How could Ya’akov use angels to run an errand to Eisav?
(32,4) “And Ya’akov sent angels before him to Eisav his brother, to the land of Seir, the field of Edom.”
The phrase “before him” seems superfluous, but it could be that the meaning is the following:
We have written many times that a messenger must always be subordinate to those who he is serving - both to the sender and to the one being sent to. This idea is also brought in the Midrash later on in the parsha concerning the posuk “let me go, for the dawn is breaking”. If so, since the angels were certainly superior to Eisav, how could Ya’akov send them as messengers to him?
The answer is that if the message had been for Eisav’s benefit then certainly the messengers were required to have been inferior to Eisav, since they are being sent for his sake and thus they would be serving him. But Ya’akov was in fact sending the message for his own benefit, and so since Ya’akov was greater than the angels - Chazal teach that tzaddikim are greater than the ministering angels - it was fitting that they should serve him.
This is what the posuk means: “And Ya’akov sent angels”. And why was he able to send angels? Because they were being sent “before him”, for his benefit. Therefore, even though they were being sent “to Eisav, his brother”, nevertheless he sent angels, because it was fitting for Ya’akov to be served by them.
What was Ya’akov’s message to Eisav?
(32,5) “And he commanded them, saying: Thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav - Thus said your servant Ya’akov: With Lavan I have sojourned and I delayed until now. And I have acquired oxen and donkeys, flocks and manservants and maidservants; and I am sending to tell to my lord, to find favor in your eyes.”
Every time the nations of the world desire to do evil to Klal Yisrael, the result is that Yisrael ultimately benefit. As Hashem said to Avrohom “You will surely know that your descendants will be strangers in a land not theirs…and they will afflict them…and afterwards they will go out with great wealth” - as a result of their slavery they will gain great wealth.
Here too, Ya’akov had lived with Lavan many years during which time Lavan had endeavoured to do him evil many times. The result was that Ya’akov ended up very wealthy. Therefore, since Ya’akov knew that Eisav wanted to do him evil he sent him a message to inform him that anyone who wishes to do to him evil will cause him much good. Therefore, it would be better for him not to continue to do him evil.
This is what our posuk means: “I have lived with Lavan and have delayed until now”, and this has caused me to acquire great wealth - "oxen and donkeys, flocks, manservants and maidservants". Therefore, "I am sending to tell my lord, to find favor in your eyes", that you should not seek any more to harm me since that will cause me even more good.
Did Ya’akov really consider Eisav to be his lord?
(32,5) “And he commanded them, saying: Thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav - Thus said your servant Ya’akov: With Lavan I have sojourned and I delayed until now. And I have acquired oxen and donkeys, flocks and manservants and maidservants; and I am sending to tell to my lord, to find favor in your eyes.”
In the posuk when it writes “Thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav”, the word “to” seems superfluous. But maybe the meaning is that he was warning the angels not to make a mistake when they hear Ya’akov referring to Eisav as “my lord”, and think that they should really refer to him as such, even when they are not in Eisav’s presence. Because the truth is that Ya’akov did not really consider Eisav as his lord, but in his presence he was forced to flatter him. This is what he was imparting to the angels - “thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav” - only to Eisav. In his presence you should refer to him as my lord, but not otherwise.
This also answers a problem in the beginning of the posuk - “and he commanded them, saying: Thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav“. Chazal teach that the word צו (he commanded) always implies that the person being commanded should be careful and vigilant. But how is this pertinent here? Also, the word “saying” seems superfluous.
But Ya’akov knew that the messengers would think that his main intention was to tell Eisav about his sojourn with Lavan, and so they would start with the words “thus said your servant Ya’akov”, leaving out the beginning of his statement, which was “thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav”. And if they did so Ya’akov was worried that Eisav would think that Ya’akov never referred to himself as Eisav’s servant, and it was just the messengers who were honouring him by saying so. And even if Ya’akov had himself said so it was only to flatter Eisav because he feared him, and not that he said it with any sincerity.
Therefore, Ya’akov instructed them to say to Eisav his exact words, starting with “thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav”, so that when Eisav hears that he spoke to them these words this would prove to Eisav that Ya’akov referred to him as 'my lord' even not in his presence, and that he genuinely thought of Eisav as his lord.
Therefore, “he commanded them” - to be careful with their task, because he knew that it is not normal for messengers to relate the exact words of the sender, only the main content and intention of his words, “saying” - indicating to them that they should start from the following words: “Thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav”, relating all of his words exactly as he had said them.
Why did Ya’akov not send greetings to Eisav until now?
