창세기 18:35의 주석

וירא אליו AND THE LORD APPEARED UNTO HIM to visit the sick man. R. Hama the son of Hanina said: it was the third day after his circumcision and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and enquired after the state of his health (Bava Metzia 86b)

AND HE APPEARED TO HIM. Rashi comments: “To visit the sick man. Said Rabbi Chama the son of Chanina, ‘It was the third day after his circumcision, and the Holy One, blessed be He, came and inquired after him.’¹“After him.” In our text of Rashi: “after the state of his health.” And, lo, three men:²Verse 2 here. angels who came to him in the form of men. Three: one to announce to Sarah that she would bear a son, one to heal Abraham, and one to overthrow Sodom. Raphael who healed Abraham went from there to rescue Lot” for these do not constitute two commissions.³“One angel does not carry out two commissions.” (Bereshith Rabbah 50:2 and mentioned in Rashi here.) But, continues Ramban, these two missions given to the angel Raphael—healing Abraham and rescuing Lot from Sodom—do not violate the principle. See text. This is because the second mission was in another place, and he was commanded thereon after [he had completed his first mission].⁴It is as if he was sent on a new mission in another place after he had completed his mission in a different place. For it is clear that the principle of one angel not carrying out two commissions applies only to two simultaneous commissions, as explained in Mizrachi’s commentary on Rashi. Perhaps it is because the two missions had rescue as their common goal.⁵Since healing and rescue are missions with a common purpose, one angel could be charged with both missions. “And they did eat:⁶Verse 8 here. they appeared to be eating.”
In the book Moreh Nebuchim⁷Ibn Tibbon’s translation, II, 42: in Al Charizi, Chapter 43. it is said that this portion of Scripture consists of a general statement followed by a detailed description. Thus Scripture first says that the Eternal appeared to Abraham in the form of prophetic visions, and then explains in what manner this vision took place, namely, that he [Abraham] lifted up his eyes in the vision, and lo, three men stood by him,²Verse 2 here. and he said, if now I have found favor in thy eyes.⁸Verse 3 here. This is the account of what he said in the prophetic vision to one of them, namely, their chief.
Now if in the vision there appeared to Abraham only men partaking of food, how then does Scripture say, And the Eternal appeared to him, as G-d did not appear to him in vision or in thought?⁹In other words, why does Scripture begin the chapter with the statement, And the Eternal appeared to him, when in the detailed account of the vision it is explained that he saw only angels? Such is not found with respect to all the prophecies. And according to his¹⁰The author of the Moreh Nebuchim. words, Sarah did not knead cakes, nor did Abraham prepare a bullock, and also, Sarah did not laugh. It was all a vision! If so, this dream came through a multitude of business,¹¹See Ecclesiastes 5:2. like dreams of falsehood, for what is the purpose of showing him all this!¹²Since the vision concerning the preparation and the eating of the meal were not relevant to the prophecy of the birth of Isaac. Similarly did the author of the Moreh Nebuchim say⁷Ibn Tibbon’s translation, II, 42: in Al Charizi, Chapter 43. in the case of the verse, And a man wrestled with him,¹³Further, 32:25. The reference deals with Jacob wrestling with the angel. that it was all a prophetic vision. But if this be the case, I do not know why Jacob limped on his thigh when he awoke! And why did Jacob say, For I have seen an angel face to face, and my life is preserved?¹⁴Ibid., Verse 31. The prophets did not fear that they might die on account of having experienced prophetic visions. Jacob, moreover, had already seen a greater and more distinguished vision than this since many times, in prophetic visions, he had also seen the Revered Divinity.¹⁵Ibid., 28:13. Now according to this author’s opinion, he will find it necessary for the sake of consistency to say similarly in the affair of Lot that the angels did not come to his house, nor did he bake for them unleavened bread and they did eat.¹⁶Ibid., 19:3. Rather, it was all a vision! But if Lot could ascend to the height of a prophetic vision, how did the wicked and sinful people of Sodom become prophets? Who told them that men had come into Lot’s house? And if all these [i.e., the actions of the inhabitants of Sodom], were part of prophetic visions, then it follows that the account related in the verses, And the angels hastened Lot, saying: Arise take thy wife. …And he said, Escape for thy life… See, I have accepted thee,¹⁷Ibid., Verses 17-21. as well as the entire chapter is but a vision, and if so, Lot could have remained in Sodom! But the author of the Moreh Nebuchim thinks that the events took place of themselves, but the conversations relating to all matters were in a vision! But such words contradict Scripture. It is forbidden to listen to them, all the more to believe in them!
In truth,¹⁸Ramban partially agrees with Rambam’s position. He says that wherever seeing or hearing an angel is mentioned in Scripture, it refers to a vision since the human senses can not perceive an angel. However, wherever Scripture ascribes human appearances to the angels, as in the case of Abraham, then their presence is sensually perceived. Other differences of opinion between Ramban and Rambam regarding prophecy are mentioned further on in the text. wherever Scripture mentions an angel being seen or heard speaking it is in a vision or in a dream for the human senses cannot perceive the angels. But these are not visions of prophecy since he who attains the vision of an angel or the hearing of his speech is not yet a prophet. For the matter is not as the Rabbi¹⁹Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. pronounced,²⁰Moreh Nebuchim, II, 41. i.e., that every prophet, Moses our teacher excepted, received his prophecy through the medium of an angel. The Sages have already said²¹Megillah 3a. concerning Daniel: “They²²Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi—three prophets who lived at the beginning of the second Temple. were greater than he for they were prophets and he was not a prophet.” His book, likewise, was not grouped together²³The Men of the Great Assembly redacted the books of the Bible. See Baba Bathra 15a. They placed the book of Daniel in the section of the Writings. (Ibid., 14 b). with the books of the prophets since his affair was with the angel Gabriel, even though he appeared to him and spoke with him when he was awake, as it is said in the vision concerning the second Temple: Yea, while I was speaking in prayer, the man Gabriel,etc.²⁴Daniel 9:1. The vision concerning the ultimate redemption²⁵From the beginning of Chapter 10 there. also occurred when Daniel was awake as he walked with his friends beside the Tigris River.²⁶Ibid., 10:4. As for his friends, see ibid., Verse 7. Tradition specifies that these were Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. (Megillah 3a.) Hagar the Egyptian²⁷She was not a prophetess even though angels appeared to her. (Above, 16: 7.) Ramban thus differs with Rambam, who had said that all prophets received the prophecy through the medium of an angel. Rambam’s position is defended as follows: Rambam’s intent was not that whenever an angel is seen it is an instance of prophecy. Rather his intent was that whenever prophecy comes to any of the prophets it comes through an angel. However, it is possible that an angel may appear for the purpose of conveying information to one who is not a prophet. This was the case with Daniel and Hagar. is not included in the group of prophetesses.²⁸In Megillah 14 a, the Rabbis list seven prophetesses who arose in Israel: Sarah, Miriam, Deborah, Hannah, Abigail, Huldah and Esther. Hagar however was not listed among them. See Note 103 further. It is also clear that hers was not a case of the bath kol (prophetic echo),²⁹Guide of the Perplexed, II, 42. See Friedlander’s note on bath kol, p. 199, n.2. as the Rabbi¹⁹Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Maimonides). See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. would have it. Scripture, furthermore, sets apart the prophecy of Moses our teacher from that of the patriarchs, as it is said, And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, and unto Jacob, by [the name of] G-d Almighty,³⁰Exodus 6:3. this name being one of the sacred names for the Creator, and not a designation for an angel. Our Rabbis also taught concerning the difference in the degree of prophecy between Moses and the other prophets, and they said:³¹Vayikra Rabbah 1:14. “What is the difference between Moses and all the prophets? The Rabbis say that all prophets saw through unclear vision. It is to this matter that Scripture refers in saying, And I have multiplied visions, and by the ministry of the prophets have I used similitudes.³²Hosea 12:11. Moses saw through a clear vision. It is to this matter that Scripture refers in saying, And the similitudes of the Eternal doth he behold,”³³Numbers 12:8. as is explained in Vayikra Rabbah³¹Vayikra Rabbah 1:14. and other places. But in no place did the Sages attribute the prophecy of the prophets to an angel.
Do not expose yourself to argument by quoting the verse, I also am a prophet as thou art; and an angel spoke unto me by the word of the Eternal, saying,³⁴I Kings 13:18. From this you might argue that the prophets themselves attributed their prophecy to an angel. This is not correct, as is explained in the text. since its meaning is as follows: “I also am a prophet as thou art, and I know that the angel who spoke to me was by word of G-d, this being one of the degrees of prophecy, as the man of G-d said, For so was it charged me by the word of the Eternal,³⁵Ibid., Verse 9. and he further said, For it was said to me by the word of the Eternal.³⁶Ibid., Verse 17.
Our Rabbis have further stated³⁷Bamidbar Rabbah 20:13. in the matter of Balaam, who said, Now, therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back,³⁸Numbers 22:34. [that is as if Balaam commented]: “I did not go [with the messengers of Balak] until the Holy One, blessed be He, told me, Rise up, go with them,³⁹Ibid., 22:20. and you [i.e., an angel], tell me that I should return. Such is His conduct! Did He not tell Abraham to sacrifice his son, after which the angel of the Eternal called to Abraham, And he said, Lay not thy hand upon the lad.⁴⁰Further, 22:12. He is accustomed to saying something and to have an angel revoke it, etc.” Thus the Sages were prompted to say that the prophecy comprising the first charge where G-d is mentioned is not like the second charge of which it is said that it was through an angel, only this was not unusual, for it is customary with the prophets that He would command by a prophecy and revoke the command through an angel since the prophet knew that the revocation was the word of G-d.
In the beginning of Vayikra Rabbah⁴¹1:9. the Sages have said: “And He called to Moses,⁴²Leviticus 1:1. unlike Abraham. Concerning Abraham it is written, And the angel of the Eternal called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven.⁴³Further, 22:15. The angel called, and G-d spoke the word, but here with respect to Moses, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, ‘It is I Who called, and it is I Who spoke the word.’” That is to say, Abraham did not attain prophecy until he prepared his soul first to perceive an angel, and from that degree he ascended to attain the word of prophecy, but Moses was prepared for prophecy at all times.
Thus the Sages were prompted to inform us everywhere that seeing an angel is not prophecy, and those who see angels and speak with them are not included among the prophets, as I have mentioned concerning Daniel. Rather, this is only a vision called “opening of eyes,” as in the verse: And the Eternal opened the eyes of Balaam, and he saw the angel of the Eternal;⁴⁴Numbers 22:31. similarly: And Elisha prayed, and said, O Eternal, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see.⁴⁵II Kings 6:17. But where Scripture mentions the angels as men, as is the case in this portion, and the portion concerning Lot — likewise, And a man wrestled with him,¹³Further, 32:25. The reference deals with Jacob wrestling with the angel. And a certain man found him,⁴⁶Further, 37:15. in the opinion of our Rabbis⁴⁷According to the Sages the man who wrestled with Jacob was the angel of Esau (Bereshith Rabbah 77:2), and the man who found Joseph was the angel Gabriel (Tanchuma Vayeshev 2). — in all these cases there was a special glory created in the angels, called among those who know the mysteries of the Torah “a garment,” perceptible to the human vision of such pure persons as the pious and the disciples of the prophets, and I cannot explain any further. And in those places in Scripture where you find the sight of G-d and the speech of an angel, or the sight of an angel and the speech of G-d, as is written concerning Moses at the outset of his prophecy,⁴⁸Exodus 3:2. and in the words of Zechariah,⁴⁹Zechariah 1:14, etc. I will yet disclose words of the living G-d in allusions.
Concerning on the matter of the verse, And they did eat,⁶Verse 8 here. the Usages have said:⁵⁰Bereshith Rabbah 48:16. “One course after the other disappeared.”⁵¹That is, the angels really did not eat. Rather as soon as a dish of food was brought, it was consumed by fire. The matter of “disappearance” you will understand from the account about Manoah,⁵²Judges 13:19. if you will be worthy to attain it.
Now here is the interpretation of this portion of Scripture. After it says that In the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised,⁵³Above, 17:26. Scripture says that G-d appeared to him while he was sick from the circumcision as he was sitting and cooling himself in his tent door on account of the heat of the day which weakened him. Scripture mentions this in order to inform us that Abraham had no intention for prophecy. He had neither fallen on his face nor prayed, yet this vision did come to him.

'וירא אליו ה. In what manner did G’d appear to Avraham here? Three men, who turned out to be angels came to him. There are numerous examples in Scripture where the angels or a single angel are described as “G’d”, i.e. seeing they are G’d’s agents they are described as ה', even though what is meant is an agent, an angel. To mention just one or two such examples: Exodus 23,21 כי שמי בקרבו, “because My Holy Name is within him.” Or, Exodus 3 3,2 וירא אליו מלאך ה' בלבת אש מתוך הסנה, “an angel of Hashem appeared to him in the form of a flame of fire in the midst of the thorn bush.” [the unusual fire which failed to consume, destroy, the thorn bush represented a Divine appearance. Ed.] Or, in verse 4 of the same chapter: וירא ה' כי סר לראות, “when G’d (i.e. the angel) saw that he had turned aside to watch the spectacle.”

וירא אליו ה' באלוני ממרא, because this was where Avraham had circumcised himself at that time. His whole household had been circumcised with him at the time. This is where G’d manifested Himself as a sign that He stood by the covenant, similar to the verse at the beginning of Deuteronomy 29,9-11, commencing with the words אתם נצבים היום, and to Kings II 23,3 ויכרות לפני ה'. He appeared to Avraham seeing he was the individual most deserving to be the recipient of such a vision. We have a similar occurrence in Exodus 4,24 ויפגשהו ה', where G’d “met” with Moses without delivering an oral message. At that time G’d’s purpose was to ensure that Moses would circumcise his son, to maintain the covenant which was to be an eternal covenant with the descendants of Avraham as spelled out in Genesis 17,11-12. Perhaps this is the reason why a chair is prepared at the occasion of the circumcision (Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer 29, as well as Zohar Bereshit 13,10) This chair alludes to the fact that hopefully, the presence of G’d will attend this marking of the sign of the covenant by a new member of the Jewish people.

וידא אליו ה׳. G'd appeared to him. Why is Abraham, the subject of the vision, mentioned before G'd? The normal construction would have been וירא השם אליו. In the previous visions Abraham received, G'd is always referred to first (compare 12,7 and 17,1).

וירא ה' אליו באלוני ממרא, in the location where Avraham dwelled, as we know from Genesis 14,13 והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא האמורי, “he dwelled by the groves of Mamre the Emorite. The reason why Avraham had not moved away from there was that his allies also lived in that proximity. Solomon advised already in Proverbs 27,10:טוב שכן קרוב מאח רחוק, “better a good neighbour who lives close by than a brother who lives far away.” G’d appeared to him there after he kept the commandment to circumcise himself, in order to apprise him of what he had in store for Sodom, a city in which his nephew had made his home. Avraham was the outstanding human being in that generation. Seeing that G’d was bent to exact partial retribution for the worst outrages committed by mankind at that time, He did not want to do so before informing Avraham of His intention. It was G’d’s intention to demonstrate that He does keep track of what individuals in the “lower” part of His universe are up to, and that He even will not exact collective punishment unless He can demonstrate that the parties affected are all guilty. There was no need for G’d to “descend” to investigate what He already knew, but the Torah describes this in terms that we can understand. He wanted to enable Avraham when the latter would instruct and teach his descendants to walk in the ways of G’d, to show that His ways were truly not only just but that He made allowances for human weaknesses. It is possible, -if this was indeed G’d’s purpose- to explain the entire paragraph as a prophetic vision up until verse 23 where the Torah writes that Avraham returned to his station, i.e. that this line terminated the prophetic vision יושב פתח האהל, as explained immediately following,

וירא אליו ה', “The Lord appeared to him, etc.” According to Rashi, G’d’s purpose in appearing to Avraham at that time was in the nature of a get well visit one makes to the sick. It was the third day after his circumcision, the most painful day. Rashi arrived at that commentary by noting that the Torah does not report G’d as engaging Avraham in a conversation, or giving him any verbal instructions. G’d simply wanted to honour Avraham and wish him well. Nachmanides writes that he does not feel comfortable with Rashi’s explanation, but that G’d wanted to demonstrate His appreciation of what Avraham had done and His visit was a kind of reward for this. The phenomenon is similar to what is described by Psalms 17,15 אני בצדק אחזה פניך אשבעה בהקיץ תמונתך, “Then, I, justified, will behold Your face; I am filled with the vision of You.” Yaakov experienced something similar upon his return to the land of Canaan from Lavan when the “angels of G’d came to meet and welcome him.” (Genesis 32,2) In that instance the angels are also not reported as delivering a verbal message to Yaakov. As a result of the very absence of such communication, Yaakov realized that his conduct had been approved by G’d. In this case too, Avraham’s conduct had been approved. Some commentators feel that G’d’s major purpose had been to tell Avraham about what He was going to do to Sodom, but that the arrival of the three angels interrupted the conversation.

To visit the sick person. You might ask: How did Rashi know this? The answer is: Because it is written, “Hashem appeared to him,” rather than, “Hashem appeared to Avraham.” [And why is this?] Perforce, it does not mention Avraham explicitly because it relates back to the previous passage regarding the bris milah, where it is expressly written, “To Avraham.” If so, why did Hashem appear to him now? Not to command him about milah—as He already commanded him, and he already performed milah on himself and on the members of his household. It must be that [since Avraham was sick due to the milah,] He came to visit the sick. Alternatively, Rashi knew this because the verse does not go on to explain why Hashem appeared to him. Thus we may assume it was to visit the sick. Question: Why does Rashi say, “To visit the sick person,” rather than simply saying, “To visit him”? [The answer is:] Because we learn from here the mitzvah of visiting the sick, as it says in Bava Metzia 86b. Since it was not limited to Avraham, Rashi says: “To visit the sick person.”

וירא אליו. Gottes Gegenwart ist überall, aber sie wird nicht von jedem geschaut. Nur nach einer Hingebung, wie Abraham sie eben geübt und übte, ward Gott sichtbar. — כחם היום, die Glühe des Tages hätte den Schatten aufsuchen lassen. Allein Abraham — und das אליו knüpft ja unmittelbar an das Obige an und setzt das Folgende in unmittelbare Verbindung damit — noch dazu mit dem Schmerz der erst jüngst vollzogenen Mila, sucht nicht den Schatten, gönnt ihn sich nicht, sondern sucht Wanderer, denen die Sonnenglut aufs Haupt strahlt, um sie wirtlich in den Schatten seines Zeltes zu laden. — Es wird Abraham nichts sofort mitgeteilt. Die eigentliche Mitteilung erfahren wir erst später: וד׳ אמר המכסה וגו, die Offenbarung über die beschlossene Zerstörung Sodoms.

וירא אליו ה' באלוני ממרא, “The Lord appeared to him at eloney mamre, etc.” According to Rashi, Mamre was the man who had advised Avraham strongly to carry out G–d’s command to circumcise himself. This is why this revelation took place while Avraham was on his property. The obvious question here is why someone of the stature of Avraham needed to consult with his friends about if and how to relate to G–d’s commandment. He had been tested as to his faith in Him on ten occasions, and he had passed all these tests without consulting with anyone, why would he suddenly feel the need to “consult” anyone? The answer clearly must be that Avraham did not “consult” with anyone in order to decide if to carry out G–d’s command; he only asked his friends if to perform this commandment on himself in the privacy of his tent or publicly, in order to demonstrate his loyalty to G–d’s command. His purpose in doing so publicly would be in order to encourage others to emulate his example. When the Torah described him as performing the act of circumcision בעצם היום הזה, (Genesis 17,23) these words mean: “in broad daylight, for all to see.” Mamre was given credit by G–d for having given Avraham this advice. A different interpretation of our verse: Avraham consulted with Mamre regarding the exact part of his body where the “circumcision” had to be performed. He therefore advised him to perform this operation on the organ that represented his masculinity. After all, G–d had restricted the performance of this rite to the males of the species. (17,10) He also advised him to commence with circumcising himself and his son Ishmael first. Once his slaves and friends would observe this, most of them would follow willingly without protest. The Torah testifies in chapter 17, verse 27 that all the members of Avraham’s household (including hired help) were circumcised on the same day that he was. If you were to ask why Mamre, himself, who gave Avraham this advice, did not have himself circumcised also, the answer is that eventually he did do so as reported in a Midrash.

וירא אליו, “He appeared to him;” Rabbi Chama son of Rabbi Chanina, claims that this appearance occurred on the third day after Avraham had circumcised himself. (Talmud Babba Metzia 86, and quoted by Rashi.) G-d “visited” him as one visits a sick person. The interpretation by that Rabbi is plausible as we do not find anywhere else that the word: וירא is used without the purpose or message of that appearance being spelled out by the Torah. Other commentators believe that G-d’s appearance to Avraham was necessary in connection with revealing to him what He intended to do to the inhabitants of Sodom and the cities associated with it. The angels’ appearance to Avraham interrupted what G-d had planned to tell him at that point, seeing that one of them at least was charged with saving Lot. A third interpretation: The substance of the word וירא was the visit paid to Avraham by the three angels. It is not unusual for angels to be referred to as “G-d, Divine beings;”the author cites some examples of this being: Exodus 23,21, where G-d explains to Moses that His name his integral to the angel He plans to send ahead of the marching Israelites, and that this is a reason the people must be especially cautious not to offend him. The angel has the authority to react without first obtaining specific permission from G-d to do so. At the burning bush we find another such occasion where G-d and the angels are referred to interchangeably; we also find it at the binding of Yitzchok, when “G-d” is portrayed as commanding Avraham to offer his beloved son as an offering, whereas an “angel” orders him not to harm his son.

באלוני ממרא BY THE TEREBINTHS OF MAMRÉ — It was he (Mamre) who advised him (Abraham) regarding the circumcision and therefore He revealed himself to him in his (Mamre’s) territory (Genesis Rabbah 42:8).

כחום היום, why would the Torah need to relate this apparently inconsequential piece of information (so that we read it aloud every week after over 3000 years)? The point the Torah wanted to make was that in the event that we compare Lot’s reception of the angels, when he offered them lodging for the night, (Genesis 19,1) whereas Avraham only offered light refreshment, the reason for this is that the angels came to Lot in the evening, a time for travelers to find lodging, whereas here, seeing that they arrived during the midday heat, there was no reason to assume that they would not want to continue their journey.

seeing that it was כחם היום, the hottest part of the day. Possibly, due to the heat of the sun Avraham had fallen asleep, a fact which facilitated his receiving this vision. Before G’d started speaking to him about what He intended to do to Sodom, He showed him three angels, the biggest one of whom told him the news about Sarah‘s going to give birth to a son in the following year, confirming what G’d had told him when He commanded him to circumcise himself, etc. When Avraham would hear this by a special messenger from G’d, his faith in the realisation of this promise would be further reinforced. Perhaps, more to the point, G’d wanted Sarah to overhear what the angel told Avraham, as apparently, Avraham had not told her of the previous promise, nor of his praying on behalf of Ishmael. [I do not understand how Sarah could hear what Avraham only saw in dream. Perhaps we must assume that the author continues with the original approach of all of what is written in this chapter having occurred while Avraham was fully awake. Ed.] Even (assuming) that this whole paragraph describes a vision, sometimes people close to the recipient of such a vision would hear a voice, a sound, as we have been told by Daniel who wrote: “the men with me did not see this great spectacle, but they were gripped by a great tremor so that they fell on their faces and took refuge in places to hide.” (Daniel 10,7) It seems clear from that verse that these men heard the content of the vision Daniel experienced without seeing any of it. The vision the Torah speaks about here occurred at the entrance of Avraham’s tent, so that Sarah could hear what transpired. Our sages’ comment that Avraham sat in front of his tent recuperating from the wounds inflicted by his circumcision is familiar to all of us, as is the surmise that he applied bandages to his wound (Baba Metzia 86). They add that the words וירא allude to G’d Himself visiting Avraham as one visits the sick.

IN THE OAKS OF MAMRE. This is to inform us of the place wherein he was circumcised.
Now this revelation of the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) came to Abraham as a mark of distinction and honor, even as it is said in connection with the dedication of the Tabernacle, And they [Moses and Aaron] came out, and blessed the people, and the glory of the Eternal appeared unto all the people,⁵⁴Leviticus 9:23. as it was on account of their effort in fulfilling the commandment of building the Tabernacle that they merited seeing the Shechinah. Now the revelation of the Shechinah here and there was not at all for the purpose of charging them with some commandment or to impart some communication. Instead, it was a reward for the commandment which had already been performed, and it informed them that their deeds have G-d’s approval, even as it says, As for me, I shall behold Thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied, when I awake, with Thy likeness.⁵⁵Psalms 17:15. Similarly, in connection with Jacob, Scripture says, And the angels of G-d met him,⁵⁶Further, 32:2. and yet we find no communication there, nor is any new matter conveyed. Instead, the verse only informs us that he merited seeing angels of the Supreme One, and thus he knew that his deeds had His approval. And so it was with Abraham: the seeing of the Shechinah (the Divine Presence) was both merit [for his having performed the commandment of circumcision] and assurance of G-d’s approval.
Similarly did the Sages say⁵⁷Mechilta Shirah 3. of those who passed through the Red Sea and said, This is my G-d, and I will glorify Him:⁵⁸Exodus 15:2. “A handmaid saw at the sea what Ezekiel the prophet never saw.” This they merited at the time of the great miracle because they believed in the Eternal, and in Moses his servant.⁵⁹Ibid., 14:31.
At times the appearance of the Shechinah comes in a moment of anger, as mentioned in the verse: And the whole congregation bade stone them with stones, when the glory of the Eternal appeared in the tent of meeting unto all the children of Israel.⁶⁰Numbers 14:10. That was for the protection of His righteous servants and their honor.
Now do not be concerned about the interruption of the portion⁶¹Since, as Ramban explains, the appearance of the Eternal to Abraham was in the merit of his having fulfilled the commandment of circumcision, one might ask: Why then are these two events presented in two different sections rather than in one consecutive chapter? It is to this point that Ramban now addresses himself. “Now do not be concerned, etc.,” for the events are after all connected. since the subject is after all connected. It is for this reason that the verse says, And He appeared to him, and it does not say, “And the Eternal appeared to Abraham.” But in this present chapter Scripture wishes to give an account of the honor that was bestowed upon him [Abraham] at the time he performed the circumcision, and it tells that the Shechinah appeared to him and sent him His angels to inform his wife [that she would give birth to a son], and also to save his relative Lot on his account. Abraham had already been informed by the Shechinah concerning the birth of a son,⁶²Above, 17:19. and Sarah was now informed by word of the angel who spoke with Abraham in order that Sarah should hear, even as it says, And Sarah heard.⁶³Verse 10 here.
This is the intent of the Sages’ saying,⁶⁴Baba Metziah 86b. Also quoted in Rashi above. “G-d came to visit the sick man,” meaning that it was not for the purpose of some utterance but as a mark of honor to him.
They have also said,⁶⁵Bereshith Rabbah 48:4. “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me.⁶⁶Exodus 20:24. Now if any person just built an altar to My name, he is assured that I will appear unto him and bless him.⁶⁷As Scripture concludes: I will come unto thee and bless thee. (Exodus 20:25.) All the more is such assurance given to Abraham who circumcised himself for My name.”
It is possible that the Sages may have further intended to say [by their remark, “He came to visit the sick man,”] that the vision of the Shechinah was a cure for his sickness on account of the circumcision, for so it should be, as it is written, In the light of the King’s countenance is life.⁶⁸Proverbs 16:15.

באלוני ממרא, ”in the grove belonging to Mamre.” This is not to be understood as a reference to the location per se, but the reason Mamre is mentioned here in connection with where G’d appeared to Avraham is that Avraham was granted this revelation in this location on account of having accepted the advice of Mamre to proceed with the circumcision. Other commentators ask whether Avraham really needed advice from Mamre on the subject of fulfilling a commandment by the Lord or not. They answer that the consultation did not concern if Avraham was to circumcise himself, but on which organ he was to perform this circumcision. This does not make sense to me either, as it is foolish to think that Avraham could not correctly interpret the words וערל זכר אשר לא ימול את בשר ערלתו ונכרתה הנפש ההיא, as referring to the male organ of the person referred to. Some commentators believe that seeing that so many other people were circumcised by him at the same time, Avraham wanted the stamp of approval on what he had done by a prominent person in that society. If he could not secure their approval, he in turn might lose his standing in that society. Maimonides, addressing the subject, writes that the whole paragraph has to be viewed as being written in the format known as כלל ופרט, a general instruction first, followed by detailed instructions later. The Torah first reports that Avraham was granted a revelation, without specifying the nature of this revelation. The Torah then proceeds that this revelation which had first consisted only of his raising his eyes and seeing the three men approach, afterwards turned out to have been the introduction to a number of messages, such as when Sarah would give birth and that Sodom would be destroyed. According to Maimonides, these three men were not real, but were part of Avraham’s visions on that occasion. [if so, debating Sarah’s denials is an exercise in futility. Ed.] Nachmanides contradicts Maimonides’ approach, listing a number of difficulties with such an exegesis. Among other points, he cites the fact that if Avraham is described on numerous occasions when he had visions as prostrating himself in awe of the spectacle occurring, then clearly these were not nocturnal visions in a dream but actual happenings. In this case Avraham was fully awake. He claims that any human being experiencing the appearance of an angel and being addressed by him, is not experiencing prophecy but an overwhelming revelation of divine forces. [the interested reader is referred to Rabbi Chavell’s translation of Nachmanides’ commentary for further study of the subject. Ed.]

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.

Why does the Torah not mention the nature of this vision, the subject matter discussed, etc.? Our sages in Baba Metzia 86 say that G'd simply paid Abraham a visit, seeing the latter was still recovering from the effects of the circumcision. While this is a nice explanation, there is not a hint of this in the text.

Es ist dies das erste Mal, in welchem wir Abraham als eigentlichen נביא vor Gott stehen sehen, der מגלה סודו אל עבדיו הנביאים. Diese Stufe hatte Abraham erst in Folge der Mila errungen. Sehen wir die Umstände, unter welchen Gott Abraham diese Offenbarung macht, und ermitteln wir deren Zusammenhang mit derselben.

כחם היום, “during the hottest part of the day.” This is the time at which people consume their lunch. This was usually during the fourth hour of the day. This is in accordance with the commentary of Rav Papa in the Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 10. Avraham at the time was on the lookout for prospective guests at the entrance to his tent.

באלוני ממרא, according to Rashi that location was named after Mamre, who had been the only one of Avraham’s three allies who had advised him to go through with the command to circumcise himself. As a reward, Avraham experienced a revelation in the property belonging to Mamre. Mamre’s argument had been that seeing that G-d had saved Avraham miraculously from Nimrod’s furnace, surely He had only Avraham’s best interests at heart all the time. Proof lay in the fact that He had even enabled Avraham with only 318 soldiers to defeat four mighty armies. Some commentators are of the opinion that all the three allies of Avraham also circumcised themselves. There is even an opinion that those three died as a result of circumcising themselves. (Our author does not reveal his sources for these latter statements.). Yet another opinion holds that Mamre advised Avraham on how to heal the wound that he had inflicted upon himself. והוא יושב פתח האהל, “and Avraham was seated at the entrance to the tent.” Close to noon, close to the hour when most learned people consumed their main meal of the day. He was looking in all directions if he would find someone to share his meal with. If so he would invite him indoors.

literally, יֹשֵׁב WAS SITTING — The word is written ישב (without the ו) and therefore may be translated “he sat”: He wished to rise, but the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, Sit and I will stand. You shall form an example to your descendants — that I, in time to come, will stand in the assembly of the judges while they will sit, as it is said, (Psalms 82:1) “God standeth in the assembly of the judges” (Genesis Rabbah 48:7)

וירא אליו ה' באלוני ממרא והוא יושב פתח האהל כחם היום “The Lord appeared to Avraham at the terebinths of Mamre and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent as the day grew hot.” This portion is a continuation of the previous portion; this is why the Torah writes: “He appeared to him,” without identifying to whom G’d appeared. In chapter 12,7 where it would not have been clear to whom G’d appeared, the Torah added the word ”to Avram,” although there too the last previously mentioned subject had been Avram. In our situation nothing material had occurred since the circumcision and G’d’s manifestation to Avraham. By not spelling out what, if anything, G’d communicated to Avraham at this time it is clear that G’d’s manifestation was in the nature of someone visiting a sick friend. He had qualified for this “visit” as a result of circumcising himself. Tanchuma 1 on Parshat Vayera confirms this interpretation.

Therefore, He appeared to him in his territory. It seems that Rashi is not attempting to answer the question of why Hashem appeared to Avraham specifically there, as Avraham might have simply happened to be there at the time [when Hashem chose to appear]. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture need to inform us that Hashem appeared to him there, [when we would know this on our own? For] it already said that Avraham dwelled in the groves of Mamrei. Assumedly, Hashem appeared to him there, since that is where he circumcised himself and his household. And he surely did not leave, as he was still recovering from the milah; in fact Hashem came to visit him [for that reason]. The Re’m asks: How did Rashi know that Mamrei advised him? Perhaps Hashem appeared to Avraham there simply because Avraham’s tent was there on that day. He answers: Rashi knew it from the extra phrase, [“In the groves of Mamrei”]. It could have said simply, “Adonoy appeared to him and he was sitting...” as it does for other prophecies, [where the place is not mentioned]. This answer is similar to what I explained above. Alternatively: Rashi knew [that Mamrei advised Avraham] because it said in Parshas Lech Lecha (14:13), באלוני ממרא האמורי. And האמורי implies that Mamrei said (אמר) to Avraham to perform Hashem’s command. Question: How could one suggest that Avraham Avinu asked advice whether or not to fulfill Hashem’s command? Avraham was a great tzaddik who withstood ten trials! The Re’m explains that Avraham surely would have done the milah anyway, as commanded by his Creator. Avraham asked Eshkol, Aneir and Mamrei for advice since they were his allies and spoke to them as his friends, but Avraham wanted to test their sincerity. If they will advise him to circumcise, they are sincere friends. In the end, Eshkol and Aneir advised him against circumcising, and only Mamrei advised him to circumcise. Avraham thereby knew what was in their hearts. The Re’m offers another answer: Avraham asked their advice because he assumed they would advise him not to circumcise, yet he would do it anyway—making his reward greater. A further answer: Avraham sought advice whether to circumcise himself in private or in public, as he was concerned lest people come and prevent him. Mamrei said to do it publicly, for people will not be able to stop him. This is in accord with 17:23 where it is written בעצם היום, [on which Rashi comments that Avraham performed the milah openly, without fear of intervention]. (Mahari) It seems to me [that the answer is]: Avraham asked whether to circumcise in public, as nowhere does it say he was commanded to do it publicly. Aneir and Eshkol were opposed, as it says in Midrash Tanchuma Vayeira 3, while Mamrei enheartened him to circumcise in public, and not to be concerned at all about his enemies. Hashem rewarded Mamrei accordingly, measure for measure, and appeared [to Avraham] in his territory. Although Rashi said in 17:23 that Hashem told Avraham not to fear, that was after Mamrei advised him [not to be concerned about his enemies], to which Hashem concurred. (R. Meir Stern) A further answer: The Midrash says that Avraham circumcised Eshkol and Aneir, and they died. Mamrei told [i.e., advised] him: “The others will not survive unless you circumcise yourself.” This is as it says (17:13): המל ימול, the first word spelled without a ו, implying that he who circumcises himself (הַמָל) may circumcise others (ימול). [See also Yerushalmi, Shabbos 19:2. But in present-day Torah scrolls it is written המול.] Avraham then began to circumcise himself, but could not [finish], due to the pain. Hashem came and helped him, as it says (Nechemiah 9:8): “וכרות עמו הברית (and You cut the bris with him).” And since Mamrei advised him regarding the milah, Hashem appeared to him in Mamrei’s territory. Question: If Hashem would not appear to Avraham in Mamrei’s territory, where would He appear? Avraham dwelled in Mamrei’s territory! The answer is: Hashem caused Avraham to dwell there in order to bring about Mamrei’s reward. You might ask: Why did Avraham seek advice regarding milah, but not regarding any other mitzvah? An answer is: Avraham did not need advice whether to wait until he was commanded [before he fulfilled] the other mitzvos, as he knew he would not be commanded regarding any other mitzvah. An alternative answer: Even should he be commanded later concerning another mitzvah, this is no reason to refrain from performing it before—as he can always perform it later, in fulfillment of the command. But milah cannot be done a second time. I later heard that this answer is written in Mishpetei Shmuel. (Tzeidah L’Derech)

I believe that the message to Abraham was that henceforth G'd's presence would rest on him on a permanent basis [that he enjoyed a measure of the Holy Spirit. Ed.] In kabbalistic terms, Abraham had now become a "carrier of the שכינה." Bereshit Rabbah 47,6 describes all the patriarchs in those terms. The present form of address indicates that G'd's presence became felt by Abraham. Had the Torah used the usual wording we could not have become aware that G'd distinguishes between revelation itself, and the One who reveals Himself. It is because of this that Abraham's future visions are never again introduced by the word וירא. We find only: "G'd spoke to Abraham." This is a reminder he already wore the "crown" indicating that G'd's presence was upon him.

In the groves of Mamrei. See Rashi. He took counsel so that no one could claim that if he had been advised to refrain he would have done so. Alternatively, as allies (see 14:13) they were required to consult with the other before acting.

