Comentario citado sobre Génesis 34:25

It was the third day since his circumcision... [Rashi knows this] because He appeared to him in order to visit him, thus it makes sense that it was on the third day, since he was in the most pain then. For it says (34:25): “On the third day when they were in pain.” The Re’m asks: On the contrary, the danger on the third day is less than the danger during the first two days, for it says in Shabbos 134b that [according to the first Tanna] we may wash a circumcised infant [with warm water on Shabbos during the first two days after milah, but not on the third day, when he is in less danger]. If so, how did R. Chama bar Chanina [cited by Rashi] know that He appeared to Avraham was on the third day? Perhaps it was on the second day! Granted it was not the first day, when he was busy doing his own milah and that of his servants, but perhaps it was the second day. It seems to me that the answer is: The Tannaim (ibid.) only disagree regarding the milah of an infant, who is more exposed to danger on the first and second day than on the third day. The first Tanna holds that an infant’s wound heals very quickly [and the third day poses less danger]. Whereas R. Eliezer holds there is no difference between the first two days and the third day, and cites the verse, [“On the third day when they were in pain,” about the men of Shechem,] although it is not conclusive proof. But for the milah of an adult, all agree that the third day poses a greater danger than the first two. For the verse testifies: “On the third day when they were in pain,” which Onkelos explains as, “When their pains were the strongest.” And so the Rambam explains the third day’s pains (Peirush HaMishnayos, Shabbos 19:3): “Fluids flow down and create swelling, increasing the pain.” It is likely that an infant is different in this respect, as he has less fluid. His danger is the wound itself, thus on the third day his danger is less, since his wound heals quickly. But an adult’s wound is not as dangerous in itself, for he can withstand a knife wound, as is well known. [His danger is from] the fluids, which do not accumulate so much at first. It seems to me that the answer is: The Halachah states (Yoreh De’ah 335) that one should not visit the sick person on the first two days. [Therefore, it must have been the third day.] (Nachalas Yaakov) The Re’m asked: On v. 18:6, “Knead it and make cake-rolls,” the Midrash commented (Bereishis Rabba 48:12): “It was Erev Pesach.” And so it says in v. 19:3 [regarding Lot], “He baked matzos,” upon which Rashi himself comments: “It was Pesach.” Thus the Midrash must be of the opinion that Hashem visited Avraham on the very day of the milah, the fifteenth of Nisan, [since Yitzchok was born one year from the milah (see 17:21), and was born on the fifteenth of Nisan (see Rashi, 18:10). And since Hashem’s visit was Erev Pesach after noon, it was considered the fifteenth of Nisan]. But R. Chama [cited by Rashi here] is of the opinion that the visit was on the seventeenth of Nisan, [which is the third day]. If so, why did Rashi cite conflicting Aggados? The Re’m elaborated but did not explain it well. It seems to me that the answer is simple: According to all opinions, the milah was on the twelfth of Nisan, and the visit was on the fifteenth of Nisan. And, [as Rashi mentioned on 21:2,] the angel scratched a mark on the wall [to mark the date]. This was done on the 16th, [so as not to desecrate Yom Tov]. At that point Hashem said (v. 14): “At the appointed time (למועד) I shall return,” [referring to the 15th of Nisan of the coming year. You might ask:] On the day of the milah it said (17:21): למועד הזה, but on the day of Hashem’s visit it says: למועד, without הזה. [If so, why was Yitzchok born the following year on the day of the visit, rather than on the day of the milah? The answer is]: Rashi explained on v. 14 as follows: “למועד, i.e., on the מועד that I previously set for you when I said (17:21), ‘למועד הזה next year.’” And the reference works in reverse as well: when Hashem said on the day of the milah: “למועד הזה next year,” it actually referred to the day of the visit. And so Rashi explained on 21:2 [that it refers to the day of the visit]; see Rashi there.

And regarding what they said (Bava Metzia 86b) that it was the third day after his circumcision, etc., it appears that the author of this midrash holds that Abraham was circumcised on Yom Kippur, as they learned (in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 29) from the verse on this very day. If so, necessarily, God did not appear to him on the first day after the circumcision, because Abraham made a feast for the angels and fed them, and his household members also cooked and performed work on that day. For according to the opinion that it was before Passover and he fed them matzah, he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to distract them from God’s commandments. And if you were to say that this day was the first day of Passover, nevertheless, one doesn’t cook on a holiday for non-Jews. And he was uncertain whether they were Arabs, and on Yom Kippur how could they have cooked for them and how could he have fed them, for perhaps they were righteous people? Rather, certainly God did not appear to him on the first day after the circumcision. And if so, it is difficult to understand why He didn’t appear to him on the first day. But certainly this was because the pain was not yet so great, and therefore He also did not appear to him on the second day, but rather on the third day, because then the pain is greatest, as they said And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain (Genesis 34:25). But logically, I would say that He should have visited him even on the first day even though the pain wasn’t as great, but from the fact that the first day was Yom Kippur or Passover, we learn that He specifically waited for the day when the pain was greatest.

An additional meaning of the verse and the way it is phrased is that G'd appeared to Abraham for Abraham's sake. The Torah here alludes to something discussed in Baba Metzia 86. Rabbi Chama son of Chanina stated that this vision occurred on the third day after the circumcision. G'd came and enquired after Abraham's wellbeing. How did Rabbi Chama know that it was the third day? If we were to deduce this from Genesis 34,25, where we are told that the third day after the people of Shechem had circumsised themselves was a day they experienced additional pains, this cannot be, because we have a definitive statement in Shabbat 134 that the first and second day after the circumcision are more dangerous to the patient! True, the Talmud there distinguishes between the pain and the relative healing process experienced by adults (pain lasts longer, healing occurs more slowly), compared to that experienced by minors. However, such a distinction applies only to the third day, not to the first two days. On the first two days everyone experiences the most pain.