לקוטי שיחות חלק כ׳ - וירא ב

Parshas Vayeira

1. On the verse,^[1] "And he said, 'Ad-nai, if now I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass on from your servant,'" Rashi pauses on the words "And he said, 'Ad-nai, if now…'" and explains: "He said it to the greatest of them, and he called them all 'lords' (adonim). And to the greatest he said, 'Please do not pass on,' for once he would not pass on, his companions would remain with him. And in this sense, the word is profane (chol)" [and afterwards he gives a second explanation, as will be discussed below].

This is not understood: At the beginning of his explanation Rashi says, "He said it to the greatest of them," meaning that Avraham said "Ad-nai, if now…" (not to all three men, but only) to the greatest of them. Why then does Rashi immediately continue, "and he called them all 'lords'"?^[2]

2. Rashi then continues: "Another explanation: the word is holy (kodesh), and he was saying to the Holy One, blessed be He, to wait for him until he would run and bring in the guests. And although it is written after 'and he ran to greet them,'^[3] the saying took place before that, and it is the way of Scripture to speak like this, as I explained regarding 'My spirit shall not contend with man forever,'^[4] which is written after 'and he begot Noach,'^[5] and it is impossible to say this unless it was before the decree of one hundred and twenty years."

We need to understand:

a) Why does Rashi need to give two explanations, and is not content with one?

b) Why does the explanation "it is profane" come as the first (principal) explanation, and the explanation "it is holy" as the second?

Moreover: since in most places the title Ad-nai is holy,^[6] it follows that the explanation "it is profane" (that the meaning of the word Ad-nai here is different from most places) is further from the plain meaning of Scripture than the explanation "it is holy." Why then does it come first (and as the principal one)?^[7]

c) That it is "profane," Rashi says (in the first explanation) at the end of his words, while that it is "holy" he says (in the second explanation) right at the beginning of his explanation. What is the reason for the change?

3. After Rashi completes both explanations, he adds: "And both interpretations are in Bereishis Rabbah." This is not understood:

a) Why does Rashi need to indicate the source of the explanations, when in the vast majority of cases he does not do so?

b) When Rashi brings two explanations and wishes to emphasize that they are taken from the words of our Sages, of blessed memory, he notes this (as is his usual practice) at the beginning of the explanation.^[8] Here too, then, he should have put it first, at the beginning of the explanation ("It is stated in Bereishis Rabbah," and the like), and not afterwards?

c) In Bereishis Rabbah (in our editions)^[9] there is only one explanation—that this is a profane expression.^[10] We must therefore assume that in the version of Bereishis Rabbah that Rashi had, both explanations are brought^[11] (as Rashi says, "And both interpretations are in Bereishis Rabbah"). But this is not understood: In Tractate Shevuos^[12] both explanations are brought (and there are no variant readings there in this regard). Why then does Rashi state that the source of both explanations is "in Bereishis Rabbah," which is so only according to one reading of Bereishis Rabbah (and, moreover, not the common reading), and does not cite the Gemara in Shevuos?

4. The explanation of all this:

After "And he said, 'Ad-nai, if now I have found favor… from your servant,'" the verses that follow immediately^[13] (as a continuation of Avraham's words) read: "Let now a little water be taken, and wash your feet… And I will take a morsel of bread, and sustain your hearts…" And since before "Let now… be taken" it does not say "And he said" again, it is understood that Avraham said all of this in one utterance [and "if now I have found…" was said as an introduction to "Let now… be taken"].

And since "Let now a little water be taken, and wash your feet" Avraham said to the "three men," the five-year-old beginning Scripture understands (simply) that the beginning of the utterance, "Ad-nai, if now…," was also said (not to the A-lmighty, but) to the "three men" [and therefore Rashi does not need to clarify right at the beginning of his explanation that "it is profane," since the five-year-old beginning Scripture understands this on his own^[14]].

The question arises, however: Why did Avraham begin speaking to the "three men" (not in the plural, but) in the singular—"if now I have found favor in your eyes, please do not pass on from your servant"?^[15]

Rashi resolves this: "He said it to the greatest of them"—he said it only to one, to the greatest of them, and that is why he spoke in the singular.

But according to this one could ask: When "three men" are standing there, it is not proper etiquette to address only one of them (even the greatest of them). How is it, then, that Avraham spoke only to the greatest of them?

Therefore Rashi adds, "and he called them all 'lords'": only the "saying" (his saying "if now…") was "to the greatest of them," but his addressing them ("he called them")^[16] with the title Ad-nai (before saying "if now…") was to all three men—"he called them all 'lords.'"^[17]

Still, it remains not understood: Avraham wanted all three men to be his guests. Why then did he say "please do not pass on" in the singular—only to one?!^[18]

Therefore Rashi continues: "And to the greatest he said, 'Please do not pass on,' for once he would not pass on, his companions would remain with him"—by saying "please do not pass on" to the "greatest of them," he ensured that his "companions" would also remain with him.

