AND THE LORD APPEARED. Behold, a few say that God is three men: He is one and He is three and they are inseparable.¹ refers to the Christians. Filwarg disagrees. He insists that I.E. is merely saying that God’s revelation took the form of three angels appearing to Abraham. One can argue on behalf of Krinsky that the Christians did use this verse as “proof” of their doctrine of trinity. And indeed, I.E.’s language seems to support Krinsky. On the other hand, would I.E. refer to the Christians as a few say, thereby giving some credence to their trinitarian interpretation? Furthermore, Rashbam accepts this interpretation minus, of course, its trinitarian aspects. Commenting on this verse, Rashbam says, And the Lord appeared to him. How? Three men who were angels came to him. Thus Rashbam interprets this verse in a way similar to the phrase a few say quoted by I.E. Hence a few say may very well refer to a Jewish interpretation. However, it should be noted that Saadiah Gaon, in rejecting the doctrine of trinity, writes, “Others (finally) conjecturing about the implication of the passage, And the Lord appeared unto him by the terebinths of Mamre (Gen. 18:1), declare that the thing that appeared to Abraham and was designated by this name was a trinity because Scripture later on explicitly states: And, lo, three men stood over against him (Gen. 18:2). Let me explain, then, that these are more ignorant (than the opinions concerning God’s essence previously refuted) because they did not wait until they reached the end of the passage. For had they had patience until they heard the verse: And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the Lord (Gen. 18:22), they would have realized that the men had departed while the light of God remained stationary with Abraham, who was in its presence. The thought therefore that God was identical with these men is completely refuted” (The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Rosenblat translation, p. 108). Reading Ibn Ezra’s comments side by side with that of Saadiah seems to leave no doubt that both deal with the same group, the Christians. Indeed, it seems that Saadiah was the source of I.E.’s comments. They forget that Scripture expressly states, And the two angels came to Sodom at even.² state that the three are inseparable. However, the commentaries tell us³ (commentators) is used to indicate that what they say is acceptable in contrast to the first ones quoted who are not even deemed Biblical commentators. See preceding notes. that God first appeared to Abraham in a vision after which Abraham lifted up his eyes and saw three angels.⁴ One came to bring happy tidings to Sarah⁵ and the other two went on to Sodom, one to destroy it and one to save Lot.

footnotes: ¹ This comment of I.E. is cryptic. Krinsky sees in it an allusion to the Christian doctrine of trinity. According to him, a few say ² Gen. 19:1. This verse clearly shows that the three are separable and thus cannot refer to God. The few say ³ Perhaps the term mefareshim ⁴ Cf. Rashi. ⁵ That she would have a son.

The meaning of And they did eat⁶ (v. 8) is that the bread was consumed.⁷ Eaten, in our verse, has the same meaning as the identical word in whereto the fire hath eaten (consumed) (Lev. 6:3).

footnotes: ⁶ Angels do not eat. ⁷ The angels caused the bread to be consumed. Thus it appeared to have been eaten.

[FORASMUCH AS YE ARE COME.] Ki al ken avartem (forasmuch as ye are come) means the same as ho’il va-avartem (since you are come) in Rabbinic Hebrew.⁸ means the same as the Rabbinic term ho’il (since). The Hebrew ki al ken can also be explained to mean, for this reason; i.e., the verse can be read: I will fetch a morsal of bread and stay your heart…for this reason (to eat) are ye come to your servant (Netter), hence I.E.’s comment. It is like forasmuch as (ki al ken) as they are come under the shadow of my roof (Gen. 19:8).

footnotes: ⁸ In other words, ki al ken

SO DO, AS THOU HAST SAID. They responded politely and said to him that a morsel of bread would suffice.⁹, hence I.E.’s comment.

footnotes: ⁹ We would expect them to say: We will do as thou hast said, rather than So do

