Toledoth: National Character

 Toledoth: National Character

The second verse of the parsha strongly emphasizes Rebecca’s  connection to Aram

אֶת־רִבְקָ֗ה בַּת־בְּתוּאֵל֙ הָֽאֲרַמִּ֔י מִפַּדַּ֖ן אֲרָ֑ם אֲח֛וֹת לָבָ֥ן הָאֲרַמִּ֖י 

Isaac was forty years old when he took to wife Rebekah, daughter of Bethuel the Aramean of Paddan-aram, sister of Laban the Aramean.

Rashi (quoting Genesis Rabbah 63:4)understands the mention of Aram to mean evil: 

שֶׁהָיְתָה בַּת רָשָׁע וַאֲחוֹת רָשָׁע וּמְקוֹמָהּ אַנְשֵׁי רֶשַׁע וְלֹא לָמְדָה מִמַּעֲשֵׂיהֶם:

She was the daughter of a wicked man, sister of a wicked man, and her native place was one of wicked people, and yet she did not learn from their doings (Genesis Rabbah 63:4).

The Bereshith Rabba actually says: 

אֶלָּא בָּא לְלַמֶּדְךָ אָבִיהָ רַמַּאי וְאָחִיהָ רַמַּאי וְאַף אַנְשֵׁי מְקוֹמָהּ כֵּן,

Rather, it is coming to teach you: Her father was a charlatan [ramai], her brother was a charlatan, and the residents of her place were likewise so,

The midrash rearranges the letters  of Arami אֲרַמִּ֔י to make רַמַּאי ramai. A lier, a deciever. 

Why does Rashi abandon this anagram?  Does he want to imply an evil other than decpetion? Deception is a somewhat more tolerable misbehavior.  

The mention of Aram also brings us to the Hagadda which quotes an interprets Moshe’s instructions in Deuteronomy:

אֲרַמִּי֙ אֹבֵ֣ד אָבִ֔י וַיֵּ֣רֶד מִצְרַ֔יְמָה 

This phrase is difficult to translate. Onkelos, the Rabbinically sanctioned,  official translation of the Torah renders:

לָבָן אֲרַמָּאָה בָּעָא לְאוֹבָדָא יָת אַבָּא

 

[Lovon] the Aramite [wanted to] destroy[ed] my forefather,

The approach the אֹבֵ֣ד oved, mean destroy is standard. It is accepted by Rashi and that interpretation produces the Haggada’s interpretation:

GO [to the verse]

AND LEARN

what Laban the Aramean

sought to do to our father Jacob:

Pharaoh condemned only the boys to death,

but Laban sought to uproot everything,

as it is written:

“AN ARAMEAN SOUGHT MY FATHER'S DEATH. 

Ibn Ezra says this interpretation is grammatically incorrect. Ibn Ezra understands אֹבֵ֣ד, oved to mean “lost” and it refers to Jacob (the father)

שארמי הוא יעקב

The term Aramean refers to Jacob.

Many of the classic commentators seem to agree with  Ibn Ezra. 

What is the fundamental difference between the interpretations? Rashi is interpreting  Arami as wicked. Arami represents a personality that wants to totally destroy the Jewish nation. Every Arami is assumed to be an enemy. 

Ibn Ezra, Sfrono, Rabeinu Bachya, Chizkuni identify Jacob ( or Abraham) as the Arami. Now Arami is certainly not negative. It's just a fact.  The anagram in Bereshith Rabba and the Hagadda are drashic, not literal, interpretations. The Hagadda is the  most deeply reinforced interpretation and Rashi has a lot of backup in Onkelos and Beretshith Rabba. 

Thus, Arami becomes a negative connotation; and since it refers to a tribal or national group, its negative connotation becomes a prejudice.

Jews are familiar with this kind of linguistic prejudice. The  parsha has a very early example. 

When Esau realizes that Jacob has appropriated the blessing that he expected for himself, he cries out: 

וַיֹּ֡אמֶר הֲכִי֩ קָרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ יַעֲקֹ֗ב וַֽיַּעְקְבֵ֙נִי֙ זֶ֣ה פַעֲמַ֔יִם

"Is it because he was named Jacob (Yaakov) that he has supplanted/outwitted me (vayakveyni) these two times?"

English translation cannot capture the affront. Esau calls the action of Yaakov (Jacob) ‘yaakveyni” . This should be translated as: he “Yaakoved me”, he Jewed me. Esau invokes the name Yaakov, and then creates a derivative of the name Yaakveyni. He makes Yaakov (Jacob) into a verb. 