5. But seemingly, all this is still not smooth: Why did Avraham need to influence the other two by means of the request "to the greatest of them"? He could have asked them directly—"Please do not pass on" (in the plural)!

And although asking them would accomplish nothing, since in any case their remaining depended on the decision of the "greatest of them"—nevertheless, since by saying "please do not pass on" only to the greatest of them one could think that they specifically were not wanted, he should have included them too and said "Please do not pass on" (in the plural).

Because of this difficulty Rashi gives a second explanation: "Another explanation: the word is holy, and he was saying to the Holy One, blessed be He…"—that the saying "Ad-nai, if now…" was (not to the three men, as an introduction to "Let now a little water be taken, and wash your feet…," but) to the A-lmighty, "to wait for him until he would run and bring in the guests."

6. But Rashi brings this explanation as the second explanation (i.e., less suited to the plain meaning of Scripture than the first^[19]) because:

a) From the fact that before "Let now… be taken" it does not say "And he said" (again), it is implied (as explained above, section 4) that "And he said, 'Ad-nai… please do not pass on…'" was said to the "three men."

b) It is not reasonable to say that while the A-lmighty was with Avraham, Avraham would run to the guests and leave the A-lmighty, and (after that) still ask Him to wait for him.^[20]

[In addition: as soon as the angels came ("three men standing")—one of whom came "to heal Avraham"^[21]—it follows that Avraham was healed immediately, even before he brought them in, etc.^[22] (for healing that comes through an angel does not need to take time). And since "And G‑d appeared to him" was "in order to visit the sick,"^[23] it follows that after the angels arrived and he was healed, there was no longer a reason for the A-lmighty to remain with him. Why then did he ask, "Please do not pass on…"—"to wait for him," etc.?]

Therefore Rashi placed this explanation ("he was saying to the Holy One, blessed be He") as the second explanation, because according to it there are more (and harsher) difficulties than the difficulty according to the explanation "he said it to the greatest of them."

7. Based on the above it will be understood why Rashi says "in this sense, the word is profane" at the end of the (first) explanation, while "the word is holy" he says right at the beginning of the second explanation:

From the plain sense of the verses it is evident (as explained above) that the "And he said" was to the "three men." Therefore, in the first explanation, where the novelty is only that "he said it to the greatest of them," he does not begin with "it is profane," since the novelty of this explanation does not lie in that.

But since it is still not so smooth to use the title Ad-nai for a human being, Rashi therefore clarifies at the end of the explanation, "and in this sense, the word is profane"—that Ad-nai here is different from most places.

In the second explanation, however, Rashi says "the word is holy" right at the beginning of the explanation, because: (a) to say that Ad-nai here is "holy" is a novelty (for, as explained above, the continuation of the verses implies that the title here refers to the men). (b) The proof and basis for the explanation "he was saying to the Holy One, blessed be He" (unlike the simple understanding that the saying was to the three men) is, as explained above, that according to this explanation the meaning of Ad-nai here is smooth—here exactly as everywhere else. Therefore Rashi begins "the word is holy," to emphasize that this is the proof for explaining "he was saying to the Holy One, blessed be He."

8. Since both explanations are (not only not smooth,^[24] but also) far from the "pure" plain meaning, Rashi therefore adds, "And both interpretations are in Bereishis Rabbah"—that the source of both explanations is in the Midrash (but it is the kind of derush which is, in Rashi's words,^[25] "an aggadah that settles the words of Scripture").

And this is why Rashi says "And both interpretations are in Bereishis Rabbah" at the end of his explanation: only after one learns both explanations and understands that they are far from the "pure" plain meaning does one come to need the clarification that they are taken from the Midrash.

Based on this it is also understood why Rashi says "And both interpretations are in Bereishis Rabbah" and does not cite their source in the Gemara: specifically by citing Bereishis Rabbah—a Midrash—it is emphasized that both explanations are an aggadah; whereas in the Gemara, many of the matters derived from verses are (also) in the manner of the plain meaning.

(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira, 5740)

Key Lesson

Avraham addressed all three guests with honor, even while speaking to the greatest of them, so that no one would feel left out. Even when a request must be directed to the one in charge, the others present deserve to be included and respected. Rashi's careful ordering also teaches that we first understand a verse in its plain sense, and only then turn to the Midrash for what the plain sense cannot fully settle. Every word and every placement of a word in Torah is precise and has a reason.