To visit the sick person. You might ask: How did Rashi know this? The answer is: Because it is written, “Hashem appeared to him,” rather than, “Hashem appeared to Avraham.” [And why is this?] Perforce, it does not mention Avraham explicitly because it relates back to the previous passage regarding the bris milah, where it is expressly written, “To Avraham.” If so, why did Hashem appear to him now? Not to command him about milah—as He already commanded him, and he already performed milah on himself and on the members of his household. It must be that [since Avraham was sick due to the milah,] He came to visit the sick. Alternatively, Rashi knew this because the verse does not go on to explain why Hashem appeared to him. Thus we may assume it was to visit the sick. Question: Why does Rashi say, “To visit the sick person,” rather than simply saying, “To visit him”? [The answer is:] Because we learn from here the mitzvah of visiting the sick, as it says in Bava Metzia 86b. Since it was not limited to Avraham, Rashi says: “To visit the sick person.”

It was the third day since his circumcision... [Rashi knows this] because He appeared to him in order to visit him, thus it makes sense that it was on the third day, since he was in the most pain then. For it says (34:25): “On the third day when they were in pain.” The Re’m asks: On the contrary, the danger on the third day is less than the danger during the first two days, for it says in Shabbos 134b that [according to the first Tanna] we may wash a circumcised infant [with warm water on Shabbos during the first two days after milah, but not on the third day, when he is in less danger]. If so, how did R. Chama bar Chanina [cited by Rashi] know that He appeared to Avraham was on the third day? Perhaps it was on the second day! Granted it was not the first day, when he was busy doing his own milah and that of his servants, but perhaps it was the second day. It seems to me that the answer is: The Tannaim (ibid.) only disagree regarding the milah of an infant, who is more exposed to danger on the first and second day than on the third day. The first Tanna holds that an infant’s wound heals very quickly [and the third day poses less danger]. Whereas R. Eliezer holds there is no difference between the first two days and the third day, and cites the verse, [“On the third day when they were in pain,” about the men of Shechem,] although it is not conclusive proof. But for the milah of an adult, all agree that the third day poses a greater danger than the first two. For the verse testifies: “On the third day when they were in pain,” which Onkelos explains as, “When their pains were the strongest.” And so the Rambam explains the third day’s pains (Peirush HaMishnayos, Shabbos 19:3): “Fluids flow down and create swelling, increasing the pain.” It is likely that an infant is different in this respect, as he has less fluid. His danger is the wound itself, thus on the third day his danger is less, since his wound heals quickly. But an adult’s wound is not as dangerous in itself, for he can withstand a knife wound, as is well known. [His danger is from] the fluids, which do not accumulate so much at first. It seems to me that the answer is: The Halachah states (Yoreh De’ah 335) that one should not visit the sick person on the first two days. [Therefore, it must have been the third day.] (Nachalas Yaakov) The Re’m asked: On v. 18:6, “Knead it and make cake-rolls,” the Midrash commented (Bereishis Rabba 48:12): “It was Erev Pesach.” And so it says in v. 19:3 [regarding Lot], “He baked matzos,” upon which Rashi himself comments: “It was Pesach.” Thus the Midrash must be of the opinion that Hashem visited Avraham on the very day of the milah, the fifteenth of Nisan, [since Yitzchok was born one year from the milah (see 17:21), and was born on the fifteenth of Nisan (see Rashi, 18:10). And since Hashem’s visit was Erev Pesach after noon, it was considered the fifteenth of Nisan]. But R. Chama [cited by Rashi here] is of the opinion that the visit was on the seventeenth of Nisan, [which is the third day]. If so, why did Rashi cite conflicting Aggados? The Re’m elaborated but did not explain it well. It seems to me that the answer is simple: According to all opinions, the milah was on the twelfth of Nisan, and the visit was on the fifteenth of Nisan. And, [as Rashi mentioned on 21:2,] the angel scratched a mark on the wall [to mark the date]. This was done on the 16th, [so as not to desecrate Yom Tov]. At that point Hashem said (v. 14): “At the appointed time (למועד) I shall return,” [referring to the 15th of Nisan of the coming year. You might ask:] On the day of the milah it said (17:21): למועד הזה, but on the day of Hashem’s visit it says: למועד, without הזה. [If so, why was Yitzchok born the following year on the day of the visit, rather than on the day of the milah? The answer is]: Rashi explained on v. 14 as follows: “למועד, i.e., on the מועד that I previously set for you when I said (17:21), ‘למועד הזה next year.’” And the reference works in reverse as well: when Hashem said on the day of the milah: “למועד הזה next year,” it actually referred to the day of the visit. And so Rashi explained on 21:2 [that it refers to the day of the visit]; see Rashi there.

