1. Today is both Shabbos and Erev Yud-Tes Kislev; and both are associated with the idea of a farbrengen A farbrengen is a Chassidic gathering The Midrash notes that the gathering of all Jews convened by Moshe Rabbeinu took place on Shabbos” G-d said (to Moshe) make large gatherings and publicly expound before them the laws of Shabbos” This applies also to all generations “So that the following generations will learn from you to arrange gatherings on every Shabbos” Thus Shabbos is an appropriate time for a farbrengen when Jews gather together and associate it with the areas of Torah study prayer and performance of mitzvos

Likewise with Yud-Tes Kislev (and thus also Erev Yud-Tes Kislev) Yud-Tes Kislev is the idea of “your wellsprings shall spread forth to the outside” which means all levels even those on the “outside” are gathered together and embraced by Chassidus And a Chassidic farbrengen itself says the Alter Rebbe can achieve more than Michoel the angel of Jews can achieve

In practical terms on this Shabbos which is Erev Yud-Tes Kislev we must undertake good resolutions in everything associated with the study and dissemination of Chassidus Since Yud-Tes Kislev follows immediately after Shabbos it indicates the great connection between the two — and hence the necessity for starting to undertake good resolutions in regard to Yud-Tes Kislev on Shabbos Moreover already on Shabbos itself after midday Yud-Tes Kislev makes its effect — we do not say “Tzidkoscho Tzedek” at minchah

Besides the above lesson that we must undertake good resolutions in regard to Yud-Tes Kislev on Shabbos there is an additional lesson to be learned from “erev” Yud-Tes Kislev falling out on Shabbos this year Yud-Tes Kislev celebrates the redemption of the Alter Rebbe from imprisonment and is thus really the redemption or “go-ahead” of the dissemination of Chassidus The Alter Rebbe was imprisoned for spreading Chassidus; and his release was the vindication of the dissemination of Chassidus Thus the redemption of Yud-Tes Kislev means the permission and increased strength given from above to spread Chassidus more and more

Yud-Tes Kislev every year must see an increase in the spreading of Chassidus making the increase on the level of “redemption” compared to the level of the previous year In other words the difference between before and after Yud-Tes Kislev of each year must be similar to the difference between imprisonment and redemption — as it was in the case of the original Yud-Tes Kislev

This year when Erev Yud-Tes Kislev is on Shabbos the spreading of Chassidus on Erev Yud-Tes Kislev is very lofty indeed — consonant to the lofty level of Shabbos (as will shortly be explained) Nevertheless it is still only the “erev” and preparation to the distinction that must be achieved on Yud-Tes Kislev itself — which is to the degree that it is “redemption” compared to “imprisonment”

To clarify on Shabbos all undesirable things are negated; it is the idea of “ta’anug” delight. Delight means all man’s service is finished and complete — “Each person should view himself on Shabbos as if all his work is done and there is no greater delight than this” This “work” refers also to spiritual service Moreover it states “all your work is done” meaning that not just an inferior level of work (someone else’s) should be considered done but your work — the spiritual service consonant to each individual’s spiritual standing

Furthermore on Shabbos the world is elevated from the level of G-d’s “speech” (“with ten utterances G-d created the world”) to the level of G-d’s thought — transcending all limits Moreover Shabbos is even loftier than Torah

Thus we see the greatness of a Jew on Shabbos Notwithstanding his level before Shabbos the minute Shabbos is ushered in Torah tells him “Each person should view himself as if all his work is done” — for “when Shabbos comes rest comes”

This distinction accrues from the loftiness of Shabbos itself which is “sanctified of itself” without man’s effort Certainly then after man’s service his level on Shabbos is lofty in the extreme — “He who toils on Erev Shabbos will eat on Shabbos”

Knowing the greatness of Shabbos a Jew may think that his standing in regard to the study and dissemination of Chassidus on Shabbos is perfect — “all your work is done” He has nothing more to do and certainly not that one can demand of him that his service after Shabbos should be on the level of “redemption” compared to his service on Shabbos

This year when Erev Yud-Tes Kislev falls on Shabbos teaches us differently Even after the greatness of his service on Shabbos it is still only the “erev” and preparation to Yud-Tes Kislev — and to the extent that he must increase in his study and dissemination of Chassidus in an infinitely higher manner His status on Yud-Tes Kislev must be as “redemption” compared to the “imprisonment” of Erev Yud-Tes Kislev

