English translation — וישלח א

1.

On the verse¹

<b> </b>"And Esau ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and kissed him, and they wept."

Rashi cites the word "and he embraced him" and explains: "His compassion was stirred when he saw him bowing all these bowings."

Then he cites the word "and he kissed him" and explains: "It is dotted above it, and there are those who dispute this matter in the baraita of the Sifri²

There are those who expounded this dot to say that he did not kiss him with his whole heart.

Said Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai: It is a known law that Esau hates Jacob, but his compassion was stirred at that moment and he kissed him with his whole heart."

One must understand: Why does Rashi explain the word "and he embraced him" according to the second interpretation in the second discourse beginning³,

and does not write what "and he embraced him" means according to the first interpretation, that "he did not kiss him with his whole heart"?

And it is forced to say that Rashi relies on his commentary in the same verse immediately afterwards on "and he kissed him" that "he did not kiss him with all his heart"

(and consequently also "and he embraced him" was not with all his heart)

- because in "and he kissed him" there is in the verse a special teaching

(vocalization)

to derive this,

but not on "and he embraced him".

Then Rashi should have explained "and he embraced him" also according to the first commentary just as he explains it according to the second commentary.

2.

Also one must understand in the discourse "Vayishakeihu" - why does Rashi need to arrive at two interpretations?

Even more: from the fact that Rashi prefaces "there are those who dispute this matter" it implies that both interpretations are equal in the plain meaning of Scripture.

That is,

not as is usual when Rashi brings two

(or more)

interpretations

(or opinions of the Sages)

without there being an introduction that here come multiple interpretations,

in which case he brings the first interpretation

(or opinion of the Sages)

first,

because it is closer to the plain meaning of Scripture,

unlike when Rashi prefaces for both interpretations

(as in our case)

"there are those who dispute this matter"

(and the like)

- which is seemingly superfluous - the introduction is to demonstrate that both interpretations are equal in the plain meaning of Scripture.

And seemingly: the explanation of "there are those who expounded this point to say that he did not kiss him with all his heart" is more straightforward because the dots diminish the content of the word&lt;sup&gt;4&lt;/sup&gt;,

and as the matter of the vocalization is in other places in the Torah that are brought there in the Sifrei

(in the language of the Sifrei "like that which is similar to it").

And this is plausible also in the plain sense of Scripture&lt;sup&gt;5&lt;/sup&gt;.

But not according to the opinion of R. Shimon bar Yochai is it smooth: what does it contribute that the word "and he kissed him" is "dotted above it"&lt;sup&gt;6&lt;/sup&gt;

: to say that "he kissed him with all his heart" one does not need to come to the vocalization,

this is indeed the simple meaning of "and he kissed him"&lt;sup&gt;7&lt;/sup&gt;

Commentators&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;explain,

that this very thing R. Shimon bar Yochai comes to say: "it is a tradition that it is known that Esau hates Jacob",

and consequently,

to say that he did not kiss him with all his heart one does not need to have any vocalization.

This one would understand on one's own; rather the vocalization proves the opposite,

that it was indeed "with all his heart".

But according to this, the vowel does not diminish the explanation of "and he kissed him",

but on the contrary,

it emphasizes and strengthens it⁹,

and this is seemingly not like the matter of the vowel in other places in the Torah that Rashi brings,

where the vowel diminishes the content of the word that is vowelized¹⁰.

Now that Rashi also brings the second explanation,

and even precedes [it with] "and there are those who dispute this matter",

is the explanation according to the plain meaning of the verse equal to the first explanation?

And although both interpretations indeed stand in the "Baraitha of the Sifri",

it is however not Rashi's way to copy the homilies of the Sages,

except what pertains to understanding the plain meaning of Scripture.

3.

Also one must understand: the two interpretations of "and he kissed him" appear in other places,

why does Rashi bring them as they are in the <b>Sifri</b>,

and he further precisely says that the dispute stands in the <b>Baraitha</b> of the Sifri - the dispute also appears in Bereishit Rabbah¹¹

<b> </b>on the spot, as also in Avot d'Rabbi Natan¹².

Granted that Rashi does not bring both opinions from Bereishis Rabbah — it can be said,

because the second opinion there, the view of R. Yannai: "Rather it teaches that he did not come to kiss him but to bite him, and the neck of our father Yaakov became like marble etc." does not fit with the plain sense of the verse in "and he kissed him"¹³,

and furthermore, according to this, the vowel-points do not weaken the content of the word,

rather they negate it entirely,

as if he erases it¹⁴.