KNEAD IT. Lushi (knead it) is like va-talash (and kneaded it) (I Sam. 28:24).¹⁰ means to knead, as in I Sam. 28:24. Since the root lamed, vav, shin is not often found in Scripture, I.E. quotes an additional verse to illustrate its meaning (Filwarg). Cherez explains that since lushi is a transitive verb we would expect to find the object “dough,” i.e., knead the dough, as in and the women knead the dough (Jer. 7:18). Hence I.E. points out that occasionally the word dough is left out, as in I Sam. 28:24.

footnotes: ¹⁰ That is, lushi

WHEN THE SEASON COMETH ROUND. Ka-et (when the season) means next year, at this time, and chayyah (cometh round), that Sarah will then be alive.¹¹ is not to be rendered as J.P.S. does, but rather, next year at this season and Sarah will then be alive (Weiser, Netter). It is like ko le-chai (so to life next year) (I Sam. 25:6).¹²

footnotes: ¹¹ Ka’et chayyah ¹² See I.E.’s comment on Gen. 16:14 and the notes to it.

WHICH WAS BEHIND HIM.¹³, which is rendered by I.E.: and he (the angel) was behind it (the tent). The angel who spoke to Abraham was behind the tent. Abraham sat in the tent door and consequently could not see Sarah. Others say that the door of Sarah’s tent was behind the tent of Abraham.¹⁴ is to be rendered: and it. The “it” (ve-hu) refers to the door of Sarah’s tent. The verse thus reads: and it (the door of Sarah’s tent) was behind it (Abraham’s tent) (Cherez).

footnotes: ¹³ The verse reads, ve-hu acharav ¹⁴ According to this interpretation ve-hu

AND WELL STRICKEN IN AGE. They lived many days.¹⁵

footnotes: ¹⁵ The verse literally reads: coming into the days.

SHALL I HAVE. Hayetah li means shall I have.¹⁶ literally means I had. I.E. explains that hayetah is to be taken as an imperfect even though it is a perfect.

footnotes: ¹⁶ Hayetah li

PLEASURE. The word ednah means pleasure and enjoyment. Va-yitaddenu (and luxuriated) in and luxuriated (va-yitaddenu) in Thy great goodness (Neh. 9:25) is similar. The meaning of our verse is: How can the enjoyment and pleasure of youth be renewed in me, seeing that I have waxed old and aged and my husband, too, is old.

[WITHIN HERSELF.] In her mind. God revealed Sarah’s inner thoughts to the angel.

WHOM AM OLD. This explains After I am waxed old.¹⁷ (after I am waxed old). The angel quoted her as saying, ani zakanti (I who am old). I.E. points out that zakanti means the same as viloti. The angel spoke the truth.¹⁸ 87a and Yebamot 65b, which state that Scripture changed Sarah’s actual words for the sake of peace so that Abraham would not take offense. They interpret ani zakanti (I whom am old) as referring to Sarah’s statement of va-adoni zaken (my lord being old also). I.E. disagrees with this interpretation (see note 17).

