There are those who explained these dots as saying that he did not kiss him wholeheartedly. Meaning: וישקהו has dots on all letters except the ש. Thus it is as if it is written ויקהו, as in הקהה את שיניו (blunt his teeth — Pesach Haggadah). This is because he intended to bite him.

Who are these that they should be yours? Rashi is answering the question: “Who are these” implies that Eisov did not know to whom they belonged. Why did he then say, “To you”? Thus Rashi explains, “That they should be yours.” I.e., are they your sons, servants or hirelings?

Who is this entire camp that I have met... [Rashi says this because] מי לך cannot mean the same as in v. 5, “Who are these to you,” where it meant: “Are they your servants or your sons?” For here, Eisov knew they were the gift-bearers, and surely they were Yaakov’s servants. Furthermore, why would Yaakov reply, “It was to find favor in the eyes of my master”? Perforce, Eisov was asking: “What is its purpose to you?” In other words, “Why did you go to all this trouble?” But Maharshal writes that מי לך means, “Whose are they?” You might object: If so, why did Yaakov reply, “It was to find favor in your eyes”? Should he not have replied first that they were his? The answer is: Eisov was asking, “To whom belongs this entire camp that I should inquire of him, “For what purpose did you send it?” Yaakov replied, “It was to find favor in your eyes,” as Eisov’s main inquiry was about the gift’s purpose.

The Midrashic explanation is: He met up with groups of angels... [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what does “that whole camp” mean? The gift-bearers were only five servants! [You might ask: According to the Midrash,] why did Yaakov answer, “It was to find favor in the eyes of my master”? Will Yaakov find favor in Eisov’s eyes because the angels hit him? The answer is: When Eisov’s people said, “He is Yaakov’s brother,” the angels paid attention. This demonstrated how important Yaakov was in the angels’ eyes, and Yaakov thereby found favor in Eisov’s eyes. In other words, [the angels were] informing Eisov that Yaakov has many friends and allies, and you, too, should be among them.

Here, he conceded the blessings to him. Rashi deduced this from the extra phrase, “Let what you have remain yours.” “I have plenty,” would have sufficed.

Do not tell me this. [Rashi knows this] because אַל always prefaces an order [not to do something]. Thus Rashi explains it as, “Please do not tell me this.” [Rashi is also explaining] that we should not think that “Please no” relates to Eisov’s concession of the blessings, as that cannot be. Rather, “Please no” relates only to Eisov’s statement that he has plenty and does not want the gift. (Maharshal)

For it is right and proper for you to accept my gift... Rashi adds, “It is right and proper...” since על כן means “because.” [Consequently, על כן means the same as כי.] If so, one of them should have sufficed: either על כן ראיתי פניך, or כי ראיתי פניך. Therefore Rashi added, “For it is right...” so that כי gives the reason for the preceding statement, “Take my present from my hand.” It is as if Yaakov said, “Take my present from my hand because (כי) it is right and proper for you to accept it.” Whereas על כן connects to [what follows:] “Because I have seen your face...”

Which is esteemed to me like seeing the face of an angel for I have seen your guardian angel... [Rashi is explaining that] when it says, “Like seeing,” it does not mean: “I have seen your face, like I saw the face of a Godly being.” For that would not be a reason to give Eisov a gift. Thus Rashi explains, “Which is esteemed to me like seeing...”

You have become reconciled to me... Rashi is saying that the ו of ותרצני signifies the idea: “and there is another reason to receive the gift.” Otherwise, ותרצני [is not understandable, as] it does not relate to ראות פני אלהים.

You did not need to exert yourself for it, whereas I toiled... I.e., since you did not exert yourself over it like I did, it is fitting that you accept it. “Until it has come into your hand” means: until this time when it has already come into your hand.

The same as נְסַע with the נ being part of the root... It is like שְׁמָעָה and סְלָחָה, where the ש [and ס] is from the root, and the ה is added. Here too, the נ is from the root and the ה is added. It is a simple verb; [the נ is] not from the reflexive form. Neither is the נ from the prefix letters ה, א, י, ת, נ, [in which case it would mean, “Let us go.”] For if so, there should be two נ, one for the root and one for the prefix, and Scripture should have written ננסעה. (Re’m)

The translation of Onkelos טול ונהך**.**I.e., Onkelos is also a proof to this point. For he does not translate נסעה as נטל (“Let us go”), but as טול, implying it is a noun [meaning “going”]. Whereas נלכה, which refers to both Eisov [and Yaakov], Onkelos translates as ונהך.

Please do not extend the length of your trip... Rashi is saying: It does not mean Eisov should go in front, with Yaakov following.

According to the requirement of the pace of the feet of the work... [Rashi is saying that] the ל of לרגל conveys כפי רגל (“according to the feet”). Accordingly, [with Rashi’s addition of, “Of the pace,”] the verse means: according to the ability of the feet to move, rather than according to the fact that they are feet.

Do you do this favor for me for which I have no need. Rashi is answering the question: למה זה אמצא חן seems to imply that Yaakov did not want to find favor. But did he not send a large gift in order to find favor in Eisov’s eyes? Thus Rashi explains it as, “For what do you do this favor?” Whereas “Let me find favor in your eyes” is a separate statement.

Eisov alone. Whereas the four hundred men that had gone with him slipped away... You might object: Although Eisov alone is mentioned in the verse, his men are tacitly included, for the verse speaks of the primary figure. [And the proof is that] the next verse says, “Yaakov traveled to Sukkos,” which includes Yaakov’s wives and children. Why does the same not apply here? The answer is: Eisov said, “Let me leave some of the people with you,” and we might mistakenly think that they indeed stayed with Yaakov. Thus, it should be clearly written that they went with Eisov, [if in fact they did]. (Re’m) Another answer: It is written in v. 1, “He saw Eisov was coming, and with him, four hundred men.” Since the verse [specially] mentions the four hundred men, it is implied that Eisov was secondary to them. Accordingly, our verse should have mentioned them, too. But this is not the case with Yaakov.

He stayed there eighteen months; a summer, a winter, and a summer. Re’m objects: “I do not know why Rashi cites this Midrash [which does not fit with the simple meaning of the verse.] The house and the shelters were all [used] at the same time—the house by Yaakov, and the shelters by his animals—as the verse states. And Rashi writes [in many places], ‘My intention is only to explain the simple meaning.’” Maharshal answers: Scripture wrote סכות twice, and בית once, indicating that “סכות is one summer, בית is a winter...” The Kitzur Mizrachi answers: Rashi cites this Midrash in order to corroborate the twenty-two years in which Yaakov did not fulfill the mitzvah of honoring his parents, mentioned by Rashi in Parshas Vayeishev (37:34).

Safe in body, for he was healed from his lameness. [Rashi knows this] because it is written שלם, without specifying [in which way he was whole], implying he was whole in all ways. And [aside from lameness,] what is written in this vein? Before, it said he had property. And now it says, “He bought the part of the field,” implying he [still] had money. And whole in his Torah [knowledge] is learned from, “When he came from Padan Aram.” Why was this [phrase written]? To teach that even though he came from Padan Aram, which is utterly ignorant of Torah, he did not forget what he had learned. (Maharshal)

Our Sages interpret that it was God who called Yaakov... It is as if it said ויקרא אלקי ישראל ליעקב אל. I.e., Hashem is the Almighty above, and so is Yaakov below. Why? Because the Divine Presence rests on earth because of Yaakov — thus it is considered as if he was the Almighty.