English translation — וירא א

A.

The Rambam says¹

: "And greater is the hospitality to guests than receiving the Divine Presence, as it is said²

And he saw and behold three men".

From the fact that the Rambam brings only these four words

(and does not even hint at the further words by adding "etc."³)

it is understood,

that the proof is from these four words alone.

It is not understood: How does one learn from "And he saw and behold three men" that "greater is the hospitality to guests than receiving the Divine Presence"?

The wonder is even greater: the source of this discourse<sup>4</sup>

is the Gemara in tractate Shabbos<sup>5</sup>

— and in the Gemara<sup>6</sup>

is brought a <b>different</b> verse from the story: "Great is hospitality more than receiving the<sup>7</sup>

face of the Divine Presence, as it is written<sup>8</sup>

And he said, 'My Lord<sup>9</sup>

If now I have found favor in Your eyes, please do not pass away from Your servant, etc.'<sup>10</sup>

(And as Rashi explains<sup>11</sup>

: "Please do not pass away" — "and He left and went to receive the guests.")

D.

E.

: 1)

The Rambam <b>changes</b> from the proof in the Gemara,

2)

From a proof which is simple and clear,

and brings a verse where the proof is not at all understood?

3)

<b>Contrary</b> to "the way of the Rambam" to change and bring a verse "that is not mentioned in the Gemara at all, since it is more clearly explained"<sup>12</sup>?

2.

Regarding the proof from the verse "And he saw and behold three men" that "great is the hospitality to guests etc." — one could say,

at first glance,

that

(according to the Rambam)

the proof is from the very <b>seeing</b> of three men:

In a situation of "And the Lord appeared to him",

how is it fitting that during the event Abraham should look and see "three men" with attention

(which brings to "and he ran toward them")?

When one stands "before the Lord", every movement must be negated,

and all the more so attention,

to a man or to something else!

And all the more so from Shema — whose reading must be; "with intention¹³

with awe and fear, with trembling¹⁴

and with sweat¹⁵

" because one reads "the &lt;b&gt;writing&lt;/b&gt; of the king upon¹⁶

the citizens of his kingdom" and it must be "as new" — like new things.

And similarly in the Amidah prayer,

since a Jew "must¹⁷

see himself &lt;b&gt;as if&lt;/b&gt; the Divine Presence is opposite him",

he must then feel as if he were "standing before the King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He"¹⁸,

so the law is that he may not interrupt for any thing and must stand "like a servant before his master"¹⁹,

without any movements — "one may not move from his place"²⁰

All the more so by Avraham, whose "standing before Hashem"&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

was in the most revealed and elevated manner,

And in our case — it was indeed not a "writing" and not "as if" — rather "And Hashem appeared to him" literally — so how does it come that &lt;b&gt;at that&lt;/b&gt; &lt;b&gt;time&lt;/b&gt; he should have "&lt;b&gt;And he saw&lt;/b&gt;&lt;b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/b&gt;

&lt;b&gt;And behold&lt;/b&gt; etc.",

that he saw the three men?

From this itself is a proof that "hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence": knowing that hospitality

(says a &lt;b&gt;Divine Presence&lt;/b&gt; — that she)

is "greater" than "receiving the Divine Presence",

is therefore &lt;b&gt;at the time&lt;/b&gt; of "receiving the Divine Presence" Abraham interrupts and — "and he saw and behold three men".

There remains however the question: what is the reason that the Rambam deviates from the proof in the Gemara and brings a different proof

(it is obvious that the proof from "and he saw and behold three men" is not "more explained" than the proof in the Gemara,

and on the contrary)?

3.

At first glance one could answer:

In tractate Shevuot²³

the Gemara says,

that the statement "Great is hospitality more than receiving the Divine Presence" is connected with the dispute of the Tannaim whether "all names mentioned in the Torah regarding Avraham are holy" includes also the name from the verse "And he said, 'My Lord, if now I have found favor in Your eyes etc.'",

or the name is profane,

because he did not say this to the Almighty but "he was speaking to angels"²⁴

(and especially since Rashi brings down both opinions in his commentary on the Torah²⁵).

And therefore the Rambam does not bring the verse "And he said etc. please do not pass etc.",

because the proof from it is <b>not</b> according to all opinions²⁶

(and especially according to his method in Moreh Nevuchim²⁷

that he said this to the angel).

One cannot, however, answer thus,

because in his book HaYad²⁸

the Rambam rules explicitly "all the names mentioned regarding Avraham are holy, even this one that says 'Adonai, if please I have found favor' it is holy"²⁹.

