English translation — וירא ב

1.

In the verse¹

"And he said, 'My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your eyes, please do not pass from Your servant,'"

Rashi stands on the words "And he said, 'My Lord, if now etc.',"

and explains: "He said to the greatest among them and called them all lords,

and to the greatest he said, 'Please do not pass,' and since he will not pass, his companions will stand with him,

and in this language it is profane"

as follows].

In this it is not understood: At the beginning of his explanation Rashi says "He said to the <b>greatest</b> among them,"

that Abraham said "My Lord, if now etc."

(<b>not</b> to all three men,

but only)

to the greatest among them,

so why does Rashi say immediately afterwards "and called them <b>all</b> lords"²?

2.

Afterwards Rashi continues: "Another explanation: it is holy,

And he would say to the Holy One, blessed be He, to wait for him until he would run and bring in the guests.

And even though it is written after "And he ran towards them"³,

the statement was before,

and it is the way of the verses to speak thus as I explained regarding "My spirit shall not judge in man forever"⁴

which is written after "And he begot"

Noah⁵,

and it is impossible to say unless it was before the decree of 120 years."

one must understand:

a)

why does Rashi need to say two explanations and is not satisfied with one?

b)

Why does the interpretation "he is profane" come as the first

(primary)

interpretation,

and the interpretation "he is holy" as the second?

Moreover: since in most places the title Adon-i is <b>holy</b>⁶,

it turns out,

that the interpretation "he is profane"

(that the meaning of the word Adon-i here is <b>different</b> than in most places — )

is <b>further</b> from the plain meaning of Scripture than the interpretation "he is holy" — so why does it come as the first

(and primary)⁷?

That this is "chol" Rashi says

(— in the first explanation)

<b>At the end </b>of his words,

and that this is "kodesh" he says

(— in the second explanation)

immediately at the beginning of his explanation — what is the reason for the change?

3.

3)

After Rashi finishes both explanations,

he adds: "And both languages are in Bereishit Rabbah".

In this it is not understood:

a)

Why does Rashi need to indicate the source of the commentaries,

although in the vast majority he does not do so?

b)

When Rashi brings two commentaries and wants thereby to emphasize that they are taken from the words of Chazal,

he marks this

(in the usual manner)

&lt;b&gt;At the beginning of &lt;/b&gt;the commentary&lt;sup&gt;8&lt;/sup&gt;

— he should have also here preceded it &lt;b&gt;at the beginning of &lt;/b&gt;the commentary

("It is stated in Bereishit Rabbah" and the like)

and not &lt;b&gt;afterwards&lt;/b&gt;?

3)

In Bereishis Rabbah⁹

(that is before us)

there is only <b>one</b> explanation — that this is a term of profane language¹⁰.

One must accept,

that in the version of Bereishis Rabbah,

which Rashi had,

both explanations are brought¹¹

(as Rashi says "<b>and both</b> languages in Bereishis Rabbah").

But it is not understood: In tractate Shevuos¹²

both explanations are brought

(and there there are no variant readings in this)

— then why does Rashi note,

that the source of both explanations is "in Bereishis Rabbah",

which is only according to one version in Bereishis Rabbah

(and furthermore — not the

version that is <b>prevalent</b>),

and does not bring the Gemara in Shevuos?

4.

The explanation of all this:

After "And the Lord said, 'If now I have found favor, etc., from Your servant,'"

it says <b>immediately </b>in the verses after this¹³

(as a continuation of Abraham's speech)

"Let a little water be taken, and wash your feet, etc., and I will take a piece of bread, and sustain your heart, etc.'"

And since before "Let be taken now" it does not say again "and he said," it is understood,

that all this Abraham said in one utterance

And since that "Let a little water be taken and wash your feet etc." Avraham said to the "three men",

the five-year-old to Scripture understands

(simply),

that also the beginning of the statement "My Lord, if now etc." was said

(not to the Most High,

to the "three men"

because the five-year-old to Scripture understands it by himself¹⁴].

But the question arises: why did Avraham begin to speak to the "<b>three </b>men"

(not in the plural,

but)

but)

in the singular — "If now I have found favor <b>in Your eyes</b>, please do not pass away from <b>Your servant</b>"¹⁵?

Rashi explains it: "To the greatest among them he said" — that he said this only to one — to the greatest among them,

and therefore he spoke in the singular.

But according to this one can ask: When "three men" are standing, it is certainly not proper that one should address only one of them

(even — to the greatest among them)

— so how does it happen,

that Avraham spoke only to the greatest among them?

Therefore Rashi adds "and he called them all masters": only the "said"

(his saying "If now, etc.")

was "to the greatest among them",

but his turning himself

("he called them")¹⁶

with the title Master

(<b>before</b> saying "If now, etc.")

was to all three men — he called them <b>all</b> masters¹⁷.