Therefore, He appeared to him in his territory. It seems that Rashi is not attempting to answer the question of why Hashem appeared to Avraham specifically there, as Avraham might have simply happened to be there at the time [when Hashem chose to appear]. Rather, Rashi is answering the question: Why does Scripture need to inform us that Hashem appeared to him there, [when we would know this on our own? For] it already said that Avraham dwelled in the groves of Mamrei. Assumedly, Hashem appeared to him there, since that is where he circumcised himself and his household. And he surely did not leave, as he was still recovering from the milah; in fact Hashem came to visit him [for that reason]. The Re’m asks: How did Rashi know that Mamrei advised him? Perhaps Hashem appeared to Avraham there simply because Avraham’s tent was there on that day. He answers: Rashi knew it from the extra phrase, [“In the groves of Mamrei”]. It could have said simply, “Adonoy appeared to him and he was sitting...” as it does for other prophecies, [where the place is not mentioned]. This answer is similar to what I explained above. Alternatively: Rashi knew [that Mamrei advised Avraham] because it said in Parshas Lech Lecha (14:13), באלוני ממרא האמורי. And האמורי implies that Mamrei said (אמר) to Avraham to perform Hashem’s command. Question: How could one suggest that Avraham Avinu asked advice whether or not to fulfill Hashem’s command? Avraham was a great tzaddik who withstood ten trials! The Re’m explains that Avraham surely would have done the milah anyway, as commanded by his Creator. Avraham asked Eshkol, Aneir and Mamrei for advice since they were his allies and spoke to them as his friends, but Avraham wanted to test their sincerity. If they will advise him to circumcise, they are sincere friends. In the end, Eshkol and Aneir advised him against circumcising, and only Mamrei advised him to circumcise. Avraham thereby knew what was in their hearts. The Re’m offers another answer: Avraham asked their advice because he assumed they would advise him not to circumcise, yet he would do it anyway—making his reward greater. A further answer: Avraham sought advice whether to circumcise himself in private or in public, as he was concerned lest people come and prevent him. Mamrei said to do it publicly, for people will not be able to stop him. This is in accord with 17:23 where it is written בעצם היום, [on which Rashi comments that Avraham performed the milah openly, without fear of intervention]. (Mahari) It seems to me [that the answer is]: Avraham asked whether to circumcise in public, as nowhere does it say he was commanded to do it publicly. Aneir and Eshkol were opposed, as it says in Midrash Tanchuma Vayeira 3, while Mamrei enheartened him to circumcise in public, and not to be concerned at all about his enemies. Hashem rewarded Mamrei accordingly, measure for measure, and appeared [to Avraham] in his territory. Although Rashi said in 17:23 that Hashem told Avraham not to fear, that was after Mamrei advised him [not to be concerned about his enemies], to which Hashem concurred. (R. Meir Stern) A further answer: The Midrash says that Avraham circumcised Eshkol and Aneir, and they died. Mamrei told [i.e., advised] him: “The others will not survive unless you circumcise yourself.” This is as it says (17:13): המל ימול, the first word spelled without a ו, implying that he who circumcises himself (הַמָל) may circumcise others (ימול). [See also Yerushalmi, Shabbos 19:2. But in present-day Torah scrolls it is written המול.] Avraham then began to circumcise himself, but could not [finish], due to the pain. Hashem came and helped him, as it says (Nechemiah 9:8): “וכרות עמו הברית (and You cut the bris with him).” And since Mamrei advised him regarding the milah, Hashem appeared to him in Mamrei’s territory. Question: If Hashem would not appear to Avraham in Mamrei’s territory, where would He appear? Avraham dwelled in Mamrei’s territory! The answer is: Hashem caused Avraham to dwell there in order to bring about Mamrei’s reward. You might ask: Why did Avraham seek advice regarding milah, but not regarding any other mitzvah? An answer is: Avraham did not need advice whether to wait until he was commanded [before he fulfilled] the other mitzvos, as he knew he would not be commanded regarding any other mitzvah. An alternative answer: Even should he be commanded later concerning another mitzvah, this is no reason to refrain from performing it before—as he can always perform it later, in fulfillment of the command. But milah cannot be done a second time. I later heard that this answer is written in Mishpetei Shmuel. (Tzeidah L’Derech)

It is written ישב... Rashi is saying that יושב is present tense. It conveys that Avraham was sitting before, and still is. But ישב is past tense, and conveys that he was sitting before but not now. If so, [we might ask,] why did he stand? Thus Rashi explains: Avraham wanted to rise, to honor the Shechinah, but Hashem said to him: “Sit...” This is preferable to the Re’m’s explanation, see there. The Nachalas Yaakov writes: It seems to me that Rashi means that יֹשֵב lacking a ו implies that Avraham’s sitting was lacking, as he wanted to rise. The same goes for ועפרון יֹשֵב (23:10). There, too, Ephron’s sitting [as an officer] was lacking, for they appointed him only that day.

And you will symbolize to your descendants that I am destined ... It seems that Rashi is answering the question: It says in Moed Katan 27b, “We tell anyone to sit, [after he stands for the Nasi] — except for a mourner and a sick person,” as then it would connote that he should “sit” [i.e., stay] in his mourning or his sickness. And here, Hashem came to visit a sick person. Why did He tell him to sit? Thus Rashi explains: “You will symbolize...” (Tzeidah L’Derech)

To see if there are any passers by that he might invite into his home. Rashi is answering the question: Do sick people usually sit at the door of the tent? They usually sit or lie on a bed [inside]! Thus Rashi explains: “To see...”

