In the 1980s, it was popular to speak of people in terms of Type A personalities and Type B personalities. In the 90s, people were all about Myers Briggs and other personality assessments. Today, the terms neurotypical and neurodivergent are popular. All of this is to say that much money and a great deal of time has been, and continues to be, spent on understanding inherent personality. But really, this is a topic that is natural to Jewish scholarship since the very beginning… and the subtleties of Parshas Toldos, which is very nuanced, are an excellent study of nature, nurture, and self-determination.
It is rather interesting to note how even the subtleties of translation can affect how we understand our Biblical ancestors. On a simple, read-through level, the Torah present Eisav and Yaakov as two equal but different youths. וַיִּגְדְּלוּ֙ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וַיְהִ֣י עֵשָׂ֗ו אִ֛ישׁ יֹדֵ֥עַ צַ֖יִד אִ֣ישׁ שָׂדֶ֑ה וְיַֽעֲקֹב֙ אִ֣ישׁ תָּ֔ם ישֵׁ֖ב אֹֽהָלִֽים
(25:27) – “And when the boys grew up, Eisav became a skillful hunter, a man of the field, and Yaakov was a mild man who dwelled in tents." Most translations I have seen translate va’Yaakov as “but Yaakov,” an expressive statement that implies comparison; whereas, at its most simple, va’Yaakov means “and Yaakov” - a description.
A similar issue happens in the next pasuk, that says: “Yitzchak favored Eisav because he had a taste for game, va’Rivka, and/but Rivka favored Yaakov” (25:28). What is interesting here is the seeming conditional attached to Yitzchak’s love that is glaringly missing in Rivka's relationship with Yaakov. If you think Eisav didn’t pick up on that difference, you are blessed with children who have zero sibling rivalry. Loving Eisav was not natural and easy. For the family that came from Avraham's tents, Eisav was a wild card. He was different. If Eisav had been an only child, he might have come to understand the teachings of his father and grandfather. He might have chosen a path of chesed and devotion. But because that life was more natural and easy for Yaakov, Eisav quite likely struggled with why he had to bother to put so much energy into belonging to his own family.
This sounds like a rousing case for a sympathetic portrayal of Eisav, for a dvar Torah that excuses his later actions. This is not so. It is, rather, a means of looking closer in order to understand humanity and our own selves – and, perhaps most importantly, our children.
Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch offered the commentary that part of the problem was that Yitzchak and Rivka raised the boys the same and ignored their differences. This is, of course, an important lesson to take from Parshas Toldos. Another important lesson in a day and age when we label people neurotypical or neurodivergent (which, let's be honest, doesn't hide the subtle message of who is considered normal - although if normal means most common, I know far more neurodivergent people than neurotypical) is that the only thing that makes us good or bad are our actions.
Eisav is not a "bad character" because he was born inherently evil, as might be implied by the arts and crafts. His natural personality might have made it harder to fit into a specific mold or expectation, but along the journey of life he made choices. Most significantly, he chose to sell his brother his birthright for a hot meal. It was a rash decision made in a moment when he was, perhaps, in a bad place. But it was his decision, and that, too, might be, a valuable lesson from this parsha – that often times we make decisions in a moment that impact the rest of our lives.
With time and generations, the world has become ever more diverse. We must remember, constantly, that how we think of others can impact how we treat them, and how we treat them can impact how they perceive themselves and that can, and will, affect the choices that they make.
No comments:
Post a Comment