Genesis 26:35 And they were a vexation of the spirit to Isaac and to Rebecca.
That verse is in reference to Esau and his Hittite wife, Judith. There is no explanation. It leaves me wondering what Esau and Judith did to vex Isaac and Rebecca. I can't find a place in this parsha that makes Esau look all that bad. He's a man's man. He's hairy. Maybe it's my natural inclination to overtly masculine men who have some hair on their chests, but I just don't see the problem. Selling his birthright for a bowl of soup is generally understood as stupid or callous, but when I read it I hear my husband telling his mother to leave everything to his sisters if she doesn't spend it while she's still here. Why? Because he'll be okay without it. He wants her to either not worry or to worry about his sisters, but worrying about him is unacceptable. We know that Esau became rich and powerful in his own right, so maybe he just wasn't concerned with having things handed to him. Maybe he knew he could do it on his own and thought his much softer brother would need the extra help. Who knows? Ultimately the only thing even close to an explanation about this vexation is the mere fact that Rebecca and Isaac didn't much care for the Hittite woman.
I know a lot of people and, as a result, I know a lot of in-law stories. It seems to me that most people struggle with that relationship largely because a new person entering a family brings a new (and often unwelcome) perspective. Fairly often the in-laws just don't like the person from the get-go. Other times, everyone gets along really well until the differences in child rearing or keeping a house come into play. After years of hearing in-law stories, I have begun doing a thing I hate. When I hear someone talking about how well they get on with their in-laws in my head I'm saying, "Just wait." Furthermore, when I read that Esau and his bride are a vexation to Isaac and Rebecca's spirit, instead of thinking "Poor Isaac and Rebecca", I think "Poor Esau and Judith."
The trouble is that Esau chose to marry a Hittite woman. Judith is other. She brings to the table a different perspective, a different style of clothing, and, more than likely, a different religion. This, I believe, is all it takes to be a vexation to the in-laws. However, just as in modern life, Isaac seems much less vexed by his daughter-in-law than Rebecca. He is still prepared to give Esau his blessing. How different would the face of Judaism be if he had done so? If Esau became Israel intermarriage might be more accepted, and that is a good thing. Perhaps a woman who is married to a non-Jew would have access to Orthodox mikvahs. Perhaps a man who is married to a non-Jew would have children who are considered Jewish even by the most traditional among us. On the other hand, in a few short weeks we will be celebrating a holiday that is significant in it's story of Jews refusing to assimilate. If intermarriage were acceptable right from the start, would we have the Festival of Lights? Would we even exist if as a seedling nation we compromised?
To everything there is a season, and the very beginning is a time to stand firm. Given that, it is good that Esau didn't get his father's blessing. On the face of it, I understand why Rebecca and Jacob did what they did. That said, I have a bit of an empathy problem, and during the verses with Esau in the room with his father I see no good in Rebecca and Jacob. As I said earlier, I have a natural preference for overtly masculine men. Esau is large, hairy, a hunter. My inclination is to think fondly of him; especially when compared to his brother who is smaller, weaker, and being pushed around by his mother. So when Esau realizes what happened and begins to cry, I want to cry. When he plots to kill his brother, I don't blame him. When Jacob runs and hides, I question his ability to father a nation.
In the past 5-or-so months since my shul has hired our new rabbis I have heard it said over and over again that Judaism is not a religion of The Torah. Rather, we are a religion of The Torah as seen through midrash, mishnah, the eyes of the Talmudic sages, the various commentaries written over thousands of years. In short, each of our stories are more detailed than the parsha allows. It might be because I don't read any commentary or my fellow blogger's posts before I write, but I have a hard time with this parsha. I don't want to muddy the waters with other people's ideas, but that leaves me in the precarious position of feeling a strong resentment for one of my patriarchs and one of my matriarchs based entirely on the written Torah.
Quite frankly, I just don't know what to do with that.
No comments:
Post a Comment