This is the special quality of this year When Yud-Tes Kislev does not directly follow Shabbos the redemption of Yud-Tes Kislev is relative to weekday But when Erev Yud-Tes Kislev is Shabbos Yud-Tes Kislev is “redemption” relative even to Shabbos

The lesson from this even after learning Chassidus properly consonant to the greatness of Shabbos a Jew must know it is but the “erev” to Yud-Tes Kislev Therefore when Yud-Tes Kislev arrives he must increase in the study and dissemination of Chassidus Everyone should therefore make a soul-reckoning today Erev Yud-Tes Kislev which is Shabbos of his standing in the study and dissemination of Chassidus and resolve to do more

2. There are additional lessons to be learned from the weekly parshah read on this Shabbos Parshas Vayishlach as all parshahs is divided into seven parts corresponding to the seven days of the week On Shabbos however we read the entire parshah In addition we also read the Haftorah on Shabbos Although the Haftorah is a continuation of the parshah (and therefore its contents must be similar to the contents of the parshah) it nevertheless is a separate thing for itself Witness to this is that we make separate blessings before and after the Haftorah

The last verse of the Haftorah of parshas Vayishlach states “Deliverers will go up to Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esav and kingship will be the L-rd’s” The connection to the parshah is the verse which states (33:14) “until I come to my lord to Seir” on which Rashi comments “When will he go? In the days of the Moshiach as it is stated ‘Deliverers will go up to Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esav”’ Thus the common theme of the Haftorah and the parshah is the action of Jews concerning the mount of Esav

This theme is stressed more openly in the Haftorah than in the parshah The parshah does not explicitly state that “deliverers will go up to Mount Zion to judge the mount of Esav” and we need Rashi to tell us it Indeed there are some commentators who interpret this verse differently In the Haftorah however it is said explicitly Moreover the Haftorah adds the words “and kingship will be the L-rd’s” whereas it is stated neither in the parshah nor in Rashi Thus the idea of “dominion will be the L-rd’s” is a separate concept After “Deliverers will go up etc.” there will be at a later date an additional concept — “dominion will be the L-rd’s” There will thus he two erasthe judgment of Esav by G-d; and the era when “dominion will be the L-rd’s” The Rambam rules similarly First he says “A king will arise of the house of David and will wage G-d’s wars” This is the idea of “to judge the mount of Esav” for to “wage G-d’s wars” refers principally to the war against Amalek who is a descendant of Esav Only afterwards — after building the Bais Hamikdosh and gathering in the dispersed of Israel — will “he perfect the entire world to serve G-d together the idea of “dominion will be the L-rd’s”

The difference between “Deliverers will go up to judge the mount of Esav” and “dominion will be the L-rd’s” is similar to the difference between forcing someone to do something and doing it of one’s own volition “To judge the mount of Esav” is similar to a judge who forces litigants to obey his decision “Dominion will be the L-rd’s” is when G-d’s kingship will be so revealed in the entire world that there will be no need “to judge the mount of Esav” — for Esav of himself will conduct himself properly (without having to be forced)

These two concepts are alluded to in the two interpretations Rashi brings on a verse in our parshah When Ya’akov met Esav he feared Esav would kill him Instead “Esav ran to meet him and embraced him and fell on his neck and he kissed him” Rashi on the words “he kissed him” brings two interpretations

1) “He did not kiss him wholeheartedly” which is similar to the idea of “to judge the mount of Esav” — forced

2) “He kissed him wholeheartedly” which is similar to the idea of “dominion will be the L-rd’s” — of one’s own volition

To return to our point. We see that the common theme between the Haftorah and parshah is the idea of “to judge the mount of Esav” However in the Haftorah it is openly stated — and also states the idea of “dominion will be the L-rd’s”

The reason why this is emphasized more openly in the Haftorah is as follows. The beginning of the Haftorah is “The vision of Ovadiah. Thus says the L-rd G-d concerning Edom (i.e. Esav) “ The Talmud (Sanhedrin 39b) notes that it is particularly Ovadiah who is pitted against Edom for “Ovadiah was an Edomite proselyte; and thus people say ‘from the very forest itself comes the [handle of the] axe [that fells it]”’ Because the Haftorah is Ovadiah’s prophecy — through whom Esav will be perfected (“from the forest itself”) — the Haftorah emphasizes the idea of “Deliverers will go up “ more than the parshah.

