Genesis · Chapter 18

Hashem appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day.

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) 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). 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) פתח האהל AT THE TENT-DOOR — that he might see whether anyone passed by, and invite him into the house 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 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: 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.“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]. 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. “And they did eat: here. they appeared to be eating.”In the book Moreh Nebuchim 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, here. and he said, if now I have found favor in thy eyes. 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? And according to his 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, like dreams of falsehood, for what is the purpose of showing him all this! Similarly did the author of the Moreh Nebuchim say in the case of the verse, And a man wrestled with him, 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? 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. 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. 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, 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, 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 Rabbi See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. pronounced, i.e., that every prophet, Moses our teacher excepted, received his prophecy through the medium of an angel. The Sages have already said concerning Daniel: “They were greater than he for they were prophets and he was not a prophet.” His book, likewise, was not grouped together 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. The vision concerning the ultimate redemption also occurred when Daniel was awake as he walked with his friends beside the Tigris River. As for his friends, see ibid., Verse 7. Tradition specifies that these were Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi. (Megillah 3a.) Hagar the Egyptian (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. 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), See Friedlander’s note on bath kol, p. 199, n.2. as the Rabbi 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, 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: “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. 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,” as is explained in Vayikra Rabbah 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, 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, and he further said, For it was said to me by the word of the Eternal. Our Rabbis have further stated in the matter of Balaam, who said, Now, therefore, if it displease thee, I will get me back, [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, 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. 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 Rabbah 1:9. the Sages have said: “And He called to Moses, unlike Abraham. Concerning Abraham it is written, And the angel of the Eternal called unto Abraham a second time out of heaven. 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; similarly: And Elisha prayed, and said, O Eternal, I pray thee, open his eyes, that he may see. 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, The reference deals with Jacob wrestling with the angel. And a certain man found him, in the opinion of our Rabbis — 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, and in the words of Zechariah, etc. I will yet disclose words of the living G-d in allusions. Concerning on the matter of the verse, And they did eat, here. the Usages have said: “One course after the other disappeared.” 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, 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, 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. 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, 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. Similarly, in connection with Jacob, Scripture says, And the angels of G-d met him, 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 say of those who passed through the Red Sea and said, This is my G-d, and I will glorify Him: “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. 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. That was for the protection of His righteous servants and their honor. Now do not be concerned about the interruption of the portion “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, 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. here. This is the intent of the Sages’ saying, 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, “An altar of earth thou shalt make unto Me. Now if any person just built an altar to My name, he is assured that I will appear unto him and bless him. (Exodus 20:21.) 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.

"And He appeared" — Some have said that Hashem, the three men, is one and is three, and they are not to be separated. But they have forgotten the verse, "And the two angels arrived at Sodom" (Gen. 19:1). Other commentators have said that Hashem appeared to him in prophetic vision, and thereafter he lifted his eyes and saw three angels. One came to bring the tidings to Sarah, and the two went to Sodom — one to destroy, and one to rescue Lot. As for the meaning of "and they ate," it means that the bread was consumed, in the sense of "that which the fire consumes" (Lev. 6:3).

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). 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. 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. 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." 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. 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. 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.] 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.

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, 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. 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.)

באור פני מלך חיים ורצונו כעב מלקוש,”In the light of the king’s face there is life; his favor is like a cloud of spring rain.” (Mishlei 16:15) King Solomon explained by means of this verse the benefit that man derives when a king is well disposed towards him and shows him favor. He compares this goodwill to a cloud which promises to discharge its moisture in the spring, something that everyone looks forward to with anticipation. In another verse Solomon compared such goodwill of the king as dew. In Proverbs 19,12 he writes נהם ככפיר זעף המלך וכטל על עשב רצונו, ”The rage of a king is like the roaring of a lion; but his favor is like dew on grass.” The reason Solomon chose two hyperboles to describe the king’s favor is because the benefit of rain is something which is only noticeable in the future. When there will be a bountiful harvest the benefit of the rain is noticeable retroactively. The benefit derived by dew is noticeable immediately, however. Similarly, there is a difference between the manifestation of G-d’s goodwill. Sometimes its effect becomes visible at once; at other times its beneficial effect is not felt until after a considerable period of time has elapsed. On other occasions Solomon teaches us in Proverbs about harm which results to man as a result of G-d’s anger even though man does not actually experiences (becomes aware) that he has been hurt, and even though G-d’s anger may never be translated into action. There is no need to mention that if G-d wants to vent His anger on those who anger Him that He is able to do so. Solomon explains that when G-d is angry at someone but does not take action against that person, the person in question will experience fear and general unease as does someone who hears the roar of a lion or some other ferocious beast. Such a person becomes frightened at the mere sound of potential danger. This is an experience which the object of G-d’s anger feels although in the end G-d does not cause him actual harm. Concerning such an experience Solomon said that “the rage of a king is like the roaring of a lion whereas His favor is like dew on the grass.” If, however, G-d is angry and wants to enact retribution from the object of His anger, this means death. Concerning such a situation Solomon wrote (Proverbs 16,14) חמת מלך מלאכי-מות, “The king’s wrath is a messenger of death.” Just as G-d’s wrath spells death for its victim so His goodwill or favor spells life; this is why Solomon says there (verse 15) באור פני מלך חיים, “in the light of the king’s face there is life.” Solomon applies the a fortiori kind of reasoning. He extrapolates from a human king’s power to G-d’s power suggesting that if even a human king’s pleasure or displeasure results in the life or death of his victim, how much more so must this be the case when one attracts the wrath or approval of the King of Kings, G-d Almighty. G-d, after all, controls not only the life of the body in our terrestrial universe but the eternal life or death of the soul in the celestial spheres as well. Isaiah 55,10 underlines that G-d does not “waste” any activity or even utterance. “For as the rain or snow drops from heaven and returns not there but soaks the earth and makes it bring forth vegetation... so is the word that issues forth from My mouth; it does not come back to Me unfulfilled.” In Psalms 30,6 we are told כי רגע באפו חיים ברצונו, “for He is angry but a moment, and when He is pleased there is life.” Concerning this Psalm Solomon said in the verse we quoted above that Life is attached to the benevolent manifestation of G-d’s presence. We find such manifestations of G-d’s presence on three levels. 1) G-d instructs the prophet concerning one or several commandments in the Torah such as when He commanded Avraham to circumcise himself and his household. 2) G-d manifests His presence in order to protect and defend the righteous such as happened when the people were ready to stone Joshua and Calev for disagreeing with the spies’ majority report. G-d intervened to save them by displaying His glory at the Tent of Meeting (Numbers 14,10). A third level of G-d’s presence manifesting itself is recorded in Leviticus 9,23 ויצאו ויברכו את העם וירא כבוד ה' אל כל העם, “when Moses and Aaron came out of the Tabernacle and blessed the people, the Presence of the Lord appeared to all the people.” Avraham experienced a special manifestation of G-d’s benevolent Presence as a reward for fulfilling the commandment of circumcision. This was a practical demonstration of the meaning of Proverbs 16,15 באור פני מלך חיים “in the light of the king’s face is life.” The word חיים, “life,” includes “healing.” As a result of G-d manifesting Himself to Avraham as recorded at the beginning of our portion, Avraham was healed from the effects of the circumcision on his body. We find a close association of the words חולי, “sickness,” and the word חיים, “life,” in Isaiah 38,9 when King Chiskiyah was cured from his sickness and the prophet describes this in the words ויחי מחליו. Another verse in which sickness and life appear side by side is Isaiah 38,16 ותחלימני והחייני, “You have restored me to health and You have revived me.” 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. 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. והוא יושב פתח האהל כחם היום, “and he was seated at the entrance to the tent as the day grew hot.” The plain meaning of these words is that seeing Avraham was weakened by the circumcision he took advantage of the heat of the sun to act as therapy for his wounds. This is why he was outside at a time when normal healthy people stay inside to take advantage of the shade. The basis for the sun providing therapy is derived from Maleachi 3,20 כי השמש מרפא בכנפיה, “for the sun brings healing on its wings.” A Midrashic approach views this detail as a reference to the fourth hour in the morning which is the time most people sit down to a meal. Avraham was waiting for visitors to share his meal with him. A kabbalistic approach: the words “he was sitting at the entrance of the tent” is an allusion to the spiritual counterpart of the Jewish people in the celestial regions soothing Avraham’s mind when he became aware of its existence in those regions at this time. This is deduced by the wording וירא ה' אליו. We have a tradition that the patriarchs were never addressed directly by the four-lettered name of G’d י-ה-ו-ה. [compare Exodus 6,3. Ed.] If nonetheless, we encounter this name of G’d here in connection with a vision Avraham was granted, we must conclude that this name was revealed to him only indirectly. The words “at the entrance of the tent,” are a hint that he had not yet been able to enter that “tent.”