footnotes: ¹⁷ Sarah said, achare viloti ¹⁸ See Baba Metzia

The mem of umnam (of a surety) is not a root letter. It is like the mem of shilshom (the day before yesterday) (Gen. 31:5). Other commentators maintain that Abraham’s three guests were prophets. If one should argue, why would God send a message via a prophet to Abraham who himself was a prophet,¹⁹ since it is only when one prophet is greater than the other, as in the case of Moses who was sent with a prophesy to Aaron,²⁰ that God transmits his intentions to a prophet through another prophet,²¹ then they would answer that the three prophets came not to Abraham but to Sarah. Indeed, Scripture explicitly states, And they said unto him: Where is Sarah thy wife (v. 9).²² After one of the prophets delivered the message to Sarah, the other two went on to Sodom. Also, do not be troubled by the clause for we will destroy this place (Gen.19:13),²³ as we find a similar expression with regard to Moses and Aaron: And Moses and Aaron did all these wonders before Pharaoh (Ex. 11:10). In reality God did the wonders and they were attributed to Moses and Aaron because they were the agents by which the miracles were performed. Now according to this interpretation, and they did eat (v. 8) is to be taken literally. Similarly, according to this interpretation, the term Adonai (Lord) in My lord, (Adonai) if now I have found favor in thy sight (v. 3) does not refer to the Deity, but means my lords. Hence there is a pattach beneath the nun, and it is not vocalized with a kamatz as would be the case if it referred to God.²⁴ with a pattach means my lords; with a kamatz, it means Lord. However, in those copies of the Pentateuch where Adonai is vocalized with a kamatz the term must be interpreted as: O prophet of God.²⁵ is vocalized with a kamatz. Also (according to the aforementioned interpretation), the reason Abraham said, if now I have found favor in thy sight (v. 3)²⁶ ? He should have used the plural be-enekhem. is that he first addressed the most important of the three and then the other two.²⁷ Those who maintain that the three who visited Abraham were prophets²⁸ point out that the prophet Haggai is referred to in Scripture as an angel.²⁹ Others say that Adonai means Lord and that Abraham respectfully requested that God wait until he had attended his guests. There are still others who say that the verses are not in order of their occurrence.³⁰ According to this interpretation, And he lifted up (v. 2) is to be interpreted: and he had already lifted up his eyes and looked and done so and so. After this, God appeared to him and said, Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing, etc. (v. 17), and Verily the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, etc. (v. 20). But Abraham stood yet before the Lord (v. 22) when the two angels who left for Sodom arrived there. In any case,³¹ And the Lord said: Shall I hide from Abraham that which I am doing, etc., relates either to what God directly revealed to Abraham or to what He told the angels to relate to Abraham. However, all opinions agree that And the Lord said: Verily the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and verily their sin is exceedingly grievous, etc. (v. 20 and 21), definitely records God’s words to Abraham. Upon hearing this, Abraham drew near and said, Wilt thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked, etc. (v. 23-32).And the men turned from thence, and went toward Sodom; but Abraham stood yet before the Lord, (v. 22) is a parenthetical statement noting that at the very moment that the men came to Sodom, God told Abraham, Verily, the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great. This is similar: As they were going down at the end of the city, Samuel said to Saul: ‘Bid the servant pass on before us - and he passed on - but stand thou still at this time, that I may cause thee to hear the word of God’ (I Sam. 9:27).³² is a parenthetical statement. I.E. points out that such statements are found in the Bible. Similarly verse 22 is parenthetical. There is no need to assume that the scribes changed the original reading of our verse³³. Cf. Bereshit Rabbah 49:7; Va-yikra Rabbah 11:5. For the reason that the Midrash assumed the verse originally read: but the Lord yet stood before Abraham; see Rashi and Krinsky. I.E. claims that there never was, in fact, any scribal emendation, as the literal meaning of the text does not support such an assumption (Filwarg). from but the Lord stood yet before Abraham to but Abraham stood yet before the Lord. Indeed, the verse And Abraham got up early in the morning to the place where he had stood before the Lord (Gen. 19:27) proves that there was no scribal emendation.³⁴ I will allude to my own beliefs with regard to the appearance of the angels in my commentary on the first Torah portion of Exodus.³⁵

footnotes: ¹⁹ God could have revealed his prophecy to Abraham directly, as he did to the three prophets who visited him. What need was there to send a prophet to him? ²⁰ Cf. Ex. 4:14-16, 28. ²¹ Abraham was obviously the greatest prophet in his generation. ²² This indicates that the message was for Sarah. ²³ A prophet cannot destroy a city. An angel can. Therefore, this clause implies that they were angels. ²⁴ Adonai ²⁵ In our copies of the Pentateuch, Adonai ²⁶ If Abraham addressed three prophets why did he employ the singular be-enekha ²⁷ Krinsky. He then said the same to each one of the others. ²⁸ Gen. 19:1 refers to them as angels and so must be explained. ²⁹ Haggai 1:13. ³⁰ I.e., Abraham first saw the angels (v. 2-16) and then God appeared to him (v. 1). According to this interpretation the Bible introduces the chapter with a statement that God appeared to Abraham. It then tells us that before God appeared to Abraham angels visited him. Scipture then records what God told Abraham when He appeared to him (v. 17-21). According to the earlier interpretation God first appeared to Abraham and then Abraham saw the angels. ³¹ Whichever of the above interpretations we adopt. ³² And he passed on ³³ According to the Midrash verse 22 originally read: But the Lord yet stood before Abraham. However, out of respect for God the Scribes reversed the passage to read: But Abraham stood yet before the Lord ³⁴ This verse clearly states that it was Abraham who stood before the Lord. ³⁵ Following Krinsky. Cf. I.E.’s short commentary on Ex. 3:15.