4.

In the Guide for the Perplexed³⁰

the Rambam explains,

that the seeing of the three men and the continuation afterwards was all in a vision of prophecy — it is a continuation of "And Hashem appeared to him"³¹.

And based on this one could seemingly answer,

that according to the Rambam, from this verse "My lords etc. please do not pass" there is no proof,

because the content of the verse is not a narrative of the event that happened <b>in actuality</b>,

but

(also)

the saying "My lords etc. please do not pass" is a part of what Avraham saw in a vision of prophecy.

One cannot, however, say so,

because the verse "And he saw, and behold, three men",

from which the Rambam brings the proof,

is

(according to his interpretation in the Guide for the Perplexed)

also was in a vision of prophecy,

and this is no better than that.

And if one would want to say,

that also from a vision of prophecy one can bring a proof — namely from this very thing that the <b>Almighty</b> shows such a vision from which it is proven that "hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence" —

Is indeed on the contrary: then it is logical to bring the proof specifically from the verse "And my Lord said etc. Please do not pass":

The Rambam explains there that the verse "And the Lord appeared to him" is the "general principle" and from the verse "And he looked and behold three men standing etc." begins the <b>detail of the prophecy</b> of "And the Lord appeared to him" — "he began to explain <b>how</b> was the form of that appearance and said that first he saw three men etc."³²

And according to this,

Since "and he saw and behold three men" was in a vision of prophecy,

then there is in this no indication whatsoever regarding the preference of hospitality over receiving the Divine Presence — since the seeing of the three men does <b>not</b> interrupt the receiving of the Divine Presence,

but rather the "and he saw and behold etc." itself is the prophecy

("And the Lord appeared to him")³³

— the receiving of the Divine Presence;

But the verse "and he said, 'My Lord, etc., please do not pass by'",

is because the Most High showed him this in a vision of prophecy

(as Abraham says to the Most High "please do not pass by"*³³)

this comes to teach that "hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence",

as above³⁴.

In addition to all this: In general, it is a great difficulty to explain and elucidate in the Book of the Hand,

according to his interpretation of the verses in his book Guide for the Perplexed,

since in his Book of the Hand the Rambam does not mention the aforementioned matter,

that there was no speech and actual deed,

rather the entire episode was³⁵

in a prophetic vision.

And furthermore, and primarily — in the Rambam <b>ours</b>

(brought below)

it is almost explicit that it was actual.

5.

One will understand this with the introduction of the explanation of the words of the Rambam in the laws

(the aforementioned in section 1)

there,

and this is his language

(in law 1)

: "It is a positive commandment of their words to visit the sick ..

and to escort the guests and to occupy oneself etc."

Afterwards in law 2 the Rambam says: "The reward of escorting is greater than everything.

And it is the statute that Abraham our father enacted and the way of kindness that he practiced, feeding wayfarers and giving them drink and escorting them, and hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as it is said, 'And he saw, and behold, three men,' and escorting is greater than hospitality.

The Sages said³⁶

Anyone who does not escort is as if he sheds blood."

One must understand: why does the Rambam say

(Hilchos Aveil)

in the positive commandment of their words "and to accompany the guests" and not in the inclusive language of all "hachnasas orchim"?

Simply, one learns,

that in the halacha the Rambam speaks about the positive commandment of their words which is connected with gemilus chasadim <b>sheb'gufo</b> — "to visit the sick and to comfort the mourners etc.",

and as he elaborates in halacha "And these are <b>gemilus chasadim sheb'gufo</b> that have no measure."

But the part of hachnasas orchim,

which consists of feeding and giving drink to the guests,

is a matter

(primarily)

of gemilus chasadim <b>b'mamono</b>,

and that has a measure

(and as the Rambam explains the difference in his commentary on the Mishnah³⁷).

This is, however, not a sufficient explanation³⁸

In Halachah B, the Rambam says that the "statute that Avraham Avinu instituted" includes "feeding wayfarers and giving them drink",

until he brings on this "greater is hospitality to guests than receiving the Divine Presence".

And according to the above,

that here it is speaking about gemilus chasadim with his body,

how does the matter of hospitality with his money come in here?

If the Rambam had intended only to bring out the virtue of accompanying [guests] in itself,

he would have needed to say "and it is the statute ...

and one who practices accompanying guests" and the like,

or at least — "&lt;b&gt;after&lt;/b&gt; he feeds wayfarers and gives them drink,

accompanies them",

in order to emphasize that it speaks about the virtue of accompanying³⁹,

"the gemilus chasadim of his body".