And the Lord appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre. The verse does not say “And the Lord appeared to Abraham,” because his name and his essential nature were two opposites. His name “Abraham” — meaning “father of many nations” — indicates authority and elevation, while his essential nature was more humble than anyone else, as demonstrated by his statement I am but dust and ashes. To prevent people from saying that the Holy One, blessed be He, reveals Himself more readily to great people because of their greatness, therefore it does not say “And the Lord appeared to Abraham.” This teaches us that God did not appear to him because he was the father of many nations, but rather because of his essential character — being humble and lowly. As our Sages said (Shabbat 92b): “The Holy One, blessed be He, only rests His Divine Presence upon one who is wise, strong, wealthy, and humble.” Therefore it says appeared to him — because of his essential nature which indicated humility, and not because of his name which indicated the opposite. Another interpretation, in contrast to this, is that initially God revealed Himself to him because he was Abram, father to Aram, due to bringing them under the wings of the Divine Presence, and it was as if he had given birth to them. Because he was a father to all of them, God revealed Himself to him, but from the perspective of his own essence, he was not yet worthy to see the face of the Divine Presence because he was uncircumcised and had a blemish. Now that he was circumcised, God appeared to him even from the perspective of his own essence. To indicate that this vision was because of the circumcision, He appeared to him in the oaks of Mamre, because according to Rashi’s opinion, it was Mamre who gave him advice regarding circumcision. It appears that Rashi learned this from the fact that it says oaks [elonei] in the plural form — for was he at that time in many oaks? It should have said “in the oak [elon] of Mamre.” For even though Mamre had many oaks and Abraham’s tents were spread throughout all of them, nevertheless, it would have been sufficient for God’s divine radiance to spread in the particular oak where Abraham himself was dwelling. Rather, it must be that since Mamre had some merit and portion in the commandment of circumcision, therefore God appeared in all of his oaks. For this reason it also says appeared to him — so you shouldn’t say that perhaps all of Abraham’s household members were in those oaks and they were all circumcised, therefore God’s light shone upon all of them and not because of Mamre. The verse teaches us by saying appeared to him — to exclude all the members of his household and those he had purchased, and if so, it was certainly Mamre’s merit that caused this, as stated. It can be suggested that “be’elonei” [in the plains] is not a term referring to a plain, but rather a place that had Mamre’s trees [since alon commonly means oak], and this is proven by what is said [later in the verse] and lean under the tree, as there were many trees there. And our Sages taught (Shabbat 108a): From where do we know that circumcision is performed in that place? It is derived from the use of the word “orlah” [uncircumcised] regarding trees and the same word “orlah” here — just as there it refers to a place that produces fruit, so too circumcision is performed in a place that produces fruit. And so we find in the Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 46:5) that Abraham was unsure from where to circumcise — whether from the mouth, or the ear, or the heart, etc. Therefore, the light of God was revealed to all the trees as if to show and say: “Look at these trees and learn from them, for the main radiance of God’s glory is upon the place that produces fruit.” And from this, learn by analogy that you shall perceive God from your flesh in the place that is similar to trees. Nevertheless, it is difficult to understand why the verse mentions that these were Mamre’s trees, and furthermore, how did Abraham proceed before God’s glory shone upon him? Rather, certainly Mamre gave him advice based on reasoning that circumcision should be in the place that produces fruit, and God agreed through him, as God’s glory appeared to him in the plains of Mamre. And with this, everything is resolved, for it is a precious explanation. And he was sitting at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day. This verse teaches that from two aspects Abraham was worthy of seeing the Divine Presence. The first is that he sat at the entrance of the tent to see if guests would come, and through the merit of charity a person merits to see the Divine Presence, as it is said As for me, through righteousness I shall behold Your face (Psalms 17:15). This explains the use of the letter kaf in kechom hayom [like the heat of the day] — for it should have said bechom hayom [in the heat of the day]. Rather, he acted like the heat of the sun which waits to do righteousness, as it is said sun of righteousness with healing in its wings (Malachi 3:20). For through God’s kindness the sun shines, as it is written To Him Who makes the great lights, for His kindness endures forever (Psalms 136:7). The second aspect is that he sat in the heat of the day seeking the healing sun with its wings; therefore it was fitting that God’s glory would be revealed to him to visit the sick. And regarding what they said (Bava Metzia 86b) that it was the third day after his circumcision, etc., it appears that the author of this midrash holds that Abraham was circumcised on Yom Kippur, as they learned (in Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 29) from the verse on this very day. If so, necessarily, God did not appear to him on the first day after the circumcision, because Abraham made a feast for the angels and fed them, and his household members also cooked and performed work on that day. For according to the opinion that it was before Passover and he fed them matzah, he certainly wouldn’t have wanted to distract them from God’s commandments. And if you were to say that this day was the first day of Passover, nevertheless, one doesn’t cook on a holiday for non-Jews. And he was uncertain whether they were Arabs, and on Yom Kippur how could they have cooked for them and how could he have fed them, for perhaps they were righteous people? Rather, certainly God did not appear to him on the first day after the circumcision. And if so, it is difficult to understand why He didn’t appear to him on the first day. But certainly this was because the pain was not yet so great, and therefore He also did not appear to him on the second day, but rather on the third day, because then the pain is greatest, as they said And it came to pass on the third day, when they were in pain (Genesis 34:25). But logically, I would say that He should have visited him even on the first day even though the pain wasn’t as great, but from the fact that the first day was Yom Kippur or Passover, we learn that He specifically waited for the day when the pain was greatest. And he sat. Rashi explains that it is written defectively [without a vav]. He [Abraham] wished to stand, but the Holy One, Blessed be He said to him “Sit, and this will be a sign for your children…” Any intelligent person would be astonished at this vision — what does this sitting have to do with the sitting of judges, and why did God show this to him specifically through this act of sitting? Therefore, I say that since no speech or command is mentioned in this vision, surely the purpose of this vision was to inform Abraham about the wickedness of the people of Sodom. The text interrupts with and behold three men were standing over him referring to the hospitality to guests, because through this Abraham would come to agree with the Holy One, Blessed be He about overturning Sodom. As it is said about them, Behold, this was the sin of your sister Sodom… and the hand of the poor and needy she did not strengthen (Ezekiel 16:49). It is known that a traveler would not come [to Sodom], as evidenced by the angels who were refused lodging. The Holy One, Blessed be He wanted to reveal to Abraham through these angels who happened upon him — as it was known before Him that they would not be given lodging — and thus Abraham would know that they deserved destruction by law. It is reasonable to understand that the Holy One, Blessed be He established both an upper [heavenly] court and a lower court concerning the people of Sodom, to carry out judgment agreed upon by both courts, as it is written And the Lord rained upon Sodom… from the Lord. Wherever it says “And the Lord” it refers to Him and His court, and therefore it says from the Lord, as His court took that rain from the Lord. And He seated Abraham in the lower court, for we find that the Holy One, Blessed be He seats the Patriarchs in judgment, as it is written, Hear, O mountains, the Lord’s grievance, and you mighty ones of the earth (Micah 6:2) [a term understood to be referring to the patriarchs]. And as our Sages said (Shabbat 89b), “In the future, the Holy One, Blessed be He will say to Abraham, ‘Your children have sinned…’” And as it is written, Shall I hide from Abraham… For I have known him… to do righteousness and justice. For by this reason he would agree to their destruction, since they did not do righteousness and justice, as was told about the false judges of Sodom (Sanhedrin 109b). Or it could be said that since Abraham was the father of many nations, perhaps he would advocate on their behalf to make a compromise, and this is the meaning of righteousness and justice — for what is justice that contains righteousness? This refers to arbitration. And after He seated Abraham in judgment over the people of Sodom, therefore the Holy One, Blessed be He said to him, “Sit, and this will be a sign for your children…” And regarding what Rashi explained, that the Holy One, Blessed be He, was standing while they were sitting — it appears that he learned this from what was stated and he was sitting, because the word and he seems superfluous, as it should have stated “And Abraham sat” at the beginning of the matter, and afterwards it should have said and God appeared to him. Rather, and he was sitting comes to exclude the Divine Presence from sitting, because the word “sitting” written without a vav can be understood as past tense, as if saying he sat previously but now was not sitting, while it can also be read as present tense, and thus both meanings are implied. The reason for this is based on what our Sages said (Pirkei Avot 4:22) that the Holy One, Blessed be He, is the witness, the plaintiff, and the judge. Therefore, God stood first to teach us that He is the plaintiff and witness, as their practice is specifically to stand, as it is written For the Lord has a grievance with His people, and with Israel He shall dispute (Micah 6:2). This shows that He is the plaintiff, and therefore God stood so that others would learn from Him that every plaintiff and witness must stand in judgment, as they learned from the verse And the two men who have the dispute shall stand (Deuteronomy 19:17). Afterwards, the Holy One, Blessed be He, also became the judge and sat with the judges, as it is written God stands in the divine assembly (Psalms 82:1). This is during the time of debate, claims, and testimony, and afterwards in the midst of the judges He judges — He sits among them and judges. This is a precious and honorable interpretation. “In the heat of the day.” We have already explained above that in this sitting, the Holy One, Blessed be He, placed Abraham in judgment, saying Listen, O mountains [referring to Abraham], to God’s grievance, for there was no one seeking God in the land. And we find that most judgment of the wicked occurs in the morning, as it is said Each morning I will destroy all the wicked of the land (Psalms 101:8). And so it is said regarding the people of Sodom, The sun had risen over the land when Lot arrived at Zoar, and God rained upon Sodom. The reason for this is because we find that Abraham came to knowledge of the Blessed Name [God] through observing the sun’s path and its movement. And so explained in the Akeidat Yitzchak in Parashat Bereishit, regarding the verse And you shall know today and take to your heart that the Lord is God (Deuteronomy 4:39) — when you understand the daily rotation of the celestial sphere and its movements, you will recognize and know that the Lord is God. The Rabbi explained that this was the precious pearl that hung around Abraham’s neck (Bava Batra 16b), for he would proclaim loudly the existence of the Blessed One, and upon his death, he connected this knowledge to the sun’s sphere, as mentioned. Therefore, morning comes and His existence becomes known to all creatures. As for the wicked who neither knew nor understood God’s actions and did not see the work of His hands, their judgment brought about the morning, for the morning condemns them and “cuts off the feet of the wicked.” Therefore, it says that Abraham had God appear to him, as it is written And the Lord appeared to him, while he sat at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day. For he was contemplating the path of the sun which heats the day, and through this investigation, God appeared to him. But the people of Sodom, who did not know God, were judged as the sun rose. Therefore it says in the heat of the day, as this was the matter upon which the decree against Sodom was sealed. Another explanation for why it mentions the heat of the day: Every judge needs to imagine as if Gehenna is open beneath him (Zohar Exodus 117a). And you already know that the phrase heat of the day is interpreted as referring to Gehenna, as it is said For behold, the day is coming, burning like an oven (Malachi 3:19). And from here they learned that Abraham does not allow any circumcised person to enter Gehenna. Thus, according to our approach, this interpretation applies to the judges.

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. 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.]

He lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing over him. He saw them and ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and bowed down to the ground.

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

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; the chief officers that stood over the work. 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. Meaning “encamping alongside the sea.” Here too alav means “standing alongside him.”

וישא עיניו, he concentrated on seeing more clearly. 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. וירץ לקראתם, before they could open a dialogue with him. 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.” 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.

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? 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. 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)." 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.

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, 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.

וישא עיניו וירא, “He raised his eyes and saw, etc.” At this point he had only a dim vision of someone approaching. שלשה אנשים נצבים עליו, “three men already on top of him.” At this point the Torah repeats the word וירא, as only now did Avraham see these people close up. At this point he also realised that they were angels. This is why the Torah writes that Avraham ran towards them and prostrated himself before them on the ground. The angels were Michael, Raphael, and Gavriel. Michael had been assigned the task of announcing that Sarah would have a child and to save Lot. Both of these assignments were expressions of G’d’s love or mercy respectively, and could therefore be described as being of the same category. Raphael had the task of healing Avraham. Gavriel’s task was to turn Sodom upside down. This is why the Torah writes (19,1) “the two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening.” This is a reference to Michael and Gavriel. Since it was Michael’s task to save Lot we find that when describing the destruction of Sodom the Torah uses the singular when it writes (19,25) ויהפוך את הערים האלה, “he” turned these cities upside down,” instead of writing “they” turned these cities upside down.” We learn from this that whereas one angel may not carry out two tasks of different categories, such as one that emanates from G’d’s attribute of Justice and another emanating from the attribute of Mercy, he may carry out two assignments when both originate from the same attribute, in this instance the attribute of Mercy. This is why we find Michael performing what appear to be two separate tasks. He gave Sarah, who had previously been unable to conceive, a message of love and hope, and he saved Lot who did not have a valid claim to be saved. Should you ask, if so, why was a special angel needed to heal Avraham? Is not healing another aspect of G’d’s attribute of Mercy? Could not Michael have performed this task also? The fact is that healing, especially people who deserve to be healed, is not part of the heading of performing an act of loving kindness. If Michael had accepted that assignment he would have trespassed on Raphael’s territory. This is why G’d assigned to each of these angels only tasks which were within their respective spheres of competence. It is not permissible in the celestial regions to have overlapping areas of competence; this is what is meant by Job 25,2 “He imposes peace in His celestial regions.” If you look at our paragraph with an analytical eye you will discover that G’d granted Avraham an insight into he workings of the celestial hierarchies. These three angels were the respective heads of three of G-d’s “armies.” They were part of the four encampments (armies) surrounding the שכינה, “the Divine Presence.” We have been told in Shemot Rabbah 2,8 that wherever you encounter the archangel Michael you encounter the glory of the שכינה. When Avraham beheld these three angels and he ran after them he was actually running after the שכינה, trying to welcome it. As to the fourth “army,” G-d employs His forces in accordance with the requirements of the occasion. The fourth “army” had already been revealed to Avraham in chapter fifteen during the episode of the covenant between the pieces.

And he said: Hashem, if now I have found favor before You, please do not pass on from your servant.

'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. 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, as he recognized them to be angels of the Supreme One, even as they are called elohim and eilim. For this reason he bowed down to the earth to them. 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; 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; And when ye reap the harvest of your land, thou shalt not wholly reap the corner of thy field; 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. The greater part of the Mishneh Torah 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. Here He speaks to the whole congregation as a unit and not to each person individually. Now our Rabbis have said, “Abraham spoke to the chief of the angels.” 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. 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, and that they recline under the tree in the cool of the day without coming into the tent and the tabernacle.

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? 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.

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 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.”

