Komentaryong Sumisipi para sa Genesis 17:21

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.

לאברהם, as G’d had said “אשר תלד לך שרה,” “whom Sarah will bear for you.” This is a customary form of syntax, as for instance in 16,15 ותלד הגר לאברהם בן, or Exodus 21,4 וילדה לו בנים ובנות, and many similar examples. A woman is considered similar to the earth in this respect, i.e. just as the earth yields fruit for its owners, so a woman produces children for her husband after he had planted his seed in her. The child was named after its father.

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,⁹³Verses 13-14 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.”

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”.

והקמתי את בריתי AND I WILL ESTABLISH MY COVENANT WITH HIM — Why is this stated? Is it not already written (Genesis 17:9) “as for thee, thou shalt keep My Covenant, thou and thy seed etc.”? But since is said, (Genesis 17:7) and I will establish My Covenant between Me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations”, it might be inferred that the children of Ishmael and the children of Keturah (who are all descendants of Abraham) are included in this promise of the establishment of the Covenant, therefore it states here (Genesis 17:19) “And I will establish My Covenant with him (Isaac), not with the others” (cf. Sanhedrin 59b). If so, why is there a repetition of the statement that the covenant will be established with Isaac in the words (Genesis 17:21) ואת בריתי אקים את יצחק “but My Covenant will I establish with Isaac”? But it is repeated in order to add the words אשר תלד so as to teach that he was holy from his birth (Shabbat 137b). Another explanation of why 5:21 is repeated is: R. Aba said, “from here Scripture draws a logical conclusion regarding the son of the Mistress (Sarah) from what is said regarding the son of the handmaid (Hagar): It is written (Genesis 17:20) “Behold I have blessed him and will make him fruitful”, and this refers to Ishmael: Surely then, it follows logically that “I must establish my covenant (of blessing) with Isaac also!” (Genesis Rabbah 47:5).