English translation — וישלח ב

Sicha 2<pg>143</pg>

A.

In the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And on that day Esau returned on his way to Seir" Rashi copies the words<sup>2</sup>

"And on that day Esau returned on his way",

and explains: "Esau alone<sup>3</sup>,

and the four hundred men who went with him slipped away from him one by one."

And already there is a discussion among the commentators: from where did Rashi, in the plain sense of the verse, [derive] that the four hundred men slipped away from Esau,

and did not go with him.

And like by Jacob,

that it is said<sup>4</sup>

"And Jacob journeyed to Succoth" and it is not mentioned in the manner of "the people that were with him"<sup>5</sup>

—

(since they are secondary to him)

— so too by Esau the Scripture did not consider it important to detail them, because they are secondary to him.

The Ra'ah [Rabbi Eliyahu Mizrachi] distinguishes,

that since Esau requested of Jacob "Let me now leave with you some of the people that are with me"<sup>6</sup>,

the Scripture would have needed to explain that the people did not remain with Jacob,

because Jacob did not want this favor<sup>7</sup>.

And already [others] objected to him<sup>8</sup>,

that this matter is already understood from Jacob's reply "Why then have I found favor in my lord's eyes"<sup>6</sup>

(and according to Rashi's commentary "Why are you doing me this favor that I do not need,

I have found favor..

and do not pay me now any recompense").

In the verse "בגור ארי'" the explanation of Rashi: he derives it<sup>9</sup>

Because "it should have written 'And Esau settled on that day,'

What is 'And he settled on that day, Esau,'

Rather, this is the explanation: 'And he settled on that day, and who is it that settled — Esau, and not his men.'"

And at first glance, also this explanation requires examination,

For the way of the Scriptures is to speak thus,

And as we find in many places such as this

[For example — earlier in the portion of Lech Lecha<sup>10</sup>

"And he divided against them at night, he and his servants,"

And Rashi explained: "According to its simple meaning, reverse the verse,

And he divided, he and his servants, against them at night"].

Also it is not understood,

why did Rashi copy in the heading also the word "to his way"¹¹

— after all he only explains the words¹²

"And Esau settled etc."¹³.

And superficially it seems to me,

that the necessity of Rashi that the explanation of the verse is "Esau alone" is not from the precision of the language of the verse,

but from the content of the words of the verse

(that were copied in the heading)

— "And on that day Esau returned to his way",

as follows.

<pg>144</pg>

2.

At the end of Parshas Vayeitzei¹⁴

it is told,

that when Yaakov fled from Lavan,

Lavan pursued

(with his relatives¹⁵)

after Yaakov,

and had not G-d come to Lavan in a dream of the night¹⁶

and warned him not to speak with Yaakov "from good to bad," he would have harmed him¹⁷.

And based on this it is difficult to understand in our case regarding Eisav,

that his desire to harm Yaakov was much greater than Lavan,

as it is said¹⁸

"And Eisav hated Yaakov etc. and he said etc. I will kill Yaakov etc." — and for this purpose he went toward Yaakov with four hundred men¹⁹,

that this hatred was suppressed within him for many years — and how is it possible that he completely gave up his schemes and returned on his way?

And although when Esau saw Jacob,

"he embraced him, etc. and kissed him and they wept"&lt;sup&gt;20&lt;/sup&gt;

— surely it is not necessary [to say] according to the first explanation in Rashi there "that he did not kiss him with all his heart",

certainly it is difficult why he did not continue with his schemes; but even according to the second explanation

(the opinion of Rashbi)

"that his compassion was stirred at that hour and he kissed him with all his heart" — behold Rashi infers that this was only "at that hour"

[that this is the reason&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

that "it is dotted above it"

(on the word "and he kissed him"),

that a dot in every place indicates a diminution in the dotted thing — for although he kissed him "with all his heart",

nevertheless it was not a true love,

only in a transitory manner,

"at that hour"].

And on the contrary: in the second explanation itself,

Rashbi prefaces "It is a law,

it is known that Esau hates Jacob",

and as explained elsewhere&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;

the precision of this expression

(that the hatred of Esau for Jacob is a matter of "law")

— that just as nullification or change in the laws of the Torah is impossible&lt;sup&gt;23&lt;/sup&gt;,

so the hatred of Esau is constant and eternal.

[And this is also the precision of Rashi's wording "except that his compassion was stirred at that hour and he kissed him with all his heart" — in the manner that we find regarding "halachah",

that there is a matter of "a hora'as sha'ah",

that they act not in accordance with halachah

(as Elijah on Mount Carmel)²⁴,

that even then the halachah is in its force and has not changed²⁵,

except that there is a directive for that hour to act contrary to the halachah; and so in our matter,

that even at that hour the hatred of Esau for Jacob was not nullified

(because it is "halachah"),

except that temporarily he kissed him with all his heart].