ויאמר, אדני אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך, He said: “my lord, if I have found favor in your eyes, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the words (as presented by Rashi) Avraham included all three men in his address and invitation saying to the senior one amongst them: “if I have found favor in your eyes (singular).” The assumption then is that the word אדני is secular and does not refer to someone representing the Divine. The problem with this kind of approach is the vowel kametz in the word adonay. Wherever we find this word vocalised in this manner it always means “my Lord,” i.e. someone is addressing G’d and that is the reason the plural is used. The reason for the plural is that celestial beings always appear in the plural such as elohim, malachim, etc. It is possible to argue that Avraham addressed only the archangel Michael when he said “adonay.” Michael, in his capacity as the angel representing the attribute of love and kindness (Mercy), was the direct superior of Avraham whose outstanding characteristic was this very virtue or attribute חסד. It was no more than right that he should address him as “my lord.” This would also account for the fact that Avraham first offered water and subsequently butter and milk without mentioning wine as part of the meal at all. This is self-explanatory. [for those to whom it is not so self-explanatory such as this editor, “wine” is considered as part of the domain and emanation גבורה, the opposite of the emanation חסד. “Water,” on the other hand, is the epitome of the emanation חסד, compare chapter 23 in שער ערכי כנויים of Pardes Rimonim. Ed.] According to the discipline of vocalisations there are seven gradations in the vowels [not including semi-vowels which are not audible but which nonetheless are not part of the consonants]. The vowel kametz ranks as highest of these seven levels. It is followed in descending order by patach, tzeyre, segol, cholem shuruk, and chirik. The entire Torah is structured around these seven vowels which affect pronunciation of the words. They are also known as "seven syllables", or "seven sounds", concerning which David said in Psalm 29 [known as the hymn in honour of the giving of the Torah. קול ה', “the voice or the sound of G’d,” occurs seven times.] This is also the meaning of Shemot Rabbah 28,4 that the Torah was given with seven קולות, “sounds.” Concerning these seven sounds, Solomon said in Proverbs 9,1 חצבה עמודיה שבעה, “she has hewn her seven pillars.” These seven sounds are the foundation upon which the whole structure rests. The difference between the vowel kametz and the vowel patach (otherwise found in the word “adonay”) is merely a single “dot,” and usually such a dot is perceived as an allusion to the original “dot” of matter which was the beginning of the creative process of this universe. [the “dot” is equated in kabbalistic jargon with the letter י, itself an allusion to the ten emanations.] This is the mystical reason why such a dot (in the way we write the vowels) serves seven different purposes. When you place such a dot on top of a consonant it produces the vowel cholam. When you place it in the middle of the consonant ו the result is the vowel shuruk. If you add the dot to the vowel patach, the result will be the vowel kametz. If you add a dot to the vowel chirik, you get the vowel tzeyre. If you add a dot to the vowel tzeyre the result is the vowel segol. If you add a dot to the semi-vowel sheva the result is the vowel kubutz. So you have seven different vowels merely by changing a single “dot.” Now to the letters themselves. If you insert (fill in the missing blank) a dot inside the letter ה it turns it into a ח. If you add a dot to the left side top of the letter ו it becomes a ז. If you add a dot to make the base of the letter כ protrude, it turns into the letter ב. If you add a dot on the right top of the letter ר it turns into the letter ד. We can understand therefore what the sages mean when they say that an extra dot or a missing dot is liable to destroy the universe. (compare Sotah 20). Although, at first glance, it appears that there is only a minute difference between spelling the word adonay or adonoy, (and in the sephardic pronunciation this difference is not even audible), there are profound differences in the meaning of the word as a result of misspelling it and consequently misunderstanding its meaning. Here are a few examples of where such minor misspellings have a profound effect. Joshua 3,6 speaks of the ארון הברית, ”the ark of the covenant.” When spelled (correctly) with the vowel patach, the word ארון, ark, is a possessive of the word הברית, “G’d’s covenant.” If spelled incorrectly with the vowel kametz, this would convert the ark into being the covenant. In Exodus 23,20 we have the verse הנה אנכי שולח מלאך “here I am going to send an angel.” The word מלאך is vocalised with the vowel kametz as it is not in the possessive clause. Whenever the word מלאך is in the possessive clause it must be vocalised with the vowel patach. At the end of a verse or at the cantillation etnachta, the vowel patach is always changed to kametz to indicate that the word is in its own right and is not a possessive clause which would be presumed otherwise. The patach always points to the word which follows it, making the word with that vowel at the end secondary to what follows. (Rabbi Chavell quotes Mateh Moshe on laws of prayers who quotes our author, and adds that when the word אדני is spelled with the vowel chirik at the end, it means “my ‘personal’ lord,” as opposed to acknowledging that “He is the ruler of the whole universe”). The reason that in our verse you do not find the word adonay vocalised with a patach is best understood by remembering that if Avraham had indeed addressed only Michael he would have had to say adonee, “my (personal) lord.” Neither the vowel patach nor the vowel kametz would have been appropriate. It would be incongruous to vocalise the word אדני when used as a reference to G’d with the vowel patach, as this would imply that G’d is in some kind of subordinate relationship to anyone as suggested by the possessive clause represented by that vowel. In short, if someone exchanges the kametz under this word for a patach he cannot escape being guilty of one or two things. 1) He is a heretic; 2) or he completely distorts the meaning of the verse in which this word appears. Let us use Genesis 18,23 as an example. If someone were to place the vowel kametz instead of the vowel patach under the letter ה in האף תספה (which is perceived as turning what follows into a question), he would completely distort the meaning of the whole verse, turning it into a statement, i.e. an accusation against G’d. Let us look at another example. in Job 8,3. In הא-ל יעות משפט; the letter ה is vocalised with the vowel patach. As it stands the verse is a question and means: “is it possible that G’d will pervert justice?” If you were to place the vowel kametz under the letter ה in the word הא-ל in that verse it would turn the entire phrase into a statement denying G’d’s justice, i.e. into heresy. Another way of explaining what we have been saying is that the vowel kametz describes a true state of affairs, something objective, whereas the vowel patach describes something relative, a subjective truth. (Rabbi Chavell conjectures that the last statement may be based on David Kimchi, though he does not supply a source for this.) An example of the accuracy of this claim is Samuel II 1,10 (where the Amalekite lad relates to David that he had complied with Saul’s wish to give him the coup de grace so he would not fall into the hands of the Philistines as a prisoner) ואעמד עליו ואמתתהו כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “so I stood over him and killed him for I knew that he would not live.” In that verse the words ואעמד עליו, “I stood over him,” are an absolute truth; the words כי ידעתי כי לא יחיה, “for I knew he would not live” are a relative truth. The word ואעמד begins with the vowel kametz under the letter ו, whereas the corresponding letter ו in the word ואמתתהו, has the vowel patach to signify that this statement was only a relative truth. We had read in Samuel I 31,4 that Saul had actually committed suicide when his arms-bearer refused to finish him off. So the statement of the Amalekite lad who claimed to have killed him was not an objective truth. All of the foregoing is part of the wisdom contained in the Holy Torah and the Holy Tongue. This is the reason that the relationship of consonants and vowels to one another has been compared to the relationship between body and soul as pointed out in the Sefer HaBahir by Rabbi Nechunyah ben HaKana. The vowels, i.e. the absence of correct vocalization invalidates the text just as the absence of a soul paralyses the body. The body is compared to an animal without a rider. The soul supplies the animal with its rider. In a similar manner the vowels are what complete the consonants. We find a statement in Megillah 3 that the words ושום שכל in Nechemiah 8,8 are a reference to what is spelled out in the Holy Scriptures, especially the vocalization. A kabbalistic approach sees in the vowel kametz in the word א-דני a combination of two of the Holy Names of G’d both comprising four letters. The one name symbolizes both G’d’s preceding any phenomenon in the universe as well as His Oneness and uniqueness in the world. The second name of G’d in that expression teaches the Nobility of G’d, that He transcends even the highest of the ten emanations. This is why the word א-דני commences with the letter א and concludes with the letter י. The letters דנ in the middle represent the attribute of Justice. You ought to realise that the three names of G’d which are comprised of four letters each are all alluded to in a single verse in Exodus 35,17 את קלעי החצר, את עמודיו ואת אדניה, “the curtains of the Courtyard represent the all encompassing name of G’d, the name א-היה which testifies to His being Eternal and unchanging.” The word את עמודיו represent the Ineffable name י-ה-ו-ה; finally, the words ואת אדניה are comprised of the letters in the word א-דני and symbolise His relationship as Master of the universe, i.e. the influence of what is above on what is below. Another verse reflecting a similar message is found in Job 38,6 [where these words have been put in the mouth of G’d Himself. Ed.] על מה אדניה הטבעו? או מי ירה אבן פנתה? “Onto what were its bases sunk? Who sets its cornerstone?” The subject of the verse is the Holy Temple (Holy Tabernacle) and G’d compares its construction to the creation of the universe which He personally had undertaken. The fourth four-lettered name of G’d is alluded to in connection with Rivkah’s reply (24,19) that she as a three-year old would draw water for the ten (or more) camels of Eliezer, contains an allusion to divine assistance based on another less well known name of G’d comprising the letters א-ג-ל-א. This will be discussed in greater detail when we examine that verse.

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. 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.

Let a little water be brought, and wash your feet, and recline under the tree.

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

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.] 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.

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.

“Let a little water be brought.” Rashi explains that [Abraham] did not want to bring idolatry into his house, but this interpretation seems unlikely — for because of fools who have corrupted [themselves], should one not bring any dust into his house? And why then would one allow sunlight into his house, when there are many who worship the sun? Rather, [we know that] nevertheless it [the sun] is not forbidden, just as the earth itself cannot become forbidden [through idol worship]. It is more reasonable to suggest that he did not want to give his bread to those who were unworthy, as they might have been Arabs. Therefore, he wanted to inspire them to repent by having them remove the foreign gods from their midst. Since idol worship can be nullified with minimal effort, that is why it says a little water, and it says let it be brought — implying by someone else — because even if they remove the dust [of idol worship], what does it matter if this corrupted faith remains fixed in their hearts? The purification of the heart is not something in Abraham’s power, therefore let a little pure water be brought to purify their hearts, as this matter is entrusted to them and not to him. On the level of allusion [remez], it appears appropriate to say that this is why he said lean beneath the tree for he should have said “lean on the tree.” Rather, he wanted to say “come take refuge in the shadow of the Almighty,” as Rashi explains on the verse their shadow has departed (Numbers 14:9) — referring to the shadow of the Holy One, Blessed be He. Similarly, there are those who explain according to kabbalah that the statement Is there a tree in it or not (Numbers 13:20) is similar to what is said Is the Lord among us or not (Exodus 17:7). Thus, he said to them, lean yourselves beneath the tree which makes a shadow, alluding to the true shadow under which all existing beings live, and the wise will understand. And some say that because the earth brings forth everything, as everything comes from dust and returns there, they erred in saying that it possesses an aspect of divinity.

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.

And I will bring a morsel of bread, and sustain your hearts; after that you may pass on — for it is for this reason that you have passed by your servant. And they said: Do so, just as you have spoken.

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) אחר תעבורו means after that, you may go away. 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) “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”.

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. ” 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.”

"So shall you do" — It is a manner of courtesy: a morsel of bread is sufficient.

DO THAT. And do not delay us further, and thus he ran and said "Quick" (v.6).

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.

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. 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.”

