Diplomacy and Cold Peace is Better Than Open Hatred

Parshat Toldot

by Rabbi Avi Billet

Some of the commentaries suggest that Akedat Yitzchak was, in some way, a reaction to what took place immediately before it in the Torah, the treaty that Avraham made with Avimelekh. That treaty, in which Avraham ceded some of the land promised to him by God, was a treaty Avraham, arguably, had no right to make without God’s instruction. As a result, this approach offers, he was challenged to wonder what the promises to him were worth if he would be tasked by God to take his son’s life. 

All that at least being a possibility, one wonders why Yitzchak would make the same mistake. 

Truth be told, Yitzchak’s similar encounter with Avimelekh is, on the one hand, not really a treaty. Secondly, he is bound by the treaty that his father made. Despite that, Yitzchak does have grievances over how he was treated by Avimelekh’s people, particularly since there had actually been a treaty between Avimelekh and Avraham’s family (note: Avimelekh might be a title similar to Pharaoh, so he might be dealing with a different person than the one Avraham dealt with). 

Yitzchak doesn’t make a treaty (Bris) with Avimelekh, as Avraham did (21:27). After wondering why they are coming to make peace with him after they had sent him away in light of his financial successes and their subsequent jealousy, their response to him is they saw that God is with him and decided it is better to be “with him than against him.” 

So he serves a meal to them – a common way to celebrate an agreement (see Daas Zekenim 25:34 and his interpretation of the food Yaakov fed Eisav at the time of the transaction of the Bechora/firstborn rights) – and they part ways. 

 Some of the commentaries note the disparity, though they are complimentary towards Yitzchak for ultimately being so accommodating. 

Alshikh: When they sent him away they didn’t make a meal for him, despite his being a “baal bris” (essentially a peace partner) with Avimelekh on account of the treaty with Avraham. Nevertheless, Yitzchak serves them food and accompanies them at the time of their departure, in a manner that they did not do for him. 

Netziv: He made a meal for them, as is the ways of the righteous to appease with ease, and to be open to those who wish to make peace. 

Chasam Sofer, on the other hand, notes a subtlety in the language, that Yitzchak sends them away בשלום and not לשלום. He notes Yitzchak’s kindness in feeding them, despite their “hatred” towards him (based on Mishlet 25:21), while also noting that when you depart from someone in a positive light the blessing is לך לשלום, but when departing from an adversary, the parting is בשלום. 

So which one is it? 

Perhaps more than anything, Yitzchak is teaching us what diplomacy can look like. When people are adversarial, while at the same time acknowledging existence and that there may be good and admirable qualities in their adversary, there is merit to having a cold peace, and even one that in public looks like we’re getting along. 

 Feelings behind closed doors are just that – behind closed doors. 

 Far more important than the inner feelings is the way we actually treat each other. 

No matter how Yitzchak truly felt, the image he conveyed is one who is kind, appeasing, and accepting of letting bygones be bygones, certainly within the realm of the public eye. 

 Even Chasam Sofer’s comment notes a subtlety that most people wouldn’t even pick up on – it’s Yitzchak’s way of giving a blessing, while perhaps quietly still harboring a small grudge, one that he keeps to himself while looking like he is getting along. 

 It is the way of the righteous to not harbor grudges at all, which is why that is the messaging of Netziv and Alshikh. Perhaps Chasam Sofer is acknowledging that even the righteous are human, and that they have a way of coming across publicly as taking the high road, while not completely disregarding their feelings, a completely understandable human stance. 

 For one’s own psyche, in general it is best to move on from difficult relationships, to forgive in one’s heart, and to let go of the anger and the past. 

However, we can acknowledge that that is not always so easy, and therefore to do our best to play the diplomacy game, while airing our grievances to ourselves, in the privacy of our own space so it not negatively impact anyone. Negativity brings everyone down. Positivity has a way of lifting others – even when they aren’t involved at all – because the image of peace between people who disagree conveys a vision for what the world can look like, despite natural differences between humans who may come from different cultures, have different sensibilities and values, and different ideas of what is best for everyone. 

In Yitzchak’s case, Avimelekh came to make peace after difficult interactions. That step, when genuine, indicates a need to move forward together. It is what happened with Israel and Egypt, Israel and Jordan, and is what we all hope to see with Israel’s other neighbors. That will bring a different kind of hope for the world, when the goal to eradicate Israel is gone, and everyone can work to better themselves without worrying about what their neighbor is planning, and what kind of dark future they envision.