And from this it is understood,

that after this Esau returned to a state of open hatred for Jacob²⁶.

And even Jacob feared from this,

and as explicit in Rashi on Jacob's words to Esau "for therefore I have seen your face like seeing the face of God"²⁷,

that Jacob "reminded him of the sight of the angel so that he would fear him and say he saw angels and was saved,

I cannot prevail against him now"

(this was already after "and he kissed him")

; and likewise Rashi on Jacob's words "until I come to my lord to Seir"²⁸

(that Jacob did not want Esau to go with him,

but "let pass²⁸

please my lord before his servant and I will lead on slowly etc. until I come etc.")

— "he made the way wide for him,

<pg>145</pg>

that his intention was not to go except until Sukkot,

said if his intention is to do me evil he should wait until I come to him and he did not go" — behold that also Yaakov feared²⁹

that Eisav will want to do him evil.

And based on this one can say even more,

that Yaakov feared that this is Eisav's intention in his request "and I will go alongside you"³⁰,

and also "let me set with you from the people that are with me"⁶

— that he sought ways how he could carry out his evil plan over the course of time³¹

(and this is the reason that Yaakov did not agree to this,

because he sensed this).

And according to this it is perplexing — why did Esau return to his way immediately "on that day",

and did not continue with his schemes to harm Jacob&lt;sup&gt;32&lt;/sup&gt;?

And to resolve this question Rashi explains — "Esau was alone,

and the four hundred men who went with him slipped away from him",

and therefore Esau did not have the ability to do anything against Jacob

(who went with a large camp etc.),

since he remained alone.

And therefore "on that day Esau returned to his way".

3.

Based on this, also the precise wording of Rashi is resolved,

that he wrote "

(were lost from him)

one by one" — for at first glance, from where does Rashi have this

(and not that they all went at once).

Also — what is the practical difference?

There are commentators&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;,

that since he said to him "Let me present [a gift] with you, etc.,

it implies that they were still strong men with him,

and it cannot be said that all of them afterwards were lost&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;,

for why did they remain with him and were not lost immediately,

rather it must be said that they were lost one by one so that Esau would not notice that they were going,

and at the time that he said to him 'Let me present, etc.' some of them were still standing".

And there are those who explained&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

that Rashi wrote this from reasoning,

"since Esau was their master, presumably they were afraid to go without his permission and they were fleeing and being stolen from him one by one".

In any case, the question is: what is the practical difference in what manner they slipped away from him,

whether all at once or one by one,

does it remain in its place?

And according to the above, it can be said that Rashi informs us,

for in this it is emphasized even more that Esau did not change at all,

and from his side he would have continued to carry out his evil intent to harm Jacob, except that he remained alone — and the proof,

that even the four hundred men who slipped away from him, their hatred for Jacob was not nullified,

as is proven from this that they did not detach themselves from Esau all of them together openly

(to do contrary to the will of Esau),

and only slipped away from him one by one; and that is,

for they were continuing to remain with Esau in order to fight with Jacob,

except that they were afraid for their lives and therefore slipped away and fled

[And the reason for their fear is understood according to Rashi above³⁶

that Esau and his men encountered "bands of angels..

who were pushing him and his men and saying to them etc. strike strike etc.

(until they were saying)

the brother of Jacob is he"³⁷]

— And if so, all the more so and a fortiori that Esau's heart was not changed at all.

And one must add and sweeten the matter according to<pg>146</pg>

Rashi above on the verse²⁸

"Until I come etc." — "He widened the way for him etc. If he intends to do me harm, let him wait etc.,

And when will he go? In the days of the Messiah, as it is said³⁸

And saviors shall ascend Mount Zion to judge the mountain of Esau",

One can say,

That by this Rashi hints,

That the hatred of Esau for Jacob in a manner of "halachah",

Is

(Not only in Esau himself,

But)

Also in the entirety of the nation of Esau,

"Esau is Edom"³⁹

[And as is also understood from Rashi before this on the verse⁴⁰

"And one nation from the other shall be stronger" — "There is no nation except a kingdom",

"When this one rises, that one falls"],

And therefore "He widened the way for him" until the end of days,

Because until then there exists the "halachah" of "Esau hates Jacob" and his intention is to do him harm.

And this is what Rashi precisely indicates,

That even among Esau's men their hatred for Jacob was not nullified,

And essentially they were fighting with him,

But because of their fear of him they slipped away and fled for their lives.

4.