Gott wollte ihm den Untergang der reichsten, üppigsten Städte des Landes offenbaren, das einst der Boden des ihm verheißenen Volkes werden soll, und zwar ausdrücklich: weil Abraham Stammvater eines solchen Volkes werden soll. Nicht für seine Einzelpersönlichkeit hätte Abraham dieser Offenbarung über die Motive des bevorstehenden jammervollen Unterganges des blühenden Städtekreises bedurft. Er stand ja bereits im schneidendsten Gegensatz zu sodomitischer Gesinnung und sodomitischer Lebensanschauung. Die Szene selbst, in welcher die Gottesoffenbarung ihn traf, bewies, dass er für sich dieser Offenbarung nicht bedurfte. Der in Sonnenglut vor seiner Türe sitzende, nach müden Wanderern ausblickende Mann, bei denen er dann wie um eine Gnade, um die Gunst bettelt, sie gastlich bewirten zu dürfen, der Mann braucht nicht erst durch den schrecklichen Untergang Sodoms und Amoras vor Sodoms und Amoras Gesinnung gewarnt zu werden. Allein, damit unter seinen Nachkommen nicht einst in demselben üppigen Lande dieselbe Gesinnung aufwuchere, damit vielmehr die abrahamitische Gesinnung unverlierbares Erbteil der abrahamitischen Kinder und Kindeskinder bleibe, dass nicht einst bei ihnen Üppigkeit und Fülle den gottdienenden, menschenliebenden Abrahams- geist begrabe und vernichte, kurz, damit Abrahams Volk ewig in solchem Gegensatz zu den sodomitischen Lebensprinzipien bleibe, wie ihr Ahn sich in solchem Gegensatz glorreich bewährte: darum steht Sodoms Untergang und Abraham vor seinem Zelte ewig auf einem Bilde vor der Seele seiner Nachkommen.

כחום היום, “during the hottest part of the day.” This detail has been added in honour of Avraham who, at a time when the chance of potential guests being out in the sun was extremely slim, nonetheless positioned himself in that heat in such a way that he could not fail to notice anyone being out in the sun. This is why after begging the angels, (whom he thought to be weary travelers) he added that as soon as they had refreshed themselves he would not detain them any longer. After all, it was midday; when these angels came to Lot he offered them lodging for the night as it was too late to continue their journey on the same evening. (Compare 19,1.)

פתח האהל AT THE TENT-DOOR — that he might see whether anyone passed by, and invite him into the house

באלוני ממרא, “at the terebinths of Mamre.” The Torah informs us of the site where the circumcision took place. This was also the place where he received an immediate sign that G’d appreciated Avraham’s deed.
We find that manifestations of G’d’s presence to the prophets occur by means of 1) fire; 2) wind; 3) water, and 4) earth [either of the four basic raw material the terrestrial earth is made of. Ed.] G’d appeared to Moses in a burning bush (Exodus 3,2). He also appeared to the entire Jewish nation in an environment of fire (Deuteronomy 4,36: “He let you see His great fire, and you heard His words out of the fire”). In Exodus 24,17 G’d’s manifestation is described as “a consuming fire on top of the mountain.”
In connection with the ascent to heaven by the prophet Elijah we read in Kings II 2,1 “when the Lord was about to take Elijah up to heaven in a whirlwind, etc.” In Kings I 19,11 והנה ה' עובר ורוח גדולה וחזק מפרק הרים, ”there was a great and mighty wind; splitting mountains and shattering rocks by the power of the Lord.” We also encounter a manifestation of G’d through a mighty wind in Job 38,1 “Then the Lord replied to Job out of the tempest and said, etc.”
An instance of G’d manifesting Himself by means of water is found in Ezekiel 1,1 “It was in the thirtieth year... when I was in the community of exiles by the river Kevar, etc.” We encounter another example of G’d manifesting Himself by means of water in Ezekiel 1,24 ”I could hear the sound of their wings like the sound of mighty waters, like the sound of Shaddai."
We find G’d manifesting Himself in connection with earth in Ezekiel 43,2 “the whole earth is filled with His glory.” We also find a revelation described as “and the earth was lit up by His Presence.” In this instance, G’d manifested Himself to Avraham by means of a tree. The Midrash uses the word אלוני ממרא to emphasise the fact that these were trees, אילנות. Actually, Mamre was the name of one of Avraham’s close associates as we know from 14,13 “Mamre the Emorite, the brother of Aner and Eshkol who were allies of Avram.” Had the Torah only wanted to tell us that Avraham circumcised himself near the place where Mamre lived, it would have been appropriate to describe the area as ערבות ממרא, “the fields of Mamre.” The emphasis on the word אלוני shows that the Torah wanted to draw our attention to the fact that we are talking about a tree or trees. When Avraham told the men who came to visit to rest “under one of the trees,” this shows that there was more than one tree.
Why did G’d choose a tree to be the site at which He manifested Himself to Avraham on this occasion? It was because the angel was going to tell him that within a year he and Sarah would have a son. He would experience something similar to that which was experienced by an aged tree which still produced fruit. It is written in Job 14,7-9: “There is hope for a tree; if it is cut down it will renew itself; its shoots will not cease. If its shoots are old in the earth, and its stump dies in the ground, at the scent of water it will bud and produce branches like a sapling.” We also have a verse comparing the righteous to trees in Psalms 1,3 “He (the righteous) is like a tree planted beside streams of water which yields its fruit in season.” This is also how Rabbeinu Chananel explains our verse.

It is written ישב... Rashi is saying that יושב is present tense. It conveys that Avraham was sitting before, and still is. But ישב is past tense, and conveys that he was sitting before but not now. If so, [we might ask,] why did he stand? Thus Rashi explains: Avraham wanted to rise, to honor the Shechinah, but Hashem said to him: “Sit...” This is preferable to the Re’m’s explanation, see there. The Nachalas Yaakov writes: It seems to me that Rashi means that יֹשֵב lacking a ו implies that Avraham’s sitting was lacking, as he wanted to rise. The same goes for ועפרון יֹשֵב (23:10). There, too, Ephron’s sitting [as an officer] was lacking, for they appointed him only that day.

The term "He appeared to him" also alludes to the letter י of G'd's name becoming visible on Abraham's flesh as mentioned in Tanchuma 96 and Zohar 1,95: "when the holy רשימא rests on someone this means that G'd's presence rests on someone."

Wie hat man nicht das Judentum, dieses Erbteil der Abrahamiden, und dessen Träger, die Juden, verlästert. Wie sollen nicht diese "Beschnittenen" sich als die bevorzugt "Einzigen" mit ihrem Gotte dünken, wie soll nicht eben dieses absondernde Zeichen sie jedes kosmopolitischen, Menschen und Menschheit umfassenden Gefühles und Gedankens entkleiden, und den Gott des Himmels und der Erde, den Gott aller Menschenseelen ihnen zu dem Gotte ihres Erdwinkels und zu dem Nationalgott ihres Stammes ver- schrumpfen!

כחום היום IN THE HEAT OF THE DAY — The Holy One, blessed be He, brought the sun out of its sheath that he might not be troubled by travellers, and when He perceived that he was grieved that no travellers came He brought to him angels in the form of men (Bava Metzia 86b).

And you will symbolize to your descendants that I am destined ... It seems that Rashi is answering the question: It says in Moed Katan 27b, “We tell anyone to sit, [after he stands for the Nasi] — except for a mourner and a sick person,” as then it would connote that he should “sit” [i.e., stay] in his mourning or his sickness. And here, Hashem came to visit a sick person. Why did He tell him to sit? Thus Rashi explains: “You will symbolize...” (Tzeidah L’Derech)

The message is also that now that Abraham was circumcised he was able to absorb a vision of G'd in His superior light. Not all visions are of the same calibre. Once Abraham was circumcised he became privy to a prophetic vision in the full sense of that word. He was able to absorb the full name of G'd, i.e. the tetragram. We would not have understood this if the Torah had written: וירא ה׳ אל אברהם.

Da sitzt nun der erste beschnittene Jude! und wo? "In Mamres Hain!" Noch immer unter Aner, Eschkol und Mamre, die nicht אנשי בריתו, die בעלי ברית אברהם waren, die als die Herren ihn in die Bundesgenossenschaft aufgenommen hatten, und, "obgleich beschnitten" war er in seinem Verhalten zu der nicht-abrahamitischen Menschheit ganz derselbe. War es doch — so lehren die alten verschrieenen Rabbinen, diese ächtesten Abrahamssöhne — Abrahams einzige Sorge, die ihn in den Sonnenbrand vor seine Tür rief, es möchten jetzt, nach der Beschneidung, die Menschen sich von ihm zurückziehen, lehren dies, um dabei an Abrahams Beispiel seinen Söhnen den Satz einzuschärfen: גדולה הכנסת אורחים יותר מקבלת פני שכינה, Wanderer gastfrei aufnehmen, gilt höher als vor dem Angesichte Gottes stehen! Und welche Wanderer! Unbeschnittenen Götzendienern — denn andere konnte Abraham ja gar nicht erwarten — eilt Abraham aus dem Angesichte Gottes entgegen, um an ihnen die Pflicht der Menschenliebe zu üben! Und wie übt er sie! So jagt keiner einem winkenden Gewinnste entgegen, wie hier Abraham dieser Gelegenheit, als erster beschnittener Jude Mensch gegen Menschen zu sein! Frau und Kind, das ganze Haus setzt er in Bewegung, lässt alles frisch herrichten — als ob in seinem Zelte sonst nichts zur Labung dreier Wanderer vorhanden gewesen — um die ersten Gäste zu bewirten, die sich ihm als erstem נמול darboten! In allem diesen spricht sich bie Freude über die beseitigte Sorge, fortan isoliert zu bleiben, aus, die die Weisen ז"ל, die ächten Erben seines Geistes und seiner Gesinnung, so tief und wahr aus seiner Brust herausgelesen.

To see if there are any passers by that he might invite into his home. Rashi is answering the question: Do sick people usually sit at the door of the tent? They usually sit or lie on a bed [inside]! Thus Rashi explains: “To see...”

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.

Das Bild steht unmittelbar nach der Mila. Die in der Beschneidungs- isolierung heranblühenden Abrahamiden sollen die humansten Menschen sein. Bilden den entschiedensten Gegensatz zur Welt und sollen doch für alles allgemeine Menschliche ewig bereit gefunden werden, für die Pflege dieser edelsten Humanität wurden sie isoliert, und als Herold dieses Geistes hat sich vor allem Abraham als אב und אבר המון גוים als geistiger Vater und sittigende Schwungkraft des Völkergewoges bewährt.

God brought the sun out of its sheath... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it anyway was a hot day! The answer is: It is written כחם היום, rather than בחם היום, implying that the heat of the day was like that mentioned elsewhere (Malachi 3:19): “For lo, the day (היום) comes, glowing like a furnace.” This forced Rashi to explain: “God brought the sun out...” But it seems to me that [Rashi knew this because] if כחום היום indicates what time of day it was, Avraham should have sat earlier at the door of the tent to look for passersby to invite. For it says in Berachos 27a and Bereishis Rabbah 48:8 that כחום היום is the sixth hour, and וחם השמש (Shemos 16:21) is the fourth hour. And mealtime is at the fourth hour, as it says in Shabbos 10a and Pesachim 12b. Perforce, the verse must be explaining why he was sitting at the door of the tent, [not when]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Besides, do not use the fact that Shimon and Levi did not attack the people of Shechem until the third day after their circumcision as an argument. These sons of Jacob were not concerned with the pain of the people of Shechem but with their physical weakness, their relative inability to offer resistance. The third day is definitely the day such patients feel weakest. Regarding the danger of infection from the wound and danger to life, etc., the first two days are far more dangerous than the third day. Why should we assume then that G'd did not come and visit Abraham on the first or second day after the circumcision? I have found an interesting comment in the Tur Yore Deah item 335 in which he quotes this folio in the Talmud without mentioning that it was on the third day. According to that version the simple message of Rabbi Chama is that G'd came to pay a visit to the sick. [The discussion in Shabbat 134 concerns washing a baby with hot water on the third day after the circumcision if the third day is on the Sabbath; permission to do this indicates that on that day the baby's life is in danger. Ed.]

Und nicht umsonst ist Abraham in den Sonnenbrand vor seinem Zelte geeilt. Wenn etwas seine Söhne, die verschrieenen Juden, von ihm geerbt, der Genius dieser allweiten Menschenliebe ist von ihm ihnen zum Erbe gefallen. Das hat ihnen keine Zeit abgesprochen. Wo man offene Herzen, Häuser und Hände, wo man Opferwilligkeit für menschliche Zwecke finden will — gottlob, ein Funke von der Abrahamslehre hat nicht umsonst im Schoße der Menschheit gezündet und auch im nichtabrahamitischen Kreise sind sie zu finden — da suchen noch heute selbst die Verächter des Judentums sie in erster Linie auf — bei Juden.

He brought the angels to him in the guise of men. Rashi is answering the question: Did Hashem not need anyway to bring the angels, as we see from the story’s continuation? Thus Rashi explains that Hashem indeed needed to bring them anyway — but not in the guise of men. That was for Avraham’s sake.

According to the opinion of Ran that the first and the third days are the most dangerous to the patient, whereas the second day is not sufficiently dangerous to desecrate the Sabbath, we can understand the matter better. When you do not feel in danger, G'd applies the general rule of not visiting the sick during the first three hours of the morning. On the first day one also does not visit the sick as we know from Nedarim 40. When Rava was sick, he told his household not to tell anyone on the first day about his being sick in order not to influence his horoscope negatively. Rashi explains this to mean "that one should not talk about the sick person." [As long as the matter is not public knowledge an immediate cure may result without the debits and merits of the sick person being reviewed in heaven because of people talking about him. Ed.] However Rava did want the fact that he was sick publicised from the second day on, so that all those who hated him should rejoice over his being sick. This would help diminish his debits [in the accounts kept in the celestial ledger. Ed.]. Rabbi Chama did not think G'd visited on the first day, as such a visit would certainly not have gone unnoticed, and as a result tongues would have been set wagging. Yerushalmi Peah third chapter states that the relatives of a sick person may visit him immediately; this is because such visits do not contribute to the sickness of the patient becoming public knowledge. There is certainly no doubt that G'd Himself must be viewed as a very close relative of the sick person. However, a visit by G'd would most certainly attract attention. According to the opinion that there is no difference in the degree of danger on either of the respective three days, this would leave the question of why Rabbi Chama had to mention the third day as the day G'd visited Abraham. We may have to assume that these people had the version of the Tur which did not mention the third day at all.

Der Erfolg der Erzählung fordert noch eine Erwägung. Wir sehen, wie die Einkehr bei Abraham zunächst die Absicht hatte, Sara einen Sohn zu verkünden. Obgleich Abraham diese Verkündigung bereits geworden, scheint er sich doch nicht für berechtigt gehalten zu haben, sie Sara mitzuteilen (— bei der Bundesschließung hieß es: ,bei der Mitteilung über Sara nicht —). Es scheint die Absicht gewesen zu sein ,לאמר Sara dieses ihr bevorstehende Mutterwerden nur gelegentlich hören zu lassen, damit auch sie die Abnormität ganz in aller Frische treffe, und auch ihr, wie in der Tat geschah, zuerst lächerlich erscheine. Wir haben die hohe Bedeutsamkeit dieses , Lächerlichen" — wir kommen bei Jizchaks Geburt aus dem "Lachen" gar nicht heraus: Abraham lacht, Sara lacht, und כל השמע יצחק und alle Welt lacht — bereits erwähnt, und scheint es daher, wie dem Vater so auch der Mutter haben tief eingeprägt und bei aller künftigen Pflege und Erziehung des Kindes gegenwärtig bleiben sollen, wie ihnen selbst, als sie zuerst von dieser Erwartung gehört, schon der bloße Gedanke "lächerlich" erschienen.

*G-d appeared to Avraham* Rashi explains: said Rabbi Chama bar Chanina: this was the third day after his circumcision and G-d came and asked about his welfare. Our sages say in Tractate Brachos that even if a snake is wrapped around your heel and even if the king asks about your welfare, you should not interrupt. To understand their word: what's the relevance of the snake to the king [in the allegory]? They're [the snake and the king] are diametrically opposed. The words allude to the following: a wicked person can be destroyed because of his wickedness, and a righteous person can be destroyed because of his righteousness. [How?] Since, when a wicked person sees that he's in a wicked state and he has angered G-d's spirit, he gives up hope of ever returning to G-d. His last sin [giving up] is greater than all the other sins before. As for a Tzaddik, when his heart seduces him and tells him that he has the power to perform miracles on the earth, he feels that he can be lazy and he be lax in his service to Hashem. [Thus] he is also destroyed, G-d forbid. That's the verse means when it says "those who are cast aside in the land of Egypt..." The Land of Assyria refers to the tzaddikim. Those cast aside in Egypt refers to the wicked. Concerning these two scenarios, our sages warned us and said "even if snake is wrapped around your heel.." to hint to a wicked person enveloped by the impurity of the snake, G-d forbid, [that] he should not cease his service to Hashem because Hashem has abundant kindness and he pardon abundantly without any limit. On the other hand, regarding a tzaddik, "even if a king seeks your welfare, don't interrupt your service to Hashem" parallels "Don't trust yourself until the day you die..." So, too, Avraham Avinu, even though G-d asked about his welfare, sat at the entrance of the tent, which means that he asked to open the Torah for him as it says "open for me the gate of righteousness..." so it says later on that when Hashem finished speaking to Avraham, Hashem traveled after he spoke to Avraham, which means that Hashem ascended through Avraham. Understand this.

והנה שלשה אנשים AND BEHOLD THREE MEN — one to announce to Sarah the birth of a son, one to overthrow Sodom, and one to cure Abraham, for one angel does not carry out two commissions (Genesis Rabbah 50:2). You may know that this is so because throughout this section it (Scripture) mentions them in the plural — “and they ate” (Genesis 18:8), “and they said unto him” (Genesis 18:9) — whilst in the case of the announcement it states, (Genesis 18:10) “And he said, I will certainly return unto thee”, and with regard to the overthrow of Sodom it says (Genesis 19:22) “For “I” cannot do anything” and (Genesis 19:21) “that “I” will not overthrow [the city]”. Raphael who healed Abraham went thence to rescue Lot; that explains what is stated (Genesis 19:17) “And it came to pass when they had brought them forth, that he said, Escape for thy life”, for you learn from this that only one of these acted as Deliverer

וישא עיניו, he concentrated on seeing more clearly.

וישא עיניו וידא. When he raised his eyes he saw, etc. Why did the Torah add the word והנה?" Besides, why did the Torah add that the three men נצבים, "were standing?" This is no more than normal! What does the addition of that word add to our understanding? Furthermore, what is the meaning of the word עליו, "upon him?" The meaning of that word cannot be that they were merely close to Abraham! If that were the case, why did Abraham have to run towards them? Another difficulty in the paragraph is the repetition of the word וירא! Why does the Torah portray Abraham as bowing down to these men before he knew who they were, i.e. angels and not Arabs?

וישא את עיניו, the first thing Avraham saw after he had gone to sleep were three men standing next to him, נצבים עליו, apparently ready to be of service to him. The meaning of the expression נצבים עליו is similar to Samuel I 22,7 ויאמר שאול לעבדיו הנצבים עליו, “Saul said to the people standing next to him (in attendance) etc.” The same expression is also used in this context in Ruth 2,6 הנצב על הקוצרים, “who was standing next to the reapers;” we also find this expression in Kings I 5,30 "משרי הנצבים, and in numerous other places in Scripture. These three men beheld by Avraham were standing at his disposal. They did not move, but indicated that they were expecting instructions from him. When he realised this he ran toward them. This explains why the word וירא, “he saw” appears twice in this verse in close succession.

One to foretell to Sarah... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Hashem bring three “men,” instead of one angel? He answers: Hashem anyway needed to bring three angels. One to foretell to Sarah...

STOOD OVER HIM. The purport thereof is that they were standing opposite Abraham and looking at him, the expression being similar to: that stood over the reapers;⁶⁹Ruth 2:6. the chief officers that stood over the work.⁷⁰I Kings 5:30. And due to the fact that he [Abraham] was sitting and they were standing and looking at him, the verse says, “over him.” This is also the meaning of the expression, And he saw, and ran to meet them, for as he saw them standing opposite him and not continuing their journey, he ran to meet them in order to bring them to his house.
The sense of the expression, From the tent door, is that Abraham was still sitting there after the vision of the Shechinah had departed from him.
It is possible that the expression “over him” refers to the tent, i.e., that they were near it on the side which was not opposite the door, and there they stood and did not approach Abraham, just as in the verse, encamping ‘al’ (on) the sea.⁷¹Exodus 14:9. Meaning “encamping alongside the sea.” Here too alav means “standing alongside him.”

(2-3) Wenn das Wort אדני im dritten Vers חול, also die Anrede "meine Herren" bedeutet, dann wäre das וירא des ersten Verses nur die allgemeine Einleitung; es hieße: Gott erschien ihm, als er gerade vor seinem Zelte in der Glut der Sonne saß und nach Wanderern ausspähte, die ihm dann auch wurden und an welchen er Gastfreundschaft übte. Die Gotteserscheinung selbst wäre dann erst nach dem Abschied, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 18: 20, eingetreten. Ist dieses Wort קדש, also Gottesname, wofür sowohl die Punktation, als auch die Anrede im Singular spricht und wie es als הלכה rezipiert, und damit eben jener große Satz von der superlatiden Größe tätiger Menschenliebe selbst der Anschauung Gottes gegenüber als jüdisches Axiom sanktioniert ist, so ist der erste Vers וירא usw. allerdings der erste Moment der Erzählung: Gott erscheint ihm, um ihm eine Offenbarung zu machen, er aber ist gerade im Geiste mit der Erspähung einer Gelegenheit zur Erfüllung der Gastfreundschaft beschäftigt; gleichzeitig mit der Gotteserscheinung erblickt er Menschen, denen er liebreich dienen kann, er eilt ihnen entgegen, und, während er im Herzen seinen Gott, dessen Gebot er ja eben thätig zu erfüllen eilt, bittet, sich nicht zu entziehen, bevor er diese Pflicht erfüllt, spricht er zu den Wanderern יקח נא usw. Vergl. Raw Hirsch on Genesis 18: 22 ואברהם עודנו עומד לפני ד׳.

והנה שלשה אנשים, according to Rashi, these “three men,” were in fact three angels with different tasks to perform. One was Rafael, whose task it was to heal Avraham from the wounds of the circumcision. (this is based on Talmud Baba Metzia 86. He then went on to save Lot.) Of the two angels who proceeded on to Sodom, one was Michael. If it had been so this would contradict the statement of our sages that an angel is assigned only one task at a time. Some Rabbis consider saving Lot as similar in principle to healing Avraham, so that there would be no contradiction.

נצבים עליו STOOD BY, or OVER HIM — before him; only this is a more fitting expression to use of angels

נצבים עלי, facing him. They appeared as if waiting to speak to him when he would be free to turn his attention from the marvelous manifestation he had just observed. People waiting to speak to someone are described as נצבים עליו, as for instance in Genesis 45,1 להתאפק לכל הנצבים עליו.

מפתח האהל, where he had been sitting. He saw himself running towards these men in his vision.

You may be convinced of this because in the entire parshah they are mentioned in the plural form. The Maharshal objects: This “proof” just begs the question. Perhaps one angel can do multiple missions, and it mentions one [and the same] angel concerning each deed. [The answer is:] I heard from my father and teacher that Rashi is saying as follows: [You might ask:] Perhaps [there were three] because three angels were needed for a single mission? And it is not because an angel is incapable of multiple missions. Rashi answers: “You may be convinced...”

We must understand the report of the Torah in terms of what transpired later, i.e. that the men were indeed angels who appeared in human garb in order to partake of Abraham's hospitality for reasons known to us. The words וירא והנה simply mean that Abraham saw that they were apparently men, something which later on proved to have been an error on his part. He had judged the outward appearance. Had the Torah not added the word והנה, the report would have been a lie.

Man möge jedoch der einen oder der anderen Auffassung huldigen, jedenfalls ist die Tatsache, dass Gott sich dem Abraham offenbarte, während er in Menschen erquickender Gastfreiheit tätig war, oder, dass Abraham zu solcher Tätigkeit schritt, in dem Augenblick, als sich ihm Gott offenbarte, diese Tatsache ist von außerordentlicher Tragweite hinsichtlich des wahren Wesens jüdischer Prophetie. Wie ist man nicht geneigt, Prophetie, unsere Prophetie, mit in die Kategorie des Schwärmens, Augurwesens, der Ekstase, der Clairvoyance etc. etc. zu werfen. Zuletzt ist die Ekstase nur eine Vorstufe der Prophetie und Prophetie nur ein höherer Zustand der Ekstase. Selbst jüdisch-philosophische Schriften sind nicht frei von der Vorstellung, zur Prophetie, zur Gottesoffenbarung führe sogenanntes התבודדות, räumliche und geistige Abstraktion, Vereinsamung des Menschen und des Gedankens. Und doch, welche Kluft liegt zwischen allem dem und der wirklichen wahrhaftigen Prophetie. Nicht der abstrakte Gedanke, das frisch pulsierende, Gott treue Leben gewinnt die Gottesnähe. Nicht Produkt einer krankhaften Phantasie, eines gereizten Zustandes ist unsere Prophetie, dem gesunden, schaffenden, heiter wachen Leben gehört sie an, wie dies ja auch die Weisen ausgesprochen: nicht Schlaffheit und Trübsinn, auch nicht Ausgelassenheit und Leichtsinn, so wenig wie Tändelei, sind der Zustand, in welchem der Gottesgeist auf den Menschen kommt, sondern Mizwafreude, die in treuer, Gott dienender Tat zu gewinnende Freude, אין השכינה שורה לא מתוך עצלות ולא מתוך עצבות ולא מתוך שחוק ולא מתוך קלות ראש ולא מתוך שיחה ורברים בטלים אלא מתוך שמחה של מצוה Und wenn das Gotteswort eine Stufe der Probhetie mit .(.Sabbat 30b) פה אל פה אדבר בו ומראה ולא בחידות bezeichnet, und eine andere mit במראה אליו אתודע בחלום אדבר בו so ist auch in dieser letzteren der Traum nur ein ,(B. M. 12, 6. 8 .4) Medium der Gottesmitteilung an den Menschen, und ist weit entfernt von dem Zustand visionärer, verzückter Menschen; denn Gott wählt zu seinem Organ nur einen starken, reichen, weisen und bescheidenen Menschen אין הב"ה משרה שכינתו אלא על גבור ועשיר וחכם ועניו Wir sehen, die völligste, allem Visionären fernliegende .(.Nedarim 38 a), praktische Klarheit ist der Zustand, in welchem Abraham hier נביא wird.

נצבים, interrupting their walk by assuming a position which invited enquiries by anyone seeing them. Our author quotes Exodus 34,2 ונצבת לי, as a similar use of this verse; i.e. Moses is invited by G-d to stop climbing the mountain and wait until He gives him the inscribed set of the second Tablets. וירץ לקראתם, “he ran toward them, having understood that this was the reason why these men had suddenly halted for a purpose.

וירא AND HE SAW — What does the repetition of this word וירא imply? The first time it has its ordinary meaning (“he looked”), the second that of understanding: he saw that they were standing in one spot, and so understood that they had no desire to cause him any trouble. Although they knew that he would go to meet them they nevertheless remained where they were out of respect to him and to show him that they wished to spare him trouble; he, therefore, took the initiative and ran towards them. In the Treatise Bava Metzia 86b we have the following: It is written, “they were standing by him” and it is also written “He ran towards them” — how can these apparently contradictory statements be reconciled? But the explanation is, that at first they stood by him and when they perceived that he was loosening and re-binding his bandages, they retired from him; he therefore immediately ran towards them.

וירץ לקראתם, before they could open a dialogue with him.

וישתחו ארצה, they appeared to him to be men of great stature. He then addressed them with the words reported in the Torah. Our sages (Bereshit Rabbah 50,2) say that Avraham was so familiar with the sight of angels that their sudden appearance did not cause him to become disoriented, frightened and he perceived them essentially as אנשים, men. On the other hand, Lot, whose spiritual powers were quite minor, perceived the men as being angels, מלאכים, seeing that he had had little experience with such phenomena. (compare 19,1) Manoach’s wife had already told her husband that the face of the man who had told her that she would have a son was like that of an angel of G’d. (Judges 13,6)

Rephael, who healed Avraham, went from there... Question: Why does Rashi need to mention this here? The answer is: Rashi says this to answer the following questions. One angel cannot do multiple missions, as seen from the fact that the foretelling to Sarah and the overturning of Sedom are written in the singular, as Rashi explained above. If so, where do we find Avraham’s healing written in the singular? Furthermore, why did Hashem not bring four angels, [the fourth] one to rescue Lot? Thus Rashi explains that Rephael who healed Avraham went to rescue Lot, and Lot’s rescue is written in the singular, as Rashi goes on to say. Therefore it is as though a single angel was also mentioned for Avraham’s healing. (Re’m) Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: Later, concerning the overturning of Sedom, it is written (19:1): “The two angels came to Sedom,” implying that it involved two angels, although one of them had already done his mission [and was incapable of another mission]. Thus Rashi explains: “Rephael who healed Avraham...” to tell us that one of the angels was Rephael. He only rescued Lot and did not assist in overturning Sedom. Rashi explains that Rephael who healed Avraham went to rescue Lot. You might ask: If so, why did this angel say about himself (19:13), “We are going to destroy”? The answer is: His essential mission was to rescue Lot, but to destroy Sedom was an indirect result [of the rescue]. For it says (19:23-4), “When Lot came to Zoar, Adonoy caused to rain upon Sedom...” I.e., rescuing Lot indirectly caused the destruction. Thus it is rightly said that an angel of good does no evil, and vice versa. (Ra) Some versions of Rashi say: “The mission of healing and rescue are one.” Rashi is answering the question: Why three angels? [There are four missions but only three angels, so it seems that an angel can indeed do a second mission if it is in a different place! Therefore,] let the two angels of Avraham’s healing and Sarah’s foretelling go to Sedom. One will overturn Sedom while the other will rescue Lot. Thus Rashi explains that [an angel cannot do a second mission in a different place either. Rather,] rescuing and healing are one [mission; they save endangered life. Therefore, it can be done by the same angel]. But foretelling and rescue are two different missions. Other versions of Rashi do not have this. The reason one angel does not perform multiple missions is to demonstrate that Hashem’s legions are countless; where there is wealth there is no scantiness. The Nachalas Yaakov debated at length, and concluded: It seems clear that Hashem brought three angels so that Avraham would not be aggravated over [lack of] guests, even though one angel can do multiple missions. [You might ask:] If so, why does it state that there were three? Would it matter if there were more, or less? Thus Rashi explains that Scripture informs us that there were three angels to carry out three types of missions.

The word נצבים means that Abraham, who was by now familiar with celestial messengers, realised that these "men" had been sent to him for a specific purpose, for his sake. One of them, for instance, had been charged with the task of healing him. A second one had been sent to inform him that by that time in the following year Sarah would have a son. The third one, whose task appeared to be the destruction of Sodom, nevertheless had detoured in order to afford Abraham an oppportunity to intercede on behalf of the people of Sodom before G'd would carry out His judgment on that city. In other words, his whole presence there was "עליו, on account of him (Abraham)."

מפתח האהל, he began running from the entrance of his tent. When a person is observed to perform any task with speed, with keenness, this reflects that he considers what he is about to do as important. We have another example of such conduct in Exodus 34,8 וימהר משה ויקוד ארצה וישתחו, “Moses hastened to bow down and to prostrate himself.”

Next to him. We need not question: If so, [that “over” is respectful], then [below in v. 8] it should say that he stood next to them, [rather than “over them”]. For the answer is: Since there [in v. 8] he is serving them at the meal, it is proper to write he stood “over” them, as it means he was right next to them, ready to serve them immediately. But in this verse this reason does not apply. It says likewise in Pesachim 103b: “Rav Yeiva was standing over them to serve them during the meal.” (Mahara’i)

The expression אנשים נצבים may allude to the human posture these angels assumed. The word עליו means "on his account," i.e. for his sake, so that he could perform the מצוה of hospitality. Abraham realised that they were angels because the bearing of an angel cannot be disguised. We know this already from the wife of Manoach (Judges 13,2). If that lady realised that she faced an angel, someone of Abraham's stature would certainly be aware of the presence of an angel. After all, Abraham had already encountered angels previously. The word וירא a second time merely confirmed Abraham's original impression seeing that he had been healed and was able to run towards them. An angel has long-distance vision and inasmuch as the cure he performs is of a spiritual nature, he does not need to be physically close to the patient. As soon as Abraham felt cured, he bowed down to the angel in gratitude to G'd.

וישתחו ארצה, seeing that the appearance of these strangers was so awe-inspiring. We have a parallel verse in Judges 13,6 when Manoach’s wife is described as reacting to the angel’s awe-inspiring appearance as such that she did not even dare to enquire his name, etc. Avraham considered these men as emissaries from some king.

And then it says: “He ran to greet them.” Some ask: According to the Aggadah that they were close and then moved away, it should say: “He ran after them”! The answer is: Avraham’s tent had four openings. When they went away, he ran from that opening to one in the north or south, to stop them [from leaving]. That is why it says, “[He ran toward them] to greet them.” Another answer is: Angels have no backside, [but multiple faces]. For it says (Yechezkel 1:12): “They did not turn as they walked.” Although these angels were in the guise of men, they retained their trait of seeing what was either in front or behind them. [Thus, Avraham was actually greeting their faces.] (Toldos Yitzchok)

'ויאמר אדני אם נא וגו AND HE SAID, MY LORD, IF NOW etc. — He addressed himself to the Chief of them; calling them all “lords”, (אדני may mean “my lords”), whilst to their Chief he said “Do not I pray thee pass away”, for he knew that if he would not pass by, his companions would certainly remain with him. In this explanation the word אדני has a “profane” sense (does not refer to God, being merely a term of address, “Sirs”) . Another explanation is that the word is “holy” (referring to God): he asked God to wait for him whilst he ran and invited the travellers. For although this is written after the words “and he ran to meet them”, yet the conversation took place beforehand. It, indeed, is the way of the Scriptures to speak in this manner as I have explained in my comment on “My spirit shall not strive” (Genesis 6:3) which is written after the passage. “And Noah begot” (Genesis 5:32) whereas it is impossible to say otherwise than that the decree of a respite of 120 years made in reference to this verse “My spirit shall not strive etc.” was twenty years before the birth of Noah’s sons.) Both these explanations of אדני are to be found in Genesis Rabbah 48:10 (see also Shevuot 35b).

‘ADONAY,’ IF NOW I HAVE FOUND FAVOR IN THY EYES. We find the word Adonay here in the books marked with a kamatz.⁷²A word whose end is voweled with a kamatz stands by itself and is not in construct form. This is not the case with a word whose end is voweled with a patach. Thus, Ado-noy voweled with a kamatz, must have reference only to G-d, but Adonay voweled with a patach, has a “profane” sense and does not refer to G-d. Ramban continues: Since we find the word in this verse written in the books with a kamatz, and Abraham was speaking to the angels, it must be because he referred to them by the name of their Master. Thus it must be that he called them by the name of their Master, i.e., with the Aleph Dalet,⁷³Ado-noy. as he recognized them to be angels of the Supreme One, even as they are called elohim and eilim.⁷⁴See Ramban, Exodus 20:3 and Leviticus 18:27. For this reason he bowed down to the earth to them.

אל נא תעבר, he addressed the one whom he considered the senior one of the three, saying “do not merely deliver your message and leave immediately, but take some refreshment first.”

ויאמר, אדני, אם נא מצאתי חן, He said: "my lords, if I have found favour, etc." We need to know why Abraham did not speak to all three of them at the same time. Bereshit Rabbah 48,10 mentions that Abraham said to the leader, Michael, that "a little water should be taken, etc." This is merely a homiletical explanation. How would Michael know that Abraham's invitation was addressed to all three of them when Abraham spoke to Michael in the singular?

ויאמר אדוני, our sages (Shevuot 35) are of two minds as to the meaning of the word A-donay in this verse. Some say it is sacred, an attribute of G’d; others hold that it is profane. If it is the latter, Avraham would have addressed the biggest one of these men. He would have used his own intelligence in making this choice. According to Rashi in the Talmud quoted, Avraham chose the middle angel, (man) as the one whom he addressed as their leader. We know that the angels are not all on the same level. We also know from the descriptions in the Book of Daniel that the senior angels may give instructions to their junior companions. (Daniel 8,16) Even though these men had come to him in the guise of men, human beings, seeing that Avraham had prepared water for them to wash their feet, he addressed the leader in the plural mode, -with the vowel kametz instead of in the singular mode with the vowel chirik as an expression of special honour. We find something parallel in Judges 6,15 when Gideon asked the (lone) angel ”my lord(s), (adonay) how can I help the people of Israel?” He had not been aware at that time that he was addressing an angel. The sages who hold that the word a-donay here is sacred, explain that Avraham used the plural mode because he was addressing G’d Who had visited him, asking Him to wait until he had been able to perform the duty of being a good host to these travelers who had suddenly appeared at the entrance of his tent. The lesson to be derived from this is that the merit of welcoming guests and making them feel at home is even greater than the merit of welcoming G’d into one’s house.

אל נא תעבור, “please do not just pass by.” According to the commentators who perceive this plea of Avraham as being addressed to divine beings, holy ones, i.e. Avraham asking G’d to wait until he had had finished attending to something he had already started, it is difficult, seeing that we know already that he had run to meet these messengers. What reason would he have to ask G’d to wait, seeing he had already welcomed G’d’s messengers? We would have to answer that he had experienced G’d’s presence departing the moment he had given his attention to the three men (angels) he had seen. When he turned in the direction of his vision again, G’d’s presence returned, and he asked G’d to wait until he had fulfilled his obligation of hosting his guests.

He was speaking to their leader... Rashi is answering the question: Why did he first say אדנָי, the plural form, and then אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניךָ, the singular form? Rashi answers: He was speaking to their leader [yet referring to them all]. And there is no difference between אדנַי and אדנָי; both are plural form. You might ask: How did Avraham know who the leader was? The answer is: He reasoned they were two disciples and a teacher. And normally, the teacher walks in the middle with the greater disciple to his right and the lesser one to his left.

