Vol 10.18 - Vayishlach 2 Spanish French Audio Video
1. It is told in our Parsha (gen. 36:7-8) that:
“Esau took his wives. . and he went to (another) land, because of his brother Jacob”.
In addition, in the following verse it states:
“For their possessions were too numerous for them to dwell together, and the land of their sojournings could not support them because of their livestock”.
(כִּֽי־הָיָ֧ה רְכוּשָׁ֛ם רָ֖ב מִשֶּׁ֣בֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו וְלֹ֨א יָֽכְלָ֜ה אֶ֤רֶץ מְגֽוּרֵיהֶם֙ לָשֵׂ֣את אֹתָ֔ם מִפְּנֵ֖י מִקְנֵיהֶֽם)
Rashi, in his commentary cites the words: “and the land of their sojournings could not” and states:
“(could not) provide sufficient pasture for their animals. The Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 82:13), however, explains “because of his brother Jacob,” (as will be explained).
Rashi’s intent according to the commentators is that it states in the verse “to support them because of their livestock”. Therefore it is impossible to explain the verse literally, namely that “to support them” means “because of their number” (כובדם). Therefore, he explains it “provide pasture“. In other words, that “could not . . support them” means that they were not able to provide for their needs
One must understand:
Especially since in Parshat Lech, Rashi already explains on the verse: (Gen. 13:6) “The land was unable to support them: It could not provide sufficient pasture for their livestock”. And here Rashi again repeats his explanation!
One cannot say that Rashi comes to explain the words “their livestock” (their animals). For livestock” () is stated many times in Scripture before this, and Rashi does not comment at all. Moreover, in the aforementioned Parsha of Lech Rashi, writes in his commentary in his commentary on the verse “The land was unable to support them“that“It could not provide sufficient pasture for their livestock” ( in other words his is a word that is translated literally. For the verse there, does not mention “livestock”)
Moreover: in his comment in the aforementioned verse in Parshat Lech, Rashi suffices with the comment “It could not provide sufficient pasture for their livestock“ and he does not cite other explanations?
2. Rashi continues in his comment:
“The Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 82:13), however, explains “because of his brother Jacob,” as follows: Because of the note of obligation of the decree: “that your seed will be strangers” (Gen. 15: 13), which was put upon the descendants of Isaac. He (Esau) said, “I will get out of here. I have neither a share in the gift-for the land has been given to him-nor in the payment of the debt.” He left also on account of the shame that he felt because he had sold his birthright.”
Even this requires explanation:
(where he does not write “And some say” and so forth -like his style in many places when he cites a new explanation)
proves that this is not a second explanation from the Midrash Agaddah, but rather that it is an addition to the previous comment. One must understand: this is a completely new aspect and reason, as is also proven in the Midrash that he cites as an additional comment
( “R’ Yehoshua ben Levi states that this is on account of the shame “).
Yet Rashi diverges from the Midrash and incorporates both reasons together?
3. The explanation of all this is:
In the previously verse (ibid. 6) it states:
“And Esau took . . (and it further delineates) his cattle and all his animals and all his property that he had acquired in the land of Canaan, and he went to another land etc.”
In continuation to this, it states in the next verse:
“For their possessions (without specification) were too numerous for them to dwell together“
Plainly, this refers to all that was previously said:
“his cattle and all his animals and all his property that he had amassed in the land of Canaan “
According to this one must seemingly say that the reason that the verse concludes “the land of their sojournings could not support them because of their ‘Mikneihem’” (מקניהם) -
For in simplicity (this is not a new aspect, rather) this comes in continuation and explains that “their possessions were too numerous for them to dwell together “–
is not because it refers to the (word) “his livestock” (מקנהו) (in the previously verse). In other words, that it is like the explanation (in Parshat Lech) that it means to “provide sufficient pasture for their animals”.
But rather the explanation of the word “Mikneihem” at the conclusion of the verse is from the word “their monetary acquisitions” (מקנת כסף) (all of their wealth).
Therefore the meaning of the verse “the land of their sojournings could not support them” was that there was no place in the land of their sojournings to contain everything that they - Yaakov and Esau -had amassed.
