Difference between revisions of "Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men/2"
m |
m |
||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
<category>People | <category>People | ||
− | <p>The three guests were human, | + | <p>The three guests were human, even though they were Divinely dispatched and possessed prophetic capabilities.  Their discussion with Avraham was distinct from and chronologically preceded Hashem's revelation in 18:1.</p> |
<mekorot> | <mekorot> | ||
Opinion brought by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:1,13,33</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit19-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 19:2,12,18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYBSBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:1,2-4,9,17-19</a><a href="RYBSBereshit19-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 19:1,18-19</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshit18P1" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshit18M2" data-aht="source">Beiur HaMilot Bereshit 18:2,3,13</a><a href="RalbagBereshit19M13" data-aht="source">Beiur HaMilot Bereshit 19:13</a><a href="RalbagBereshit18P1" data-aht="source">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Bereshit 18:1,2-8,9-10,13-14,16,17-19,20-21,22,33</a><a href="RalbagBereshit19P27" data-aht="source">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Bereshit 19:27-28,37-38</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> | Opinion brought by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:1,13,33</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit19-2" data-aht="source">Bereshit 19:2,12,18</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RYBSBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a><a href="RYBSBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:1,2-4,9,17-19</a><a href="RYBSBereshit19-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 19:1,18-19</a><a href="R. Yosef Bekhor Shor" data-aht="parshan">About R. Yosef Bekhor Shor</a></multilink>, <multilink><a href="RalbagBereshit18P1" data-aht="source">Ralbag</a><a href="RalbagBereshit18M2" data-aht="source">Beiur HaMilot Bereshit 18:2,3,13</a><a href="RalbagBereshit19M13" data-aht="source">Beiur HaMilot Bereshit 19:13</a><a href="RalbagBereshit18P1" data-aht="source">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Bereshit 18:1,2-8,9-10,13-14,16,17-19,20-21,22,33</a><a href="RalbagBereshit19P27" data-aht="source">Beiur Divrei HaParashah Bereshit 19:27-28,37-38</a><a href="R. Levi b. Gershom (Ralbag, Gersonides)" data-aht="parshan">About R. Levi b. Gershom</a></multilink> | ||
</mekorot> | </mekorot> | ||
− | <point><b>Hashem's revelation – "'וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה"</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ralbag, Hashem's revelation in 18:1 refers to | + | <point><b>Hashem's revelation – "'וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה"</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ralbag, the description of Hashem's revelation to Avraham in 18:1 refers to their dialogue in the second half of the chapter regarding the destruction of Sedom (18:17 and 20ff.).  They thus contend that the verse is out of order<fn>See the opinion brought by <multilink><a href="IbnEzraBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Ibn Ezra</a><a href="IbnEzraBereshit18-1" data-aht="source">Bereshit 18:1,13,33</a><a href="R. Avraham ibn Ezra" data-aht="parshan">About R. Avraham ibn Ezra</a></multilink> who also posits achronology: וי"א שהוא מוקדם ומאוחר, וכן הוא וישא – וכבר נשא עיניו ועשה כך וכך, ואח"כ נראה אליו השם.</fn> and, in reality, the story of the angels in 18:2-16 preceded the revelation.  Ralbag suggests that the story of the visit is simply a parenthetical aside, placed here because the guests were en route to destroy Sedom, which was the very matter which Hashem wanted to discuss with Avraham.<fn>Though this accounts for the juxtaposition, it does not adequately explain why verse 1 could not have been written in its proper place, after the angels left in 18:16.</fn></point> |
