The Battle of the Inclination: Another Look at the Struggle Between Jacob and Esau – Parashat Toldot

Contents of the Article

With God’s help

The Battle of the Inclination: Another Look at the Struggle Between Jacob and Esau

Introduction

We tend to describe Jacob as good from birth and Esau as born wicked. This is a problematic view, for it diminishes the stature of them both. On this picture, they are nothing more than products of their environment. But a human being is supposed to decide, for good or for ill. Let us try to see whether this is really the correct understanding of the struggle between Jacob and Esau, and likewise between good and evil.

The evil inclination as a given and as the result of choice

King Solomon writes:

‘Better a poor and wise youth than an old and foolish king’ (Ecclesiastes 4:13).

And Rashi there famously comments on this passage (drawing on Ecclesiastes Rabbah and other sources):

‘Better a poor and wise youth’ — this is the good inclination. And why is it called a youth? Because it does not come into a person until he is thirteen years old.

‘than an old and foolish king’ — this is the evil inclination, which rules over all the limbs. ‘Old’ — because from the moment the child is born it is present within him, as it is said: ‘sin crouches at the door.’

From here we may learn that there are two differences between the good inclination and the evil inclination: the good inclination is ‘poor,’ while the evil inclination is a ‘king.’ That is, the evil inclination rules over a person, whereas the good inclination is something the person rules over. The second difference is that the evil inclination is present in a person from his very creation, whereas the good inclination is present only from the age of thirteen. Do children below the age of religious majority not do good deeds? Let us try to explain these differences a bit, and how they appear in our parashah in relation to Jacob and Esau.

The Talmud relates that Antoninus asked Rabbi (Sanhedrin 91b):

Antoninus said to Rabbi: From when does the evil inclination rule a person — from conception or from birth? He said to him: From conception. He said to him: If so, would it not kick in its mother’s womb and come out? Rather, from birth. Rabbi said: Antoninus taught me this matter, and Scripture supports him, as it is said: ‘sin crouches at the door.’

In that same passage, Antoninus also asks Rabbi about the soul. But there the question is phrased differently:

From when is the soul given to a person?

Later authorities already noted that there is a shift in language here: regarding the evil inclination, the Talmud says that it ‘rules,’ whereas regarding the soul it says that it ‘is given.’ If so, the evil inclination rules us. By contrast, the soul is merely present within us. And this is indeed also precise in the midrash we saw above, where the evil inclination is called in the verse a ‘king,’ because it rules the limbs. It is a king by virtue of the dominion it possesses. By contrast, the good inclination is called ‘poor,’ because it has no dominion; it is only present in a person, while the person is the one who rules the situation. In fact, it is like the soul, of which the Talmud says only that it ‘is given’ within us.

This is also what Midrash Rabbah says (34:10):

The wicked are under the control of their heart: ‘The fool says in his heart’ (Ps. 14), ‘Esau said in his heart’ (Gen. 27), ‘Jeroboam said in his heart’ (I Kings 12), ‘Haman said in his heart’ (Esther 6). But the righteous have their heart under their control: ‘Hannah was speaking to her heart’ (I Sam. 1), ‘David said to his heart’ (I Sam. 27), ‘Daniel set it upon his heart’ (Dan. 1)…

Here too we see that the evil inclination functions like a king who rules a person. The wicked person allows it to rule, while the righteous person rules over it. It does not say here that just as the evil inclination rules the wicked person, so the good inclination rules the righteous one.

It is worth noting that, in fact, this passage is not even speaking specifically about the evil inclination. The subject is the ‘heart.’ The heart includes both inclinations, the good and the evil, together. The bad state is when a person is ruled by them, that is, when he lacks control. The good state is when the person rules over them.

This also emerges from Genesis Rabbah (34:10), where the same idea is brought in a somewhat different formulation:

Antoninus asked our Rabbi. He said to him: From when is the evil inclination placed in a person — from when he comes out of his mother’s womb, or before he comes out of his mother’s womb? He said to him: Before he comes out of his mother’s womb. He said to him: No, for if it were placed in him while he was in his mother’s womb, he would claw his way through her insides and come out. Rabbi conceded to him, aligning himself with the verse, as it is said: ‘for the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth.’ R. Yudan said: It may be read not as ‘from his youth’ but as ‘from the moment he stirs’ — from the hour he is shaken to emerge from his mother’s womb.