The lesson from this for man’s service. After the resolutions taken on this Shabbos (as explained above) a Jew may think that it suffices if he only learns and disseminates Chassidus Parshas Vayishlach and its Haftorah teaches that one must also work to perfect Esav (elevate the world) — to the extent that “dominion will be the L-rd’s”

3. After Ya’akov had lived many years in Lavan’s house he left to return to his birthplace On the way he met his brother Esav who despite his original intention to kill Ya’akov instead greeted him warmly Ya’akov then took his departure of Esav and after a stopover in Sukkos continued on his way Scripture then tells us (Bereishis 33:18) “Ya’akov came whole (“shalom”) to the city of Shechem “ Rashi quoting the word “whole” comments.” Whole of body for he was healed of his lameness; whole in his wealth for he lacked nothing (because) of that entire gift (he gave to Esav); whole in his Torah for he did not forget his learning in Lavan’s house”

Rashi explains that the word “sholom” in the verse “Ya’akov came sholom” means “whole” Others interpret it to mean the name of a place that “Ya’akov came to a city called Sholom” — which was near to the “city of Shechem”

According to Rashi the Torah is telling us that although there are reasons to think that Ya’akov was lacking in certain respects he nevertheless came “whole” Those things which could have rendered Ya’akov not whole — but did not — are enumerated by Rashi

“Whole of body for he was healed of his lameness” we have learned previously that (32:25-26 32) “A man wrestled with him and he touched the hollow of his thigh and he limped upon his thigh” The Torah thus tells us that “Ya’akov came whole” — “whole of body for he was healed of his lameness”

“Whole in his wealth for he lacked nothing (because) of that entire gift.” We have learned previously (32:141-6) that Ya’akov to appease his brother Esav sent him many gifts (sheep cattle etc.) The Torah thus tells us that these gifts did not cause any lack in his wealth — Ya’akov came “whole in his wealth for he lacked nothing (because) of that entire gift”

“Whole in his Torah for he did not forget his learning in Lavan’s house.” We have learned in parshas Vayeitze (31:38-40) that Ya’akov worked extremely hard in Lavan’s employ — “These twenty years the drought consumed me in the day and the frost by night; and my sleep fled from my eyes” He therefore did not have much time for Torah study Nevertheless the Torah tells us Ya’akov remained “whole in his Torah for he did not forget his learning in Lavan’s house”

But all is not clear. The Torah tells us that Ya’akov “came whole” only when he came to “the city of Shechem” — and not beforehand But Ya’akov was also “whole” when he came to the city of Sukkos before he came to Shechem (“Ya’akov traveled to Sukkos” (33:17) and then Ya’akov came whole to Shechem” (33:18)) Why then does it say he was “whole” only when he came to Shechem?

In greater clarification. He was healed of his lameness the very same day he was lamed Rashi on the verse (32:32) “The sun rose for him” — which refers to the sunrise after the night in which he fought and was lamed — states “It shone for his special benefit (“for him”) to heal his lameness”

That he was restored the gifts he gave to Esav also probably happened before he came to Shechem for his meeting with Esav happened even before he came to Sukkos

Likewise that he did not forget his learning in Lavan’s house is something that is relevant immediately when he left Lavan’s house — even before meeting Esav

Thus the question is. Why does it not say “Yaakov came whole” in regard to his coming to Sukkos? Moreover Rashi explains (33:17) that he spent 18 months in Sukkos This means he was whole in his body wealth and Torah for 18 months before he came to Shechem Why then are we told about it only in regard to his coming to Shechem?

Rashi’s comment that Ya’akov stayed 18 months in Sukkos itself needs clarification The verse states (33:17)”Yaakov traveled to Sukkos and built himself a house and for his cattle he made Sukkos (booths)” Rashi on the words “and built himself a house” comments “He stayed there 18 months a summer a winter and a summer ‘Sukkos’ (‘booths’) denotes a summer; ‘a house’ denotes a winter; ‘sukkos denotes a summer” That is Rashi learns that Ya’akov stayed there for “a summer a winter and a summer” from the verse itself which states “Ya’akov traveled to Sukkos and built for himself a house and for his cattle he made booths (‘sukkos’).