God brought the sun out of its sheath... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it anyway was a hot day! The answer is: It is written כחם היום, rather than בחם היום, implying that the heat of the day was like that mentioned elsewhere (Malachi 3:19): “For lo, the day (היום) comes, glowing like a furnace.” This forced Rashi to explain: “God brought the sun out...” But it seems to me that [Rashi knew this because] if כחום היום indicates what time of day it was, Avraham should have sat earlier at the door of the tent to look for passersby to invite. For it says in Berachos 27a and Bereishis Rabbah 48:8 that כחום היום is the sixth hour, and וחם השמש (Shemos 16:21) is the fourth hour. And mealtime is at the fourth hour, as it says in Shabbos 10a and Pesachim 12b. Perforce, the verse must be explaining why he was sitting at the door of the tent, [not when]. (Nachalas Yaakov)

He brought the angels to him in the guise of men. Rashi is answering the question: Did Hashem not need anyway to bring the angels, as we see from the story’s continuation? Thus Rashi explains that Hashem indeed needed to bring them anyway — but not in the guise of men. That was for Avraham’s sake.

One to foretell to Sarah... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Hashem bring three “men,” instead of one angel? He answers: Hashem anyway needed to bring three angels. One to foretell to Sarah...

You may be convinced of this because in the entire parshah they are mentioned in the plural form. The Maharshal objects: This “proof” just begs the question. Perhaps one angel can do multiple missions, and it mentions one [and the same] angel concerning each deed. [The answer is:] I heard from my father and teacher that Rashi is saying as follows: [You might ask:] Perhaps [there were three] because three angels were needed for a single mission? And it is not because an angel is incapable of multiple missions. Rashi answers: “You may be convinced...”

Rephael, who healed Avraham, went from there... Question: Why does Rashi need to mention this here? The answer is: Rashi says this to answer the following questions. One angel cannot do multiple missions, as seen from the fact that the foretelling to Sarah and the overturning of Sedom are written in the singular, as Rashi explained above. If so, where do we find Avraham’s healing written in the singular? Furthermore, why did Hashem not bring four angels, [the fourth] one to rescue Lot? Thus Rashi explains that Rephael who healed Avraham went to rescue Lot, and Lot’s rescue is written in the singular, as Rashi goes on to say. Therefore it is as though a single angel was also mentioned for Avraham’s healing. (Re’m) Furthermore, Rashi is answering the question: Later, concerning the overturning of Sedom, it is written (19:1): “The two angels came to Sedom,” implying that it involved two angels, although one of them had already done his mission [and was incapable of another mission]. Thus Rashi explains: “Rephael who healed Avraham...” to tell us that one of the angels was Rephael. He only rescued Lot and did not assist in overturning Sedom. Rashi explains that Rephael who healed Avraham went to rescue Lot. You might ask: If so, why did this angel say about himself (19:13), “We are going to destroy”? The answer is: His essential mission was to rescue Lot, but to destroy Sedom was an indirect result [of the rescue]. For it says (19:23-4), “When Lot came to Zoar, Adonoy caused to rain upon Sedom...” I.e., rescuing Lot indirectly caused the destruction. Thus it is rightly said that an angel of good does no evil, and vice versa. (Ra) Some versions of Rashi say: “The mission of healing and rescue are one.” Rashi is answering the question: Why three angels? [There are four missions but only three angels, so it seems that an angel can indeed do a second mission if it is in a different place! Therefore,] let the two angels of Avraham’s healing and Sarah’s foretelling go to Sedom. One will overturn Sedom while the other will rescue Lot. Thus Rashi explains that [an angel cannot do a second mission in a different place either. Rather,] rescuing and healing are one [mission; they save endangered life. Therefore, it can be done by the same angel]. But foretelling and rescue are two different missions. Other versions of Rashi do not have this. The reason one angel does not perform multiple missions is to demonstrate that Hashem’s legions are countless; where there is wealth there is no scantiness. The Nachalas Yaakov debated at length, and concluded: It seems clear that Hashem brought three angels so that Avraham would not be aggravated over [lack of] guests, even though one angel can do multiple missions. [You might ask:] If so, why does it state that there were three? Would it matter if there were more, or less? Thus Rashi explains that Scripture informs us that there were three angels to carry out three types of missions.

Next to him. We need not question: If so, [that “over” is respectful], then [below in v. 8] it should say that he stood next to them, [rather than “over them”]. For the answer is: Since there [in v. 8] he is serving them at the meal, it is proper to write he stood “over” them, as it means he was right next to them, ready to serve them immediately. But in this verse this reason does not apply. It says likewise in Pesachim 103b: “Rav Yeiva was standing over them to serve them during the meal.” (Mahara’i)

And then it says: “He ran to greet them.” Some ask: According to the Aggadah that they were close and then moved away, it should say: “He ran after them”! The answer is: Avraham’s tent had four openings. When they went away, he ran from that opening to one in the north or south, to stop them [from leaving]. That is why it says, “[He ran toward them] to greet them.” Another answer is: Angels have no backside, [but multiple faces]. For it says (Yechezkel 1:12): “They did not turn as they walked.” Although these angels were in the guise of men, they retained their trait of seeing what was either in front or behind them. [Thus, Avraham was actually greeting their faces.] (Toldos Yitzchok)

He was speaking to their leader... Rashi is answering the question: Why did he first say אדנָי, the plural form, and then אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניךָ, the singular form? Rashi answers: He was speaking to their leader [yet referring to them all]. And there is no difference between אדנַי and אדנָי; both are plural form. You might ask: How did Avraham know who the leader was? The answer is: He reasoned they were two disciples and a teacher. And normally, the teacher walks in the middle with the greater disciple to his right and the lesser one to his left.