But he could have brought the first opinion from Bereishis Rabbah,

the view of R. Shimon ben Elazar: "It teaches that his compassion was stirred at that hour and he kissed him with all his heart",

which is indeed like the view of Rashbi¹⁵

in Sifri¹⁶

(which the Rashba begins with this his commentary in Bereishis Rabbah)

Rashi has already brought down¹⁷

in his commentary on the Torah)¹⁸.

In addition to this: In Avot d'Rabbi Natan, both opinions stand, and in brief and clear language, "it teaches that he did not kiss him with a true [kiss]&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;.

Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai says: This kiss is of truth, and all of them are not of truth"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;.

Today, why is Rashi precise: a)

To copy the language of the Sifrei, b)

To note the source — "and there are those who dispute ..

in the baraita of the Sifrei."

c)

To bring also the name of the author of the statement

(as it is in the Sifrei)

— &lt;b&gt;Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;.

To bring at the beginning of his language, "It is a halakha known that Esau hates Jacob,"

which, at first glance,

what is the practical difference for the plain meaning of the verse here,

and especially since also from the end of the language

(which also stands in Bereishit Rabbah)

"Rather

(it teaches)

that his compassion was stirred &lt;b&gt;at that hour&lt;/b&gt; and he kissed him with all his heart," one understands that in essence he was &lt;b&gt;before&lt;/b&gt; and &lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; a hater of Jacob.

d)

4.

Seemingly one could answer the above questions

(section b-c)

According to both opinions, the vowel comes to weaken the "vayishakeihu".

The difference is only,

that if "lo neshako bechol libo" the vowel weakens²²

<b> </b>the matter of the kiss in general,

and according to the opinion of Rashbi the vowel weakens the <b>content </b>of the matter of "vayishakeihu" in <b>the verse</b>,

the kiss of <b>Esav to Yaakov</b>²³

: since "it is known that Esav hates Yaakov",

one would have understood that "vayishak<b>eihu</b>" here means such a kiss that Esav

(a hater)

kisses Yaakov

(not with all his heart)

- comes the vowel and diminishes the meaning of "vayishak<b>eihu da</b>,

that <b>the </b>"vayishakeihu" was "bechol libo".

And according to this it is understood:

a)

How both explanations are compatible with the content of the matter of the nikud according to the simple meaning of Scripture

(that the nikud comes to weaken the meaning of the word that is vowelized).

b)

The reason that he also brings the second opinion

(of Rashbi),

because according to the first opinion that the niqqud weakens the matter of the kiss in general,

the niqqud would have had to be only on

the letters "vayishak",

but according to Rashbi it is understood why the niqqud is on the entire word "vayishakehu"²⁴.

3)

Why Rashi brings specifically the exposition from the Sifri and not from Avos d'Rav Nosson

Because specifically in the wording as it stands in the Sifri — "&lt;b&gt;It is a law &lt;/b&gt;known that Esav hates Yaakov, except that his mercy was stirred at that hour and he kissed him with all his heart" — the content of the interpretation is expressed,

that without the vowel points one would understand "vayishakeihu" as kisses of an enemy,

as above.

And the vowel points &lt;b&gt;diminish &lt;/b&gt;the content of "vayishakeihu".

4)

That he also brings the name of the author of the statement

(and specifically the version)

-Rashbi: R. Shimon

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;is "derish ta'ama dikra"

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;- not the words

(and the statement)

&lt;b&gt;by themselves &lt;/b&gt;but

(together with — and moreover)

according to their reasoning,

whereby it is understood what he learns from the vowel points, that they diminish not the translation of the &lt;b&gt;word &lt;/b&gt;"vayishak" by itself

(as according to the first opinion)

which consequently does not pertain to &lt;b&gt;whom &lt;/b&gt;it is speaking about in the passage,

but the content of the word as it is a &lt;b&gt;part &lt;/b&gt;of the entire &lt;b&gt;subject&lt;/b&gt;,

By "and he kissed him" from Esau to Jacob,

he "derishes the reason of the verse" that one understands that these are kisses of an enemy,

and the vowel diminishes the <b>taste</b> here and shows that it was "with all his heart^".

5.

But the explanation is not smooth.