− | + | <point><b>The name "Hashem"</b> – According to this approach, throughout the chapter, the name Hashem refers to Hashem Himself and not the guests.  Ralbag posits one possible exception, suggesting that "וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶל אַבְרָהָם לָמָּה זֶּה צָחֲקָה שָׂרָה" in 18:13 might be one of the guests speaking via prophecy.<fn>Ralbag might be hesitant to read this as Hashen Himself because that would require one to assert that Avraham received prophecy while awake, in the midst of dealing with the guests. [He suggests that it is possible that due to Avraham's great prophetic status, he was able to do so, but seems to prefer the other reading.] In addition, having the prophet speak enables one to understand how Sarah could have heard what was said, and explains how she denied her laughter (something she would not dare to Hashem.)</fn>  He is referred to as Hashem after the One who sent him.<fn>He points to Bereshit 25:23 as another example where a prophet is called "Hashem".</fn></point> | |
− | |||
− | <point><b>The name "Hashem"</b> – According to this approach, throughout the chapter the name Hashem refers to Hashem Himself and not the guests.  Ralbag posits one possible exception, suggesting that | ||
<point><b>"אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ"</b><ul> | <point><b>"אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ"</b><ul> | ||
− | <li><b>Hashem</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor the term " | + | <li><b>Hashem</b> – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor the term "אֲדֹנָי" here refers to Hashem.  Upon seeing the guests, Avraham offered up a prayer to Hashem that the group<fn>According to him, the word "תַעֲבֹר" is not second person masculine but rather third person, feminine and refers to the "חבורה" of prophets.  In this he differs from R. Elazar in<multilink><a href="BavliShabbat127a" data-aht="source"> Bavli Shabbat</a><a href="BavliShabbat127a" data-aht="source">Shabbat 127a</a><a href="Bavli Shabbat" data-aht="parshan">About Bavli Shabbat</a></multilink> who claims that Avraham requested that Hashem stay while he dealt with the guests.  R"Y Bekhor Shor rejects that possibility because according to him, Hashem had not yet revealed Himself to Avraham and was not in the midst of conversing with him.  In fact, he posits that it is specifically because he was not busy with Hashem that Avraham had no problem inviting the guests to stay and eat.</fn> won't pass by him without stopping.  This reading easily explains the switch to plural in the following verse, since only then does Avraham turn to the threesome.</li> |
− | <li><b>Guests</b> – Ralbag, in contrast, asserts that the word " | + | <li><b>Guests</b> – Ralbag, in contrast, asserts that the word "אֲדֹנָי" refers to the guests, and means "my masters".  He follows R. Chiya in <multilink><a href="BereshitRabbah48-10" data-aht="source">Bereshit Rabbah</a><a href="BereshitRabbah48-10" data-aht="source">48:10</a><a href="Bereshit Rabbah" data-aht="parshan">About Bereshit Rabbah</a></multilink> in explaining that Avraham initially spoke to the leader specifically (thus the singular "<b>תַ</b>עֲבֹר") and only afterwards to the group (thus the plural in verse 4).<fn>He does not address the problematic vocalization of "אֲדֹנָי" with a kamatz, but interestingly, Ibn Ezra writes that in some manuscripts the word appears with a patach.</fn></li> |
</ul></point> | </ul></point> | ||
<point><b>"וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי"</b> – Both Ralbag and R"Y Bekhor Shor maintain that the word "אֲדֹנָי" in this verse refers to the guests.  This works with the beginning of the verse which states that Lot "said to <i>them</i>", referring to the guests. R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, assumes that the next verse is a prayer directed to Hashem.  Presumably he is motivated by the fact that Lot is speaking of killing and saving lives, something which is only in the hands of Hashem.<fn>Cf. Rashi above.</fn></point> | <point><b>"וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי"</b> – Both Ralbag and R"Y Bekhor Shor maintain that the word "אֲדֹנָי" in this verse refers to the guests.  This works with the beginning of the verse which states that Lot "said to <i>them</i>", referring to the guests. R"Y Bekhor Shor, though, assumes that the next verse is a prayer directed to Hashem.  Presumably he is motivated by the fact that Lot is speaking of killing and saving lives, something which is only in the hands of Hashem.<fn>Cf. Rashi above.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Why are the guests referred to as both people and angels?