One should note that here the Sages use the expression ‘is given’ even with regard to the evil inclination. In addition, here Rabbi retracts his original view on the basis of another verse: ‘for the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth,’ and not on the basis of the verse ‘sin crouches at the door,’ as we saw in the Talmud.

So we see that there are two things about the evil inclination: it ‘is given’ within us, and it also ‘rules’ us. The fact that it is given within us is described in the verse: ‘for the inclination of a man’s heart is evil from his youth.’ And the fact that it rules a person is described in the verse: ‘sin crouches at the door.’

As we saw earlier, the fact that it rules us is bad, and constitutes ‘sin.’ The fact that it is given within us is merely a fact, and is not necessarily a sin. And indeed, this is also what one sees from the verses brought in those two sources.

The verse brought in the Talmud comes from what God says to Cain after his sin (Gen. 4:7):

‘And the Lord said to Cain: Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? Surely, if you do well, there is uplift; but if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet you may rule over it.’

By contrast, the verse brought in the midrash is said after the Flood (Gen. 8:21):

‘And the Lord smelled the pleasing odor, and the Lord said in His heart: I will not again curse the ground on account of man, for the inclination of man’s heart is evil from his youth; nor will I again strike every living thing as I have done.’

The first verse speaks about sin, whose root is a person’s lack of control over his deeds: ‘you may rule over it.’ The second verse deals with the reality of an evil inclination within man, and is said precisely as a reason for pardon and mitigation of punishment. The fact that it ‘is given’ within us is a reason for leniency; the fact that it ‘rules’ us is a reason for stringency.

The required conclusion is that the principal battle between good and evil within a person is not between goodness and wickedness, but between control and lack of control.

If we summarize what has emerged so far:

The mere existence of the evil inclination is not bad in itself. It is simply present within us, exactly like the good inclination. Together, the two make up the ‘heart.’

Evil is the state in which the heart — that is, the two inclinations — rules over us.

Good is the state in which we rule over the heart.

From here we can explain the questions raised earlier: both inclinations are present within us, ‘given’ within us, even before the age of thirteen. But at that age we are still in a state of being ruled. We do not yet possess full choice. The Sages tell us that the fact that a child performs good deeds before age thirteen — which is certainly true — stems from the inclination’s control over him, in that case the good inclination, and not from his control over his inclinations. At that age we are under the authority of our heart. Therefore, from the moment we emerge from the womb, our condition is a condition of evil: we are ruled. But only at age thirteen does a person begin to act מתוך full choice, and then his heart can be under his authority. That is what enters him at age thirteen: choice, that is, the capacity to rule the heart.

The symmetry in the description of the struggle between Jacob and Esau in our parashah

We can now approach our parashah. The most striking feature in the description of Jacob and Esau here, and even afterward, is the constant struggle and the opposition between them. In fact, up until Jacob and Esau we do not find such a sharp description of a struggle between good and evil. Later too, this struggle is conducted chiefly between the people of Israel, who are Jacob’s descendants, and Amalek and Edom, who are Esau’s descendants.

The Sages note that Israel and Amalek are both called ‘first’: ‘Israel is holy to the Lord, the firstfruits of His produce’ (Jer. 2:3). By contrast, ‘Amalek is the first of the nations’ (Num. 24:20). Both constitute beginnings, or roots, of the two opposing sides, and therefore the struggle between good and evil in the world also begins with them.

Now it is interesting to notice that in the Torah itself one does not clearly see that Esau was wicked and Jacob righteous. They have different characters — a wholesome man dwelling in tents, as opposed to a hunter in the field — but in Scripture itself there is no clear value judgment between them. The Sages, by contrast, relate to Esau as the root of evil and to Jacob as the root of good.