Both explanations are in Bereishis Rabbah.e., the explanations of whether אדני is holy or profane—not those of לא ידון וכו'. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Through an intermediary. Rashi is not telling us that יוקח means through an intermediary, as that is obvious. Otherwise it should say אקחה (I will bring)! Rather, Rashi is telling us that Hashem rewarded his descendants through a messenger. (Ra)

And God rewarded his descendants through a messenger. But Avraham brought the bread himself, as it says: “I will get bread.” Hashem, too, gave it Himself to Avraham’s descendants, and showered upon them manna. (Maharshal)

As it is said: “And Moshe raised his hand...” The verse Rashi cites, from Bamidbar 20:11, is perplexing: it speaks of punishment [for Moshe’s striking the stone]. Whereas the Gemara in Bava Metzia 86b cites a verse regarding the blessing of Miriam’s Well (Shemos 17:6) “You shall strike the rock,” as Rashi explains there. Also Bereishis Rabbah (48:10) brings a verse of blessing (Bamidbar 21:17): “Ascend, O well; sing to it.” Furthermore, why did Rashi even bring this Midrashic explanation, which is not needed for the plain meaning of the verse? (Nachalas Yaakov)

However, Lot, who was not particular, invited them to lodge before... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written differently here than it is concerning Lot? Here it mentions washing before lodging, but about Lot (19:2) it mentions lodging first. Perforce, [the washing was] because of idolatry, about which Avraham was particular, and Lot was not. Thus Rashi offers this explanation. Question: Perhaps Lot, too, was particular—and he mentioned lodging first because they did not appear to him as Arabs? (Nachalas Yaakov)

Under the tree (אילן**)**. As opposed to a piece of lumber (עץ), as in (Devarim 19:5): ונשל הברזל מן העץ [which refers to a wooden axe handle]. Rashi explained that here it means “tree” because the verse cannot be saying [that Avraham was inviting the angels to rest] under a piece of lumber. And so Onkelos translates it here as אילנא (tree) rather than as אעא (lumber, wood).

Here it is not spelled לבבכם but לבכם. The word לבבכם (“your hearts”, plural form) is said about two people, as their minds are not the same. This is as the Gemara says (Sanhedrin 38a): “Man was originally created as one individual [in order to minimize divisiveness and strife, such as] that of the thieves and robbers.” In other words, the yetzer hara affects man, [making one think differently than the other]. But the angels have no yetzer hara, so they are of one mind, and about them it may be said לבכם (your heart, singular form). (Nachalas Yaakov)

After that you may leave. Rashi is answering the question: Does not וסעדו לבכם אחר תעברו imply that after they leave, they will eat? Thus Rashi explains: “After that” — after eating, “you will pass” — you may leave.

For this thing I ask of you... Rashi is saying that על כן [if taken literally] implies that [from the very beginning] they had intended to eat. And this contradicts what it is written above, “If I have found favor... please do not pass by,” implying they came to eat only because Avraham implored them. Thus Rashi explains, “This thing I ask of you...” Accordingly, על כן is like על אשר.

The fine flour is used for cakes, the meal is for the starch used by cooks... Rashi is answering the question: The verse implies that she should knead קמח and סלת together, to make cakes from them. Was Avraham stingy and therefore he did not instruct that the cakes be made from fine flour alone? Thus Rashi explains: Only the fine flour was for the cakes, and the meal...

There were three calves. You might ask: How does Rashi know there were three calves; perhaps there was only one? The answer is: Rashi inferred this since it is written בן בקר, which means of a tender of age, why then does Scripture write רך [an apparent redundancy]? Furthermore, why does it say וטוב and not simply טוב? Perforce, there were three: בן בקר is one, רך is two, and וטוב is three. The Re’m explains that it should say רך טוב. Since it says וטוב, it must have been written for a homiletical exposition. And since טוב is meant to be expounded, so too is רך meant to be expounded. This is based on the Gemara in Bava Metzia 86b.

So that he might feed them three tongues together with mustard. You might ask: How does Rashi know he served them tongues? The answer is: Because it explains why Avraham slaughtered three calves for three people, which seems a waste of money. And we cannot simply say it was to honor them, as even [the slaughtering of] one calf is a great honor. Furthermore, the slaughtering of three calves makes them look as if they were gluttons, which is not an honor but a disgrace. Thus Rashi explains that Avraham wished to feed them three tongues. We need not ask: Why were three [tongues needed, when two have enough meat]? For the answer is: The flavor of tongue is uneven. The middle is better, and the bottom is fattier. Avraham wanted to feed them three, so each could eat what he wished or what the others ate. [Furthermore,] Avraham otherwise would have had to cut the tongues, and the [irregular] pieces would not be fit to be received by such important guests. Rashi mentions mustard because, as he explains on Bava Metzia 86b, [tongue with mustard] is a delicacy of kings and ministers. (Gur Aryeh) Three calves were needed in order to serve them similar portions, so as not to cause jealousy at the meal: Avraham held them all equal in honor. (Akeidah)

This refers to Yishmael, to train him in mitzvos. Rashi inferred this since it is written הנער, meaning the abovementioned lad: Yishmael. But it seems to me that [Rashi knew this] because Avraham ran to the cattle himself. If so, why did he let someone else complete the mitzvah? Therefore Rashi explains that [the someone else] was his son, [and Avraham did this] to train him. (R. Yaakov Kenizal) [Furthermore,] Rashi is answering the question: Why was Avraham not punished for giving it to the lad, as he was for having the water brought [through an intermediary]? Thus Rashi explains, “This refers to Yishmael...” and it was an act worthy of reward. (Devek Tov)

But, the bread he did not bring... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it simply was not baked yet! The answer is: Bread is the main part of the meal, as it is written (Daniel 5:1): “עבד לחם רב, [King Belshazzar] made a great feast.” Thus, Avraham would not have prepared the other foods if the bread had not yet been baked.

