Think Small

The Parshios of the Avos Hakedoshim are meant to teach us not only about our past, but also about our present and future. We can use the Pessukim that discuss the actions of our Avos as a guide to how we are to comport ourselves in similar situations, tapping into the concept of Maseh Avos Siman L’Banim. This is especially true when it comes to the interactions between Yaakov and Esav, as we have in Parshas Vayishlach. Because we still face Esav to this day—in ever increasing measures it seems—understanding the way that Yaakov approached any contact with his brother is instructional on a very practical level. That said, we must assume that the Hafotrah associated with this Parsha has a similar theme—by carefully reading its words we can perhaps develop strategies that are helpful in our ongoing battle with Esav and his minions.

The Haftorah for Parshas Vayishlach is unique, as we Lein the entirety of Sefer Ovadiah. As we learn the Pessukim it is not hard to see why this Sefer was chosen by Chazal to be connected with our Sedra: the sole Nevuah of Ovadiah relates to Esav and his ultimate fate.

The Navi begins with the words “Ko Amar...L’Edom”, but as Metzudos points out, the Nevuah is not said to Edom, but Edom. The rest of the Pessukim convey a clear message: while the offspring of Esav are our main adversaries, the day will come when they will pay for their deeds. For example, the Navi tells us: “Im Tagbiah KaNesher…Misham Oridecha”, while Esav may dwell as high as an eagle, it is from that spot that Hashem will pull them down. There are many such examples of allegory within the Pessukim that bring home the same message, reinforcing the fact that the Ratzon Hashem will of course triumph over even our most hated enemies.

While the Nevuah speaks about the “Yom HaHu”, the ultimate Yom HaDin that will arrive L’Asid Lavo, perhaps within its words we can find a message that will help us even today, as Esav still reigns supreme.

The first denigration that the Navi levels against Edom, which comes in the second Passuk of the Haftorah speaks about Esav’s stature: “Hinei Katan Nisatecha Bagoyim Bazui Attah Me’od”. Although Edom may have a high opinion of itself, it is actually a small and mocked nation.

It is not immediately clear what the term “Katan” means. Does the Navi speak literally, referring to this refer to the size of Edom in terms of land or population, or is it a figurative term, meaning that the Bnei Esav are in some other way small?

The Chid”a, in Chomas Onach, brings perhaps the most literal Pshat in the word Kattan. The Medrash tells us that Chushim ben Dan decapitated Esav at the time of the Kevurah of Yaakov and the Chid”a adds that the Mekubalim say that his legs were lobbed off as well. Thus, he concludes that Esav was in fact “Katan”: his corporal existence was diminutive because so many of his limbs were removed by Chushim.

Although this is a strikingly simple approach to the word “Kattan” the remainder of the words of the Chid”a are based in Sod, reminding us that sometimes the most literal approach is not the most basic.

The Gemara in Avoda Zara, cited by Rashi here, explains the terms “Katan” and “Bazui” in the figurative sense. They are Katan because they did not have their own written language—they borrowed from others—and they are Bazui because they do not have a hereditary monarchy—their Melucha is not passed down from father to son. According to the Gemarah, the Passuk is then speaking about the way Edom is perceived among the nation of the world: a healthy self-image, they are actually mocked and maligned by those around them.

This is perhaps the Pashut Pshat in the words Katan and Baui, but leads to a question: why does the Passuk say “Nisaticha”, which seems to indicate that Hashem caused them to be Katan and Bazui? The aspects of Edom mentioned in the Gemarah seem self afflicted, and not the result of a direct intervention by HKBH. What then is the meaning of the word Nisaticha?

Perhaps owing to this point, Rashi brings a different Pshat in these words, before mentioning the Gemarah.

In Parshas Vayishlach, when Yitzchok wished to give the Brachos to his Bechor, the Torah tells us: “VaYikra Es Esav Bno Hagadol”. Similarly, when Rivka gave the vestments of Esav to Yaakov the Passuk says: “Vatikach Rivka Es Bigdei Esav Binah HaGadol”. The Medrash Rabba there makes an astonishing statement: “Amar Lahem HKBH Im B’Eineichem Hu Gadol B’Eiynai Hu Katan”. Hashem says to Yitzchok and Rivka, Kaveyachol, that although they see him as the a Gadol, Hashem sees him as a Katan. The Medrash then quotes the Passuk in our Haftorah, “Hinei Katan Nisatecha Bagoyim”, which indicates that Hashem views Edom as a Katan.

Rashi on our Passuk quotes this Medrash, explaining not only what Katan means, but perhaps also the reason that the word “Nisatecha” is used. This indicates that the stature of Esav is a direct effect of the regard in which he is held in the eyes of HKBH: he is and will always be a Kattan.

Although this approach helps us understand Pshat in the words of the Navi, there is a significant question to be asked on the Medrash, and especially on the way Rashi quotes the Medrash.