(Whether it was via money or in another manner).
This was the opposite of the “the land has ample room to be open to them“ that was stated before this, in the Parsha.
However, according to this explanation, there is a great puzzlement in the verse:
Scripture’s words: “the land of their sojournings could not etc.” explains that Yaakov and Esau were not able to dwell together in the land of Canaan .However, it is still not understood why Esau went away because of Yaakov. Seemingly, it is the opposite: the land of Canaan was the dwelling place of Esau. He inherited (והתנהל) it with the people of his household and all of his possessions. Why therefore did Esau uproot his dwelling place because of Yaakov, who had just come from Charan?
We do not find that Yaakov endeavored to persuade Esau to leave the land. It is just that since “the land of their sojournings could not support them”, therefore “Esau (of his own accord) took his wives etc. “
To answer this question, Rashi cites the words “the land of their sojournings” and explains “provide sufficient pasture for their animals “. In other words that the explanation of “support them because of their livestock” is like the explanation in the aforementioned Parshat Lech namely that the land was not able to “provide sufficient pasture for their animals“.
(This is why Rashi emphasizes “for their animals” and not for “their ‘Mikneihem’” like the wording of the verse) – to negate the aforementioned explanation that “Mikneihem“ is from the phrase “their monetary acquisitions” (מקנת כסף) -
According to this, it is understood that Yaakov had a precedence over Esau, which is why Esau left the land because of Yaakov.
The explanation of this is:
In Parshat Vayetze it is told at length that Yaakov amassed a tremendous amount of sheep and cattle while in the house of Lavan.
(As it states: “The man became tremendously prosperous. He had many flocks etc. “ And as Rashi explains there that they were “fruitful and multiplied more than other sheep”).
Whereas Esau’s aspect was “a skilled trapper, a man of the field“ ( all aspects of the field).
Therefore where Yaakov came to the land of Canaan this was the main criteria with regard to the fodder of the land.
Therefore, when it became apparent that “the land . . could not provide sufficient pasture”, in this matter, Yaakov had precedence and vantage over Esau. Therefore Rashi emphasizes that the reason that “the land could not support them” was because it was because it “could not provide sufficient pasture“. For according to this it is understood why Esau left because of Yaakov.
4. However, it is understood that it is impossible for Rashi to suffice with this explanation alone, as a reason for why Esau left because of Yaakov. For it is greatly difficult to answer Esau’s conduct so, namely that he would uproot himself from his place of dwelling, with all of his possessions – because of uprightness and righteousness! And especially since Yaakov came into his territory!
In addition, according to this it is not understood:
What is (the verse coming to tell us by stating that he was) “his brother”. It should have said “he went to another land, because of Jacob“?
Therefore, Rashi adds:
“The Midrash Aggadah explains ‘because of his brother Jacob’ means because of the note of obligation . . and on account of the shame etc.”
With this, the reason for Esau’s uprooting himself because of Yaakov is understood:
Esau had reasons to depart the land of Canaan. Therefore, when it also transpired that that “the land of their sojournings could not support them”, and one of them was forced to uproot his dwelling place, Esau forsook the land.
According to this, it is understood that the Midrash’s explanation does not contradict the simple meaning of the verses, namely that the reason from Esau’s departing the land was “because their possessions were too numerous“. For this is a reason for just the general aspect, that one of them had to depart the land (like the precise wording of the verse “For their possessions were too numerous for them to dwell together, and the land of their sojournings could not support them “
Whereas in the Midrash it explains an additional detail why Esau left because of Yaakov.
With this, the precise words of Rashi in citing the words ““The Midrash Aggadah explains ‘because of his brother Jacob’” is understood:
With this Rashi is emphasizing that the reasons that are cited in the Midrash Aggadah explain just this specific detail, namely why Esau left because of “his brother Yaakov”.
Therefore, Rashi also cites the words “his brother” to allude that through this explanation (of the “note of obligation “) it is also understood that Scripture must emphasize here the inheritance (האחוזה)
(Whereas with the words “the land could not” – one must say that he adds “his brother” just as an aside)
5. According to this it is also understood why Esau did not depart the land of Canaan “Because of the note of obligation of the decree: ‘that your seed will be strangers’“ before Yaakov returned from Charan:
The verse explains the reason for the general occurrence of “For their possessions were too numerous “. And this forced then that one of them should leave. Therefore comes the change.
