Difference between revisions of "Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men/2"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
This topic has not yet undergone editorial review
m |
m |
||
| Line 105: | Line 105: | ||
<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 "מַּלְאָכִים" 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 "מַּלְאָכִים" 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>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 | + | <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>"'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 | + | <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> | ||
<point><b>Philosophical Motivations</b> – Ralbag's motivations are more philosophical in nature.  A strong rationalist, he explains away all mentions of angels as being either visions in a dream<fn>See, for instance, his explanation of the story of Hagar in Bereshit 21 and the story of Bilam in Bemidbar 22.</fn> or as referring to prophets.<fn>See his comments regarding the "מלאכ/ים"  who meets Hagar in Bereshit 16, speaks with Avraham at the Binding of Yitzchak in Bereshit 22, appear to Yaakov in Machanayim (Bereshit 32) and who speaks to Mrs. Manoach in Shofetim 13.</fn></point> | <point><b>Philosophical Motivations</b> – Ralbag's motivations are more philosophical in nature.  A strong rationalist, he explains away all mentions of angels as being either visions in a dream<fn>See, for instance, his explanation of the story of Hagar in Bereshit 21 and the story of Bilam in Bemidbar 22.</fn> or as referring to prophets.<fn>See his comments regarding the "מלאכ/ים"  who meets Hagar in Bereshit 16, speaks with Avraham at the Binding of Yitzchak in Bereshit 22, appear to Yaakov in Machanayim (Bereshit 32) and who speaks to Mrs. Manoach in Shofetim 13.</fn></point> | ||
| Line 120: | Line 120: | ||
<point><b>How are the guests referred to</b> – Rambam says Avraham saw angels often and was not surprised to see them therefore they are called people, but Lot did not see them too often so they are called angels by him. Abarbanel asks that they are only called angels twice by Lot and people more often. Radak says the guests are called people when they act in ways people act, and angels when they act in ways angels act.<fn>In 19:15 they save Lot like angels, and in 19:16 the guests held on to Lot like humans, but it is unclear what is angelic about them coming to Sedom.</fn></point> | <point><b>How are the guests referred to</b> – Rambam says Avraham saw angels often and was not surprised to see them therefore they are called people, but Lot did not see them too often so they are called angels by him. Abarbanel asks that they are only called angels twice by Lot and people more often. Radak says the guests are called people when they act in ways people act, and angels when they act in ways angels act.<fn>In 19:15 they save Lot like angels, and in 19:16 the guests held on to Lot like humans, but it is unclear what is angelic about them coming to Sedom.</fn></point> | ||
<point><b>Is "Hashem", Hashem or the guests</b><ul> | <point><b>Is "Hashem", Hashem or the guests</b><ul> | ||
| − | + | <li>שם אדנות – Radak<fn>Rambam and Ibn Kaspi only say explicitly about 18:3.</fn> explains both 18:3 and 19:18 to refer to one of the guests.<fn>Radak proves 19:18 is the angels since Lot said to them in plural, and Eliyahu and Elisha brought people back to life so too angels can.</fn></li> | |
| − | + | <li>שם הויה – Radak says 18:10, 13 and the first Hashem in 19:24 are talking about the angels, while 18:1 and 17 are talking about Hashem.</li> | |
| − | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Angelic or human actions</b> – According to this approach the guests did not eat nor blind the people of Sedom, rather it was all what Avraham saw in his prophecy.<fn>Radak and Ibn Kaspi seem to say they did blind Sedom.</fn> Did Avraham see angels or people in the vision?</point> | <point><b>Angelic or human actions</b> – According to this approach the guests did not eat nor blind the people of Sedom, rather it was all what Avraham saw in his prophecy.<fn>Radak and Ibn Kaspi seem to say they did blind Sedom.</fn> Did Avraham see angels or people in the vision?</point> | ||
<point><b>End of prophecy</b> – One would need to assume the people who came to Lot since they are the same people who came to Avraham, in reality did not come, and Lot saw them only in a prophecy just like Avraham. But how could Lot and the people of Sedom<fn>Bereshit Rabbah 51:9 moves over the question to the wife of Lot saying she went to all her neighbors asking for salt for the guests and that is how they knew.</fn> have prophesied? Where did the prophecy end? | <point><b>End of prophecy</b> – One would need to assume the people who came to Lot since they are the same people who came to Avraham, in reality did not come, and Lot saw them only in a prophecy just like Avraham. But how could Lot and the people of Sedom<fn>Bereshit Rabbah 51:9 moves over the question to the wife of Lot saying she went to all her neighbors asking for salt for the guests and that is how they knew.</fn> have prophesied? Where did the prophecy end? | ||