Our claim is that in truth there are two different kinds of relation between Jacob and Esau. On the one hand, they are very similar to one another. They were born with identical possibilities and identical talents. Either one could have been the good one, and could also have prevailed over the other. But, as becomes clear over the course of events, alongside that they are also different and opposite in the essence they choose — not in what was placed within them, but in the mastery they chose — and therefore they stand in necessary opposition to one another. We will now try to show this from the verses and from the Sages.

The contrast and struggle between Jacob and Esau are very prominent. Already in their mother’s womb they jostle one another, this one toward study halls and that one toward houses of idolatry. Their struggle continues in the sale of the birthright, in the taking of the blessings, and at the end of the road, in Parashat Vayishlah, they separate and do not see one another again, until the time when ‘deliverers shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau.’ Later in history too, their descendants meet several times and wage war against one another: Amalek, who is of Esau’s seed, and Israel, who are Jacob’s seed.

One can see that this phenomenon is fixed even before their birth. Already in God’s words to Rebecca at the beginning of the parashah it is said:

‘And the Lord said to her: Two nations are in your womb, and two peoples shall be separated from your entrails; one people shall be stronger than the other, and the elder shall serve the younger.’

And Rashi comments on this:

‘shall be separated from your entrails’ — from the womb they are separated, this one to his wickedness and that one to his innocence.

And likewise in Rashi on the continuation of the same verse:

‘one people shall be stronger than the other’ — they will not be equal in greatness. When this one rises, that one falls. And so it says, ‘I shall be filled from the ruined city’ (Ezek. 26). Tyre was filled only through the destruction of Jerusalem.

The description up to this point is symmetrical, and it contains no judgment. What is established here is only a built-in opposition between the two of them. So too we find in Megillah 6a, which expounds the verse ‘one people shall be stronger than the other’:

Caesarea and Jerusalem. If a person tells you that both were destroyed, do not believe him. That Caesarea was destroyed and Jerusalem flourished, or that Jerusalem was destroyed and Caesarea flourished — believe him, as it is said: ‘I shall be filled from the ruined city.’ If this one is full, that one is ruined; and if that one is full, this one is ruined. Rav Nahman bar Yitzhak said: This too is derived from here: ‘one people shall be stronger than the other.’

However, despite the clear opposition that the Sages point to between Jerusalem and Caesarea, the Talmud does not indicate which of them will prevail and which will be destroyed. Nor is it clear who here is good and who evil. Everything appears open, except for the fact that there is an unavoidable confrontation. That is, the opposition we saw earlier does not contradict the fact that there is equality of opportunity between them. There is opposition, but it is not clear in whose favor, or which of them will win.

There is one exception, in the continuation of the verse, where a determination seems to be made as to the victorious side: ‘and the elder shall serve the younger.’ Here it appears that God determines Jacob’s superiority in advance. But on closer inspection one can see that this is not so. A clear proof of this lies in the Talmud we cited earlier, where the situation of Jerusalem destroyed and Rome flourishing appears as a real possibility. We are supposed to believe it. If it had really been predetermined that the elder would serve the younger, such a situation could never occur. So it seems clear that the Sages understood that even the continuation of the verse still does not clarify who will belong to which side: who will win and who will lose, who will be superior and who subordinate, who will be good and who evil.

In fact, one may say that the question is: who here is the ‘elder’ and who is the ‘younger’? Esau is older in years, but the birthright was acquired by Jacob, apparently by deception as well. So one may ask whether ‘elder’ means the one older in age, or the firstborn. That is not entirely clear. Therefore, the Sages in the Megillah passage we cited indeed say that there is equality between Esau and Jacob, and the verse does not determine who is superior and who is inferior. Both can win, and both can lose.

