English translation — לך לך ג

A.

In the verse¹

"And your name shall no longer be called Avram, but your name shall be Avraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations,"

Rashi quotes from the verse the words "for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations,"

and explains:

"An acronym of his name.

And the 'reish' that was in him at first, that he was a father only to Aram, which is his place, and now

(father²

to the entire world.

And even the 'reish' that was in him from the beginning)

did not move from its place, for even the 'yud' of Sarai complained to the Shechinah until He added it to Yehoshua, as it is said³

"And Moshe called Hoshea bin Nun Yehoshua."

The simple explanation in Rashi's commentary is: The verse's wording "for a father of a multitude" -- that "father of a multitude of nations have I made you" is a giving of reason for the name Abraham -- proves,

that the concept of "father of a multitude of nations" is hinted at in the name Abraham.

Therefore Rashi explains that "father of a multitude of nations"⁴

is "an acronym of his name".

— because the foundation and necessity for Rashi to say that it is "an acronym"

(although "acronym" is not a common thing⁶

in the study of the plain meaning of Scripture⁷)

is from the word "for"].

Based on this, the question arises: if so,

why did the letter reish remain

(in Avraham),

since it has no connection to the acronym<sup>8</sup>?

To this, Rashi answers "and the reish that was in him initially etc. did not move from its place",

and brings on this an example

(and see)

from "the yud of Sarai"

"Do not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name"],

which "complained against the Shechinah

(about that which they had taken from Sarah)

until it was added to Yehoshua"; and likewise in our case,

that "so that it should not complain against the Shechinah like the yud of Sarai"<sup>10</sup>

they did not remove the reish from the name Avraham.

B.

One must, however, understand:

a)

The concept of the "yud of Sarai" is,

at first glance,

a proof to contradict

because the yud of Sarai was indeed "moved from its place"

(and it was added to a different

name and b)

person — to Joshua),

whereas in our case the resh is "not moved from its place"

b)

From Rashi's language "also

the yud of Sarai etc.' — not "and thus the yud etc." — it is proven,

that regarding the "yud of Sarai" there is less room for complaint than regarding the resh of Avraham

("also etc.' — meaning not only the resh of Avraham,

but even the "yud of Sarai complained").

It is perplexing: what is the difference between them?

Seemingly, with both there is the same reason and cause for complaint — that which the letter is taken away from a name of a tzaddik.

3.

This will be understood by prefacing the lengthy language of Rashi: "And the Resh that was in it initially, that he was not a father except to Aram which is his place, and now he is a father to the entire world, and even the Resh etc. did not move from its place,"

For seemingly:

From that Rashi does not mention here at all the name "Avram",

rather he begins with "<b>VeiRaSh</b> that was in him initially etc."

(and only in continuation to this does he explain "that he was not a father except to Aram")

where the emphasis of the explanation is

(or)

on the name Avram: "Your name shall no longer be called Avraham — and your name was Avraham initially ..

father ..

to all Aram ..

and finally ..

father to the entire world"]

It is proven,

that Rashi here is not

(on so much)

coming to explain the acronym of

(previous)

the name Avram,

but

(only)

to explain the <b>reish</b> that remained in the name <b>Avraham</b><b>¹⁶</b>

because for the explanation of the acronym of the name Avraham — "Av hamon goyim" — it is not so relevant whether the earlier name Avram¹⁷

also has an explanation

(similar),

or not].

And since Rashi's intention is not to explain the acronym of the name Avram,

but only to explain why the Reish "did not move from its place",

he seemingly should have said briefly: "the language of the acronym Av Hamon Goyim and the Reish that was in it at the beginning did not move from its place that even a Yud etc." — what necessitates explaining

(the matter of "and the name" — from

(end)

Parshat Noach)

that the letter "Reish that was in it &lt;b&gt;at the beginning&lt;/b&gt;

(is the- therefore)

that he was not a father but to Aram"?

Also one needs to have an explanation in the precise wording of Rashi "and even the Reish ...

did not &lt;b&gt;move&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;from its place&lt;/b&gt;" — which is an unusual expression in such a case.

