It is there that I will make you into a great nation. Rashi is explaining his comment of above: “For your own benefit, for your own good.” What is the good? “I will make you into a great nation.” And what is the benefit? “I will make your character known to the world.” Since the next verse elaborates by saying, “I will make you into a great nation ... and make your name great,” we learn that it was for this purpose that Hashem told Avraham to go there. The [repetitive phrase] לך לך does not present a difficulty, for [similarly] it is written in Shir HaShirim 2:11: הגשם חלף הלך לו. Thus we could explain the phrase לך לך is common in Scripture. Nevertheless we explain [such a phrase] where possible, [as Rashi does here]. So wrote Re’m, but it seems to me that it indeed presents a difficulty everywhere it appears. With הגשם חלף הלך לו, it means that the rain ceased, following its nature and inclination. But here, Hashem told Avraham to “Go from your land” against his will, [so that explanation does not fit]. Thus Rashi explains, “For your benefit...” The Maharshal writes: There is a difficulty with Rashi’s first explanation, [“It is there that I will make you into a great nation.” For in v. 2,] we need to insert the phrase, “It is there that.” Thus Rashi offers the second explanation, “I will make your character known to the world.” But according to this explanation, a question arises: What is meant by (v. 2), “I will make you into a great nation”? Therefore, Rashi needs both explanations.

Since traveling causes three things. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Hashem give Avraham these three specific blessings, and not other blessings?

Therefore, these three blessings were necessary. Question: How did these three things that are diminished by traveling pertain to Avraham? He had no children. Also, he had no wealth, for on his way [down to Egypt] he bought everything on credit [see Rashi on 13:3]. Furthermore, he replied to the King of Sedom (14:23): “So you will not be able to say, ‘I have made Avram wealthy’” — [implying that beforehand, he indeed was not wealthy]. And nowhere does it say he had acquired fame. [Since he never had these things, he need not fear losing them on account of traveling!] It seems the answer is: Rashi means that for one who has them, traveling inhibits these things. And one who lacks them surely will not acquire them on account of traveling. Thus Avraham needed these three specific blessings in order to acquire them, being that they are contrary to the norm, for traveling inhibits them. (Nachalas Yaakov) This refers to valuing the mitzvah of the Akeidah, [not Yitzchok]. (Tzeidah L’Derech)

He promised him children, wealth and fame ... Rashi seems to be saying: since traveling inhibits having children, Hashem therefore promised him that traveling will not harm him. If he were not to travel he would have had children, so too he will have children, in spite of his traveling. But this contradicts what Rashi said before: “Here**you will not merit having children.” Similarly, since traveling lessens fame, Hashem promised him that traveling will not harm him. If he were not to travel he would have fame, so too he will have fame in spite of traveling. But this contradicts what Rashi said before: “I will make your character known to the world,” implying that outside of Eretz Yisrael he had no fame at all. A further question: Why does Rashi first explain והיה ברכה and only then say, “An alternate explanation: ואעשך לגוי גדול...” which is contrary to the verse’s order? Moreover, why does Rashi first explain ואעשך לגוי גדול and only then explain מארצך וממולדתך, which is contrary to the verse’s order? The Re’m answers that Rashi cited the Bereishis Rabbah’s teaching [of “Traveling causes three things...”] at the end, to show that it disagrees with the previous explanation of “For your own benefit, for your own good.” But there is another, more intricate answer: When Rashi says, “Traveling causes three things...” he is not explaining ואעשך לגוי גדול [differently than before]. Rather he is challenging what he said before, “Here you will not merit having children” — for in Bereishis Rabbah it says that “traveling causes three things...” and this implies Avraham would indeed have children without traveling to Eretz Yisrael. And lest we claim that the text of the Midrash Rabbah is inaccurate, as children and fame are mentioned in the verse while wealth is not, Rashi then explains that wealth is also mentioned: ואברכך refers to wealth. And lest we still claim that the Midrash is inaccurate, as it attempts to interpret all the extra words in the verse, but how will it interpret והיה ברכה? To answer this, Rashi explains that והיה ברכה comes to teach that, “The blessings are entrusted to you....” Perforce the Midrash is accurate, and therefore it presents a difficulty on Rashi’s first explanation. Rashi answers: “An alternate explanation is ... the basis of the opening Shemoneh Esrei prayer...” Rashi is saying that the Midrash Rabbah itself has an additional explanation for ואעשך לגוי גדול. Consequently, when Rashi said, “Here you will not merit having children,” is in line with the Midrash Rabbah’s alternate explanation. (author’s commentary)