Because in <b>all other</b> places the vowel comes to weaken the content of the <b>word</b> that is voweled²⁸

<b> </b>- it is forced to say,

that here it weakens the content <b>the subject</b> of "and he kissed him" <b>that is in the portion</b> and the content of the <b>word</b> itself it rather strengthens

("<b>with all</b> his heart")

Regarding this remains not understood:

a)

What is Rashi's intention with saying that the dispute is in the <b>braita of Sifri</b>²⁹?

b)

What is the language "&lt;b&gt;halacha &lt;/b&gt;hi

(known)

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;- here it is indeed relevant that this is "known"&lt;sup&gt;31&lt;/sup&gt;,

as above&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;.

c)

In most printed books before us the language is

(in the words of Rashbi)

"but &lt;b&gt;nehefchu&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;his mercies" - why does Rashi say

(as it is in Bereishis Rabbah)

"but &lt;b&gt;shenichmeru&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;his mercies"?

6.

The explanation in all this:

Rashi does not come here to answer the vowelization on the word "Vayishakehu" - because,

as discussed several times³⁵,

Rashi does not explain³⁶

vowelization in the Torah³⁷.

From this it is proven,

that the matter of the vowelization

(as also³⁸

<b> </b>missing and extra)

is not a difficulty in the <b>simple meaning</b> of Scripture,

and consequently it is not <b>necessary</b> to explain it when one learns the simple meaning of Scripture.

Sometimes when there is simply a question or difficulty in understanding the plain meaning of Scripture,

then Rashi brings and explains

(in several places)

the vocalization

(or the missing letter etc.),

with which the plain meaning of Scripture becomes understood.

Here Rashi comes to answer a question that arises according to the plain meaning: How did Esau suddenly turn around from one extreme to the other — to such affection and love for Jacob,

when we know that "he hated him" until he wanted to kill him³⁹,

and "still in his hatred" and he now goes to wage war with Jacob — "going to meet you and four hundred men with him"⁴⁰?

Rashi explains,

that this "and he embraced him" was indeed a special event - "&lt;b&gt;His mercies were stirred &lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;41&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;his compassions

(and the reason -)

when he saw him bowing all these bowings".

And in this there is no dispute - this is the plain meaning of Scripture &lt;b&gt;according to all &lt;/b&gt;opinions.

But when it comes to "and he kissed him"⁴²

<b> </b>- which is not only a sign of great love until "and he embraced him",

but this indicates an excitement and awakening of exceeding love in the heart to such an extent that speech is not enough and also even an embrace is not enough - it also comes to <b>and he kissed him</b>

(as the five-year-old sees it - the advantage of the love of a kiss over the love of an embrace - in itself,

and in relation to the parents to him).

It is not possible to say,

that because of the fact that "he saw that he bowed all these bowings"

(- his mercies were aroused),

he should <b>completely become transformed</b> from one extreme to the other from "his hatred" - to wanting to kill him,

to such a great love that even after "and he embraced him" - must come "and he kissed him".

On this Rashi says - "it is dotted above": here the dot pertains to the plain meaning of Scripture,

and comes to teach

(as a dot in every place)

that this "and he kissed him" was a <b>weak</b> one,

it was indeed not a true kiss

(an expression of true love).

And in this Rashi explains — "And there are those who disagree about this thing."

That "and he kissed him" is not a genuine matter can be explained in two ways: "There are those who expounded this point to say that he did not kiss him with his whole heart"

(Although "and he embraced him" and "his mercies were stirred"

(which led to "and he kissed him")

was indeed in truth)⁴³

; and a second opinion is,

that "his mercies were kindled at that time and he kissed him with his whole heart",

that after the "and he embraced him"

(which came from "his mercies were stirred"),

is "at that time — when he embraced him — his mercies were kindled": there became a hot and strong excitement⁴⁴,

until that "he kissed him with his whole heart".

Since however that the excitement and the "he kissed him with his whole heart" were only "at that time",

this is not⁴⁵

a genuine matter⁴⁶.

7.

In order to emphasize that also according to the view of Rashbi that he kissed him with his whole heart it was not in truth,

and that the punctuation weakens the "and he kissed him" — Rashi is precise to bring at the beginning of the words of Rashbi "it is a halacha known etc.":

"Halachah" means a law,

a thing that cannot be changed.

And this even a child of five years of age for Scripture understands

(who does not yet learn Mishnah and Gemara).

He sees in his day-to-day life,

that a halachah

(from the Torah)

cannot be changed.