(32,5) “And he commanded them, saying: Thus you shall say to my lord, to Eisav - Thus said your servant Ya’akov: With Lavan I have sojourned and I delayed until now. And I have acquired oxen and donkeys, flocks and manservants and maidservants; and I am sending to tell to my lord, to find favor in your eyes.”
Another way to explain these posukim is that Ya’akov was worried that Eisav might ask why Ya’akov had not sent friendly words of greeting until now. But the answer is that when good things happen to a person then it is normal for him to tell his friends and relatives, and to write to those who are far away. But if he is suffering he will not write to them, because why should he cause them distress?
This was his message to Eisav: Do not wonder why I did not send you words of greeting before, because until now "with Lavan I have sojourned", and I was not in a position of power and importance - on the contrary, I was a stranger and very lowly, and I suffered greatly at the hands of Lavan. Therefore, “I delayed until now” and did not write to you to distress you with my suffering. But now "I have acquired oxen and donkeys" - I have become wealthy, and Hashem has began to help me, and so I am immediately "sending to tell my lord" my good tidings, "to find favor in your eyes".
Why was Ya’akov afraid that he might kill Eisav?
(32,8) “And Ya’akov became very afraid and he was distressed.”
The Midrash teaches that “he was afraid” perhaps he would be killed, “and he was distressed” perhaps he would kill. (He said:) If I overpower him I will kill him, and if he will overpower me he will kill me. This is the correct text. The commentaries Yefas Toar and Nezer HaKodesh asked why he was distressed that he might kill Eisav - Eisav was intending to kill him, and the rule is that if someone is coming to kill you, you should kill him first!
But in parshas Toldos, when Eisav was selling his birthright to Ya’akov, Ya’akov said: “Swear to me as of this day” . Because there is a halachic problem regarding the buying and selling of something which has not yet come into the world, because technically one cannot acquire that which does not yet exist. However, it is brought in the sefer Orach Chaim in the name of the Rivash, who himself brings it in the name of the Ramban and the Rosh, that if a person sells something which does not yet exist and swears to the purchaser regarding the sale, then the buyer does acquire it.
The proof for this is from Ya’akov who demanded that Eisav swear to him, because the birthright - for example, the right to receive a double portion of the inheritance - does not yet exist. It only comes into existence when Yitzchok dies. However, the Rivash himself holds that one cannot acquire this way, and rejects the proof by claiming that in those days the rule that one cannot acquire that which does not yet exist was not the law, and the reason why Ya’akov demanded an oath was only to solidify the deal.
But one does not have to reject completely the words of the Ramban and the Rosh, because we can say that even if the oath does not itself serve to actuate the acquisition of something that does not yet exist, nevertheless, it is brought in Shulchan Aruch, Choshen Mishpat, Siman 209 that the person must still fulfil his oath. However, if he dies before the acquisition takes effect, his children are not required to fulfil the deal.
According to this we can explain that this is the reason why Ya’akov wanted Eisav to swear, so that he would obligated to fulfil the deal because of the oath. So that even if he later wanted to break his word Yitzchok will not let him do so, and before he dies he will order that the double portion be given to Ya’akov since he was now the 'firstborn'. This was Ya’akov’s intent.
However, all this would work only if Eisav was alive when Yitzchok dies - then he would have to fulfil his promise. But if Eisav dies before Yitzchok his children would not have to fulfil the oath, and they would receive the birthright. For this reason it was impossible for Ya’akov to kill Eisav even though he knew it was permissible to kill his pursuer, because then he would lose the birthright and all its spiritual benefits for all generations since the deal he had made with Eisav many years before would be nullified. Examine this explanation well because it is very correct.
How could Ya’akov be so confident that one camp would escape?
(32,9) “And he said: If Eisav comes to one camp and smites it (והכהו), the remaining camp will escape.”
How was it so clear to Ya’akov that one camp might be killed but then the other would then escape?
But we can explain that the posuk means something very different, because Rashi explained in the previous posuk that “he was distressed” that perhaps he might kill Eisav. Thus, we see that Ya’akov did not want this to happen, maybe because it is not good for a Tzaddik to be an agent of punishment, as it says in Mishlei. Or maybe because Ya’akov was a Kohen, as the Midrash teaches, and a Kohen who kills even unintentionally is no longer allowed to bless the priestly blessing, and understandably Ya’akov did not want to be disqualified from priestly duties.