Because Sarah began to menstruate... She did not actually menstruate, for she exclaimed soon afterward (v. 12): אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, implying she did not have menstruation [see Rashi there]. Rather, “the way of women” returned to her. I.e., her head and limbs felt heavy, and her lower abdomen ached. Thus she feared she would menstruate and render the dough impure. Since Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity, she stopped working the dough and left—and before someone else could come, it turned to chametz. And it was Pesach, when chametz is forbidden. Alternatively, it could be that she actually began to menstruate. If so, why did she ask incredulously: אחרי בלותי היתה לי עדנה, when she was already menstruating? The answer is: She thought it [was not a regular cycle but] happened by chance. And she knew that Avraham ate all his food in ritual purity. So explained the Re’m. You might ask: How could Avraham give them butter and milk and calf? It is mixing milk and meat! An answer is: He first gave them the milk, and afterward the meat. Alternatively, [he first gave the meat,] and held like the Halochos Gedolos, [cited in Tur, Yoreh De’ah 89]: through cleaning out [the mouth by eating and drinking pareve items,] one is then permitted to eat cheese.

As each one was prepared he immediately brought it to them. [How does Rashi know this? Because it answers the question:] If there were three tongues, why does the verse imply he brought only one, by writing “the calf,” in singular form? (R. Meir Stern) [Alternatively,] Rashi is answering the question: Butter and milk were not mentioned before, so should it not say first, “He took the calf,” and then, additionally, he took “Butter and milk”? Thus Rashi explains, “As each one was prepared...” Since the butter and milk were ready before the calf was prepared, [he brought them first]. A further answer: Rashi learned it from the apparently extra phrase, “He had prepared, which implies that whatever he prepared first, he brought immediately.

From this that a person should not act differently... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Since angels do not eat, perhaps it is written they “ate” in order to appear as [human] guests, rather than as angels! The answer is: If so, “And they ate” teaches us nothing. It need not be written, as it is obvious that they did not really eat. And what does it even matter if they ate or appeared to eat? Thus Rashi explains, “We learn from this...”

You must explain the dotted... You might object: Let Scripture dot only the ל, thus the undotted letters will be more, and we will expound the undotted letters — [thereby producing the same meaning, but more simply. An answer is:] It seems that we always expound the undotted before explaining the dotted. Thus if the ל alone was dotted, the verse would not indicate whom the angels asked first. They might first have asked Sarah about Avraham, or vice versa, for it is like it was written איו איה (“Where is he? Where is she?”). On the contrary, the verse would imply that they first asked Sarah about Avraham! For [we would say that] the reason only the ל is dotted is [to teach that] we should explain איו first, [before איה]. But now that איו is dotted, we first explain the undotted איה that is written in the verse. Therefore, they first asked Avraham: “Where is Sarah, your wife?” and then they asked Sarah, “Where is Avraham?” You might object: What difference does it make [whom they asked first]? The answer is: It teaches us proper conduct. First one should ask the man about his wife, and then, the woman about her husband. R. Shmuel El Mashonino wrote: The correct answer [to “Let it dot only the ל”] is: The Torah itself is composed of undotted letters. When the undotted letters [of a dotted word] are more, and thus are explained, then the meaning of those undotted letters must fit in with the other words in the verse, since everything is undotted. And this would not be true here, [if only the ל was dotted]. This is because איו is masculine form, and does not fit in with “Sarah your wife.” (He proved this from Bamidbar 9:10: או בדרך רחוקה, where the ה is dotted; see his explanation there.) But when איו is dotted, and thus explained [since it is more than the ל], we need not worry about [it fitting in with] the rest of the verse. For in this case, איו is extracted [and explained] on its own. This is because the dotted letters, and [the verse’s] undotted letters, are both interchangeable. Furthermore, איו is dotted because the dots always come to remove letters. Only ל remains, so we add it to [the following word] איה, producing אליה, “to her”. This teaches that the angels also asked to her, about Avraham. Otherwise, where do we find that the angels asked Sarah about Avraham? Perhaps they asked someone else who was home where he was. That is why איו is dotted, [rather than the ל]. So I found written in the manuscript of my father and teacher ז''ל. This also answers a question I have heard people ask: How did Rashi know that they asked Sarah about Avraham? Perhaps they asked someone else! The Re’m writes: Although a man should not inquire about a woman’s welfare, the Gemara already answered that this applies only when speaking directly to the woman. But a man may ask a woman’s husband about her. See explanation there. The Gur Aryeh writes: One might ask: When did the angels ask Sarah, “Where is Avraham?” They saw Avraham first, and he brought them into his home! The answer is: It was when Avraham ran to the cattle and was busy preparing the meal.

In order to send to her the cup of blessing. After they ate they recited birkas hamazon over a cup of wine. Sarah was not with them, and Avraham did not wish to send the cup to her, because she began to menstruate and would impart impurity to the cup with the wine. He did not want to reveal that she had begun to menstruate, so he did not pour the wine into a different cup to send to her. Alternatively, [he did not use a different cup because] the primary mitzvah is to drink from the same cup that was blessed over. Accordingly, when Avraham answered, “Here, in the tent,” he was hinting to the angels that she had begun to menstruate and thus was dwelling alone, as menstruating women do.

