The Limits of Diplomacy

And on that day Esav returned to his journey to Se’ir. And Yaakov traveled to Succot. And he built a house for himself and for his cattle he made shelters (succot). Therefore, the place is named Succot. (Sefer Beresheit 33:16-17)

1. Orphaned passages

Parshat VaYishlach opens with a description of Yaakov’s encounter with Esav. Yaakov had not contacted his estranged brother since he left his father’s home. At that time, he was fleeing from his angry brother. Esav had vowed to kill his brother to avenge his loss of the blessings that he coveted. Yaakov understood that this approaching encounter was very dangerous. He feared that Esav continued to harbor intense hatred for him and that Esav would seek to exact his vengeance.

Yaakov responded with a carefully designed plan whose objective was to demonstrate his fraternal feelings toward his brother and to placate Esav. Yaakov’s plan was successful. Esav responded to Yaakov’s demonstration of love and respect with reciprocal feelings. The brothers embraced. They spoke with one another. Then, they parted in peace.

The above passages appear in the Torah immediately following the narrative of the brothers’ encounter. These passages are actually appended to that narrative. This suggests that these passages are in some manner relevant to the narrative.

These passages present a number of problems. First, it is not clear how these passages are relevant to the narrative of the brothers’ encounter. What do these passages reveal about the narrative?  They seem to be orphaned passages arbitrarily attached to the preceding material. Second, even if that problem is ignored and the passages are treated as an independent narrative, they remain problematic. What is their significance? What message is related by the Torah through revealing that Esav returned to Se’ir and Yaakov traveled to a place at which he constructed a house for himself and shelters for his cattle?

2. The Torah’s narrative style

The commentators offer a number of fascinating responses to these problems. One of the most interesting responses is provided by Gershionides – Ralbag. He explains that the Torah’s narrative is constructed from the perspective of a specific point in time. It addresses the generation that was poised to follow Yehoshua into the Land of Cana’an and conquer it. In other words, it treats the events in the lives of the patriarchs as historical incidents. This explains some troubling nuances in the text.

And they returned and they came to Ein Mishpat which is Kadaish. And they struck the fields of the Amalakites and also the Emorites that dwelt in Chatzatzon Tamar. (Sefer Beesehit 14:7)

The above passages describe a battle that took place during Avraham’s lifetime. In this battle, Avraham’s nephew Lote was captured and Avraham rescued him from his captors. The passage describes the locations at which various campaigns took place. However, it is notable that many of these places are identified by names that were not contemporary to Avraham. Instead, these places received these names centuries after the passing of Avraham.[1]

Gershonides explains that these names are used because the Torah is addressing the generation that was to enter the Land of Cana’an. The Torah is composed from that perspective in time. When the Torah identifies locations it does not necessarily use names that were contemporary to the events described. Such names would be meaningless to a generation living centuries after these names had fallen from common use. Instead, the Torah often uses the names contemporary to the audience it is addressing.

Geshonides, bases his explanation of our passages upon this foundation. He explains that in order to transmit the reality of the ancient events that it describes, the Torah associates the events with locations that were meaningful to the generation addressed. In this instance, the Torah is describing an encounter between Esav and Yaakov that occurred in the historical past of the generation it is addressing. In order to endow the narrative with a stronger sense of truth and reality, the Torah relates its account to a location contemporary to the generation it is addressing. According to Gershonides, the Torah is saying, “We have discussed Yaakov’s encounter with Esav. That happened not far from Succot. In fact Succot received its name from the shelters that our ancestor Yaakov constructed there for his cattle.” This narrative style enhances the realism of the account.[2]

3. The importance of vigilance

Nachmanides offers a very different explanation of these passages. He explains that Yaakov traveled to Succot and he constructed a house there because he needed to protect himself from his brother Esav. In other words, Yaakov did not assume that with Esav’s departure he was safe. He recognized that he had not resolved his conflict with his brother. He had merely achieved a temporary peace. At any moment, Esav’s attitude might change. In their recent encounter he was not prepared to face an angry Esav. With Esav’s departure, Yaakov took measures to be better prepared should Esav return.[3]

The appending of these passages completely alters the character of the narrative.   Without these passages, we would be left with the impression that Yaakov had succeeded in resolving his conflict with Esav. Fraternal love was restored. With the appending of these passages a different message is communicated. The conflict between Esav and Yaakov was not and cannot be permanently resolved. It persists. Eras of peace and quiet should not suggest to Bnai Yisrael that the tension between Yaakov and Esav has been resolved. Instead, those periods of tranquility should be appreciated, but, they should not induce a mistaken security.

4. Where diplomacy ends and providence takes over

Rav Naftali Tzvi Berlin – Netziv – suggests a slightly different interpretation of the passages. He explains that Yaakov was forced to make camp at Succot. He could travel no further before he rested his cattle and flocks. In other words, Yaakov did not encamp in Succot by choice. He was forced to do so. He was not seeking a defensive position in the event that Esav returned. He simple could not flee from his brother without giving up all for which he had worked in the house of Lavan.[4]

Like the explanation of Nachmanides, the Netziv’s explanation alters the character of the narrative. Without these passages, we would assume that Yaakov was safe once his brother departed. The appending of these passages communicates that the danger persisted. Yaakov would not be safe for many months. It would be eighteen months before Yaakov could resume his journey and place more distance between himself and his brother. Throughout this period Yaakov was forced to depend upon the lasting effect of his diplomacy and help from Hashem to protect him from his brother.

Save me now from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Esav, for I fear him lest he will come and strike me – mother and children. (Sefer Beresheit 32:12)

Furthermore, the appending of these passages adds an even more fundamental element to the narrative. Was Yaakov’s success in fending off his brother’s aggression a consequence of the ingenuity of his diplomacy or was it an expression of divine providence and intervention? Without the appending of these passages we might conclude that Yaakov’s ingenuity alone accounts for his salvation. This was not Yaakov’s perspective. He understood that even the shrewdest diplomacy might not succeed in deflecting his brother’s anger. In the above passage He prays to Hashem to assist him. He recognized that his strategy would only succeed with the help of Hashem.

The appended passages demonstrate that Yaakov’s assessment was correct. It is possible that his plan succeeded in saving him from the immediate threat of the encounter. However, it is very unlikely that a week, month, or year later Yaakov’s diplomacy alone continued to placate his angry brother. We would expect that soon after his departure, Esav would begin to reconsider the encounter and wonder whether he had been too quick to forgive his devious brother. Yaakov was still nearby. Esav could have easily reversed his course and returned to destroy Yaakov. But he did not. Although Yaakov remained vulnerable, Esav did not return. Some unworldly force – the hand of Hashem – sustained the affect of Yaakov’s words and gestures toward his brother. Despite the passage of time, Esav’s anger remained quieted. He did not return to attack Yaakov.

[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 14:7.

[2] Rabbaynu Levi ben Gershon (Ralbag / Gershonides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 33:17.

[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 33:17.

[4] Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv), Commentary Hamek Davar on Sefer Beresheit 33:17.