**This is when we say: “God of Avraham.”**The verse implies this explanation, since only about a multitude is it said, “God of.” For instance, it says, “God of Israel” (33:20), “God of the Hebrews” (Shemos 3:18) and “the gods of the peoples” (Devarim 6:14). The Torah never says “God of” about an individual. Accordingly, Hashem told Avraham: “I will make you into a great nation” — you will be as a great nation, since they will say about you “God of Avraham.” And since “I will bless you” connotes additional blessing, it means that also Avraham’s son will be so blessed, that they will say “God of Yitzchok.” And since “I will make your name great” connotes further greatness, it means that also Avraham’s grandson will be so blessed, that they will say “God of Yaakov.” The reason this blessing was dependent on his traveling to Eretz Yisrael, and he could not receive this blessing outside of the Land [of Yisrael], is because it says in Kesubos 110b: “Anyone who lives outside the Land [of Yisrael] is considered as if he has no God.” Therefore, “God of Avraham” could not be said unless he traveled to Eretz Yisrael. Rashi offers this alternate explanation, [about the Shemoneh Esrei,] because according to the [first] explanation, the verse should say והיה מבורך [rather than והיה ברכה] — as the verse is speaking about the one who offers blessings. Thus Rashi gives the alternative explanation [in which the verse speaks about the blessing itself]. Then Rashi goes on to explain the whole verse accordingly. And Rashi’s explanation of והיה ברכה [is based on] the gematria ofוהיה , which is the same as that of י-ה-ו-ה. It hints that only with mention of Avraham do we conclude the [first] blessing [of the Shemoneh Esrei] and say: ברוך אתה ה' מגן אברהם. (Maharshal)

Keep distancing yourself from there. Regarding “your father’s house,” where Avraham was living, לֶךְ could only mean “leave.” But regarding “your land,” which Avraham had already left, it could only mean “further distance yourself.” Thus Rashi was forced to explain לֶךְ both as “distancing” and as “leaving.”

In order that it be precious in his eyes. Rashi is answering the question: Why does the verse elaborate so much, by writing from where he left? It is obvious that he left his father’s house, as he was then living there. Scripture should simply have written, “Go to the land...” Rashi explains: The verse elaborated in order that Avraham’s own homeland will become more precious in his eyes. And this was to reward him for every word [Hashem spoke] and for every footstep [he took]. The more Hashem describes the land he is leaving, the more precious it becomes in his eyes, and the more will he be more pained upon leaving it. Thus his reward will be greater, since “The reward is according to the pain.” That is why there so many descriptions are written: “From your land, from your birthplace, and from your father’s house.” This fits well with what Rashi wrote next: “Similarly: ‘Your son ... Yitzchok.’” Hashem elaborated about Yitzchok, using many descriptions, to make him precious in Avraham’s eyes and give Avraham great reward for every word. The many descriptions served to increase Avraham’s pain in sacrificing his son and parting with him. For the same reason, here Hashem did not tell Avraham where he was going, [so he would think:] “Perhaps it is worse than the place I am leaving,” and he will be more pained. And this will increase his reward. (Re’m) The Maharshal explains that Rashi is answering two questions: 1.Why does the verse elaborate so much? It should say right away, “...From your father’s house.” Why did Hashem not tell him immediately [where he was going]? Rashi answers: 1.The purpose of the elaboration was to make his homeland more precious in his eyes. He did not tell him immediately [where he was going], to reward him for every word. Then Rashi explains that Hashem similarly elaborated in order to make Yitzchok precious to Avraham, and did not reveal the place in order to reward him. I agree with this explanation, except [for one point:] my teacher Maharam Yafeh is right that when Rashi says, “In order that it be precious in his eyes,” it refers to the land mentioned previously, [which is Eretz Yisrael]. For Rashi said right before, [regarding Avraham’s destination,] “He did not immediately reveal which land it was.” Whereas the land Avraham left was not mentioned at all. How could that be the land Rashi refers to? Similarly with, “Please take your son...” (22:2), about which Rashi says: “So that he value the mitzvah.”

And Sarah would convert the women. Rashi knows this because it is written אשר עשו בחרן, in plural — referring to both Avraham and Sarah. It seems that [Rashi knew they made converts because] a convert is regarded as a newborn. Thus it is considered as if they “made” them. (Nachalas Yaakov)

He entered it. ויעבור usually means “he passed through” the land but did not dwell there. Thus Rashi needed to explain that here it is different, and means, “He entered it.” Rashi knows this because here it is written בארץ, not הארץ. Alternatively, because it is written: “Until the place of Shechem,” and Shechem is in Eretz Canaan.