From the language of the Rambam it is implied that here all the details of hospitality apply, also that which "he feeds wayfarers and gives them drink"⁴⁰.

only as an introduction in order to further bring out the virtue of accompanying — "and accompanying is greater than hosting them": and especially that the statement that he brings at the end of the halacha,

"The sages said, whoever does not accompany is as if he sheds blood",

emphasizes in the strongest manner the necessity and greatness of the matter of accompanying].

6.

Also requires explanation: The Rambam begins "the reward of accompanying is greater than everything" and afterwards he elaborates "the sages said, whoever does not accompany is as if he sheds blood"

(and similarly he brings in the following halacha⁴¹

regarding the court: "and the court were its appointees its agents to accompany a person traveling from place to place and if they were negligent in this matter it is accounted to them as if they shed blood").

And as one learns simply,

is the reason that the lack of accompanying is "as if he sheds blood" — because through accompanying it is ensured that one should not murder the guest on the way

(as the proof that the Gemara brings in tractate Sotah⁴²).

It is not understood: since he says that the virtue of leaving is so great,

that in its absence it is "as if he sheds blood",

then the virtue of "the reward of leaving is greater than everything" is in comparison to it a trivial matter,

and in general two hundred maneh&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;?

7.

And one can say the point of the explanation in this:

In the matter of gemilus chasadim there are generally two details: a)

the recipient of the mitzvah,

that with his act of gemilus chasadim he fills a lack of his fellow,

or brings a benefit to his fellow.

the action on the part of the person — the <b>attribute</b> of kindness of the one who does kindness.

Similarly, in hospitality there are these two details: a)

the matters that the guest receives — the food and drink etc. — through the particular actions.

b)

b)

the attribute of kindness of the host who welcomes guests,

the interest and attention that he shows the guest.

In general, regarding matters of gemilus chasadim

(and in general, it comes to mitzvos between man and his fellow),

pertains

(primarily)

to the recipient,

the good and benefit that one's fellow receives in actuality⁴⁴,

and the <b>attribute</b> of kindness of the person who does kindness pertains

(primarily)

not to the person who receives the kindness,

but to the person who does kindness⁴⁵

that "if one <b>loses</b> a sela from his hand and a poor person finds it and goes and supports himself with it" he fulfills the mitzvah of charity]⁴⁷.

Regarding hospitality, there is a special novelty,

that the <b>attribute</b> of kindness,

the feeling of kindness of the host who welcomes guests,

pertains to the recipient,

the actions that one does for the guest.

Hospitality must be done in a manner that the guest should feel that all the actions of the host for him are from his interest,

from his feeling,

love of Israel

(as hinted in the words of the Rambam⁴⁸

that "all these mitzvos ...

they are included in 'and you shall love your fellow as yourself'"⁴⁹).

And this expresses itself in the obligation "to accompany guests".

Because accompaniment is not a matter of fulfilling &lt;b&gt;his needs&lt;/b&gt; of the guest when he is a guest

(as in providing him with eating and drinking etc.),

but it is from the attribute of gemilus chasadim

(and consequently — also after the connection between them has ceased — he goes on his way)

And consequently the guest feels,

that &lt;b&gt;everything&lt;/b&gt; that he did for him comes from the feeling of the heart of the host who hosts,

that he takes interest in him,

that his welfare etc. matters to him.

Ch.

And this is the continuation in the words of the Rambam: "The reward for accompaniment is greater than everything.

And it is the statute that Avraham Avinu enacted and the way of kindness that he conducted, feeding wayfarers and giving them drink and accompanying them":

The "statute that Abraham enacted" does not refer only to the <b>detail</b> of the <b>act</b> of accompaniment,

but to the general manner of hospitality,

that Abraham our father established hospitality in such a way that it should contain not only the deed and action of charity

(the needs of the guest)

but also the <b>attribute</b> of kindness of the host who lodges,

which is the "<b>way</b> of <b>kindness</b> that he practiced"⁵⁰,

that accompanying guests comes together with that which "he feeds wayfarers and gives them drink".