[IS ANYTHING TOO HARD FOR THE LORD?] Ha-yippale (is it too hard) means is it hidden.³⁶ (is anything too hard for the Lord) means is anything hidden from God. Cf. Rashi, “is anything too hidden…or concealed from me, that I cannot do it.” Fele (hidden things) in oseh fele (doing hidden things) (Ex. 15:11)³⁷ is similar. Others say the meaning of ha-yippale me-adonai davar is: it is not a wonder in God’s eyes to do such a thing.³⁸ to mean: is anything wondrous from God? However, if this were so, then a mem would not be prefixed to God’s name.³⁹. Me-adonai means from God, and cannot imply, in God’s eyes. Otherwise Scripture would have written, la-adonai, meaning: is anything wondrous to the Lord? “Wondrous from” is not used in Hebrew. Therefore the correct meaning of our phrase is: is anything hidden from the Lord?

footnotes: ³⁶ According to this interpretation, ha-yippale me-adonai davar ³⁷ The manner in which God works miracles is hidden to man. ³⁸ They interpret ha-yippale me-adonai davar ³⁹ The text reads, ha-yippale me-adonai davar

SHALL BE BLESSED IN HIM. Ve-nivrikhu (shall be blessed) is a nifal. It means that they shall be blessed because of Abraham. However, ve-hitbarekhu (Gen. 22:18) has a different meaning. It means: they shall bless themselves in him.⁴⁰

footnotes: ⁴⁰ They shall bless themselves by invoking his name. That is, all the nations of the earth shall pray that they, too, be blessed as Abraham’s seed (Krinsky, Netter).

[VERILY THE CRY OF SODOM.] Either the cry of its blasphemy or the cry of those victimized by its violence.

AND, VERILY, THEIR SIN IS EXCEEDINGLY GRIEVOUS. And the earth cannot bear it.

[I WILL GO DOWN NOW, AND SEE WHETHER THEY HAVE DONE ALTOGETHER ACCORDING TO THE CRY OF IT.] Some say this verse is to be interpreted as follows: If they have done so then I will destroy them (kalah).⁴¹ (altogether) means destruction. If they have done so is I.E.’s paraphrase of whether they have done according to the cry of it, which is come unto me.

footnotes: ⁴¹ According to this interpretation kalah

AND IF NOT, I WILL KNOW. Eda’ah means I will have pity upon them. They similarly interpret va-yeda Elohim (and God took cognizance of them)⁴² means God pitied them. (Ex. 2:25). However, I believe that this verse is to be explained as follows: I will go down and see if all of them (kalah) have done this evil.⁴³ (altogether) is to be rendered as all, as in Ex. 11:1 (Krinsky). Have done this evil is a paraphrase of according to the cry of it, which is come unto me. For in truth,⁴⁴ God who is All knows the individual in a general rather than in a detailed manner.⁴⁵. Nachmanides criticized Ibn Ezra on this point for introducing alien philosophical concepts into Judaism. Cf. Nachmanides’ commentary on the Pentateuch, on this verse. Other commentaries could not accept the literal implication of Ibn Ezra’s words and harmonized his comments to conform to traditional thinking. See Krinsky. Some argue that this comment did not come from I.E.’s hand but was inserted in the text by a misguided student. Proof that this interpretation is correct, although it is a great mystery, is Abraham’s plea, Wilt thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked (v. 23).⁴⁶ The heh of ha’af (wilt) is vocalized with a pattach ⁴⁷ is vocalized with a chataf pattach. even though it is an interrogative heh, because it is followed by an alef, which is a guttural, and it is the rule in Hebrew to elongate the vowel before gutturals.⁴⁸ preceding the gutturals alef, heh, chet, ayin is vocalized with a pattach, rather than with a chataf pattach. When the preceding letters are vocalized with a long kamatz, the interrogative is vocalized with a segol.