ויאמר: אדוני, “the vowel under the letter ד is a kametz, to indicate that the word is used by someone who was aware that he addressed a messenger from G-d, not just a plural ending; (Minchat Shay) [For practical purposes this means that the word must not be erased as it is one of the holy names of G-d. Ed.]

אל נא תעבר מעל עבדך, the word נא is a kind of plea, Avraham begging these strangers not to pass him by without stopping to take some refreshment. The reason why this whole incident has been recorded in the Torah is to teach people how to relate to fellow human beings with charity and love. It is an act of loving kindness to welcome guests into one’s home in order to honour them and to look after their personal requirements, such as letting them wash up and stay overnight.

אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך, “do not pass your servant by.” He addressed these words to the senior one among them, including his two companions in his remarks. Alternatively, he addressed each one of these individuals separately, asking them to stop by. Some commentators believe that he only needed to make this request from one of them, as the other two had come to deliver a message to him (as opposed to dealing with the Sodomites.) They therefore had to stop by his house to deliver their messages.

Both explanations are in Bereishis Rabbah.e., the explanations of whether אדני is holy or profane—not those of לא ידון וכו'. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

The reason Abraham addressed only Michael was that he felt that the other two were going to come to him even without a specific invitation, seeing that G'd had despatched them with messages for him. One was meant to cure him, the other to inform him of the impending birth of Isaac. The same did not apply to the third angel Gabriel, whose function it was to destroy Sodom. He had no task to perform in Abraham's home. This is why Abraham appealed to him not to depart until he had partaken of his hospitality. Gabriel consented.

PASS NOT AWAY, I PRAY THEE, FROM THY SERVANT. Abraham spoke to each one of the angels, as is the way of the whole Torah: Ye shall keep all My statutes… and do them;⁷⁵Leviticus 20:22. According to the author of Kesef Mezukak, the verse here should be [ibid. 18:5]: Ye shall keep My statutes, and Mine ordinances, which if a man do…. Here, as in the succeeding examples, the verse begins with a plural and ends with a singular because the Torah speaks to each person. The nakedness of thy father, and the nakedness of thy mother, shalt thou not uncover;⁷⁶Ibid., 18:7. And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field;⁷⁷Ibid., 19:9. And from thence ye will seek the Eternal thy G-d, and thou shalt find Him, if thou search after Him with all thy heart and with all thy soul.⁷⁸Deuteronomy 4:29. The greater part of the Mishneh Torah⁷⁹The book of Deuteronomy. See ibid., 17:18, for origin of the expression. is written in this manner. A counter-example to the above is the verse: Behold, I set before you this day a blessing and a curse.⁸⁰Ibid., 11:26. Here He speaks to the whole congregation as a unit and not to each person individually.
Now our Rabbis have said,⁸¹Bereshith Rabbah 48:9. “Abraham spoke to the chief of the angels.”⁸²According to this opinion, the word Adonay does not refer to G-d. It is also possible that he said to the chief, “Pass not away, I pray thee, [in the singular sense], and thou and thy companions who will remain with thee wash your feet,” [the verb “wash” being in the plural form].
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that he called them all “lords,” and he turned to each individual, saying to the first one: If now I have found favor in thy eyes, pass not away, and to the second one he said the same, and the same to the third one. He begged each one individually: If now I have found favor in thy eyes, pass not away, and, let now a little water be fetched, and all of ye wash your feet.⁸³Verse 4 here. This was by way of ethical conduct and respect out of his great desire to show kindness towards them. Now he recognized them as transients who did not have the desire to lodge there. This is why he asked of them only that a little water be fetched to wash their feet a little from the heat, to give cold waters to a faint soul,⁸⁴Proverbs 25:25. and that they recline under the tree in the cool of the day without coming into the tent and the tabernacle.

אל נא תעבור מעל עבדך, “please do not continue without stopping by at your servant.” Avraham addressed the most important one of them. To the question how he knew which one was the most important one, the answer is that the other two appeared to walk alongside him on either side in the manner that students do when they accompany their Rabbi. We know this from the Talmud, Yuma 37. The text there reads as follows: when the three angels appeared to Avraham, Michael walked in the center and Gavriel and Rafael on either side of him. (Our sages supplied us with the order of the hierarchy of the angels. (Compare an interesting edition called malachey elyon, by Rabbi Reuven Margolit, published by Mossad Harav Kook.) Rashi adds; “even though the Torah reports Avraham as running to meet them after he had already addressed them, the Torah did not report this in the chronological sequence. He had run to meet them before, as otherwise he would have had to shout at them. You might disagree by quoting the Talmud in Pessachim 6, according to which the principle of the Torah not being bound to report in chronological sequence only applies when two or more different occurrences are discussed, and here we are dealing with a single occurrence; but according to Rashi, the system used by the Torah here, is the one known as מקרא מסורס, “a truncated verse.”

יקח נא LET BE FETCHED, I PRAY THEE — This implies bringing by a messenger: therefore did the Holy One, blessed be He, recompense his (Abraham’s) children by a messenger when they required water, as it is said, (Numbers 20:11) “And Moses lifted up his hand and smote the rock etc.” (Bava Metzia 86b)

יקח נא מעט מים. "Let a little water be brought." Perhaps the reason Abraham spoke about a "little" water was to indicate that it was not much of an effort to procure it. He certainly was not miserly. Apparently, he did not want to depart from his custom to ask guests to wash their feet to remove the dust that most of them worshipped (Baba Metzia 86). [The author felt the need to justify the custom seeing Abraham was already aware that his guests were angels and not given to worship the dust. Abraham may not have wanted his servants to realise that his guests were angels. Ed.]

יקח נא מעט מים, the reason why he mentioned “a little,” is in order to understate his generosity, something that is expected of any person who claims to possess a certain minimum of good character traits. When referring to the water,” Avraham used the passive form of yukach, meaning the water would be supplied by someone other than himself, whereas when he spoke about the bread he would supply, he said: “I will take a piece of bread, etc.”

יוקח נא מעט מים ורחצו רגליכם, ”let a little water be brought so that you can wash your feet.” He recognized from their appearance that they were travelers passing by and had no intention to spend the night with him. This is why he only invited them for lunch and for enjoying the shade of the tree. After that, he was willing to allow them to continue on their journey without detaining them further.

Through an intermediary. Rashi is not telling us that יוקח means through an intermediary, as that is obvious. Otherwise it should say אקחה (I will bring)! Rather, Rashi is telling us that Hashem rewarded his descendants through a messenger. (Ra)

והשענו תחת העץ. This teaches that there was only a single tree at that location. Why did G’d reveal Himself in the shape of a tree? This was because He told him that he would sire a son after having become old, similar to a tree of which it is written that even “an old tree still has hope of producing new branches even if it has been cut down, it will renew itself, its shoots will not cease, if its roots are old in the earth and its stump dies in the ground. At the scent of water it will bud and produce branches like a sapling.”(Job 14,7-9) Furthermore, the righteous have been compared to trees, as we know from Psalms 1,3 והיה כעץ שתול על פלגי מים, “he will be as a tree planted besides streams of water,” (quoted by Rabbeinu Bachya in the name of Rabbeinu Chananel in his commentary on Genesis 18,1).

ורחצו רגליכם, “and wash your feet.” This all occurred during the season of the desert winds, known as sharaf, as explained by Rashi. According to Rashi, G-d had made the day especially hot, so that the feet of travelers would be soaked in sand and sweat.

ורחצו רגליכם AND WASH YOUR FEET — He thought they were Arabians who worship the dust of their feet, and he was particular not to have the object of idolatrous worship brought into his house (Bava Metzia 86b). Lot, however, who was not particular about this, mentioned “lodging” (i.e. entering the house) before “washing” the feet, as it is said (Genesis 19:2) “[And he said to the angels] tarry here all night and wash your feet.”

ורחצו, an imperative, seeing that the letter ר has the vowel patach. If this had been a form of the future constructed with the introductory letter ו, the letter ר should have the vowel kametz under it. Examples are: Exodus 40,31 ורחצו ממנו. Avraham meant to tell his guests to allow themselves to have their feet washed by one of his servants.

And God rewarded his descendants through a messenger. But Avraham brought the bread himself, as it says: “I will get bread.” Hashem, too, gave it Himself to Avraham’s descendants, and showered upon them manna. (Maharshal)

Abraham may have hinted to the angels that the water he spoke about was a reference to the Torah. Torah is multi-faceted; it speaks to us as פשט, plain meaning of the words, and it also contains messages on a far deeper level. Abraham faced heavenly beings in human guise, i.e. G'd had made a body for them through solidifying something normally ethereal. When an angel assumes human form his "body" is compared to the "foot". This is a concept familiar to students of the Kabbalah (Zohar 1,58). Abraham hinted to the angels that they should take a little of the plain meaning of the Torah i.e. "water," seeing that they were presently in human form. They could then rest under the "the Tree," i.e. hyperbole for Torah which is known as עץ החיים. He referred to it as העץ, though it had not previously featured in our story. He also told them to take פת לחם, a reference to the inner meanings of Torah, something he alluded to when speaking about their לבכם, inner organs. He invited the angels to enjoy the inner aspects of Torah. [This is not so strange-sounding, seeing angels had never been given the Torah. Ed.] The reason he did not merely say פת but פת לחם, was a hint that this bread had inner properties, i.e. its numerical value being 78, or three times the numerical value (26) of the four-lettered Holy Name. This was an allusion to eternal life, i.e. past, present and future.

תחת העץ UNDER THE TREE — beneath the terebinth (Genesis Rabbah 48:11).

As it is said: “And Moshe raised his hand...” The verse Rashi cites, from Bamidbar 20:11, is perplexing: it speaks of punishment [for Moshe’s striking the stone]. Whereas the Gemara in Bava Metzia 86b cites a verse regarding the blessing of Miriam’s Well (Shemos 17:6) “You shall strike the rock,” as Rashi explains there. Also Bereishis Rabbah (48:10) brings a verse of blessing (Bamidbar 21:17): “Ascend, O well; sing to it.” Furthermore, why did Rashi even bring this Midrashic explanation, which is not needed for the plain meaning of the verse? (Nachalas Yaakov)

However, Lot, who was not particular, invited them to lodge before... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written differently here than it is concerning Lot? Here it mentions washing before lodging, but about Lot (19:2) it mentions lodging first. Perforce, [the washing was] because of idolatry, about which Avraham was particular, and Lot was not. Thus Rashi offers this explanation. Question: Perhaps Lot, too, was particular—and he mentioned lodging first because they did not appear to him as Arabs? (Nachalas Yaakov)

Under the tree (אילן). As opposed to a piece of lumber (עץ), as in (Devarim 19:5): ונשל הברזל מן העץ [which refers to a wooden axe handle]. Rashi explained that here it means “tree” because the verse cannot be saying [that Avraham was inviting the angels to rest] under a piece of lumber. And so Onkelos translates it here as אילנא (tree) rather than as אעא (lumber, wood).

וסעדו לבכם AND SUSTAIN YOUR HEARTS — In the Torah, the Prophets and the Hagiographa we find that bread is the sustenance of the heart. In the Torah. “[And I will fetch a morsel of bread] and sustain your heart.” In the Prophets: “Stay thy heart with a morsel of bread” (Judges 19:5). In the Hagiographa: “And bread that sustaineth man’s heart” (Psalms 104:15). R. Hama said: Here is not written לבבכם but לבכם thus teaching that the evil inclination has no power over angels (Genesis Rabbah 48:11)

FORASMUCH AS YE PASSED BY. Since your path crossed near me, it is not proper that you should not rest a little with me.
So do, as thou hast said. This is an ethical expression indicating that a morsel of bread will be sufficient.⁸⁵Since it should have stated, “We will do as thou hast said,” and instead it says, “So thou do, as thou hast said,” Abraham ibn Ezra takes it to mean “So do, as thou hast spoken: And I will take a morsel of bread, and do not trouble thyself for more.” Thus the language of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra.
It may be that the verse is stating, “So shalt thou do to us, that we recline under the tree and pass immediately as we are messengers, and therefore do not detain us by making us come into the tent or lodge with you.”

כי על כן עברתם על עבדכם. We have a similar construction in Genesis 19,8. It is customary for Scripture to omit the word אשר in such instances, although the reader might have expected it.

כי על כן עברתם על עבדכם, "for this is why you have come by your servant." These words were intended to silence the argument that once Abraham had recognised that his visitors were angels he should not have offered to give them human food. Although we explained that Abraham alluded to the spiritual nourishment the angels were to enjoy, this did not mean that we are to ignore the plain meaning of the verse. Terrestrial food also contains spiritually valuable ingredients as we know from Proverbs 13,25: "the righteous man eats to satisfy his soul." Abraham said to the angels that the reason they appeared in the guise of human beings was in order for them to partake of his food seeing that the spiritual content of that food also assumed the forms of the terrestrial world. The angels responded saying כן, yes, that Abraham was quite correct. They added that he should proceed as he had intended, i.e. to let them enjoy the spiritual content of the food.

ואקחה פת לחם; from this we learn that the righteous say little but do a lot. (Baba Metzia 87) This is the appropriate manner of conducting oneself. The Torah wrote these details in order to teach us that this is part of good manners, דרך ארץ. Avraham spoke about a piece of bread, whereas in fact he served a sumptuous meal. He had even understated the amount of bread he would serve by not saying ואקח לחם, but ואקחה פת לחם, a reference to less than a whole loaf.

כן, תעשה כאשר דברת, ”O.K. you may do as you have suggested.” In other words, they agreed to accept just a piece of bread and to rest up under the tree’s shade. They meant that he should not bring them into his house. Some commentators understand the words כן תעשה כאשר דברת as an approval and warning to always practice hospitality in this fashion. Still another commentary sees in these words an allusion to the fact that they were in fact angels, and the word תעשה marks the difference between him and them, i.e. you may eat, we, being angels, do not eat.

ואקחה פת לחם, “and I will take a piece of bread, etc.” This is an example of what the sages said in Baba Metzia 87 that the righteous promise very little whereas they do a great deal, more than they promised. This is why the Torah reports in verse 7 that Avraham prepared a sumptuous meal for his guests including meat from his best calves.

Here it is not spelled לבבכם but לבכם. The word לבבכם (“your hearts”, plural form) is said about two people, as their minds are not the same. This is as the Gemara says (Sanhedrin 38a): “Man was originally created as one individual [in order to minimize divisiveness and strife, such as] that of the thieves and robbers.” In other words, the yetzer hara affects man, [making one think differently than the other]. But the angels have no yetzer hara, so they are of one mind, and about them it may be said לבכם (your heart, singular form). (Nachalas Yaakov)

כי על כן, eine schwer zu erklärende Konjunktionsform. Es scheint, dass sie elliptisch zu verstehen sei: denn darum (tue ich dies, wünsche ich dies etc.) weil usw. Es scheint überall ein von dem vorauszusetzenden verschiedenes Motiv einer Bitte, einer Tätigkeit usw. einzuleiten. So כי על כן ידעת חנותנו במדבר (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 18: B. M. 10,31), nicht etwa um deinetwillen, denn darum (bitte ich dich, bei uns zu bleiben), du kennst jeden Ort in der Wüste, an welchem Gott uns zu lagern gebietet. כי על כן לא נתתיה לשלה בני Sie ist gerechter als ich, sie war nur durch reine Motive .(B. M. 38, 26 .1) geleitet, denn darum (hatte sie es getan), weil ich sie nicht meinem Sohne gegeben hatte. כי על כן ראיתי פניך כראות פני אלקי׳ Denn (nicht weil du es .(B. M. 33, 10 .1) etwa nötig hättest, sondern) darum, weil ich dir meine Anerkennung ausdrücken möchte. So auch hier: Nicht weil ihr etwa bedürftig seid, sondern darum: ihr seid einmal an meinem Zelte vorbeigekommen, und mein Zelt möchte sich gegen jeden Vorübergehenden gastfrei erweisen. —

כי על כן עברתם על עבדכם, “for surely that is the reason that you passed by your servant;” Avraham indicated that it was not the habit of travelers to skip the main meal which is normally consumed at noon. He indicated that he realised that they were modest and bashful, and had not asked for any food or drink.

אחר תעבורו means after that, you may go away.

וסעדו לבחם, an imperative mode of a transitive verb, i.e. “refresh your hearts with a little bread.” We know that eating bread is a form of refreshment from Psalms 104,15 ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד, “but bread sustains man’s life.”

After that you may leave. Rashi is answering the question: Does not וסעדו לבכם אחר תעברו imply that after they leave, they will eat? Thus Rashi explains: “After that” — after eating, “you will pass” — you may leave.

כן תעשה כאשר דברת, “yes, you may do as you have proposed to do.” They agreed to accept the absolute minimum as suggested by Avraham. Nonetheless, he did not deny himself the opportunity to prepare a sumptuous meal for these guests. It was the custom for guests of distinction to invite their host to share the meal with them. An alternate interpretation of the words: כן תעשה. The expression is a wish that the party addressed may continue to conduct himself in the manner just demonstrated; in other words: “may you have frequent opportunities to play host to guests.”

כי על כן עברתם FORASMUCH AS YE HAVE PASSED —For (כי) I ask you this thing because that (על כן) you have honoured me by calling at my place. כי] על כן] has the same meaning as על אשר “because that”. So, too, is the meaning wherever כי על כן occurs in Scripture, e. g., (Genesis 19:9) “For (כי) I ask you this because that (על כן) they have come under the shadow of my roof”; (Genesis 33:10)

כי על כן עברתם, seeing that you have already happened to pass my house, it is not possible that you should not at least accept some refreshment. The formulation על כן is found again when Lot justifies his hosting the angels when the Sodomites remonstrate with him. (Genesis 19,8) We also find this formulation על כן when Yehudah acknowledges his embarrassment with Tamar as a punishment for not giving his third son to Tamar for her to become his wife. (Genesis 38,26)

For this thing I ask of you... Rashi is saying that על כן [if taken literally] implies that [from the very beginning] they had intended to eat. And this contradicts what it is written above, “If I have found favor... please do not pass by,” implying they came to eat only because Avraham implored them. Thus Rashi explains, “This thing I ask of you...” Accordingly, על כן is like על אשר.

“For (כי) you ought to do this because that (על כן) I have seen thy face”; (Genesis 38:26) “for (כי) she has done right because that (על כן) I gave her not”; (Numbers 10:31) “for (כי) thou ought to accompany us because that (על כן) thou knowest how we are to encamp”.

כאשר דברת, only a piece of bread, do not exert yourself beyond this.

קמח סלת MEAL, FINE FLOUR — The fine flour (סלת) for the cakes, the meal (קמח) for the dough used by cooks to place over the pot to absorb the scum (Bava Metzia 86b).

MEAL, FINE FLOUR. The fine flour for the cakes; the meal for the dough used by cooks to place over the pot to absorb the scum. Thus the words of Rashi. And so it is found in Bereshith Rabbah.⁸⁶48:13, with changes. Now there the Sages explained that there were three measures of meal and three measures of fine flour for each one of the guests. But we do not know why he served so much bread for three men. Perhaps he was aware of how the food disappeared successively,⁸⁷See above, Note 51. and it was as if he was offering more Burnt-offerings upon the altar, or perhaps because in their honor chiefs of his house dined with them.
By way of the simple meaning [of Scripture, the verse is to be interpreted as follows: Make ready quickly three measures of meal to make of them fine flour. Thus from the entire three measures of meal, they extracted a bit of fine flour.

CHOICE FLOUR. Wheat flour, for wherever it says "solet," it is from wheat, as is expounded from the consecration offering, where it is written (Ex. 29:2), "make these of choice wheat flour" [solet hitim].

ויאמר...שלש סאים, in order to make a challah, loaf, of bread comprising one sa-ah (measure) of flour for each of his guests.

קמח סלת, “flour, the finest.” Coarse flour {made into a sticky mass as the grain it is made from is underdeveloped. The thin, wafer like mass, is used to absorb rising impurities of what is boiling in the pots used by the cooks in the kitchen. Although this is the way it is described in the Mishnah Pessachim 42, [I am not sure how it applies to baked goods such as cake, unless it is placed under the cake to prevent the underside from being burned by the oven. Ed.] Although it was Passover, there was no danger of it becoming leavened, as the heat would prevent this from happening. According to Nachmanides the reason Avraham ordered Sarah to use such a huge quantity of flour for just three men (equivalent of 432 eggs), is that Avraham may have invited numerous dignitaries to share this meal with them. According to the plain meaning, three measures of coarse flour yield 1 measure of fine flour after it has been sieved in a fine-meshed sieve.

שלש סאים, “three measures of, etc.” The three measures described are known as a single measure called איפה. Our sages in Menachot 76 say that three measures called Sa-ah constitute the measure known as Eyfah. Seeing that the Torah usually ecomomises with its words, why did it not write איפה , a single word, instead of writing שלש סאים in two words? It is possible that the reason Avraham spoke in terms of three measures was due to etiquette. He meant to assure each one of the three angels of a whole measure for him exclusively, which would be made into cake. This would ensure that each of them received equal portions and that there would not be any kind of envy between one and the other during the meal (compare Megillah 12). He may have had yet another consideration. He wanted to attract a crowd in order to demonstrate to them to what lengths he and Sarah would go in order to entertain uninvited strangers. It was similar to what our sages recommended we should do in order to welcome the Sabbath (compare Shabbat 119) where we find a discussion on the manner in which the Sabbath is to be welcomed. The Talmud relates that Rav Nachman bar Yitzchak was constantly busy coming and going on the Sabbath eve (making a commotion). When asked why he was in such an uproar on account of the Sabbath, he replied that if the two leading scholars of his time Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Assi were to be his guests would he not go out of his way to honour them? The Sabbath does not deserve any less honour.
Another thing we can learn from this detail the Torah provides us with when mentioning the amount of flour used by Sarah to bake cakes for her guests, is that Avraham was of a generous disposition. Had he used the expression איפה, the impression created would have been that he wanted to limit the amount of flour to be used, i.e. “one measure, not more.” In order to prevent such an impression being created the Torah decided to write an extra word in order to preserve Avraham’s image as a generous person.

The fine flour is used for cakes, the meal is for the starch used by cooks... Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that she should knead קמח and סלת together, to make cakes from them. Was Avraham stingy and therefore he did not instruct that the cakes be made from fine flour alone? Thus Rashi explains: Only the fine flour was for the cakes, and the meal...

קמח סלת .שלש סאים קמח סלת eine Zusammenstellung, die sich nicht wiederfindet. קמח ist die geringere Sorte Mehl, סלת die bessere. Gröber und feiner gäbe eine unrichtige Vorstellung, denn nach der Menachoth 76b. beschriebenen Prozedur wurde das סלת als der innere beste Kern durch wiederholtes Sieben von dem קמה, dem schlechten, das als feiner Staub durch das Sieb ging, befreit, woher auch das (Sprüche der Väter 5, 18): ein Sieb, das das grobe Mehl durchlässt und das feine zurückhält, seine Erklärung erhält. Aus eben der Stelle in Menachoth wissen wir aber, dass man zum Schaubrote aus einem 1/3) סאה Epha) ein zehntel Epha feinstes Mehl gewann. 1/10 Epha entspricht aber dem Omer, also der für einen Menschen entsprechenden Portion, einem מהרי שלש סאים קמח סלת .שיעור חלה scheint daher zu heißen: nimm schnell aus drei סאה groben Mehls das feinste, dies gäbe dann ein עשרון für jeden Gast, ein Quantum, das ganz dem Sinne Abrahams entsprechend wäre.

מהרי “hurry!” seeing that the men still had a distance to walk in order to reach Sodom before nightfall, they did not have much time to spend at Avraham’s tent. [Did Avraham know that Sodom was their next destination from the direction in which they were headed? Ed.]

קמח סולת, flour, suitable to make into cake. Cake is made of flour which can be baked more quickly than ordinary bread.

שלש סאים קמח, “three measures of flour;” this was the amount of average quality flour from which it was possible to distil the amount of superior flour (1 tenth of the tree measures known as saah) to bake cakes for three adults such as these. קמח, according to Rashi, Avraham instructed Sarah to use the kind of flour used for covering the pots, an expression known in the Talmud Pessachim 37 as “bread baked from ground flour.”Other commentators understand Avraham’s instruction to Sarah here to mean that she should bake the entire amount of flour, all three measures. He did so as this was the maximum capacity of the ovens they used. Our sages add that the quality of bread baked in a full oven is superior to that which was baked when the oven was half empty.

לושי, when the angels arrived at Lot, (Genesis 19,3) he is described as having baked the unleavened bread. From this it is deduced that the women made the dough, kneaded it, whereas the man did the actual baking.

ועשי עוגות, “and make it into cakes;” something that does not take long to bake. He was conscious that these “men” were in a hurry to get going.

בן בקר רך וטוב A CALF, TENDER AND GOOD — There were three calves so that he might give them to eat three tongues together with mustard condiment (Bava Metzia 86b).

AND ABRAHAM RAN UNTO THE HERD. The purport thereof is to tell us of his great desire to bestow kindness. This great man had three hundred and eighteen men⁸⁸Above, 14:14. in his house, each one a swordsman, and he was very old and weakened by his circumcision, yet he went personally to Sarah’s tent to urge her in the making of the bread, and afterwards he ran to the place of the herd to chose a calf, tender and good, to prepare for his guests, and he did not have all these done by means of one of his servants who stood ready to serve him.

THEN ABRAHAM RAN TO THE HERD. Since he told them (v.5) "a morsel of bread," a small quantity, since their journey required them to go, he had to run and hurry, since he said to them a little and he did much. All this was written to recount Abraham's importance [magnanimity].

ואל הבקר רץ אברהם, the term רץ is a variant of the term וימהר, he hastened. The Torah wished to give us an impression of the speed with which a man of 99 years old performed the task of entertaining unexpected guests, preparing a virtual feast for them.

ואל הבקר רץ אברהם, “meanwhile Avraham had run to the cattle (pens)” From the triple description בקר (1), רך (2) וטוב,(3), we learn that he took 3 calves and served each guest a whole tongue with mustard. Why would he serve them 3 tongues? These could be prepared in a hurry, and Avraham did not want to delay his guests for longer than necessary.

ואל הבקר רץ אברהם, “while Avraham himself ran to the cattle, etc.” He could easily have sent one of his numerous servants to go to the stables and to select the animals for slaughter. After all, we know that he had a minimum of 318 male servants (14,14). He refrained from doing so, however, and went himself, and with accelerated gait, in order to honor his guests. All this in spite of the fact that he was both aged and weakened by the circumcision. The Torah reports all this to round out the picture of Avraham as a generous person.

There were three calves. You might ask: How does Rashi know there were three calves; perhaps there was only one? The answer is: Rashi inferred this since it is written בן בקר, which means of a tender of age, why then does Scripture write רך [an apparent redundancy]? Furthermore, why does it say וטוב and not simply טוב? Perforce, there were three: בן בקר is one, רך is two, and וטוב is three. The Re’m explains that it should say רך טוב. Since it says וטוב, it must have been written for a homiletical exposition. And since טוב is meant to be expounded, so too is רך meant to be expounded. This is based on the Gemara in Bava Metzia 86b.

בן בקר רך, “a calf which is soft and can be cooked quickly.” Rashi here comments that the reason why he insisted on slaughtering three calves, [surely more than they could consume even if they had not been in hurry, Ed.] was because he wanted to serve them only the best part of animal, i.e. the tongue (seasoned with mustard). (Based on Talmud Eyruvin 28) In earlier eras tongue was not served with pepper, as pepper was not universally available.

אל הנער TO THE YOUNG MAN — This was Ishmael whom he bade to do this in order to train him to the performance of religious duties (in this case the duty of hospitality) (Genesis Rabbah 48:13).

בן בקר, male and young, so that it would be both tender and tasty. The word טוב refers to it being juicy, fat; we find this expression used in that sense also in Jeremiah 44,17 ונשבע לחם ונהיה טובים, “we had plenty of bread and were fat.”

So that he might feed them three tongues together with mustard. You might ask: How does Rashi know he served them tongues? The answer is: Because it explains why Avraham slaughtered three calves for three people, which seems a waste of money. And we cannot simply say it was to honor them, as even [the slaughtering of] one calf is a great honor. Furthermore, the slaughtering of three calves makes them look as if they were gluttons, which is not an honor but a disgrace. Thus Rashi explains that Avraham wished to feed them three tongues. We need not ask: Why were three [tongues needed, when two have enough meat]? For the answer is: The flavor of tongue is uneven. The middle is better, and the bottom is fattier. Avraham wanted to feed them three, so each could eat what he wished or what the others ate. [Furthermore,] Avraham otherwise would have had to cut the tongues, and the [irregular] pieces would not be fit to be received by such important guests. Rashi mentions mustard because, as he explains on Bava Metzia 86b, [tongue with mustard] is a delicacy of kings and ministers. (Gur Aryeh) Three calves were needed in order to serve them similar portions, so as not to cause jealousy at the meal: Avraham held them all equal in honor. (Akeidah)

אל הנער; to the servant. According to an allegorical interpretation [based on the definitive article ה seeing that Avraham had many servants, Ed.] this is a reference to Ishmael.

This refers to Yishmael, to train him in mitzvos. Rashi inferred this since it is written הנער, meaning the abovementioned lad: Yishmael. But it seems to me that [Rashi knew this] because Avraham ran to the cattle himself. If so, why did he let someone else complete the mitzvah? Therefore Rashi explains that [the someone else] was his son, [and Avraham did this] to train him. (R. Yaakov Kenizal) [Furthermore,] Rashi is answering the question: Why was Avraham not punished for giving it to the lad, as he was for having the water brought [through an intermediary]? Thus Rashi explains, “This refers to Yishmael...” and it was an act worthy of reward. (Devek Tov)

לעשות אותו, to prepare it and to cook it.

ויקח חמאה וגו AND HE TOOK חמאה, ETC. — but he did not bring bread, on account of Sarah becoming mentstruant; as the 'way of women' returned to her that day, and the dough became impure (Bava Metzia 87a).

ויקח חמאה וחלב, according to the plain meaning of the text there was no need to report that Avraham supplied the bread which he had volunteered to serve these men. It was only necessary to list the additional items he served, seeing no mention had been made of them thus far.

ויקח, he, personally.

ויקח חמאה וחלב, “he took butter and milk;” according to our sages the bread was never served, as Sarah had begun menstruating suddenly, so that she had become ritually impure while doing her chores in the kitchen. According to the plain meaning of the text, there was no need to mention the basic ingredients of the meal, the bread. Alternately, the reason the individual components of the meal are listed, is to show the correct order in which to serve such course during a meal.

But, the bread he did not bring... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it simply was not baked yet! The answer is: Bread is the main part of the meal, as it is written (Daniel 5:1): “עבד לחם רב, [King Belshazzar] made a great feast.” Thus, Avraham would not have prepared the other foods if the bread had not yet been baked.

חמאה: vielleicht verwandt mit המה, gähren, der Abhub, der aus einer Zersetzung der Milch hervorgeht. — חלב, verwandt mit חלף, wechseln. Milch ist die Umwandlung des Blutes in Nahrungsstoff, der wieder in Blut verwandelt wird, somit Durchgang des Blutes durch Milch zu Blut. Was חלב für das Junge ist: der für dasselbe ausgeschiedene Nahrungsstoff, das ist חֵלֶב für das Alte: der für künftiges Bedürfnis zurückgelegte Nahrungsstoff, das gleichsam zurückgelegte Kapital. (S. 84).

ויקח חמאה וחלב, “he took curd and milk, etc.” this teaches that he fed them both milky and meaty dishes. When G–d was ready to give the Torah to the Israelites, the angels are reported as having said to Him (Psalms 8,2): תנה הודך על שמים, “You have covered the heavens with Your glory” [This is perceived as the angels demanding that the Torah remain in the celestial regions of the universe. Ed.] G–d replied to them: “in My Torah it is written that milky and meaty dishes not be consumed at the same meal (Exodus 23,19), yet when you descended to earth you partook of such a mixture at Avraham’s table. (The inference is clear, i.e. “the laws of the Torah do not apply to you.”) As soon as the angels heard this they withdrew their objections to the Torah being given to people on earth. This is the deeper meaning of Exodus 34,27: כי על פי הדברים האלה כרתי אתך ברית ואת ישראל, “for in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel.” What do “these words” refer to? They refer to the verse prior to this where eating meaty and milky dishes at the same time has been prohibited. Nonetheless, this metaphorical explanation appears to contradict another metaphorical interpretation (Midrash) in which we have been taught that Avraham personally observed not only all the Biblical laws of the Torah, but even the “fences” surrounding them to protect us against violating the prohibition itself. The particular example quoted there for such a “fence” is interestingly the subject of eyruv tavshilin, certain preparations of food when the holiday occurs immediately before the Sabbath. But that is not the only way of explaining the Midrash. The word: eyruv, actually means “mixture,” so that the Midrash may have referred to a mixture of meaty and milky courses of the same meal, so that there is no contradiction at all. Seeing that Avraham is reported as first having served milky dishes, and the meat subsequently, it is reasonable to assume that he wished to give his guests something to eat before freshly slaughtered animals, that had to have their blood removed could be cooked or roasted on the spit. The interval would have sufficed not to violate the laws of mixing milk and meat. [If people ate their main meal during the fourth hour after sunrise, seeing that these men (angels) did not arrive at Sodom until evening, there would have been plenty of time for their eating both. Ed.]

ויקח חמאה וחלב, (meanwhile) “he took butter and milk;” our Rabbis (in B’reshit Rabbah 48,9) state that it is understood that Avraham also served them bread, seeing that he served them things he had not even promised. Although we have no proof for the fact, as one does not usually eat cheese when expecting to be served meat shortly thereafter, and not in the reverse order, the order in which the Torah lists the menu makes this a plausible assumption.

חמאה is the fatty part of milk which is skimmed off its surface.

עומד עליהם, when a person is seated and someone else stands beside him, the one standing is referred to with the preposition עליו. Compare Isaiah 6,1-2 ראיתי את ה' יושב על כסא ושרפים עומדים ממעל לו. “I saw G’d seated on a throne and the Seraphim were standing beside Him.” [it is hardly likely that Isaiah in this vision saw the angels as standing above G’d. Ed.] A similar construction is found in Kings I 22,19 involving a vision by Michyahu in response to Yehoshaphat’s request.

ויתן, he placed before them butter and milk as well as the young calf. He offered them the choice to eat either dairy or meaty. There was no need to mention the bread as it is understood that he first brought them the bread. After all, the very minimum one can serve guests is bread. When one entertains guests who appear to be distinguished people one most certainly does not fail to offer them bread first. Besides, the Torah had already mentioned that he prepared the bread in the guise of uggot, cakes. There was also no need to mention that he served them wine, another, staple at all meals.

Because Sarah began to menstruate... She did not actually menstruate, for she exclaimed soon afterward (v. 12): אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, implying she did not have menstruation [see Rashi there]. Rather, “the way of women” returned to her. I.e., her head and limbs felt heavy, and her lower abdomen ached. Thus she feared she would menstruate and render the dough impure. Since Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity, she stopped working the dough and left—and before someone else could come, it turned to chametz. And it was Pesach, when chametz is forbidden. Alternatively, it could be that she actually began to menstruate. If so, why did she ask incredulously: אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, when she was already menstruating? The answer is: She thought it [was not a regular cycle but] happened by chance. And she knew that Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity. So explained the Re’m. You might ask: How could Avraham give them butter and milk and calf? It is mixing milk and meat! An answer is: He first gave them the milk, and afterward the meat. Alternatively, [he first gave the meat,] and held like the Halochos Gedolos, [cited in Tur, Yoreh De’ah 89]: through cleaning out [the mouth by eating and drinking pareve items,] one is then permitted to eat cheese.

ובן הבקר אשר עשה, “and the calf which he had prepared;” this is not the only time when the word עשה, does not, and could not mean: “he had made,” we find it used in the same sense as here also in Genesis 1,7: ויעש אלוקים את הרקיע, where it could not mean that “G–d made the sky or firmament,” as He had already decreed for it to come into existence in the verse prior to that. It meant that He made it functional, made it ready to fulfill its purpose. (Based on Rashi)

ובן הבקר, “and the calf;” according to Rashi, the Torah should have written “and the calves;” (pl) some commentators justify the use of the singular by pointing out that Avraham started serving as soon as the first calf was ready to be served. The three lads whom Avraham had charged with these tasks did not all work at the same speed.

ובן הבקר אשר עשה literally, AND THE CALF WHICH HE HAD MADE — i.e. prepared. Whatever was ready first he brought and placed before them.

תחת העץ, a reference to trees, as in an orchard.

אשר עשה, by means of his servant.

As each one was prepared he immediately brought it to them. [How does Rashi know this? Because it answers the question:] If there were three tongues, why does the verse imply he brought only one, by writing “the calf,” in singular form? (R. Meir Stern) [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: Butter and milk were not mentioned before, so should it not say first, “He took the calf,” and then, additionally, he took “Butter and milk”? Thus Rashi explains, “As each one was prepared...” Since the butter and milk were ready before the calf was prepared, [he brought them first]. A further answer: Rashi learned it from the apparently extra phrase, “He had prepared, which implies that whatever he prepared first, he brought immediately.

ויאכלו, “they ate.” Seeing that angels cannot eat, the meaning of the word is that they burned it in the sense of consuming it, just as food is burned by our bodies to provide us with energy enabling us to continue to exist. [We know that these “men” were angels, from what followed when they arrived in Sodom. Ed.] The word אכל is used in the same sense when Moses in Exodus 3,2 observed that the burning bush was not being consumed (eaten) by the fire.

ויאכלו, “they ate;” according to the Talmud, which says the angels had been told by G-d to behave on earth as do the earthlings, we may understand this literally. According to the aggadah, they pretended to eat in order to make Avraham feel that he had fulfilled the virtue of being hospitable. Concerning the first interpretation, G-d is supposed to have criticised the angels that even babies are more discriminating than they, as babies who have been circumcised refrain from eating meat (cooked) with milk. (Based on Pessikta rabbati at the end of this Parshah.)