The New York TImes published an easy on Nov 12, 2026: The Spanish Shylock Problem .  The essay reports that the Royal Spanish Academy has decided to maintain the definition of judio as” a miserly and usurious person”  in the official dictionary.  I am not sure that this deviates significantly from Esau’s usage. It is ironic that the Spanish commentators avoided  the prejudicial interpretation of Arami (Abraham Ibn Ezra lived in Muslim Spain). 

Before Jacob and Esau are born, Rebecca anticipates a competition that involves not only the boys, but their eternal offspring. 

שְׁנֵ֤י (גיים) [גוֹיִם֙] בְּבִטְנֵ֔ךְ וּשְׁנֵ֣י לְאֻמִּ֔ים מִמֵּעַ֖יִךְ יִפָּרֵ֑דוּ וּלְאֹם֙ מִלְאֹ֣ם יֶֽאֱמָ֔ץ וְרַ֖ב יַעֲבֹ֥ד צָעִֽיר׃

and GD answered her,

“Two nations are in your womb,

Two separate peoples shall issue from your body;

One people shall be mightier than the other,

And the older shall serve the younger.”

These are two nations and they will battle and there is an unexpected outcome.  This is a prophecy of strife. Sibling rivalries and conflicts are common, but the projection into the indefinite future gives it a high level of importance. Since we have the prophecy, we cannot tell if this rivalry would quarry forward without the prophecy.  We cannot tell the degree to which the prophecy causes the continuation of the strife. Certainly, the accounts of persecution of Jews has maintained suspicion and latent fear. I have little doubt that non-Jews have stories to tell about us. 

The text leaves no doubt that guile, רמאות [ramaut]  the trait attributed to Aram,  when Jacob appropriated the blessing, posing as his brother Esau. The details make it clear that the ploy originated with mother Rebecca, born an Arami. Jacob, the perpetrator, was also half Arami. Although this feeds into the prejudice, it is a statement of a fault that we share. Arameans tend to use guile. Jews do also; and they come by it honestly through their maternal  (and paternal) heritage.  Rashi and Ibn Ezra are both right.

Ultimately, the enmity between Jacob and Esau  is goaded by the “blessings”  Jacob is given dominance ( although Isaac intended it for Esau) : 

הֱוֵ֤ה גְבִיר֙ לְאַחֶ֔יךָ וְיִשְׁתַּחֲו֥וּ לְךָ֖ בְּנֵ֣י אִמֶּ֑ךָ

Be master over your brothers,

And let your mother’s sons bow to you.

Isaac recognized that he had created a domination relationship.  He says so when Esau asks for a reserved blessing: 

הֵ֣ן גְּבִ֞יר שַׂמְתִּ֥יו לָךְ֙ וְאֶת־כׇּל־אֶחָ֗יו נָתַ֤תִּי לוֹ֙ לַעֲבָדִ֔ים

But I have made him master over you: I have given him all his brothers for servants, 

When Isaac blesses Esau, he makes him a warrior

וְעַל־חַרְבְּךָ֣ תִֽחְיֶ֔ה

by your sword you shall live

 who will depose  his brother ( if he veers from the path of righteousness) 

וְהָיָה֙ כַּאֲשֶׁ֣ר תָּרִ֔יד וּפָרַקְתָּ֥ עֻלּ֖וֹ מֵעַ֥ל צַוָּארֶֽךָ

But when you grow restive,

You shall break his yoke from your neck.”

The next verse is Esau’s reaction; it is cryptic

וַיִּשְׂטֹ֤ם עֵשָׂו֙ אֶֽת־יַעֲקֹ֔ב עַ֨ל־הַבְּרָכָ֔ה אֲשֶׁ֥ר בֵּרְכ֖וֹ אָבִ֑יו

Now Esau harbored a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing that his father had given him, 

The traditional reading is that Esau was angry about the blessing given to Jacob.  But it seems possible that Esau was angry  on the basis of his own blessing. That “blessing”  rewards anger with dominance. 

Historically the children of Jacob have almost always been threatened underlings.  From the destruction of the first temple (586 BC) until the founding of the state of Israel (1948CE) , there was no Jewish self- government. The extent to which the modern state of Israel answers to  other powers. 

For a time, the United States purported to do away with the prejudices that divide people ( at least among the European colonizers) . Recently that effort has suffered a setback  and things seem to be getting worse for Jews ( among others).  I am not ready to endorse the prejudicial idea of national character.  I don’t know if I can free myself of them.