shorter review
Parshas Vayishlach
1. In our Parsha1 it is related that Esav took "את נשיו... וילך אל ארץ מפני יעקב אחיו" ("his wives... and went to a land because of Yaakov his brother"). And in the following verse the reason is explained: "כי היה רכושם רב משבת יחדיו ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם לשאת אותם מפני מקניהם" ("For their possessions were too great for them to dwell together, and the land of their sojournings could not bear them because of their livestock").
Now Rashi, in his commentary, quotes the words "ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם" ("and the land of their sojournings could not") and explains: "להספיק מרעה לבהמות שלהם. ומדרש אגדה מפני יעקב אחיו וכו'" ("to provide pasture for their animals. And a Midrash Aggadah: because of Yaakov his brother, etc.") (as will be discussed below in section 2).
The intent of Rashi's explanation, according to the commentators2, is this: the verse says "could not... bear them because of their livestock," and it is impossible to explain the words "to bear them" literally — "because of their weight." Therefore Rashi explains "to provide pasture, etc." — that is, "could not... bear them" means that it could not provide for their needs.
But this needs clarification:
a) If Rashi's intent is to explain the words "to bear them because of their livestock" (— "to provide pasture for their animals"), he should have quoted those words from the verse, and not the words "and the land of their sojournings could not"?
b) What is Rashi teaching us with his explanation? It is self-understood that here (regarding "land") it is impossible to explain "to bear" literally, and consequently it means "to provide pasture, etc."? Especially since in Parshas Lech Lecha Rashi already explained on the verse3 "ולא נשא אותם הארץ" ("And the land could not bear them") — "it could not provide pasture for their livestock," and here Rashi repeats and explains it again4!
c) Why does Rashi change from the wording of the verse, "(because of) their livestock," and write "for their animals"?
One cannot say that Rashi comes to explain the word "their livestock" (— "their animals"), for "livestock" is mentioned in the Torah several times before this5, and Rashi explained nothing. Moreover: in Parshas Lech Lecha mentioned above, Rashi writes in his commentary "to provide pasture for their livestock" (that is, this is a word whose meaning is simple — for in the verse there, "livestock" is not mentioned).
d) What is difficult in the explanation "to provide pasture, etc.," that on account of it Rashi needed to bring another explanation6 — especially an explanation which, as Rashi himself emphasizes, is (not according to the plain meaning, but rather) a "Midrash Aggadah"? Moreover: in his commentary in Parshas Lech Lecha mentioned above, Rashi is satisfied with the explanation "it could not provide pasture for their livestock," and does not bring other explanations?
2. Rashi continues in his commentary: "ומדרש אגדה מפני יעקב אחיו מפני שטר חוב של גזירת כי גר יהיה זרעך המוטל על זרעו של יצחק אמר אלך לי מכאן אין לי חלק לא במתנה שנתנה לו הארץ הזאת ולא בפרעון השטר ומפני הבושה שמכר בכורתו" ("And a Midrash Aggadah: because of Yaakov his brother — because of the promissory note of the decree 'your seed shall be strangers'7, which was imposed upon the descendants of Yitzchak. He said, 'I will go away from here; I have no share either in the gift — that this land was given to him — nor in the payment of the note'; and because of the shame that he had sold his birthright").
Here too clarification is needed:
a) Rashi's well-known principle in his commentary on the Torah, which he himself stated in Parshas Bereishis8, is: "ואני לא באתי אלא לפשוטו... ולאגדה המיישבת דברי המקרא דבר דבור על אופניו" ("I have come only for the plain meaning... and for the Aggadah that settles the words of Scripture, each word in its proper way"). But in our case, the explanation of the Midrash Aggadah is the opposite of what is stated explicitly in the verse, namely that the reason that "he went to a land, etc." is "for their possessions were, etc., and the land could not, etc."9?
b) Rashi's wording, "and because of the shame, etc." (he did not write "and some say" or the like — as is his way wherever he brings a new explanation), proves that this is not a second, alternative explanation, but an addition to the preceding one. This needs explanation: this is an entirely new matter and reason, as is also evident in the Midrash10, where it is brought as an additional explanation ("Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: because of the shame"); yet Rashi departed from the Midrash and included both reasons together11?