A proof for this may be brought from Maimonides. The verse says (Gen. 28:1, 3-4):

And Isaac called Jacob and blessed him, and charged him, and said to him: You shall not take a wife from the daughters of Canaan… and may He make you into an assembly of peoples, and may He give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your seed with you, to inherit the land of your sojournings…

Maimonides, Laws of Kings 10:7, learns from this verse the law that Esau’s descendants are exempt from circumcision:

Abraham was commanded regarding circumcision, and only his seed as well, as it is said: ‘you and your seed after you throughout their generations.’ Excluded is the seed of Ishmael, as it is said: ‘through Isaac shall seed be called to you.’ Excluded as well is Esau, for Isaac said to Jacob: ‘and may He give you the blessing of Abraham, to you and to your seed.’ This implies that he alone is Abraham’s seed who upholds his faith and upright path, and they are the ones obligated in circumcision.

If so, Maimonides learns from the verse ‘through Isaac shall seed be called to you’ that Ishmael is not obligated in circumcision. And from the verse in our parashah, where Isaac blesses Jacob, he learns Esau’s exemption from circumcision.

The Brisker Rav, on our parashah, cites that his father, R. Chaim, raised a difficulty against Maimonides from Nedarim 31a, and also Sanhedrin 59b. There the Talmud derives Esau’s exemption from an exposition of the first verse: ‘through Isaac’ — but not all of Isaac. If so, why does Maimonides cite a different verse from the one used by the Talmud?

R. Chaim answers and explains that Maimonides holds that both verses are needed. If there were only the verse ‘through Isaac,’ then we would know only that one of Isaac’s sons is obligated in circumcision and the other is exempt. But we would not know which of them is obligated and which exempt. Therefore we also need the verse in which Isaac tells Jacob that he will be the continuation of Abraham’s seed who are obligated in circumcision. R. Chaim adds that the second verse by itself would also not suffice, because from it we might understand that all of Isaac’s sons are obligated in this commandment.

It follows from this that in the very decree of God, ‘through Isaac shall seed be called to you’ — and not all of Isaac — there is already embedded the statement that only one of his sons will be regarded as Abraham’s seed. But it is not fixed which of the two that one will be. Only from the moment Isaac blesses Jacob is it determined that Jacob is the continuation, and accordingly Esau is the one who goes outside the circle. This is exactly what we saw above.

Jacob and Esau, from birth, possess entirely equal status. But there is a prior determination that only one of them will be Abraham’s continuation. The struggle is over who that one will be. Only in the course of their lives does it become clear who chose which side; only then does it become clear that Jacob is Abraham’s continuation and Esau is pushed outside.

The Brisker Rav there adds, on this basis, an explanation of the verse in Joshua:

‘And I took your father Abraham… and I gave him Isaac, and to Isaac I gave Jacob and Esau.’

That is, Isaac received both of them, unlike Abraham, who received only Isaac and not Ishmael.

So too the prophet Malachi says, in the haftarah of Toldot:

‘Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? says the Lord. Yet I loved Jacob, and Esau I hated…’

Here too one sees that the initial state is that they are both brothers. They are equal. Only later, through their deeds, it becomes clear that one chooses evil and the other good.

In another formulation, the Sages say (Kiddushin 18a) that Esau is an apostate Israelite. He was born an Israelite, and by his deeds and his choice he exchanged his religion. Esau is in fact the only Jew who could succeed in becoming a gentile, that is, in becoming a true apostate. For anyone else this is impossible; the apostate remains Jewish.

The explanation of the symmetry and the imposed struggle

Why, in truth, does God create so strange a situation, in which there are between Esau and Jacob two relations so apparently contradictory to one another? Why does He impose a struggle upon them? In order to understand this, let us bring another example, later on in the struggle between Amalek and Israel: the conflict between Haman and Mordecai on Purim.

R. Yitzhak Hutner, in Pahad Yitzhak on Purim, asks why one must become intoxicated on Purim until one no longer knows the difference between ‘cursed be Haman’ and ‘blessed be Mordecai.’ Surely the service of the day ought to have been precisely to distinguish between Haman, who is Amalek, and Mordecai, who is Israel. He explains that a similar phenomenon exists in the case of the two goats on Yom Kippur. One goes to Azazel, and the other goes into the innermost sanctuary, the Holy of Holies in the Temple. And yet the Mishnah says that they must be identical in height, weight, and value. We are to make them as equal as possible.