She is modest. This relates back to what Rashi explained above: “They inquired to make known her modesty.” In other words, they asked Avraham where Sarah was so that he would answer, “Here, in the tent” — and he would see that she was modest. Rashi means: to make her modesty known to Avraham.

This was on Pesach... You might ask: How does Rashi know it was Pesach? The answer is: Yitzchak was born [exactly] one year later. And it is written (Shemos 12:41): “It was at the end of the 430 years, and on that very day, all of Adonoy’s multitudes went out...” The 400 years began with the birth of Yitzchak, from which time Avraham had progeny [who sojourned in foreign lands]. The 400 years began and ended on the same date, and on the very day the 400 years ended, the Israelites left Egypt, as Rashi explains there. They left on the fifteenth of Nisan, the first day of Pesach. Therefore, the angel’s foretelling of Yitzchak’s birth — as well as the actual birth — were on Pesach. A further answer: Rashi learned it from what is written about Lot (19:3), “And he baked matzos,” indicating it was Pesach. And this was the same day that the angel foretold Yitzchok’s birth [to Avraham].

Since it is not read כְעתbut, rather, כָעת... It has a קמץ, not a שוא. For כְעת would connect it to חיה. [But since it says כָעת,] no time is specified later. Perforce, כָעת is like בָעת, meaning: “at this time.” [I.e., the word “this” is added.] And חיה stands separately, as Rashi goes on to explain: “When there will be life to you.” ButR. Meir Stern writes: It seems to me that כָעת denotes a time that is hinted to, as it is here, since the angel scratched a mark on the wall [to mark the time for the next year, see Rashi on 21:2]. This is because כָעת is like writing כְהָעת. But כְעת does not indicate which time. (R. Meir Stern)

He was speaking to him as God’s agent... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? This does not seem to be a question at all, as it means as follows: The angel never said that he will return to Avraham. Rather, he was speaking as Hashem’s agent, saying that Hashem will return. This is as it says later (v. 14): “At the appointed time, I [Adonoy] will return to you.” Although the angel said, “I will return,” as if speaking about himself, it is the way of an agent to speak in the name of the party he represents, as in (Shemos 18:6): “I, your father-in-law, Yisro...” (This example is according to the view that Yisro sent an agent; see Rashi there.) And Rashi inferred this to be so, [that it is Hashem who will return,] because otherwise, why would the angel take the credit for himself [and say,] “I will surely return”? We see later that the angels were punished for doing such a thing, when they said (19:13): “We are going to destroy.” [See Rashi on 19:22.] Perforce, the angel was speaking as Hashem’s agent. (R. Meir Stern) A further answer: [The angel would not promise to return, as] Hashem might send him on another mission. He will then not be free to return with Hashem, and thus will have spoken falsely. Perforce, he spoke as Hashem’s agent. This explains why Rashi explains כעת before שוב אשוב, which does not follow the order of the verse: [for כעת denotes a set time, thus the angel must have said שוב אשוב as Hashem’s agent.]

The entrance was behind the angel. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps it means the opposite: [the angel was behind the entrance]. The answer is: If so, [that והוא refers to the angel], the verse would have to say: “He was in front of it.” Then it would convey that the angel was not inside the tent but in front of its entrance, where in fact he was, as Avraham was sitting at the entrance when the angel spoke with him. For if אחריו referred to the entrance, it would come out that הוא — the angel — was behind the entrance, inside the tent. (R. Meir Stern)

Ceased from her. You might object: Rashi explained on v. 8 that she began to menstruate that day, and the dough became impure. Doesn’t this indicate that she now had the “way of women”? [The answer is:] She seems to have thought it happened by chance, not as a regular cycle. Thus she asked: היתה לי עדנה? (v. 12). She meant: “I am in doubt about the blood I saw. Is it my regular cycle, or a chance occurrence caused by my hurrying to knead the dough?” For Avraham had said (v. 6): “Hurry! Three measures of flour...” This is preferable to Re’m’s explanation — on v. 13 — that Sarah was saying, “My regular cycle has indeed returned, although I was worn out. But Avraham is an old man.” The Maharshal writes: Hashem set her childbirth to be one year later, to give her three months to establish a regular period, as she had ceased seeing blood and now returned to her youth, and then nine months for pregnancy. However, it says in Rosh Hashanah 11a that Sarah conceived on Rosh Hashanah, which implies that she gave birth in the seventh month of pregnancy. This calls for further thought.