c) Since Rashi is not satisfied here with one reason and adds another, it is evident that neither one of them alone is enough to compel Esav to leave the land. Nevertheless, the main cause of his leaving was "because of the promissory note, etc.," and therefore Rashi places this reason before the reason "because of the shame, etc." This needs explanation: what is the advantage of the reason "because of the promissory note, etc.," and yet it is not sufficient, and an additional reason is needed — "because of the shame, etc."?
d) According to the reason that Esav's leaving the land was "because of the promissory note, etc." — why did Esav delay his leaving until after Yaakov came back from Charan? The matter of the "promissory note of the decree 'your seed shall be strangers'" had been known and publicized long before, for from the time Yitzchak was born its payment had already begun12?
e) In introducing the Midrash Aggadah's explanation, "because of the promissory note, etc.," Rashi quotes the words "because of Yaakov his brother," which are in the previous verse?
f) Moreover: this is a proof that contradicts Rashi — that it was not because of Avraham's promissory note, but because of Yaakov!
3. The explanation of all this:
In the preceding verse it says: "ויקח עשו גו' ואת מקנהו ואת כל בהמתו ואת כל קנינו אשר רכש בארץ כנען וילך אל ארץ" ("And Esav took, etc. (and it details) his livestock, and all his animals, and all his property which he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and went to a land"). And continuing from this it says: "For their possessions (unspecified) were too great for them to dwell together," which plainly refers to everything stated before: "his livestock, etc., his animals, and all his property which he had acquired in the land of Canaan."
Accordingly, it would seem that one must say that when the verse concludes, "and the land of their sojournings could not bear them because of their livestock" — which plainly (is not a new matter, but rather) follows on and explains "their possessions were too great for them to dwell together"13 — it does not refer to (the word) "his livestock" (in the previous verse14), with the meaning (as in Lech Lecha) "to provide pasture for their animals." Rather, its meaning is from the expression "מקנת כסף" ("purchased with money")15 (all their possessions)16. And the meaning of the verse "the land of their sojournings could not bear them" is that there was no room in the land of their sojournings to contain everything that Yaakov and Esav had acquired (whether with money or in another way17) — the opposite of "the land is wide on both sides"18 mentioned earlier.
However, according to this explanation there is a great wonder in the verse: "And the land of their sojournings could not, etc." explains why Yaakov and Esav could not live together in the land of Canaan, but it is still not understood why Esav left because of Yaakov. Seemingly, on the contrary: the land of Canaan was Esav's place of residence19, and he had settled there with the members of his household and all his property; so why did Esav move his dwelling because of Yaakov, who had only just now come from Charan?
Moreover: we do not find that Yaakov made an effort to have Esav leave the land; rather, since "the land could not, etc., bear them," "Esav took (on his own) his wives, etc."
To resolve this wonder, Rashi quotes the words "and the land of their sojournings could not"20 and explains: "to provide pasture for their animals." That is, the meaning of "to bear them because of their livestock" is as in Lech Lecha mentioned above — that the land could not "provide pasture for their animals,"
[and this is what Rashi emphasizes with "for their animals" (and not "for their livestock," as in the verse) — to exclude the above explanation that "their livestock" is from the expression "purchased with money"]
— according to which it is understood that Yaakov had precedence over Esav, on account of which Esav left because of Yaakov.
The explanation: in Parshas Vayetzei it is related at length that Yaakov acquired an enormous number of sheep and livestock in Lavan's house ("ויפרוץ האיש מאד מאד... צאן רבות" ("And the man became exceedingly prosperous... many flocks")21, and as Rashi explains: "they were fruitful and multiplied more than other sheep"). This is not so regarding Esav, whose occupation was "hunting, a man of the field"22 (all matters of the field). Therefore, when Yaakov came to the land of Canaan, he was the main one with regard to the pasture of the land.
Therefore, when it became clear that the land could not, etc. — "provide pasture, etc." — in this Yaakov had priority and precedence over Esav. Therefore Rashi emphasizes that the land's inability, etc. was "to provide pasture, etc.," according to which it is understood why Esav left because of Yaakov.
4. However, it is understood that Rashi cannot be satisfied with this explanation alone as the reason why Esav left because of Yaakov, for it is very forced to explain Esav's conduct — wandering from his place with all that he had — as due to honesty and fairness! Especially since Yaakov had entered his territory!
Also: according to this explanation it is not understood what the word "his brother" teaches us — it should have said "and he went to a land because of Yaakov"?