</b> As this approach maintains that the guests were human, it is understandable why they are referred to as "men" in the vast majority of verses, but unclear how they can be called angels. R"Y Bekhor Shor responds that the word "‎מַלְאָכִים" does not necessarily refer to celestial beings but simply means messengers.<fn>Often the Torah uses the term "מַּלְאָכִים" to describe people who are sent by others on some mission. As an example, R"Y Bekhor Shor points to <a href="Bereshit32-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:4</a>, where Yaakov sends human messengers to his brother and the text calls them "מַלְאָכִים".  Ibn Ezra points to <a href="Chaggai1-13" data-aht="source">Chaggai 1:13 </a>where the prophet Chagai is called "מַלְאַךְ ה'".</fn>  Ralbag attempts to explain why they are so-called only when interacting with Lot and not by Avraham, by suggesting that prophets are only called "‎מַלְאָכִים" if they are greater prophets than the person to whom they are prophesying.<fn>Since Avraham received more prophecies than the guests, they are referred to as people when speaking to him. Since Lot was not a prophet, they can be called either "מַּלְאָכִים" or "men' when interacting with him.  Ralbag points to Bereshit 16 (the story of Hagar and the "מלאך") as another example where a prophet is called a "מלאך" because he is talking to someone on a lesser level.</fn></point> | <point><b>Why are the guests referred to as both people and angels?</b> As this approach maintains that the guests were human, it is understandable why they are referred to as "men" in the vast majority of verses, but unclear how they can be called angels. R"Y Bekhor Shor responds that the word "‎מַלְאָכִים" does not necessarily refer to celestial beings but simply means messengers.<fn>Often the Torah uses the term "מַּלְאָכִים" to describe people who are sent by others on some mission. As an example, R"Y Bekhor Shor points to <a href="Bereshit32-4" data-aht="source">Bereshit 32:4</a>, where Yaakov sends human messengers to his brother and the text calls them "מַלְאָכִים".  Ibn Ezra points to <a href="Chaggai1-13" data-aht="source">Chaggai 1:13 </a>where the prophet Chagai is called "מַלְאַךְ ה'".</fn>  Ralbag attempts to explain why they are so-called only when interacting with Lot and not by Avraham, by suggesting that prophets are only called "‎מַלְאָכִים" if they are greater prophets than the person to whom they are prophesying.<fn>Since Avraham received more prophecies than the guests, they are referred to as people when speaking to him. Since Lot was not a prophet, they can be called either "מַּלְאָכִים" or "men' when interacting with him.  Ralbag points to Bereshit 16 (the story of Hagar and the "מלאך") as another example where a prophet is called a "מלאך" because he is talking to someone on a lesser level.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Angelic or human actions</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that the fact that the people ate and slept proves that they cannot be angels.<fn>For proof that angels do not eat, he points to <a href="Shofetim13-16" data-aht="source">Shofetim 13:16</a>.</fn>  Their seemingly supernatural actions (foreknowledge that Sarah was to give birth, blinding the people of Sedom etc.) can be explained by their prophetic status.<fn>See <a href="MelakhimII6-18" data-aht="source">Melakhim II 6:18</a> where Elisha the prophet also blinds his enemies. A Karaite commentary attributed to <multilink><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">Daniel Alkumsi</a><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">JQR 15:3, p. 383-384</a><a href="Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite" data-aht="parshan">About Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite</a></multilink> (see also Abarbanel)  questions this parallel, arguing that in Melakhim it is explicit that Elisha prayed to Hashem and that it was Hashem who blinded the enemies.  One might answer that here too the prophets prayed but the fact is simply not mentioned in the text.</fn></point> | <point><b>Angelic or human actions</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that the fact that the people ate and slept proves that they cannot be angels.<fn>For proof that angels do not eat, he points to <a href="Shofetim13-16" data-aht="source">Shofetim 13:16</a>.