To pray for Yaakov’s sons. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not recount that he came to Sukkos, the city closest to Eretz Yisrael’s boundary — as we see in Parshas Vayishlach (33:17)? Thus Rashi explains that [he came to Shechem] to pray. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “The place of Shechem,” and not, “The city of Shechem,” as it is written later (33:18), “Yaakov arrived safely at the city of Shechem”? Thus Rashi explains that he came to pray, and it says “place” because he who prays should set for himself a fixed place for his prayer. This is preferable to Re’m’s explanation, that otherwise there is no reason to say, “Until the place of Shechem” [at all]. One might ask: If Avraham knew all this prophetically, why did he say later (15:2-3): “My Master, God, what will You give me since I continue to be childless ... and the manager of my household is Eliezer of Damascus. Behold, You have not given me children ... .”? We see he feared he would die without children! The answer is: Despite [his knowing about Yaakov’s sons], Avraham feared he would not have children until very old age, and Eliezer would take his wealth. (R. Noson)

He showed him Mount Gerizim. Rashi is answering the question: If Shechem is the same as the Plain of Moreh — and it is written, “Until the place of Shechem” — why does it also need to be called the Plain of Moreh? Rashi answers, “He showed him Mount Gerizim and Mount Eival.” And it is written [regarding the oath that was taken there], “The Plain of Moreh” (Devarim 11:30). Where Israel accepted ... [אלון מורה is so called] because אלון is from the root of אלה (oath), and מורה is from the root of הוראה, which is Torah. (Maharshal)

**He gradually conquered.**Rashi is answering the question: “Then” is qualifying word, implying that in Avraham’s days it was so, but afterwards, the Canaanites were not in the Land. But how can this be? They were still there in Moshe’s days! Thus Rashi needed to explain that it means “then but not before.” For [in Avraham’s days,] the Canaanites began conquering the Land.

For it fell to the share of Sheim. This indeed contradicts what Rashi said in (Bamidbar 13:22) וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צען מצרים. [There Rashi said that Cham built Hebron, implying that all of Eretz Yisrael belonged to Cham — not Sheim — from the start.] Yet we can answer that these Aggados disagree with each other. But we cannot answer that all of Eretz Yisrael fell to Cham, except for Jerusalem and its vicinity which fell to Sheim. For Rashi says here, “He [the Canaanite] gradually conquered Eretz Yisrael from the descendants of Sheim,” implying that all of Eretz Yisrael was Sheim’s. (Re’m) However, the answer that only Jerusalem and its vicinity was Sheim’s seems better. For “The Canaanite gradually conquered Eretz Yisrael” could refer to the small part of Eretz Yisrael that Cham’s son Canaan did not already have. This is better than saying that the Midrashim disagree with each other. Mahara Ashkenazi writes: All Eretz Yisrael surely belonged to Sheim, as Rashi implies here. And what Rashi wrote on Bamidbar 13:22 should be understood as follows: If one man built two cities, it would make sense to identify which was built first. Thus if Cham was the builder, the Torah could very well be identifying which he built first, [by saying וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה לפני צען מצרים]. But it cannot be that Cham built both Hebron and Zoan, due to Rashi’s question there: “Could Cham have built Hebron for Canaan his youngest son, before building Zoan for Mitzrayim his eldest son?!” Thus we see that Sheim built Hebron, while Cham built Zoan. Consequently, the Torah cannot be saying that Hebron preceded Zoan by seven years, as different people built them, and there is no reason to identify their respective order. It follows that there is no contradiction at all [between what Rashi said in Bamidbar and what he said here]. And the verse in Bamidbar means, [as Rashi concludes there,] “Hebron was built up with everything good, seven times more than Zoan.”

**As it is said: “Malki Zedek King of Shaleim.”**Malki Zedek is Sheim the son of Noach, as Rashi explains on 14:18. And King of Shaleim means King of Yerushalayim. [Thus, the Land originally was Sheim’s].

For the tidings of children ... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Avraham build an altar now? If he built it on account of the Divine revelation, as the verse seems to be saying, then he should have built an altar in Charan as well — for Hashem appeared to him also there and said, “Go from your land.” Although it is not written there, “God appeared,” it was a Divine revelation nonetheless. Therefore Rashi explains, “For the tidings of children and for the tidings of Eretz Yisrael.” For it says, “To your descendants I will give this land,” and this contains both tidings. Furthermore, Rashi knows this because it is written, “To Adonoy Who had appeared to him.” Why is it not written just, “To Adonoy”? Because from “Who had appeared to him,” we learn that he built the altar on account of the vision he had now: the tidings of children and Eretz Yisrael.