Therefore Rashi adds: "And a Midrash Aggadah: because of Yaakov his brother — because of the promissory note, etc., and because of the shame, etc." With this, the reason for Esav's moving away because of Yaakov is understood: Esav had reasons to leave the land of Canaan; therefore, when matters developed so that "the land of their sojournings could not bear them," and one of them was compelled to move his dwelling, Esav left the land.
Accordingly, it is understood that what is explained in the Midrash does not contradict the plain meaning of the verses, that the reason for Esav's leaving is "for their possessions were great, etc."* — for that is a reason only for the general matter, that one of them was compelled to leave the land (as is precisely indicated by the verse, "for their possessions were too great for them to dwell together, and the land could not, etc."); and the Midrash explains an additional detail: why Esav left because of Yaakov.
This explains Rashi's precision in quoting the words "(Midrash Aggadah:) because of Yaakov his brother, etc.": with this Rashi emphasizes that the reasons brought in the Midrash Aggadah explain only this detail23 — why Esav left "because of Yaakov his brother." And Rashi also quotes the word "his brother," to hint that through this explanation (of the promissory note) it will also be understood that the verse must emphasize the brotherhood here (which is not so according to "and the land could not, etc." — where one must say that "his brother" is added only incidentally24).
5. Accordingly, it will also be explained why Esav did not leave the land of Canaan "because of the promissory note of the decree 'your seed shall be strangers,' etc." before Yaakov returned from Charan:
The verse explicitly states the reason for the event in general: "for their possessions were great, etc.," and this compelled, at that time25, that one of them move away — and consequently the change came about: until then it was not yet clear and definite who would pay the note (or whether both of them would pay it), even though he lived in the land, for this was a continuation of their father's residence. But when the moving away of one of them became necessary, then the other one, who remained, thereby made clear his intention and decision to also pay the promissory note. This is why Rashi elaborates in explaining "and the land could not, etc." (and each of them was compelled to decide and declare regarding his moving away, and consequently also regarding the note; then Esav) "said: I will go away from here; I have no share either in the gift, etc., nor in the payment of the note."
6. But this reason is still not sufficient. For although Esav did not want to pay the promissory note, nevertheless, since what forced him to leave the land was Yaakov's arrival, there is in this a submission before Yaakov, and shame before all the people of the land, that he goes "to sojourn wherever he may find [a place]"26 — just so as to leave the land because of Yaakov.
Therefore Rashi adds
[not in the wording "another interpretation" — a different explanation, as in the Midrash (as mentioned above in section 2) — for in the Midrash these reasons are brought as an explanation of the verse "because of Yaakov his brother," and they are two explanations of the verse: "because of the promissory note" or "because of the shame." But Rashi's intent in bringing the words of the Midrash is (not to explain the verse "because of Yaakov his brother" — for in study according to the plain meaning this is not its explanation at all, but rather) to make known reasons that explain Esav's conduct in going to another land because of Yaakov — since the first reason alone is not sufficient]
"and because of the shame that he had sold his birthright" — that is, in general, Esav's stay in the land of Canaan was mixed with a feeling of "shame," especially in the presence of Yaakov, to whom he had sold the birthright. Since this is so, it is understood why Esav left the land because of Yaakov, even though this appears as a submission before Yaakov, and as the shame of being pushed aside before him.
However, for the reason of "shame" alone, Esav would not have left his place of residence with all the members of his household, etc. Therefore this reason is brought only as an addition, and after the reason "because of the promissory note, etc." — the main cause for Esav to leave the land.
7. However, seemingly this still requires explanation:
The decree "your seed shall be strangers"* imposed upon the descendants of Yitzchak is (as the verse concludes) that they would be strangers "בארץ לא להם" ("in a land not theirs") — not specifically in the land of Egypt, as Rashi explains (there): "It does not say 'in the land of Egypt,' but rather 'not theirs,' etc." If so, Esav's moving to Mount Seir (which is outside the land of Canaan) is itself the payment of the "promissory note"?
The explanation of this: the decree imposed upon the descendants of Yitzchak is to be "a stranger, etc., in a land not theirs" — that is, that one is in the land of his residence as a "stranger," and not as a settled resident.
And Esav did not want (to pay the "promissory note" by) a life of a "stranger"; rather, specifically "and Esav dwelled (settled) in Mount Seir."
