of other Tannaim. Accordingly, many commentators remark that the kiss was genuine. But why does Eisav change so suddenly? The last we saw of him, he was fuming, waiting for Yitzchak to die. What caused this sudden forgiveness?
Many commentators answer in very similar ways. Rashi (ad loc. s.v. Vayechabkeihu), Radak (ad loc. Vayaratz), and Seforno (ad loc. Vayratz Eisav) all comment that it was because of the way that Yaakov humbled himself, from bowing to the gifts he sent. This won Eisav over, presumably by showing him that Eisav had already won.
Nonetheless, this still does not answer the question. Could one display of humility by Yaakov really overpower all those years of hate? To some, like Seforno (BeReishit 33:4), the answer is yes. This is exactly what happened. He also tells us that this teaches a message, also taught by Rabi Yochanan ben Zakai, that living peaceably under Roman rule would have prevented the destruction. With this opinion, in addition to a healthy dose of non-literaism, we can say that the Torah doesn’t tell us how exactly Yaakov swayed Eisav, only that he humbled himself and that it worked. That is the message of the passage, so the Torah minces words and leaves out unnecessary details.
To others, on the other hand, we’ll need more. For example, the Siftei Chachamim (ibid) holds that the kiss was not genuine (hence the dots), and, more extremely, R’ Yannai says that the dots show that it wasn’t a kiss at all, but a bite (BeReishit Rabbah 78:8). How, then, according to theseopinions are we expected to rationalize Eisav’s turnaround?
To answer this, we must first note that it wasn’t a complete turnaround. Eisav and Ya’akov are still considered enemies in much of Rabbinic literature (e.g. Eisav’s last stand at Me’arat HaMachpeilah noted in Sotah 13a). This characterizes the kiss, if it were to be genuine, as more of an uncharacteristic act of passion, in line with many commentaries we saw earlier. Also, it is possible to make a case that the kiss isn’t actually the climax of the encounter (which is instead Pasuk 9). In it, Eisav not only finally calls Ya’akov ‘Achi,’ ‘my brother,’ but also says ‘Yehi Lecha Asher Lekha,’ which Rashi (BeReishit 33:9) interprets as an admission of the birthright. This allows for a more gradual, believable, forgiveness. Additionally, this is not a long encounter. It is entirely possible that the brotherhood shown here was momentary, induced by Ya’akov’shumility and gifts.
One question remains, however: why is it built up so convincingly as a confrontation when in reality it seems to be anything but? I think the answer lies in how Ya’akov is characterized by the Torah. Ya’akov is consistently shown to be a crafty underdog, from stealing the Berachah to his encounter with Lavan, using his brains instead of his brawn to win the day. This confrontation with Eisav, however, is treated as Eisav would see it – a dramatic confrontation. The fact that it ends in an anticlimactic manner shows us just how good of a strategist Ya’akov is. We are just as blindsided as Eisav to find out that we missed our dramatic final battle, and he his revenge. Similar to Seforno’s commentary from before, we see that the Torah treats this as an epic battle in order to teach us a valuable lesson: to be like Ya’akov. Non-confrontational and humble are far more reliable qualities than brutestrength, especially when you’re as small a nation as that which Ya’akov fathered.