Contrary to popular belief, Mark Twain never actually said that history rhymes. He did however write that “History never repeats itself, but the Kaleidoscopic combinations of the pictured present often seem to be constructed out of the broken fragments of antique legends.” Whatever he said, though, history has a way of working in parallel paths. Not to notice the similarities of those paths is to miss history’s lessons. Not to see their differences is to misunderstand its lessons.
In this light, many wonder how Ya’akov could make the same ‘mistake’ as his father, to favor one child over another. After all, many of the troubles that plagued him were the result of his own father, Yitzchak, favoring Esav and wanting to give him an edge that both Ya’akov and Rivkah felt undeserved.
Let us first admit that it is humanly impossible to have exactly the same feelings towards two individuals. But as children mature, they realize that this is simply the way the world is set up. And so as they grow older, they come to terms with parental favoritism towards one of their siblings. There is one notable exception to this – sibling rivalry rarely abates when it is based on injustice or deception. Hence, to the extent that there was an appearance of Esav fooling his father, it was inevitable that it would create discord.
The theme of the havoc created by a sibling who manipulates a parent into giving them more than they deserve is not limited to the Bible. It is a literary theme which some of us may remember from Shakespeare’s King Lear. It is true that whereas Lear was clearly deceived by his two oldest daughters, it is much less obvious whether Yitzchak ‘s affection for Esav was based on anything beyond his own well-grounded calculations. The Torah keeps it purposefully unclear by telling us that it was coming from Esav’s venison in Yitzchak’s mouth. While this could be understood as a type of bribe, it could just as easily be understood as an appreciation that Yitzchak had for his son’s devotion to family and his practical ability to get things done. These were qualities that could certainly be put to good use. Even so, Esav was trying to impress his father, who had, in turn, never clarified what his motivations were in wanting to advantage his oldest son. Hence, Ya’akov and Rivkah had good reasons to assume the worst.
When it came time for Ya’akov to determine how to treat his own children, he would certainly not repeat this pattern. If there was a son of inferior character he would pick up on it and certainly not respond with favoritism. But since Yosef did not show Esav’s bad characteristics, Ya’akov believed that there was no way his other sons would attribute his special treatment of Yosef to the latter deceiving his father. Hence, there was no problem in giving Yosef the treatment that naturally emanated from their relationship.
In spite of Ya’akov sense of clarity, however, things were actually more complex. Whereas Yaakov saw all of the differences between his brother and his favored son, his other sons may have seen something else. And they saw something true. Like Esav, Yosef would also help his father and he would also soon show how capable he was. Yet also like Esav, he had a dangerous drive to push his competitors aside. Since they were the ones being pushed aside, the brothers could not miss this. In fact, the extent to which they didn’t miss it is shown by the fact that they even contemplated Yosef’s execution. As I have elaborated upon elsewhere, this is why the rabbis saw Yosef as Esav’s nemesis – Yosef could defeat Esav precisely because he understood him.
As mentioned, the problem comes when we see the similarities of situations without noting their differences, or – conversely – when we see the differences but miss the similarities. Yet there is an even greater wisdom than picking up on all of the similarities and differences of different situations.
That wisdom is learning to compensate for how others may interpret the data at hand. Had Ya’akov been more reflective, he would have more carefully evaluated the obvious ambivalence the brothers showed towards Yosef. Had the brothers been more open-minded, they would have tried to imagine how Ya’akov might have seen things. That such giants failed in this regard show how difficult it is to acquire and apply this wisdom. Difficult though it may be, the upshot is really clear. Making sacred space for the perceptions – and even misperceptions – of others is the only way to true peace.