Or maybe the reason is like what the author of the sefer Ma’aseh Hashem wrote, that if Hashem saves a person with a miracle which involves the downfall of the enemy, it is not apparent if it was because of His love for the person that He is saving, or because of His hatred of the enemy. But if Hashem saves him only by defending him and not by causing the downfall of the enemy, then it is clear that is was only because of His love for the person He saved.
Here too, Ya’akov was worried that he might miraculously kill Eisav and it would not be apparent for whose sake the miracle had been wrought, and therefore others might say that it was not done for him, to save him, but because of Hashem's hatred for Eisav.
This last explanation also explains the seemingly superfluous word לו (which means to him, or for him) in the expression “he was distressed” - ויצר לו. According to the above the meaning is that he was distressed about the ‘for him’, that it would not be apparent that the miracle had been wrought for him. Thus there are several possible explanations as to why Ya’akov did not wish to kill Eisav.
Now, Chazal teach that if a person does something wrong and somebody else could have protested and stopped him from doing it but he did not protest, it is considered as if he himself had done the wrong thing. Therefore, Ya’akov reasoned that if there will be only one camp and he is part of that camp, then even if someone else will kill Eisav everyone would still consider it as if Ya’akov himself had done the killing, since they were in one group and Ya’akov had not protested against it. And therefore, since Ya’akov did not want to kill Eisav, either directly or to have the killing ascribed to him, “he divided the people who were with him…into two camps. And he said: If Eisav comes to one of the camps and smites him (והכהו)” - if someone from the camp smites Eisav, then “the remaining camp will escape” from being associated with the killing since they were not in one group, and thus the killing of Eisav would not be ascribed to him.
This explanatiuon solves a problem that the commentaries noted, that the posuk אם יבוא עשו אל המחנה והכהו would appear to mean "if Eisav comes to one camp and smites it" - smites the camp. But the problem is that camp is a feminine word, and the word הכהו means smiting something masculine. But according to the above explanation there is no problem, because the meaning of the posuk is that the camp will smite Eisav, who is of course masculine.
Why was Ya’akov afraid that Eisav might harm his wives and children?
(32,10) “And Ya’akov said: G-d of my father Avrohom and G-d of my father Yitzchok, Hashem, Who said to me: Return to your land and to your birthplace, and I will do good to you. I have become small from all the kindness and from all the truth that you have rendered your servant…Please save me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Eisav, for I am afraid of him, lest he come and smite me - the mothers and the children.”
The explanation and flow of these three posukim is that it was clear to Ya’akov that Hashem’s telling him to return home and promising him that He would do good to him, was not due to his personal merit, since if it was due to his merit he would not have been afraid of Eisav, nor would he been afraid for his wives and children. Because even though Eisav had behind him the double merit of Avrohom and Yitzchok, nevertheless they had three, since they also had the merit of Ya’akov himself. And so, since their triple merit was greater than Eisav’s two, Ya’akov would not have needed to pray for the matter.
But Ya’akov was certain that Hashem’s promise to him was only in the merit of his fathers, because his merit had already been used up. If so, both he and Eisav had the merit of two, and thus even if he didn’t have to fear, since has was equal to Eisav, nevertheless, he was afraid that Eisav would be able to kill his wives and children. Because even though they also had the merit of two, they were one generation further away from Avrohom and Yitzchok, and so their merit was weaker than that of Eisav.
This is what Ya’akov was saying: “the G-d of my father Avrohom and G-d of my father Yitzchok”, only in their merit “Hashem said to me: Return to your land and to your birthplace, and I will do good to you.” But “I have become small from all the kindness and from all the truth that you have rendered your servant” - my merits have already been reduced because of all the kindness that you have done for me. Therefore, because Eisav also has the merit of our fathers, I pray “Deliver me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Eisav, for I am afraid of him”. And even if, since we are equal in our merits, I don’t have to fear him, still I am afraid “lest he come and smite me”, that is, “the mothers and the children”. The flow of the posukim is now clear.
What argument did Ya’akov use to guarantee that Hashem Himself would save him from Eisav?
(32,12) “Please save me from the hand of my brother, from the hand of Eisav, for I am afraid of him, lest he come and smite me - the mother and the children.”
The Midrash writes that Ya’akov said to Hashem: Master of the World, You wrote in your Torah in Vayikra 22:28, "An ox or sheep, it and its offspring you shall not slaughter in one day". If this wicked one comes and destroys my sons and their mother together, the Sefer Torah which You are destined to give on Mount Sinai, who will read it? Please save me from his hand, that he should not come and smite me, the mother and the children, as it says "Please save me…".