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. וסעדו לבכם, “refresh your hearts.” These words are clear proof that Avraham had realised already that the men he was facing were angels though they appeared to him in the guise of ordinary mortals. This is why he spoke of לבכם when he referred to their heart. Had they been human beings Avraham should have said לבבכם, as the heart of a human being is called לבב as we know from Psalms 104,15 ולחם לבב אנוש יסעד, “and bread refreshes the heart of man.” Angels who do not have an evil urge (Megillah 14) have a heart which is simple, not exposed to contradictory demands by two urges, the good urge and the evil urge. The absence of a letter such as this ב has often been the means by which we have learned a variety of lessons. For instance, in Exodus 31,17 the Torah writes כי ששת ימים עשה ה' את השמים ואת הארץ “for on six days G’d completed the making of heaven and earth.” According to correct grammar, the word ששת should have been preceded by the letter ב for this translation to be correct. The absence of that letter teaches that the maximum period of time which this universe is going to endure before undergoing a major transformation is six thousand years, seeing that in G’d’s calendar one thousand years in our time are only considered one day. (compare Bereshit Rabbah 19,14 based on Psalms 90,4 כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול “for a thousand years in Your eyes are merely like yesterday.”) This is another example teaching you that not a single letter in the Torah- be it a letter too many or a letter too few- is without profound significance. Moses stressed this point when near the end of his life (Deut. 32,47) he said: כי לא דבר רק הוא מכם, “for not a single word is empty, (devoid of meaning) for you.” Our sages (Jerusalem Talmud Sheviit 1,5) interpret this line as follows: “if a word appears “empty,” the “emptiness” is due to you, i.e. מכם. We find another example of the importance of a single letter in Psalms 48,14 where the psalmist (one of the sons of Korach) writes שיתו לבכם לחילה, “take note of its ramparts;” the letter ב is missing in the word לבכם although it is clear that mortal human beings are being addressed here. The answer is that the psalmist speaks of a distant future when the people of whom he speaks will no longer be troubled by an evil urge. Our sages (Midrash Tehillim 48) were aware of this and pointed out that this is the reason the word חילה (read cheylah) is actually spelled as חולה (from מחול, dance, as well as חולה, sick) to hint at the dancing performed by the righteous (now sick, i.e. Avraham) in a perfect world of the future. כי על כן עברתם, “this is why you have come by, etc.” Avraham meant that had he been aware beforehand that these men were going to visit him he would have prepared a feast for them. ויאמרו, כן תעשה כאשר דברת, they said: “O.K. you may proceed in accordance with what you have said.” They meant for this to be a lesson: “you are quite right; a piece of bread such as you have offered is perfectly adequate. Do not bother to go to the trouble of serving anything additional.” One may prefer to interpret the words of these (men) angels to mean “O.K. you take the piece of bread.” He implied that he would not eat it, however. If this is the correct interpretation, it was an allusion to what happened with the cake which Sarah baked which the angels never ate as Sarah had begun menstruating while making the dough (compare Baba Metzia 87).

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.

Abraham hurried to the tent to Sarah and said: Hurry — three measures of fine flour, knead it and make cakes.

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 8:13, 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, 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.

"Knead" — Like "and she kneaded" (I Sam. 28:24).

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.] 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.

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.

Make haste with three se’ah of flour, fine flour. (Bava Metzia 87a) The Talmud notes that the verse mentions both “flour” [kemach] and “fine flour” [solet]. Rabbi Yitzchak derives from here that a woman is more miserly with guests than a man. Rashi explains that Abraham said fine flour while Sarah said flour. The opposite scenario wouldn’t teach us anything, because if he had said “flour,” how would she have been permitted to take more than what her husband commanded, since everything belongs to him? However, to reduce expenses is possible as she might be trying to curry favor with her husband in this way. Although the verse’s language suggests that Abraham said flour, fine flour, nevertheless, he said “flour” for the servants’ paste and “fine flour” for the cakes. I have heard some say that “flour” is a general term including both fine and coarse qualities. Abraham initially used the term “flour” casually, intending to say “take from the fine quality,” but then thought to himself that she might take from the inferior quality, as Abraham knew she was miserly with guests. Therefore, he quickly clarified his words and said “fine flour is what I want.” Alternatively, he first said flour for the paste but feared she might use flour for the cakes as well, so he specified fine flour. Because she was miserly, Sarah is not mentioned in any of this preparation as she did nothing. This is why it states I will surely return to you and not “to her,” because she was miserly with guests. Regarding the son as well, it says I will surely return to you, because it was his merit alone that caused her to have a son, through the merit of hospitality. As we find with the Shunammite woman, in the merit of let us make a small walled upper chamber etc., as she would welcome guests, therefore it was said to her at this season, you shall embrace a son (Second Kings 4:10–16). The matter was attributed to her and not her husband because she was perfect in hospitality while he was not, opposite to what is said here I will surely return to you. Similarly with Lot, it states and he baked matzot, implying he did it and not his wife. Therefore, she became a pillar of salt because she was not perfect in the attribute of charity, which is compared to salt, as it is said (Ketubot 66b) “Salt your money and diminish it [through charity].”

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.

And Abraham ran to the herd and took a tender and choice calf and gave it to the young man, who hurried to prepare it.

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). 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).

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 men 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.

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.

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.

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.

He took butter and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and set it before them; and he waited upon them under the tree, and they ate.

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

ויקח חמאה וחלב, (meanwhile) “he took butter and milk;” our Rabbis (in Bereshit 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. 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. 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.)

ויקח חמאה וחלב ובן הבקר, “he took butter, milk, and a young calf, etc.” No mention is made of Avraham serving the bread. Our sages (Bava Metzia 87) use this to surmise that at that time Sarah became a menstruant, (although she had long ceased to be), and that since Avraham was in the habit of eating even ordinary food only if it could have been eaten by a priest in a state of ritual purity, he did not want to offer such food to his guests either. Some people ask that seeing there was no halachic reason that Avraham should impose such restrictions on people other than himself, it seems unreasonable for him to not serve the very thing he had first said he would offer. These scholars suggest a different reason for Avraham not serving the bread. They claim it was the date on which Passover would occur in the future and that this was the reason he spoke of the bread in terms of עגות, cakes, i.e. unleavened cakes. Whereas in this instance the Torah spoke only of עגות, “cakes,” the Torah completes the expression by adding the word מצות, “unleavened bread,” when the same men arrive at Lot’s home in Sodom the same evening (19,3) and the Torah reports that this is what Lot served these men. It is typical of the Torah to reveal hints of something here and there. Something not made clear in one part of the Torah can often be understood properly only when comparing two different sections of the Torah. ויאכלו, “they ate.” The plain meaning of the text is that the subject of the word are those who were in the habit of eating, i.e. Ishmael and the other members of Avraham’s household. We encounter something similar in Isaiah 5,12 והיה כנור ונבל תף וחליל ויין משתיהם “and their banquets consisted of lyre and lute, timbrel and flute and wine;” it is obvious that people do not drink musical instruments such as the ones mentioned in that verse, but that these instruments provide only background music to the banquet whereas the wine is fit to drink. A Midrashic approach: The word ויאכלו is not to be understood literally (Bereshit Rabbah 48,14); the angels appeared to eat seeing that the meat was the first thing to disappear. This was not unlike Judges 6,21 in an incident involving Gideon. We are told there: וישלח מלאך ה' את קצה המשענת אשר בידו ויגע בבשר ובמצות, ותעל האש מן הצור ותאכל את הבשר ואת המצות, “The angel of the Lord held out the staff that was in his hand, and touched the meat and the unleavened bread with its tip. A fire sprang up from the rock and consumed the meat and the unleavened bread.” The term אכילה, “eating, consuming,” is applied to matters which disappear. A classic example of such use of the word is found in Deut. 32,42 וחרבי תאכל בשר, “my sword will consume flesh.” Another such example is also found in Deut. 7,16 ואכלת את כל העמים, “you will consume all the nations, etc.” There are conflicting views concerning the nature of this entire paragraph. Some (including Maimonides in his Moreh Nevuchim 2,42), hold that the entire story is merely a description of a prophetic vision which Avraham experienced. People who hold this view believe that human beings never see angels in the flesh but only experience visions of angels. According to the people who believe this, Sarah never baked any cakes for these angels, neither did Avraham prepare animals for slaughter and cook the meat. If we accept this view as a consistent approach, Lot never entertained any angels but instead attained the level of prophecy in order to see the kind of visions which resulted in his leaving Sodom at a crucial moment. We would even have to believe that the inhabitants of Sodom were given prophetic insights in spite of their wickedness and that they assailed Lot and his daughters. If all this were so, how is it possible that G’d refrained from communicating with Avraham as long as Lot was in his company because he did not qualify for such visions while voluntarily in the company of an evil person such as Lot? (compare 13,13 where the Torah emphasised that G’d spoke to Avraham “after Lot had separated from him?”). There is no doubt in my mind that in the main the whole paragraph has to be understood literally, i.e. according to the plain meaning of the text. All the experiences related as having happened to Avraham, to Sarah and to Lot, were not figments of their imaginations but actually happened. If your heart chafes or your mind boggles at such happenings and you find it difficult to credit that mere mortals had such encounters with heavenly beings, you have a point; this is why we need to fall back on kabbalistic interpretations seeing that normal human beings are unable to cope with such encounters on a purely rational basis. We will therefore consider that if our sages have given these angels “names” corresponding to human beings and have made them appear as if they were dressed as human beings, this did not mean that the garments perceived by Avraham were garments made of fabrics such as used by human beings. Rather, these celestial beings wrapped their essence within “robes,” much as G’d Himself is perceived as having surrounded His essence with “light” which serves as something parallel to our garments. [After all, our garments are also designed to hide our essence. Ed.] Celestial beings known as אד'ם, a term reflecting three superior characteristics, are composed of these characteristics which serve as their מלבוש “garment.” Ever since the Temple was destroyed, this kind of מלבוש has no longer become visible to people on earth; in other words, apparitions of celestial beings such as the angels who visited Avraham or even Lot, are no longer part of the human experience. In this context we must not forget that our own bodies are nothing but the מלבוש, the “garments” of our soul. In fact, we have a verse which testifies to the truth of this perception (Job 10,11) עור ובשר תלבישני, “You have clothed me in skin and flesh.” The verse means that the body is merely the garment and the soul uses it to dress itself in it. The meaning of the word אנשים when applied to these phenomena in our verse as well as in other similar occurrences of angels not only being “seen” by humans but interacting with them, means that during those appearances these angels were “dressed” in such “garments.” To show us that this is the case, the authors of the respective Books of the Bible called such celestial phenomena אנשים, “men.” To indicate that the term אנשים should not be misunderstood by us to mean that these angels assumed real human-like form, the Torah uses the term מלאכים, “angels” for them such as in 19,1. The word מלאכים means that in spite of appearances to the contrary, these phenomena were true celestial beings. On the other hand, they were also called אנשים, to reflect the fact that they were wearing these “garments.” If you reflect on a statement in Chagigah 3 עשה אזנך כאפרכסת, “make your ear like that of a grasshopper,” [According to Rashi this means that we must carefully study all the opinions offered on a problem and then decide which of the approaches to the problem is most acceptable before ruling how to act in practice. Ed.] you will realize how carefully our eyes and ears must be tuned to notice all these nuances in the text. It is interesting that when these angels appeared to Avraham the Torah refers to them as אנשים, whereas when they appeared to Lot they are referred to as מלאכים. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 50,2 explain the reason for this as follows: As long as the benevolent Presence of G’d (שכינה) was accompanying them they are called אנשים; when the benevolent Presence of G’d was no longer accompanying them they had to “dress up” as מלאכים, as “angels,” in order to be perceived as of celestial origin. A minor detail in the text, demonstrating the deep insight of our sages is verse 33 where it says: “G’d went (away) from Avraham.” Remember that we had never even been told that “G’d came to Avraham” in the first place. We had only been told about אנשים, “men” visiting him. In connection with Lot we find that initially the angels are called מלאכים (19,1) whereas in the ensuing verses we also find them referred to as אנשים (19,10; 19,12), whereas in 19,15 when Lot is being urged to finally leave Sodom before it is too late the same אנשים suddenly again appear as מלאכים. If the Torah had referred to these “men” when they were in Sodom as מלאכים exclusively, the reason provided by the Midrash we have quoted would be adequate. The constant change of appellation that the Torah uses in the narrative describing both the destruction of Sodom and the saving of Lot forces us to look for further enlightenment on the subject. What this appears to show is that these phenomena, i.e. the angels/men operated on two “wavelengths” simultaneously. Whatever these “men” did they did as “agents” of the angels. Let us now explain these verses as truly corresponding to the text as the Torah presents them to us (what we are in the habit of calling פשט). The visible aspect of what happened, i.e. the appearance of “men” is true; however the term מלאכים whenever it appears in the text is literally true also. This is a classic example of both the “hidden” and the “revealed” aspect of Torah being equally true,” i.e. relevant. The intelligent reader will understand what I have said. Our sages in Baba Metzia 85 have told us that an appearance by the prophet Elijah was something with which the students in the academy of Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi were quite familiar. One day, it was New Moon, Elijah did not arrive at the usual hour and when he arrived considerably late Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi asked him why he had been late on that occasion. Elijah explained that he had to awaken Avraham, wash him, wait while the latter said his prayers, and then put him to bed again. He then had to repeat the same procedure with Yitzchak, and again with Yaakov. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah Hanasssi asked why he could not have awakened all three patriarchs at the same time? (after all, they are all buried in the same cave). Elijah replied that if he did this they would all pray simultaneously and as a result the Messiah would arrive prematurely. Rabbi Yehudah then asked if there were any great men alive in his own time whose combined prayers could have such an immediate and powerful effect. Elijah replied that Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi’s nephew Rabbi Chiyah and his sons were such individuals. Thereupon Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi ordered a general fast and he appointed Rabbi Chiyah accompanied by his sons to act as the ones to lead the others in prayer. As soon as Rabbi Chiyah intoned the word מוריד הגשם, “Who causes rain to fall,” rain started falling. When he mentioned the words מחיה מתים “Who revives the dead,” a terrible storm started shaking the world. At that moment the celestial beings in heaven asked: ”who has revealed this secret?” The answer was that Elijah had revealed it. Thereupon they punished Elijah by disciplining him with 60 fiery brands. At that point Elijah descended to earth and appeared in the guise of a bear (on the attack). As a result, the assembled worshipers fled for their lives and Rabbi Chiyah never got as far as completing the benediction with the words “the One who revives the dead,” I am sure you will understand the point of this story.

