Bereshit 25:23 (Toledot) – Did the all the aspects in the oracle told to Rivka occur?

בראשית כה:כג - ויאמר ה' לה "שני גיים בבטנך ושני לאמים ממעיך יפרדו ולאם מלאם יאמץ ורב יעבד צעיר." 

Bereshit 25:23 records the oracle told to Rivka when she was pregnant about the future of her children, who would be Yaakov and Esav. The oracle consists of one verse in the Torah, and within the verse, there are four elements or parts to the oracle. The first two elements are that there were two nations in Rivka’s womb and that these two nations would separate. While it is not exactly clear what this separation entailed, these statements were actualized with the emergence of the Jewish people and Edom who lived in different areas, and only the Jewish people made a covenant with G-d. The third element of the oracle, uleom muleom yeamtaz, people over people shall prevail (Alter 2004, p. 129, translation) was actualized by the fight between Yaakov and Esav, 32:25-30. The fourth and final line of the oracle is ve-rav yaavod tzair, which refers to Rivka’s eldest son (Esav) and younger son (Yaakov) serving or working. Was this line ever actualized?

The traditional understanding of the fourth element in the oracle is that the phrase means that Esav was destined to serve Yaakov. Based on this understanding, Ibn Ezra (on 25:23 and on 27:40), quotes Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon that the oracle was fulfilled when Esav left the land of Canaan and went to Seir, 36:6. However, Ibn Ezra rejects this possibility since 33:3 records that Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, which suggests that it was Yaakov who was serving Esav. I doubt that this bowing down by Yaakov was that significant since afterwards, Yaakov declined Esav's offer to follow him to Seir, 33:12,13 which shows that Yaakov did not view himself as being subservient to Esav. Note, while this bowing down could have been to show that Yaakov was “giving” Yitzhak’s blessings back to Esav, this would not necessarily mean that he viewed himself as being subservient to Esav. Accordingly, maybe R. Saadiah Gaon is correct since when Esav left the land of Israel this was showing that he was subservient to Yaakov. Yet, one could claim that when Esav was in Seir and Yaakov lived in Canaan, both were living independent of each other and not serving one or the other.

Radak (on 25:23) notes that the fourth aspect of the oracle can be understood in two ways, that Esav will serve Yaakov, or that Yaakov will serve Esav. Furthermore, he claims that both interpretations were fulfilled, but not in the lifetimes of Yaakov and Esav. He suggests that the interpretation that Esav would serve Yaakov was fulfilled when David conquered Edom, Samuel II 8:14, and the interpretation that Yaakov would serve Esav was fulfilled when the Christians ruled over the Jews since Chazal view Rome as being the descendants of Esav and Christianity as being the successor to the Romans. I doubt this historical approach since the oracle should refer to events in the Torah and not afterwards, and in this case, it appears that the oracle relates specifically to Rivka's children.

A third possibility to understanding the fourth element of the oracle is to combine the views of the Radak in the second approach with Ibn Ezra’s view discussed in the first approach. This combination would follow the Radak’s idea that the fourth element of the oracle could be understood to mean that Yaakov would serve Esav, and then one can follow the Ibn Ezra’s idea that when Yaakov bowed down to Esav seven times, this showed that Yaakov was being subservient to Esav. My problem with this possibility is that as mentioned above, I think Yaakov’s bowing down was a formality and did not indicate that he was subservient to Esav, and my impression is that the correct understanding of the fourth element of the oracle is the traditional approach that Esav would serve Yaakov.

A fourth possibility to understanding the fourth element of the oracle is that the oracle was conditional. Thus, Rav Huna (Bereshit Rabbah 63:7) argues that the oracle was conditional, that if Yaakov was worthy, Esav would serve him, but if he was not worthy then he would serve Esav. This idea would be similar to the prophecy told to Yonah, who told the people of Ninveh, that in forty days the city would be overthrown, Jonah 3:4, and the city was not destroyed. One could vary this idea, that if Yaakov was not worthy, then the prophecy would not occur at all. Accordingly, maybe since Yaakov stole the blessings, then the last element of the oracle was not fulfilled. However, the oracle seems unconditional unlike by Yonah where the point of the prophecy was to be a warning.

A fifth possibility is that maybe the fourth element of the oracle was fulfilled when Esav went to Edom, but Edom was not serving Yaakov by leaving the land of Israel. Devarim 2:22 records that Esav captured the land of Seir, and the land of Seir was called Edom apparently after Esav's other name Edom. Yet, when Bereshit 36:31-39 records a list of kings of Edom, neither Esav nor his sons appear in the land. Esav conquered the land, but he was not king. Instead, somebody else, who surely from Esav's perspective was a “Johnny come lately” became king. Thus, Esav and/ or his descendants had to serve this king, who from his perspective was his junior. Note, 25:23 does not record the words "the younger," implying Yaakov, but "younger," which could be anybody who was younger. This idea could also explain why the Torah records these kings, see our discussion on Chapter 36, “The rise and fall of Esav.”

According to this fifth approach, Rivka understood correctly that the older son, Esav was to do the serving, but she misunderstood who he was to serve. This is very common in literature that the oracle is only understood in the end of the story. Furthermore, maybe she was not given the correct interpretation as a punishment for asking about the future (see Rashi on 25:22) which was an inappropriate question.

I think the last phrase of the oracle is referring specifically to Esav and Yaakov and not to Esav's descendants. Thus, we are left that either the oracle was not completely fulfilled (see Benno Jacob, 174, p. 167) or R. Saadiah Gaon's approach.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis: Commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.