Based on this, one can explain the conclusion of the Rambam's words "The sages said: Whoever does not accompany [a guest] is as if he sheds blood",

that this aligns with the virtue of accompaniment

("the reward of accompaniment is greater than everything")

at the beginning of the halacha:

The Rambam does not mean here only that this can bring about the shedding of the blood of the guest during his walking on the road,

but

(air)⁵¹

the <b>feeling</b> of bloodshed regarding the guest: when the host does not accompany him, he sees that the interest and devotion — the attribute of kindness in the action — is lacking,

the hospitality does not enter into him, and "the red one goes and the white one comes"⁵²

he feels in this a disgrace,

a "shedding of blood".

like*⁵³

charity⁵⁴

which must be given "with a pleasant countenance and with joy," and the giver "commiserates with him over his distress"⁵⁵,

as opposed to when "one gives charity to a poor person with a sour face and his face cast down to the ground, etc., he loses his merit and forfeits it"⁵⁵].

And based on this it is also understood the reason that the Rambam distinguishes from the mitzvah of hospitality only the matter of "accompanying the guests",

because specifically in this is expressed an essential aspect of the mitzvah of hospitality — the attention to the guest⁵⁶.

Moreover: when the accompanying is lacking,

then there is also lacking in the mitzvah of hospitality the eating and drinking that he gave him,

as above⁵⁷.

9.

And based on all this it can be said that this is the reason why the Rambam brings the source for "Hospitality is greater than receiving the Divine Presence" from the verse "And he saw and behold three men" and deviates from the Gemara which learns it from the verse "And he said, My Lord, etc., please do not pass by":

This comes in continuation to the content of the halacha,

the "decree that Avraham Avinu decreed and the way of &lt;b&gt;kindness&lt;/b&gt; that he conducted in it",

that the essence of hospitality is the attribute of kindness in it,

the interest and attention to the guest — that this is not only during the time that one does the &lt;b&gt;action&lt;/b&gt; of hospitality when he is feeding wayfarers and afterwards,

but also before this,

&lt;b&gt;immediately&lt;/b&gt; at the time that he sees,

receives the guests,

the attention and interest in the guest is relevant.

And this is expressed in the verse "And he saw and behold three men"

(as above section b)

: he &lt;b&gt;paid attention&lt;/b&gt; to the three men &lt;b&gt;in the midst&lt;/b&gt; of "receiving the face of the Shechinah".

Yud.

According to all the above, one can answer another question in the learning of Avraham that "great is hospitality more than receiving the Divine Presence":

In the end it turned out that by feeding and giving drink to the three men, Avraham <b>did not</b> fulfill a mitzvah of hospitality,

because in truth they were not men but angels who do not need any food,

and especially according to the knowledge that they did not eat,

but only "appeared as if they ate"⁵⁸.

Or even according to the opinion⁵⁹

that "they actually ate and drank," this was not because they <b>needed</b> the eating and drinking, but only "for the honor of Avraham"⁶⁰

or because "when you go to a city, follow its customs"⁶¹,

and consequently, <b>in practice</b> — this was not hospitality

(and charity <b>to)</b>

guests.

And based on this, there is a wonder:

a)

According to this, that in truth there was no fulfillment of the mitzvah of hachnasat orchim⁶²,

then one should not because of this interrupt "receiving the face of the Shechinah" — so how is it possible that Avraham Avinu should, heaven forbid, stumble into abandoning receiving the face of the Shechinah?

b)

It is difficult to say that one learns a law

(true)

— "Great is hachnasat orchim etc." — from an action that was in truth not hachnasat orchim?

One must say,

that although the guests of Abraham our father were only "in the likeness of men",

nevertheless,

nothing was lacking in the "hospitality" of Abraham our father; it is not the matter that only according to his eyesight did he fulfill the commandment of hospitality,

but the truth was so.

And the explanation of this can be said⁶³

The main aspect of hospitality is emphasized

(not so much in the action of the object of hospitality,

what the guest receives,

but)

in the attribute of kindness,

"the way of kindness within it",

the attention and interest on the part of the person,

the host who welcomes the guest — and the action of the person and his attention was in the hospitality of "Abraham our father" in perfection.

Furthermore: also the recipient

(the guest)

of the hospitality was revealed in Abraham in perfection,

because the aforementioned matter,

the satisfaction of the guest from the attention — is present with angels

(and especially when they come in the form of men)⁶⁴

Especially when it speaks about the attention of Avraham Avinu who is so much "beloved" by the Most High,

and as he also says in our parshah⁶⁵

"For I have known him" — "an expression of affection",

and in general "the Patriarchs are the Merkavah"⁶⁶,

that their level <b>revealed to angels</b> is <b>higher</b> than the level of the angels,

certainly there is here the content and essence of the hospitality of Avraham towards the angels.

(From sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira 5725.

29 Elul 5722)