From this there is a lesson in the Divine service of each and every person, wherever he may be — during the time of exile:
As long as we are in exile (paying the promissory note), until the coming of Moshiach Tzidkeinu, who will fight the wars of G‑d and be victorious, and build the Beis HaMikdash in its place, and (afterwards) gather in the dispersed of Israel27 (the end of the exile), a person must know and feel that he is a "stranger" in a land not his own; that he should not, G‑d forbid, settle down in the time and order of exile, but rather be a "stranger," foreign to all matters of exile (but a settled resident28, firm in all matters of Torah and mitzvos — matters of the soul, which from the very outset did not go into exile29), and he should await at every time and moment the true Redemption, through Moshiach Tzidkeinu, who will lead us upright to our land, very soon indeed.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayishlach, 5729)
Notes
1) 36:6-7.
2) Re'em here.
3) Lech Lecha 13:6.
4) The reason Rashi needed to explain it in Parshas Lech Lecha is (mainly) in order to resolve that "it is an elliptical expression... therefore it wrote 'ולא נשא' in the masculine form." And similarly in Bereishis 4:13.
5) Rashi's comment on Bereishis 4:20 (the first time the word "livestock" is mentioned in the Torah): "The father of those who dwell in tents and with livestock — he was the first of the shepherds of animals in the deserts, etc." — is in order to explain "the father of... livestock," the connection between tent and livestock, etc. And in every place that livestock is mentioned after this, Rashi explains nothing.
6) The Gur Aryeh writes that the difficulty with the first explanation is: why did Esav go to another land, and not merely to another city within the land of Canaan itself (for "it is not possible that a land that is four hundred parsah could not bear them")? Therefore he brings the explanation of the Midrash Aggadah, "because of the promissory note, etc.," from which the reason Esav went to another land is understood. But he did not resolve why Rashi needed to also bring the Midrash "because of the shame" (as below, section 2).
*) See also Ramban here: "But Esav, seeing that he could not remain in his city and his place, left the entire land to his brother and went away." And the fact that he went to Mount Seir can be sweetened according to what Ramban writes (at the beginning of our Parsha): "since the south of Eretz Yisrael is beside Edom, and his father dwelled in the land of the south, etc."
7) Lech Lecha 15:13 [OCR: "טו, יב" — 15:12].
8) 3:8.
9) The Gur Aryeh writes that the Midrash Aggadah explains only the reason why Esav needed to go to another land (as above, note 6), "but nevertheless, were it not for the reason that the land of their sojournings could not [bear them], he would not have gone now, just as he had not gone until now... but because now he also had another cause, that it could not... and therefore, since in the end he would go because of the note, he went now." According to this, the words of the Midrash Aggadah do not contradict what is stated, "for their possessions were, etc." (and along the lines of what is explained below, section 4 [OCR: "סי"ד"]). But see above, note 6.
10) Bereishis Rabbah on the verse.
11) As the Re'em asks here. And his answer (that Rashi adopted the words of both of them because the words of both together are close to the plain meaning of the verse) requires explanation.
12) But see the Gur Aryeh cited in note 9.
13) For plainly, the words "their possessions were too great for them to dwell together" include all the matters because of which they could not "dwell together."
14) Especially since this "his livestock" does not include "all his animals" that follows it. And see above (26:14), that specifically, livestock means sheep and cattle. See also (Vayigash 47:17): "with their livestock... (and it details) with the horses, and with the livestock of the flocks, and with the livestock of the herds, and with the donkeys." And it is worth noting that Targum Onkelos translates "livestock" as "גיתי," and in several places as "בעירא"; but this is not the place to elaborate.
15) Lech Lecha 17:12 [OCR: "יח, יב"].
16) And although, according to this, a different meaning is given to "livestock" within one subject — nevertheless, according to Rashi's explanation too, "their livestock" includes both "his livestock" and "all his animals" which preceded it — for camels too need pasture (Rashi above, 24:32).
17) See Rashi, Vayetzei 31:18.
18) Our Parsha, 34:21.
19) And although even before Yaakov came from Charan, Esav was already in the land of Seir, as is evident from what is written at the beginning of our Parsha, "And Yaakov sent, etc., to the land of Seir," and similarly it is written (our Parsha, 33:16), "And Esav returned that day on his way to Seir"* — nevertheless, from what is stated here, "and he went to a land," (and afterwards) "and Esav dwelled in Mount Seir," it is understood that before this going, Esav's main residence (and "his wives, his sons... all his property") was in the land of Canaan, except that he was also present in the land of Seir (see Ramban (our Parsha, 36:6), Chizkuni (ibid.) and the Tur HaAroch (beginning of our Parsha)).