And likewise says Rashbi in our matter,

the hatred of Esau for Jacob cannot be changed,

because "&lt;b&gt;Halachah &lt;/b&gt;it is known that Esau hates Jacob" — this is analogous to a halachah &lt;b&gt;in its simple sense &lt;/b&gt;that cannot be altered,

And the "and he kissed him" here is only that "his mercies were aroused &lt;b&gt;at that time &lt;/b&gt;and he kissed him with all his heart" -

That a parallel to this is found in halachah,

that one can have a &lt;b&gt;hora'as sha'ah &lt;/b&gt;not according to the halachah,

like Elijah on Mount Carmel&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;

; and also then the explanation is not that the halachah changed - the halachah of the prohibition of offering on a private bamah was in force &lt;b&gt;also then&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;,

Rather &lt;b&gt;at that time &lt;/b&gt;the instruction was to offer the sacrifice on a private bamah.

And as we have already learned earlier,

that Jacob was a simple man,

But when Esau's "to deceive his father"

brought about that Isaac with Esau

wanted to give the blessings because "honor

(through the deception)

that he is scrupulous in mitzvos",

is "Your brother came with deceit"

This is however such a <b>deception</b>,

that also Baruch will be⁵²

<b> </b>because the one with deception⁵³

<b> </b>is "with wisdom"⁵⁴.

Ch.

Based on this it is also understood:

a)

Why Rashi does not bring the dispute from Avos d'Rav Nosson — "he did not kiss him with a whole heart…

a kiss of truth" — because according to &lt;b&gt;both &lt;/b&gt;opinions,

also according to the view of Rashbi,

there was &lt;b&gt;not &lt;/b&gt;any "kiss of truth",

because in "truth" there are no changes.

The question here is only to what extent there was not the "truth" of the kiss: according to the first opinion, even momentarily "he did not kiss him with his whole heart",

and according to the view of Rashbi, "at that hour he kissed him with his whole heart",

only because "&lt;b&gt;it is a known halacha &lt;/b&gt;that Esav hates Yaakov",

so even "at that hour" this was not in truth&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;.

b)

Why Rashi does not bring the wording of the Sifri

(that is before us)

"&lt;b&gt;His mercies were turned &lt;/b&gt;at that hour" — because that would mean that at that hour he was transformed from hatred to a feeling of true love; but here it is only "&lt;b&gt;his mercies were stirred &lt;/b&gt;at that hour" — he was at that moment warmed with a stronger feeling of mercy.

3)

He precedes that this stands "in the baraisa of the Sifri": thus one could learn that the language "the halacha is known" is a halacha in the part of the drush in the Torah

(bringing out the conclusion from the drush⁵⁶),

therefore Rashi says that this is "in the baraisa of the Sifri",

this is in the part of the halacha in the Torah — it is not a drush from midrash,

rather this is a halacha in the laws of the Torah that Esav hates Yaakov,

as above.

9.

One must however understand: what is the compulsion in the plain meaning of Scripture that "he kissed him with all his heart"; and on the contrary: since R' Shimon bar Yochai himself says "it is a halacha that is known that Esav hates Yaakov",

he could have

(and on the contrary — should have)

learned that "he did not kiss him with all his heart"^<b>5d</b>?

is the explanation in this: from the entire continuation of the portion it is evident,

that Esau was then and in this manner one sees in the later words of Esau,

"My brother, let what is yours be yours

stood in a great excitement,

as the verse immediately continues,

that after "and he kissed him" is - "<b>and they wept</b>"⁵⁸,

which is a prominent expression of the greatness of emotion of the heart⁵⁹

to you"⁶⁰

<b> </b>until "I will present to you from the people who are with me"⁶¹,

it is in the simple meaning of Scripture difficult to say that all this was only for the sake of the past,

and that Esau did not mean it with all his heart⁶².

And therefore Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai accepts,

that "at that hour" "his mercies were stirred...

and he kissed him with all his heart."

And based on this will be understood that the two interpretations are equal in the plain meaning of Scripture

(and Rashi therefore <b>prefaces</b> "and there are those who dispute this matter")

- because according to both interpretations there is the same difficulty: according to the first opinion that "he did not kiss him with all his heart" the continuation of the section afterwards is difficult,

where it is evident that the "and he kissed him" was "with all his heart"; and according to Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai the "and he kissed him <b>with all his heart</b>" is not smooth according to the previous state of utter hatred⁶³.

Yud.

A brilliant student can still ask: After all,

since Rashbi himself is the one who <b>emphasizes</b> Esav's hatred for Yaakov - "It is a halacha that it is known that Esav hates Yaakov" - how does it come that <b>specifically he</b> should teach that "his mercies were stirred at that hour and he kissed him with all his heart"?