ויאכלו AND THEY DID EAT—They appeared to be eating: from this we may learn that a man should not act differently from the prevalent custom (Bava Metzia 86b).

והוא עומד, as explained by Onkelos, i.e. he served them in the capacity of waiter.

From this that a person should not act differently... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Since angels do not eat, perhaps it is written they “ate” in order to appear as [human] guests, rather than as angels! The answer is: If so, “And they ate” teaches us nothing. It need not be written, as it is obvious that they did not really eat. And what does it even matter if they ate or appeared to eat? Thus Rashi explains, “We learn from this...”

עליהם, the word is used in the same sense already in verse 2

ויאכלו, this is how it appeared to him. All this was part of his prophetic vision.

ויאמרו אליו AND THEY SAID UNTO HIM — The letters 'א' י' ו of the word אליו have dots over them (thus distinguishing these letters which form the word meaning “where is he”?). R. Simeon the son of Eleazar said: wherever you find in a particular word or phrase that the letters in ordinary writing are more numerous than those dotted, you should give a special interpretation to those in ordinary writing. Here the dotted letters are more than those in ordinary writing and you, therefore, give an explanation of the dotted letters — that of Sarah also, they asked, איו “where is he (Abraham)”? So we may learn that in his inn a man should enquire of the man (the host) as to his wife’s welfare and of the woman (the hostess) about her husband’s. In Treatise Bava Metzia (87a) it is stated: The ministering angels knew, indeed, where our mother Sarah was but they asked this question in order to call attention to her modesty (retiring disposition) and so to endear her all the more to her husband.) R. José the son of Haninah stated that they enquired where she was in order to send her the wine-cup of blessing (the glass of wine held by him who recites the Grace after meals)

?איה שרה אשתך, even though the angels knew Sarah’s whereabouts they asked, just as G’d did in Genesis 3,9 when He asked Adam about his whereabouts although He knew full well where Adam was. A similar situation is found in Numbers 22,9 when G’d asked Bileam who the men were who had come to spends the night with him. G’d knew perfectly well who they were.

Where is Sarah. Avraham already knew of Yitzchok’s impending conception (see 17:19). Thus the angels were sent specifically to inform Sarah. This was in order that her rejoicing would have a positive influence on the fetus.

ויאמרו אליו איה שדה אשתך, They said: "Where is your wife Sarah?" The angels wanted that Abraham should realise that the message they had to deliver was primarily for Sarah; this is why they enquired about her whereabouts. Abraham indicated that she was within the tent ready to listen to what they had to say to her.

ויאמרו אליו, there are dots on the letters יו. Such dots can only be explained by our resorting to allegorical interpretations. For instance, our sages quote Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar as saying that whenever the dot appears to include someone or something not mentioned in the text as written, we pay heed primarily to these dots. When the dots seem to exclude part of the text as written, we stick to the text in our interpretation of the verse. In our case, the dots mean that the angels also enquired from Sarah where to find Avraham. This teaches that a guest is to enquire from the host about the hostess and from the hostess about the host. The sages say further that the angels knew very well where Sarah was at that time, but the question is reported only to draw attention to the modesty of Sarah who was not in evidence, did not allow her curiosity about the nature of the guests to cause her to peek out of her tent. Knowing that she was so modest would endear her even further to her husband. Rabbi Yossi bar Chaninah says that the purpose of the enquiry was to be able to hand her a cup of blessing. [not literally, but a reference to the good news they brought. Ed.]

ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך?, They said to him: “where is your wife Sarah?” Although it is not considered proper manners to enquire after the welfare of someone else’s wife even from her own husband, this was an exceptional situation as they did not really enquire after her well being but they only asked where she was at that time. The letters aleph, yud and vav in the wordאליו have a dot above them, whereas the letter lamed does not have such a dot. According to Rabbi Shimon ben Eleazar (Bereshit Rabbah 48,15) whenever you encounter more undotted letters in a word than dotted ones, you interpret the word according to the normal spelling. When there are more dotted than undotted letters in the word, we are guided by the dotted letters. In this instance, more letters are dotted than undotted.. According to Rabbi Azaryah, just as the angels asked Avraham where his wife was, they asked Sarah where Avraham was, i.e. איו ”where is he?” The reason is that it would have sufficed to write: “they said ויאמרו איה שרה אשתך, “where is your wife Sarah,” and the reader would have known that they were speaking to Avraham. The extra word אליו alerts us to the fact that they also spoke to someone else. The question raised against this interpretation is that if so it would have sufficed to put a dot only on the letter lamed in the word אליו, as we would then have concentrated on the undotted letters איו and we would have arrived at precisely the same result, saving the dots on two letters. The answer given to this objection is that seeing the letter lamed needed a dot in any case on account of the tone sign, the meaning of the dot would not have been clear.

You must explain the dotted... You might object: Let Scripture dot only the ל, thus the undotted letters will be more, and we will expound the undotted letters — [thereby producing the same meaning, but more simply. An answer is:] It seems that we always expound the undotted before explaining the dotted. Thus if the ל alone was dotted, the verse would not indicate whom the angels asked first. They might first have asked Sarah about Avraham, or vice versa, for it is like it was written איו איה (“Where is he? Where is she?”). On the contrary, the verse would imply that they first asked Sarah about Avraham! For [we would say that] the reason only the ל is dotted is [to teach that] we should explain איו first, [before איה]. But now that איו is dotted, we first explain the undotted איה that is written in the verse. Therefore, they first asked Avraham: “Where is Sarah, your wife?” and then they asked Sarah, “Where is Avraham?” You might object: What difference does it make [whom they asked first]? The answer is: It teaches us proper conduct. First one should ask the man about his wife, and then, the woman about her husband. R. Shmuel El Mashonino wrote: The correct answer [to “Let it dot only the ל”] is: The Torah itself is composed of undotted letters. When the undotted letters [of a dotted word] are more, and thus are explained, then the meaning of those undotted letters must fit in with the other words in the verse, since everything is undotted. And this would not be true here, [if only the ל was dotted]. This is because איו is masculine form, and does not fit in with “Sarah your wife.” (He proved this from Bamidbar 9:10: או בדרך רחוקה, where the ה is dotted; see his explanation there.) But when איו is dotted, and thus explained [since it is more than the ל], we need not worry about [it fitting in with] the rest of the verse. For in this case, איו is extracted [and explained] on its own. This is because the dotted letters, and [the verse’s] undotted letters, are both interchangeable. Furthermore, איו is dotted because the dots always come to remove letters. Only ל remains, so we add it to [the following word] איה, producing אליה, “to her”. This teaches that the angels also asked to her, about Avraham. Otherwise, where do we find that the angels asked Sarah about Avraham? Perhaps they asked someone else who was home where he was. That is why איו is dotted, [rather than the ל]. So I found written in the manuscript of my father and teacher ז''ל. This also answers a question I have heard people ask: How did Rashi know that they asked Sarah about Avraham? Perhaps they asked someone else! The Re’m writes: Although a man should not inquire about a woman’s welfare, the Gemara already answered that this applies only when speaking directly to the woman. But a man may ask a woman’s husband about her. See explanation there. The Gur Aryeh writes: One might ask: When did the angels ask Sarah, “Where is Avraham?” They saw Avraham first, and he brought them into his home! The answer is: It was when Avraham ran to the cattle and was busy preparing the meal.

א֗לי֗וֹ, die Punkte über א֗י֗וֹ sollen nach B. M. 87 a. erinnern, wie es wohl anständiger Sitte gemäß ist, dass Gäste sich nach der Frau des Hauses, welcher sie ja für die Bewirtung vielleicht den größten Dank schulden, durch den Mann erkundigen, nicht aber direkt die Wirtin des Hauses aufsuchen. Es ist daher wohl das "ל" unpunktiert geblieben, da es wohl dem Anstande gemäß ist, לְשרה, "nach" Sara, aber nicht אֵלֶיהָ an sie die Frage zu richten , vielmehr die Frage לשרה nur אליו zu richten wäre.

ויאמרו אליו, according to Rashi, when the dots above the three letters איו, as well as elsewhere in the Torah when the complete word is longer than the number of letters having dots, we are to look for an interpretation for the letters that have no such dot. If you were to ask why the letter ל in this word does not have a dot? This fact prompts us to assume that the angels had first asked Sarah where Avraham was before they asked him where Sarah was. This cannot be correct, as clearly they had not even seen Sarah until after they had eaten. Now that the word has only three dots, it is clear beyond argument that they had first seen Avraham. Subsequently, they asked Sarah where Avraham was. This would also conform to Rashi’s commentary in Deuteronomy 29,28 where he says that the dots teach us that this verse was not written in its proper place, i.e. that the law promulgated there did not become effective until after the Israelites had stood at Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyvol. [It appears that Rashi’s point here is that it is good manners for a guest to enquire after the wellbeing of both one’s host and one’s hostess. This sentence has been omitted in our author’s quotation of Rashi’s commentary on this verse. [Seeing that I do not have the author’s Italian original, I prefer to assume that the Hebrew translator omitted it. Rashi’s commentary is based on the first opinion offered in B’reshit Rabbah 48,15 Ed.]

הנה באהל BEHOLD, IN THE TENT — She is a modest woman.

איה שרה אשתך, they asked about her, seeing she was not present when they were being served the meal out of a sense of modesty. We learn from this that it is immodest for women to appear in front of male guests. Seeing that in this instance the angels had a message for her, they had to ask after her whereabouts.

In order to send to her the cup of blessing. After they ate they recited birkas hamazon over a cup of wine. Sarah was not with them, and Avraham did not wish to send the cup to her, because she began to menstruate and would impart impurity to the cup with the wine. He did not want to reveal that she had begun to menstruate, so he did not pour the wine into a different cup to send to her. Alternatively, [he did not use a different cup because] the primary mitzvah is to drink from the same cup that was blessed over. Accordingly, when Avraham answered, “Here, in the tent,” he was hinting to the angels that she had begun to menstruate and thus was dwelling alone, as menstruating women do.

הנה באהל, she is in the tent as befits a modest woman.

She is modest. This relates back to what Rashi explained above: “They inquired to make known her modesty.” In other words, they asked Avraham where Sarah was so that he would answer, “Here, in the tent” — and he would see that she was modest. Rashi means: to make her modesty known to Avraham.

שוב אשוב I WILL CERTAINLY RETURN — The angel was not announcing that he would return to him, but he was speaking to him as God’s agent (meaning that God would return). Similar is, (16:10) “And the angel of the Lord said to her, I will greatly multiply thy seed, but he had no power to multiply, and was speaking only as God’s agent. So also here, he spoke thus as God’s agent. Elisha said to the Shunamite (2 Kings 4:16), “At this season when the time cometh round thou shalt embrace a son”, and she said, “Nay, my lord, thou man of God, do not lie unto thy handmaid; see, those angels who made the announcement to Sarah said “at the appointed time I will return”! Elisha in effect said to her, “Those angels who live and endure for ever could indeed promise “at the appointed time I will return”, but I am only flesh and blood (human), alive today and dead tomorrow — but whether I live or die, “at this season [thou shalt embrace a son]” (Genesis Rabbah 53:2).

I WILL CERTAINLY RETURN UNTO THEE WHEN THE SEASON COMETH AROUND. Rashi comments, “The angel was not announcing that he would return to him, but he was speaking to him as G-d’s agent, [meaning that G-d would return]. This is similar to the verse: And the angel of the Eternal said to her [Hagar], I will multiply thy seed exceedingly.⁸⁹Ibid., 16:10. But he [the angel] has no power to multiply, and he was therefore speaking as G-d’s agent. So also here, he spoke as G-d’s agent.”
Now the Rabbi⁹⁰Rashi. See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. found it necessary to say so because the Holy One, blessed be He, told Abraham here, At the set time I will return unto thee.⁹¹Verse 14 here. The words of the angel, in Verse 10 here, I will certainly return unto thee. However, whether it be a reference to the angel or to the Holy One, blessed be He, we do not find it recorded that at the set time He returned. Perhaps a reference to this return is included in the expression, And the Eternal remember-ed Sarah, as He had said, and the Eternal did unto Sarah as He had spoken.⁹²Further, 21:1.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the verse beginning, And the Eternal said to Abraham,⁹³Verse 14 here. It ends with the promise: At the same time I will return unto thee. means that the angel said it in the name of Him Who sent him, and he did return at the set time which he had told him, even though it is not written in Scripture.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that [the expression, shov ashuv (I will certainly return)], is akin to the phrase, liteshuvath hashanah (at the return of the year).⁹⁴II Samuel 11:1. The verse is thus stating: “I will surely bring back to thee a time as this time, that you will be alive and Sarah your wife will have a son.” This is similar to what was said to Abraham, At this set time in the next year.⁹⁵Above, 17:21. The word ashuv will then be like, ‘Veshav’ (And) the Eternal your G-d (will bring back) thy captivity and have compassion upon thee and will return and gather thee.⁹⁶Deuteronomy 30:3. Ramban’s intent is as follows: The word ve’shov there means “and He will bring back.” Here too the word ashuv means “I will bring back a time, like the present, in which you will be alive, and in which time, in addition to your being alive, Sarah will have a son.”

כעת חיה, she would give birth at the appropriate time. The word appears in this context in Michah 5,2 כעת יולדה בן,”until she who is to bear has given birth.” It is also found describing the state of Jewish mothers giving birth as being equivalent to that of midwives. (Exodus 1,19)

שוב אשוב אליך, on the anniversary of the circumcision.

ויאמר שוב אשוב אליך, He said: "I will certainly come back to you, etc." The angel used the singular, indicating that each one of them had his own task. In view of this why did all three angels ask about Sarah's whereabouts? Perhaps they simply wanted to enquire from her husband about Sarah's wellbeing. According to the rules of etiquette then, all three angels enquired.

ויאמר, the senior angel, the one whom Avraham had addressed in verse 3 with the words אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך. שוב אשוב אליך, this was the one whose task it was to tell Sarah that she would bear a son. He spoke of his return visit a year from the present time. The other two were to destroy Sodom and to rescue Lot respectively. Three angels were required as no angel is charged with more than one mission at a time. (Bereshit Rabbah 50,2)

שוב אשוב אליך כעת חיה, “I will surely return to you, at the same time next year;” seeing that he was an angel he knew that he would still be alive at this time in the following year, he could afford to make such a confident-sounding statement. Elisha, though also a prophet, but a human being, did not know if he would be alive a year from a certain day. When he promised the woman in Shunem that she would embrace a son a year from the date he promised her this, did not include himself in his description of the event, and only said כעת חיה את חובקת בן, “at this time year you will embrace a son.” (Kings II 4,16). In spite of all this, there is no written record in the Torah that this angel visited Avraham and Sarah in the year following this conversation. Nachmanides suggests, that the words וה' פקד את שרה וגו', “G’d remembered Sarah as He had said,” in 21,1 includes what the angel had said here. Personally, I believe that the true explanation is that the angel was not referring to himself at all, when he said this, but was announcing that at the turn of the year, i.e. at Rosh Hashanah, Sarah would have a son. This would be exactly in line with what Avraham had been told למועד הזה בשנה האחרת “at this time of year next year” (17,21)

ויאמר שוב אשוב אליך, He said: “I will most certainly return to you again, etc.” The angel who said this was the one who had revealed that Sarah would bear a son. He said this, meaning that his prophecy would come true in the following year. Nonetheless, we do not find a mention anywhere that the angel did in fact return to Avraham in the following year although he had said so twice. [the repetition of שוב אשוב plus verse 14. — Ed.] Perhaps the angel had not meant that he, personally, in his present manifestation, would return to visit Avraham but that the fulfillment of his prophecy would be equivalent to his return. After all, what would be the purpose of the angel returning in person when he did not have a specific message for Avraham?
Another approach to the problem: The word שוב אשוב was not used in the sense of returning, but in the sense of שובה ונחת, as in Isaiah 30,15 where the meaning is “you will be helped by means of quiet and stillness.” The word נחת refers to נחת רוח, “a serene state of mind, a state of mental satisfaction.” The angel meant to tell Avraham that his message would lead to his attaining such a mental state within a year seeing that a son would be born to him and Sarah. He indicated that seeing he was the angel in charge of conveying messages of mercy, he was in a position of promising this to Avraham.

This was on Pesach... You might ask: How does Rashi know it was Pesach? The answer is: Yitzchak was born [exactly] one year later. And it is written (Shemos 12:41): “It was at the end of the 430 years, and on that very day, all of Adonoy’s multitudes went out...” The 400 years began with the birth of Yitzchak, from which time Avraham had progeny [who sojourned in foreign lands]. The 400 years began and ended on the same date, and on the very day the 400 years ended, the Israelites left Egypt, as Rashi explains there. They left on the fifteenth of Nisan, the first day of Pesach. Therefore, the angel’s foretelling of Yitzchak’s birth — as well as the actual birth — were on Pesach. A further answer: Rashi learned it from what is written about Lot (19:3), “And he baked matzos,” indicating it was Pesach. And this was the same day that the angel foretold Yitzchok’s birth [to Avraham].

כעת חיה. Es gibt zwei Bezeichnungen für Zeit,pT und זמן. עת ist wohl die Zeit im allgemeinen, die Zeit in ihrer Dauer und ihrer Wirkung, daher von זמן: ivorbereiten, die einem jeden Dasein notwendig als Vorbereitung vorangehende Zeit; עֵת man möge es nun dem chald. analog von ענה ableiten, oder von der Wurzel עתת, verwandt mit אתת, wovon אתים, iSchneidewerkzeuge, und עטט, wovon עֵט, der Griffel, bezeichnet jedenfalls einen Zeitpunkt, einen Moment in der Zeit, entweder als den für einen Zweck entsprechenden, oder überhaupt als einen Teil, einen Ein- schnitt in der Zeit. לכל זמן ועת לכל חפץ: "Alles will seine Zeit haben", (alles kann nicht zu jeder Zeit kommen und sein, alles braucht eine Vergangenheit, eine Vorbereitung) "und es giebt einen bestimmten, entsprechenden Augenblick sür jedes Streben". —

שוב אשוב אליך, “I will definitely come back to you to visit);” the angel speaks about two separate occasions when he will return; one in Tishrey, the other in Nissan. [According to Rabbi Chavell’s annotation, these words need to be understood in conjunction with verse 12; the prediction of the angels was made in Nissan, and when by the time of the month of Tishrey, Sarah had not experienced signs of pregnancy she despaired. At that point G-d [when the angel returned the first time. Ed.] challenged her attitude asking Avraham why she made fun of the prediction. The prediction was repeated, confirmed, and by Nissan of the year Sarah had become a mother. כעת חיה, [usually translated as “at this time next year,” Ed.]. The expression is so unusual that we must revert to the fact that angels live forever. Were it not for that fact, how did they know that it was in their power to return again, maybe they would have died in the interval? This must be contrasted with a similar statement by the prophet Elisha who was a mortal human being and who promised only “at this time next year,” without mentioning that he would return to witness this fact. (Compare Kings II 4,17 and mentioned by Rashi there.)

כעת חיה means at this time next year — it was the Passover, and on the next Passover Isaac was born — since we do not read כְּעֵת (at “a” time) but כָּעֵת (at this time).

והוא אחריו, the entrance to Sarah’s tent was behind the angel. This accounts for Sarah overhearing their conversation.

והוא אחריו, the door at which Sarah stood listening was behind the angel who was speaking.

כעת חיה, at about this time of year next year Sarah will be giving birth. We find the term חיה used to describe giving birth in Yuma 73. On the other hand, the word may also refer to a time frame, i.e. at this time next year, seeing that you will both be alive, Sarah will bear a son. G’d had spoken of למועד הזה בשנה האחרת (compare Genesis 17,21) whereas the angel expressed the same thought in the words כעת חיה. The angel did not spell out to Avraham precisely when this birth would take place, as had G’d in the previous chapter.

כעת חיה, “in a year’s time.” Although, normally, a pregnancy does not exceed nine months, there are exceptions. The angel alluded to the maximum period of time that could elapse between now and the fulfillment of the prophecy. We are told in Yevamot 80b that Ravah Tospha'ah once ruled that a baby which according to the mother’s testimony was born 12 months after her husband had left for overseas was indeed fathered by her absent husband. The angel simply may have told Avraham that by the following “Passover” his mind would be at rest as he would have a son by his wife Sarah.

Since it is not read כְעת but, rather, כָעת... It has a קמץ, not a שוא. For כְעת would connect it to חיה. [But since it says כָעת,] no time is specified later. Perforce, כָעת is like בָעת, meaning: “at this time.” [I.e., the word “this” is added.] And חיה stands separately, as Rashi goes on to explain: “When there will be life to you.” But R. Meir Stern writes: It seems to me that כָעת denotes a time that is hinted to, as it is here, since the angel scratched a mark on the wall [to mark the time for the next year, see Rashi on 21:2]. This is because כָעת is like writing כְהָעת. But כְעת does not indicate which time. (R. Meir Stern)

שוב אשוב. "I will certainly return." The reason the angel repeated the words שוב אשוב and added the word והנה, may be better understood on the basis of a tradition that when Isaac was born he suffered from a congenital defect; he was sterile. It was only after agreeing to be the sacrifice at the עקדה, that he was cured of that defect. The angel hinted that he would have to return twice כעת חיה, at a time when he would "give life," in order that Sarah's son would be a true son, able to procreate. The words והנה בן לשרה indicate that Sarah's son emanated from the left side of the emanations, the female, weaker side. The word והנה emphasises this origin of Isaac in Sarah's domain. Only when the angel would return once more would the male component, i.e. Abraham's input, become dominant within Isaac. This occurred in Genesis 22,11 where the Torah reports that an angel called out to Abraham not to harm Isaac. The angel therefore had two tasks to perform, 1) to announce that there would be an Isaac, 2) that he would possess a soul that could procreate. The reason that G'd had to do this was related to Abraham's prayer on behalf of Ishmael in 17,19. I have written about that subject at the time.

חיה rad. חיי. Es ist bereits (Kap.1, 8. 20) auf die innige Verwandtschaft der Wurzel חיי mit den Wurzeln חקק ,הכך ,חגג und deren Begriffen hingewiesen. In dieser Verwandtschaft liegt zugleich die Bedeutung: Kreisbildung, welche der Wurzel חגג und חיי gemein ist. So וחַיַת פלשתים חנה ,ויאספו פלשתים לַחיהָ (Sam. 11. 23. 11. 13). Vergl. ויבא המעגלה (Sam. I. 17. 20) שאול שכב ישן במעגל (daf 26.7). Der um einen Mittelpunkt sich sammelnde Kreis. Auch jeder Zeitmoment, ja nichts anderes, als die augenblickliche Stellung aller tellurischen und kosmischen Beziehungen der Erdwelt, ist חַי und חוֹגֵג ist ein, einen Kreislauf der Entwicklungen vollziehendes Lebendiges, und עת חיה dürfte demnach nichts anderes bedeuten, als: der im lebendigen Kreislauf wiederkehrende Zeitmoment. כעת חיה hieße demnach: wie der im lebendigen Kreislauf wiederkehrende gegenwärtige Moment kehre auch ich wieder zu dir zurück, d. h. präzies zu der Zeit, in welcher der gegenwärtige Tag im Kreislauf des Jahres wiederkehrt.

כעת חיה, according to Rashi, seeing that the letter in the word כעת, does not have the vowel sheva under it but the vowel kametz, the prediction does not refer to “at the same season.”

The words כעת חיה signify: at this time when there will be life to you — when you will all be healthy and alive.

ושרה שומעת פתח האהל, she had been inside her tent; when she heard the voices of the angel and Avraham. She went to the entrance of her tent to overhear what was being said. Neither the angel nor Avraham saw her at the time. seeing both their backs were turned towards the entrance. This is the meaning of the words והוא אחריו, i.e. Sarah’s tent was behind the angel who was doing the talking.

והוא אחריו, “and he was behind it.” This verse tells us that Sarah was sitting inside the tent as it says: והנה באהל (verse 9); she had meanwhile risen from her chair in order to listen to what was being said at the entrance of the tent. The angel who relayed the message stood on the other side of the entrance to the tent.

He was speaking to him as God’s agent... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? This does not seem to be a question at all, as it means as follows: The angel never said that he will return to Avraham. Rather, he was speaking as Hashem’s agent, saying that Hashem will return. This is as it says later (v. 14): “At the appointed time, I [Adonoy] will return to you.” Although the angel said, “I will return,” as if speaking about himself, it is the way of an agent to speak in the name of the party he represents, as in (Shemos 18:6): “I, your father-in-law, Yisro...” (This example is according to the view that Yisro sent an agent; see Rashi there.) And Rashi inferred this to be so, [that it is Hashem who will return,] because otherwise, why would the angel take the credit for himself [and say,] “I will surely return”? We see later that the angels were punished for doing such a thing, when they said (19:13): “We are going to destroy.” [See Rashi on 19:22.] Perforce, the angel was speaking as Hashem’s agent. (R. Meir Stern) A further answer: [The angel would not promise to return, as] Hashem might send him on another mission. He will then not be free to return with Hashem, and thus will have spoken falsely. Perforce, he spoke as Hashem’s agent. This explains why Rashi explains כעת before שוב אשוב, which does not follow the order of the verse: [for כעת denotes a set time, thus the angel must have said שוב אשוב as Hashem’s agent.]

Another meaning of the words ולשרה בן, that Sarah would by then have a son, is to tell us that a son i.e. male issue, is dependent on the female element being predominant whereas daughters are the result of a preponderant male element during marital union. We know this from Nidah 31 based on Leviticus 12,2. The angel prophesied that the physical union of Abraham and Sarah which would result in her impregnation would correspond to the rules laid down, or hinted at, in Leviticus 12,2. [compare Midrash Hagadol in the name of Rabbi Yitzchak that the sex of the embryo is determined in accordance with whose orgasm occurs first. If the male completes his orgasm first, the result is a daughter, if the female is first, the result is a son. Ed.] Scripture alludes to who was first by the way the birth is described. Chronicles I 4 18, states: "and his wife, the Jewess, gave birth to Yered, etc." [Every other issue mentioned in that chapter is described in terms of the husband fathering instead of as the wife giving birth. Ed.] In Genesis 22,24 the repetition of "and his concubine whose name was Re-umah, etc.," is another example of the principle we described. The words "whose name was" were quite unnecessary otherwise. Accordingly, the angels attributed the forthcoming son to the predominance of the female, i.e. Sarah's input.

ושרה שומעת, sie hörte nicht nur zufällig dieses, sondern überhaupt: sie hörte zu; wenn sie auch nicht mit am Tische saß, so nahm sie doch still Teil, und es lohnt sich wohl der Mühe zuzuhören, wenn ein Abraham seine Gäste unterhält. — Der Eingang war hinter dem Sprechenden. Ihm gegenüber hätte es Sara nicht anständig gefunden, gegenwärtig Teil zu nehmen.

והוא אחריו, according to the Jerusalem Targum this means that Ishmael was standing (unseen) behind the angel and overheard all this. Another explanation - the angel was standing there to ensure that Sarah would not be alone with what she presumed were male strangers.

והוא אחריו AND IT (literally, HE) WAS BEHIND HIM — The door was behind the angel.

The entrance was behind the angel. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means the opposite: [the angel was behind the entrance]. The answer is: If so, [that והוא refers to the angel], the verse would have to say: “He was in front of it.” Then it would convey that the angel was not inside the tent but in front of its entrance, where in fact he was, as Avraham was sitting at the entrance when the angel spoke with him. For if אחריו referred to the entrance, it would come out that הוא — the angel — was behind the entrance, inside the tent. (R. Meir Stern)

ושרה שומעת, and Sarah was listening. On the one hand the verse indicates that what Sarah heard was a message intended for her by a heavenly messenger, the messenger himself standing behind her. Nonetheless I have seen a Midrash according to which the angel was disciplined for not addressing Sarah directly with the message, preferring to deliver it to Abraham. Angels are punished for inadvertently committed disobedience or minor deviations from the instructions they receive.

חדל להיות means [that] it had ceased from her.

‘BA’IM BAYAMIM’ (ADVANCED IN DAYS). In his youthful days a man is called “standing in days,” and they are referred to as “his days” because they belong to him, just as in verse The number of thy days will I fulfill.⁹⁷Exodus 23:26. But when he gets old and has lived longer than most people of his generation, it is said of him that he is ba bayamim, [literally, “came into days”], because it is as if he came into another land, travelling from and arriving in a city each and every day.

ואברהם, this line has been written only in order to account for the reason of Sarah’s laughter.

חדל להיות לשרה אורח כנשים, “Sarah had long stopped menstruating.” Here the Torah refers to the process of menstruation as אורח כנשים, whereas in connection with Rachel the Torah uses the term דרך נשים. The reason is that Rachel being in her prime at the time, experienced the flow of menstrual blood coming directly from her ovaries, whereas in the case of aged Sarah the blood had to find other conduits until it could exit from her body.

Ceased from her. You might object: Rashi explained on v. 8 that she began to menstruate that day, and the dough became impure. Doesn’t this indicate that she now had the “way of women”? [The answer is:] She seems to have thought it happened by chance, not as a regular cycle. Thus she asked: היתה לי עדנה? (v. 12). She meant: “I am in doubt about the blood I saw. Is it my regular cycle, or a chance occurrence caused by my hurrying to knead the dough?” For Avraham had said (v. 6): “Hurry! Three measures of flour...” This is preferable to Re’m’s explanation — on v. 13 — that Sarah was saying, “My regular cycle has indeed returned, although I was worn out. But Avraham is an old man.” The Maharshal writes: Hashem set her childbirth to be one year later, to give her three months to establish a regular period, as she had ceased seeing blood and now returned to her youth, and then nine months for pregnancy. However, it says in Rosh Hashanah 11a that Sarah conceived on Rosh Hashanah, which implies that she gave birth in the seventh month of pregnancy. This calls for further thought.

חדל להיות לשרה אורח כנשים, “Sarah had ceased to have the periods of women.” She suddenly saw menstrual blood again, something that does not occur in women over a certain age which she had long passed attaining. The meaning cannot be that “she did not see such blood,” as in his commentary on verse eight, Rashi told us that she menstruated, and that this was the reason why she did not bake and offer bread as she had been commanded to do by her husband (Compare verse 6)

ואברהם ושרה זקנים, “and both Avraham and Sarah were old;” seeing that the Torah tells us in Genesis 24,1 that Avraham was old and advanced in years, what is the point of the Torah telling us here that Avraham was old? The answer must be that in the interval G-d had restored a degree of youthfulness to Avraham, so that in chapter 24 we are told that by then he had become “old” again. (Compare B’reshit Rabbah 48,16.

אורח כנשים means the way of menstruation.

IT HAD CEASED TO BE WITH SARAH AFTER THE MANNER OF WOMEN. This is the time of pregnancy, for after menstruation has ceased due to old age, a woman will not become pregnant.

באים בימים, this is the standard mode in which the Torah describes people who feel that aging has affected their general physique and imposed limitations on them. What the Torah means is that both Avraham and Sarah had reached the years when other people are subject to the limitations of old age. These are the years when the soul begins to separate from the body.

זקנים באים בימים, “old advanced in years.” We do not find a single reference to old age in the Torah anywhere before this point. Avraham was the first human being described as having “aged.” The Midrash attributes the fact that the Torah here refers to Avraham’s age as due to his having said to G-d: “with all respect, G-d, when father and son walk together and come to a town where neither of them is known, how will they know to honour the father, seeing that they both appear as equally youthful? If You were to “crown” elderly people with a visible sign of their being old, they will know to whom to pay their respects first.” G-d answered Avraham that he had presented a valid argument and that therefore he would be the first human being upon whom this distinction would be bestowed. Along similar lines, the Midrash points out that before Yitzchok, no one was afflicted with physical handicaps, (such as Yitzchok’s blindness) Yitzchok was afflicted with such a handicap at his own request, having said to G-d: “if a human being dies without ever having endured physical handicaps and pain, the attribute of Justice will present a strong case against him by saying that he had never had to suffer any pain for any of the sins he had committed while alive. These pains would have been deemed as punishment so that upon death he could proceed to the regions of eternal bliss in the celestial regions without further delay. G-d agreed with him, and made him the first human being to be thus afflicted. We have not read about anyone falling sick before Yaakov requested that sickness become part of life on earth. Yaakov argued that unless sickness precedes death, a person would not have an opportunity to allocate his estate to his various beneficiaries. G-d agreed with him, and thus he became the first person of whom sickness preceding his death is reported in the Torah in Genesis 48,1. The two or tree days that his sickness lasted, gave him an opportunity to arrange his affairs. This is the reason why the Torah informed us that Joseph was given notice that his father was sick. Otherwise, seeing that he had 11 other sons around him in Goshen, why did special notice have to be sent to the capital where Joseph resided? To sum up: Avraham introduced the concept of old age; Yitzchok introduced the concept of people becoming afflicted with serious physical handicaps. Yaakov introduced the concept of sickness due to approaching death.

אורח כנשים, the signal of old age for women, i.e. cessation of their menstrual cycle. The Torah uses a euphemism to describe that phenomenon. Rachel used the same euphemism when she explained to her father Lavan why she could not let him search her camel (Genesis 31,35). During old age, due to the body drying out, the flow of blood stops, i.e. a woman no longer ovulates. Our sages in Ketuvot 10 relate that the volume of such a flow of blood is in direct relation to the number of children a woman is likely to bear. There was a well known family by the name of Dorkaty in those days, whose female members never experienced either menstrual blood, nor the blood associated with the puncturing of the hymen. This is why the family was named Dorkaty, meaning that something was radically wrong. None of the females in that family ever had children, the reason being attributed to this abnormal condition of their not menstruating.

חדל להיות לשרה אורח כנשים, the Torah emphasises that although other elderly women had stopped menstruating, Sarah had continued to experience menses, as Rashi has explained on the line; “he took butter and milk,” i.e. that he could not take bread as on that day Sarah had become niddah, had menstruated, thus causing the dough she had handled to become ritually unclean.

בקרבה [SARAH LAUGHED] WITHIN HERSELF (or, REGARDING HER INSIDE) — She reflected on her physical condition, saying, “Is it possible that this womb shall bear a child, that these dried-up breasts shall give forth milk” (Midrash Tanchuma, Shoftim 18).

עדנה, a form of the skin becoming elastic and the wrinkles straightening out.

ותצחק שרה, she assumed that the words of the angel were merely a blessing, not a prophecy, as occurred with the prophet Elisha. (Kings II 4,16) She believed that when such a blessing is given to old people, people who would require a miracle for the blessing to come true, it would not be effective in her case. She considered the kind of rejuvenation required for her to bear a child as equivalent to reviving the dead. Such an act, in her opinion, required G’d’s personal attention, not merely that of a prophet. At the very least it would come about in answer to a prayer.

ותצחק שרה בקרבה, Sarah laughed derisively internally, not audibly; she did not believe that the man who had made the prediction was an angel, though she assumed that he was a prophet.

ותצחק שרה, “Sarah laughed (internally),” This was not like the joyful laughter the Torah reports Avraham as breaking out into in 17,17 upon being told something similar by G’d. Avraham rejoiced because he believed the message, whereas Sarah found the message as beyond belief. The reason that she did not match her husband in believing in this instance was that whereas he had received the message from G’d directly, she had only heard it from a man dressed like an Arab. [even though she laughed soundlessly, so as not to embarrass the messenger. Ed.]

Das Präteritum היתה im Satz ist ungemein schwierig. Vielleicht: es kam ihr lächerlich vor, dass man einst noch sagen sollte, in ihrem abgelebten, entkräfteten Alter wäre ihr die Befriedigung ihres höchsten irdischen Wunsches geworden.

ותצחק שרה, “Sarah laughed;” when the month of Tishrey began, six months after the prediction of the angels, and she had not experienced signs of pregnancy, she abandoned all hope of that prophecy becoming true, as there were only six months left for it to become true. Contrary to her husband Avraham, she had lost faith in the prediction. The reason that Avraham maintained faith in the prediction was that he had heard it from G-d directly, (the angel had spoken to him in the name of the Lord), whereas Sarah, had only been an eavesdropper, and possibly she had not heard correctly. She had assumed that the angels speaking to Avraham had been ordinary human beings. She took a look at her belly and asked mockingly whether such a belly could possibly produce a fetus. As soon as she had done so, in Tishrey, G-d asked Avraham why Sarah had reacted in such a manner, adding that at the time appointed, i.e. when a year had passed at the time of Passover, in the following year, the angel would return and she would have become a mother. In practice this means that the first time she heard the prediction she had heard it from the mouth of an angel whom she had believed to be a mortal human being. The second time Avraham heard it from G-d directly, i.e. 'ויאמר ה, “the Lord said;” this was followed by G-d adding: “Is anything impossible for the Lord to do?”Support for this interpretation can be found seeing that when the angels on the same evening met Lot, Lot offered them unleavened bread, matzot for supper, a hint that the date was the date that would later on become the night of the Seder of the Jewish people.[This is not far fetched at all, as the night when Avraham had fought and secured Lot’s freedom, had been the corresponding date, and Lot therefore had good reason to observe it as an anniversary of great significance for him also. Compare the numerous commentaries on Genesis 14,15, ויחלק עליהם לילה, “He divided the night for them.” Ed.] In the Talmud Rosh Hashanah, 11 both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yoshua are quoted as in agreement that three previously barren women, i.e. Sarah, Rachel and Chanah, all became pregnant on Rosh Hashanah.

עדנה means glistening flesh (skin), and so it is used in the Mishna (Menachot 86a): it makes the hair fall out and the skin smooth (מעדן).

לאמור, she contemplated saying out loud what she had only been thinking so far. Even though, she did not laugh in the angel’s face, but contained herself due to her good manners, asking instead in wonderment:

בקרבה, “in her heart and mind;”

אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, how is it possible that I, who have stopped ovulating should become sufficiently rejuvenated? The word עדנה refers to youthful flesh and skin. It describes a certain elasticity of the skin. The angel was fully aware that she had laughed; this is why he said to Avraham: why did Sarah laugh?