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.

They said to him: Where is Sarah your wife? And he said: She is there in the tent.

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

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, 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 Bereshit Rabbah 48,15 Ed.]

ויאמרו אליו איה שרה אשתך, They said: ”where is your wife Sarah?” According to our sages in Baba Metzia 87 the dot on the letters אי"ו in the word אליו indicate that the angels also asked Sarah about Avraham’s whereabouts. It would have been appropriate to place a dot on the letter ל of that word. Seeing that there is no such dot we must draw some inference from the absence of such a dot on that letter [instead of having to put dots on three letters of that word. Ed.]. Actually, the reason the dot was not placed on the letter ל is the fact that it already has the tone-sign zakef katan. Placing an additional dot on that letter would have resulted in confusion. [i.e. a third dot and where exactly to place it. Ed.] This is why the chachmey hanikkud decided to place the dots on the other three letters of the word אליו instead. I believe that in addition to the fact that the word אליו provides a reason for interpretation beyond its plain meaning, there is a compelling mystical message contained in that word. The angels hinted to Avraham that the bounty of blessing from G’d descends from the higher regions to the emanations, thence from the emanations to the disembodied intelligent creatures (such as the angels), and only via these disembodied intelligent creatures does it descend to our regions in the terrestrial part of the universe. After Avraham had sanctified himself by undergoing circumcision and putting the sign of the holy covenant on his flesh, the angels were anxious to convey to him the mysteries of how and by what routes G’d’s bounty reaches His creatures on earth. They wanted him to know that they themselves, as well as all other celestial beings, derive their specific powers from the tenth (i.e. the lowest, מלכות) emanation. This “tenth” emanation receives its input via what is called the קו, “the line.” The קו itself receives its input via the א. This is the reason the letters י=10, ו and א all of which symbolise stations in the conduit of G’d’s bounty to man on earth have been provided with these dots. In short, the route is: from the א to the י via the ו which represents the קו, the “line.” From that point on the שפע travels via the disembodied celestial beings and from there via the prophet who bestows the blessing on earth. Seeing that Avraham was about to receive a promise of G’d’s bounty for himself and Sarah from the angels, they considered this an appropriate moment to take Avraham into their confidence and to reveal these mysteries to him.

“Where is Sarah your wife?” Rashi explains that this was to make known that she was modest, in order to endear her to her husband. This explanation is difficult, for did Abraham not know until now that she was modest? It seems to me that since [the angel] said I will surely return to you, implying but not to her, there was concern that perhaps because of this [Abraham] might come to harbor hatred towards her, thinking that she was the reason God had withheld offspring from them. Therefore, the angel saw fit to rectify this and asked Where is Sarah your wife? Although the angel knew where she was, nevertheless he said: “Don’t you acknowledge that she is always in the tent because of her modesty?” If so, surely the Holy One, blessed be He, will not withhold her reward for modesty, for our Sages said (Megillah 10b): “Any bride who is modest merits to have kings descend from her, as proved by Tamar, etc.” She too is modest, therefore her merit led to the promise that kings shall come forth from you (Genesis 17:6) and kings of peoples shall come from her (Genesis 17:16). Through this, her husband would cherish her, as it was her merit of modesty that caused this. Our Sages said (Genesis Rabbah 48:15) that there are dots over the letters alef-yud-vav because they also asked Sarah “Where is he?” And those who interpret hints said [Baal HaTurim] that the letters of “eilav” [to him] and “ayeh” [where] are the same letters as “eleha” [to her] and “ayo” [where is he]. And regarding this, it is certainly difficult [to understand] how they could ask Sarah “where is he” when Abraham was standing right there with them. Therefore, my heart tells me that the question of “where” [ayeh and ayo] is not a question about physical location asking where he or she is, but rather a question about spiritual levels. For the term “place” indicates a level [of spiritual achievement], and they didn’t ask at all about their physical location, but rather about their spiritual level and status regarding their good deeds through which both would merit having a son. For she merited a son because of her modesty, and he merited a son through the merit of charity and hospitality. Just as it is hinted in these two words to him, where is she [elav ayeh] — as if saying “to her, where is he” [eleha ayo], so too it is hinted in these two words your wife… and he said [ishtekha vayomer], [the words] “your husband… and she said” [ishekh vatomer]. Thus it is as if it were written “And they said to her, ‘Where is your husband?’ and she said, ‘Here in the tent.’” For she too answered regarding the question of his spiritual level by saying “Here in the tent,” as this was Abraham’s level — to sit at the entrance of the tent watching for guests, always busy establishing tents of hospitality, as it is said And he planted an eshel meaning an inn (Sotah 10a), similar to the verse And he shall plant the tents of his palace (Daniel 11:45). If so, the simple meaning of the text includes two aspects. Its simple meaning is And they said to him, “Where is Sarah your wife?” — asking about her level of spiritual excellence through which she would merit a son. And he answered, Here in the tent meaning that through the merit of her modesty she would merit to have kings descend from her. And its homiletical interpretation is “And they said to her, ‘Where is your husband?’” and she said “Here in the tent,” for the question “where” asks about his spiritual level through which he would merit a son. And she answered “Here in the tent,” meaning that he is always planting tents of hospitality for guests, for which it is fitting that the merit of charity should stand for him to bear a son, as it is written May their children be satisfied and leave their abundance to their infants… As for me, I shall behold Your face in righteousness (Psalms 17:14-15).

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 word אליו 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.

He said: I will surely return to you at the appointed time, when you will be alive, and behold, Sarah your wife will have a son. And Sarah was listening at the entrance of the tent, which was behind him.

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). 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). The words כעת חיה signify: at this time when there will be life to you — when you will all be healthy and alive. והוא אחריו AND IT (literally, HE) WAS BEHIND HIM — The door was behind the angel.

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. 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 Rabbi 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. 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. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the verse beginning, And the Eternal said to Abraham, 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). 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. 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. 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.”

"At the time of life" — At this same time next year, while Sarah is still alive, as in "a greeting to the living" (I Sam. 25:6). "And he was behind it" — this angel who was speaking with Abraham was behind the tent, while Abraham was sitting at the entrance of the tent and could not see Sarah. Some say that the entrance of her tent was behind Abraham's tent.

שוב אשוב אליך, on the anniversary of the circumcision. והוא אחריו, the door at which Sarah stood listening was behind the angel who was speaking.

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. 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. 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, 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.

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, 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.” 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.

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. 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. 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.

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)

Now Abraham and Sarah were old, advanced in years; the manner of women had ceased for Sarah.

חדל להיות means [that] it had ceased from her. אורח כנשים means the way of menstruation.

‘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. 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. 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.

"Advanced in days" — they had reached many days [i.e., great age].

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 Bereshit Rabbah 48,16. 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. 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.

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.

And Sarah laughed within herself, saying: After I have grown old, shall I have youth — and my master is old?

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 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).

"Has befallen me" — like "will befall me." "Pleasure" (ednah) — like eden and delight, and so too "and they delighted themselves" (Neh. 9:25). The meaning is: after I have worn out and grown old, how can youthful pleasure and delight be renewed for me? "And moreover, my lord is old." The meaning of "within her" is within herself — her inmost thought. And Hashem revealed her secret to the angel.

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, “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. בקרבה, “in her heart and mind;” 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.

After I have grown old, shall I have pleasure, etc. There is a need to analyze why Sarah laughed, for she saw that a miracle was performed for her against nature, and she returned to her youthful days. She should have discerned that this miracle was not performed for her in vain. And all the more so regarding Abraham, for it is not impossible for him to father a child, as a very old man may bear children. And if she saw in him such great weakness that she thought procreation was impossible from his side, then why did the Holy One, Blessed be He, change her words for the sake of peace? For why should Abraham be upset about her speaking the truth? Also, the expression Will I indeed bear a child? is not clearly explained according to Rashi’s interpretation. And it seems reasonable to understand in this matter that Sarah did not doubt God’s ability and laughed at the promise of your reward will be very great. She thought that since they were close to death’s gates and would not have many days of life to remember, surely naturally they would not merit to raise the son and marry him off, so this is not a great promise because they would not rejoice in it much. Therefore she laughed and said, “Granted, for me, after a miracle was performed where after I have withered, I had rejuvenation, certainly my merit caused this, and this merit will sustain me to live many days. But my master is old and has not returned to his youth, as I do not sense any additional strength in him. Therefore, he surely does not have great merit as he has already used it up in the victory over the kings, and he will not live long against [the way of] nature, so why should he have a son?” And God said, Why did Sarah laugh saying, ‘Will I indeed give birth?’ If it is true that I will certainly give birth, still what of it, for I am old and don’t have merit to add to my days. In this, God changed [her words] for the sake of peace, for she was attributing the lack of merit to him and not to herself. Is anything too wondrous for God? For I know their lifespan and that they will merit to raise him. Another explanation: Since it says Sarah laughed within herself, implying she laughed in thought, for out of fear she did not express outwardly all the laughter that was in her heart. Therefore He said, Is anything too wondrous for God? — meaning, do I not know what is hidden in her heart?

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.]

And Hashem said to Abraham: Why did Sarah laugh, saying: Shall I truly give birth, when I have grown old?

האף אמנם means SHALL I REALLY BEAR? 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).