The explanation of these two questions is one and the same. In order to distinguish well between two things, one must compare them as much as possible. In R. Yitzhak Hutner’s language: ‘the deeper the comparison, the deeper the distinction.’ In order to sharpen the one truly important difference, all the other differences must be blurred. This is exactly the phenomenon we see in our parashah. On the one hand, God makes them equal to one another in every respect. And on the other hand, He demands of us that we distinguish between them and oppose them to one another. These are not two contradictory demands, but demands in which one completes the other. The two kinds of relation between Esau and Jacob likewise do not contradict one another, but complete one another.

Therefore each of them must act separately. For if one rises, the other falls, and vice versa. He cannot cooperate with his brother, but at most distance himself from him. This is indeed what Jacob does in their last meeting, when he says: ‘until I come to my lord in Seir’ (Gen. 33:14). And the Sages said, in Genesis Rabbah here, that this will be only in the future, when the verse ‘deliverers shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau’ is fulfilled. He distances himself from Esau, and does not meet him again.

Throughout history too, one sees that although there is a commandment to fight Amalek, ordinarily we do not really fight them. We leave the task to God. This is exactly what the verse says explicitly: ‘The Lord has war with Amalek from generation to generation.’ It is His war, not ours. Let us bring two examples:

1. When Jacob prepares with a gift, with prayer, and with war for his encounter with Esau, in the end Esau comes and kisses him, and afterward they separate and each goes his own way. No war actually took place.

2. Even when a war is already taking place, immediately after the exodus from Egypt, everything depends on God: ‘And it would be, whenever Moses raised his hand, Israel prevailed…’ When we return to the proper path, to faith in God, then the war is decided of itself.

The reason for this is the same law that God fixed in creation: there is a necessary and natural opposition between Jacob and Esau, or Amalek. We do not need to fight Amalek directly; we need only strive to be the ‘greater one.’ Consequently, Esau or Amalek become the ‘younger.’ This is not a direct war, but simply the fulfillment of our role. The result is achieved automatically.

This law of nature is described by the Sages in the well-known dictum, see Rashi to Gen. 33:4:

It is an established rule: Esau hates Jacob.

This is probably the meaning of the verse ‘The Lord has war with Amalek.’ The way God fights His war with Amalek is by fixing the law that when Israel does what is incumbent upon them, Amalek disappears of itself. There is here something like a law of nature, built into creation: if Israel is above, Esau is below, and vice versa. This law of nature does not depend on choice. Choice determines only who will be on the side of the good, and accordingly who will win. But the fact that there is a struggle, and that each is the opposite of the other, is imposed upon us.

The state in the future: ‘both flourish’

Precisely against the background of this constant struggle, one must notice a very interesting and very strange fact. The Talmud in Megillah that we cited earlier, which describes the struggle between Caesarea and Jerusalem, brings only three situations, omitting the fourth possibility. The Talmud does not address at all the state in which Jerusalem and Caesarea both flourish.

It seems that such a state is different. One cannot affirm it as part of ordinary reality, yet neither can one deny its existence. In principle, this state is theoretically possible, but not practically so. Apparently, in the future this will indeed be the state.

There is another hint in the words of the Sages toward such a state. Rashi in our parashah, on that very verse, brings the Sages’ exposition (Avodah Zarah 11a):

‘Two nations are in your womb’ — the word for ‘nations’ is written defectively, allowing it to be read as ‘nobles.’ These are Antoninus and Rabbi, from whose table neither radishes nor lettuce ever ceased, neither in the days of summer nor in the days of winter.

Antoninus is a descendant of Esau, for Rome is Edom, and Rabbi is a descendant of Jacob. Yet these two, specifically, maintained very close relations, and both were righteous. In the Jerusalem Talmud, tractate Megillah, there is even a dispute as to whether Antoninus converted. This describes precisely a state in which Rome and Jerusalem, or Esau and Jacob, both stand on the same level.