לאמור, what is the meaning of this word, which literally means: “to say;” [apparently contradicting the previous word, Ed.] According to the plain meaning we should assume that this word here is no different from elsewhere where it appears and means that certain thoughts were to be voiced by mouth. Sarah then would have prepared to voice her opinion of the prophecy which had not come true. In other words: she was ready to voice her ridicule publicly. This would account for the fact that the Torah took her to task for her disbelief more so than it had taken to task Avraham in Genesis 17,17, where he is reported to have reacted similarly to the promise by G-d that Sarah would become the mother of a son of his. However, he had not intended to go public with his doubts.

אחרי בלותי, “after I have ceased menstruating?” Sarah is almost incredulous that nature would reverse itself in her case. She adds that even assuming that she has experienced this kind of rejuvenation, she knows from her personal experience that her husband has not experienced such symptoms. This latter thought of Sarah is the one the Torah did not reveal to Avraham, not wishing to cause friction between Sarah and her husband by revealing that she considered him impotent. If you wonder about the Torah’s choice of the expression היתה לי, “I have experienced,” in the past tense, instead of the expression תהיה לי, in the future tense, this is something we find quite often in the Holy Scriptures.

האף אמנם means SHALL I REALLY BEAR?

I BEING OLD. This is the explanation of Sarah’s words, after I am waxed old.⁹⁸Verse 12 here. And G-d’s words [that Sarah had said, “I being old“], were true, but for the sake of peace He did not reveal what she also said, namely, My lord being old also,⁹⁸Verse 12 here. for [if He were quoting Sarah], He should have said, “I and my lord are old,” as Sarah had laughed concerning both of them.

'ויאמר ה, the angel, the senior of the three.

ויאמר השם אל אברהם למה זה צחקה שרה? G'd said to Abraham: "why did Sarah laugh," etc? The word זה needs explaining. Furthermore, why did G'd say לאמר, "to say?" In fact most of the verse is superfluous; all the Torah had to write was: "Why did she laugh?"

'ויאמר ה, the angel is accorded the name of his Master, something that we find also in connection with Gideon in Judges 6,16.

ואני זקנתי, “seeing that I have become old.” From this verse we know that it is permissible to utter a white lie if it helps preserve harmonious relations between husband and wife. Actually, Sarah had not described herself as too old, but her husband. The angel changed what she had said in a way that would not embarrass Avraham or insult him. Nachmanides holds that the angel had not changed anything at all, as Sarah attributed the unlikelihood of the message becoming true to her state, as she had added that she had long ago stopped menstruating and therefore was unable to conceive. She had added however, that she had suddenly experienced a rejuvenation, אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, something she did not want to reveal to the messenger. Her error was in not saying (or thinking, rather) “I and my husband are too old.” Sarah laughed at both parts of the message. Some commentators believe that Sarah’s laughter was directed only at her husband; seeing that she had experienced rejuvenation, she knew that as far as she was concerned conception had become possible. However, she was not aware of anything similar having happened to her husband.

ויאמר ה' אל אברהם, “G’d said to Avraham, etc.” The messenger is given the title of the Sender. This is the reason why the Torah calls the angel “G’d.” It was also he who said in verse 14: היפלא מה' דבר “is anything too wonderful for G’d?” If G’d Himself had spoken in verse 14 (and here) then the Torah should have written there: “is anything too wonderful for Me?” This is also the meaning of למועד אשוב, “I will return at the appointed time.” He, the angel, and not G’d had challenged Sarah’s laughter. It makes sense therefore that he speaks about returning. Seeing G’d Himself had never come to visit Sarah how could He have mentioned ”returning?”

ואני זקנתי, “and I am old.” Our sages base their view that it is permissible sometimes to tell a “white” lie when the purpose is to preserve harmony between husband and wife, based on this verse, where what Sarah obviously meant was that her husband was too old to sire a child, seeing that she herself had experienced rejuvenation. (Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia folio 87). Seeing that she had not said anything aloud about what she thought about her husband, G–d, i.e. His angel, still saw fit to change what she had thought to herself, in order to preserve her image as a dutiful wife respecting her husband’s masculine dignity. Our author bases his interpretation on the use of the word היתה, “was,” instead of תהיה, “will be,” in verse 12. There is however an opinion which does not agree at all that G–d or His angel had changed the words that Sarah had thought but not uttered. It argues that it is totally absurd to argue that anything appearing to us as a lie could have been uttered by G–d or His agent, an angel. The author of that opinion quotes Psalms 101,7: דבר שקרים לא יכון לנגד עיני, “he who speaks untruths shall not stand before My eyes,” in support of his statement. He claims further that what Sarah had (thought) reported as having said was indeed what is quoted by the Torah, i.e. ואני זקנתי, “and I have become old.” These words are to be understood as her wonderment at how she could have become pregnant even in spite of having seen menstrual blood once more, seeing she was way beyond child-bearing age, and had never previously conceived. The angel did not alter her words, he only did not report all of her words. In this manner he prevented any bad feeling on the part of Avraham. Any ordinary person, other than a Divine creature, is permitted to tell white lies in order to preserve שלום בית, family harmony. If you were to argue that Avraham would not have cared, seeing that he was aware that what she thought or said was true, we must assume that he was still trying to impregnate Sarah but had been unsuccessful.

למה זה צחקה, “why is it that she ridiculed, etc.?” [the author now repeats something he had already explained, at the top of this page, offering an alternate explanation. Ed.]“If you were to ask why G-d did not rebuke Avraham when he entertained similar doubts in Genesis 17,17, the answer is that seeing that Sarah is considered as on a lower spiritual level than her husband, it is considered as clear that if even her doubts were criticised, her husband’s doubts were deserving of a rebuke even more so, without the need for the Torah to spell this out. Our author uses a parable to demonstrate this point, writing that when a wise woman wishes to rebuke her daughterinlaw for something both she and her daughter had been guilty of, she rebukes only her daughter instead, allowing her daughterinlaw to draw the necessary conclusions about her own behaviour. If G-d had rebuked Avraham in Sarah’s presence, he would have felt ashamed; He therefore did so in an indirect manner.

ואני זקנתי I BEING OLD — Scripture (God) in relating her words to her husband alters them for the sake of peace, for she had said (v. 12) “my lord is old” (Genesis Rabbah 48:18).

ואני זקנתי, for she had referred to her menopause in verse12.

?האף אמנם אלד, will such a miracle indeed occur on my behalf even though I am that old? Even though the angel did not answer her point by point, he did answer her with an overall statement that there simply is nothing which is beyond G’d’s power to accomplish if he so desires. Our author uses a similar approach when examining the words Eliezer used in explaining his mission in Genesis 24,39. There too, the fact that he conveyed the content of what he had asked Avraham before undertaking his mission was important, the exact wording was not the issue. The angel did not even bother to reply to Sarah’s statement that her husband too was too old to impregnate her with semen. The reason he did not do so was that Sarah having had her menopause was the far greater natural impediment to her becoming pregnant. It is not altogether unknown for old men to father children even in their advanced old age.

היפלא מה' דבר, ”is anything too wonderful for G’d?” This was the angel Michael speaking. He meant: “is anything concealed and beyond performance so that the letter ה in your name which alludes to G’d’s אצילות, transcendental powers, and which was added in order for G’d to be able to make your siring a son with Sarah a natural process would have been wasted?” He implied further: “Just as you complement the attribute of חסד on earth, so G’d will give you a son who will be able to complement the attribute of Justice.” [I believe our author meant that Yitzchak would prove that man can lead the sort of life on earth which even the attribute of Justice cannot find fault with. This is why Yitzchak is always considered the representative of the emanation גבורה. Ed.]

We must consider that the Torah reported Abraham as laughing at a similar message in 17,17 when G'd promised him children. We do not find that G'd reacted to Abraham's laughter in that instance. The ordinary reader would want to know why Abraham could laugh at the same kind of message and not arouse G'd's anger whereas when Sarah did the same, it evoked criticism from G'd. Onkelos was aware of this when he used different words to describe Abraham's and Sarah's laughter respectively (חדי for Abraham's laughter, and חיכה to describe Sarah's laughter in our verse here). Why did G'd react differently to the same word, צחק when used by two different people?

ואני זקנתי, “seeing that I am too old?” According to Rashi the Torah changed what Sarah had actually said out of concern for the harmony existing between Avraham and Sarah. What Sarah had actually meant was: “what good does it do for me to have been rejuvenated as long as my husband cannot be rejuvenated also?” How can I become pregnant from his seed? Had the Torah conveyed this thought to Avraham it would have meant that it was only Avraham’s inadequacy that prevented Sarah from having a child.

Actually G'd's very reaction includes a hint of why He took exception to Sarah's laughter whereas He had not reacted at the time to Abraham's laughter. A close examination of the text will reveal that Abraham had reacted with (derisive) laughter at the time he received the message. Sarah, on the other hand, did not laugh until she had menstruated again, a clear sign that her youth had returned. She herself referred to her rejuvenation. This proves that she did not believe G'd's promise until after she experienced proof on her own body. It was this that G'd objected to. When G'd said: למה זה צחקה שרה, He emphasised to Abraham that this laughter of Sarah was objectionable, whereas Abraham's at the time had not bothered Him. By her comment after the event that she now realised she would indeed bear a child, האף אמנם אלד, ואני זקנתי, that now she was convinced she would bear a child despite her husband's age, Sarah showed that up until that time she had not believed G'd capable of arranging this.

ואני זקנתי, and I am old! Why did G'd quote Sarah as saying something she had not said? While we are aware of our sages' statement in Baba Metzia 87 that we learn from this verse that a lie is acceptable when it serves to preserve domestic peace between man and wife, why would we have to learn this from an untrue utterance of G'd? In view of our explanation of G'd's reaction to the finer nuances of Sarah's laughter we see that G'd had indeed spoken the truth concerning what Sarah had said. Until Sarah had menstruated she had thought of herself as too old to conceive and bear a child (hence derisive laughter). After she had menstruated, her laughter was no longer one of derision or disbelief but one of joy. She was doubly grateful to G'd that although Abraham had not yet demonstrated signs of rejuvenation, he surely would do so now.

היפלא IS TOO HARD? — As the Targum takes it: is anything hidden — far distant and apart (מופלא) from Me that I cannot do as I would wish?

IS ANYTHING TOO HARD (‘HAYIPALEI’) FOR THE ETERNAL? Is anything too hard and improbable for G-d to cause to happen? This expression is similar to the verse, For all things come of Thee, and of Thine own have we given Thee.⁹⁹I Chronicles 29:14. Here the word “come” is not found in the Hebrew but is added to complete the thought. Likewise, Ramban suggests, in our own verse here, the expression “to cause to happen” is to be added: “Is anything too hard for G-d to cause to happen?” Likewise, Out of Asher his fat bread,¹⁰⁰Further, 49:20. meaning “Out of Asher will come fat bread.”
Onkelos translated: “Is anything hidden?” He interpreted it as similar to the expression, If there arise a matter hidden (‘yipalei’) for thee in judgment.¹⁰¹Deuteronomy 17:8. If so, there is a hidden secret here.
Rashi’s language: “Hayipalei, is anything apart and hidden from Me that I cannot do as I would wish?” Rashi has thus grafted together in [the word hayipalei] two separate concepts.¹⁰²Hidden and apart.

'היפלא מה, Who is the One Who has sent us. דבר, anything, no matter how miraculous? When reference is made here as in verse 19 when the Torah writes: “G’d made it rain, etc.” to G’d’s angels, messengers, who are given the status of Divinity while carrying out their assignments, in this instance the first time the word ה' appears it refers to the angel Gavriel, in the second instance to Hashem.

למועד אשוב, I will return at the appointed time, etc. The reason that the angel repeated the promise was that Abraham should not think that because G'd had objected to Sarah's laughter G'd would take back His promise. This is why he said when exactly the promise would come true.

?היפלא, these matters appear miraculous in the eyes of human beings, and they cannot fathom how such things can be. However, in light of G’d’s omnipotence, nothing is impossible for Him to accomplish. He who created the universe, has no problem making changes in His universe.

כעת חיה, according to Rashi: ”at this time next year.” This happened on Passover (the date when Passover would occur in the future) Yitzchok, as we know, was born in the following year. Rashi’s commentary poses a problem, as, according to our tradition, (Rosh Hashanah 11) that these angels arrived on Sukkot if they promised that Yitzchok would be born by the next מועד, holiday, this would be Passover, and the baby would be 3 months premature. According to Rabbi Eliezer there that Yitzchok was born on Rosh Hahanah there are other difficulties, such as that if Avraham and Yaakov had both been born in Tishrey, and he was told about the circumcision while 99 years of age, he was 99 at the time he circumcised himself. Avraham would still have been 99 years old at the time he circumcised Yitzchok, something which contradicts Genesis Furthermore, there is another difficulty with a statement on folio 11 in Rosh Hashanah, where reference is made to the angel having told Sarah that the child would be born in the following year, based on the words למועד אשוב אליך plus the prediction in It is not possible that these words, i.e. בשנה האחרת, were said to Avraham on Passover of his 99th year when he was told about the forthcoming need to circumcise himself, whereas the actual circumcision did not occur until six months later in Tishrey, and that only then was he told the words that Yitzchok would be born at the first festival (מועד) thereafter which would then have occurred on the following Passover when Yitzchok would indeed be born. We have a tradition that Avraham carried out the commandment to circumcise himself immediately, and certainly did not let 6 or 7 months elapse before doing what G’d had told him to do. The Torah itself testifies that he circumcised himself on the day he had received the commandment, by describing the date as בעצם היום, on the day he was so commanded (17,26). The answer given to all these questions is by Rabbi Shimon ben Avraham. He explains that the angels actually visited Avraham on two separate occasions. The first time they visited him in Nissan and they told him they would return again כעת חיה, The second time they visited him in Tishrey and said to him that in another year, at the same season, Sarah would have a son. It was on the second occasion that Sarah laughed (to herself) seeing that 6 months had already passed since these same men’s first visit, and nothing had changed in her or her husband’s condition. Even with the explanation of Rabbi Shimon ben Avraham there remains the problem of the words אשר תלד לך שרה למועד הזה בשנה האחרת, “whom Sarah will bear for you at this season in the following year.” (17,21) These words were spoken in Tishrey and Yitzchok was born in the year following.

Is there anything beyond and separated and hidden from Me... Rashi avoided explaining היפלא as “surprise and wonder,” in which case the verse would mean: “Should we be surprised that Hashem can do a novel thing?” That would not be in accord with Targum Onkelos who explains it as, “Is it hidden?” Yet, there is a question on Targum Onkelos: How to understand Hashem’s response “Is it hidden?” to Sarah’s laughing? She said, “My master is an old man,” conveying that it is impossible that she should give birth. Thus Hashem’s response should have been: “Is anything too difficult for Hashem?” or, “Is God’s hand unable?” But this response is understandable if היפלא means, “Should we be surprised...?” [However, Onkelos’s explanation is difficult]. Therefore, Rashi explains היפלא as “Is it hidden?” and nonetheless, Hashem’s response to Sarah is understandable. She said that it is impossible. And He responded: “Is there anything beyond and apart and hidden from Me, which might prevent Me from doing My will?” Rashi means that something which is hidden from a person is “separated” from him, i.e., he cannot do it when he wants to. For if he can do it when he wants, then he can declare, “I know that it will be,” [for it is not separated from him]. And why did Rashi not choose the explanation of “surprise and wonder”? Because then it should say היפלא על ה', as it is the proper usage to say that when one is surprised “over” something. Furthermore, Sarah did not express surprise; rather, she decided that it is impossible. And the response of, “Should we be surprised...?” would not be appropriate. (R. Meir Stern)

למועד אשוב אליך, “at the appointed time I will return to you, etc.” this phrasing is a hint that the birth of Yitzchok would occur on a date subsequently part of the Passover festival. (Talmud tractate Rosh Hashanah folio 11). The numerical value of the letters in the word למועד equals the numerical value of the letters in the word בפסח (150).

היפלא מה׳ דבר, “Is there then anything that goes on in My world that I am not aware of or in charge of? G-d teaches Avraham that He can hear even laughter that has only occurred in the heart or mind, without ever having crossed one’s lips.

למועד AT THE APPOINTED TIME — at the special time that I fixed for you yesterday (i.e. on a previous occasion) when I said, (17:21) “at this set time next year”.

כעת חיה, according to Rashi, this means “at a time of year such as now, when nature is in full bloom, entirely alive.” Seeing that the angel did not say בעת, at the time, but כעת, “around that time,” it is clear that he referred to the time when Sarah’s pregnancy would result in her giving natural birth at the end of the cycle. She would not give birth prematurely. The expression חיה for a woman giving birth occurs elsewhere also. Our sages in the Talmud tractate Taanit folio 2, have stated that there are three keys which G–d does not hand over to any agent (prophet or angel) They are: the key to resurrections, to rainfall, and to giving birth. This is also why the angel could not predict the precise date when Sarah would give birth, only an approximation, i.e. כעת, “at approximately that time.” I believe that Rashi’s interpretation of these verses coincides with the one we find in the historical text known as Seder olam, world history, as well as with the commentary in the Mechilta. (chapter 5) According to those calculations, G–d had had this conversation with Avraham culminating in the destruction of Sodom on the fifteenth day of Nissan. Yitzchok was born on that day in the year following. According to B’reshit Rabbah 48,12, the words Avraham had used when telling Sarah to knead and bake bread, לושי ועשי עגות, also suggest that it was Passover (the date of) [as did the fact that on the evening of that same day, Lot fed the angels matzot, unleavened bread. (Genesis 19,3) Ed.] This date had also been referred to in conjunction with the circumcision (Genesis 17,21) when G–d had told Avraham about the birth of this son whom he was to call Yitzchok. At that time the time frame told him was: “next year.”
However, the above is in contradiction to what we read in the first chapter of the tractate Roshashah, folio 11, where the words: למועד אשוב אליך are understood to refer to the dates on which the Sukkot festival would occur in the future. The first “מועד” would then have been Passover. This would also agree with what we have read in Pirke de rabbi Eliezer chapter 29, according to which Avraham circumcised himself on the date of the day of Atonement. In the Talmud, tractate Baba Metzia, folio 87, the angels are reported as having visited Avraham on the third day after his circumcision, and that is when Sarah overheard the prediction that she would give birth to a son, and that the words “at this time,” have to be understood as 2 days prior to the date of Sukkot. It is also stated in the Talmud, tractate Rosh Hashanah, that Sarah became pregnant on Rosh Hashanah. When mention is made elsewhere that this occurred on the festival, this need not be understood literally, as it was two days earlier. Furthermore, according to our tradition, also Rachel and Chanah who had endured years of being unable to conceive were remembered by G–d on that festival and became pregnant and subsequently gave birth. This is the version of events accepted by Rashi. If one were to question what precisely was meant by the angel speaking of the מועד in the following year, if it would refer to Sukkot, that would be more than a year later, as the next festival would be Passover in the same year, we must assume that the quotation from the Talmud is by a sage who accepts the opinion of Rabbi Yoshua, that the earth was created in the month of Nissan, (Rosh Hashanah there), in which case Passover would be in the following year and that this is why the angel added words that applied to the following year. [The important thing is that the Torah testifies that Sarah gave birth at the time that been predicted here, compare Genesis 21,2. Ed.]

למועד, the numerical value of the letters in this word when totaled amounts to the same as the numerical value of the word: בפסח, i.e. 150. (Compare what we wrote on verse 12)

כי יראה וגו' כי צחקת FOR SHE WAS AFRAID… BUT THOU DIDST LAUGH — The first כי is used in the sense of “because”, giving a reason for the former statement—Sarah denied … because she was afraid; the second כי is used in the meaning of “but” — “and He said, ‘It is not as you say that you did not laugh, but thou didst laugh’.” For our Rabbis say (Rosh Hashanah 3a) that the word כי has four meanings: “if”, “perhaps”, “but”, “because”.

AND SARAH DENIED, SAYING. I wonder about the righteous prophetess:¹⁰³See above, Note 28, that Sarah was regarded as a prophetess. How did she deny that which G-d had said to the prophet,¹⁰⁴Abraham. In Megillah 14 a, Rashi quotes the Hilchoth Gedoloth listing the forty-eight prophets who arose in Israel, and the three patriarchs are listed among them. and also, why did she not believe in the words of G-d’s angels?
The answer appears to me to be that these angels who appeared as men came to Abraham, and he, in his wisdom, recognized them. They announced to him, “I will certainly return unto thee,¹⁰⁵Verse 10 here. and Sarah shall have a son.” And Sarah heard it, but she did not know that they were angels of the Supreme One, as was the case with the wife of Manoah.¹⁰⁶Judges 13:6. It is even possible that she did not see them at all. Therefore she laughed within herself in derision, just [as the word “laugh” is used in the verse]: He that sitteth in heaven laugheth, the Eternal hath them in derision.¹⁰⁷Psalms 2:4. For joyous laughter is [expressed in Hebrew as originating] in the mouth — Then was our mouth filled with laughter¹⁰⁸Ibid., 126:2. — but laughter originating in the heart is not spoken of as joyous. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, accused her before Abraham as to why the matter appeared to her to be impossible. It was fitting for her to believe, or she should have said, “Amen, G-d do so!” Now Abraham said to her, “Why did you laugh? Is anything too hard for the Eternal?” He did not explain to her that G-d had revealed her secret to him. And she, because of Abraham’s fear of G-d, denied it for she thought that Abraham had said so through recognition of the expressions on her face or because she had kept quiet and gave no expression of praise and thanksgiving or joy. And he said to her, Nay, but thou didst laugh. Then she understood that it was told to him in a prophecy, and so she remained quiet and did not answer a word.
It is proper that we also say that Abraham had not revealed to her what had originally been told to him: Indeed, Sarah, thy wife shall bear thee a son.¹⁰⁹Above, 17:19. Perhaps he waited until G-d would send her the announcement on the following day for he knew that the Eternal G-d will do nothing, but He revealed His counsel unto His servants the prophets.¹¹⁰Amos 3:7. It may be that due to his great diligence in fulfilling commandments, he was occupied with his circumcision and the circumcision of the many people in his house. Afterward, on account of his weakness, he sat at the doorway of the tent, and the angels came before he had told her anything.

כי צחקת. “but you did laugh.” On most occasions when we encounter the word כי after the word לא, it means “but.” Actually, the word כי can have four different meanings, depending on the context in which it appears (Rashi). The meanings are: if, maybe, but, for. Examples of כי meaning “but,” are Exodus 23,24 לא תשתחוה להם כי הרוס תהרסם, “do not bow down to them but destroy them utterly.” Or, Deut. 15,7-8: לא תקפוץ את ידך כי פתוח תפתח, “do not ball your hand into a fist, but open it wide, etc.”

כי יראה, to say “I have sinned;” but she repented the lie in her heart.

ותכחש שרה, Sarah denied, saying, etc. The reason the Torah reports Sarah as saying לאמור, as well as that she was afraid, is to show that Sarah was so righteous that she did not utter an outright lie saying: "I did not laugh." She merely said something, i.e. לאמור, from which one could deduce that she meant to deny that she had laughed. As to the reason why she was not truthful, the Torah adds that this was because she was afraid. The Torah affords us an insight into the psychology of a trusted servant who is reprimanded by his master after having inadvertently committed an offense. When said servant reflects on the enormity of his mistake by contrasting it with the exalted stature of his master, he denies his mistake. This very denial is equivalent to an admission but said servant lacks the moral courage to say so. It was Abraham who challenged Sarah by saying: "No, but you did laugh." He wanted her to make a confession of having laughed. Abraham was aware that what G'd wanted in such a situation was a specific confession. Our prophets have always urged us to confess, as per Proverbs 28,13: "he who confesses and abandons sin will find mercy."

ותכחש...כי יראה, seeing that she was afraid she denied having laughed;

ותכחש שרה, “Sarah denied (having laughed derisively)” Nachmanides writes that he cannot get over the fact that a prophetess of the caliber of the matriarch Sarah denied that she had laughed at the prophecy and had not believed the prophecy delivered in the name of the Lord. The only possible answer he could accept was that seeing that these messages were delivered by people in human garb, low ranking individuals at that, this made it difficult for her to credit what they said. Avraham, in his wisdom, discerned who they were when they gave him the message that Sarah would have a son a year hence when one of them would come back. Sarah overheard what these men said without having seen them face to face, or suspecting that they were angels, as they had not introduced themselves as such. [as when these same “men” appeared to Lot later on, on the evening of the same day as “angels. (compare 19,1) This was not like the wife of Manoach to whom the angel appeared in the first place and addressed her face to face, and whose appearance already frightened her almost out of her wits. (Judges 13,3).] It is also possible that Sarah, not having seen these men at all, silently ridiculed the prophecy which she might have considered a blessing by strangers whom her husband had entertained, a situation similar to the one in which G’d is described as ridiculing man’s efforts when these efforts are intended to thwart His will. (Psalms 2,4) Nonetheless, G’d reprimanded Sarah by revealing her innermost thoughts, described here as laughter, to her husband. G’d’s complaint against Sarah was that she considered the prophecy as incapable of fulfillment, thereby displaying a lack of faith in G’d and in His powers. Instead of ridiculing the good tidings, she should have reacted by saying: “Amen, may it be G’d’s will.” Avraham challenged her about not having believed the prophecy by saying: “is anything impossible for the Lord,” היפלא מה' דבר?, and she, being afraid of her husband, resorted to denying that she had laughed at the prophecy. Avraham had not realized that what G’d had revealed to him, He had not revealed to Sarah. She was not sure whether Avraham had said the line היפלא מה' דבר because he wanted to flatter his guests who had made the prediction, or because he was displeased with Sarah’s silence instead of her grateful acknowledgment of the good news. It is proper to add here that clearly Avraham did not inform Sarah about what G’d had said to him in 17,19-21 when He had informed him that his wife Srarah would indeed bear a son for him, so that what Avraham had now heard from the angel was not news except for the time frame when the birth would take place. Avraham had not informed Sarah as he thought that G’d Himself would inform her, just as He had informed him. It is also possible that having been so preoccupied with the circumcision of his male household members, his son Ishmael, his own circumcision and the days of recuperation, it had slipped his mind to tell Sarah about this relatively minor item in the revelation he had experienced when Sarah’s name had also been changed. The sudden arrival of the angels had taken him by surprise.

ותכחש שרה, “Sarah denied having laughed;” How is it conceivable that our matriarch Sarah should not have believed the words of the angel? Was she not a prophetess? (compare Megillah 14) Our sages in Shemot Rabbah 1,1 explained that even Avraham was secondary in his stature of a prophet to Sarah! They derive this from 21,12 where G’d told Avraham: “whatever Sarah tells you to do, listen to her instruction!” Surely there is no prophet who is not aware that the angels are messengers of G’d, and that everything they say emanates from G’d. Furthermore, assuming that she had indeed not believed that the prediction of the angel would come true, surely she had no reason to deny what her reaction to the prophecy had been! This especially after the angel had demonstrated that he could read her thoughts and quoted her reaction back to her? What was the point of denying something the angel knew to be true?!
The answer is that Avraham was well aware that these visitors were men; however, he had realized that they must be angels due to his superior wisdom. I have already hinted at this in my commentary on verse two of this chapter. Sarah, however, did not have that sort of insight. She was under the impression that these were ordinary human beings. This is why she had laughed (silently) at what she considered a preposterous prediction. As to her denying that she had laughed when challenged, she did so out of fear of Avraham; she thought that Avraham had challenged her laughter (not the angel) not because he heard it but because he knew her psyche. When the angel insisted that Sarah had indeed laughed, it suddenly became clear to her that Avraham had been given a prophetic insight which had revealed to him that she had laughed. At that point she kept quiet. This is the interpretation of Nachmanides of these verses.

כי יראה, sie scheute sich, damit den Gast beleidigt zu haben. לא כי צהקת, du brauchst es nicht zu verleugnen, mögest es vielmehr nicht vergessen, dass du gelacht.

ותכחש שרה לאמור, “Sarah denied the accusation, saying, etc.” this is the origin of the Rabbinic ruling that in most matters women are not acceptable as witnesses, as our matriarch Sarah had been guilty of lying to the Almighty. [How much more would women lie to judges? Their lies are not due to their using falsehood as a way of life, but they are more easily intimidated than men, so that sometimes they tell lies to escape a harsh fate. Sarah, when becoming aware that her innermost thoughts were known to G-d, was suddenly very fearful, possibly recalling other occasions when she had had unbecoming thoughts though she had not voiced them. Ed.]

!ויאמר לא, for the angel knew that as Bileam said (Numbers 23,19) “seeing than man is not G’d, he lies and deceives,” לא איש א-ל ויכזב. He did not believe her at all.

!ויאמר לא, not as you say, for you truly did laugh.

כי יראה, “for she had become afraid;” some commentators, Rashi in the Talmud Gittin folio 90 included, claim that every time the word כי occurs in the Torah it ought to be translated as ארי, meaning that just as the word כי can have four different meanings in the Hebrew language so it has the same four different meanings in the Aramaic language.[The author proceeds why this must have been the meaning of Rashi; seeing that readers who have neither command of the Hebrew or the Aramaic language will not appreciate these nuances, I have omitted translating them. Ed.]

וישקיפו [AND THE MEN] GLANCED — Wherever the Hiphil form of שקף occurs in the Scriptures it denotes taking notice for the purpose of bringing evil (Midrash Tanchuma, Ki Tisa 14), except (Deuteronomy 26:15) (a passage dealing with the tithe, including that given to the poor), “Look forth (השקיפה) from thy holy habitation . .. [and bless thy people] for so great is the power (virtue) of giving to the poor that it changes God’s anger into mercy.

ויקומו משם האנשים, two of them went on to Sodom, as we read afterwards ויבואו שני המלאכים סדומה, “the two angels arrived in Sodom” (Genesis 19,1) The senior one of the angels had been the one who had spoken to Avraham. This is implied by the verse וה' אמר המכסה אני מאברהם וגו', “Shall I conceal from Avraham what I am about to do?” in verse 17.

ויקומו משם, from the house of Avraham.

ואברהם הולך עמם לשלחם, “and Avraham walked with them to see them off.” Immediately afterwards the Torah writes: “and G’d had said shall I hide from Avraham, etc.” It appears that Avraham merited this visit from G’d because he had performed the מצוה of accompanying his visitors some distance on the next part of their journey. Our sages in Sotah 46 have derived from here that a student has to accompany the teacher when the teacher departs from him as far as the outer perimeter of the town. The Talmud adopts guidelines as to the respective distances which people of different degrees of prominence need to be accompanied. It is all based on a specific verse in Psalms 91,11 כי מלאכיו יצוה לך, “for He will command His angels to (guard, accompany) you.”

To escort them. Rashi explained this so we will not mistakenly think that לשלחם is similar to בשלח פרעה (Shemos 13:17), which means he sent them out of his domain. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise this verse would be out of sequence. It is already written ויקומו משם האנשים, how could it then say that Avraham sent them out? A further difficulty: They were not under Avraham’s control [so that he could send them out. On the contrary,] he implored them: “Please do not bypass...” Thus Rashi explains, “To escort...” (R. Meir Stern)

Von dort, von dem Gastmal bei Abraham, standen sie auf und schauten nach Sodom. Wir kennen bereits dieses Sodom, dessen üppige Fülle, wie wir glaubten, sich bereits in dem Namen seiner Städte ausgesprochen: סדום Baumgefilde, עמורה Kornreichtum, אדמה Mineralreichtum, צבוים Gewildreichtum. Kennen aber auch ihre moralische Gesunkenheit, wie sie in ihrer Fülle und durch ihre Fülle רעים והטאים, lieblos gegen Menschen und in Unsittlichkeit bis zur viehischsten Entartung versunken waren. Sodom war somit das vollendetste Gegenspiel zu der einfachen, reinen Umgebung, aus welcher diese Männer sich soeben erhoben.

וישקיפו על פני סדום, “they looked down at the city of Sodom facing them;” according to Rashi, every time when the expression: השקפה occurs in the Holy Scriptures it has a negative connotation with the exception of Deuteronomy 26,15: השקיפה ממעון קדשך, “look down benignly from Your holy residence in heaven.” Our author questions Rashi by quoting Song of Songs: 6,10, מי זאת הנשקפת, “who is she who shines like the dawn,” as not having a negative connotation; he also quotes: Lamentations 3,50: עד ישקיף ויראה, “until He looks down from heaven and beholds;” a third example where the word השקפה occurs in a benign mode is Psalms 85,12 וצדק משמים נשקף, “and righteousness looks down from heaven.”

לשלחם means TO ESCORT THEM, for he believed that they were travellers.

וישקיפו, looking down in the negative sense.

וישקיפו, the direction in which they faced was Sodom. The expression השקפה occurs both in a benevolent sense and in a malevolent sense, depending on the context. The expression also appears sometimes in the passive mode and other times in the causative, transitive mode, hiphil. The reason for the latter mode is that when one looks at someone or something, one is, normally, at the same time visible to the ones one looks at. Hence the passive mode is justified also. When the viewer remains invisible to the one at whom he looks, such as G’d or angels, there is no call for the passive mode, hence we have the causative mode here, seeing that the people of Sodom could not see the angels.

He thought that they were travelers. You might ask: Even without לשלחם, would we not know that Avraham thought they were travelers? He prepared a meal for them to eat, and water to wash [their feet]! The answer is: Once they foretold [Sarah’s childbirth], and healed him, we might think he realized they were angels. Thus Rashi says he [still] thought they were travelers. (Re’m)

Sie sehen hier soeben die Grundlage eines Volkes auf zwei Momente gelegt, a. auf Heiligung des Leibes in sitttenreiner Unterordnung aller Triebe und Neigungen unter Gott in Mila, und b. auf die Übung allweiter Menschenliebe wie das גמילות הסד, das sie selbst in Abrahams Hütte genossen. Das Gastmahl, bei welchem sie soeben die erste Grundlegung des künftigen Gottesvolkes zu verkünden hatten, bot einen solchen Gegensatz zu Sodom, bildete eine solche Höhe zu der tiefen sodomitischen Gesunkenheit, zu welcher sie sich nun zu wenden hatten, dass sie "mit ernst prüfendem Blick auf Sodom hinabschauten". Denn diese Bedeutung hat das: שקף .שקפו scheint verwandt mit שכב: iruhen, liegen, und שגב: iemporragen, höher sein, und beide Bedeutungen in sich vereinigend: "in der Höhe über einer Tiefe ruhen" auszudrücken. Daher משקף: die Oberschwelle. נשקף: aus einer Höhe hervorragen, in einer Höhe hervorragend geblickt werden, sichtbar werden. השקיף endlich: aus einer Höhe seinen Blick auf die Tiefe senken, auf dem Umstehenden ruhen lassen. Daher השקפה immer: ein ernster prüfender Blick. Auch bei וידוי מעשר. Wir sollen in unserem Besitze so allen heiligen Ansprüchen genügt haben, so בערתי הקדש מן הבית sprechen können, dass wir dann Gott auffordern können, השקיפה, senke deinen prüfenden Blick auf unser Tun und Lassen herab und, sowie du keinen Makel findest, וברך וגוי, spende deinen Segen usw. (5. B. M. 26, 15).

הולך עמם לשלחם, “kept walking with them to see them off.” According to Rashi, the reason that the Torah uses this formulation is that Avraham still thought that these creatures were his guests. He thought so in spite of the fact that they made a [for mortals presumptuous] statement that they guaranteed that they would return at that time in the following years, a statement that no mortal can make and be taken seriously. He assumed that though the person making this promise was mortal, he was a prophet and spoke as a messenger of G-d.

על פני סדום, the antithesis of Avraham. Compare Ezekiel 16,49 where the prophet testifies to the difference, saying: הנה זה היה עוון סדום אחותך, גאון שבעת לחם ושלות השקט היה לה ולבנותיה, ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקה. “Only this was the sin of your sister Sodom: ‘arrogance!’ She and her daughters had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquility; yet she did not support the poor and the needy.”

ואברהם הולך עמהם לשלחם, to keep them company for a while, to accompany them. [not to make sure they departed. Ed.] The Torah teaches good manners, i.e. that one does not dismiss a guest abruptly, but by walking with him indicates that one regrets the time had come to part from one another. Our sages in Sotah 46 suggest that the distance one should accompany a guest from one’s house is approximately 1,2 kilometers.

המכסה אני SHALL I HIDE? This is a question.

AND THE ETERNAL SAID. I.e., to the host of heaven standing by Him,¹¹¹See I Kings 22:19. or to the angel messengers.
It is possible that the word amar (He said) refers to thought, meaning that He thought He should not keep it hidden from Abraham on account of these reasons. Similarly: I ‘said,’ in the noontide of my days I shall go;¹¹²Isaiah 38:10. The word “said” here means “thought.” And he ‘said’ to slay David.¹¹³II Samuel 21:16. Here too the word “said” means “thought.” Likewise all expressions of speaking within the heart refer to thought.¹¹⁴E.g., And Esau said in his heart, further, 27:41. See Ramban there.

המכסה אני מאברהם, the fact that I am about to overturn Sodom and its satellite towns. G’d reasoned seeing that Avraham was sure to tell his descendants of G’d’s promise to him to give the whole land of Canaan to his descendants, He would diminish these descendants’ inheritance by utterly destroying these towns and the valley which were part of area promised to the Jewish people as an inheritance. He therefore felt duty-bound to obtain Avraham’s consent of what He was about to do. We had learned in Genesis 10,19 that the boundaries of the Canaanite extended to regions that included the Jordan valley. G’d considered it inappropriate to deny Avraham fulfillment of part of His promise by making these parts of the land of Canaan totally useless to its inhabitants.