There are difficulties in Rashi’s interpretation

1) As the Mizrachi asks “I do not know why Rashi brought this in his interpretation The house and the booths were built simultaneously the house for himself and the booths for his cattle as it states ‘He built for himself a house and for his cattle he made booths’ And the Midrash which learns that the house and booths were built in separate times the house in the winter and the booths in the summer — is not the plain interpretation”

2) Why does Rashi quote the words “He built for himself a house” as the basis for his interpretation? These words are in the middle of the verse between the twice mentioned “sukkos” Would it not have been better to quote the words “Ya’akov traveled to Sukkos” which is the beginning of the verse?

The explanation:

When we learn the verse “Ya’akov traveled to Sukkos and built for himself a house” a question arises Ya’akov was on the way home Why does he build a house — which is a permanent structure — in the middle of a journey?

Rashi therefore says “He stayed there eighteen months” True Ya’akov was on the way home But since for whatever reason he stayed in Sukkos for an appreciable length of time (18 months) he therefore “built himself a house”

This also explains why the Torah had to tell us that Ya’akov built himself a house It doesn’t tell us that Avraham or Yitzchok did so for it is self-understood they didn’t live in the street But in this case the Torah by informing us that Ya’akov built a house is telling us that (although he was on the way home) he stayed in Sukkos for an appreciable length of time — and therefore needed a permanent structure.

Once Torah has told us this Rashi further explains that we can deduce from the verse exactly how long he stayed in Sukkos” He stayed there 18 months a winter and a summer ‘Sukkos’ denotes a summer; ‘a house’ denotes a winter; ‘sukkos’ denotes a summer” In other words the verse is not telling us that in winter Ya’akov lived in a house and in summer in a booth (and therefore it was altogether 18 months — booth house booth) for the verse itself explicitly says “He built for himself a house and for his cattle he made booths (as the Mizrachi notes) Instead we can deduce from the words ‘booth’ ‘house’ ‘booth’ that they refer to different seasons — summer winter summer (18 months)

That is why Rashi quotes only the words “He built for himself a house” — for it is the basis on which Rashi knows that Ya’akov stayed in Sukkos for an appreciable length of time; for a permanent structure indicates a considerable length of time

Now we can understand why the idea of “Ya’akov came whole” is only in regard to his coming to Shechem after 18 months in Sukkos and not beforehand when he came to Sukkos

“Whole of body for he was healed of his lameness” is something which takes time to heal The 18 months spent in Sukkos was enough time to be healed and therefore he came “whole of body” only after the 18 months in Sukkos — when he came to Shechem But when he came to Sukkos he had not yet had enough time to be healed — for we do not find anywhere in the plain sense of the verse that he was healed immediately through a miracle

Although we said above that Rashi explains he was healed immediately through the sun Rashi himself emphasizes that this is an “Aggadic interpretation” of the words “The sun rose for him”

The reason why it cannot be the plain interpretation is understood from the context of the passage The very next verse after the verse “he limped upon his thigh” says (32:33)”Therefore the children of Israel do not eat the sinew of the thigh-vein which is upon the hollow of the thigh until this day because he touched the hollow of the thigh of Ya’akov in the sinew of the thigh-vein” If we were to say that Ya’akov was immediately healed at sun-rise he would have “limped upon his thigh” only from dawn (when he was lamed) until sunrise In such a case it is likely that no one even saw Ya’akov’s limping If so why do “the children of Israel not eat the sinew of the thigh-vein until this day?”

Thus in the plain interpretation it is more probable that Ya’akov was healed not through a miracle but naturally over time And since he limped for a long time (18 months) the prohibition to eat the thigh-vein was set for all generations

Likewise in the case of “whole in his wealth for he lacked nothing (because) of that entire gift” Again nowhere in the plain meaning of Scripture do we find that G-d miraculously restored to him the gifts he gave to Esav Thus we cannot say that when he came to Sukkos immediately after giving the gifts to Esav he was “whole in his wealth” After the 18 months stay in Sukkos however his herds and flocks would have naturally increased (through reproduction) until he made up the losses incurred in sending gifts to Esav

It is true that he was “whole in his Torah for he did not forget his learning in Lavan’s house” even when he came to Sukkos before coming to Shechem Nevertheless Scripture cannot say “Ya’akov came whole to Sukkos” for in other respects he was not whole — in body or wealth He was only totally whole — in body wealth and Torah — when he came to Shechem