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.
To be honest, I'm not longer 100% convinced that there are *no* associations anywhere in Chazal. A couple of my sons have been feeding me ambiguous possibilities over the past year. But I do suspect that the idea wasn't nearly as universal or top-of-mind for Chazal as it is for us.
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.
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.
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.
Be that as it may, how did the Edomites end up in Rome anyway?
Interesting.
To be honest, I'm not longer 100% convinced that there are *no* associations anywhere in Chazal. A couple of my sons have been feeding me ambiguous possibilities over the past year. But I do suspect that the idea wasn't nearly as universal or top-of-mind for Chazal as it is for us.
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.
Rashi certainly did think that way. But I'm looking for an explicit source in Chazal.
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 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
There's definitely some interesting context there. I'll have to read it through carefully.
Thanks,