והשם אמר המכסה אני מאברהם את אשר אני עשה G'd had said: "Should I conceal from Abraham what I am about to do?" G'd chose the word המכסה deliberately. Abraham noted that the third angel had a mission which had so far not been revealed to him, in contrast with the missions of the other two angels which had become manifest to him already. One had come to heal him and the other to tell Sarah about her impending motherhood. Moreover, when the angels departed from him, Abraham noticed that two of them walked in the direction of Sodom. Abraham accompanied those two angels to see them off. He realised that these angels still had a mission to perform on earth, something which had been concealed from him. Abraham would become aware of those angels' mission after the event. G'd was concerned lest he would feel badly in retrospect if He would not now take him into His confidence. Our sages (Tanchuma item 5 on our portion) state that the reason G'd decided to take Abraham into His confidence was because Abraham entertained doubts about the justice of G'd having brought on the deluge. He found it impossible to believe that there had not been at least ten or twenty righteous people at that time. In his opinion G'd should have suspended judgment on their account. The words אשר אני עושה then mean: "as I am used to do," i.e. I do not destroy a nation unless there are no righteous people left.

וה' אמר, the Lord, Who had appeared to Him initially to inform him of the sins of the Sodomites (13,13) informed Avraham now, after the departure of the angels, about His plans in detail. The Torah adds, in its narrative, what had prompted G’d to take this unusual step of informing Avraham of His plans, seeing that his own safety was not involved. G’d felt duty-bound to apprise Avraham of His intentions.

ואברהם הולך..וה' אמר. He was constantly busy with good deeds and the fulfillment of G’d’s commandments, such as to see his guests off and accompany them beyond the entrance of his house. This is the meaning behind the words למען אשר יצוה את בניו וג'; if Avraham saw that G’d had revealed His plans for Sodom to him, immediately after he accompanied the angels, he would understand that the performance of such kind deeds resulted in one’s gaining an ever more intimate relationship with G’d. He would be encouraged to instruct his children, etc., to act in this manner [pointing out positive results which would accrue to them as a result. Ed.] This is what is meant in Avot 4,2 שכר מצוה מצוה, “the reward of performing a mitzvah is .that one will be encouraged to perform another mitzvah.

וה' אמר, “and the Lord had said, etc.” According to Nachmanides G’d had said what follows to His celestial army. It is also possible that the word אמר when applied to G’d and no specific person is being addressed, means that G’d “thought.” G’d’s “thinking” is at least equivalent to man’s “saying” with his mouth.

המכסה אני מאברהם, “shall I hide from Avraham?” G’d spent a great deal of verbiage praising Avraham whereas Avraham did not allow these praises to go to his head; on the contrary, he put himself down so much that he referred to himself as “dust and ashes” in verse twenty-four. From here we should learn that if a person receives praise he should not allow this to inflate his ego but on the contrary, he should act even more humbly than previously. [I find this whole comment less than convincing, as whereas the Torah tells us that G’d thought highly of Avraham, there is absolutely no evidence that G’d spoke in this fashion to Avraham himself, in contrast to the way G’d had spoken to Noach at the time. The entire passage speaks of Avraham in the third person. Ed.]

I renamed him Avraham, a father of a multitude of nations... With only the first explanation, we could say: Whatever is there is his. And whatever is not there [anymore] was never his. Thus Rashi explains: “I renamed him...” And with only this [second] explanation, we could say: whatever is in his land is his, but these four cities are not his. That is why both explanations are needed. (Maharshal)

(17-19) וד׳ אמר, wahrscheinlich zu den מאלכים, als er sie sandte. Der Ratschluss, den ich euch soeben enthüllte, wie sollte ich den Abraham vorenthalten! Abraham ist doch ebenso wie ihr ein Gottgesendeter auf Erden, und die Kenntnis dieses Ratschlusses gehört wesentlich zur Ausführung seiner Sendung. ׳היו יהי in siegreichem Durchkampfe alles Widerstrebenden soll er ja auch zu einem großen und mächtigen Volke werden, und dieses Volk soll im Gegensatze zu dem Volke von Sodom in seiner Macht und Größe nicht zum Fluche, sondern zum Segen der Völker erblühen; כי ידעתיו, denn nicht um seinetwillen, etwa nur ihn zu einem reichen mächtigen Emir zu machen, sondern eben als Begründer und Erzieher eines solchen Volkes habe ich ihn erwählt, und nicht für sich, sondern für dieses Volk, zur nachhaltigen Unterstützung seiner Volkserziehungsaufgabe, ist die Kenntnis dieses Ratschlusses und der dadurch gewährte Einblick in meine Wege von so bedeutsamer Wichtigkeit. Ihm soll ja das einzig große pädagogische Wunder gelingen, in die Brust des einzigen, spätgeborenen Sohnes so das Prinzip des künftigen Volkes in Geist und Sitte einzupflanzen, dass, wenn schon längst er, der Ahn, heimgegangen, seine Kinder und sein Haus nach ihm, das ganze künftige Volk auf diesem Prinzipe stehe, in ihm lebe, es zur Verwirklichung bringe und er in jedem seiner Kinder und in der Gesamtheit seines Hauses unsterblich also sich wiederhole und fortlebe, dass jeder Tauestropfen Segen, der noch dem spätesten Enkel werde, auf sein, des Ahnes Haupt herniederriesele. — Zur Stütze dieser wunderbar einzigen pädagogischen Aufgabe wird ihm zum Vermächtnis an seine Kinder dieser Einblick in Gottes Wege, ganz so, wie einst sein größter Sohn, Moses, sich zur Führung seines Volkes einen solchen Einblick von Gott erbat.

המכסה אני...ואברהם היו יהיה לגוי גדול, “how can I conceal from Avraham...seeing that he will develop into a great and important nation?” G–d would not have revealed the future to Avraham except for the fact that he had a future way beyond his physical death. What difference would it then have made if he knew about the fate of Sodom and what had caused it? Seeing that Avraham would become a witness to My exacting retribution from sinners, (even when I do not bring on another deluge) he will be not only be telling his offspring about it, but use his first hand knowledge as a reason to impress them with the fact that G–d not only knows what goes on here on earth, but reacts to it appropriately at a time of His own choosing. Only by paying heed to that knowledge will they live to inherit the land of the Canaanites who will then share the fate of Sodom more or less, [their land not being destroyed. Ed.]

אשר אני עושה WHAT I AM DOING in Sodom. It is not proper for Me to do this thing without his knowledge. I gave him this land and these five cities therefore are his — as it is said, (10:19) “And the territory of the Canaanites was from Sidon … as thou goest towards Sodom and Gommorah etc.” I called him Abraham, the father of a multitude of nations; should I destroy the children without informing the father who loves me? (Genesis Rabbah 49:2)

המכסה אני, it is appropriate that I do not conceal from Avraham my attribute of goodness; I will inform him that if among all these wicked people in Sodom I find even a quorum of 10 righteous people, this will represent hope that eventually all or most of these people will become penitents. In that event I would bend the scales of justice in favour of the town, giving them an extension of time before destroying them. G’d teaches that He is more interested in the return of sinners to the fold than in administering retribution to them.

G'd had another reason to reveal to Abraham what He had in mind for Sodom, seeing it had been Abraham who had saved the people of those cities at the risk of his own life when he rescued Lot. Inasmuch as Abraham thought that these people were safe, G'd thought He owed it to Abraham to inform him about His plans for them. He did not have to spell out what it was that He would conceal from Abraham as this is self-evident.

ידע .כי ידעתיו sich einen Gegenstand in seinen spezifischen Merkmalen zum Bewusstsein bringen: erkennen. Im Verhältnis des Mannes zum Weibe bezeichnet es den innigsten Umgang des Gattenlebens. Von Gott zum Menschen bezeichnet es: die be- sondere Berücksichtigung in seiner Waltung. Nicht Gott zugewandte Menschen stehen nur unter der allgemeinen Obhut Gottes. Diejenigen, die sich ganz Gott unterordnen, die nichts anderes als Gottes Boten auf Erden sind und sein wollen, denen wendet Gott seine besondere Führung und Leitung zu. Wie wir Gott suchen, so sucht Er uns. Wer mit Gott, wie es später heißt, בקרי, im Zufall wandelt, wer das Wandeln in Gottes Wegen dem Zufall überlässt, wer nicht die Übereinstimmung mit dem göttlichen Willen in erster Linie sucht, sondern andere Zwecke anstrebt und die Übereinstimmung mit Gott dem Zufall überlässt, mit dem wandelt Gott auch בקרי, überlässt ihn den Wechselfällen des Zufalls. Den höchsten Gegensatz zu diesen bilden jene, die sich ihm als seine Werkzeuge auf Erden darbieten, die die Erfüllung des göttlichen Willens als einzigen Zweck ihres Daseins und Wirkens anstreben und alles andere Gott anheim stellen, und die Er darum in besondere Erziehung und Leitung nimmt. Diese besondere Erziehung und Leitung heißt‎ ידע ‎— .

Unless his descendants were to practice justice and righteousness, they would not inherit that land.

דרך ד׳ kommt in doppelter Beziehung vor. Der Weg, den Gott geht und derjenige, den Er von uns gegangen wissen will. Beide fallen in einander. Der Weg des Guten, den er uns wandeln sehen will, bildet einen kleinen, uns übertragenen Teil Seines großen Weges. Es sind Zwecke, die er durch uns, in seinem Auftrage versorgt wissen will. Darum geht der Weg des Braven dem Wege der göttlichen Weltführung harmonisch parallel, und wird von dieser mit gewahrt und getragen. Darum stößt der Weg des Schlechten wider den Weg der göttlichen Weltführung, und wird von dieser zertrümmert und begraben. Darum heißt es: כי ישרים דרכי ד׳ וצדיקים ילכו בם ופשעים יכשלו בם (Hosea 14. 10).

Die Aufgabe, für welche Abraham seine Nachkommen erziehen soll, heißt: לשמר דרך ד׳, das Innehalten des gottgewiesenen Wandels und: לעשות צדקה ומשפט, die Ausübung der Pflichttat und des Rechts. Jenes ist das: התהלך לפני ד׳ והיות תמים, der heilige, sittenreine Wandel vor Gott, wie ihn die Mila zu Grunde gelegt; dieses: der menschliche Wandel mit Menschen, wie er eben in Abrahams Beispiel zu Tage trat. Beides ist der vollendete Gegensatz zu Sodom, jenes zu der Unsittlichkeit der חטאים, dieses zu der Unmenschlichkeit der רעים.

Abrahams צואה heißt nun nicht: ושמרו דרך ד׳ ועשו צדקה ומשפט, sondern ושמרו דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט. Wie Gott mit Mila den sittlichen Grundstein seines Volkes gelegt, wie später das Wort seines Gesetzes fast immer erst חק und dann erst משפט, erst חקים und dann משפטים, erst die unser ganzes sinnlich leibliches Leben innerhalb der Reinheit und Heiligkeit pflanzenden und umschränkenden, und dann jene Gesetze nennt, die unser menschliches Leben zum Menschen regeln: also heißt es auch hier: ושמרו דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט, der sittenreine Wandel vor Gott ist die Vorbedingung und Wurzel zu einem wahrhaft gerechten pflichtgetreuen Leben mit Menschen. Nur ein im Schoße der חקים gezeugtes, geborenes und erzogenes und in ihnen fortwandelndes Geschlecht wird ertüchtigt, ein Leben der צדקה ומשפט in Gottes Sinne zu leben. Die מצות שבין אדם למקום sind Vorbedingung und Wurzel zu den 1/מצות שבין אדם לחברו• Ein Geschlecht, das sittlich zu Grunde geht, hat auch keine soziale Zukunft.

צדקה ומשפט, wir haben bereits erkannt, dass, während משפט eine solche Leistung bezeichnet, die ein Mensch von dem andern aus sich zu fordern ein Recht hat, — צרקה von Menschen zu Menschen gebraucht — eine solche Leistung bezeichnet, auf die ein Mensch an den andern aus sich kein Recht besitzt, auf die ihm aber Gott an den andern den Anspruch erteilt, die er aus sich nicht zu fordern, wohl aber im Namen Gottes von dem andern zu erwarten berechtigt ist. משפט ist das einfache Recht, צדקה die Wohltat, aber als Pflicht begriffen. Während aber in der Regel משפט vor צדקה genannt wird, משפט וצדקה, tritt gerade hier höchst charakteristisch צדקה in den Vordergrund, לעשות צדקה ומשפט. Erst משפט, dann צדקה, so lautet die Regel. Nie kann צדקה sühnend eintreten für das, was gegen משפט verbrochen wird. Mit der einen Hand rauben und unredlich sein und mit der andern Hand von dem Geraubten und unredlich Erworbenen Almosen geben, ist der jüdischen Wahrheit ein Greuel. Dem vom Raube dargebrachten Opfer schleudert Gott sein: אני ד׳ אוהב משפט שונא גזל בעולה (Jes. 61, 8) entgegen: "Recht liebe ich, hasse Raub im Opfer!" Nur mit reinen Händen darf man Gott sich nahen. Darum: erst משפט, dann צדקה.

Hier aber steht zuerst צדקה; denn hier gilts dem jüdischen Protest gegen Sodoms Lebens- und Staatsmaxime. Nicht צדקה ,משפט heißt das welterlösende Wort, das Abrahams Haus in die Welt und durch die Welt tragen soll. Wie weit ab auch das von Menschen "gefundene" Recht von dem Gottesrechte absteht, und selbst von משפטים der jüdische Sänger singt: כל ידעום, dass die nichtjüdische Welt davon kaum eine Ahnung habe: משפט, eine Art von משפט ist auch in Sodom zu Hause, ja, Sodom zeigt uns, wie eine genusssüchtige, in sinnliche Wollust versunkene Welt, welcher zuletzt der Mensch auch nur soviel gilt, als er Genuss gewährt, zuletzt gerade die Rechtsidee zu einem zweischneidigen Sophism zuspitzt, das die nackteste Selbstsucht schamlos als Prinzip heiligt, und mit der Maxime: שלי שלי שלך שלך, "mein bleibt das Meine, bleibe dein das Deine", Hülfsbedürstigkeit zum Verbrechen und Hülfeleistung zur Torheit für den Helfenden und zum Verbrechen gegen die öffentliche Wohlfahrt stempelt. Unter dem Regime eines sodomitischen Rechts, wo nur Leistung, nicht Bedürfnis einen Anspruch begründet, ist Armut und Elend geächtet, findet höchstens nur der Leistung verheißende Begüterte wie Lot eine Stätte, aber: "Betteln ist verboten", zehrgeldloser Unglücklichen wartet Sträflingen gleich "Kerker und Schub", und das Zedaka-lose Recht verkehrt sich in Unmenschlichkeit und Härte. Dem gegenüber kehrt das "Testament" Abrahams an seine Kinder צדקה vor משפט heraus, ja der Rechtskodex der Kinder Abrahams kennt selbst in gewissen Fällen צדקה als משפט und spricht: .זה נהנה ווה לא חסר כופין על מדת סדום Und es ist die jüdische Zedaka, die hier Abrahams Testament den Kindern empfehlen soll, nicht jenes "Almosen" das den Geber hochmütig macht und den Empfänger erniedrigt, auch nicht jene Fürsorge für die Armut, die zum Schutze der Reichen die Armen nicht zur Verzweiflung kommen lassen will, sondern jene "Pflichttat" an die jeder Bedürftige im Namen Gottes, mit von Gott berechtigtem Anspruch hinantritt, die den Armen vor dem Reichen aufrecht stehen und den Reichen sich nur als Verwalter eines den Armen gehörenden Schatzes begreifen lässt.

Und nicht צדקה und משפט absolut, sondern beide in jüdischem Sinne als die am Baume des "Wandels vor Gott" gezeitigte Frucht — ושמרו דרך ד׳ לעשות צרקה ומשפט — erlösen die Welt von Verbrechen und Unglück. Der ganze Mensch muss vor Gott wandeln, sein ganzes Leben muss von der Idee der Pflicht vor Gott getragen sein, dann wird sein Verhalten von Mensch zu Mensch auch nur das Diktat der Pflicht verwirklichen.

Allein nicht von außen, nicht durch Verwaltungsmaßregeln und Jurisdiktion, auch nicht durch Welterschütterung, die das rote Gespenst schreckend an die Paläste und Häuser der Reichen sendet, sondern nur von Innen heraus, durch eine innere Revolution der Geister und Gemüter, durch Erzeugung und Erziehung eines Menschengeschlechts zur Pflicht können solche Pflichtmenschen gewonnen werden, die noch dem spätesten Enkel das von Gott diktierte Testament des Ahns als leitendes Vermächtnis mit hinausgeben: ושמרו דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט. Nicht zum "Glauben an Gott", zur "Erfüllung seiner Gebote" muss das Geschlecht geboren und erzogen werden, sonst kann wohl die Klugheit zu einer Rechtsachtung und die Furcht zu einer Mildtat führen, allein mitten in aller, Gott- gläubigkeit" können die Menschen zu רעים וחטאים לדי entarten, und es kann unter den Formen des Rechts mit צדקה ומשפט so gewirtschaftet werden, dass man sagen könnte: "wehe dem, der in die Hände eines Gabbai Zedaka oder eines יושב על המשפט verfällt —".

Darum begreifen wir, wie in dem Momente, wo mit Mila und Menschenliebe der Grundstein des jüdischen Volkes gelegt wird, das zum דרך ד׳ לעשות צרקה ומשפט erzogen werden soll, Abraham, dem Werkzeuge und Vermittler einer solchen Volkserziehung, der Blick auf ein Gottesgericht gelenkt wird, das in demselben Momente über einen Kreis macht- und glückstolzer Städte sich zu vollziehen im Begriffe war, in welchen der דרך ד׳ bis zur sittlichsten Entartung vergessen und צדקה ומשפט in ihr schreiendstes Gegenteil verwandelt war.

Durch diesen dem Ahn gewordenen Einblick in die Gänge der Gotteswaltung wurden die öden Gestade der einst üppig blühenden Sodom- und Amoragefilde zu Erinnerungsdenkmälern, die jedem für den דרך ד׳ לעשות צדקה ומשפט zu erziehenden Abrahamsenkel die Folgen des Verlassens dieses Weges und des Vergessens dieser Pflicht, und Gott als den zuletzt unmittelbar ahndenden Vertreter seines Weges und seines Pflichtgebotes mehr als alles andere vor die Augen zu führen geeignet sind.

ואברהם היו יהיה SEEING THAT ABRAHAM SHALL SURELY BECOME — The Midrash applies to this the text Proverbs 10:7, “The mention of the righteous shall be for a blessing”: therefore, since He mentions him He blessed him (Genesis Rabbah 49:1). But its real meaning is: “Shall I conceal it from him, seeing that he is so beloved by Me as to become a great nation, and seeing that all nations of the earth shall bless themselves through him?”

AND ABRAHAM SHALL SURELY BECOME. A Midrash Agadah comments: The memory of the righteous shall be for a blessing.¹¹⁵Proverbs 10:7. Since He mentioned Abraham, He blessed him. The simple meaning of the verse though is, “Shall I conceal it from him since he is so beloved by Me to become a mighty nation?” Thus the language of Rashi.
The correct interpretation is that G-d, blessed be He, spoke of the honor of Abraham, saying: “Behold, he is destined to become a great and mighty nation, and his memory will be a blessing among his seed and all nations of the earth. Therefore, I shall not conceal it from him for the future generations will say, “How could He hide it from him?’ or, ‘How could the righteous one¹¹⁶Abraham. be so callous about his close neighbors and have no mercy on them, not praying at all in their behalf, and that which was known to him, [i.e., that the cities will be destroyed], was good and pleasing!’ For I know that he recognizes and is cognizant that I the Eternal loveth righteousness and justice,¹¹⁷Psalms 33:5. that is to say, that I do justice only with righteousness, and therefore he will command his children and his household after him¹¹⁸Verse 19 here. to follow in his path. Now if it is possible in keeping with righteousness and justice to free the cities from destruction, he will pray before Me to let them go, and it will be well and good. And if they are completely guilty, he too will want their judgment. Therefore, it is proper that he enter in the council of G-d.”¹¹⁹Jeremiah 23:18.

ואברהם היה יהיה, seeing that he will become a standard bearer, flagpole for nations, his rebukes and instructions will carry a great deal of weight.

ואברהם היו יהיה לגוי גדול. "For Abraham is going to be a great nation." Therefore I have to inform him that contrary to what he had thought, righteous people can save both themselves and the towns in which they live. This is the meaning of the last words in our verse, ונברכו בו כל גויי הארץ. The word בו refers back to the words "a great nation."

ואברהם, seeing that he will become the founding father of most of mankind, how can I conceal from him My plans? Most of the nations of the earth will receive their blessings due to Avraham’s merits. How could I not share such information with him? כי ידעתיו, that he is in awe of Me and loves Me. I intend for his children to develop in the same way. This is why I will inform him “ למען אשר יצוה את בניו שישמרו דרך ה' לעשות צדקה ומשפט, so that Avraham will say to his children that if they practice and emulate G’d’s ways of performing charitable deeds and at the same time endeavour for justice to prevail, their lives will be successful seeing G’d will help them. They will then experience the fulfillment of all the promises (conditional) which I, G’d, have made to him concerning his offspring. If they fail to emulate that lifestyle these promises are liable not to be fulfilled.” If there are among his children some who argue that G’d does not concern Himself with the deeds of individuals, as opposed to the conduct of nations, remind them of what happened to the Sodomites so that they realise that G’d does indeed watch closely over the actions of even small communities. In the event such non-believers would argue that what happened to the Sodomites was an accident of nature, an earthquake, such as we all experience in different parts of the earth, Avraham could reply that G’d had advised him of that event in advance so that it could not be explained away as a natural event. G’d added;

ואברהם היו יהיה, “seeing that Avraham will surely become, etc., etc.” According to Rashi as soon as G’d made mention of Avraham, He immediately also blessed him. Nachmanides claims that the true meaning of this phrase is that G’d spoke deferentially about Avraham, saying that in view of the fact that this man would become the founder of such an important nation and kingdoms, and his memory as a dispenser of blessing would never fade from mankind’s consciousness, it was no more than courtesy to inform him of His plans and to record his intercession on behalf of the people of Sodom, so that future generations could not accuse him [as they might have accused Noach who had also been informed of the impending destruction of mankind, without, however raising his voice in prayer. Ed.] of mutely, and cruelly making peace with G’d’s plan without at least inquiring into the circumstances more deeply. Having been on record as praying on behalf of people who had already been condemned, his way of life of combining charity with righteousness, justice, would prove to be an acceptable role model for his descendants, and in fact, for much of mankind as a whole. It was also important to convey to future generations that even an Avraham, with his almost boundless love of mankind, agreed with G’d that there are people who are beyond the pale of redemption.

ואברהם היה יהיה....כי ידעתיו, “seeing that Avraham is destined to become....for I have become intimate with him, etc.;” the word: ידע describes special fondness someone has. A well known example is Ruth 3,2 where Naomi tells her daughterinlaw Ruth that Boaz was a close relative of hers, מודע לאיש, and that it was fortuitous that she had collected leftovers in hjs field. G-d explains that seeing that Avraham will become the founding father of a great nation, and many branch families, it was no more than fair that He should take him into His confidence. This included first and foremost how G-d was planning to deal with the city of Sodom and its inhabitants.

One may ask: "of what use is this promise to the nation that will follow Abraham?" G'd answers: "For I am aware that he will instruct his descendants, etc." G'd knew that Abraham would endeavour to teach his children to be good and to do good and to inform them about the ways of the Lord.

למען הביא ה׳ על אברהם, in order that G'd would be able to fulfil for Abraham, etc. G'd announced here that the essential part of His fondness was not for Abraham's descendants but His fondness of Abraham personally. G'd's planning focused on how to ensure that He could fulfil all the promises He had made to Abraham concerning his descendants. Unless Abraham's descendants observed the paths of G'd this could not be guaranteed.

כי ידעתיו FOR I KNOW HIM — this is an expression denoting "affection", as (Ruth 2:1) "kinsman (מודע) of her husband," and (Ruth 3:2) “And is not Boaz our kinsman (מודעתנו), and (Exodus 30:17) “I have distinguished (ידעתיך) thee by name”. Still the primary meaning of these terms connected with the root ידע is really that of knowing, for whoever holds a person in affection attaches him to himself, so that he knows him well and is familiar with him. And why do I hold him dear?

FOR I HAVE KNOWN HIM (‘YEDATIV’), TO THE END (‘LEMA’AN’) THAT HE MAY COMMAND HIS CHILDREN. Rashi comments: “For I have known him, as the Targum takes it, is an expression denoting affection, just as A kinsman (‘moda’) of her husband’s;¹²⁰Ruth 2:1. And I know thee.¹²¹Exodus 33:17. Still the main connotation of all these expressions is that of knowing, for he who holds a person in affection and draws him to himself knows him well and is familiar with him. But if you explain it as the Targum does — i.e., “I know that he will command his children” — then the word lema’an (to the end) does not fit into the sense.”¹²²Our Rashi has a different text. See notes in my Hebrew commentary, p. 110. See also Note 125 further.
It is possible that the word yedativ means “I have raised him and elevated him so that he shall command his children after him to do that which is right before Me, and therefore I will make him a great and mighty nation so that he should serve Me. In a similar sense are the verses: I know thee (‘yedaticha’) by name;¹²³Exodus 33:12. The sense would thus be: “I have made thee great in name.” What is man, that Thou knowest htm?¹²⁴Psalms 144:3. The sense here then would be: “What is man before Thee that Thou hast given him greatness?” Or the verse may be stating, I know that he will command,¹²⁵Ramban thus differs with Rashi, who said that if you take the sense of the verse to be, “I know of him that he will command,” then the word lema’an does not fit the context. Ramban proceeds to show from Exodus 23:12 that the words lema’an yanuach mean she’yanuach (that he may rest); here likewise, lema’an asher yetzaveh means she’yetzaveh (that he will command). Thus, the word lema’an is seen to fit into the context. and in a similar sense is the verse, So that thine ox and thine ass may have rest (lema’an yanuach),¹²⁶Exodus 23:12. See Note above. meaning that he may have rest.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the word yedativ literally means “knowing.” He is thus alluding that G-d’s knowledge, which is synonymous with His Providence in the lower world, is to guard the species, and even the children of men are subject despite it to the circumstantial evil occurrences until the time of their visitation comes. But as regards His pious, He directs His Providence to know each one individually so that His watch constantly attaches to him, His knowledge and remembrance of him never departs, as it says: He withdraweth not His eyes from the righteous.¹²⁷Job 36:7. There are many verses on this theme, as it is written, Behold, the eye of the Eternal is toward them that fear Him,¹²⁸Psalms 33:18. See Moreh Nebuchim III, 51, where Rambam’s theory on Divine Providence is seen to be similar to that which Ramban expresses here. and other verses besides.

כי ידעתיו, as a symbol of righteousness.

את ביתו ואת בניו, both the members of his household who were not biologically related to his as well as his family, in order to teach us that a man is obligated to monitor the conduct of all members of his household and is responsible for their misconduct if he did not use his authority to put a stop to it. David spells out this responsibility of the head of the household in Psalms 101,6-7 when he said: עיני בנאמני ארץ לשבת עמדי הולך בדרך תמים הוא ישרתני. לא ישב בקרב ביתי עושה רמיה, “my eyes are on the trusty men of the land, to have them at my side. He who follows the way of the blameless shall be in my service.” He who deals deceitfully shall not live in my house;” Concerning the wicked Solomon says in Proverbs 29,12: “a ruler who listens to lies, all his servants become wicked.”

כי ידעתיו, “for I know him intimately.” Rashi follows Onkelos in understanding the word ידעתיו as: “I love him.” G’d is saying that the reason He loves Avraham is because he will command his family and people under his control to observe the ways of the Lord. Nachmanides understands the word ידעתיו as a description of Avraham as an individual whom G’d has endowed with greatness in order that he will pass on his lifestyle to his descendants, his lifestyle being that he emulates the ways of the Lord. It is because of this that G’d will make a great nation out of him. That nation in turn will serve the Lord just as their founder had done. Another meaning of the word ידעתיו in connection with the preface למען could be parallel to Deut. 5,14 למען ינוח עבדך ואמתך, “in order that your manservant and woman servant shall rest, (abstain from forbidden activities on the Sabbath)” In that instance the word למען substitutes for the prefix ש, i.e. שינוח. Personally, I believe that the word has to be understood as ידיעה, true knowledge of someone, like one possesses knowledge of facts. G’d hints that He supervises Avraham (and others) minutely even though we live in the world known as the עולם השפל, “the lower regions of the universe.” Although many people are assigned a role in life and are therefore exposed to what appear as accidents of nature until the day they die and hopefully qualify for residence in the higher regions of the universe, deserving individuals will always attract G’d’s attention and especial protection while on earth. Avraham will be a prime example of such people, and he can inspire them due to what people know about him.

למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו, the dictates by the patriarchs to their respective children, all only by word of mouth, without there being a written document claiming to be G’d’s instructions such as the Torah nowadays, were observed by these children of the patriarchs as if the Torah had already been given, and as if they each had said: “I will do and I will hear.” This is further proof that the oral Torah is not subordinate to the written Torah. All of what was written in the written Torah was included in what the people heard at Mount Sinai, as well as all that G’d taught Moses while he was on that mountain. Just as there is no difference between the specific commandment the people had heard, i.e. the Ten Commandments, and the remainder of the written Torah, so there is no difference [in the authenticity and binding nature Ed.] of the commandments not spelled out in the written Torah, but handed down by the sages orally from generation to generation. (Rabbeinu Bachya)

למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו, “in order that he will command his sons and the members of his household, etc.” He should point out to them that unless they followed their father’s or master’s tradition, they might wind up just as the people of Sodom would in short order. [Note that here as well as at the time of the deluge, G-d was not punishing these people for their paganism but for not dealing fairly with one another. Ed.]

למען אשר יצוה BECAUSE HE WILL GIVE HIS CHILDREN CHARGE CONCERNING ME TO KEEP MY WAYS. If, however, you explain it as the Targum, “I know “of” him that he will command his sons etc.”, then the word למען does not fit into the sense.

למען אשר יצוה את בניו, G’d did all of the foregoing in order that Avraham would instruct his sons to emulate the ways of G’d having personal experience of G’d’s great love for mankind, seeing how His love extended even to the wicked.

על אברהם, meaning on his descendants after him.

יצוה HE WILL COMMAND — This form of the verb (the imperfect) expresses frequentative action, as (Job 1.5) "This Job used to do" (יַעֲשֶׂה)

ושמרו...לעשות צדקה ומשפט למען הביא ה' על אברהם את אשר דבר אליו. The ultimate purpose of G’d in revealing to Avraham His manner of meting out justice was to ensure that He would have an opportunity to fulfill all the promises He had made to Avraham. [promises which were largely conditional on Avraham’s offspring being true to his teachings. Ed.] (compare 17,7)

למען הביא IN ORDER THAT [THE LORD] MAY BRING — Thus will he ever command his children saying “Keep the way of the Lord in order that the Lord may bring upon Abraham etc.” Since it does not say here ‘‘upon the house of Abraham”, but upon Abraham himself, we may infer that he who trains up a righteous son is as though he never dies (Genesis Rabbah 49:4).

'ויאמר ה AND THE LORD SAID to Abraham, thus doing what he had said — that He would not conceal the matter from him.

AND THE ETERNAL SAID, THE CRY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH. Rashi comments: “And the Eternal said to Abraham, thus doing what He had said, i.e., that He would not conceal the matter from him,”
And Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the verse, And the men turned from there,¹²⁹Verse 22 here. was inserted in the middle of the account¹³⁰According to Ibn Ezra, Verse 22, which states, And the men turned from there and went toward Sodom, and Abraham stood yet before the Eternal, actually took place before our present verse for it was after the angels had walked toward Sodom that G-d said to Abraham, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah… However, Verse 22 was entered later in the account in order to let us know the time of G-d’s word to Abraham — the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, etc. — was when they came to Sodom. in order to let us know that at the time the angels arrived in Sodom, then G-d said to Abraham: The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great.
The opinion of all commentators is likewise that G-d was speaking with Abraham. Now according to this, the correct interpretation of the verse, And the men turned from there,¹²⁹Verse 22 here. is that when G-d said to Abraham after the men journeyed from him, The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, Abraham stood in prayer and supplication before Him to forgive them and to give him permission to speak. And he prolonged his prayer until the men came to Sodom, and then Abraham drew near and said, Wilt Thou also sweep away the righteous with the wicked?¹³¹Verse 23 here. Or the explanation may be that Scripture itself returns to clarify the expression, Abraham stood yet before the Eternal,¹³²Verse 22 here. According to this interpretation, Abraham did not pray before he began saying, Wilt Thou also sweep away. as meaning that Abraham drew near and said, Wilt Thou also sweep away the righteous with the wicked? Thus he prolonged his supplication before Him, saying each time, “Let not the anger of the Eternal blaze,”¹³³See Exodus 32:22. and directing the intent of his mind each time towards prophecy until he heard an answer to his words direct from the Holy One, blessed be He. They continued in this manner the entire day [until, as the verse says], the Eternal finished speaking with Abraham,¹³⁴Verse 33 here. and the two angels came to Sodom.

'ויאמר ה, the angel said to Avraham that G’d had said that He dispatched these messengers on account of the outcry in heaven over the sins of Sodom, a reference to what G’d had mentioned in 13,13.

ויאמר ה, at this point the prophetic vision נבואה, commenced, a type of Divine revelation superior to that described as מראה, “vision.”

ויאמר ה׳ זעקת פדום ועמורה, כי רבה G'd said: "the outcry about Sodom and Gomorrha is indeed great, etc.;" the reason for the word כי, as well as the additional word חטאתם, plus the description כבדה מאד, require analysis. We must remember that in that era all the nations angered G'd by their conduct all the time. The wickedness of the Sodomites, however, was in a class by itself. This is indicated by the words כי רבה, "for it is great;" this explains why G'd seemed to mind the conduct of those cities more than that of any others. The additional word וחטאתם alludes to the fact that their wickedness included not only the metaphysical, i.e. idolatry, but also moral-ethical wickedness in their relations with fellow human beings. Sanhedrin 109 lists examples of the latter, describing how they tortured a young girl to death for having given bread to a stranger, something illegal in that town. The Torah itself alludes to their attempts to have homosexual relations with the angels who visited Lot in the guise of human beings.

'ויאמר ה' זעקת סדם ועמורה וגו, G’d means to say that the reason he now appeared to Avraham was to inform him that He had heard the outcry concerning Sodom, etc. The same applied to the five kings who were involved in the war with Kedorleomer in chapter 14 were all killed together with their population when Sodom was overturned. They were what the Torah referred to in 19,28 as the ארץ הככר. Moses also referred to this overturning of Sodom and Amora in Deut. 29,22 mentioning 4 towns, seeing that Tzoar was saved at the request of Lot. Also in Hoseah 11,8 the cities of Adma and Tzvoyim are singled out by the prophet, although the largest of the cities were Sodom and Amora. Sodom was the principal city, and the perversions committed in all of these cities were presumably dreamt up by the citizens of Sodom. The prophet Ezekiel 16,53 specifically refers to the other cities of that valley as Sodom’s satellites.

ויאמר ה' זעקת סדום, “G’d said: ‘the outcry about Sodom, etc.” According to Ibn Ezra, the line ויפנו משם האנשים“the men turned away from there” in verse 22 of our chapter, describes an event that preceded the conversation between Avraham and G’d introduced here. The whole verse has to be understood thus: After the men, i.e. angels, had taken their leave of Avraham, G’d said to him that the outcry about the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah which had come to His attention was such that, if upon closer examination, these reports would prove to be accurate, that would be the end of these cities. Thereupon Avraham began to pray on behalf of the innocent people in those cities.

כי רבה BECAUSE IT IS GREAT — Wherever רבה elsewhere occurs in Scripture the accent is on the last syllable — on the ב — because it is to be translated by “great” (adj.) or “becoming great” (participle), but this, here, has the accent on the first syllable — on the ר — because it is to be translated by “has already become great” (perf.), just as I have explained (15:17) “And it came to pass, that, when the sun had gone down (בָּאָה)” and (Ruth 1:15) “Behold, thy sister-in-law has gone back (שָׁבָה)”.

זעקת, the souls of the people who had been tortured by the inhabitants of these cities reached the heavenly court. The primary complaint was violence committed against these people. There were other, lesser crimes committed by these people also. However, the decision to destroy these cities was sealed on account of the violence perpetrated, just as the deluge was brought about by that crime. This was essentially a repeat of what happened on a global scale at the time of the deluge.

זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה, “the outcry rising from Sodom and Gomorrha is indeed of vast proportions.” According to Ibn Ezra, they either spoke out openly against G’d (the seven universal laws given by G’d to mankind,) or they indulged in violent means to enforce their views. According to Nachmanides, the wordsזעקת סדום וגו' refer to the outcry to G’d of the souls of the victims of such violence (compare Job 35,9: יזעיקו ישועו רבים, ”many oppressed cry out.”)

G'd also wanted to cool Abraham's enthusiasm for saving such a wicked people. This is why He told him that their sins were both numerous and of a severe nature. Originally their sins were "merely" numerous i.e. רבה; meanwhile they had become "severe," כבדה, also. When Abraham rescued the Sodomites from the four kings their sins had not yet been that severe.