</fn>  Their seemingly supernatural actions (foreknowledge that Sarah was to give birth, blinding the people of Sedom etc.) can be explained by their prophetic status.<fn>See <a href="MelakhimII6-18" data-aht="source">Melakhim II 6:18</a> where Elisha the prophet also blinds his enemies. A Karaite commentary attributed to <multilink><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">Daniel Alkumsi</a><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">JQR 15:3, p. 383-384</a><a href="Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite" data-aht="parshan">About Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite</a></multilink> (see also Abarbanel)  questions this parallel, arguing that in Melakhim it is explicit that Elisha prayed to Hashem and that it was Hashem who blinded the enemies.  One might answer that here too the prophets prayed but the fact is simply not mentioned in the text.</fn></point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Purpose of the men's visit</b> – The people came to tell Sarah about the birth of Yitzchak.  Ralbag posits that Avraham's words, "סַעֲדוּ לִבְּכֶם... כִּי עַל כֵּן עֲבַרְתֶּם עַל עַבְדְּכֶם", suggest that the visitors had actually detoured from their path just so that they could eat with Avraham.<fn>This would explain why the two angels who were heading to destroy Sedom and had no news to share with Avraham nonetheless stopped by.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Prophet visiting a prophet?</b> Abarbanel questions this whole approach, asserting that the visitors could not have been prophets because Avraham was the sole prophet of the time.  And even if there were others,<fn>He further asserts that if they were prophets of Hashem, they would have also needed to be circumcised, a fact that would have been shared by the Torah.</fn> they were definitely not greater than Avraham, so what would be the point of their sharing news with him?<fn>Ibn Ezra asks this question as well and responds that the prophets were coming to announce the birth to Sarah, not to Avraham.</fn>  He further questions how they could attribute the destruction of Sedom to themselves, or decide to save of Lot on their own, as life and death are purely in the hands of Hashem.<fn>This question is also raised in the commentary attributed to <multilink><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite</a><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">JQR 15:3, p. 383-384</a><a href="Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite" data-aht="parshan">About Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite</a></multilink>.  Ibn Ezra dismisses the question by pointing to Shemot 11:10, which attributes all the wonders in Egypt to Moshe and Aharon, despite the fact that they were Hashem's doing. Alkumsi responds that Moshe consistently prays to Hashem before acting and the text repeatedly says that he was acting "according to the word of Hashem".</fn></point> | <point><b>Prophet visiting a prophet?</b> Abarbanel questions this whole approach, asserting that the visitors could not have been prophets because Avraham was the sole prophet of the time.  And even if there were others,<fn>He further asserts that if they were prophets of Hashem, they would have also needed to be circumcised, a fact that would have been shared by the Torah.</fn> they were definitely not greater than Avraham, so what would be the point of their sharing news with him?<fn>Ibn Ezra asks this question as well and responds that the prophets were coming to announce the birth to Sarah, not to Avraham.</fn>  He further questions how they could attribute the destruction of Sedom to themselves, or decide to save of Lot on their own, as life and death are purely in the hands of Hashem.<fn>This question is also raised in the commentary attributed to <multilink><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite</a><a href="DanielAlKumisitheKaraiteJQR15-3p383-384" data-aht="source">JQR 15:3, p. 383-384</a><a href="Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite" data-aht="parshan">About Daniel AlKumisi the Karaite</a></multilink>.  Ibn Ezra dismisses the question by pointing to Shemot 11:10, which attributes all the wonders in Egypt to Moshe and Aharon, despite the fact that they were Hashem's doing. Alkumsi responds that Moshe consistently prays to Hashem before acting and the text repeatedly says that he was acting "according to the word of Hashem".