"Thus says your servant Yaakov, 'I lived with Lavan and tarried there until now.'" (Bereshis 32:6) Rashi comments on this pasuk (verse) by invoking the explanation of the Medrash that Yaakov indicated to Eisav, who was apparently approaching him for combat, 'I lived with Lavan and observed the 613 mitzvos and did not learn from his evil ways.'

The obvious question is why Yaakov felt a need to relate to Eisav about his (Yaakov's) piety when residing with Lavan. Did Yaakov think that Eisav would be impressed and suddenly warm up to him? Eisav was a rasha (evil-doer); why should he care about Yaakov's observance?

Eisav's strongest asset was his outgoing, energetic approach. Yitzchak - who was unaware of Eisav's real attitudes - felt that the extroverted, outgoing personality of Eisav was best fit to build and lead the Jewish nation, and Eisav himself placed great value on his stamina and drive.

This is why Yaakov emphasized to Eisav that he observed the mitzvos in Lavan's house and was not influenced by Lavan. Yaakov wished to show Eisav that he - Yaakov - had determination like steel and was a personality that Eisav would not wish to challenge. Eisav needed to understand that the virtues that gave Eisav a self-perceived superiority were actually superior in Yaakov, and that is why Yaakov stressed his personal stamina and fortitude to Eisav.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"He (Yaakov) prepared himself (for his confrontation with Eisav) with three things: gifts, prayer, and warfare." (Rashi, from Chazal on 32:9) Why was it necessary for our sages to enumerate the various steps taken by Yaakov to deal with the threat of Eisav's approach? Of course, as we read, Yaakov prayed to Hashem for protection, and it is simple enough to understand that Yaakov would employ whatever physical resources were available as well - for one must trust in God and pray to him, plus take action, as we see was the case when Bnei Yisroel were pursued by the Mitzrim (Egyptians) and were at the edge of the sea. (See Sh'mos 14:15) Why did Chazal see fit to specify that Yaakov engaged in diplomacy (gifts) and battle plans?

It would seem that a very important lesson is being taught. The deeds of our Avos and Imahos are not just interesting history; rather, they serve as examples for the Jewish people throughout the ages as to how to live. Chazal presented us with a Mesorah - a Torah tradition - that the Jew should pursue both the venues of diplomacy as well as physical confrontation when he is threatened. This is what Yaakov is teaching us. It is a Torah mandate.

There are those, such as the Zealots in Roman times and others today, who insist that Jews must fight and no longer settle, regardless of the issue at hand. They feel that the Jew must take up the posture of Dovid Ha-Melech waging war against the P'lishtim (Philistines) and that negotiating or even backing down is a form of abrogation of Jewish malchus (royal reign or position), and that pacifying an enemy reflects a "ghetto mentality". Others feel that it is "un-Jewish" to battle, as Jews must be above that, and that evil can be negotiated away. Chazal assert and want us to realize that both of these extremes are wrong. Yaakov - who symbolizes the Jew in golus (exile) as well as in ge'ulah (redemptive state) - engaged in both forms of response, and we must emulate our great patriarch and consider both options when in such situations, as a religious stance.