THE CRY OF SODOM AND GOMORRAH. This is the cry of the oppressed, crying out and begging for help from the arm of their wickedness. It would have been proper for Scripture to say, “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah I heard because it is great” or “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great and their sin is very heavy.” But the purport of the verse is to state that “I will go down and see the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah and their sin which have become very great. If they have all sinned, I will bring the law to bear down on them, and if not, I will know who are the sinners.”
Concerning the matter of “going down and seeing,” Rashi said by way of derash:¹³⁵The homiletical interpretation of Scripture. “This teaches that judges are not to give decisions in cases involving capital punishment except after having carefully looked into the matter.”
According to the simple meaning of Scripture, the explanation is as follows: Since the Holy One, blessed be He, wished to reveal to Abraham the matter of Sodom and to inform him that there was none among them who did good, He said to him “Because it is great, the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah will I go down to see, meaning I have come to judge. If they have sinned, I will make an end of them, and if not, I shall know what I shall do to them: Then will I visit their transgression with the rod, and their iniquity with strokes.”¹³⁶Psalms 89:33. He thus informed him that their judgment was not yet complete for now He will visit their sin and judge them. This is like the verse: The Eternal looketh from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any man of understanding, that did seek after G-d. They are all corrupt; they are together become impure.¹³⁷Ibid., 14:2-3.
Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said concerning this¹³⁸Ibn Ezra’s comment is found in Verse 21 here. [“going down and seeing”] a mystery [i.e., a mysterious explanation], pleasing himself with foreign offspring.¹³⁹See Isaiah 2:6. Ramban says that “the mystery” suggested here by Ibn Ezra as an explanation of the verse comes to him from the philosophers who please themselves with theories which are “the offspring of aliens.” Ibn Ezra’s “mystery” explanation is that G-d’s knowledge of earthly matters is general, rather than detailed. Ramban rejects this concept as “foreign” to the Torah. I shall now intimate to you the opinion of those who received the truth. Our Rabbis have exposited¹⁴⁰Yerushalmi Ta’anith II, 1. from the verse, For behold, the Eternal cometh forth out of His place, and will come down, and tread upon the high places of the earth:¹⁴¹Micah 1:3. “He cometh forth and goeth from attribute to attribute; He cometh forth from the attribute of mercy, and goeth to the attribute of justice.” We interpret this matter similarly. And the Eternal said in His heart, “The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah, because it is great, I will go down from the attribute of mercy to the attribute of justice, and I will see in mercy if they have done according to the cry of it which is come unto Me through the attribute of justice, and if so, punishment; and if not, I will know and I will show mercy,” just as in the verse, And G-d knew.¹⁴²Exodus 2:25. He knew of the suffering of the children of Israel and directed His mercy upon them. Here, likewise, Ramban teaches that the word eida’ah (I will know) bespeaks Divine mercy. Now after Scripture tells of the knowledge of the Most High, it returns to the first matter and relates the story of how the men who glanced towards Sodom with the intention of going there and whom Abraham sent away arrived there. And Abraham, from the moment they left him until they arrived there, still stood before the Eternal for He called him and told him that the angels were those messengers who would destroy the place, as He had said. It was not necessary for Scripture to explain when Abraham stood before Him for from the moment He said, Shall I conceal it from Abraham,¹⁴³Verse 17 here. it is known that He told him.

Es heißt nun hier: wenngleich die Natur und die Menschen bereits über Sodom und Amora den Stab brechen, so will ich doch noch erst untersuchen: הכצעקתה וגוי. Nach der Konstruktion mit הְַ und nicht אם, sowie nach dem Akzent, nach welchem כלה als Objekt zu עשו gehört ( — es ist nämlich zu bezweifeln, dass der פסיק nach Munach in dieser Beziehung dem Sinne nach hinlänglich trenne, dass כלה als Nachsatz betrachtet werden könnte, vergl. z. B. Kap.19, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 18: 14 —), dürfte es zu verstehen sein: ob כצעקתה sie bereits Vernichtung getan, d. h. ob ihr Verbrechen bereits den Gipfel erreicht, dass sie sich selbst damit völlige Vernichtung bereitet. Während עשה כלה sonst immer die Vollstreckung der Vernichtung bedeutet, wäre dann hier höchst bezeichnend, diese Vernichtung als Werk des Verbrechers selbst, der ja auch in der Tat ihr eigentlicher Urheber ist, ausgedrückt. Gewöhnlich nimmt man, vom פסיק geleitet, כלה als elliptischen Nachsatz und das ה als konditionales wenn, wofür jedoch die Analogie fehlt: wenn sie כצעקתה getan, (soll) Vernichtung (über sie kommen). Jedenfalls will das כצעקתה erklärt sein. Auf Sodom und Amora kann sich schwerlich das Suffix ה beziehen, da diese sofort im Subjekt des Satzes als Plural עשו gedacht sind. Es scheint vielmehr, dass es sich auf das vorhergehende חטאת, oder vielmehr ועקה bezieht. צעקה ist das verstärkte זעקה. Das, worüber die Menschen schreien, ist oft nur der kleinste Teil von dem, was zu Gott schreit. Der zu Gott dringende Schrei von dem Geschrei der Menschen war noch größer; nach diesem zu Gott dringenden Schrei hatten sie bereits Vernichtung erwirkt; Gott will sie eine letzte Prüfung bestehen lassen, ob bereits der Gipfel der Unmenschlichkeit ausnahmslos alle Schichten der Bevölkerung durchdrungen. "Ist das nicht, so will ich gerne einzeln erkennen" die Schuldigen strafen, die andern verschonen. — Auch bei דור המבול ging השחתת דרך mit חמס Hand in Hand. Sittliche Entartung erzeugt überall die soziale, und auch dort wie hier bricht zuletzt das soziale Verbrechen, צעקה — חמס, den Stab über das Geschlecht, קץ כל בשר בא לפני כי מלאה הארץ חמס מפניהם. —

וחטאתם, this refers to the sin of violence, taking the law into one’s own hands. The outcry that had reached the heavenly spheres was extremely severe. As the prophet Ezekiel said: “they did not support the poor and the weak.” The poor cry out to heaven on account of their hunger, and they do not have any one who stretches out their hand to support them.

ארדה נא I WILL GO DOWN NOW — This teaches the judges that they should not give decisions in cases involving capital punishment, except after having carefully looked into the matter — all as I have explained in the section dealing with the dispersion of the nations (11:5). Another explanation of ארדה נא is: I will go down to the very end of their doings (I will fathom the depths of their wickedness).

עשו כלה, the vertical line after the word עשו is like a comma between these words, i.e. “if they have done as reported, I will put an end to them.”

I will descend now. I will plumb the depths of their wickedness to see what will come of it in the end.

ארדה נא ואראה, "I will descend and have a look Myself, etc." We need to understand why G'd had "to descend." Is not the whole world like a grain of mustard in size compared to G'd so that the term "descend" loses its meaning when applied to G'd? The word הכצעקתה, "if as its outcry," also needs clarification. Does G'd have doubts about the accuracy of His own knowledge? Rashi says that the word teaches that a terrestrial court must not judge capital crimes except on the basis of eye-witnesses. If that is so, could we not have learned this already from Genesis 11,5 when G'd is described as descending prior to judging the generation which had built the Tower? Rashi himself made the same comment there as here!

ארדה נא ואראה, we explained the meaning of G’d’s “descending” already on 11,5. This time the text says ואראה, “I shall see,” instead of לראות, “to see.” The Torah writes in this vein although we know that G’d is perfectly aware of all that goes on here on earth. The reason why the Torah describes G’d’s activity in this manner is only to remind people on earth that He is not in a hurry to mete out retribution, but is patient, and even when His patience is exhausted, He does not act impetuously, but is always in complete control. He examines if there is any way in which delaying retribution can be justified. It was this very phrase which provided Avraham with an opening to engage G’d in a dialogue concerning His Justice and man’s perception of Divine justice. He did this not because he doubted G’d’s justice, but in order to be able to teach man something about how G’d’s justice works.

ארדה נא ואראה הכצעקתה הבאה אלי עשו, כלה,”I will descend and investigate if they have indeed done in accordance with the outcry that has come to Me; that would be the end.” If all of them have sinned that will be the end of them, but if only a part of the inhabitants have been guilty of such sins, אדעה, I will take note of this and act accordingly. From Avraham’s intervention at this point it is clear that G’d had left him an opening to plead on behalf of those who had not actively been guilty. Avraham only asked to spare the righteous. An additional meaning of the words ארדה נא ואראה sees in the wording a change by G’d from invoking the attribute of Mercy to invoking the attribute of Justice. G’d is saying that if things are as bad as He has heard, the time has come to invoke the attribute of Justice, as a result of which there will be total destruction of these cities. If not, He will take note of this and employ the attribute of Mercy. We find a parallel verse to this in Exodus 2,25 when G’d tells Moses that now that the Jewish people themselves have turned to Him to complain about the outrageous treatment of them by the Egyptians, He will employ the attribute of Justice against them, i.e. וידע אלוקים, G’d’s attribute of Justice had now taken notice. After the Torah had revealed to us G’d’s thinking, it reverts to the story involving the three angels who had visited Avraham, and how these angels after having looked down on Sodom (in the deep valley) arrived there, and what happened next. During all this time, Avraham was still standing in the presence of the Lord, pleading for those who might qualify for survival. G’d had made it clear to him that the men who had visited him were His agents and had been dispatched to carry out the decree against these 5 cities.

As a lesson to judges not to rule on capital punishment unless they see it... Rashi does not mean that it is learned from ואראה; rather, fromארדה . It is like a person descending from his seat, to go and see a matter and to investigate it. Otherwise, why does Rashi then say: דבר אחר ארדה נא לסוף מעשיהם? If Rashi is explaining ואראה, would he say דבר אחר ארדה נא? Furthermore, should he not have written his explanation about the judges on ואראה, not on ארדה נא? Both explanations are needed. The difficulty with the first is: Hashem did not yet judge them. His descending was to see whether they sinned. Thus Rashi brings the second explanation. The difficulty with the second is: It should say אראה נא וארדה. That is why the first explanation is also needed. (Maharshal)

.הכצעקתה הבאה אלי עשו, If they really have acted as wickedly as the complaints that have reached Me;” while it is true that everything is an open book for Me, nonetheless the attribute of Mercy has requested that I exercise My power of Mercy for them;

הכצעקתה WHETHER ACCORDING TO THE CRY OF IT (literally, of her) — i.e. the cry of the country (מדינה which is feminine).

And see. I will allow their true colors to be seen by allowing them to attack Lot for his generosity. Then the world will know that it was not for naught that they were punished.

הכצעקתה, if in accordance with the outcry that has come to My attention, they have indeed done, כלה, they deserve to die, but if not, אדעה, I will know about it, and I will welcome the fact that Avraham appreciates this and will ask Me about how I administer justice. The mappik heh is a hint that Sodom was the city which determined the fate of the others. Its satellites patterned their lifestyles on that of the city of Sodom. A comment in the Midrash (quoted by Rashi) suggests that the mappik heh underscores a specific incident in which a young girl who had a soft heart and gave bread to a stranger was found out and punished most cruelly, being smeared with honey and suspended between two trees, so that the bees killed her in the process of licking the honey off her body.

Of the country (מדינה). Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written הכצעקתם, as it is written before, וחטאתם? Why then is it written in the feminine form?

G'd informed Abraham of the sequence in which he employs kindness and mercy with His creatures. Fairness would require that punishment takes into consideration the relative stature of the person who has been sinned against and that of the sinner. When a human being transgresses any commandment of his Creator, the Supreme Being, he and all his entourage deserves to be destroyed because of the stature of the One whom he sinned against. If G'd proceeds simply on the basis of the enormity of the crime because of the stature of the מתביש, the one who has been slighted, the outcome of such proceedings is a foregone conclusion. If, on the other hand, G'd considers the relative insignificance of the מביש, the human being who committed the crime, and He bases the judgment on arguments presented by both litigants, things might appear in a different light. In such a case even the people of the generation of the deluge might not have been found guilty of extinction. This is why G'd explains here to Abraham ארדה נא, "I will descend, i.e. I will not judge on the basis of My superior stature." I will keep in mind the inadequacies of the sinners themselves. We find something of this nature in Isaiah 43,26 where G'd offers: נשפטה יחד, "let Us judge on an equal basis," keeping in mind the inadequacies of the creatures. G'd says: "If, after making full allowance for the inadequacies of any creature and ignoring My superior stature, the defendant still emerges as guilty, כלה, there is no escape for him. If not, I will know if they deserve to be judged by this or any other yardstick. G'd does not literally descend to earth to gain knowledge He did not have, but G'd lowers His profile in order to give the defendant an additional chance to downgrade his sin.

ואם לא אדעה, but it not, i.e. if some excuse can be found for their behaviour, I will take note of it, “and will have mercy on them at this time.” The formulation here is parallel to Exodus 2,25, when G-d took pity on His people.

הבאה אלי עשו WHETHER THEY HAVE DONE [ACCORDING TO THE CRY OF IT] WHICH IS COME UNTO ME — If they persist in their rebellious ways, (כלה) an end will I make of them; if, however, they do not persist in their rebellious ways, I shall know what I shall do — punishing them only with suffering, but I will not make an end of them. — A similar phrase we find elsewhere, (Exodus 33:5) “There- fore now put off thy ornaments from thee that I may know what to do unto thee”. — For this reason there is a separation marked by a פסיק between עשו and כלה, in order to separate in sense one word from the other. Our Teachers explained the word הכצעקתה “the cry of her”, to refer to the cry of a certain girl whom they put to death in an unnatural manner because she had given food to a poor man, as is explained in the chapter Chelek (Sanhedrin 109b).

If their wailing … is indicative … destruction [shall come]. Alternatively, “If all of them participated” — I will see whether any of them protests

And if they maintain their rebelliousness... Otherwise, what is the meaning of עשו, i.e., whether they had sinned? Scripture had already written, וחטאתם כי כבדה מאוד, indicating that indeed they had sinned.

Another meaning of these words could be that though at the time G'd heard the outcry of the victims of the Sodomites and their guilt was then beyond doubt, He wanted to ascertain if their situation had remained the same and they continued their wicked lifestyle. The word ארדה נא then would indicate an immediate examination if these people had continued as before. If they intended to perform more such heinous acts their destruction would be imminent. This is why the angels spoke about destroying the cities in the present tense, i.e. משחיתים אנחנו (19,13). Until the attempt to sodomize Lot's guests, G'd used only the future tense about the fate of Sodom. Perhaps we may view the function of the angels in part as similar to that of the messengers of the court who warn a rebellious wife of the loss of her כתובה, the financial settlement she receives in the event her husband dies or divorces her without cause. We learn from Ketuvot 63 that public warnings were issued four weeks in a row before action was taken in such a case. The proclamation was designed to induce the wife to change her ways. The same may have been the case here. When the Torah describes the journey of the angels (18,22) as ויפנו משם, "they turned from there," the reference may have been to the heavenly tribunal where the decree had been issued. This may explain the two successive statements ארדה נא and ויפנו משם.

Our Sages explained: The cry of a certain maiden... with a horrible death. They stripped her bare and smeared her with honey, and the bees stung her to death. You might ask: How did Rashi know she was a maiden? The answer is: From a gezeirah shavah to (Devarim 22:24): “על דבר אשר לא צעקה בעיר, which speaks of a betrothed maiden. There is a question on the first explanation: How could Hashem be unsure of the facts, not to know whether it was indicative of their conduct so that they should be destroyed? Thus Rashi explains, “The cry of a certain maiden,” [according to which the verse means:] If they killed her unjustly, as she claimed [when she cried out, then they will be destroyed]. And even if they killed her justly, “I will know” what to do [as to punishing them for their other sins]. But the actual deed was well known to Hashem. (Maharshal)

ויפנו משם AND [THE MEN] TURNED FROM THENCE —from the place where Abraham had accompanied them.

Avraham was still standing. Even after the angels arrived in Sedom he did not give up but remained standing in prayer and supplication.

ויפנו משם, this is how it appeared to Avraham in his prophetic vision, i.e. that he had accompanied the angels some distance and after the appropriate distance, the angels turned in a different direction and went away. The angel who had brought the message to Sarah disappeared, whereas the other two proceeded in the direction of Sodom.

It is an emendation of the Scribes. This does not mean that the Scribes changed even one letter of what was written in the Torah, far be it. Rather, “emendation of the Scribes” denotes that they scrutinized each of those verses, and found that according to its context, its primary meaning cannot be as written in the text, but the verse bears a different meaning. Thus it should not have written, “Avraham was still standing,” but, “God was still standing” — except that Scripture changed the wording [out of respect]. It is called “emendation of the Scribes” only because they scrutinized it and commented that Scripture changed the wording. (Rashba)

עודנו עומד לפני ד׳ denn mit aller Ausübung der Gastfreundschaft war Abraham nicht aus der עמידה לפני ד׳, zu der er durch die im ersten Vers mitgeteilte Erscheinung Gottes gerufen war, herausgetreten.

'ואברהם עודנו עומד לפני ה BUT ABRAHAM STOOD YET BEFORE THE LORD — But surely it was not he (Abraham) who had gone to stand before Him, but it was the Holy One, blessed be He, Who had come to him and had said to him, “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great” and it should therefore have written here, “And the Lord stood yet before Abraham”? But it is a variation such as writers make to avoid an apparently irreverent expression (Genesis Rabbah 49:7) (which our Rabbis, of blessed memory, altered, writing it thus).

ואברהם עודנו עומד, he felt that the vision he had been experiencing had not yet come to a conclusion.

ויגש אברהם AND ABRAHAM DREW NEAR — We find the verb ננש “to come near” used in the sense of coming near to wage war — (2 Samuel 10:13) “So Joab … drew near unto the battle”; — of coming near to persuade by entreaty — (44:18) “And Judah came near to him [and said, Oh, my lord]” — and of coming near to pray — (1 Kings 18:36) “And Elijah the prophet came near [and said, O Lord, God of Abraham etc.]” Abraham employed all these methods — to fight, by speaking stern words, and to persuade by entreaty, and to pray (Genesis Rabbah 49:8).

AND ABRAHAM DREW NEAR AND SAID, WILT THOU ALSO SWEEP AWAY THE RIGHTEOUS WITH THE WICKED? The anger¹⁴⁴Ramban understood the verse as Onkelos rendered it, namely, that the word ha’aph does not mean “shall also”, but it means “the anger.” The verse reads: “shall the anger of G-d sweep away.” See Rashi. of the Holy One, blessed be He, is His attribute of justice. Now Abraham thought that this would sweep away the righteous with the wicked, not knowing of G-d’s thoughts in which He thought of them with His mercies, as I have explained.¹⁴⁵At the end of Verse 20 here. Therefore, Abraham said that it is proper and good that He should forgive the entire place because of the fifty righteous inhabitants, but it is inconceivable even according to the Divine attribute of Justice to slay the righteous with the wicked,¹⁴⁶Verse 25 here. for if so the righteous will be as the wicked, and they will say, It is vain to serve G-d.¹⁴⁷Malachi 3:14. And all the more is this inconceivable according to the Divine attribute of Mercy since He is the Judge of all the earth,¹⁴⁴Ramban understood the verse as Onkelos rendered it, namely, that the word ha’aph does not mean “shall also”, but it means “the anger.” The verse reads: “shall the anger of G-d sweep away.” See Rashi. and He does justice,¹⁴⁸With righteousness. (Tur quoting and interpreting Ramban.) even as it is said, And the Eternal of hosts is exalted through justice,¹⁴⁹Isaiah 5:16. and we say in our prayers, “The King of judgment.”¹⁵⁰Literally, “the king, the Justice,” implying that the King is Justice. (See my Hebrew commentary, p. 112.) This prayer is said on the ten days from Rosh Hashanah to Yom Kippur. (Berachoth 12b.) This is the significance of the double use of the expression, It is unworthy of Thee.¹⁵¹In Verse 24 here. One for the attribute of justice, and one for mercy, as explained above. And the Holy One, blessed be He, conceded that He would forgive the entire place for the sake of the fifty righteous, for He will conduct Himself towards them with the attribute of Mercy.
What informs you of all this¹⁵²That Abraham thought that they would be judged only by Divine justice, and G-d told him that they would be judged with Divine mercy. is the fact vayomer hashem (And the Eternal said)¹⁵³Verse 26 here. is written with the Tetragrammaton, and all references by Abraham to the Divine Name are written Ado-noy.¹⁵⁴The Tetragrammaton signifies Divine mercy, while the Name beginning with Aleph Dalet signifies Divine justice. This has now been clarified.

תספה, the same as תכלה, “you will destroy.” The word is used in the same sense in Deuteronomy 32,23 אספה עלימו רעות חצי אכלה אכלה בם. “I shall accumulate evils against them; My arrows I shall use up against them.” The root כלה expresses the same thought as אספה but in more intense form.

האף תספה צדיק עם רשע, Avraham felt that the way G’d had worded the decree with the word כי רבה, that what G’d might have meant was that as long as the majority of the people were guilty this would justify eliminating the entire city, including the innocent. In that event G’d would not be perceived as meting out justice.

ויגש אברהם. Abraham approached, etc. When G'd had mentioned כלה, He meant that all the people in Sodom were doomed by the attribute of Justice; should it be G'd's intention to save the individual good people by allowing them to escape as happened to Lot, Abraham argued that perhaps there would be a substantial number of such people, i.e. fifty. The words האף תספה, "Will You also wipe out, etc?" mean "will You still wipe out the wicked despite the presence of so many innocent people?" The presence of the fifty should protect the entire population against mass destruction. When Abraham referred to the fifty good people as בקרבה, in the midst of the city, he implied that they should not be made to move in order to be saved. G'd would do better to remove the guilty and destroy them elsewhere. He used the expression חלילה לך, "it would be a profanation of Your name," when he referred to the remote possibility that the innocent actually share the fate of the guilty; concerning his second request that the presence of the righteous should serve as an umbrella for the guilty, he realised that this would be an act of kindness, not justice.

ויגש, the term גישה, ויגש, when used with a place, מקום, invariably refers to the subject משפט, judgment. Avraham enquired how it was possible that the entire population of a city should deserve extinction. Surely, there had to be some righteous people, and why would they have to share the fate of the wicked? Onkelos understands the word האף as a reference to G’d’s anger, wrath, as if Avraham asked if because G’d was angry the innocent would suffer the fallout of that anger and be punished for the sins of the wicked.

האף תספה צדיק עם רשע?, “are You really going to wipe out the righteous with the wicked?” Avraham meant if G’d would really apply the attribute of Justice also to the people who had not directly aroused His anger as a result of the reports which had come to His attention. חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה, “surely You would not do something which would make people conclude that there was no advantage in leading a righteous life if they had to die with the wicked people surrounding them.” Especially, seeing that G’d normally applies His attribute of Mercy when judging people, how could such an attribute be denied the righteous whose very existence is the reason that G’d tempers justice with mercy when judging mankind? This is why the word חלילה, “far be it,” appears twice in our verse.

ויגש אברהם ויאמר האף תספה, “Avraham approached and said: ‘Are you really going to destroy, etc.?” If you will take an analytical look at this paragraph you will observe that Avraham was under the impression that G’d wanted to destroy everybody and everything in these towns by employing the attribute of Justice. This is why he phrased his question as “are You really going to destroy the just together with the wicked, will You indeed destroy and not forgive the place?” The word תספה is not to be understood as in the second person i.e. Avraham addressing G’d in dialogue, but as third person feminine, a reference to the attribute of Justice, as if to say: “will the attribute of Justice indeed kill both the guilty and the innocent?” It would be analogous in construction to Hoseah 14,3 כל תשא עון וקח טוב, which the author understands as “address your words to the One (the attribute of Mercy) who can tolerate all kinds of guilt, etc.” All of Avraham’s prayers in this paragraph must be perceived as addressing themselves exclusively to the attribute of Justice This is also why he prefaced his remarks in verse 27 by saying (employing the name א-דני) “here I have already agreed to speak up, etc.” [It takes a great deal more courage to appeal to the attribute of Justice than to appeal to the attribute of Mercy. Ed.] Avraham therefore repeatedly used words to justify his intercession on behalf of the people of Sodom altogether (compare verse 30, “do not become angry,” or verse 31, “I have already begun, etc.” and again in verse 32 “please do not become angry.”) Avraham repeated the words חלילה לך מעשות כדבר הזה, “may it be far from You to do such a thing.” By repeating the word חלילה, Avraham made it plain that he addressed both the attribute of Justice and the attribute of Mercy. He meant that even the attribute of Justice must not be perceived as killing the Just together with the guilty, etc. This would only result in an increase of the number of people who denied that there is a G’d and that this G’d practices Justice. There would be no point in the exercise of free choice, i.e. to choose being good rather than evil, and there would also be a decrease in the number of people devoting their lives to the service of the Lord. The second חלילה is an exclamation underlining that if the destruction of all the people in Sodom had been decreed by the attribute of Mercy, the argument Avraham had just presented would be even stronger, even more powerful. After all, the One who claims to be the Judge of the whole earth must certainly be perceived as practicing Justice! We repeatedly point out on New Year’s Day in our prayers that G’d practices Justice. A few examples of such statements: ויגבה ה' צבאות במשפט, “and the Lord of Hosts is exalted by Justice” (Isaiah 5,15); at the conclusion of a benediction in the principal prayer עמידה we refer to G’d as המלך המשפט, “the King who represents absolute Justice.
In response to Avraham’s question and concern, G’d informed him that man’s considerations and G’d’s considerations are not identical. Contrary to what Avraham thought, He would relate to the people of Sodom by invoking the attribute of Mercy even while performing Judgment, i.e. Justice. As proof of this you will note that G’d is referred to throughout this paragraph by His attribute as the merciful One, by the four-lettered name י-ה-ו-ה.

Yehudah approached him. Many find difficulty with this proof, since Rashi himself explains later (44:18) that Yehudah in fact spoke sternly to Yosef. In truth, it is a scribe’s error. The text should read: “The children of Yehudah approached,” a verse that is in Yehoshua (14:6).

(23-24) ספה ,תספה kommt in ähnlicher Beziehung in der Bedeutung vor, dass etwas, was für sich allein von dem Unglück frei geblieben wäre, im Zusammenhange mit andern, die von einem Verderben betroffen werden, mit in das Verderben hineingeraten. So gedenkt David (Sam. 1. 26, 10) drei Arten, in welchen Saul umkommen könnte, a. Gott kann ihn plötzlich sterben lassen, b. die ihm bestimmte Lebenszeit läuft ab, oder c. er geht in einen Krieg, ונספה und kommt dort mit um, ohne dass bereits יבוא יומו, und ohne dass direkt ד׳ יגפנו. Ebenso 4. B. M. 16, 26 סורו וגו׳ פן תספו בכל חטאתם und sonst. Es ist verwandt mit ספח: ianschließen und שפה: Rand, Meeresuser, wodurch Land in den Bereich des Meeres hineingezogen wird, und wovon die hinausgeworfenen Wellen wieder in die Masse zurückfließen.

האף תספה means wilt Thou also destroy. But according to the Targum of Onkelos which translates it (the word האף) in the sense of anger, the explanation would be as follows: will Your anger urge you to destroy righteous with wicked?

When Abraham said והיה כצדיק כרשע, that the righteous would wind up just like the wicked, he indicated that if G'd applied the same yardstick to all creatures alike, the righteous would be deprived of every incentive to be righteous.

Zwei Weisen des Sodom drohenden Verhängnisses waren Abraham angekündigt, כלה: völlige Vernichtung oder ידיעה: Bestrafung der Schuldigen beim Fortbestand des Ganzen. Da Gott ihn dieses Einblicks in seinen Ratschluss gewürdigt, fühlt und denkt er sich in dessen Vollzug hinein, und ringt nach Klarheit über einen Gedanken, der ihn peinigt. Nicht, dass er darüber irgend einen Zweifel hegte, dass nicht, selbst wenn die Entartung den Untergang des ganzen sodomitischen Kreises fordere, dennoch die etwa sich dort findenden Unschuldigen, und wäre es einer unter Millionen, doch gerettet bleiben, und nicht etwa den Gerechten wie den Schuldigen gleiches Verderben träfe, das auch nur zu denken, spricht er Raw Hirsch on Genesis 18: 25 aus, wäre ihm Entweihung. Allein, er fühlt sich in die Lage eines aus dem Untergange eines solchen Ganzen geretteten Gerechten hinein, fühlt, was er in einer solchen Lage fühlen würde, fühlt, wie, wenn er das Unglück ge habt hätte, in Sodom zu wohnen, er es nie hätte fehlen lassen, unablässig die Besserung der entarteten Stadt- und Landesgenossen zu versuchen, wie er nie die Hoffnung aufgegeben, und wie er mit dem Untergang einer jeden Seele, an deren Rettung er gearbeitet, auf deren Rettung er gehofft, den eigenen Untergang erleiden würde, und wagt nun den Gedanken, ob denn nicht vielleicht das Leid, das die Gerechten durch die Teilnahme an dem schrecklichen Untergange ihrer bisherigen Genossen treffen würde, einer Berücksichtigung würdig sein dürfte, ob es nicht sonst ein ספות הצדיק עם רשע, eine Mitleidenschaft des Gerechten an dem Untergange des Schuldigen wäre, ob dieses nicht so stark sein könnte, dass Gott למען הצריקים zu Gunsten der Gerechten, um diesen das große Seelenleid zu sparen, der ganzen schuldigen Gesamtheit Verzeihung angedeihen lassen könnte?

The second time Abraham used the expression חלילה לך, he referred to the second alternative of saving the wicked because of the presence of a substantial number of righteous people in their midst. Abraham did not want G'd to destroy the wicked under such circumstances. Another meaning of this plea could be that Abraham reminded G'd that He had sworn after the deluge not to bring on mass destruction on mankind by invoking the ultimate rigor of the attribute of Justice (compare our comments on Genesis 9,11).

Für diese Auffassung spricht alles. Die Bedeutung des תספה gegenüber dem להמית und והיה כצדיק כרשע im Raw Hirsch on Genesis 18: 25, welches er von selbst als unmöglich zurückweist.

Ebenso die Wahl des Ausdruckes למען הצריקים wodurch die Gerechten nicht als Ursache, sondern als Zweck der Gesamtverzeihung hingestellt werden. Während nämlich בגלל immer die Veranlassung, בעבור größtenteils freilich den Zweck, jedoch auch mitunter die Veranlassung ausdrückt, bezeichnet למען immer den Zweck. Abraham denkt sich die Rettung des Ganzen als Belohnung und Beglückung des teilnehmend mitfühlenden Gerechten darin.

Endlich spricht dafür das sowohl in Abrahams Frage, als in der Erwiderung Gottes so charakteristisch hervorgehobene: בתוך העיר. Abraham sagt nicht ׳אולי יש נ צדיקים בעיר sondern בתוך העיר, die Antwort lautet sogar בסדום בתוך העיר. Dieses בתוך העיר erscheint ganz so wie בתוך עמי אנכי יושבת (Kön. II. 4, 13). Das Ideal eines Gerechten in Mitten einer sodomitischen Entartung, das Abraham vorschwebt, um dessentwillen die Gesamtheit gerettet werden dürfte, ist nicht ein solcher, der in hochmütigem Selbstgefühl die Menge preisgibt, ihrem sitllichen Untergange müßig zusieht, sich in die Einsamkeit zurückzieht und glaubt, genug getan zu haben, wenn er nur sich und höchstens die eigenen Seinen rettet. Ja, ein solcher wäre ihm gar nicht der Gerechte, hätte mit nichten der Verpflichtung genügt, die der Bessere in solcher Umgebung trüge, und wäre am wenigsten geeignet, um seinetwillen die Gesamtheit, die er ja längst preisgegeben, gerettet zu sehen. Der Untergang der Gesamtheit ließe einen solchen ja kalt, ja erfüllte ihn vielleicht gar mit befriedigender Genugtuung.

Das ist Abrahams Gerechter, dessen Berücksichtigung die Rettung der Gesamtheit bewirken sollte, nicht. Sein Gerechter befindet sich בתוך העיר "in Mitten der Stadt" in Mitten und in lebendiger Beziehung zu allen und allem. Er lässt nicht ab und zu ermahnen, zu lehren, zu warnen, zu bessern, zu retten, wo und wie er kann. Alle und alles liegt ihm am Herzen, und er wird nicht müde, Besserung zu versuchen, wie fern auch immer die Hoffnung des Gelingens: Sein menschlich Herz verzweifelt am Menschen nie, und treibt ihn unablässig zur Tätigkeit für die Menschen. Das sind die Gerechten, die er בתוך העיר voraussetzt, denen jede Seele aller dieser Tausende schmerzlich absterben würde, wie dem Gärtner die Pflanze, um deren Gedeihen er sich früh und spät bemüht, und von deren fünfzig Abraham die Erhaltung des Ganzen zu erhoffen wagt.

Beim Untergange Jerusalems — lehren die Weisen — wurden gerade die "Gerechten", die das Gesetz von א bis ת erfüllt hatten, zuerst dem Untergange geweiht, weil sie eben nicht בתוך העיר gewesen, und sich um die Besserung ihrer Mitbürger nicht bemüht (Sabb. 59 a. zu Jechesk. 9).

ולא תשא למקום, wir finden מקום zur Bezeichnung einer ganzen Gegend, ja eines ganzen Landes. So 4) נסעים אנחנו אל המקום אשר אמר ד׳. B. M. 10, 29). So auch (4. B. M. 14, 40) von dem ganzen Lande, והנה המקום מקום מקנה (das.32,1) von einer Gegend.

אולי יש חמשים צדיקים PERADVENTURE THERE BE FIFTY RIGHTEOUS — ten righteous men for each city for there were five localities concerned. Should You, however, say that the righteous cannot save the wicked—but why should You kill the righteous at all?

FIFTY RIGHTEOUS. Rashi wrote: “Ten righteous men for each city. Wilt thou destroy on account of the five.¹⁵⁵Verse 28 here. Nine for each city, and You, the All-Righteous One of the Universe, will be counted with them [to make up the original number of ten]. Perhaps there shall be found there forty.¹⁵⁶Verse 29 here. Then let four cities be saved. So, too, thirty will save three of them, twenty will save two of them, and ten will save one of them. And he did not plead for less than ten since in the generation of the flood there were eight righteous people,¹⁵⁷Noah, his three sons, and their wives. (Rashi.) and they could not save their generation. For nine, in association with G-d, he had already pleaded but found no acceptance.” All these are the words of the Rabbi, of blessed memory.
But I wonder: If so, what is this prayer and supplication which he pleads each and every time, saying, oh let not the Lord be angry;¹⁵⁸Verse 30 here. Behold, now, I have taken upon me to speak?¹⁵⁹Verse 31 here. It is proper that forty should save four cities, and thirty and twenty should save in proportion, just as fifty would save five! Similarly, concerning that which Rashi said, “for nine in association with G-d he had already pleaded but found no acceptance,” it may be asked: When he pleaded about forty-five, [i.e., to save all five cities by having nine righteous men for each city] in association [with G-d to make up ten], and he did not find forty-five, but perhaps he might have found there nine!¹⁶⁰Why then did Abraham not plead for nine men who, in association with G-d, would be ten, and thus save one city, for the principle of using G-d as a tenth was not declared invalid; rather, it was previously inapplicable since there were not forty-five righteous inhabitants. Now it would seem that the intention of the Rabbi¹⁶¹Rashi. is that many righteous people can effect a proportionately greater salvation than a few righteous people can, just as the Sages have said:¹⁶²Sifra, Leviticus 26:8. The wording of the quotations used here is that of Rashi in his commentary to the Torah. (Ibid.) “A few who fulfill the commandments of the Torah cannot compare with the many who fulfill the commandments of the Torah.” And thus,¹⁶³“And thus.” The Tur quoting Ramban writes, “Perhaps.” the Holy One, blessed be He, having conceded that forty-five righteous men in association with the All-Righteous One of the Universe would save all the five cities just as if there were the entire fifty, it follows that if forty could save four cities — in association with the Righteous One, praised be He — they would also save with even thirty and twenty, since He already conceded this association. [Thus, thirty-six would save four, twenty-seven three, eighteen two, and nine one]. And in case you say that He conceded only the case of forty-five because they are many, and perhaps He might not concede the principle of association with the few, as we have said, the refutation is that it is proper for the righteousness of G-d to associate even with the few and save [as many of the cities as possible] since He had conceded the principle of association, for He would not distinguish between the many and the few.¹⁶⁴In other words, having admitted the principle of association in the case of forty-five, there could not be any difference between a larger and smaller group of righteous men with respect to the principle of association. Hence Abraham did not have to ask for nine, for in association with G-d there would be ten, and one city would be saved. But without the principle of association there might be a difference between a larger and smaller group. Hence Abraham had to ask for forty, thirty, twenty and ten. All this is to satisfactorily explain the interpretation of Rashi. Ramban’s own position is made clear further in the text. This is the opinion of the Rabbi.¹⁶¹Rashi.
But the way of the simple meaning of the verses is smooth.¹⁶⁵See Proverbs 15:19. First Abraham said fifty in order to give a perfect number of ten for each city, and then he decreased the number as much as possible, and each time he thought to save all five cities. And I do not know who brought the Rabbi¹⁶¹Rashi. to that which he said.

בתוך העיר, Sodom. The king of Sodom was the senior monarch of all the satellite towns surrounding Sodom.

?האף תספה ולא תשא למקום, even though You are justified in destroying the wicked on account of the righteous, far be it from You to kill the righteous.

?אולי יש חמשים צדיקים בתוך העיר, the words בתוך העיר must be understood as referring exclusively to the city of Sodom, not including its satellites. We know this from G’d’s reply in which He spelled out: in verse 24 “if I find in Sodom 50 righteous men inside the city, etc.” Avraham’s argument could have been that if there would be 50 righteous men in the city of Sodom, it was most likely that also the satellite towns would harbour among their populations some righteous people. Alternately, Avraham may have asked that if there would be a total of 50 good men scattered in the various towns, this should be enough to allow all the cities to escape destruction at this time. G’d might then have mentioned Sodom as an example of all of the cities in the valley, saying that 50 people would suffice for G’d’s forgiveness at this time. He singled out Sodom because Lot, Avraham’s kin, lived in that particular city. Avraham tested the number of righteous men that would be the rock bottom minimum for G’d to suspend all or part of the destruction He had planned.