</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>How many guests?</b> Ralbag asserts that the prophet who announced the birth of Yitzchak did not continue to Sedom, proving how lowly a prophet he was, as he was not privy to that issue.  It is not clear according to this approach why all 3 prophets needed to stop by Avraham, if two had nothing to tell him.  This might be why Ralbag suggests that the men actively wanted to partake of a meal with Avraham, and detoured to do so.</point> | <point><b>How many guests?</b> Ralbag asserts that the prophet who announced the birth of Yitzchak did not continue to Sedom, proving how lowly a prophet he was, as he was not privy to that issue.  It is not clear according to this approach why all 3 prophets needed to stop by Avraham, if two had nothing to tell him.  This might be why Ralbag suggests that the men actively wanted to partake of a meal with Avraham, and detoured to do so.</point> | ||
+ | <point><b>Why isn't Avraham mentioned by name?</b> This approach does not explain why Avraham is not referred to by name until 18:6.</point> | ||
<point><b>"'וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי ה"</b> – This verse is difficult for this approach since it is hard to say that "Avraham was <i>still</i> standing before Hashem" when Hashem did not even appear to him until after the guests left.</point> | <point><b>"'וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי ה"</b> – This verse is difficult for this approach since it is hard to say that "Avraham was <i>still</i> standing before Hashem" when Hashem did not even appear to him until after the guests left.</point> | ||
<point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor shies away from the approach that the men were angels so as to refute Christian claims that this story buttresses the doctrine of the trinity.  If the guests are three corporeal people, who eat and drink, it is much harder to identify them as three parts of god.  He also points to the fact that only two guests arrive by Lot, to show that these are not a"three-in-one" since one part left.</point> | <point><b>Polemical motivations</b> – R"Y Bekhor Shor shies away from the approach that the men were angels so as to refute Christian claims that this story buttresses the doctrine of the trinity.  If the guests are three corporeal people, who eat and drink, it is much harder to identify them as three parts of god.  He also points to the fact that only two guests arrive by Lot, to show that these are not a"three-in-one" since one part left.</point> |
Version as of 00:08, 30 October 2015
Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?
Exegetical Approaches
People
The three guests were human, even though they were Divinely dispatched and possessed prophetic capabilities. Their discussion with Avraham was distinct from and chronologically preceded Hashem's revelation in 18:1.
- Hashem – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor the term "אֲדֹנָי" here refers to Hashem. Upon seeing the guests, Avraham offered up a prayer to Hashem that the group5 won't pass by him without stopping. This reading easily explains the switch to plural in the following verse, since only then does Avraham turn to the threesome.
- Guests – Ralbag, in contrast, asserts that the word "אֲדֹנָי" refers to the guests, and means "my masters". He follows R. Chiya in Bereshit Rabbah in explaining that Avraham initially spoke to the leader specifically (thus the singular "תַעֲבֹר") and only afterwards to the group (thus the plural in verse 4).6
Angels
The guests who came to Avraham were angels. This position subdivides regarding the relationship between their visit and Hashem's revelation to Avraham in 18:1:
Distinct Events
Hashem's revelation to Avraham in 18:1 was distinct from (and interrupted by) the visit of the three angels.
- Connected to Chapter 17 – Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno all suggest that the revelation is connected to Avraham's circumcision in Chapter 17.18 Rashi19 maintains that Hashem appeared to Avraham to visit him as he recuperated,20 while Ramban asserts that the revelation was simply a sign of honor,21 a reward to Avraham for having fulfilled Hashem's commandment. Finally, Seforno posits that Hashem appeared so as to take His part in the covenant of circumcision.22 According to all these opinions, there was no need for speech as the revelation was a goal in and of itself.