In fact, this is a state in which Jerusalem and Caesarea both ‘flourish.’ And indeed, we saw above that despite the constant struggle and fixed opposition between Jacob and Esau, such a state is not ruled out in God’s words. It is theoretically possible. Two private individuals accomplished it, but it does not appear in the Talmud as one of the practical possibilities, because it does not belong to our present world. When someone tells you, ‘Caesarea and Jerusalem both flourish,’ believe him. But know that the Messiah has arrived. Without the Messiah’s arrival, do not believe it. After all, there is a law of nature, an established rule: Esau hates Jacob.

The meaning of this is that when evil prevails over good, that is victory in war. But when good prevails over evil, evil disappears and merges with the good. This is not victory by force, but by absorption. Then it will become clear that even evil was, in essence, good. Therefore we saw that the wars with Amalek are not wars of decisive conquest, but a lifting of the eyes upward. The goal is to include him within the good, not to destroy him. On this the Sages said: ‘Let sins cease, not sinners.’ This is probably the intention of the verse: ‘deliverers shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esau.’ Then there will be fulfilled: ‘Amalek was the first of nations, but his end is eternal destruction.’ In the future, when the good is completed, evil will disappear by itself. It will merge with the good and be swallowed up in it.

And what of the law of nature, ‘Esau hates Jacob’? When the wolf dwells with the lamb, then although the world will continue in its ordinary course, the law of nature according to which good always fights evil will be annulled. Then they will merge, and then, if you hear that Caesarea and Jerusalem both flourish, believe it.

A note about Esau

Throughout history, Esau tries to restore the situation to its original state. There are several sources from which it emerges that Esau is not seeking the birthright, but equality. For example, the Talmud in Sotah 13a describes Jacob’s burial in the Cave of Machpelah. Esau arrives there and contests Jacob’s burial in that place, claiming that it is his right. In the course of the discussion there, Esau claims that Jacob buried Leah there and by that lost his portion, so that Esau deserves one portion corresponding to his own. The sons argue against him that he sold the birthright to Jacob, and then Esau claims:

Granted that I sold the birthright, did I sell my ordinary share?

Esau claims that he sold only the privilege of the firstborn portion, but what he means is that now both of them are ordinary heirs. That is, he sold Jacob his birthright, but he did not agree that Jacob himself should become the firstborn.

And so too we find in Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer, chapter 38:

Esau said to Jacob: Let us divide all that father left into two portions, and I will choose, for I am the firstborn.

That is, Esau claims that they are both in an equal position, and now he has the right to choose because in reality he is the older one, as we saw above, and the verse itself calls him the ‘elder’ when it says: ‘and the elder shall serve the younger.’

If so, Esau aspires to restore the initial state, in which he and Jacob are equal. He is not claiming that the birthright should be returned to him. See also Beit HaLevi on our parashah, beginning with the words ‘In Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer.’

Back to the earlier questions about good and evil

In fact, Jacob and Esau may be seen as examples of the struggle between the good and evil inclinations. The choice is free: whether to rule over the heart, or let it rule over us. Only when Jacob and Esau grow up do they choose, and only then does it become clear who is evil and who is good.

The Torah says (Gen. 25:27):

And the boys grew up. And Esau became a man skilled in hunting, a man of the field. And Jacob was a wholesome man, dwelling in tents.

And Rashi says about this:

As long as they were small, they were not distinguishable by their deeds, and no one scrutinizes children to determine their character. Once they became thirteen years old, this one departed to study halls, and that one departed to idolatry.

If so, what we see in Jacob and Esau is exactly what we saw above regarding the good inclination and the evil inclination. At age thirteen a person becomes one who chooses. Only then is he defined as good or evil, and only then does he have a path. Just as Jacob is considered Abraham’s seed only by virtue of his deeds when he grows up and reaches the age of obligation, so God gives each of us at age thirteen the power to overcome and rule the heart, or the inclinations, and only then can we have a path and direction of our own.

That choice must be made by us. If someone is endowed with an innately good character, that has no value in itself. From birth, everything is open. A good person is one who decided and chose the good and rules his inclinations. As it is between Esau and Jacob, so it is also between our own two inclinations.

Source (Google Doc): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1bek6b-0yTDWSjgEnid7JiC4mce0uE1MI/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=103054435058019085063&rtpof=true&sd=true