footnotes: ⁴² That va-yeda Elohim ⁴³ According to I.E. kalah ⁴⁴ The reason that Scripture relates that God went down to see if they all did according to the cry that came before him. ⁴⁵ Ibn Ezra seems to be saying that “Ordinarily…God does not know the particular individual as such. He knows him only as implied in the whole” (Husik, p. 193). Thus it was necessary for God to go down and see ⁴⁶ Abraham asked God not to judge Sodom by his general knowledge but to look upon each of the city’s inhabitants as an individual. ⁴⁷ An interrogative heh ⁴⁸ Hence an interrogative heh

THAT WILT SWEEP AWAY. Tispeh (thou wilt sweep away) is a transitive verb. It means is thou wilt destroy (or finish). Aspeh (finish) in I will finish (aspeh) evils upon them (Deut. 32:23) is similar.⁴⁹ Both words (tispeh and aspeh) mean the same thing even though they belong to different conjugations.⁵⁰ is a kal, aspeh a hifil.

footnotes: ⁴⁹ I will spend (finish) all evil upon them. That is, there will be no further evil left to bring upon them. Cf. I.E. on Deut. 32:23 (translated according to I.E.). ⁵⁰ Tispeh

AND NOT FORGIVE THE PLACE. Tissa means forgive. Compare, nose (forgiving) in forgiving iniquity (nose avon) (Ex. 34:7).

[THE PLACE.] Sodom. For it was on account of Sodom that Abraham approached God in prayer. He did so to save Lot.⁵¹ and Rashi.

footnotes: ⁵¹ I.E. takes issue with those who maintain that Abraham pleaded for the other cities as well. Cf. Targum Jonathan

THAT BE FAR. Chalilah (that be far) means it is not possible. Others say that chalilah (that be far) is to be connected to the word chalul, which means empty.⁵² in context. The second connects it to the word chalul (Weiser).

footnotes: ⁵² The first explanation interprets chalilah

THAT SO THE RIGHTEOUS SHOULD BE AS THE WICKED. When two cafs are prefixed to two words following each other⁵³ : that so the righteous should be as the wicked. we are dealing with an abridged statement. Hence our verse should be understood as follows: that so the righteous should be as the wicked and the wicked be so as the righteous. Similarly, for thou art even as Pharaoh ⁵⁴ is to be understood as if written: for thou art even as Pharaoh, and Pharaoh is even as thou. (Gen. 44:18); my people as thy people (I Kings 22:4);⁵⁵, which should be understood: my people as thy people, thy people as my people. and The darkness is even as the light (Ps. 139:12).⁵⁶ : And the darkness is even as the light, and the light even as the darkness. The thrust of Abraham’s appeal is: How is it possible for the Judge of all the earth to act unjustly?

footnotes: ⁵³ Our verse reads, ve-haya kha-tzadik ka-rasha ⁵⁴ Ki kha-mokha ke-faroh ⁵⁵ Ke-ammi khe-ammekha ⁵⁶ Ka-chashekhah ka-orah

[WITHIN THE CITY.] That is, who publicly⁵⁷ means 50 people who are publicly righteous. revere My name. Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, And see now, and know, And seek in the broad places thereof, If ye can find a man, If there be any that doeth justly, and seeketh truth; And I will pardon her (Jer. 5:1) is similar.

footnotes: ⁵⁷ Fifty righteous within the city

[I HAVE TAKEN UPON ME.] Ho’alti (I have taken upon me) does not mean I began; it means I wanted. Ho’il Moshe (took Moses upon him) (Deut. 1:5) is similar. The caf of anokhi (I) is superfluous.⁵⁸, meaning I, is a variant of ani. J.P.S. renders va-anokhi (literally, and I) as who am. On the other hand, it is possible that there are two different words for I in Hebrew.⁵⁹ and anokhi, and the two are not related.

footnotes: ⁵⁸ Anokhi ⁵⁹ Ani

[WHO AM BUT DUST AND ASHES.] For dust I was and ashes I will be. Abraham was speaking only about the body’s foundation, i.e., its skeletal frame.⁶⁰

footnotes: ⁶⁰ Man’s spirit does not turn to ashes (Weiser). Hence I.E. explains that dust and ashes refer to man’s bones, which are made out of earth (Krinsky). Cf. I.E.’s comment on Gen. 3:18.