- Connected to news of Sedom – Both R. Saadia and Abarbanel assert that Hashem's appearance here is connected to His later announcement to Avraham regarding the destruction of Sedom; the content of the revelation is, thus, first transmitted to Avraham in verse 20 when Hashem says "זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי רָבָּה".23 R. Saadia suggests that Hashem appeared before the arrival of the angels, even though he was only to speak later, so that Avraham would feel Hashem's presence as the angels arrived and thereby recognize them as celestial beings.24
- No - According to Rashi, Ramban, and Seforno, it would seem that Hashem left after His visit and that there is no connection at all between His initial revelation and the rest of the chapter.27
- Yes - According to R. Saadia and Abarbanel, Hashem's presence stayed with Avraham throughout the visit of the angels.28 Abarbanel asserts that this explains both how Hashem continuously speaks to Avraham while he interacts with his guests (verses 13 and 20) and how the verse later states that "Avraham was still standing before Hashem."29
- Angels – According to all these sources, in these words Avraham was addressing the angels.30 Ramban and Abarbanel explain that Avraham referred to them by the sacred term "אֲדֹנָי" because he recognized that they were angels.31 R. Saadia, instead, asserts that Avraham assumed that the angels were prophets and meant, "איש האלהים"32 but spoke in short, skipping the word "איש".33 This position must explain the switch from plural (אֲדֹנָי), to singular (אַל נָא תַעֲבֹר) and then back to plural in verse 4 (רַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם). Rashi and Seforno34 assert that originally, Avraham was only speaking to the leader, while Ramban35 suggests that Avraham addressed all in the plural, but then asked each one individually to stay.36 Afterwards he offered hospitality to all as a group.37
- Hashem – Both Rashi and Abarbanel bring a second opinion, following R. Elazar in Bavli Shabbat, that Avraham was addressing Hashem,38 asking Him not to leave despite the guests' appearance.39 This reading easily explains the switch between singular and plural language, since there is a change in addressee from Hashem to the angels.
- Interchangeable terms - R. Saadia asserts that the terms are used interchangeably in many places in Tanakh so one need not question the usage here.42
- Differing perspective – According to Rashi, since Avraham was used to visiting angels, they were not particularly unique and are called simply "men". However, by Lot, who was not used to them, they are called angels.43
- Presence of Hashem - Rashi raises a second possibility, that when Hashem accompanies the angels they are called people (in comparison to Him), but when His presence is lacking they are called angels. This, though, begs the question of why Hashem was with the angels in certain parts of the story and not in others.
- Action-based - According to Abarbanel44 the angels are called men when they behave like humans and angels when they do godly acts.45
- Pretense - Rashi and Ramban, following Bereshit Rabbah, suggest that the angels simply pretended to eat.
- Consumption by fire – R. Saadia suggests that the root "אכל" is not limited in meaning to eating by mouth and can also connote other forms of consumption, such as eating by fire or sword.46 Thus, here the angels might have burned their food.
- Others ate – R. Saadia also suggests that the verb "וַיֹּאכֵלוּ" referred to all those assembled who ate (Avraham and his servants) but not to the angels.47
- Yes – According to Ramban and Abarbanel, Avraham recognized that he was dealing with angels.
- No – According to R. Saadia, despite Hashem hinting to him, Avraham mistook the angels for prophets.48
- תיקון סופרים – Rashi asserts that the verse should really read, "וה' עודנו עומד לפני אברהם" since Hashem had just come to speak to Avraham about Sedom (in verse 20) as he accompanied the guests. The text was reversed, though, so as not to dishonor Hashem.
- Until the angel's arrival in Sedom – According to Ramban the phrase is related to the immediately preceding term, "וַיֵּלְכוּ סְדֹמָה" and comes to explain that Avraham stood before Hashem to plead for Sedom during the entire time that it took the angels to travel there.
One Event
Hashem appeared to Avraham via the three angels.
- "אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ" – According to Philo, Shadal, and R. D"Z Hoffmann the term "אֲדֹנָי" refers to the angels.55 To explain the switch between this plural form and the singular form used in the rest of the verse, R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that really Avraham was speaking only to the most important of the guests, but out of honor, originally addressed him using the majestic plural.56 Kirkisani the Karaite suggests that it is "the way of the text" to use either the singular or the plural when speaking of a group.57
- "אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי" – Shadal assumes that in this verse too, Lot is addressing the angels. R. D"Z Hoffmann brings this as an option but appears to prefer the possibility that this is a prayer of Lot to Hashem.58
- It easily explains how Sarah heard the rebuke regarding her laughter and why she dared deny it.
