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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.