This Midrash is a puzzle - why did it repeat at the end "please save me"? Also, from where did the Midrash learn that Ya’akov argued "the Sefer Torah which You are destined to give on Mount Sinai, who will read it"?
But it seems to me that we can explain the Midrash very well, because behold, I quoted earlier the Midrash which Rashi brings on the posuk "and Ya’akov became very afraid and distressed" - he was afraid that he might be killed, he was distressed that he might kill others. It seems to me that Ya’akov was certain that Hashem would make for him a miracle, but the miracle could be in one of two ways. Either Hashem will change Eisav's heart and mind towards him for the good, from being an enemy to one who loves him, and so not do to him any evil, as in fact happened, or Eisav will remain with his hatred of Ya’akov, but Ya’akov will prevail over him in battle, and Eisav will fall by his hands. Now, the second way - to kill others - was not pleasing to Ya’akov, and therefore it says "he was distressed", and therefore he very much desired that Hashem will change Eisav's heart.
Now, the difference between these two miracles, is that to change a person's heart and to change his will, is something which is very difficult, as the Zohar discusses at length. And the Rav, the author of Maaseh Hashem, wrote, that after all the wonders that Hashem did in Egypt, He commanded them to ask the Egyptians for their gold and silver, in order that they should know that Hashem has the ability to overturn the heart of someone who has freewill. And this was a greater miracle than all the others. If so, it is clear that to change a person's heart is more difficult than all the miracles of Egypt. Therefore, it would seem that this ability is not in the hand of any angel, but rather only in Hashem's hand. Only in His hand are the hearts of people, to direct them to wherever He desires.
But the second type of miracle, that Ya’akov would prevail over Eisav in battle, this could be effected by an angel. Like we find with Elisha, who showed his servant chariots of fire and fiery horses, and told him that there are more with us than there is with the enemy, and so they could easily prevail. So too we find with Devorah that she prevailed in battle in a miraculous way, and this was possible with the assistance of an angel.
Now, the Nezer HaKodesh brings in the name of the Zohar, that somebody who has the power of the Torah is looked after completely by Hashem Himself. But one who does not have the power of the Torah is looked after by an angel. And concerning Ya’akov it says that he was "a complete person, sitting in tents", that is, sitting in the Torah Academies of Shem and Ever. If so, presumably he had the power of Torah which would protect him and guarantee that he would be looked after solely by Hashem.
However, this is not so, because before the giving of the Torah he was not commanded in the mitzvos, and therefore the merit of observing the Torah was not able to protect him. As it says in the gemora in Sotah, "If she has merit her punishment is suspended. The gemora asks: Which merit does she have? If we say the merit of the Torah, is she commanded to learn Torah? So we see that if one is not commanded, then the power of Torah does not protect.
But Hashem had earlier promised Ya’akov that He would be with him. However, Ya’akov was afraid lest he had fallen from his lofty level, and so would no longer be looked after by Hashem. If so, he would not merit the miracle that Hashem will overturn Eisav's heart, because an angel is unable to do this, and so he could only merit the miracle of vanquishing Eisav in battle. But this would involve killing others, and he did not desire this.
Therefore, Ya’akov prefaced his words and requested "save me please" - You, Yourself, Hashem, please be my saviour to save me from my brother, from Eisav, and not by way of an angel. Because even though I do not have the power of Torah, nevertheless, my main fear is that I am afraid of him, lest he come and smite mother and children, and if so the Sefer Torah that You are destined to give, who will read it? My main fear is concern for the future giving of the Torah, and since it relates to the Torah, logic requires that the intervention should be by You specifically. Therefore, save me please from the hand of my brother, from Eisav, to change his heart and mind towards me for the good, and as a result I will not need to kill others.
This then is how the Midrash knew what Ya’akov argued before Hashem. It saw that Ya’akov did not desire to kill others, and so he needed an argument to guarantee that Hashem Himself will intervene and change Eisav's heart. Thus he said to Hashem: The sefer Torah which You are destined to give to Your children, who will read it if Eisav kills mother and children? And therefore the Midrash concludes, as it says, "Please save me from my brother", that the salvation will be by You, Hashem, and not by an angel, and then the will of Eisav will be overturned from bad to good, and I will not need to kill others. Examine all this carefully, because it is very correct.
Why did Ya’akov tithe the animals before he gave them to Eisav as a gift?
(32,14) “And he lodged there on that night, and he took from what came to his hand a gift for his brother Eisav.”
