I just came across an Ibn Ezra who says Rome is not from Edom, but from Yavan. Tehillim 137:7. However I believe that Ibn Ezra elsewhere identifies Christianity with Edom, will try to find it and edit this comment later.
That's fascinating. Although ibn Ezra does have a reputation as an independent thinker, so this wouldn't rule out the possibility that Chazal somewhere disagrees.
I'm pretty sure Rashi held Edom is synonymous with Rome. See Rashi Eicha 4:21 where it is explicit that Edom destroyed the Bayis Sheini, the last few lines of Rashi Zecharia 4:11 sounds like that (putting Edom and Yishmoel together as the last golus), and Rashi Amos 1:6 implicit (sounds like Edom destroyed the Bayis Sheini).
אמר ריש לקיש שלש טעיות עתיד שרו של רומי לטעות דכתיב (ישעיהו סג, א) מי זה בא מאדום חמוץ בגדים מבצרה טועה שאינה קולטת אלא בצר והוא גולה לבצרה טועה שאינה קולטת אלא שוגג והוא מזיד היה טועה שאינה קולטת אלא אדם והוא מלאך הוא
That one is interesting and I will have to think a bit more about it. But it might be possible to claim that, לעתיד לבא, the שר של רומי will briefly find himself in territory that had belonged to אדום - but not that he was more closely connected.
I was afraid you would say that. You are hard to please! What about a Mechilta d'Rav Yishmael (12:40)?
וכן את מוצא בכל מקום שגלו שכינה עמהם. גלו למצרים שכינה עמהם, שנאמר הנגלה נגליתי אל בית אביך בהיותם במצרים (שמואל א ב'). גלו לבבל שכינה עמהן, שנאמר ושמתי כסאי בעילם (ירמיה מט). גלו לאדום שכינה עמהן, שנאמר מי זה בא מאדום חמוץ בגדים מבצרה (ישעיה סג). וכשעתידין לחזור, כביכול שכינה עמהן.
The ancient Romans were known for their wild and weird rituals, but one of them, recorded in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 11b), is of special interest to us. It is said that once every 70 years, Romans would have a healthy man, wearing the legendary garments of Adam, ride on the back of a limping man, who wore the mask of a Jew as he walked through the streets of Rome. At the head of the parade an announcer would repeatedly say: “Our master’s brother is a forger. Whomever sees this parade let him enjoy, because there will not be another for 70 more years. Forgery has not benefited the forger nor deceit benefited the deceiver!”
I was thinking of that Gemara a while back in this context, although I didn't really focus on it as I was writing this piece. The problem is that the Gemara itself is ambiguous. Aggadetas like this one are often interpreted very differently by various rishonim and acharonim so it's hard to say that "this" or "that" is the absolute pshat. And in this particular case, it's Rashi (and Rebbainu Chananel) who draw our attention to Yakov and Eisav. While that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, it's also not absolute.
I just came across an Ibn Ezra who says Rome is not from Edom, but from Yavan. Tehillim 137:7. However I believe that Ibn Ezra elsewhere identifies Christianity with Edom, will try to find it and edit this comment later.
That's fascinating. Although ibn Ezra does have a reputation as an independent thinker, so this wouldn't rule out the possibility that Chazal somewhere disagrees.
I'm pretty sure Rashi held Edom is synonymous with Rome. See Rashi Eicha 4:21 where it is explicit that Edom destroyed the Bayis Sheini, the last few lines of Rashi Zecharia 4:11 sounds like that (putting Edom and Yishmoel together as the last golus), and Rashi Amos 1:6 implicit (sounds like Edom destroyed the Bayis Sheini).
Rashi certainly did think that way. But I'm looking for an explicit source in Chazal.
Ok, what about Makos 12?
אמר ריש לקיש שלש טעיות עתיד שרו של רומי לטעות דכתיב (ישעיהו סג, א) מי זה בא מאדום חמוץ בגדים מבצרה טועה שאינה קולטת אלא בצר והוא גולה לבצרה טועה שאינה קולטת אלא שוגג והוא מזיד היה טועה שאינה קולטת אלא אדם והוא מלאך הוא
That one is interesting and I will have to think a bit more about it. But it might be possible to claim that, לעתיד לבא, the שר של רומי will briefly find himself in territory that had belonged to אדום - but not that he was more closely connected.