I BEING OLD. This is the explanation of Sarah’s words, after I am waxed old. 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, 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.

"And I have grown old" — this is the meaning of "after I have worn out," and the angel spoke truthfully. The mem of umnam ("indeed") is an added letter, like the mem of shilshom ("the day before yesterday," Gen. 31:5). Other commentators have said that these three men were prophets. If one should object: but Abraham himself was a prophet — how could one prophet come to another? Only if he were greater in prophecy than he, as Moses and Aaron were. Their answer is that they did not come to Abraham, but to Sarah, as it says, "Where is Sarah your wife?" (Gen. 18:9). And the two went to Sodom. Do not be troubled by the expression "for we are going to destroy it" (Gen. 19:13), for it is similarly written, "And Moses and Aaron performed all these wonders" (Exod. 11:10), even though Hashem performed them — the text attributes them to Moses and Aaron because they were performed through them. On this reading, the meaning of "and they ate" (Gen. 18:8) is to be taken literally. And the meaning of "and he said, My lords, if I have found favor" (Gen. 18:3) is not sacred [i.e., not addressed to God], but is like saying "my masters" — which is why the nun is voweled with a patach and not a kamatz as would normally be the case. In manuscripts where it is voweled with a kamatz, the meaning would be "the prophet of Hashem." The meaning of "in your eyes" there is that he first addressed the greatest among them, and then addressed all of them together. We also find that a prophet is called a "messenger" (malakh) in Haggai (Hag. 1:3). Some say that Abraham was asking permission of the Divine Presence. Some say that the narrative is inverted in sequence, and that the true order is: "and he lifted" (Gen. 18:2) — meaning he had already lifted his eyes and done all of this — and thereafter Hashem appeared to him (as stated in Gen. 18:1) and said, "Shall I conceal from Abraham" (Gen. 18:17), and also "the outcry of Sodom" (Gen. 18:20). And those who had gone arrived at Sodom, while "Abraham was still standing before Hashem" (Gen. 18:22). In any event, "and Hashem said" (Gen. 18:17) was said either to Abraham or to the angels for them to relate to him; but "and Hashem said: the outcry of Sodom" (Gen. 18:20) was said to Abraham, whereupon Abraham drew near and said, "Will You also sweep away" (Gen. 18:23). The verse "and the men turned from there" (Gen. 18:22) is inserted to inform us that when they arrived at Sodom, it was then that Hashem said to Abraham, "the outcry of Sodom." Similarly, "say to the young man, let him pass on ahead of us — and he passed on — but you stand here this day" (I Sam. 9:27). We have no need for the scribal emendation [tikun soferim; see Rashi on Gen. 18:22]. The proof is what is said at the end: "to the place where he had stood before Hashem" (Gen. 19:27). The correct understanding in my view you will find alluded to in the portion "And these are the names" [i.e., in Ibn Ezra's commentary to Exodus].

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?" 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? 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.

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, “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.

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?” 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.]

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.

Is any matter hidden from before Hashem? At the appointed time I will return to you, when you will be alive, and Sarah will have a son.

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? 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”.

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. 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, 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. 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.

The word ha-yippale means "will it be hidden?" and similarly "working wonders" (Exod. 15:11). Some say the meaning is: nothing is wondrous in Hashem's eyes such that He cannot do it. But were that the case, the mem would not be joined directly to the divine name.

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 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, 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)

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.

Sarah denied it, saying: I did not laugh — for she was afraid. And He said: No, but you did laugh.

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: How did she deny that which G-d had said to the prophet, 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, 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. 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. For joyous laughter is [expressed in Hebrew as originating] in the mouth — Then was our mouth filled with laughter — 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. 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. 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 יראה, to say “I have sinned;” but she repented the lie in her heart.!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.

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 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.] 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.]

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.

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.

The men rose from there and gazed toward Sodom, and Abraham went with them to escort them.

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

וישקיפו, looking down in the negative sense. 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.”

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.” 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.

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.”

And Hashem said: Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am about to do?

המכסה אני SHALL I HIDE? This is a question. 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)

AND THE ETERNAL SAID. I.e., to the host of heaven standing by Him, 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; The word “said” here means “thought.” And he ‘said’ to slay David. Here too the word “said” means “thought.” Likewise all expressions of speaking within the heart refer to thought. g., And Esau said in his heart, further, 27:41. See Ramban there.

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. 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.

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. 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.

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.]

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.

Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the peoples of the earth will be blessed through him.

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. 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 one 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, that is to say, that I do justice only with righteousness, and therefore he will command his children and his household after him 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.”

"And shall be blessed in him" (ve-nivreku) — is in the nifal construction. Its meaning is that they will be blessed on his account. The word "and they shall bless themselves" (ve-hitbaraku, Gen. 22:18) is not like this, but rather means that they bless themselves by him.

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." 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.

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.

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.

For it is revealed before Me that he will instruct his sons and the members of his household after him to keep the ways that are right before Hashem, to do righteousness and justice, so that Hashem may bring upon Abraham that which He spoke concerning him.

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

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; And I know thee. 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.” 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; The sense would thus be: “I have made thee great in name.” What is man, that Thou knowest htm? 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, 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), 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. There are many verses on this theme, as it is written, Behold, the eye of the Eternal is toward them that fear Him, 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. 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. 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 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.]

כי ידעתיו, “for I know him intimately,” The root ידע is used here in the sense of bestowing recognition on someone, just as in Psalms 144,3 מה אדם ותדעהו, “what is man that You should put him on a pedestal?” Alternatively, the meaning of the word is that “I have supervised him closely.” When G’d “knows” a person this implies that He keeps careful track of all that this person does and He protects him. The words כי ידעתיו single out Avraham from other ordinary human beings who do not enjoy the constant supervision by G’d of what they do and what happens to them. The righteous enjoy this advantage over their secular-oriented fellow human beings. You should appreciate that G’d operates in this universe by means of both השגחה כללית and השגחת פרטית, “supervision of a general kind,” and “supervision of a particular, personal kind.” We have a verse in Jeremiah 32,19 which spells this out. The text is: גדול העצה ורב העלילה אשר עיניך פקוחות על כל דרכי בני האדם לתת לאיש כדרכיו וגו', “wondrous in purpose and mighty in deed, whose eyes observe all the ways of men, so as to repay every man according to his ways, and with the proper fruit of his deeds!” Considering other living creatures, however, G-d’s supervision of their fates is of a more general nature; it concerns itself only with preserving the respective species. The השגחה פרטית, personalized supervision of mankind, operates in the following manner. 1) There is supervision in the sense that G’d is aware of all of man’s actions and thoughts; this extends both to Jews and to Gentiles alike. We know this from Psalms 33,15 היוצר יחד לבם, המבין אל כל מעשיהם, “He who fashions the hearts of them all, who discerns all their doings.” The supervision becomes manifest in G’d protecting people against mishaps. This type of benevolent supervision does not extend to Gentiles and not even to all Israelites except the righteous among them. G’d saves the righteous from experiencing the kinds of disasters which non-deserving people are prone to experience. This is meant by the words כי ידעתיו in our verse (according to the view of Nachmanides). The words כי ידעתיו are words by G’d directed at man, i.e. G’d is informing our patriarchs that in order to qualify for this kind of benevolent supervision of their individual fates it is essential to be righteous. Once Avraham was aware of this he would have powerful incentive to command his offspring to observe G’d’s commandments. This is spelled out in the words: “so that G’d may indeed bring upon Avraham all that He has promised him concerning them.” The reference once again to the four-lettered Ineffable Name י-ה-ו-ה is an allusion to the same attribute of G’d with which the patriarchs had not become familiar as guiding their own fates, as G’d dealt with them on the basis of the attribute Shaddai as we have explained already in connection with 17,1. למען אשר יצוה את בניו ואת ביתו אחריו, “in order that he may command his sons and household after him, etc.” Rabbeinu Chananel writes as follows concerning this verse: “The “mere” words of the patriarchs in their lifetime were as binding as what is recorded in the written Torah at the time of the revelation.” This teaches you that oral traditions handed down from the times of the patriarchs are as binding as laws written down in the text of the Torah as direct commandments from G’d. After all, only the Ten Commandments were heard by the people directly from the mouth of G’d. The remainder of the written Torah was communicated to us by a prophet, i.e. Moses, who wrote them down and taught them to the people. Just as there is no qualitative difference between the Ten Commandments and the other commandments in the Torah, so there is no qualitative difference between traditions taught by Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov (who were all prophets) and by Moses.” Thus far Rabbeinu Chananel. [Clearly these words were aimed specifically at the Karaites.]

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.

And Hashem said: The outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah — how great it is, and their sin — how very grave it is.

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

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, here. was inserted in the middle of the account — 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, 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? here. Or the explanation may be that Scripture itself returns to clarify the expression, Abraham stood yet before the Eternal, 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,” 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, here. and the two angels came to Sodom. 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: “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.” 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. -3. Now Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said concerning this [“going down and seeing”] a mystery [i.e., a mysterious explanation], pleasing himself with foreign offspring. 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 exposited 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: “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. 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, here. it is known that He told him.

The meaning of "the outcry of Sodom" — is that they spoke words against Hashem, or it is the outcry of violence. "And their sin, for it is very grave" — and the land cannot contain it.

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. 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.