- The language of 18:14 is extremely similar to 18:10 since the same person is saying both statements, and simply reinforcing his earlier words.
- According to this reading, Hashem does not constantly interrupt Avraham's interaction with the angels; it is only they who speak throughout.
- Even though Avraham had been accompanying the angels, the verse can still say "וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי ה'" since all this implies is that he continued to talk to the third angel after the others left.
- Only two angels arrive by Lot, because the third remained with Avraham while he prayed for Sedom.
- There is no contradiction between the angels saying they will destroy Sedom and 19:24 which has Hashem destroy it, since Rashbam understands Hashem of that verse to refer to the angel Gavriel.
- Immediately– Hoil Moshe explains the term "נִצָּבִים עָלָיו" to mean that the angels suddenly materialized before Avraham, leading Avraham to realize immediately with whom he was dealing. He suggests that it is for this reason that Avraham treated them with such respect.67
- Midway – R. D"Z Hoffmann argues that at first Avraham must not have realized that the guests were angels or he would not have offered them food.68 He suggests that it was only after the angels chastised Sarah for her doubt that Avraham began to realize that the beings before him were not normal visitors.69
Divine Prophecy
All of Chapter 18 is merely a description of what Avraham saw in his prophetic vision. Thus, the coming of the "guests" was merely part of Hashem's revelation and not an event that actually transpired in the physical world.
- Only Chapter 18 included – According to Radak all of Chapter 18 took place in the vision, but the events of Chapter 19 occurred in reality.73 As evidence, he points to 18:33 ("וַיֵּלֶךְ ה' כַּאֲשֶׁר כִּלָּה לְדַבֵּר אֶל אַבְרָהָם") which appears to signify the end of the prophecy. Radak is probably also motivated by the desire to show Sedom being destroyed and Lot being saved in actuality, for, as Ramban argues, if Chapter 19 was also part of the vision when did this happen?74 Radak's position, though, does not explain where the guests who visited Lot came from.
- Both Chapters 18 and19 included – In contrast to Radak, Abarbanel maintains that Hashem's "leaving" Avraham in 18:33 was also part of Avraham's vision, and that the prophecy only ended at 19:28.75 He further asserts that the physical destruction of the city is and salvation of Lot is not missing, but is detailed in verse19:29 (after the description of the prophecy).76 This occurred differently than described in the vision, with Hashem rather than the angels acting, and Lot, on his own, deciding to leave the city.
- Chapter 18 is Avraham's dream while Chapter 19 is Lot's – Ibn Kaspi asserts that 18:33 marks the end of Avraham's prophecy,77 but that 19:1 introduces a similar vision, which Lot received.78 According to this position, there are two distinct sets of angels, one group which appeared to Avraham and a different twosome who were part of Lot's dream.79 The actual destruction of Sedom does not appear in the verses, but did occur.
- Reality - Radak assumes that Sarah laughed in reality and not as part of the dream. He asserts that sometimes someone who is standing near a prophet can overhear a portion of the prophecy.80 Thus, Sarah heard the news and laughed in disbelief.
- Prophecy - Ibn Kaspi and Abarbanel, in contrast, maintain that Sarah's laughter was part of the vision seen by Avraham. Ramban questions the point of including this if it did not happen in reality (especially as it makes Sarah appear negative). Abarbanel explains that this was Hashem's way of rebuking the couple for their earlier laughter (in 17:17).81
- שם אדנות – According to all these sources the word "אֲדֹנָי" in 18:3 refers to the angels.86 Ibn Kaspi asserts that one should not be troubled by the switch from plural to singular and back because it is natural for people who are speaking to a group to at times turn to on individual and at other times to address the group as a whole.
- שם הויה – Radak says that the name Hashem in 18:10, 13 and the first appearance in 19:24 refer to the angels, who are called after the One who sent them, while in 18:1 and 17, the names refer to Hashem Himself.