| − | + | <ul> | |
| − | + | <li><b>After the end of chapter 18</b><fn>One can similarly posit that the vision ends after the guests leave in chapter 18.</fn> – Radak.<fn>He does bring an option the prophecy continued to chapter 19.</fn> 18:33 which says Hashem left is talking about the end of the prophecy. According to Radak, Sedom was really destroyed which makes sense from later verses in Torah which mention the destruction of Sedom,<fn>See Devarim 29:22, Yeshayahu 1:9, 13:19, and more.</fn> but he does not explain where the guests in chapter 19 came from.</li> | |
| − | + | <li><b>Avraham prophesied chapters 18-19</b> – Abarbanel. According to Abarbanel, Sedom was destroyed and Lot was saved but not by angels rather Hashem burnt the cities and brought winds which caused Lot to leave. Abarbanel explains 18:33 which seems to end a vision that Avraham in the verse thought the prophecy ended but it did not.<fn>Abarbanel himself is not convinced and for this reason he says the angels appeared to Avraham in reality.</fn> He explains the repetition between 19:27-28 and 29, that the first two verses were in the prophecy, and 29 is explaining how Lot was saved in reality, and verse 30 he notes makes sense that Lot was afraid to stay in Tzoar because only in Avraham's prophecy did Lot know Tzoar was saved.</li> | |
| − | + | <li><b>Lot prophesied chapter 19</b> – Ibn Kaspi. He also understands 18:33 as the end of Avraham's prophecy, but he says Lot had a similar prophecy just he saw only two guests. Ibn Kaspi says Sedom was destroyed besides from in Lot's prophecy. Ibn Kaspi is assuming Lot can have a prophecy, which Rambam and Ralbag do not agree with.<fn>But it is not clear if Lot just imagined or prophesied this.</fn> Ralbag also asks how then the people of Sedom talked if it was all in a prophecy, and Ibn Kaspi probably answers like he says about Sarah, that Lot in his prophecy heard the people of Sedom talking to him.</li> | |
| − | + | </ul></point> | |
<point><b>Sarah prophesied</b> – Radak brings a parallel to Daniel 11:7 where the people in the room with Daniel also felt something even though just Daniel was prophesying, and he says that was the case by Sarah which heard something even though just Avraham was prophesying. Sarah did not know he was an angel rather thought he was a prophet and that is why she laughed. Ralbag is not convinced and says Sarah could not have heard Avraham's prophecy, and if she prophesied herself she would not laugh at it. Ibn Kaspi says Avraham saw Sarah laughing in his prophecy, but she did not really laugh.</point> | <point><b>Sarah prophesied</b> – Radak brings a parallel to Daniel 11:7 where the people in the room with Daniel also felt something even though just Daniel was prophesying, and he says that was the case by Sarah which heard something even though just Avraham was prophesying. Sarah did not know he was an angel rather thought he was a prophet and that is why she laughed. Ralbag is not convinced and says Sarah could not have heard Avraham's prophecy, and if she prophesied herself she would not laugh at it. Ibn Kaspi says Avraham saw Sarah laughing in his prophecy, but she did not really laugh.</point> | ||
<point><b>Beliefs about angels</b> – Rambam<fn>Rambam does not say like R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ralbag either that the guests were people, because he thinks there are different levels of prophecy, the highest one being appearance of Hashem in the day which only Moshe reached, therefore he can not say Hashem appeared to Avraham separately in 18:1 in the middle of the day.</fn> is consistent with his general approach towards angels that any seeing or talking of a מלאך did not really happen rather was in a prophecy or dream, though he does bring some exceptions where the word is used to refer to a prophet. Radak and Ibn Kaspi say explicitly that Avraham was sleeping when he prophesied all of chapter 18. It is not clear according to Ibn Kaspi if Avraham imagined this or prophesied this.</point> | <point><b>Beliefs about angels</b> – Rambam<fn>Rambam does not say like R. Yosef Bekhor Shor and Ralbag either that the guests were people, because he thinks there are different levels of prophecy, the highest one being appearance of Hashem in the day which only Moshe reached, therefore he can not say Hashem appeared to Avraham separately in 18:1 in the middle of the day.</fn> is consistent with his general approach towards angels that any seeing or talking of a מלאך did not really happen rather was in a prophecy or dream, though he does bring some exceptions where the word is used to refer to a prophet. Radak and Ibn Kaspi say explicitly that Avraham was sleeping when he prophesied all of chapter 18. It is not clear according to Ibn Kaspi if Avraham imagined this or prophesied this.</point> | ||
Version as of 06:15, 2 October 2015
Avraham's Guests – Angels or Men?
Exegetical Approaches
Angels
The guests who came to Avraham were three angels. This position subdivides regarding the relationship between the angel's visit and Hashem's revelation to Avraham in 18:1:
One Event
Hashem appeared to Avraham via the three angels who came to him.