Until now, it was not yet clear and established who would pay the contract (or whether both of them would pay), even who would live in the land. For this was the continuation of the sojournings of their father. However when the departing of one of them was necessitated, the second one that remained, clarified through this, his understanding and resolution to also pay the note of obligation. This is why Rashi elaborates in explaining that “the land could”. (Each one of them needed to decide and say with regard to his leaving the land, and therefore also with regard to the note of obligation. Therefore Esau) “said I will get out of here. I have neither a share in the gift--nor in the payment of the debt“.
6. However, this reason is not yet sufficient:
For although Esau did not want to pay the note of obligation, nevertheless since the necessity of his leaving the land was due to Yaakov‘s arrival, there is, in this, a deference (הכנעה) toward Yaakov and a shame before all the people of the land that he is leaving “to dwell wherever he would find“. And especially to leave the land because of Yaakov
Therefore, Rashi adds:
(Not in the manner of “some say” – a different explanation, like in the Midrash ( above Par.2) . For in the Midrash these reasons are explained in a manner of explanation of the verse “because of his brother Jacob“. And they are two explanations in the verse “because of the note of obligation” or “because of the shame”.
However, Rashi ’s intent in citing the words of the Midrash is
(not to explain the verse “because of his brother Jacob “. For according to the study according to Pshat, that is not an explanation at all, rather)
to publicize the reasons that explain Esau’s conduct to go to another land because of Yaakov – for the first reason alone is not sufficient).
“also on account of the shame that he felt because he had sold his birthright“. In other words, this means that, in general, Esau’s staying in the land of Canaan was comingled with the feeling of “shame”, and especially in front of Yaakov to whom he sold his birthright. Since this was so, it is understood why Esau left the land because of Yaakov, even though this appeared to be a submissiveness toward Yaakov and shame that pushed him away from Yaakov.
However, due to the reason of “shame” alone, Esau would not have left the place of his dwelling with all of his household etc. Therefore, this reason is just offered as an addition and after the reason of “because of the note of obligation” - the main reason for Esau’s leaving the land.
7. However, it still requires explanation:
The decree of “your seed will be strangers“ that was put upon the descendants of Yitzchak was ( like the conclusion of the verse) that they would be “in a land that is not theirs “, and not just specifically in the land of Egypt.
This is as Rashi explains (there) that
“It does not state, "In the Land of Egypt," but rather "In a land that is not theirs."
If so, Esau’s uprooting himself to Mount Seir (which is outside the land of Canaan) was itself payment for the “note of obligation”?
The explanation of this is:
The decree that was put on Yitzchak’s descendants was that they would “be foreigners (גר) in a land that is not theirs “means that they would be in the land of their sojournings like a “foreigner (גר) and not as a “resident” (תושב).
Esau did not want (to pay the “note of obligation”) living as a “foreigner”, but rather specifically “and Esau settled in Mount Seir “.
From this there is a lesson in the Avodah of each and every person, wherever place they are found – during the time of Galut.
As long as ( the payment of the note of obligation) we remain in Galut, until the coming of our righteous Moshiach, who will fight the wars of G-d and be victorious, and build the Beit HaMikdash in its place and (afterward) gather the remnants of Yisroel ( the end of Galut). It is incumbent upon a person to know and to feel that he is a “stranger” in a land that is not his. He should not be settled, G-d forbid, in the time and duration of Galut. Rather he should be a “foreigner” and. stranger to all the aspects of the Galut. (However, he should be settled and strong in all aspects of Torah and Mitzvot – the aspects of the soul, which from the very onset did not go into Galut). Moreover, he should hope at all times and moments for the true Geulah, through our righteous Moshiach, that he will lead us upright to our land, soon, mamosh.
MSichas Shabbat Parshat Vayishlach 5729
Gutnick Chumash pp. 109
|Date Modified:||Date Reviewed:|