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.”

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.]

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.

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.”

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.]

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.]

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 רבהis 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.

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.]