Is there anything beyond and separated and hidden from Me... Rashi avoided explaining היפלא as “surprise and wonder,” in which case the verse would mean: “Should we be surprised that Hashem can do a novel thing?” That would not be in accord with Targum Onkelos who explains it as, “Is it hidden?” Yet, there is a question on Targum Onkelos: How to understand Hashem’s response “Is it hidden?” to Sarah’s laughing? She said, “My master is an old man,” conveying that it is impossible that she should give birth. Thus Hashem’s response should have been: “Is anything too difficult for Hashem?” or, “Is God’s hand unable?” But this response is understandable if היפלא means, “Should we be surprised...?” [However, Onkelos’s explanation is difficult]. Therefore, Rashi explains היפלא as “Is it hidden?” and nonetheless, Hashem’s response to Sarah is understandable. She said that it is impossible. And He responded: “Is there anything beyond and apart and hidden from Me, which might prevent Me from doing My will?” Rashi means that something which is hidden from a person is “separated” from him, i.e., he cannot do it when he wants to. For if he can do it when he wants, then he can declare, “I know that it will be,” [for it is not separated from him]. And why did Rashi not choose the explanation of “surprise and wonder”? Because then it should say היפלא על ה', as it is the proper usage to say that when one is surprised “over” something. Furthermore, Sarah did not express surprise; rather, she decided that it is impossible. And the response of, “Should we be surprised...?” would not be appropriate. (R. Meir Stern)

To escort them. Rashi explained this so we will not mistakenly think that לשלחם is similar to בשלח פרעה (Shemos 13:17), which means he sent them out of his domain. [Rashi knows this] because otherwise this verse would be out of sequence. It is already written ויקומו משם האנשים, how could it then say that Avraham sent them out? A further difficulty: They were not under Avraham’s control [so that he could send them out. On the contrary,] he implored them: “Please do not bypass...” Thus Rashi explains, “To escort...” (R. Meir Stern)

He thought that they were travelers. You might ask: Even without לשלחם, would we not know that Avraham thought they were travelers? He prepared a meal for them to eat, and water to wash [their feet]! The answer is: Once they foretold [Sarah’s childbirth], and healed him, we might think he realized they were angels. Thus Rashi says he [still] thought they were travelers. (Re’m)

I renamed him Avraham, a father of a multitude of nations... With only the first explanation, we could say: Whatever is there is his. And whatever is not there [anymore] was never his. Thus Rashi explains: “I renamed him...” And with only this [second] explanation, we could say: whatever is in his land is his, but these four cities are not his. That is why both explanations are needed. (Maharshal)

As a lesson to judges not to rule on capital punishment unless they see it... Rashi does not mean that it is learned from ואראה; rather, fromארדה . It is like a person descending from his seat, to go and see a matter and to investigate it. Otherwise, why does Rashi then say: דבר אחר ארדה נא לסוף מעשיהם? If Rashi is explaining ואראה, would he say דבר אחר ארדה נא? Furthermore, should he not have written his explanation about the judges on ואראה, not on ארדה נא? Both explanations are needed. The difficulty with the first is: Hashem did not yet judge them. His descending was to see whether they sinned. Thus Rashi brings the second explanation. The difficulty with the second is: It should say אראה נא וארדה. That is why the first explanation is also needed. (Maharshal)

Of the country (מדינה**).**Rashi is answering the question: Scripture should have written הכצעקתם, as it is written before, וחטאתם? Why then is it written in the feminine form?

And if they maintain their rebelliousness... Otherwise, what is the meaning of עשו, i.e., whether they had sinned? Scripture had already written, וחטאתם כי כבדה מאוד, indicating that indeed they had sinned.

Our Sages explained: The cry of a certain maiden... with a horrible death. They stripped her bare and smeared her with honey, and the bees stung her to death. You might ask: How did Rashi know she was a maiden? The answer is: From a gezeirah shavah to (Devarim 22:24): “על דבר אשר לא צעקה בעיר, which speaks of a betrothed maiden. There is a question on the first explanation: How could Hashem be unsure of the facts, not to know whether it was indicative of their conduct so that they should be destroyed? Thus Rashi explains, “The cry of a certain maiden,” [according to which the verse means:] If they killed her unjustly, as she claimed [when she cried out, then they will be destroyed]. And even if they killed her justly, “I will know” what to do [as to punishing them for their other sins]. But the actual deed was well known to Hashem. (Maharshal)

It is an emendation of the Scribes. This does not mean that the Scribes changed even one letter of what was written in the Torah, far be it. Rather, “emendation of the Scribes” denotes that they scrutinized each of those verses, and found that according to its context, its primary meaning cannot be as written in the text, but the verse bears a different meaning. Thus it should not have written, “Avraham was still standing,” but, “God was still standing” — except that Scripture changed the wording [out of respect]. It is called “emendation of the Scribes” only because they scrutinized it and commented that Scripture changed the wording. (Rashba)

Yehudah approached him. Many find difficulty with this proof, since Rashi himself explains later (44:18) that Yehudah in fact spoke sternly to Yosef. In truth, it is a scribe’s error. The text should read: “The children of Yehudah approached,” a verse that is in Yehoshua (14:6).

Ten righteous for each city... This is because they are merely individuals until there are ten, when they are called a “congregation.”

And if You will respond that the righteous will not save... Rashi says this because the verses seem to contradict one other. First Avraham says, “Would You... not bear with the place?” implying he is praying also for the wicked. Then he says, “It would be sacrilege... to kill the righteous with the wicked” implying he is praying for the righteous only. Thus Rashi explains that it means, “And if You will respond that the righteous will not save the wicked...”