Also, the Rashi in Amos I quoted is coming from a Medrash in Eicha Rabba (1:56). It certainly sounds like they destroyed the Bais Hamikdash
וְרַבָּנָן פָּתְרִין קְרָיָה בְּחֻרְבַּן בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, אַתְּ מוֹצֵא שֶׁכָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁבִּקְּשׁוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִבְרֹחַ הָיוּ מַסְגִירִין אוֹתָן, בִּקְּשׁוּ לִבְרֹחַ כְּלַפֵּי צָפוֹן וְלֹא הִנִּיחוּם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (עמוס א, ו): עַל שְׁלשָׁה פִּשְׁעֵי עַזָּה וְעַל אַרְבָּעָה לֹא אֲשִׁיבֶנּוּ עַל הַגְּלוֹתָם גָּלוּת שְׁלֵמָה לְהַסְגִּיר לֶאֱדוֹם.
Also, I believe this Shemos Rabba is explicit (35:5)
וְזֹאת הַתְּרוּמָה אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ מֵאִתָּם זָהָב וָכֶסֶף וּנְחשֶׁת. זָהָב זוֹ בָּבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל ב, לב): הוּא צַלְמָא רֵאשֵׁהּ דִּי דְהַב טָב. וְכֶסֶף זוֹ מָדַי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל ב, לב): חֲדוֹהִי וּדְרָעוֹהִי דִי כְסַף. נְחשֶׁת זוֹ יָוָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל ב, לב): מְעוֹהִי וְיַרְכָתֵהּ דִּי נְחָשׁ. אֲבָל בַּרְזֶל אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, לֹא בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ וְלֹא בַּמִּשְׁכָּן, לָמָּה, שֶׁנִּמְשַׁל בּוֹ אֱדוֹם, שֶׁהֶחֱרִיבָה בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ.
(although I don't understand that, because Bavel also destroyed the Bais Hamikdash? Why is Edom worse?)
Also an interesting source. I don't want to sound like I'm splitting hairs here, but I believe Midrash Rabbah is mostly post-Chazal. See: https://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%90%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%A8%D7%91%D7%94
I was afraid you would say that. You are hard to please! What about a Mechilta d'Rav Yishmael (12:40)?
וכן את מוצא בכל מקום שגלו שכינה עמהם. גלו למצרים שכינה עמהם, שנאמר הנגלה נגליתי אל בית אביך בהיותם במצרים (שמואל א ב'). גלו לבבל שכינה עמהן, שנאמר ושמתי כסאי בעילם (ירמיה מט). גלו לאדום שכינה עמהן, שנאמר מי זה בא מאדום חמוץ בגדים מבצרה (ישעיה סג). וכשעתידין לחזור, כביכול שכינה עמהן.
Also, Yuma 10a
אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר רַבִּי: עֲתִידָה רוֹמִי שֶׁתִּפּוֹל בְּיַד פָּרַס, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: ״לָכֵן שִׁמְעוּ עֲצַת ה׳ אֲשֶׁר יָעַץ (עַל) אֱדוֹם וּמַחְשְׁבוֹתָיו אֲשֶׁר חָשַׁב (עַל) יוֹשְׁבֵי תֵימָן אִם לֹא יִסְחָבוּם צְעִירֵי הַצֹּאן אִם לֹא יַשִּׁים עֲלֵיהֶם נְוֵהֶם״.
The ancient Romans were known for their wild and weird rituals, but one of them, recorded in the Talmud (Avodah Zarah 11b), is of special interest to us. It is said that once every 70 years, Romans would have a healthy man, wearing the legendary garments of Adam, ride on the back of a limping man, who wore the mask of a Jew as he walked through the streets of Rome. At the head of the parade an announcer would repeatedly say: “Our master’s brother is a forger. Whomever sees this parade let him enjoy, because there will not be another for 70 more years. Forgery has not benefited the forger nor deceit benefited the deceiver!”
I was thinking of that Gemara a while back in this context, although I didn't really focus on it as I was writing this piece. The problem is that the Gemara itself is ambiguous. Aggadetas like this one are often interpreted very differently by various rishonim and acharonim so it's hard to say that "this" or "that" is the absolute pshat. And in this particular case, it's Rashi (and Rebbainu Chananel) who draw our attention to Yakov and Eisav. While that's a perfectly reasonable interpretation, it's also not absolute.
But it's certainly in important source here.
There's definitely some interesting context there. I'll have to read it through carefully.
Thanks,