Translated from Hebrew by DR. S. NAthan

l'ilui nishmat Esther bat mordechai
L'ILUI NISHMAT MAYER HIRSH BEN LAIBEL

     Esau’s hatred for Jacob is a given, within the reality of good and evil. “[At their birth, Jacob's] hand was grasping Esau’s heel.” Hate and love descended to this world bound together – a proposition that begs explanation. On the one hand, they aspire to cancel one another. On the other hand, they never attain their goal, and it is decreed upon them that they may never separate. Here we realize that we must investigate the possibility of co-existence, of living together with these sharply opposed vectors.

     If Jacob is forbidden to use Esau’s weapons, and may only make use of his own quality, which is powerful enough to subdue Esau’s brute force without making war at all, nevertheless this is only one aspect.

     Reality has many different aspects.  For example: “Regarding someone who comes to kill you, rise earlier, and kill him.” Do we find here a prohibition against using evil’s power? However, for self-defense only, it is permitted, as we find in the words of the Ramban:

      “And this holds a further hint for all future generations, because everything that happened to our forefather with Esau his brother, will happen to us always with Esau’s children. And it is appropriate that we hold onto the tsadik’s way – and prepare ourselves for the three things for which he prepared himself: For prayer, for a gift, and to be saved by way of war – to escape and to be saved.”

     The Ramban here has somewhat altered the wording of the Talmud, “for a gift, for prayer and for war.” He has added a rather complex interpretation to the concept of the war with Esau. He wishes to teach us that there is no requirement of – and there may even be a certain recoil from, and perhaps even a prohibition against – taking up the tools which that wicked one uses to ply his trade. Yet nevertheless we know that the halacha permits going out to wage war, even for non-self-defense issues, and certainly for self-defense issues, as mentioned: “Regarding someone who comes to kill you, etc.”

     We could interpret this as meaning that one must do everything possible to be saved without waging a frontal war, but there is no absolute prohibition here against waging war under any conditions. It would appear that when the act of going to war involves an element of deterrence, it is a mitsva to wage war, in order to deter the enemy from believing that Jewish blood may be freely shed. This is as regards the practical perspective. However, we must delve more deeply into the concept of the war of self-defense, and where its boundaries lie.

     Evil and good may be viewed as light and shadow, whose purpose is to renew and to emphasize one another, in order to serve as yardsticks for each other. Neighbors – yes. Intermingling and union – no.  Side by  side – yes. Together – no. Until that day comes when humanity reaches the point that the good becomes capable of drawing energy from its own sources, drawing only upon the sources of love and truth – until that stage of perfection is reached, good shall be required to immunize itself through the stimuli of the outside. These stimuli serve the purpose of motivators.  They are a source of energy for good’s efforts toward self-actualization, for it has been decreed upon good to pass through the tunnel of evil, of suffering, in order to be immunized by hatred’s fire.

     Mining good for its fullest potential and its greatest power depends on its ability to draw from evil, by way of opposition, in order to reach self awareness by way of comparison with its opposite. Love born of free choice must pass through the gauntlet of hatred.

     In the place that is empty of love, hate develops. Love is the expression of a self that has found an address for identifying and for receiveing feedback after its own heart. Hatred expresses the defense reaction of a self under attack, its quality threatened, its uniqueness unable to find expression. The survival mechanism is the source of hatred, and provides hatred with its meaningful content, and with its means of response. Hatred cannot penetrate the boundaries of the self. It is halted by ego’s barrier – by the self-preservation mechanism. This shows us that unjustified hatred can be overcome (as long as such hatred does not threaten one’s own self-preservation) by relating personally and individually – the self of the one seeking out the self of the hating/hated other.

     From this we see that any condition or person that threatens one’s own self-preservation, or one’s own self’s quality, or principles, or values – takes on the form of a legitimate hatred. “Your haters, God, I shall hate.” There is no hatred of the wicked unless the wicked person threatens one’s self – its quality and its values.

     Esau’s hatred for Jacob originates in Jacob’s threatening to negate Esau’s image, which represents values that epitomize a polar opposition to the values Jacob represents. This is no direct personal hatred, and therefore the brothers refrained from military confrontation at their encounter. It was sufficient for Esau that he had been represented by his representative Heavenly messenger, who expressed no personal aspect, but rather only the value-driven aspect.

     In contrast to Esau, Laban's hatred for Jacob is a purely personal hatred: Envy. This is not a value-driven hatred. Personal hatred has its advantages and its disadvantages over value-driven hatred. Advantages – distance. The barrier. The oath of Gal-Ed: “If I will not cross over this hill to you, and if you will not cross over this hill and this monument to me, to do evil…”  Distance dilutes the hatred that is based upon envy.  Without distance, envy devours other values, including even basic familial values. “And you did not allow me to kiss my daughters.” Everything else vanishes into nothingness, and the personal hatred is exposed in all its viciousness, based upon nothing but jealousy, but distance causes this phenomenon to fade away.

     Disadvantages – There is no logic to it. There is no method to the personal hatred. It will last as long as the personal/existential reality lasts: “Envy, lust, and pride” mingle and nourish this hatred. Everything that the enemy represents encounters hatred and hostility, with no distinctions whatsoever between good and evil.

     In contrast, Esau’s hatred of the values Jacob represents undergoes changes and transformations that correspond to the value-driven conflict between them, according to each side’s value-based state of being. As the distance and the value-driven opposition is reduced, so the hatred between them is lessened, to the point of endangering the good: Jacob risks being influenced by Esau.  He risks losing his quality, he risks being seduced into and attracted by what Esau represents. Thus modern liberalism, which blurs values and uniqueness, constitutes a hazard for Jacob, who is seduced into adopting liberalism as a value, forgetting that liberalism is no value at all but only a blurring and diminishing of values in favor of wanton abandon and the bursting of all boundaries of values. Liberalism: Wicked Esau’s sweet revenge.

     Just as one must not view the battle against the evil inclination as the major route to serving God (this is the Christian view) so one must not view hatred – not even hatred of evil – as a positive approach.  Only love occupies this status. The dangerous element in Esau’s hatred was that he raised hatred to the level of a value-driven involvement, turning hatred into a flag, a cause and a rallying banner. Hatred as an ideology withstands and rises above all conditions of time and space. It is not personal and it is not ephemeral. It exists in its own right.

     As opposed to Christianity which hates Jews on principle, as a value, as its flag and banner, as the drive to victory of the physical over the spiritual (Do try to avoid being confused by the hypocrisy of the physical’s hatred for the spiritual: It is disguised as enlightenment, in the form of objective science and critical thinking, and external politeness, all of which come to replace spiritual values) Islam actually belongs to Laban’s category of hatred, deriving from “envy, lust, and pride,” because Islam does not propound any principles and is devoid of spirituality or ideals.

It would be interesting to investigate the question of which of the above categories applies to the brothers’ hatred of Joseph.