Rashi hints⁶⁴

<b> </b>the explanation by bringing the name of the author of the maamar - Rashbi:

Rashbi was in the time of the exile of Rome - Edom

(that "Esav is Edom"&lt;sup&gt;65&lt;/sup&gt;)

in a time of harsh decrees&lt;sup&gt;66&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;upon Jews,

and upon him specifically,

until he had to flee from the Romans and hide in a cave for thirteen years&lt;sup&gt;67&lt;/sup&gt;

Nevertheless, one finds&lt;sup&gt;68&lt;/sup&gt;,

that when they had to go to Rome to nullify a decree upon Jews,

they sent Rashbi "who is accustomed to miracles",

and not looking at the great hatred of the kingdom of Rome toward Jews

(and toward him specifically),

he effected

(through a miracle)

that "he said to them: Ask whatever you have to ask and he brought them into his treasuries" and through this the decree was nullified.

And consequently he learns that so was also regarding Yaakov and Eisav,

that Yaakov,

who was one accustomed to miracles⁶⁹,

effected upon Eisav

(although it is a known law that Eisav hates Yaakov)

that his mercies were stirred at that hour and he kissed him with all his heart.

Yes.

This is also consistent with the matter and content of the service of Rashbi in the inwardness of the matters:

One finds⁶⁷,

that when going out of the cave "Whenever R' Elazar would strike, R' Shimon would <b>heal</b>",

i.

e.

the order of "heal R' Shimon" is the conduct that is suited <b>in the world</b>,

not as it would seemingly need to be according to the conduct of <b>his Torah is his craft</b>.

From the side of the conduct of <b>Rashbi and his colleagues</b>⁷⁰

the conduct of his Torah is his craft is "R' Elazar strikes".

But Rashbi brought about the healing in the world as it conducts itself in <b>its</b> order.

Along these lines and moreover says Rashbi⁷¹

"I can exempt the entire world from judgment",

which <b>to exempt</b> - applies when this is not by bringing about that the entire world does repentance,

rather - as the world stands in a state and condition of judgment from matters that are undesirable he "bears all <b>their iniquities</b> and exempts them from judgment"⁷².

That in a particular is this a much greater achievement than effecting a change &lt;b&gt;in the world&lt;/b&gt;,

for then the staff is elevated,

it becomes a [mere] staff,

the evil is nullified and transformed.

But here says Rashbi that Divinity can reach and effects also in the staff as it is a staff and in the evil as it is in its place&lt;sup&gt;73&lt;/sup&gt;.

And likewise in our matter: the action of Yaakov on Esav is not in that Esav did teshuvah&lt;sup&gt;74&lt;/sup&gt;

; but that Esav, being in the situation and condition that "it is a known law that Esav hates Yaakov",

also comes about in him "his mercies were stirred etc. and he kissed him with all his heart".

12.

From this one has the instruction on the entirety and all the time of the exile of Edom and in both extremes:

On one side one cannot rely on gentiles,

the kingdom of Edom,

because "it is a halacha that it is known that Esau hates Jacob."

On the other hand,

a Jew has the power to affect Esau also as Esau stands in this situation and circumstance,

that it should become "his mercies were stirred and he kissed him with all his heart",

he should help Jews and influence Jews in everything that they need,

until helping Jews go in the path that they need to go.

Which this comes when a Jew stands firmly in his conduct according to Torah and commandments even in the state of exile and is not influenced by gentiles and gentileness,

and announces this also to Esau — "With Laban the wicked I dwelt and the 613 commandments I kept"⁷⁵,

And through this is fulfilled &lt;b&gt;in actuality &lt;/b&gt;what is written in the haftarah&lt;sup&gt;76&lt;/sup&gt;

&lt;b&gt; &lt;/b&gt;of the parshah&lt;sup&gt;77&lt;/sup&gt;

"The vision &lt;b&gt;of Ovadiah &lt;/b&gt;thus says the Lord God &lt;b&gt;concerning Edom &lt;/b&gt;etc."

(That "Ovadiah was a Edomite convert, and this is what people say: From within it and from its midst, father, let us go, into its midst the axe"&lt;sup&gt;78&lt;/sup&gt;),

until the end of the matter&lt;sup&gt;79&lt;/sup&gt;

: "And saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau, and the kingdom shall be the Lord's",

Which was already foretold in our parshah as a result of &lt;b&gt;and he kissed him &lt;/b&gt;etc. and he said we will journey etc. - that Yaakov accepted it: &lt;b&gt;I will come &lt;/b&gt;to my lord to Seir - in the days of Mashiach, as it is said "and saviors shall ascend" etc.&lt;sup&gt;80&lt;/sup&gt;,

And saviors will ascend very soon in the true and complete redemption through our righteous Mashiach.

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Vayishlach 5740)