In neither Passuk does one of Esav’s parents speak—both times it seems that the Torah is referring to Esav as the older son. True the word “VaYikra” is used in the Passuk referring to Yitzchok, but the words “Es Esav” understood to be “to Esav”, in which case the Torah is then referring to him as Bno HaGadol”. In the Passuk that speaks about Rivka this is certainly true—the Torah there is describing the clothing of Esav, and no words are spoken. Why then does the Medrash seem to fault Yitzchok and Rivka for referring to Esav in this way? Even more difficult is that Rashi uses the words “Klapei SheKaru”, because they called him, which we do not see to be the case. How can we understand this?

Before trying to explain the words of the Medrash and Rashi, let us look at one more explanation of the words “Hinei Katan Nisatecha Bagoyim” that appears in the Meforshim.

Radak explains that Kattan itself means lowly and humiliated, quoting the words of Yaakov Avinu in this week’s Parsha: “Katonti M’Kol HaChasadim U’Mikol HaEmes”. It is interesting that Radak sees the need to quote this Passuk—what does it add to his explanation of the word “Kattan” which seems to be pretty straightforward. That the word “Kattan” is understood as “Shafel”, low, does not seem to be a great Chiddush, what do the words from Parshas Vayishlach.

It seem that in order to properly understand this Passuk, we must have a better understanding of the essence of Edom.

The Pessukim in Parshas Lech Lecha tell us about a seminal moment in the fate of our nation: the Bris Bein HaBesarim. While most of us know a great deal about the Bris portion of the Pessukim—what Hashem promised Avrohom on that night, and what it means for us—we do not know as much about the “Bein HaBesarim” part. Hashem told Avrohom to take calf, a goat and a ram as well as a dove and a pigeon, and the Passuk tells us that he cut each in half, except the two birds. Obviously these actions were not merely ceremonial, but had very deep meaning that can teach us a lesson. Indeed there are a number of Medrashim that explain what each of these creatures represented, and why they were cut in half.

Relevant to our discussion is a Medrah Rabbah there which assigns a connection between each of the animals and one of the four kingdoms that have been our adversaries over the millennia. The calf, goat and ram are connected to Bavel, Madai and Yavan, respectively. The Medrash continues, stating that the two birds represent Edom. It emerges, then that the only one of the Malchios that was not split, that remained whole, was Malchus Edom, the descendants of Esav. Obviously this requires explanation: why is Edom connected to the Tor and Gozel, and why was it not split, as the Passuk tells us “V’Es HaTzipor Lo Basar”?

The Maharal, in his Pirush on the Hagaddah called Gevuros Hashem, explains this Medrash with an insight into the nature of Edom. He notes that in order for something to be split, it must be of a certain size—if it is too diminutive cutting it in half would essentially destroy it. Edom, as we have seen in our Passuk, is by its very nature a Kattan, small, and was is therefore not split, “V’Es HaTzipor Lo Basar”.

The Maharal continues, telling us that is a Sod Gadol in the Inyan of Edom: “Hu Uma Pechusa B’Atzmah Ela She’hi Gozeles.” Edom is a small and insignificant nation, but it steals from others. This of course explains why Edom is connected to the birds used in the Bris Bein HaBesarim, the Gozel, which comes from the same word as Gezel, theft. The Maharal adds that just as whatever possessions a thief has come from Sheker, so to whatever Chashivus is assigned to Edom is not their own.

It is not immediately clear how this works, however. How does one “steal” Chashivus? If the Pechisus and lowliness of Edom is manifest, how do they take from others to become Chashuv?

Perhaps we can answer based on the Medrash in Parshas Vayishlach: “Amar Lahem HKBH Im B’Eineichem Hu Gadol B’Eiynai Hu Katan.” Even if Yitzchok and Rivka did not refer to Esav as the Ben HaGadol in speech, on some level they saw him as such. Even if it was only by dint of biological realty—he was in fact older—it existed nonetheless. The Medrash, and Rashi on the Passuk in Ovadiah, are telling us that when it comes to Esav, this itself is dangerous.

Esav is an Uma Pechusa B’Atzmah, they are essentially worthless. How then do they become Chashuv—by convincing us to see them as such. The Koach of Esav comes from others—from us. The more we fall into the trap of “B’Eineichem Hu Gadol”, the bigger he becomes. We give Edom their ill-deserved Kavod, and they grow in stature from there.

Perhaps this is why Radak refers to the Passuk in this week’s Parsha. He himself explains those words, in his Pirush on Chumash, that Yaakov was saying that his own Maasim Tovim did not match up to the level of Chesed and Emes that he had received from Hashem. Yaakov knew that true Chashivus is earned through Maasim Tovim, and felt himself a Kattan. Edom is of course lacking in those Maasim Tovim and is therefore B’Etzem a Kattan.

When faced with the realities of our world, we often ask ourselves how we to approach the strength and power that Esav has in our world. Perhaps this Hafotrah teaches us the answer: the more we are Machshiv Edom, the greater he becomes. If we see Edom for what it truly is, they have no way to be Gozel the Chashivus they crave and are thus relegated to their true status of Katan Nisatecha Bagoyim.