ויאמר ה' זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה, ארדה נא ואראה וגו “G’d said: ‘the outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great, let Me descend and investigate, etc.’” These verses (30 & 31) are closely linked to one another. It is as if the Torah had written: “the outcry from Sodom and Gomorrah and their sins which have become great are such that I have to descend and investigate if they are all guilty or not; if not all are guilty I will determine who the guilty ones are.” The word חטאת in verse 20 covers a multitude of sins and negative characteristics. Our sages in Sanhedrin 109 have interpreted the word רעים as referring to sins involving money, i.e. asocial behaviour, based on Deut 15,9 ורעה עיניך באחיך האביון, “and your eye will be mean against your destitute brother,” whereas the word חטאים referred to sins committed by their bodies as illustrated by Genesis 39,9 וחטאתי לאלוקים “and I would commit a sin against G’d;” (Joseph explaining why he could not sleep with Potiphar’s wife) The additional word לה', refers to the sin of blasphemy. The word מאד, “very much,” refers to the sin of murder, bloodshed by indirect means. We know of this word מאד being used elsewhere in the same context from Kings II 21,16 וגם דם נקי שפך מנשה הרבה מאד “and King Menashe was also guilty of shedding much innocent blood.” The sin which sealed the fate of the Sodomites was that they despised charity, i.e. they legislated against people who practiced the virtue of giving charity or being otherwise charitable. They did not even take care of their own needy who were suffering from hunger. The meaning of our verses based on the simple explanation of the text is: “the men of Sodom were very evil and they sinned greatly against G’d, so much so that the echo of their sins reached the ears of G’d.” We find a warning in the Torah concerning the needy and oppressed crying out to G’d complaining about their condition in Deut. 15,9 וקרא עליך והיה בך חטא, “when he cries out about your conduct you will be guilty of a sin.” We find a specific verse about the sins of the Sodomites in Ezekiel 16,49 הנה-זה היה עון סדם אחותך גאון שבעת-לחם ושלות השקט היה לה ולבנותיה ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקו ותגבהינה ותעשינה תועבה לפני ואסיר אתהן כאשר ראיתי. “See! This was the sin of Sodom: pride, surfeit of bread, and undisturbed peace were hers and her daughter’s but the hand of the poor and the needy she did not support. And they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. So I removed them when I perceived it.” They were dealt with so harshly because they persisted in their evil ways more so than anyone else. There is no other nation on earth which does not practice some degree of charity towards its own members. The people of Sodom not only considered such an attitude as pandering to the economically unsuccessful, but they treated the victims with cruelty to boot. Even though the Torah and its social legislation had not been given as yet, the commandment of giving charity belongs to the group of commandments which one’s intellect dictates, and it is something despicable when a human being watches another human being suffering from hunger without trying to relieve his condition. When G’d destroyed the people of Sodom He avenged the poor who had been allowed to die from hunger or whose condition had been deliberately aggravated by those people in order to accelerate their death. This is why our sages in Ruth Rabbah 5,9 stated that “the vengeance of the Gentile nations has been entrusted to the people of Israel whereas the vengeance of Israel has been entrusted to their poor.” They quote Ezekiel 25,14 to support the first part of the statement. The prophet writes: ונתתי את נקמתי באדום ביד ישראל ועשו באדום כאפי וכחמתי. “And I shall take My vengeance from Edom by the hand of My people Israel, and they shall act upon Edom in accordance with My anger and My fury.” They quote Deut. 15,40 in support of the second half of their statement. The Torah writes there: וקרא עליך אל ה' והיה בך חטא, “when he (the helpless) calls out against you to G’d it will be accounted a sin for you.” The lesson to be drawn from all this is that wealth is not something that has been bestowed on the wealthy to do with what he pleases, but it has been given to him to test him if he knows how to handle it, how to employ it most usefully. Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi in that paragraph in Ruth Rabbah adds: “when this poor man appears at your doorstep asking for a handout, G’d Himself stands on his right. If you, i.e. the wealthy man give a donation to the poor, he will bless you; if not, the One standing on his right side will exact payment from you for your insensitivity.” He based this on Psalms 109,31 כי יעמוד לימין אביון, “for He is standing on the right side of the destitute,” and on Proverbs 22,2 עשיר ורש נפגשו עושה כלם ה', “the rich man and the poor man meet; G’d has made them all.” There is another verse (Proverbs 29,13)רש ואיש תככים נפגשו מאיר עיני שניהם ה', “when the poor and the fraudulent meet G’d gives light to the eyes of both.” How can we reconcile these verses? One verse describes a situation when the poor receives a handout, the other when he did not. A Midrashic approach to our verse: The word רבה is understood to refer to a young and kind-hearted girl. According to tradition as related in Sanhedrin 109, this girl had been feeding a poor beggar in Sodom until suspicion fell on her because the poor (who had been given money but whose money had not been accepted by the local merchants in exchange for food and drink) had somehow refused to die. When it was found that she had indeed broken the local law by feeding the beggar she was bound, placed on the roof, smeared with honey all over so that the bees stung her to death. The outcry from that girl’s (ריבה) soul came to G’d’s attention and this is what triggered His reaction as described in our verse.

“The cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is indeed great.” As they sinned through sexual immorality, the human desire for which constantly grows and increases, for there is a small organ in man — when satisfied, it is hungry. Similarly, they sinned through theft and violence, and therefore established among themselves corrupt laws and unjust judgments by which they could not live, as is known from the false judges of Sodom. The desire for money also continuously grows and increases, for one who loves money will never be satisfied with money. This is why the text uses the phrase ki rabah [for it is great/increasing], similar to what was said about the generation of the flood: And God saw that man’s wickedness was great (Genesis 6:5), as was explained in its place. Here too, the meaning is that it grows and increases, unlike Rashi’s interpretation. Our Sages said (Genesis Rabbah 49:6) that it was about the matter of a certain young woman [rivah], etc. According to this interpretation as well, both meanings are implied, for this young woman cried out about what they did to her when she gave food to a poor person — this exemplifies their excessive greed for money which brought them to this behavior. This also refers to the cry of the young betrothed woman who screamed in the city with no one to save her, and this is the meaning of the cry of Sodom — both the cries of the violated young women and the cries of many for justice, but instead found injustice (Isaiah 5:7). And proof for our words comes from what was said, Will You destroy the righteous with the wicked? From where did Abraham learn this? Rather, because he understood from the statement the cry of Sodom is indeed great that it referred to widespread sexual immorality, and everywhere you find sexual immorality, chaos comes to the world and kills both the good and the bad (Jerusalem Talmud Sotah 1:5). This is because the righteous should have left that impure place, for there is no sin that defiles the land like sexual immorality, as it is written in the section about forbidden relations, and the land became defiled (Leviticus 18:27). For even idolatry does not defile the land, since the ground of the world cannot become forbidden, as the mountains are not their gods (Avodah Zarah 45a). And because the righteous did not leave this impure place, it is just that they should be punished along with them, for wherever there is a fence around sexual immorality, there you find holiness, and here it says that we may know them — showing they were defiled also through homosexual relations. Abraham argued about this: Granted, if You punish through an agent, meaning chaos, it doesn’t distinguish between good and bad since even the good ones have an aspect of sin for living among them. But You said I will go down and see, etc. If so, surely sexual immorality is not the main issue, because there is no place at all there for the Divine Presence. And if so, Heaven forbid — it would be profane for You not to distinguish between the righteous and the wicked. For even if there is some aspect of sin among the righteous, nevertheless, justice does not dictate that they should receive equal punishment with the wicked, making the righteous like the wicked.

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. 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 words זעקת 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.”)

It is now revealed before Me, and I will judge whether they have acted in full according to the outcry that has come before Me; I will deal with them in full if they have not repented, and if they have repented, I will not exact punishment.

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

Some say: "if what has come to me matches their outcry, thus they have done — I will make an end of them; but if not, I will know — I will have mercy upon them." And they interpret "and God knew" (Exod. 2:25) similarly. In my view, the meaning is: I will see whether all of them have acted as wickedly as this. For in truth, He who knows everything knows each particular in a universal manner, not in a particularized manner. The proof that this interpretation is correct — and though it is a profound mystery — is that Abraham said, "Will You also sweep away" (Gen. 18:23). The heh of ha-af is voweled with a patach, even though [as a letter of wonder/interrogation] its normal form would differ, because of the alef, which is guttural — for it is the rule of the holy tongue to broaden the vowel of the letter that precedes a guttural.

I will descend now. I will plumb the depths of their wickedness to see what will come of it in the end. 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. If their wailing … is indicative … destruction [shall come]. Alternatively, “If all of them participated” — I will see whether any of them protests.

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! 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. 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.

.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; 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.

הכצעקתה הבאה אלי, “if it is indeed like the outcry that has come to Me, etc.” The plain meaning of the text is exactly in line with the way Onkelos translates it, “if as the complaint that has come to Me they have done I will make an end of them.” This is the meaning of the word כלה, “they are guilty of extinction.” Unless they would repent G’d would now punish them. The words ואם לא, “and if not,” mean “if they will not repent.” The word ואדעה in this instance means punishment as it does in Judges 8,16 ויודע בהם אנשי סכות, “he punished them with them (the briers).” The author quotes additional examples of the root ידע appearing in that sense. A Midrashic approach: the word הכצעקתה is unusual as we would have expected it to be in the plural, הכצעקתם, referring to more than one single outcry, complaint. It appears therefore that the Torah had in mind a special outcry, namely the one by the soul of the girl they had murdered in such a cruel manner (Bereshit Rabbah 49,6). A kabbalistic approach: The words הכצעקתה הבאה אלי mean that the people of Sodom refused to accept any celestial authority, were atheists in the truest sense of the word, just as the people who had built the Tower before G’d dispersed them and confused their language. The Torah wrote here that “G’d descended,” just as it had written וירד ה' לראות “G’d descended in order to see, etc.,” in Genesis 11,5 before G’d meted out the punishment. The Torah means that the reason G’d “descended” was to demonstrate His power on earth. The attribute of Mercy is perceived as being “at home” in a higher celestial region than the attribute of Justice. When G’d is described as “descending,” this means that whereas before He had operated by means of the attribute of Mercy, He now “descended” from that region to activate the attribute of Justice. Nonetheless, the attribute of Mercy would not be totally excluded, hence G’d added the words ואראה, “and I shall see, i.e. evaluate before I decide.” We find something similar (in reverse fashion) in Exodus 2, 25 וירא אלוקים את בני ישראל, “and G’d (the attribute of Justice) ‘saw’ the children of Israel.” In that instance the Israelites who had experienced mostly the attribute of Justice at work, were now going to experience the attribute of Mercy, as a result of their prayers and G’d’s response as related in Exodus 2,23-24). The word הכצעקתה would have to be understood as הכצעקת ה-"אלף" “if as its outcry to the א, i.e. to the מדת הדין, to the attribute of Justice, עשו, “they have done,”...”I will finish them off with the attribute of Justice, i.e. כלה.” The verse continues: ואם לא אדעה, “if not I will continue to employ the attribute represented by דעת” such as in Exodus 2,25 וידע אלוקים, “G’d became aware, i.e. His attribute of Mercy became actively aware.” To sum up the meaning of Exodus 2,25: “Here the outcry from the children of Israel has come to Me and outcry the people address to the King, G’d, due to the great pressure to which the Egyptians have subjected them.”

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.

The men turned from there and went toward Sodom, while Abraham was still ministering in his prayer before Hashem.

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

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

And the angels who had the likeness of men, turned thence and went towards Sedom. And Abraham now supplicated mercy for Lot, and ministered in prayer before the Lord.

Abraham drew near and said: Will You in anger destroy the righteous along with the wicked?

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). 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?

AND ABRAHAM DREW NEAR AND SAID, WILT THOU ALSO SWEEP AWAY THE RIGHTEOUS WITH THE WICKED? 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. 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, here. for if so the righteous will be as the wicked, and they will say, It is vain to serve G-d. And all the more is this inconceivable according to the Divine attribute of Mercy since He is the Judge of all the earth, here. and He does justice, (Tur quoting and interpreting Ramban.) even as it is said, And the Eternal of hosts is exalted through justice, and we say in our prayers, “The King of judgment.” (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. 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 this is the fact vayomer hashem (And the Eternal said) here. is written with the Tetragrammaton, and all references by Abraham to the Divine Name are written Ado-noy. This has now been clarified.

"Sweep away" (tispeh) — is a transitive verb, meaning "destroy/finish off." So too, "I will heap evils upon them" (Deut. 32:23) — though they are from two different conjugation patterns.

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. 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. 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).

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.

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.

Perhaps there are fifty righteous within the city — will You in anger destroy it and not spare the place for the sake of the fifty righteous who are within it?

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. 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. 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, (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; here. Behold, now, I have taken upon me to speak? 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! Now it would seem that the intention of the Rabbi is that many righteous people can effect a proportionately greater salvation than a few righteous people can, just as the Sages have said: 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. 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. But the way of the simple meaning of the verses is smooth. 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 Rabbi to that which he said.

"And will You not spare the place" — the meaning is "will You not forgive," as in "bearing iniquity" (Exod. 34:7). And "the place" refers to Sodom, for it was on its account that Abraham drew near — to rescue Lot.

?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.

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.

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.

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.”

Your judgments are true — to do such a thing, to put the righteous to death along with the wicked, so that the righteous be like the wicked. Your judgments are true! Shall the Judge of all the earth not act justly?

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). כדבר הזה ANYTHING LIKE THIS THING — neither this nor anything like it (Genesis Rabbah 49:10). חלילה לך IT IS UNWORTHY OF THEE —in the world to come. 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”?

"Far be it" (chalilah) — a thing that cannot be. Some say the word has the sense of chalal, something hollow and empty. "The righteous like the wicked" — when two kaf-letters appear together it is a compressed expression, and the full meaning is: "the righteous will be as the wicked and the wicked as the righteous." Similarly, "for you are as Pharaoh" (Gen. 44:18), "my people as your people" (I Kings 22:4), "the darkness as the light" (Ps. 139:12). And how is it possible that the Judge of all the earth should not do justice?

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

!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.” 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.

And Hashem said: If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, I will spare the entire place on their account.

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. 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.