חמשים צדיקים, “fifty righteous people.” Rashi explains the reason why Avraham commenced with the number 50 as meaning one quorum of ten righteous people in each of these five cities, so that 40 would be able to save the inhabitants of four cities, etc. Nachmanides writes that he is perplexed by Rashi’s comment. If indeed 50 righteous people were enough to save 5 cities, why would it be necessary to pray that 40 righteous people should be enough to save four cities, and so on down the line? Another query against Rashi’s explanation is that it appears that He assumes that G’d Himself can be added to 9 righteous people to complete the quorum of a “holy congregation,” why else would he have asked about 45 righteous people? (seeing that the combination of 9 righteous in each city plus the Lord, would provide 5 quorums which would save all five cities) Why would he not have asked about 9 righteous people, who, with the addition of G’d, would at least be able to save one of the cities? Perhaps, what Rashi meant to convey was that a greater number of righteous people could save more than merely a proportionately greater number of cities. This is why Avraham had to enumerate each scenario separately and repeatedly. Actually, when G’d agreed that if He were to find 45 righteous people, i.e. 9 in each town, He would save all 5 cities, Avraham knew that if there were only 36 such people spread equally over four towns G’d would consider Himself the 10th in each group and four cities would be saved. This pattern could in theory be repeated down to 9. The reason Avraham did not have the audacity to ask about a total of only nine righteous men to whom G’d would be added to form the quorum, was that in all the other examples G’d had already indicated that He Himself would complete the quorum. According to the plain meaning of the text, (as understood by Nachmanides) Avraham commenced by asking about 50 righteous people in order to establish that he realized that unless there was a quorum of 10 good people per town such a town had no claim on the attribute of Mercy. According to this approach, it did not even occur to Avraham to ask for the saving of the cities piecemeal, he only wanted to establish the minimum number of righteous people that would suffice to annul the decree of the destruction of the five cities. According to Ibn Ezra, Avraham did not pray altogether on behalf of these people, had it not been a fact that his nephew Lot lived among them. An unresolved problem is the change for describing destruction, sometimes as לא אשחית, and sometimes לא אעשה, “I will not do it.”

אולי יש חמישים צדיקים בתוך העיר, “supposing there are fifty just people inside the city, etc.” Rashi writes on this that there were a total of five towns in the valley and that by selecting the number fifty, Avraham did not a pick a random number but meant that each of these towns could boast of at least ten righteous people. When Avraham continued speaking about the “missing five righteous people” (verse 28), he meant if G’d would not be prepared to consider Himself as completing the necessary quorum of ten good people in each town by adding Himself to the nine good people who were there already. When, in verse 29, Avraham spoke about only forty good people being found in those five towns, he pleaded for the saving of four out of five of these towns. The same applied when he spoke about thirty good people being found in verse 30 and about twenty good people in verse 31 he referred to thirty good people in three of the towns. When he spoke about twenty good people being found there he meant that there was a quorum of ten good people in two of the towns. Finally, when Avraham pleaded on behalf of ten good people, he meant that there was at least one town which could prove it had such a quorum. Avraham did not bother to mention a smaller number as he knew from Noach’s experience that a lesser number could not suffice to save a generation. When the number of righteous people is below the quorum of ten only the righteous themselves may qualify for salvation. They do not have the power to confer salvation or even a delay of the impending disaster on their peers. Eight people had entered the Ark. Had there been another pair of deserving human beings at that time the deluge might have been delayed or might not have occurred at all.
Furthermore, Avraham had reason to believe that there were ten righteous people in Sodom. He counted Lot and his wife, his four daughters and their respective husbands (or fiances) as making up that quorum. Seeing there were fewer than ten good people whose presence could protect their town against impending doom, G’d departed (verse 33) as soon as He had heard Avraham speak about ten good people. G’d knew that there were no ten good people in Sodom, and He also knew that Avraham would not continue to plead for a lesser number to protect the town they lived in. If Avraham had quasi asked permission to continue for a number fewer than fifty each time he continued, this was because though he thoought that ten people might be sufficient to save a single one of these towns, he nevertheless assumed that the greater the total number of good people the more their combined presence would count to stir G’d’s mercy. We have a comment by Rashi on Leviticus 26,5 that when a great number of people perform the Torah their collective impact on G’d’s response to their conduct is disproportionate to their actual number; in other words, the more people keep the Torah the progressively greater is their influence. Avraham may have reasoned similarly in reverse. In our instance, G’d informed Avraham each time that even the smaller number that Avraham had mentioned would still be sufficient for Him to invoke the attribute of Mercy.
Now to the reason G’d’s response to Avraham’s plea varied, i.e. at first He said: “I will forgive the entire place for their sake (the fifty), whereas later on, G’d once said: “I will not destroy,” and another time He said: “I will not do (it).” When G’d said “I will not destroy, He meant that though the people deserve to be destroyed, He would impose a different kind of punishment as a disciplinary measure. When He said; “I will not do it,” He meant that in the event discussed He would neither destroy the town nor subject it to harsh disciplinary measures. The reason for such mildness was the assumption that there would be ten good people in each of the towns. This entire paragraph teaches us a valuable lesson about the importance of a minimal congregation of ten good people and their impact on the fate of the larger community.

Ten righteous for each city... This is because they are merely individuals until there are ten, when they are called a “congregation.”

בתוך העיר, “within the city;” a reference to the city of Sodom itself. The King of Sodom was chief over satellite towns also, even though these satellite towns had nominally “kings” of their own.

האף תספה ולא תשא למקום, he did not mention the people in the place but referred to the place itself. Avraham could not reasonably expect G’d to forgive the sinners, but he felt that the place could be saved. If the guilty would be wiped out the righteous would at least be able to continue living in that town, and would not have to migrate to a new location. Avraham concentrated on the word כלה, “total destruction,” of which G’d had spoken. The prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 22,30 and already in chapter 21, elaborates further on how the impending destruction which overtook Jerusalem in his time could have been stopped. Not only would there have to have been interlocutors such as Avraham, but the sins of the city would have had to be in the main minor sins, i.e. not violence, the sin which provokes G’d’s wrath the most, as we know from the generation of the deluge already. Not only that, but in order for the righteous to be able to save their townsfolk from disaster they must be absolutely righteous, not only barely have more merits than debits in G’d’s ledger of their conduct. In Jeremiah’s time there were righteous people. These were withdrawn, did not mix with the wicked, and did not dare go out into the streets to admonish their countrymen, as they were afraid for their own lives and were not prepared to risk their lives in order to urge their fellow Jews to do penitence. Our author quotes Jeremiah 5,1, Psalms 94,15, 69,12, as well as Ezekiel 14,14 and 14,16 to support his case.

And if You will respond that the righteous will not save... Rashi says this because the verses seem to contradict one other. First Avraham says, “Would You... not bear with the place?” implying he is praying also for the wicked. Then he says, “It would be sacrilege... to kill the righteous with the wicked” implying he is praying for the righteous only. Thus Rashi explains that it means, “And if You will respond that the righteous will not save the wicked...”

חלילה לך FAR BE IT FROM THEE — It is a profanation (חולין) of Yourself. People will say, “That is what He usually busies Himself with: He destroys every one, righteous and wicked alike” —and thus did You indeed do to the generation of the Flood and to that of the dispersal of nations (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 8).

השופט כל הארץ, a reference to the angels whom G’d had dispatched as His representatives, לא יעשה משפט, “will not mete out fair justice?”

והיה כצדיק כרשע, subject to chance, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

חלילה לך, such a procedure must not occur as it would hurt Your image among mankind if You would be perceived as killing both the wicked and the righteous.

This is what you did to the Flood generation, and to the Dispersion generation. [You might ask:] Noach and his sons survived the Flood. Furthermore, He did not kill the Dispersion generation [at all]; rather, He only dispersed them. Why then would people say His craft is to destroy the righteous with the wicked? The answer is: People would say there were more people who were righteous at the time of the Flood, but He swept them away and saved only Noach and his sons in order to preserve mankind. Otherwise He would have swept away even them. And when He does not sweep away everything, because He is angry only with a certain region, He destroys the whole region, righteous and wicked alike. And so it surely was with the Dispersion generation. But the Re’m, [commenting not on the above, but on Rashi,] objects: If so, Hashem could have responded to Avraham: Since they claim this even though it is not true, then even if I do not kill the righteous along with the wicked [but kill only the wicked] they still will say it is My craft to destroy everything! Therefore, Re’m explains: The first חלילה לך relates to the previous verse. [I.e.,] it would be sacrilege not to save the whole place in merit of the righteous that are in it. For people will say, “It is His craft to destroy everything, the righteous with the wicked,” since they do not know that those [destroyed] were wicked. They will think that [some of] the righteous were destroyed with them. Next, Rashi sets into place, “To kill the righteous with the wicked.” This phrase is not connected to what came before, in which Avraham argued that the righteous should save the whole place. Rather, Rashi now adds: “And if You will respond...” This relates to the second חלילה לך, where Avraham argues on behalf of the righteous alone: If the righteous cannot save the wicked, and You wish to bring a general destruction upon the place, it will be sacrilege: “Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice [and save the righteous]?” Later, after having set these phrases into place, Rashi went back to explain the meaning of חלילה. So wrote the Re’m. But what I wrote above is also a partial answer to his objections.

It would be sacrilege. Although there were no truly righteous individuals in these cities there were some that appeared so. And since Hashem had already brought destruction to the world twice before, people would attribute their deaths to vindictiveness on His part rather than to their own insincerity. To kill the righteous. Their hypocrisy is hinted at in the spelling of the word tzaddikim — “righteous ones” — which is written defective (i.e. missing a yud) throughout this passage.

!חלילה לך, “far be it from You!” Rashi’s comment on these words [their repetition, Ed.] based on Tanchuma, is: לעולם הבא, “even in future generations.”

כדבר הזה ANYTHING LIKE THIS THING — neither this nor anything like it (Genesis Rabbah 49:10).

השופט כל הארץ, seeing that You are the judge of the whole earth, if You will judge people based on the conduct of the majority You would eventually be forced to destroy mankind, seeing that most people everywhere are wicked.

כצדיק כרשע, using two letters כ in succession to describe a comparison. It is as if the Torah had written: “this is like this and this is also like this.” The syntax is intended to abbreviate the sentence. You find similar examples in Genesis 44,18 and in Isaiah 24,2.

Neither this nor anything like it. Rashi is answering the question: Simply speaking, כדבר הזה means that Avraham was praying only that Hashem should not do a similar act again — but was not praying for the people of Sedom [to be saved]. If so, why did he say: “Suppose there are 50 righteous people...” showing that he indeed prayed for the people of Sedom? Thus Rashi explains that כדבר הזה means: “Neither this nor anything like it,” i.e., הזה includes both present and future acts. Avraham prayed for Israel as well, that if they will sin, Hashem should not kill the righteous with the wicked. And when Rashi later says, “In the World-to-Come,” it means in future generations.

לך, seeing that this word was also repeated by Avraham we may assume that the first time he addressed the masculine attributes of the Lord, and the second time he addressed the feminine attributes. [Avraham does not imply that G-d could judge unfairly; he like Moses after himreminds G-d of how He will be perceived by His subjects, i.e. as subjecting them to collective punishment. The fact that the first time the letter ל is vocalised with a semi vowel under the letter, and the second time that letter is vocalised with a full vowel kametz, was the nuance leading to this interpretation.

חלילה לך IT IS UNWORTHY OF THEE —in the world to come.

השופט כל הארץ, if You will subject the entire earth to judgment, You cannot very well single out only this location for Your judgment; if however, You will wipe out the righteous together with the wicked this would not be justice. Therefore, please let me know why You plan to destroy just this region totally?

In the World-to-Come. This is as stated in Perek Chelek (Sanhedrin 107b) that the people of Sedom have no portion in the World-to-Come. But the Maharshal explains as follows: If such an act is done in this world, there is sacrilege to Hashem’s Name. And even in the World-toCome, where sacrilege to Hashem’s Name does not exist, no reason will yet be found why You destroyed the righteous with the wicked.

השופט כל הארץ SHALL NOT THE JUDGE OF ALL THE EARTH [DO JUSTICE]? — The 'ה of השופט is punctuated with Chataph Patach because the words express a question: “Should not He who is Judge practice true justice”?

Can it be that He who is Judge should fail to do true justice? Why did Rashi need to explain this ה of incredulity, saying: “Can it be that He who is Judge...”? Why was it not enough to simply say that the ה of השופט is one of incredulity? It is because Rashi wished to tell us that the ה — although it is in the word השופט — expresses incredulity regarding לא יעשה משפט.

אם אמצא בסדום וגו' לכל המקום IF I FIND IN SODOM … FORGIVE ALL THE PLACE — all the cities, but because Sodom was the capital city of the district and the most important of all, Scripture subordinates the order cities to it.

WITHIN THE CITY. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained that [these men for whose sake the cities were to be saved] fear G-d publicly. In a similar sense is the verse: Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem.¹⁶⁶Jeremiah 5:1. If ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly.
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Abraham said, within the city, meaning that even if they are strangers therein, it is fitting that they save it. He said this on account of Lot, and he thought that perhaps there are others there.

'ויאמר ה, the angel replied, the one in whose presence Avraham had remained standing in verse 22. He had appealed to the angel.

אם אמצא בסדום, now that I will examine them individually, having sent My angels, if I find 50 righteous men of the type that will protest and try to stop the wickedness of the remainder of the people in Sodom, the leading city of the valley, (compare Ezekiel 15,46)

ויאמר ה׳ אם אמצא…ונשאחי לכל המקום. G'd said: "If I find fifty ….inside the town, I will forgive the whole place on their account." G'd answered only Abraham's last request. It goes without saying that He would not kill the innocent. We know that G'd saved Lot who was not righteous because he was a relative of Abraham.

ויאמר ה' ...לכל המקום, the city and her satellites, and I will not destroy them.

Gott erwidert, wenn in einem Staate wie Sodom sich noch fünfzig Gerechte finden, die öffentlich nicht nur ein sittliches und rechtlich menschliches Leben leben, sondern sogar für Sittlichkeit, Rechtlichkeit und Menschlichkeit auftreten und eintreten können, dann brauche ich nicht nur למענם, lediglich aus Rücksicht für diese Gerechten die Gesamtheit zu verschonen, dann verdient die Gesamtheit בעכורם wegen des Vorhanden- und Geduldetseins dieser Gerechten selbst Verzeihung, (wie: בעבור דוד Ps.132,10. בעבור טמאה Micha 2, 10 —) dann ist deren Vorhanden- und Geduldetsein selbst ein Beweis, dass die Entartung noch nicht den höchsten Gipfel erreicht hat.

ונשאתי לכל המקום, not only to the righteous people alone.

Wie in ת׳כ zu בחקתי die fortschreitende Entwicklung der Entartung gezeichnet wird, hat da dieselbe noch nicht den höchsten Gipfel erreicht, wo man den gottesfürchtigen Braven und die Bravheit nur verlacht. So lange man sie duldet, sogar öffentlich duldet, wenn auch unter Spott und Verhöhnung duldet, aber nicht hindert, so lange Gottesfurcht und Bravheit nur eine Torheit, aber kein Verbrechen ist, so lange gibt es noch einen Fortschritt im Schlechten. Erst dann ist dieser Fortschritt geschehen, wenn man nicht mehr lacht, sondern die Zähne knirscht über die Braven und die Ausübung des Guten als Verbrechen gegen das System der öffentlichen Wohlfahrt verbietet, hindert und bestraft — אינו מניה אחרים לעשות! So war ja auch des Emoriters Sünde noch nicht voll, so lange ein Abraham und sein Haus noch ungehindert und offen dem Wahren und Guten dort den Altar erbauen durfte; und auch Sodom geht erst unter, nachdem sich in der Tat dieser Gipfel der Entartung herausgestellt hatte.

הואלתי means I am willing to speak, just as (Exodus 2:21) “And Moses was pleased (ויואל) [to dwell with the man]”.

I have begun. To present my inquiry regarding Divine justice. I am but dust and ashes.

ויען..הואלתי, “I wanted to speak some more to G’d, אנכי עפר ואפר, even though compared to You I am only dust and ashes. I did not mean to protest Your justice, but I merely wish to understand it.

ואנכי עפר ואפר, ”though I am only dust and ashes.” The plain meaning of these words is: “I started out as עפר, “dust,” and I am destined to become אפר, “ash.” This is part of the standard confessional of the righteous. David also used similar phraseology in Psalms 103,14 כי הוא ידע יצרנו זכור כי עפר אנחנו, ”for He knows our various urges; He is mindful that we are dust.” Job 42,6 also made a similar comment על כן אמאס ונחמתי על עפר ואפר, “Therefore I recant and relent, being but dust and ashes.”

ואנכי עפר ואפר, “although I am only dust and ashes;” Avraham hints that he by rights should have become earth, i.e. killed, in the war against the four kings, or he should have become ashes already when he submitted to the fires in Nimrod’s furnace. If he had been saved, it was only because G–d had displayed His mercy for him.

ואנכי עפר ואפר I Am BUT DUST AND ASHES — I would long ago have been reduced to dust by the kings and to ashes by Nimrod had it not been that Thy mercies stood by me (Genesis Rabbah 49:11).

Therefore I was unable to comprehend Your answer

A Midrashic approach based on Sotah 17: The descendants of Avraham were given two commandments as a reward for Avraham having described himself as “dust and ashes.” One is the commandment of Sotah, (the dust put in the water such a woman has to drink to prove her innocence. Numbers 5,17 and 24); the second one being the commandment of the red heifer whose ash purifies people who have become ritually impure through contact with he dead (Numbers 19,9-19). In fact we find that the Israelites collectively are referred to as אפרים (Jeremiah 31,19). The word may be understood as the plural of אפר, ash, afarim. [In that verse it is clear that the term אפרים is applied to the Jewish people as an endearment. Ed.] The reason for the plural may be a reference to the ash which Yitzchak almost turned out to be, as well as the ash Avraham would have been (if G’d had not miraculously saved him) when he submitted to a test of his faith at the time Nimrod threw him into a furnace.

התשחית בחמשה WILT THOU DESTROY ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIVE — Will there not still be nine for each city, and You, the All-Righteous One of the Universe, can be counted with them to make up the original number of ten! (Genesis Rabbah 49:9).

I WILL NOT DESTROY IT IF I FIND THERE. He assured him that He would not destroy it if that number of righteous men will be found there. And He did not tell him, “Know that there is not such a number there as you said,” since their trial had not been completed, just as He said, I will go down now, and see.¹⁶⁷Verse 21 here.
Now Abraham did not know what would be done to them. Therefore, he rose early in the morning and looked towards Sodom,¹⁶⁸Further, 19:27-28. and upon seeing that they were destroyed, he knew that the required number of righteous men had not been there.

התשחית בחמשה את כל העיר, let me know if it is a definite rule of Your system of justice that unless there is a minimum of ten righteous people in a town You will destroy that town? If You were to do this, the result would be that the fifth city will be wiped out on account of five missing people! [based on the first Mishnah in Sanhedrin that only an עדה, quorum of ten male adults can “save” the accused. Ed.]

אולי יחסרון, Perhaps there will be five short?" Abraham implied that inasmuch as G'd was righteous He would make up the tenth in each of the five towns which had only nine righteous men in their own right. The assumption underlying all this is that at least a quorum of ten is needed in each town for those ten good men to provide protection for their town.

אולי יחסרון, if there are 5 righteous people missing from the 50 righteous people of whom I said that their presence should serve to save the city at this time, are You going to going to destroy the earth (surrounding these towns) and not forgive the place on account of the 45 righteous people that live there?”

(28-33) לא אשחית, nicht nur nicht eine Stadt, sondern überhaupt nicht Schwierig ist das Verständnis dieses allmälig steigernden Zurückgehens in Abrahams vorstellenden Fragen; wobei die in den Erwiderungen wechselnden Ausdrücke ,לא אעשה לא אשחית ,לא אשחית, auch ihre Lösung fordern. Vielleicht gewährt folgende Erwägung einiges Licht. Wenn unsere Auffassung nicht irrt, hat die Erwiderung von einem anderen Gesichtspunkte aus die Erhaltung der Gesamtheit bei vorhandenen fünfzig Gerechten zugesagt, als Abrahams Voraussetzung angenommen hatte. Nicht aus Rücksicht für sie, sondern auf Grund ihres Vorhandenseins. Bei dem ersten Gesichtspunkte würde natürlich die Berücksichtigung der Gerechten immer in gerigerem Umfange ins Gewicht fallen, je geringer ihre Zahl; anders dürfte sich dies bei dem zweiten Gesichtspunkte herausstellen. Das Vorhanden- und Geduldetsein einer Anzahl Gerechter in einem gottlosen Staat verliert seine freisprechende Beweiskraft bei einem Maximum und Minimum, und hat seine eigentliche Bedeutung nur bei einer mittleren Größe dieser Anzahl. Imponiert die Anzahl durch ihre Größe, so duldet man sie, weil man sie fürchtet. Verschwindet sie durch ihre Kleinheit, so duldet man sie, weil man sie übersieht. Nur bei einer Mittelzahl, wo man sie weder fürchtet noch übersieht, hat ihr Vorhanden- und Geduldetsein seine volle Bedeutung. Darüber und darunter nimmt die Bedeutung ab. Vielleicht sucht Abraham Klarheit über dies Verhältnis und vielleicht entspricht dem auch der bemerkte Ausdruckswechsel. לא אשחית, ich werde nicht verderben, nicht כלה bringen, wohl aber vielleicht sonst einschreiten, um Besserung herbeizuführen: לא אעשה .אדעה, ich werde gar nichts veranstalten; es liegt noch sittliches Moment hinreichend in der Masse, so dass noch von innen heraus eine Bessergestaltung nicht unmöglich ist. Daher bei fünfundvierzig, zwanzig und zehn לא אשחית, und nur bei vierzig und dreißig לא אעשה. Vielleicht.

אם אמצא שם ארבעים וחמשה, “If I find there 45 just men,” if you were to ask why Avraham, who apparently was haggling, lowered the ante by five, whereas after going down to 40, he lowered it by ten each time? We must remember that his requests were not the same each time. He had never intended to ask for any town to be saved if it did not contain at least ten just men. How was this to work? First Avraham asked for the 5 towns to be saved on the understanding that each town had at least 10 just men. He then asked that if in each of these towns there were only nine such just men that G-d Himself would consider Himself as the tenth. He then tried to save the maximum number of people by asking that the towns not be considered collectively but individually, i.e. that a total of 40 just men evenly divided between four of the town should save these four towns. This is why he stopped when assured by G-d that even only ten men, as long as they were all part of one town, would be enough to save the inhabitants of that town. He thought that Lot, his wife, his four daughters and four sonsinlaw, would make up this quorum of ten people. A different version of what Avraham had in mind: when Avraham saw that G-d agreed to his first two requests, he realised that a total of 45 just people would suffice to save the inhabitants of aJi these five towns and their respective inhabitants could be treated as five separate units. He proceeded to treat each town as a fifth of his total request. This is why he explored what the minimum number of just people had to be to secure the survival of the inhabitants of at least one of these towns. In practice, Avraham at first asked for very little, making a greater demand on G-d’s mercy every time he continued to reduce the total number needed to save part of these communities.

ויאמר..לא אשחית, I will not destroy (the fifth).

Möglich auch, dass umgekehrt das לא אעשה בעבור nur heißt: ich werde um der vierzig, dreißig willen Entsprechendes unterlassen, werde nicht ganz verzeihen, jedoch das זכות, das in dem Faktum liegt, berücksichtigen und dem Entsprechendes von dem sonst eintretenden Verderben nicht eintreten lassen; dann wäre לא אעשה geringer als לא אשחית, und es setzte dies einen Gesichtspunkt voraus, bei welchem das größere Verdienst an den beiden numerischen Grenzen, und das geringere in der Mitte läge.

Jedenfalls hat dieser Einblick in die göttliche Waltung, welchen die göttliche Gnade Abraham gewährt, seinen Kindern, die ja bestimmt worden, Jahrtausende hinab als eine Minorität in Mitte der Menschheit zu wandern, und in deren eigener Mitte sich das Gute oft nur in den Schoß einer Minorität flüchten musste und muss, die Aufgabe und die Bedeutung einer solchen Minorität zum lebendigsten Bewusstsein gebracht.

Wären in Sodom und Amoras üppig verderbtem Kreis zehn Gerechte befunden worden, es hätte Gott an der Möglichkeit einer besseren reinen Zukunft der Gesamtheit nicht verzweifelt, und hätte sie für diese bessere Zukunft erhalten. Wo aber Gott nicht verzweifelt, muss auch der Mensch mutig ausharren und das Seinige tun und unerschlafft und siegessicher für das Gute, selbst einer ganzen irre gehenden Zeitgenossenschaft gegenüber einstehen, sollte dieser Sieg des Guten auch erst andämmern, wenn über seinem Haupte längst sich das Grab geschlossen. —

Dieses ganze — um es so zu nennen — Zwiegespräch Abrahams mit dem Weltenrichter, in welchem der staubeingehüllte Mensch es wagt, mit seinem Rechtgefühle vor das Angesicht Gottes hervorzutreten und zustimmende Billigung findet, ist endlich eine Bürgschaft für die Göttlichkeit jener Stimme in uns, die für Recht und Pflicht in uns plädiert. So sehr wir עפר und אפר sind, aus Staub gebildet und in Asche zerfallend, so ist doch nicht alles an uns Staub und Asche. In diesem Staub- und Ascheleib lebt ein Hauch seines ewigen Schöpfers und ein Echo seines Geistes. Humanität und Recht und alle geistigen und sittlichen Güter der Menschheit sind durch dieses göttliche Echo in jedes Menschen Brust verbrieft und über alle Staub- und Aschelehren materialistischer Weisheit hinaus gesichert.

. אולי ימצאון שם ארבעים PERADVENTURE THERE SHALL BE FORTY FOUND THERE — then let four cities be saved; so, too, let thirty save three of them and twenty save two of them or ten save one of them.

ויוסף עוד לדבר אליו. Abraham continued to speak to Him (G'd). This is a continuation of the prayer that G'd Himself should act as the one making up the requisite quorum. The expression ויוסף…אליו means that Abraham continued in the same vein adding that G'd's making up the quorum would apply even if not all the towns would could be saved by that method.

ויוסף עוד..לא אעשה, I will not utterly destroy the whole region, as G’d had already said in verse 28 when He worded this as לא אשחית. Basically, the same considerations prevail in respect of all these numbers, G’d varying His reply by sometimes phrasing it as לא אשחית and other times as לא אעשה, “I will not do.”

And, thereby, four cities will be saved... Mahari Kolan writes (ch. 152): Avraham prayed that if one city has fifty righteous people, then the place should be saved — i.e., all five cities. And surely, if there will be [ten] in each city. Hashem consented, and added (v. 26): “I will bear with the entire place,” i.e., even the villages. That is why it says עיר, and then מקום, then לכל המקום. (Nachalas Yaakov)

לא אעשה, I will not do any harm at all to the three cities which are less guilty than Sodom.

ויאמר אל נא יחר לה׳ He said "Let my Lord not become angry." The reason that Abraham was concerned about G'd becoming angry this time was because he tried to add his own merit to make up the quorum of ten in one of the towns in case this was all that was lacking, whereas G'd would make up the quorum in the other towns. Abraham used the word נא again because he introduced a new element, i.e. use of his own merit as a protective factor. [The author may have deduced the principle that Abraham injected his own merit here because of the absence of the word אליו when he speaks to G'd. I believe the novelty of the author's approach is that he believed that throughout the dialogue reported by the Torah Abraham did not abandon the attempt to save all five cities. Ed.]

ויאמר אל נא יחר, seeing that Avraham was afraid to belabour the same point of questioning G’d about how He administered justice, he now prefaced further questions with the request that G’d not become angry at him. In order not to stretch G’d’s patience, he now omitted reducing the numbers by five at a time, reducing them by ten each time, i.e. 40,30,20,10.

אל נא יחר לאדני ואדברה, “may my Lord not become angry if I continue to bargain;” in the verses 30,31,and 32, the word אדון is to be treated as one of the names of G-d, i.e. the attributes which must not be erased in a Torah scroll.

הואלתי means I am willing to speak, just as (Exodus 2:21) “And Moses was pleased (ויואל) [to dwell with the man]”.

לא אשחית בעבור העשרים...בעבור העשרה. By destroying 3 out of the five cities the other two will not escape the retribution completely, seeing that the satellite towns are by definition largely dependent on the major urban center. Its destruction will cast its shadow on the satellite towns, as we know from Berachot 58, i.e. נתקללה בבל נתקללה בנותיה, when Babylon is cursed so are its satellite towns. (according to Rashi there: אוי לרשע אוי לשכניו, when the wicked experiences woes, so do his neighbours.”)

ויאמר הנה נא הואלתי לדבר. He said: "Here I have already dared to speak." Abraham pleads here that G'd's merit should protect twenty of the thirty righteous men whereas his own merit should suffice to protect the people in a third location by complementing the quorum of ten. Seeing that Abraham did not introduce a new element this time, he did not worry about G'd becoming angry at his being presumptuous. The emphasis on אל ה was to underline that he did not try to expand what he considered his own merit. [I believe that in order to understand the author one must assume that the twenty mentioned in the verse do not need additional protection. All that Abraham worried about was the three towns which did not have ten good people each to protect them. Ed.]

ויאמר, we already explained this type of response.

“I was willing,” as in: “And Moshe was willing.” We need not ask: Why did Rashi not explain this on the first הואלתי (v. 27)? The answer is: It would contradict his commentary on הואיל משה (Devarim 1:5), where Rashi says: “He began, just as, ‘Here I have begun (הואלתי)’ (Bereishis 18:27).” We see that הואלתי means, “I have begun.” Thus the first הואלתי means “I have begun,” as Rashi explained there, while only the second הואלתי means “I was willing.”

אולי ימצאון שם עשרה PERADVENTURE THERE SHALL TEN BE FOUND THERE — For a smaller number he did not plead because he knew already of two instances where less than ten had failed to save the wicked. He said to himself: In the generation of the Flood there were eight righteous people, viz., Noah, his sons and their wives, and they could not save their generation (Genesis Rabbah 49:13), and for nine in association with God he had already pleaded but had found no acceptance.

אל נא יחר…אך הפעם. "Do not become angry if I speak only this one more time." Here Abraham again introduces his own merit as adequate to complement the quorum of twenty people (2 towns); this is why he worries about angering G'd. In this instance he was presumptuous enough to equate the protective power of his own merit with that of his Master. This is reflected in his avoidance of the words: "to my Lord;" he merely said: "I will speak," meaning a plea relying on his own merit. He added the word אך to indicate that he would not plead again if by chance the tenth one should be missing even in the remaining town.

ויאמר...אך הפעם, Avraham makes clear that if there would not be at least ten righteous people, he would no longer have any argument to present which could be used to help these towns escape their deserved punishment. Significantly, he made no mention of Lot, as he believed that Lot deserved to share the fate of the city having voluntarily associated himself with the wicked inhabitants of that town. Besides, Avraham had no way of knowing if Lot had adopted the perverted lifestyle of the inhabitants of Sodom. He believed that Lot’s only way of saving himself from the doom decreed on the city was to voluntarily depart from that city.

לא אשחית בעבור העשרה, “I will not destroy on account of those ten.” He promised Avraham that He would not destroy the towns (or town) if He were to find ten such good people there. He did not add that Avraham should know that there were no ten such people in those cities. The reason G’d did not add these words was that the decree had not yet been finalized so as to become irrevocable. This was the meaning of G’d having said: “I will descend and take a personal look at the situation.” Avraham was left in doubt about the outcome until the following morning when he saw a column of smoke rising from that region. When he saw that, he knew that no ten righteous men had been found there.

He had already asked but could not find. [Rashi means] that when Avraham mentioned fifty, he prayed also for nine including Hashem, as it says (v. 28): “But suppose they lack five of the fifty righteous?” Thus, Avraham did not need to ask again. Surely, Hashem would not destroy a city if He would find there nine righteous; however, He did not actually find. The words “but could not find” are Rashi’s comment, saying that since in fact, Hashem did not save even one city, it must be that Hashem “could not find.” Some ask: Why did Rashi say that fifty righteous people are for five cities, forty for four cities, and so forth? What brought him to this forced explanation? Perhaps Avraham was always praying for all five cities. At first he prayed by mentioning fifty, to give a complete number of ten for each city, and then he decreased the number by as much as he could, but always with the intent of saving all [the cities] everything, as Ramban writes: “I do not know what forced Rashi to say this...” It seems the answer is: Rashi deduced his explanation based on the verses’ changing expressions, as sometimes it is written לא אעשה and sometimes לא אשחית. Accordingly, when Avraham first prays for the five cities by mentioning forty-five, which includes Hashem, it is written לא אשחית. I.e., I will not destroy them altogether, but I will make them suffer because [they have ten righteous per city] only by counting Hashem. When he then prays for four cities by mentioning forty, which does not include Hashem, it is written לא אעשה. I.e., I will not do anything at all, not even make them suffer. Similarly when mentioning thirty, it is written לא אעשה, since it is without including Hashem. Then when he prays by mentioning twenty and ten, it is written לא אשחיתregarding them both. I.e., I will make them suffer [because the majority of the five cities are without ten righteous in them]. Thus we see that first he prayed for all the cities, then for four, three, two, and then for one.

Why did he stop with ten and not continue arguing for fewer? On this matter we find four explanations: A. So that there would be among them a minyan for prayer and numerous other commandments, as it is known that a congregation is ten. B. There were five separate bastions (walled cities), and he intended there would be two (righteous people) in each. C. Experience taught him that there had been eight righteous (Noah, his three sons, and their wives) in the generation of the flood, and they had not pleaded to save that generation on their behalf. D. He reasoned that there were ten (righteous) in Sodom already - Lot and his wife, his four daughters, and their husbands…

אולי ימצאון שם עשרה, “perhaps there can be found there ten?” According to Rashi, Avraham knew already when he had asked if forty five would be sufficient, that G–d would not accept a total of less than fifty in order to save all five towns. He would not accept less than a minimum of ten innocent people per town. If Rashi were correct, why did G–d answer Avraham when he asked about 45 righteous people with the words: לא אשחית, “I will not destroy?” He repeated answering him with the same answer when twenty or thirty righteous people were the subject of Avraham’s question or plea? G–d had made it plain that in order to forgive all five cities there had to be no less that 50 righteous people, i.e. at least ten in each of them. If there were twenty or thirty, the cities containing them would be saved, but none that contained fewer. The promise not to destroy included also not imposing other hardships on those cities at the present state, When Avraham asked about the forty five, he meant that if G–d Himself would not be prepared to be the tenth in each town so that all the inhabitants at this time would be spared. He did not mean that if there were only nine righteous people in each town that they would go scot free; they would not be destroyed but be subjected to a lesser punishment. G–d promised that if there were at least ten righteous people in any one of these cities, not only would He spare that city from destruction, but He would not exact judgments from its guilty people at that time. The number ten is a round number and therefore important enough not only to protect that quorum but also those living alongside them. [Avraham could not have been completely ignorant of this, else why did he not start with a higher number? Ed.] He knew that the eight people in Noach’s ark had not been enough to save the remainder of the human species from destruction at that time, including devastating the earth they had dwelled on. Avraham knew that it would be pointless to ask G–d to desist from destroying all these towns when they could not even point to a quorum of righteous people in any of their cities. At any rate, counting a righteous person in one city, i.e. a city that had eleven righteous people as if the eleven would be added to nine righteous people in another town was also not acceptable. Some commentators hold that the reason that Avraham did not pray for less than ten people was that he thought that Lot, his wife, four children and their spouses, would have made up the quorum. G–d’s response reassured him that if indeed Lot and his family were righteous, they would not be killed in what was about to happen.

בתוך העיר, “within the city.” According to Ibn Ezra the condition was that these ten people are visibly G’d-fearing, display their faith in public. We find something analogous described in Jeremiah 5,1 שוטטו בחוצות ירושלים, “roam the streets of Jerusalem!” [in that instance the search would not turn up a single G’d-fearing man. Ed.] Nachmanides sees in the expression בתוך העיר that even if the ten men in question were sojourning in Sodom only temporarily, were not citizens, their presence at this time would help save the town from destruction. The words were a veiled reference to people such as Lot.

'וילך ה 'וגו AND THE LORD WENT AWAY — As soon as the counsel for the defence had nothing more to say the Judge took his departure.

וילך ה, Avraham remained in a waiting posture. He had not given up hope to expect further prophetic insights until it became clear to him that G’d’s presence had departed. We cannot help noting the contrast with Genesis 4,16 where the Torah reports the termination of G’d speaking to Kayin as ויצא קין מלפני ה', Kayin terminating the interview with G’d by his being the first one to leave while the presence of G’d had not yet departed.

וילך ה׳ כאשר כלה לדבר. When G'd completed speaking with Abraham He left. The Torah reports that G'd did not even give Abraham a chance to plead further on behalf of a lesser number of righteous people. After all, Abraham said that he had used his final plea. Although the Zohar 1,82 suggests that the righteous is the foundation of the earth, i.e. that a single righteous person could save the rest of the world, this may apply only to an outstanding צדיק. Perhaps if Abraham had lived in Sodom, his presence could have sufficed to save the town.

'וילך ה, G’d’s presence withdrew from Avraham, and it became clear to him as part of his vision that he had returned to his terrestrial home, the very place where he had become the recipient of this prophetic vision.

Once the Judge leaves, the defender leaves... I.e., the verse comes to teach us that Hashem seeks out the defender’s words because He does not desire death for the wicked. But when the defender fell silent, He left. Otherwise, why does it say here, “He departed,” unlike all other prophecies where this is not mentioned?

ואברהם שב למקומו AND ABRAHAM RETURNED UNTO HIS PLAGE — The Judge departed, the Advocate went away, but the Prosecutor continued his accusation, and on that account— ויבואו שני המלאכים סדומה “The two angels came to Sodom” to destroy it (Genesis Rabbah 49:14).

ואברהם שב, he returned from the place to which he had accompanied the angels, where G’d’s word had come to him.

למקומו, to his home.