PERADVENTURE THERE SHALL LACK FIVE. Perhaps a tenth of the number will be lacking.

[WILT THOU DESTROY ALL THE CITY FOR LACK OF FIVE.] Will you destroy the city because of the five who are missing from the fifty?⁶¹ of ba-chamishah means because, i.e., because of five. I.E. makes this comment because bet usually means in. Abraham then repeated his request and said, “Will you destroy the city if a ninth are missing from the number (forty-five) concerning which you stated that if there be found there that many righteous men I will not destroy them.”⁶²

footnotes: ⁶¹ The bet ⁶² That is, if there are 40 righteous people in Sodom.

[I WILL NOT DO IT FOR THE FORTY’S SAKE.] I will not do it⁶³, and at other times, I will not do. I.E. points out that they mean the same thing. means I will not bring destruction. And so as not to prolong his prayers Abraham combined the two previous subtractions.⁶⁴ Thus Abraham asked if one quarter of the forty was missing would God destroy the city. He then asked if a third of the thirty were missing, would God destroy it. He concluded by asking if God would destroy the city if half of the twenty righteous men were missing. Some say that Abraham did not ask God to spare for less than ten people because there were five cities and thus less than two righteous per city. However, they are mistaken, for Scripture expressly tells us that Abraham spoke only of Sodom.⁶⁵, etc. (v. 26). Thus only the men of Sodom are to be counted in the total. Now even though our sages, of blessed memory, transmitted as mere tradition the law that there can be no public prayer when fewer than ten men are present,⁶⁶ 7b, 47b; Megillah 21b. this verse may be taken as a support of our faith in the law which they passed on to us.⁶⁷ concerning the necessity of 10 men for public prayer.

footnotes: ⁶³ The text literally reads: I will not do for the sake of the 40. I.E. interprets it as: I will not do a destruction; i.e., I will not bring destruction. Cherez explains, God says, I will not destroy ⁶⁴ That is, from 50 to 45, from 45 to 40. Then Abraham asked if the Lord would destroy the city if 10 were missing from the number to which God had acceded. He no longer asked concerning five. ⁶⁵ According to Cherez and Krinsky. Cf. I.E.’s comment on verse 24. Perhaps we should render for God only promised with regard to Sodom as: If I find in Sodom ⁶⁶ Cf. Berakhot ⁶⁷ I.E.’s point is that the rabbis could have used this verse as a support for the halakhah

AND ABRAHAM RETURNED UNTO HIS PLACE. To Hebron. This vision took place at the spot where Abraham went to accompany the angels on their way.⁶⁸ From this spot Abraham looked out toward Sodom. And he (Abraham) looked out toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the plain, and beheld, and lo, the smoke of the land went up as the smoke of a furnace (Gen. 19:28) took place after sunrise. This is so even though the preceding verse opens with And Abraham got up early in the morning.⁶⁹ This is so because Sodom was not destroyed at night. The latter is clearly noted in Scripture.⁷⁰

footnotes: ⁶⁸ I.E. accepts the opinion that God revealed himself to Abraham after he sent the angels on their way (cf. I.E.’s comments on v. 13). This vision took place on the day prior to Sodom’s destruction. After Abraham finished pleading for Sodom he returned to Hebron (Cherez). ⁶⁹ Which implies that Abraham looked upon Sodom before sunrise. See I.E. on Gen. 1:18 where he explains that morning comes before sunrise. ⁷⁰ Gen. 19:23,24. Ibn Ezra implies that Abraham got up early in the morning to go to the place from which he could see Sodom. By the time he got there the sun had already risen and Sodom was destroyed (Weiser).