Rashi seemingly should have said simply "it was not taken from him"&lt;sup&gt;18&lt;/sup&gt;,

or "it was not missing from his name"&lt;sup&gt;19&lt;/sup&gt;

(and the like).

4.

And one must say the explanation in this:

As discussed several times²⁰,

is according to the simple meaning there is no necessity to assume that a name hints at and expresses the essence

(and his excellence)

of the bearer of the name²¹

(unless the verse itself emphasizes this²²,

and as in our case — "and your name shall be Avraham because a father of a multitude of nations I have made you" — or hints at least).

And therefore,

there is no place to explain that the name "Avram"

(which Terach had given²³)

has a connection with the life of Avraham.

The necessity

(according to the simple interpretation)

to explain that "Avram" means "father of Aram" is because the letter Reish remained in the name <b>Avraham</b>.

And the explanation: according to the simple meaning there is no place to say,

that only because a letter has "complaints" should one leave it in a name that needs to express a specific content — if the letter itself has <b>no</b> <b>connection</b> <b>at all</b> to the content

(the name)²⁴.

And this Rashi indicates in his language — "And even the reish that was in it initially, that he was not a father except to Aram which is his place etc.": with this Rashi says that here there is a difficulty: according to the acronym — how does the reish come into the name Avraham.

And consequently — the reish must also have an explanation in accordance with the content of the name Avraham — "father of a multitude of nations"²⁵.

And Rashi explains "that he was not a father except to Aram etc. 'it did not move from its place'": the content of this Rashi is — that he is "father to Aram",

and the matter is indeed &lt;b&gt;remained&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;also&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;afterwards&lt;/b&gt;; "father to all the nations" is &lt;b&gt;inclusive&lt;/b&gt;,

and does not &lt;b&gt;negate&lt;/b&gt; the matter of "father to Aram",

it is only an &lt;b&gt;addition&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;26&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

And this is the precision of Rashi's language — "&lt;b&gt;it did not move from its place&lt;/b&gt;"

(and does not say "it was not taken from him" etc. as above)

: even if one had &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; inserted this Rashi in his name

(and his name would have been "Avham")

it would not mean that one had taken away the &lt;b&gt;content&lt;/b&gt; of this Rashi — its content

("father to Aram")

remains even then; but in that case it would mean that this Rashi "remains" in a &lt;b&gt;second&lt;/b&gt; "place" — only as a part of "world" — "father to the entire world".

The emphasis in "it did not move &lt;b&gt;from its place&lt;/b&gt;" indicates that even afterwards this Rashi remains in its "place",

the "father to Aram" remains specified in the acronym in the name

(Avraham)

as a matter &lt;b&gt;by itself&lt;/b&gt;

(although it is included in "

(Av l)

the entire world").

5.

According to this, the proof is also understandable &lt;b&gt;ובמכש״כ&lt;/b&gt; — “&lt;b&gt;שאף&lt;/b&gt; the yud of the shin of Sarah complained etc.”:

The reish of Avraham has a “claim”,

its rationale with it: because the content of reish remains as it were in the name — it does not need to be questioned to leave the reish itself in the name of the tzaddik.

But not by the "yud of Sarai" is not applicable "a claim" with such a complaint,

because the content of the letter yud has <b>not</b> any place in the content of the name Sarah

(as below section 7).

It turns out that this is only a matter of mere grievances etc. — "she complained"

("And even" — <b>and even</b> nevertheless they also here "gave in" and "she added to Joshua").

And based on this is also answered the change in the "yud of Sarai" — that the "yud of Sarai" "moved from its place":

The comparison and proof is only on this that the "complaints" of a letter cause that one should appease it; but the <b>manner</b> of appeasement is,

of course,

in every place according to its matter:

In our case, where the content of the letter "Reish" remained also afterwards — the claim arose that "it did not move from its place"; unlike by the "Yud of Sarai",

where the content of the "Yud" is &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt; in the new name — one cannot leave the "Yud" "in its place" — it becomes "its place",

And consequently the reconciliation must be in a different manner,

One inserts the "Yud" into a name of another righteous person,

And a name that becomes "its place" — the acronym of the "Yud" there is a novelty &lt;b&gt;in&lt;/b&gt; the name

(and the man)

And as &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; explains there: "He prayed for him, Y-H&lt;sup&gt;27&lt;/sup&gt;

May He save you etc."].