And in this way we must also explain the continuation of Rashi here,

and his language: "And where did the Holy One, blessed be He, repay them

(for the four hundred men),

in the days of David, as it is said⁴¹

except four hundred young men who rode on the camels."

And it is perplexing,

for seemingly,

this is nothing but words of Aggadah,

and it is not a matter for the plain meaning of the verse,

and what place is there to bring it in Rashi on the Torah⁴²

(which came only for the plain meaning of the verse,

or for Aggadah that settles the words of the verse⁴³).

And Rashi did not preface that they are words of Aggadah.

And even more perplexing is Rashi's language "And where did He pay, etc.,"

as if it is clear in the simple meaning of the verse that they deserve reward,

and the question is only "And where did He pay"?

!

And one can say,

according to Rashi's commentary above⁴⁴

regarding Lot's daughters,

that there he explains that the younger one who "called him in a clean language,"

"received reward in the days of Moses etc." — we learn from this,

that even though the totality of her actions was not proper,

nevertheless she received reward for the detail that "she called him in a clean language,"

and likewise we learn from this that payment of this reward can be after several generations; and this is also the explanation of Rashi here — "where" is the reward of these four hundred men,

and he explains "in the days of David"⁴⁵.

And still it requires clarification: simply that the matter of Rashi in his commentary is not at all to explain the conduct of the Holy One, blessed be He,

(whether and how the Holy One, blessed be He, repaid the four hundred men of Esav),

but certainly this matter relates to the understanding of the verse here.

[In Gur Aryeh it is written that Rashi brings this as proof that they slipped away from Esav.

But this explanation is difficult to understand,

a guarantor for a guarantor is needed: what is the proof in the plain sense&lt;pg&gt;147&lt;/pg&gt;

that the rescue of four hundred men in the days of David is the reward of the four hundred men of Esau?

! And in general,

what is lacking in the proof from the wording of the verse

(according to the interpretation of the aforementioned Gaon Rabbi Ovadia of Bartenura, side a),

or from the content of the verse

(as above, side b),

that Rashi needed to add this proof?].

Also, one can be precise in the wording of Rashi:

א)

The source of this explanation is in Bereishit Rabbah on the verse⁴⁶,

but there the wording is "When did He repay",

and Rashi changed and wrote "And where did He repay"?

ב)

In the Midrash the wording "

(And when did He repay etc.)

below and there remained of them no man except four hundred young men who rode on the camels and fled",

whereas in Rashi's commentary the wording "In the days of David, as it is said: 'Except four hundred young men who rode on the camels.'"

And it is puzzling in Rashi's language,

that on one hand he descends to explain more,

therefore he does not simply state

(as in the Midrash)

"elsewhere" but adds and explains that this was "in the days of David"; and on the other hand,

regarding the essence of the reward,

he omits the words in which the reward is detailed — namely the beginning of the verse "And there remained not of them a man"

(that the rest were killed),

and the end of the verse "and they fled"⁴⁷

(that they were saved)

!

3)

On the other hand,

even though Rashi abbreviated in bringing the language of the verse,

nevertheless he was precise to copy the words "who rode on the camels" which seemingly do not add to the understanding of the reward.

5.

But,

According to what we said above that Rashi's intention is to be precise and emphasize that even the four hundred men did not change their heart for the good at all,

it can be said,

that this is also his intention in the continuation of his commentary,

to strengthen this matter,

that in the manner of the reward of these men it is emphasized how in essence they did not change for the good.

[And therefore Rashi is precise "And where did He repay etc."

(And he did not state "And when"),

because here it is not relevant when they were repaid but in what manner the Holy One, blessed be He, repaid them,

and this is included in the question "And where",

meaning not only "at what time",

but in what matter and manner].

And on this Rashi brings that this was "in the days of David,"

That is, that they fought against David,

That is,

That these who received the reward were not righteous people,

On the contrary,

They fought against David king of Israel.

And furthermore,

That the payment of the reward was in this very situation,

That at the very moment they fought against David they were saved.

And according to the above the reason of the matter is understood,

Because this emphasizes the content of the matter for which this reward came to them.

For the people of Esau did not change their heart,

And furthermore,

That what they slipped away from Esau,

It is not because they changed for the better,

But only in order to save themselves

(from fear of Jacob as above).

But nevertheless,

Since in practice through this good came to Jacob,

That Esau remained alone and could not harm him,

Therefore they received reward&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;,

And reward in this manner,

That although they fought against David,

And lost in the war,

Nevertheless in practice they were saved from actual killing.