The meaning of "within the city" — that they fear Hashem publicly and openly. So too, "roam through the streets of Jerusalem" (Jer. 5:1).

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

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.

Abraham answered and said: Behold, now I have ventured to speak before Hashem, though I am dust and ashes.

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

The word ho'alti does not mean "I have begun," but rather "I have wished/ventured," and similarly "Moses undertook" (Deut. 1:5). The kaf of anokhi is an added letter; or they are two words with one meaning. The meaning of "and I am dust and ashes" is: I was dust and to ashes I shall return. The essential reference is to the foundation of the body, which is the bones.

I have begun. To present my inquiry regarding Divine justice. I am but dust and ashes. Therefore I was unable to comprehend Your answer.

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.” 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.

Behold, I have undertaken to speak to the Lord, and I am but dust and ashes. The word ho’alti [I have undertaken] is an expression of beginning, as Rashi explains on the verse Moses undertook to expound this Teaching (Deuteronomy 1:5), and he brings proof from our verse Behold, I have undertaken. We have already stated above that the Holy One, Blessed be He, seated Abraham in judgment over the people of Sodom, and in capital cases, we begin from the side [i.e., with the least senior judge]. Therefore, he said, Behold, I have undertaken, and why am I beginning to state my opinion? Because I am dust and ashes, and in capital cases we begin from the side. This is why Rashi specifically interprets the word ho’alti that appears the second time (verse 31) to mean “I wanted,” like “and Moses wanted.” However, in the portion of Deuteronomy, Rashi interprets Moses undertook as “Moses began,” similar to I have undertaken to speak. These interpretations seem to contradict each other. Rather, certainly here, Rashi is interpreting the “ho’alti” that appears the second time, while there, he is interpreting the “ho’alti” that appears the first time, as the language can support both meanings. This also explains why I am dust and ashes is not mentioned with the second “ho’alti,” and this is easily understood.

Perhaps the fifty righteous will lack five — will You destroy the entire city because of five? And He said: I will not destroy it if I find forty-five there.

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. here. Now Abraham did not know what would be done to them. Therefore, he rose early in the morning and looked towards Sodom, and upon seeing that they were destroyed, he knew that the required number of righteous men had not been there.

"Perhaps there shall lack five" — the meaning is: perhaps a tenth of the number will be lacking. The meaning of "will You destroy for the five" — on account of the five who would reduce the full number. He then said: perhaps a ninth of the number I mentioned will be lacking — if forty are found there, I will not destroy them. The meaning of "I will not act for the sake of the forty" is: I will not carry out the destruction. So as not to prolong the passage, he compressed the subsequent reductions together: if a quarter be lacking, and also a third, and also a half. Some ask: why did he not go below ten? Because there are two [righteous men] in each city, as there were five cities. But this is not correct, for Abraham was speaking of Sodom alone. And even though our Sages of blessed memory transmitted that public prayer requires no fewer than ten, this verse too supports our belief.

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

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.

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 a Ji 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.

“Perhaps fifty righteous people will lack five.” He should have said “from fifty” with the letter mem, or he should have said “perhaps there will be 45 there.” And what Rashi explained about requesting through combining [letters] — remove this explanation from the book, as there was no mention of combining letters at all. What seems correct to me is to say that in all the requests, the intention was to have ten [righteous people] for each city. In the first request, he wanted to save all five cities, as this is implied by the language I will spare the entire place for their sake — which was not stated afterwards. In the second request, he was also intending to save them all, but he was responding to God’s words who said If I find in Sodom — implying that they all needed to be present in their homes specifically at that time. Therefore, he asked: perhaps five of those fifty had left, leaving nine for each city — wouldn’t that be enough, since there are fifty there in total, even though some are missing from their places? This follows the law regarding any matter of holiness requiring ten people: if they began with ten and some left, they can complete [the prayer/ritual]. Some authorities even permit starting with nine people plus combining a minor (as mentioned in Tur Orach Chaim 55). The language is precise when it says perhaps fifty righteous people will lack — implying that fifty righteous people exist, but five of them are missing and have left, as mentioned. And He said I will not destroy if I find forty-five there. He did not say that He would not destroy for the sake of the forty-five, because the meaning is that He would not destroy for the sake of the fifty even though not all of them are there, as He will only find 45 in their homes. This explains precisely why it says for the sake of forty, for the sake of thirty, for the sake of ten, but here it changed and said if I find forty-five there. Rather, it means that these [forty-five] need to be there, even though the five are not there — nevertheless, they needed to have been there and then left. And regarding what was said about the number thirty, If I find thirty there implies that all of them must be there. We can explain that the number thirty, when used to save three cities, is inferior to all the other numbers. This is why [Abraham] said here Let not my Lord be angry, and I will speak, which was not said regarding the other numbers. This implies that there was no place for this request because all the other numbers he mentioned had some aspect of elevation and merit that could provide protection. For we find fifty gates of understanding in the world, and we find that the Torah was given in 40 days, and we find 20 righteous people from Adam until Abraham — namely the entire lineage mentioned at the end of Genesis and the end of Parashat Noah. And we find the ten utterances through which the world was created. Therefore, there is certainly an aspect of holiness in these numbers, and consequently it is justified that they should protect an equal number of righteous people. However, regarding the number thirty, Abraham could not find in his wisdom any aspect of special holiness. Therefore, he said about it Let not my Lord be angry, and God agreed with him by saying If I find there — meaning all of them needed to be there, because they had nothing else to rely upon like the other numbers which had an aspect of holiness from another source. The complete, holy number that exists elsewhere causes protection for similar numbers [of righteous people] even though not all of them are in their place. And with this it is resolved: Why in all instances it says I will not destroy, but regarding the number thirty it says I will not do. Because I will not destroy is translated [in Aramaic] as “lo achabel” [I will not damage], meaning that even the slightest damage or destruction, even through suffering, I will not do — due to the sanctity of that number. However, I will not do is translated [in Aramaic] as “lo avid gemira,” meaning I will not completely annihilate them, but nevertheless I may cause some damage and destruction through suffering, as it is written they have made a complete end, and if not, I will know. This is because the number 30 is not as treasured and important enough to protect even against suffering. And regarding what was said about the number 40, I will not do, even though it is an important number from the perspective of the Torah which was given in 40 days, nevertheless, since the Torah had not yet been given and was destined to be given [later], therefore this number does not protect against suffering like the other numbers. Thus, it is like an intermediate between the other numbers whose nature had already emerged in the world for holiness and glory. Furthermore, we find the opposite [usage of 40], 40 lashes he shall receive (Deuteronomy 25:3), and it [the number 40] acts as a prosecutor rather than a defender, therefore this number is intermediate, and this is easily understood. We find many opinions among the commentators in resolving these questions, and we also find that they provided several allusions in the way of homiletical interpretation for these numbers. Therefore, my heart has moved me to follow in their footsteps to create allusions that are close to reason in order to resolve all the variations we found in these requests, for it is not an empty matter. And even if I have erred in my vision, I am no less than what Abarbanel wrote, who also made distant allusions and concluded his words saying: “And it is possible that there are other reasons for this, and these too are merely a form of support and exposition, for the material of the exposition cannot bear more than this.”

He continued further to speak before Him and said: Perhaps forty will be found there. And He said: I will not act to the full on account of the forty.

. 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.

And he said: Please, let it not be grievous before Hashem, and I will speak. Perhaps thirty will be found there. And He said: I will not act to the full if I find thirty there.

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.]

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.

And he said: Behold, now I have ventured to speak before Hashem. Perhaps twenty will be found there. And He said: I will not destroy it on account of the twenty.

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.]

And he said: Please, let it not be grievous before Hashem, and I will speak just this once. Perhaps ten will be found there. And He said: I will not destroy it on account of the ten.

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.

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. 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.

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.

The Glory of Hashem departed when He had finished speaking with Abraham, and Abraham returned to his place.

'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. 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).

"And Abraham returned to his place" — to Hebron. This prophetic vision occurred at the place where Abraham had gone to escort the angels, from where he overlooked Sodom. And even though it is written, "Abraham rose early in the morning... and he looked out toward Sodom" (Gen. 19:27–28), this was after sunrise, for Sodom was not overturned at night — as Scripture attests (Gen. 19:23–24).

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. 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.

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.

ואברהם שב למקומו “and Avraham went back to his own place.” According to the plain meaning of the text, “his own place” is a reference to Eloney Mamre. This is where he had first separated from the angels. One may also understand the word למקומו as “to his customary preoccupation of entertaining visitors and guests.” Having fulfilled this מצוה in respect of the angels who had now departed he went back to his tent to look for other visitors to entertain. This was Avraham’s central virtue and whenever he was able to practice it he is described as “being in his element”, i.e. במקומו. Another way of explaining the word למקומו, is “to his regular emotional state.” As long as Avraham had been in a dialogue with G’d he was on a totally spiritual and intellectual level, not allowing for normal emotional responses which are part of the human condition. Now that the immediate benevolent presence of G’d had departed he resumed his customary frame of mind and his approach to matters of a more terrestrial nature. The word מקומו של אדם “a person’s place,” defines the parameter within which certain people operate, are at home, and where they know their place within the society they live in. A kabbalistic approach to this expression: the verse is a reference to the attribute of חסד, “loving kindness.” Seeing that attribute had failed to find within Sodom any deserving individuals who would enable it to become active on behalf of the town they lived in, this attribute now returned to its former place and left the field to the attribute of Justice. This is the mystical aspect of the words ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה, “the two messengers (angels) arrived at Sodom (19,1).” Shortly afterwards (19,29), the Torah writes: ויהי בשחת אלוקים את ערי הככר, וג', “when Elohim destroyed the towns in the valley, etc.” The attribute of Justice is not allowed to operate until it has received “authority” to do so from the attribute of Mercy. In 19,29 we find for the first time since Avraham had begun to plead that the name of G’d used by the Torah is the name representing the attribute of Justice. At this point in the story the attribute of Justice became active against people concerning whom the die had already been cast. When Avraham is described in 22,6 as ויקח בידו את האש ואת המאכלת, “he took in his hand the fire and the knife (in preparation for slaughtering Yitzchak),” this expression also indicated that at that point the attribute of Mercy had handed over Yitzchak to the attribute of Justice. The words וילכו שניהם יחדו, “they both walked together,” which follow the expression that אלוקים יראה לו השה, “that G’d in His capacity of the attribute of Justice will select the lamb for Himself,” are a strong hint that what was about to happen was being orchestrated by the attribute of Justice. In that episode Yitzchak was the willing object of the attribute of Justice. We must not forget that basically, the attribute of Justice remains “bound,” before the attribute of Mercy as otherwise the world would be destroyed by the attribute of Justice. This is the mystical dimension of the words ויעקד את יצחק בנו, “he bound his son Yitzchak” (22,9), and this is the meaning of the words ורב חסד, in Exodus 34,6, i.e. that the attribute of חסד, “love, kindness, mercy,” is stronger than the attribute of דין, “Justice.” [Rabbi Chavell quotes commentaries on this which explain the words “he took the knife in his hand” to mean that Avraham took in his hand the combined attributes and spiritual forces of his son Yitzchak which are symbolised by “fire and knife.” When Yitzchak is in full possession of these two spiritual forces of his no creature could prevail against what is known in Rabbinic parlance as פחד יצחק. By Avraham gathering in his own hands these spiritual weapons of his son Yitzchak, such as at the time when he pleaded for the people of Sodom, the attribute of Justice (Yitzchak) could not operate at full capacity until Avraham again released these “weapons of Yitzchak” (after he had completed his plea). Yitzchak had not been born yet, it is clear that such terms as פחד יצחק used by the kabbalists, are not to be understood as something exclusively Yitzchak’s, but as similes for these spiritual forces. Ed.]