It still remains, however, not understood: Abraham indeed wanted that all three men should be guests by him,

so why did he say "Please, do not pass by",

in the singular — only to one¹⁸?

Therefore Rashi continues: "ולגדול אמר אל נא תעבור וכיון שלא יעבור הוא יעמדו חבריו עמו" — that with his saying "אל נא תעבור" to the "גדול שבהם" he ensured that also "חבריו" should remain with him.

ה.

But after all this it is still not smooth: why did Avraham need to act upon the other two through the request "לגדול שבהם"?

— He could have asked &lt;b&gt;them&lt;/b&gt; themselves directly — "אל נא &lt;b&gt;תעברו&lt;/b&gt;"!

And although that in the request to them there is no benefit,

because either way their remaining depends on the decision of the "greatest among them" — nevertheless,

since that by saying "Please do not pass by",

only to the greatest among them,

one could think that they specifically <b>not</b>,

he needed to also include them in this and say "Please do not pass by".

And because of the difficulty Rashi says a second explanation: "Another explanation: it is holy and he would say to the Holy One blessed be He etc.",

that the saying "My Lord, if now etc." was

(not to the three men,

as an introduction to "Let a little water be taken and wash your feet etc.",

but)

to the Most High,

"to wait for him until he runs and brings in the guests".

6.

But this explanation Rashi brings as a <b>second </b>explanation

(That

is

less fitting to the plain meaning of Scripture than the first¹⁹)

— Because:

A)

From that which before "yukach na etc." it does not stand

(Again)

"vayomer",

it implies

(As above section 4)

that "vayomer Adonai etc. el na ta'avor etc." was said to the "three men".

b)

It is not plausible to say,

that while the Most High was with Avraham,

that Avraham should run to the guests and leave the Most High,

and

(all the more so)

further ask of Him that He should <b>wait</b> for him²⁰.

("Three men were standing"³)

— one of whom came "to heal Avraham"²¹

— it may be said that Avraham was immediately healed even before he brought them in etc.²²

(For the healing that comes through an angel need not last).

And since the "And He appeared to him, Hashem" was in order "to visit the sick"²³,

it turns out,

that after the arrival of the angels and his healing, there was no longer the reason that the Supreme One should be with him — so what did he ask "Please, my Lord, do not pass by — to wait for him etc."?].

And therefore Rashi placed the explanation

("And he would say to the Holy One, blessed be He")

as the second explanation,

because according to it there are more

(and harder)

difficulties than that which is difficult according to the explanation "to the greatest among them he said".

7.

According to the above will become understood,

that "in this language it is secular" Rashi says at the end of

(first)

commentary,

and

"holy it is" he says immediately at the beginning of the second commentary —

Because from the plain meaning of the verses it is proven

(as above),

that the "vayomer" was to the "three men"; and therefore,

is in the first interpretation,

where the novelty is only that which "to the greatest among them he said",

he does not begin with "hu chol" because the novelty of this interpretation does not consist in that.

But since it is nevertheless not so smooth that one should use the title Adonai for a human being — therefore Rashi guards at the conclusion of the interpretation "and in this language it is profane",

that Adonai here is different than in most places.

But not so in the second interpretation, Rashi says "It is holy" right at the beginning of the interpretation — because:

(a)

To say that Adonai here is "holy" is a novelty

(and as mentioned above,

that from the continuation of the verses it is implied that the description here refers to the men).

(b)

A proof and foundation for the interpretation "And he was saying to the Holy One, blessed be He"

(not as in the plain sense that the speaking was to the three men),

is,

as mentioned above,

that according to this interpretation the meaning of Adonai here is straightforward — here exactly as everywhere.

And therefore Rashi begins "It is holy" — to emphasize,

that in this consists the proof to interpret "And he was saying to the Holy One, blessed be He".

8.

Since both interpretations are

(not only not straightforward²⁴,

but also)

far from the "simple" plain meaning,

therefore Rashi adds "And both expressions are in Bereishit Rabbah",

that

The source of both interpretations is in <b>Midrash </b>

(It is however such a derash that is

(In the language of Rashi²⁵)

"Aggadah that settles the words of the Scripture").

And therefore Rashi says "and both languages in Bereishit Rabbah" at the <b>conclusion </b>of his commentary — because only after one learns through both interpretations and understands that they are far from the "pure" plain meaning,

only then must one arrive at the

Assurance that they are taken from Midrash.

And according to this it is also understandable what Rashi says "and both languages in Bereishis Rabbah" and does not indicate their source in Gemara — because specifically by indicating to Bereishis Rabbah — <b>Midrash </b>— it is emphasized that both interpretations are an Aggadah; as opposed to in Gemara,

where many of the matters that one learns from verses,

are

(also)

in the manner of the plain meaning.

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 5740)