6.

Why is there no place for the content of the letter yud of "Shari" in the name "Sarah"?

And seemingly — <b>on the contrary</b>:

On the subsequent verse "Do not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name" Rashi explains: "Do not call her name Sarai — which implies my mistress and not of others,

for Sarah is her name, that she will be mistress over all."

And according to this, it is exactly like by the name "Abram — Abraham",

because in "mistress over <b>all</b>" is indeed included the detail of "Sarai — mine".

So why did the yud "move from its place"?

Furthermore: specifically according to how &lt;b&gt;Rashi&lt;/b&gt; explains the difference between "Sarai"

(Sarai — to her nation)

and "Sarah"

(Sarah over all),

there must be a claim and demand from the "yud of Sarai"

(that she should remain in the name Sarah)

even stronger than the claim of the reish of Avram:

In the Gemara&lt;sup&gt;28&lt;/sup&gt;

the wording is "at first she became Sarai &lt;b&gt;to her nation&lt;/b&gt; and ultimately she became Sarah over the entire world",

which accordingly is exactly like the difference between "Avram"

(father to Aram — his nation)

and "Avraham"

(father to the entire world)

Rashi, however, explains from the language of the Sages and says that "Sarai" means — "

(prince)

of <b>mine</b>",

and since here it is about the calling of this name by <b>Avraham</b>

(as the precise language of the verse: "And God said to Avraham, 'Sarai your wife you shall not call her name etc.'"),

it turns out,

that "Sarai" means that she is a "prince" over <b>Avraham</b><b>²⁹</b>

says: "Marta

(mistress)

to her husband,

in every place the man decrees, but here

(by Sarah)

all³¹

that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice"].

And accordingly it is the opposite of what is logical: by the name Avraham the letter Reish cannot have a strong claim,

even if one should <b>not</b> insert it into his name,

because its content remained

(as a part of "

(Av l)

the entire world")

But not so by "Sarah" that in

(that which she became)

"Sarah over all" there is no proof that this includes also "Sarai — <b>to me</b>",

because such rulership is the opposite of how it was set up

(according to Torah)

that the <b>master</b> is the ruler

(and as above from Midrash),

as it is said <b>before</b> <b>this</b><b>³²</b>

"and he will rule over you".

It comes out accordingly,

that by removing the Yud from Sarah <b>one adds</b> the content of the Yud

(that which "Sarai — to me")

With great difficulty one can answer,

that Avraham was then elevated to a higher level — "Walk before Me &lt;b&gt;and be perfect"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;

— in a way that after his ascent&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;

Sarah was already &lt;b&gt;not&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;35&lt;/sup&gt;

any dominion over Avraham

(dominion — over him).

One can however not say so,

because:

a)

According to this, it will turn out that the change of name — "Sarai your wife, you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name" — is for her

(also)

a matter of <b>descent</b>!

b)

The verse "All that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice" stands <b>later</b> in Parshat Vayeira³¹

— <b>some</b> <b>time</b> after the Almighty said "You shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name"

7.

Will be understood based on the precise wording of Rashi on the verse "Do not call her name Sarai" — "that implies Sarai is for me and not for others, because Sarah simply means that she will be a ruler over all."

For seemingly: Rashi should have said

(<b>in the manner of</b> the language of our Sages³⁶)

— "At first Sarai is for me and now she will be a ruler over all."

And in the manner of the language of <b>Rashi</b> regarding Avraham — "At first ..

Av ..

to Aram ..

and now Av to the entire world".

Is the explanation in this:

According to Rashi's commentary

(study according to the plain meaning)

Sarah was indeed <b>not</b> a ruler over Abraham

(even when she was called "Sarai").