This refers to his tent. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ויעתק, a term that is used in conjunction with a living being? The proper term is יציאה, as in v. 5: ויקח אברם ... ויצאו ללכת ארצה כנען. Or the term נסיעה, as in v. 9: ויסע אברם.... Thus Rashi explains that ויעתק is referring to his tent, i.e., he moved his tent, [not himself].

Means east of Beis-Eil. Rashi is saying that מקדם is connected to ההרה, and is explaining where the mountain was. It does not refer back to, “From there he moved,” stating from where he traveled. Rashi proof is because it is written: “Beis-Eil was to the west and Ai was to the east.” If מקדם refers to where he traveled from, why was Beis-Eil described as being to the west? On the contrary: before he traveled, Beis-Eil was to his west. But now that he traveled from the east [of Beis-Eil] in a different direction [of Beis-Eil], it would no longer be to his west. Thus, we must say that מקדם is connected to ההרה. And this is why Rashi then says, “Whereby Beis-Eil is located to his west.” I.e., it is now understandable for Beis-Eil to be described as being to the west. We need not ask: If it means “east of Beis-Eil” why is it not written בקדם. For מקדם, too, conveys that the mountain was east of Beis-Eil. The מ of מקדם is like the מ in, “Adonoy Elohim planted a garden in Eden, to the east (בעדן מקדם)” (2:8). And there it means, “East of Eden.”

He first pitched his wife’s tent. You might ask: How does Rashi know? Perhaps it was the reverse! The answer is: Since it says in Yevamos 63b, “A man is obligated to honor his wife more than himself,” Avraham surely pitched hers first.

He prophetically saw that his descendents were destined. Rashi is answering the question: Why did Avraham build another altar? He already built one for the tidings of children and Eretz Yisrael. It seems that Hashem showed him specially this trouble, because it was like putting a qualification on the gift of Eretz Yisrael to his descendants (v. 7). If his descendants will sin as Achan did, they will fall into the hands of the Canaanites. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

But, all his travels were southward, aimed at going... Rashi is answering the question: הלוך ונסוע implies that he traveled continuously. If so, is it written before, “From there he moved ... his tent” — implying that he encamped in the meantime? [Rashi answers: “He would stay here a month or so, and then travel.”] And Rashi is answering another question: Why is it written, “Traveling steadily southward,” implying that he was traveling toward the world’s south, which is outside of Eretz Yisrael? This cannot be, for he was traveling from Charan to Eretz Yisrael. Therefore Rashi explains, “All his travels were southward, going to the south of Eretz Yisrael.” His travels were to Eretz Yisrael’s south.

He became aware of her due to an event. They crossed a river and she had to lift her clothes, so he saw she was beautiful. The Midrash says he recognized her great beauty when he saw her reflection in the water as they crossed.

Another explanation: It is usual ... [Despite Rashi’s first explanation,] the verse is still selfcontradictory: הנה נא is present tense, while ידעתי is past tense. Therefore he offers another explanation. (Maharshal) The simple explanation ... I now realize the time has come to be concerned. In this explanation, the verse must be divided. [The first part is:] “Behold I now realize the time has come ... .” And the [second] part starts with ידעתי: “I have known this for a long time.” Rashi then proves that a verse may be so divided (19:2): “See now my lords, please turn ... ’” [“See now” means:] “Behold, the time has come that you must be careful in regard to these cruel people.” [And “Please turn” means: “Turn off the main road to my home.” See Rashi there.] Some ask: It says in Kiddushin 41a that it is forbidden to marry a woman without seeing her first. [Why then did Avraham not know she was beautiful?] It seems the answer is: Avraham surely saw her before they married and he knew she was beautiful. But then she was very young, when it is natural to be beautiful. But now she was 65, and beauty usually changes. Thus, Avraham did not know until now [that she still was beautiful]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Among black people. [You might ask:] The people of Avimelech were not black. Why did Avraham say there (20:2), “She is my sister”? Avraham himself already answered this by saying (20:11), “There is no fear of Elohim in this place, and they will kill me to take my wife.” Rashi explains (ad loc) that Avraham knew this since he was asked about his wife as soon as he arrived, rather than being asked about food and lodging. This is preferable to the Re’m’s answer that word had already spread that she was his sister, [thus they needed to continue saying so].