**This is what you did to the Flood generation, and to the Dispersion generation. [**You might ask:] Noach and his sons survived the Flood. Furthermore, He did not kill the Dispersion generation [at all]; rather, He only dispersed them. Why then would people say His craft is to destroy the righteous with the wicked? The answer is: People would say there were more people who were righteous at the time of the Flood, but He swept them away and saved only Noach and his sons in order to preserve mankind. Otherwise He would have swept away even them. And when He does not sweep away everything, because He is angry only with a certain region, He destroys the whole region, righteous and wicked alike. And so it surely was with the Dispersion generation. But the Re’m, [commenting not on the above, but on Rashi,] objects: If so, Hashem could have responded to Avraham: Since they claim this even though it is not true, then even if I do not kill the righteous along with the wicked [but kill only the wicked] they still will say it is My craft to destroy everything! Therefore, Re’m explains: The first חלילה לך relates to the previous verse. [I.e.,] it would be sacrilege not to save the whole place in merit of the righteous that are in it. For people will say, “It is His craft to destroy everything, the righteous with the wicked,” since they do not know that those [destroyed] were wicked. They will think that [some of] the righteous were destroyed with them. Next, Rashi sets into place, “To kill the righteous with the wicked.” This phrase is not connected to what came before, in which Avraham argued that the righteous should save the whole place. Rather, Rashi now adds: “And if You will respond...” This relates to the second חלילה לך, where Avraham argues on behalf of the righteous alone: If the righteous cannot save the wicked, and You wish to bring a general destruction upon the place, it will be sacrilege: “Shall the Judge of all the earth not do justice [and save the righteous]?” Later, after having set these phrases into place, Rashi went back to explain the meaning of חלילה. So wrote the Re’m. But what I wrote above is also a partial answer to his objections.

Neither this nor anything like it. Rashi is answering the question: Simply speaking, כדבר הזה means that Avraham was praying only that Hashem should not do a similar act again — but was not praying for the people of Sedom [to be saved]. If so, why did he say: “Suppose there are 50 righteous people...” showing that he indeed prayed for the people of Sedom? Thus Rashi explains that כדבר הזה means: “Neither this nor anything like it,” i.e., הזה includes both present and future acts. Avraham prayed for Israel as well, that if they will sin, Hashem should not kill the righteous with the wicked. And when Rashi later says, “In the World-to-Come,” it means in future generations.

In the World-to-Come. This is as stated in Perek Chelek (Sanhedrin 107b) that the people of Sedom have no portion in the World-to-Come. But the Maharshal explains as follows: If such an act is done in this world, there is sacrilege to Hashem’s Name. And even in the World-toCome, where sacrilege to Hashem’s Name does not exist, no reason will yet be found why You destroyed the righteous with the wicked.

Can it be that He who is Judge should fail to do true justice? Why did Rashi need to explain this ה of incredulity, saying: “Can it be that He who is Judge...”? Why was it not enough to simply say that the ה of השופט is one of incredulity? It is because Rashi wished to tell us that the ה — although it is in the word השופט — expresses incredulity regarding לא יעשה משפט.

And, thereby, four cities will be saved... Mahari Kolan writes (ch. 152): Avraham prayed that if one city has fifty righteous people, then the place should be saved — i.e., all five cities. And surely, if there will be [ten] in each city. Hashem consented, and added (v. 26): “I will bear with the entire place,” i.e., even the villages. That is why it says עיר, and then מקום, then לכל המקום. (Nachalas Yaakov)

“I was willing,” as in: “And Moshe was willing.” We need not ask: Why did Rashi not explain this on the first הואלתי (v. 27)? The answer is: It would contradict his commentary on הואיל משה (Devarim 1:5), where Rashi says: “He began, just as, ‘Here I have begun (הואלתי)’ (Bereishis 18:27).” We see that הואלתי means, “I have begun.” Thus the first הואלתי means “I have begun,” as Rashi explained there, while only the second הואלתי means “I was willing.”

He had already asked but could not find. [Rashi means] that when Avraham mentioned fifty, he prayed also for nine including Hashem, as it says (v. 28): “But suppose they lack five of the fifty righteous?” Thus, Avraham did not need to ask again. Surely, Hashem would not destroy a city if He would find there nine righteous; however, He did not actually find. The words “but could not find” are Rashi’s comment, saying that since in fact, Hashem did not save even one city, it must be that Hashem “could not find.” Some ask: Why did Rashi say that fifty righteous people are for five cities, forty for four cities, and so forth? What brought him to this forced explanation? Perhaps Avraham was always praying for all five cities. At first he prayed by mentioning fifty, to give a complete number of ten for each city, and then he decreased the number by as much as he could, but always with the intent of saving all [the cities] everything, as Ramban writes: “I do not know what forced Rashi to say this...” It seems the answer is: Rashi deduced his explanation based on the verses’ changing expressions, as sometimes it is written לא אעשה and sometimes לא אשחית. Accordingly, when Avraham first prays for the five cities by mentioning forty-five, which includes Hashem, it is written לא אשחית. I.e., I will not destroy them altogether, but I will make them suffer because [they have ten righteous per city] only by counting Hashem. When he then prays for four cities by mentioning forty, which does not include Hashem, it is written לא אעשה. I.e., I will not do anything at all, not even make them suffer. Similarly when mentioning thirty, it is written לא אעשה, since it is without including Hashem. Then when he prays by mentioning twenty and ten, it is written לא אשחיתregarding them both. I.e., I will make them suffer [because the majority of the five cities are without ten righteous in them]. Thus we see that first he prayed for all the cities, then for four, three, two, and then for one.

Once the Judge leaves, the defender leaves... I.e., the verse comes to teach us that Hashem seeks out the defender’s words because He does not desire death for the wicked. But when the defender fell silent, He left. Otherwise, why does it say here, “He departed,” unlike all other prophecies where this is not mentioned?