From the very outset, it is clear that Jacob and Joseph share a special connection: “This is the lineage of Jacob ¬¬– Joseph, was seventeen years old…” (Genesis 37:2). The midrash further demonstrates how the story of Jacob is the story of Joseph:

“This is the lineage of Jacob ¬¬– Joseph”. The Bible should not have said it thus, but rather “This is the lineage of Jacob – Reuben”. What do we learn from this? That everything that befell the one befell the other: Just as this one was born circumcised, so this one was born circumcised; just as this one’s mother was barren, so the this one’s mother was barren; just as this one’s mother bore two, so this one’s mother bore two; just as this one was the firstborn, so this one was the firstborn; just as this one’s mother had difficulty in labor, so this one’s mother had difficulty in labor; just as this one was despised by his brother, so this one was despised by his brothers; just as the brother of the one sought to kill him, so the brothers of the other sought to kill him; just as one was a shepherd, so was the other; this one was grudged and this one was grudged; this one was robbed twice, and this one was robbed twice; this one was blessed with wealth, and this one was blessed with wealth; this one left the land of Israel, and this one left the land of Israel; this one married a woman from outside the land of Israel, and this one married a woman from outside the land of Israel; this one bore sons outside of the land of Israel, and this one bore sons outside of the land of Israel; this one was escorted by angels, and this one was escorted by angels; this one was made great by a dream, and this one was made great by a dream; this one’s father-in-law was blessed thanks to him, and this one’s father-in-law’s home was blessed thanks to him; this one went to Egypt, and this one went to Egypt; this one ended famine and this one ended famine; this one satiated, and this one satiated; this one ordered, and this one ordered, this one died in Egypt, and this one died in Egypt; this one was embalmed, and this one was embalmed; this one’s bones were returned, and this one’s bones were returned (Genesis Rabba (Vilna) 84).

Really? The statement “Just as this one was born circumcised, so this one was born circumcised” is in turn based entirely upon a midrash that states: “Jacob was born circumcised, as it is written: ‘Jacob was a mild [tam – interpreted here to mean “perfect”] man’, and Joseph was born circumcised, as it is written: ‘This is the lineage of Jacob ¬¬– Joseph’, which means he was like his father” (Midrash Tanhumah (Warsaw) Noah 5). A similar comment can be made in regard to being “escorted by angels,” inasmuch as angels are never actually mentioned in regard to Joseph. The statement “just as this one was the firstborn, so this one was the firstborn” is simply incorrect. While Joseph was Rachel’s firstborn, Jacob was not the firstborn. Buying his brother’s birthright and stealing his blessing still did not change the order of Jacob’s birth. The phrase “this one was grudged” is based upon the verse “Esau bore a grudge against Jacob because of the blessing which his father had given him” (27:41), while “and this one was grudged” draws upon the verse “what if Joseph still bears us a grudge” (50:15), so that the correct parallel is actually between Joseph and Esau. Indeed, if we examine carefully, we find that some of the statements about Jacob apply equally – and sometimes more accurately – to Esau.

So, let’s do a little rewriting:

“This is the lineage of Jacob ¬¬– Joseph”. The Bible should not have said it thus, but rather “This is the lineage of Esau – Joseph”, because everything that befell the one befell the other: Just as this one’s mother was barren, so the this one’s mother was barren; just as this one’s mother bore two, so this one’s mother bore two; just as this one was the firstborn, so this one was the firstborn; just as this one’s mother had difficulty in labor, so this one’s mother had difficulty in labor; just as this one was feared by his brother, so this one was feared by his brothers; this one was grudged, and this one was grudged; this one was robbed twice, and this one was robbed twice; just as this one forgave his brother, so this one forgave his brothers; this one was blessed with wealth, and this one was blessed with wealth; this one married the daughter of an Egyptian, and this one married the daughter of an Egyptian; just as it says of this one “This is the lineage of Esau, that is Edom” (36:1), so it says “This is the lineage of Jacob – Joseph”(37:2); just as this one was loved by his father, as it says: “Isaac loved Esau” (25:28), so this one was loved by his father, as it says: “Israel loved Joseph more than any other of his children” (37:3).

Truth be told, the similarities between Joseph and Esau appear not insignificant, and the examples seem less strained.  But if that is so, why did the sages try to emphasize the similarity between Joseph and Jacob? Moreover, would it not have been more logical to seek parallels between Judah and Jacob, since in practice, the birthright passed to Judah as the progenitor of David and of Judaism? In order to answer these questions, we must first ask ourselves a number of preliminary questions: Is the midrash actually trying to explicate a grammatical or syntactic problem? Is the midrash concerned with historiography? Is it trying to compare facts? Or is midrash concerned with theological history and moral comparisons? What does midrash in general, and this midrash in particular, wish to teach us? Does the midrash assume that the reader is conversant with the biblical text? If so, then does the midrash expect us to ask: “Why not Esau”?