**So that they give me gifts.**Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say ייטב? Avoidance of death is called הצלה, not הטבה. Thus Rashi explains, “So that they give me gifts.” You might ask: This implies that Avraham wanted gifts. Why did he later reject gifts from the king of Sedom? There he said (14:23), “Neither a thread nor a shoelace! I will not take anything of yours,” although the wealth was rightfully due to him, since he took it from the four kings. If so, he surely would not want outright gifts, for it is written (Mishlei 15:27): “He who hates gifts will live.” An answer is: Avraham wanted only a small gift, for it says in Berachos 10b, “One who wishes to benefit from others may do so, as did the Prophet Elisha.” This means one may take food, drink and lodging. And the proof [that Avraham objected only to substantial gifts] is that it is written (14:21): “The king of Sedom said, ‘Take take the possessions for yourself,’” to which Avraham answered, “I have lifted my hand to Adonoy ... Neither a thread nor a shoelace! ...so you will not be able to say, ‘I have made Avram wealthy.’” A further answer is: Women desire money. So in order to appease her, he told her: “Please say ... my sister, so that it will go well with me.” But Avraham never intended to take gifts from Pharaoh. A further answer is: Avraham had not yet acquired wealth, so he took gifts. [We see he was poor when he went down to Egypt] because the verse later says (13:3), “He continued on his travels,” on which Rashi says: “On his return trip he paid the debts he incurred.” But when speaking to the king of Sedom he had acquired wealth, thus he refused even what was rightfully due to him, because of “He who hates gifts will live.” Some ask: Why would Avraham want to cause the Egyptians to sin and take a married woman, by telling them Sarah was his sister? The answer is: He told them she was his sister, who was married and whose husband was overseas. This also explains why he said, “And my life will be spared because of you.” Avraham said to Sarah, “I will tell them that you are my sister, and that you are married, but your husband left you. I am searching for him — perhaps I will find him and he will give you a get, or perhaps he has died, and then you can remarry. Thus they will spare my life, [since I am helping] to avoid the sin of taking you as a married woman.” This also explains why Sarah agreed: since he told them that she might be married, they surely will not take her. (see Chizkuni)

**It should have said, “When they came...”**Question: Why did Rashi not make this comment before, on (v. 10) “Avram went down to Egypt,” or on (v. 11) “As he came near and was about to enter”? There as well it should have been written, “They went down,” and, “They came near.” [Rashi’s lack of comment there] indicates that Sarah and the others were clearly included when Avraham was mentioned, as he was the central figure of the home. If so, the same should be true here. The answer is: The earlier verses raised no question because Avraham indeed was the central figure, and everything was dependent upon him. But here, Sarah was the central figure: Avraham had requested her to say she was his sister. Thus it should say, “When they came,” at least equating Sarah to Avraham. The Mahara’i answers: Only here can we object that “it should have said, ‘When they came.’” For here the subject of the verse is Sarah, not Avraham — as it is written, “The Egyptians beheld the woman.” But the earlier verse spoke of Avraham. Furthermore, Avraham was more important.

They praised her among themselves saying ... Otherwise it should have written לפני פרעה or לפרעה, [rather than אל פרעה].

With a kind of skin disease ... There are twenty-four types of rashes, none of which is more harmful for marital relations than this kind (ראתן). And [it must be that] Pharaoh was afflicted with it, for otherwise how did Pharaoh know she was his wife, so that he immediately called for Avraham [and said, “She is your wife”]?

According to her words. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it not written אודות שרי [instead of דבר שרי]?

Concerning him. Rashi is answering the question: If [ויצו עליו means] Pharaoh commanded Avraham some-thing, why does the verse not say what it was? Thus Rashi says it means, “Concerning him, to escort and protect him.” But a question remains: How did Rashi know that this is what Pharaoh had commanded? Perhaps he commanded that they let Avraham depart in peace, unhindered, not that he be protected. To answer this, Rashi explains that וישלחו means as the Targum says: “They escorted him.” And this implies, “To protect him.” [Note: The text of Rashi’s commentary on 13:1-2 was apparently in a different order than it appears today.] But a question still remains: How did the Targum know this? To answer this, Rashi explains that כבד מאוד (v. 2) means, “He was laden with baggage.” Since the Torah relates Avraham’s honor at length, his departure from Egypt must also have been in an honorable fashion. And that is why Rashi explained כבד מאוד before ויעל אברם, contrary to the order of the verses.