In the concluding phrase - "for his brother Eisav" - the words "his brother" seem to be superfluous. But Rashi explained here that he tithed the animals before he took the animals for a gift. According to this, we can explain that since Eisav was his brother he was commanded to take a tithe like Ya’akov. Therefore, Ya’akov did not want to give to him without first tithing the animals, in order that he will not transgress the sin of "do not out a stumbling block before a blind person".
This is what the posuk is saying: "and he took from what came to his hand", that is, he gave a tithe, and the reason why he gave a tithe is because it was "for his brother Eisav", who was commanded to take tithes like him.
An alternative explanation of this posuk, is that since we hold that if a king seizes a person's produce because he owes the king a debt, the person must first tithe the produce, because he benefits from the seizure since he thereby discharges his debt. But if the produce is seized for no reason, then he is not obligated to tithe it, since the seizure is not to his benefit.
This is what the posuk is saying, that if Eisav had not been his brother, just a bandit or a thief, then Ya’akov would not have been obligated to tithe that which he gave him. But Eisav was his brother, and he had also received a blessing from Yitzchok. But in truth Ya’akov took everything, as Yitzchok said to Eisav in Bereishis 27:37 "Behold, I made him master over you, and I gave him all his brothers as servants… so for you then, what shall I do, my son?", which implies that Ya’akov took everything. If so, he is obligated to pay to Eisav that which he took from his portion, and so it is like the king seizing his produce to pay his debt, and so he is obligated to first take a tithe.
This is what the posuk is saying: "he took from that which came to his hand as a gift", that is, he gave a tithe, like Rashi explained. And the reason was because it was "for his brother Eisav", who took it for the debt that he was owed.
Who drew near to whom?
(33,3) “And he passed in front of them and prostrated himself to the ground seven times until he drew near to his brother.”
The posuk says that “he drew near to his brother”, but it cannot mean that Ya’akov drew near to Eisav because the next posuk says “and Eisav ran towards him and embraced him”, which implies that Eisav was the one who drew near to Ya’akov, not the other way round.
Therefore it seems to me that it is referring to Eisav who until now hated Ya’akov and distanced himself from him, but the prostrations of Ya’akov and his subservience towards him changed Eisav’s disposition towards Ya’akov from one of hatred to one of love, and compelled Eisav to draw near to Ya’akov and bring him close.
This is what the posuk is saying: Ya’akov “prostrated himself to the ground seven times” to Eisav “until he drew near to his brother” - until Eisav drew near to his brother and “ran towards him and embraced him”.
Since Eisav apparently asked about both the women and the children, why did Ya’akov reply only about the children?
(33,5) “And he (Eisav) raised his eyes and saw the women and the children, and he said; Who are these to you? And he (Ya’akov) said: The children that G-d has graced your servant with.”
Behold, it says that Eisav “saw the women and the children” and so when he asked “Who are these to you” he was asking about both the women and the children. So why did Ya’akov answer him only about the children, but did not respond to Eisav’s query about the women?
But it seems to me that Eisav was saying to Ya’akov that it is not the way of a righteous person to have many women, because having a large sexual appetite is a disgraceful character trait for a person such as Ya’akov. This way of living is more suited to someone like Eisav who pursued sexual pleasures, but for Ya’akov it was more fitting that he should have only one wife and no more.
But in truth Ya’akov’s intention was not for his personal pleasure, but only to be fruitful and multiply and establish the twelve tribes, because it is taught in the Midrash that the twelve tribes had to come from these four women specifically.
This is what the posuk is saying: Eisav asked “Who are these to you?”, to a person like you - for a person such as yourself it is not fitting to have many women! In response Ya’akov said “the children that G-d has graced your servant with” are what compelled me to have many women, so that I could father all these children which can only come from these four women.
Why did Ya’akov name the place after the structures that he built for his animals?
(33,17) “And Ya’akov travelled to Succos, and he built for himself a house and for his livestock he made shelters (succos). Therefore he called the name of the place Succos.”
Since Ya’akov built for himself a house and shelters for his livestock, why did he name the place specifically after the structures which he built for his livestock and not after the structure which he built for himself?
It seems to me that this is a proof to the teaching of the Midrash in parshas Chukas on the posuk “to die there, we and our livestock” (Bamidbar 20:4), that tzaddikim care more about their animals than their own bodies. That is, they take great care that their animals should not suffer in any way.
This is what we see here. Until now Ya’akov had been on the move and had not arrived at a settlement, and so had not been able to build any permanent structures, but now that they had come to a place where they could settle for a while he built a house for himself and shelters for his livestock. But “he called the name of the place Succos” because the comfort of his livestock was more important to him than his own personal comfort.