And one could say,

that this is the reason that Rashi omits the beginning of the verse and its end and brings only "who rode upon the camels",

for his intention is not to magnify their reward

(that they were saved even though the rest were killed),

but rather, on the contrary,

to minimize it⁴⁹

(in accordance with<pg>148</pg>

with that there was here no good intention toward Yaakov on the part of the men of Esav).

And as a hint to this, Rashi copies only the words "who rode upon the camels",

that is,

that there was here no miraculous rescue,

for these four hundred men "rode upon the camels" and therefore were able to flee.

And according to the sharpening one should add,

that in the copying of the words "who rode on the camels" Rashi alludes to the Sages&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;

on a verse in this content — "And she arose&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;

Rebecca and her maidens and they rode on the camels" — "Just as this camel has in it a sign of impurity and a sign of purity,

so Rebecca produced a righteous and a wicked one."

And similar to this in our subject,

that there was here a mixture of good and evil,

that in actuality a benefit for Jacob grew from this,

like the camel that "has in it a sign of impurity and a sign of purity."

6.

And behold, the portion of Vayishlach is always read adjacent to Yud-Tes Kislev,

the festival of redemption of the Alter Rebbe,

author of the Tanya and the Shulchan Aruch,

and according to the well-known words of the Shelah&lt;sup&gt;52&lt;/sup&gt;,

that there is a hint to the seasons of the year

(including Rabbinic festivals)

in the portions that occur in them,

it is understood,

that one must seek a hint to the redemption of Yud-Tes Kislev in the portion of Vayishlach.

— In addition to the Igeres HaKodesh that belongs to Yud-Tes Kislev in its content and its beginning "Katoneti"&lt;sup&gt;53&lt;/sup&gt;

(the eighth verse in the eighth portion — Vayishlach).

And one may connect the matter stated in Rashi with the redemption of Yud-Tes Kislev,

according to the well-known words of the Alter Rebbe&lt;sup&gt;54&lt;/sup&gt;,

that his redemption was at the time when he said the verse&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;

"He redeemed in peace my soul from the battle that was against me, for with many they were with me."

And it is explained in several places&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

the interpretation of this verse,

that what is said "He redeemed in peace" means that the redemption itself is in a manner of peace,

and this interpretation aligns with what they said in the Yerushalmi&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;

on "for with many they were with me",

that it refers to the men of Avshalom,

that they too prayed for David's victory.

And behold, the simple explanation in the words of our Sages, may their memory be for blessing, this is,

that at the very hour that the men of Avshalom fought against David,

they prayed

(in their hearts)

for the victory of David.

And based on this it is found,

that this is like the statement of Rabbi Shimon bar Yochai mentioned above regarding Esav,

"It is a halachah that it is known that Esav hates Yaakov, except that his mercies were stirred at that hour and he kissed him with all his heart",

that in this are emphasized the two extremes,

that even though "it is a halachah that it is known that Esav hates Yaakov",

and as above the explanation in this that the hatred of Esav for Yaakov is like a halachah regarding which there is no nullification,

nevertheless,

it is possible to affect him that for the moment he will transform into a lover

(in the manner mentioned above that the men of Avshalom prayed while they were opposing David for the victory of David).

And this is also the hint to the nineteenth of Kislev,

the day of the redemption of&lt;pg&gt;149&lt;/pg&gt;

Our master, the Alter Rebbe,

for this matter,

to act upon the opponent when he is in his full strength,

until transforming him

(temporarily)

into a friend,

is connected with the inner dimension of the Torah,

and as explained in many places⁵⁸

in the discourse of Rashbi⁵⁹

"It is permitted to provoke the wicked"

(even when "the hour smiles upon him"⁶⁰),

that this is the power and strength of Rashbi,

to subdue the wicked even when they are in their full strength.

And one must explain the connection specifically to Rashbi⁶¹,

for Rashbi revealed the inner dimension of the Torah⁶²,

the hidden aspect of the Torah,

in which is revealed the hidden aspect of the Holy One, blessed be He,

and His unlimited power, may He be blessed,⁵⁸

to subdue the wicked while they are still in their full strength.

And from this is also understood the connection to our master, the Alter Rebbe,

that in the revelation of the teachings of Chabad Chassidus,

he drew down the teachings of Rashbi in understanding and comprehension,

in a manner that "they shall be sustained"⁶³

from it, each one,

meaning that each one can understand and comprehend it until it becomes unified with his intellect

(like food of the body which becomes blood and flesh like his own flesh)⁶⁴.

And through the spreading of the wellsprings of Torah outward,

we will merit to come, King Messiah,⁶⁵

and the prophecy⁶⁶ will be fulfilled

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

immediately and at once.

(From the talks of Shabbat Parshat Vayishlach 5733,

5745)