Because,

as discussed earlier: in study <b>according to</b> <b>the plain meaning</b> there is no necessity at all that people's names should have a connection to the

(life)

bearer of the name.

And likewise in our matter: the name "Sarai"

(which <b>Haran</b> had given³⁷)

did not have the meaning that she is different from the statement "and he will rule over you",

and on the contrary — was a ruler over her husband³⁸

(Abraham)

was said years later,

and b)

&lt;b&gt;And the main point&lt;/b&gt; — was said as a &lt;b&gt;novelty&lt;/b&gt;].

And therefore Rashi is precise in his language "Do not call her name Sarai — &lt;b&gt;which implies&lt;/b&gt; Sarai is mine and not for others, because Sarah ...

that she will be a princess over all": It is not the explanation that "at first" she was "Sarai — mine",

this is only an implication of the name&lt;sup&gt;39&lt;/sup&gt;

— but even such an implication must be negated: since the Almighty wants now to give her rulership

("prince")

and that this should be expressed in her name,

therefore she cannot remain with her name "Sarai"

(although also "Sarai" is from the language of rulership&lt;sup&gt;40&lt;/sup&gt;),

because "&lt;b&gt;it implies&lt;/b&gt;

(at least)

Sarai &lt;b&gt;is mine and not for others&lt;/b&gt;" — and the "rulership" of Sarah will indeed be in the manner of "a princess over all".

8.

The meaning of the Torah in Rashi's commentary:

The above explanation in that the initial letters "did not move from its place"

(that the content of the initial letters remained also thereafter)

— is also consistent with the inner explanation in the two names "Avram" and "Avraham":

The Alter Rebbe explains in Torah Or⁴¹,

that "Avram" consists of two words "A"v "R"am⁴²,

and this means — "the intellect hidden from all thought": "Av" hints at "Chochmah"⁴³,

and "Ram" indicates a lofty,

abstract intellect — "hidden from all thought".

And the change from "Avram" to "Avraham"

("Av hamon goyim")

hints at <b>revelation</b>: to Avraham was given the power to bring down the "intellect hidden from all thought",

until "hamon goyim"; he even has a "wondrous intellect"⁴⁴

(Also one that is

(M.Tz.A.)

"Above the vessels of human intellect"⁴⁵)

Could explain in a manner "the simplest model can understand this"⁴⁴.

It turns out,

that the content of the letter Reish

(Av)

Ram")

is also present in the name Avraham — there is the intellect hidden from every concept,

only as it illuminates and is revealed below,

until in "multitudes of nations"⁴⁶.

One can however think that because the "intellect hidden from all thought" is drawn down to "multitude of nations" there is in him a descent G‑d forbid — on this Rashi says that the first letter "&lt;b&gt;did not move from its place"&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;46&lt;/sup&gt;

: she remained in her "place" &lt;b&gt;and level&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;47&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

exactly as in the name "Avram"

(intellect hidden from all thought)

— because this is the function

(and consequently — ascent)

of Avraham,

that through him is the connection of "above" and "below",

that "intellect hidden from all thought" is drawn &lt;b&gt;as it is&lt;/b&gt; into "multitude of nations"&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;.

9.

The lesson from this matter in the service of man:

It is known⁴⁹

that the matters of the three Patriarchs were drawn down to every Jew as an inheritance⁵⁰.

And likewise regarding the matter of "Avraham" — "father of a multitude of nations",

that every Jew has the power to influence in "a multitude of nations" — <b>in the entire world.</b>

He must however know that the "Rosh ..

Av ..

Lo zakh shehu &lt;b&gt;mekomo&lt;/b&gt;..

Lo zaza mimekoma":

Even though a Jew must act in the entire world,

He must however know,

That first and foremost there lies upon him an obligation to influence &lt;b&gt;his place and his surroundings&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;51&lt;/sup&gt;,

And only then,

When he becomes a "father to his place",

To be a "father to the entire world".

(From the sicha of Shabbos Parshas Lech Lecha 5744)