Rashi explains the dual fears that Yaakov Avinu experienced. He was frightened that he would be killed, and he was distressed that, in the course of the battle, he might kill “acheirim,” others. Notably, Yaakov had greater fear concerning the harm he might inflict on others than the harm by which he might be victimized. Apparently, our Patriarch never heard of “collateral damage,” a term which has regrettably been popularized in contemporary society. People’s lives have no value, they are secondary to a higher cause. Some make it; some do not. That is collateral damage. We cannot have it all. Someone will suffer. The Jewish nation has a contrasting perspective which values every human life, thus maintaining a very dim view of the sorry excuse of collateral damage.
Let us return to Rashi’s original statement. Yaakov feared killing acheirim. Who are the others? Why use this word? Why not simply say that Yaakov feared killing Eisav’s men? In the Sefer Peninim Yekarim, we find a homiletic explanation quoted from the Imrei Noam and attributed to Horav Shmuel, zl, m’Ostrovtze, a disciple of the Koznitzer Maggid. When Moshe Rabbeinu was about to kill the Egyptian who was hurting the Jew, the Torah says, Va’yaar ki ein ish, “He saw there was no man…” “and he slew the Egyptian” (Shemos 12:2). Rashi comments that Moshe was not concerned with who might find out. If a Jew is being struck by an Egyptian, one neither asks questions, nor is he concerned that he might get into trouble for helping a Jew. We do what is right. Rashi explains that Moshe saw prophetically that no future convert would descend from the Egyptian assailant. We see Moshe was not taking chances. If there was a possibility of a Jew descending from this Egyptian, Moshe would have desisted and not intervened by inflicting mortal harm on the Egyptian.
Yaakov Avinu had a similar concern. In the Talmud Gitten 56a, we learn that Nero Caesar converted to Judaism. He was the progenitor of the distinguished Tanna Rabbi Meir. Nero was a descendant of Eisav. Thus, Rabbi Meir actually descended from Eisav. The Talmud Horayos 13b states that Rabbi Meir also went by the name Acheirim. He was a student of Elisha ben Avuyah, the Tanna turned apostate, who was later referred to as Acher, the “other one.” After Acher left the fold, Rabbi Meir continued his relationship with him, feeling that he could distinguish between that which was halachically correct and that which was not. The sages did not agree with his choice of teacher; therefore, they referred to Rabbi Meir as Acheirim, “Others.” Whenever we find a halachic decision being rendered by Acheirim, it is a reference to Rabbi Meir.
With this idea in mind, we understand Yaakov’s fear if he were to succeed in killing Eisav. If Eisav died, so did the potential for Acheirim. Without Eisav, there would have been no Rabbi Meir. This was one piece of collateral damage that the Patriarch could not ignore.