The reason Rashi does not explain this — even though, as has been discussed several times, in his commentary Rashi resolves every difficulty that arises in study according to the plain meaning — can be explained because it is explicit in the verse: "And Esav returned, etc., on his way to Seir" — that is, not that this was his land, but only "his way" — that he was accustomed to go there. And the reason is plainly understood (see Abarbanel (end of our Parsha) and Chizkuni (beginning of our Parsha)): since Esav was "a man who knew hunting, a man of the field" (Toldos 25:27), who was always found in the field (which is the opposite of "a dweller of tents"), therefore he was accustomed (also) to be in "the land of Seir, the field of Edom."
*) But see Maskil LeDavid (ibid., verse 14), that Esav's going to Seir was "to wait there until Yaakov would come"; see there.
20) For he does not come to explain the words "to bear them because of their livestock," but rather to resolve the wonder in the verse "and the land could not, etc.," that this is not a sufficient reason for Esav's leaving because of Yaakov. Therefore Rashi quotes the words (in which the difficulty lies) "and the land of their sojournings could not," with which begins the explanation of the reason "their possessions were too great for them to dwell together" (as above in the text and note 13).
21) 30:43.
22) Toldos 25:27.
23) Along these lines one can explain according to the explanation of the Gur Aryeh (see above, notes 6 and 9) — that with this Rashi emphasizes that the explanation of the Midrash Aggadah is an explanation of the previous verse (see the Gur Aryeh there), in which is explained (only) the reason why Esav went "to a land" (another one), and therefore it does not contradict what is stated, "for their possessions were, etc." (as above, note 9). Especially according to what is implied by the wording of the Gur Aryeh, who explains Rashi's intent as being that the explanation of the words "because of Yaakov his brother" (in the plain meaning of the verse) is like the explanation of the Midrash Aggadah (but see below, section 6), it is understood that he needs to quote these words. It is worth noting that in the Gur Aryeh, the version of Rashi's text is: "And a Midrash Aggadah: because of the promissory note, etc." — omitting the words "because of Yaakov his brother."
24) This is not so at the beginning of the Parsha: "to Esav his brother," where "his brother" explains the manner of the mission, as Rashi explains (32:7).
25) According to this, it is understood why Rashi did not explain as several Torah commentators (Rashbam and Chizkuni (our Parsha, 36:6); and see also Ramban there), that Esav's leaving because of Yaakov was because he had sold him the birthright, and therefore it was just that Yaakov should inherit the land. For from what is stated, "for their possessions were, etc.," it is evident that this was the main reason that compelled Esav to leave the land; whereas according to the above explanation, for this reason alone (that "his (Yaakov's) intent was to inherit Yitzchak") Esav would have been compelled to leave the land*. This is not so regarding the reasons that Rashi brings in his commentary — they are not causes that compelled Esav to leave the land, as explained in the text.
*) And see Abarbanel (end of our Parsha), that "Esav, in his love for Yaakov, left him the land of Canaan, knowing that Yaakov desired it and was destined to inherit it" — that is, he is not satisfied with "was destined to inherit it," but adds "in his love... he left it... knowing that Yaakov desired it." And it is understood why Rashi did not explain so, for plainly, even after Yaakov came from Charan, Esav did not love Yaakov (see Rashi, our Parsha, 33:4, s.v. "and he kissed him"; and even according to the second explanation there, this was only "at that time").
26) Rashi 36:6.
27) Rambam, Laws of Kings, end of chapter 11.
28) See Rashi, Chayei Sarah 23:4.
29) See the note at the beginning of the Kuntres of 12-13 Tammuz 5691 (printed in Sefer HaMaamarim — Kuntreisim — vol. 1, p. 350).
*) [The asterisks marked in the text in sections 4 and 7 have no corresponding note in the OCR source — OCR unclear.]
Key Lesson
Esav refused to pay the "promissory note" of exile by living as a stranger, choosing instead to settle comfortably in Mount Seir. This Sicha teaches that throughout the exile a Jew must feel like a "stranger" to all matters of exile, never settling into it, while standing firm and at home in Torah and mitzvos, and awaiting the true Redemption through Moshiach at every moment.