Hashem's revelation - "'וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה" – According to this position, the first verse of the chapter is a general introduction to the story, and the rest of the chapter provides the details (כלל ופרט).1 Thus, the unit opens by sharing that Hashem revealed Himself, and then explains how this revelation took place - via the three angels who visited Avraham.2 As such, there is no missing speech of Hashem; the whole chapter constitutes the revelation.
Why isn't Avraham mentioned by name? Since this position views verse 1 as beginning a new unit,3 it is difficult why Avraham is referred to by a pronoun (connoting a continuation) and not by his name. R. D"Z Hoffmann suggests that this teaches that the story is integrally related to the preceding one regarding Avraham's circumcision. Due to the covenant, Avraham achieved a new level of closeness to Hashem, meriting a visit by angels who could behave as his guests and share with him Hashem's plans.
Calling the angels "Hashem" – According to this approach, the Torah often refers to angels by the name of Hashem, since they are His messengers doing His bidding (שלוחו של אדם כמותו).4 Thus, these sources posit that throughout the chapters, many of the places where Hashem's name appears refers not to Hashem, but to one (or all) of the angels.5 See next points for examples.
שם אדנות – Verses 18:3 and 19:18
- "אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ" – According to Philo, Shadal, and R. D"Z Hoffmann the term "אֲדֹנָי" refers to the angels.6 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.7 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.8
- "אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי" – Shadal assumes that here, too, Lot is addressing the angels. R. D"Z Hoffmann brings this as an options but appears to prefer the possibility that this is a prayer of Lot to Hashem.9
שם הויה – Verses 18:1, 13, 17, 20, 22, 26 ff – Rashbam10 is consistent in reading all occurrences of "Hashem" in the chapters as referring to the angels. Only where the angels themselves refer back to Hashem in their own speech (in 18:14 and the second occurrence in 19:24) does he say that the word refers to Hashem Himself.11 This reading has several advantages:
- It easily explains how Sarah heard the rebuke regarding her laughter and why she dared deny it.
- The language of 18:10 and 18:14 is extremely similar 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.
Purpose of the vision=visit – According to Shadal and Hoil Moshe, the main goal of the visit was to tell Avraham about the upcoming destruction of Sedom, and not about the birth of Yitzchak.12 They point out that there was no reason to repeat news of the birth,13 and the angels only mentioned it tangentially in response to the fact that Sarah was sitting alone in her tent, presumably lamenting her barrenness.
Why are the guests referred to as both people and angels? This approach works well with the verses which call the guests angels, but needs to explain those which call them people. Philo suggests that they were so called because they took the form of people,14 but he does not account for the switch in titles.
Angelic or human actions – This approach easily explains how the guests knew that Sarah was to give birth and how they could blind the people of Sedom or destroy the city15 but has difficulty explaining the angels' seemingly corporeal actions. Philo explains that the angels simply pretended to eat and drink.16 Hoil Moshe, though, asserts that despite being angels, they were able to eat while in human form.17
Did Avraham recognize them as angels?
- 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.18
- 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.19 He suggests that it is only after the angels chastise Sarah for her doubt that Avraham begins to realize that the beings before him are not normal passers-by.20
Why three guests? As Shadal and Hoil Moshe assume that the main job of the angels was to tell Avraham about Sedom, it would seem that one angel would have sufficed. Hoil Moshe suggests that there was in fact one main angel, but he was accompanied by two lesser servants. Most of these sources explain that only two arrive by Lot, since the main one was detained when Avraham spoke to him about saving the city.
Beliefs about angels
Distinct Events
Hashem's revelation to Avraham was distinct from the visit of the three angels.
Sources: Justin Martyr in Dialogue with Trypho, R. Saadia Gaon, Rashi, Ramban, Akeidat Yitzchak, Abarbanel, Seforno ,
Hashem's revelation - "'וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה" – According to all these sources, Hashem's revelation to Avraham was distinct from the visit of the three angels. They differ, though, regarding its purpose and how they explain why the text does not share the content of Hashem's speech:
- Connected to Chapter 17– Rashi, Ramban and Seforno all suggest that the revelation is connected to Avraham's circumcision in Chapter 17. 21 Rashi22 maintains that Hashem appeared to Avraham to visit him as he recuperated,23 while Ramban asserts that the revelation was simply a sign of honor,24 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.25 According to all these, 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.26 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.27
Why isn't Avraham mentioned by name? According to Rashi, Ramban and Seforno, who posit that verse 1 is a continuation of the events of Chapter 17, referring to Avraham by a pronoun is not problematic since he was the subject of the previous events.28 They, do however, need to explain why the text provides a setting (time and location) for the event as if it is a new story.29
Did Hashem stay?
- 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.30
- Yes - According to R. Saadia and Abarbanel, Hashem's presence stayed with Avraham throughout the visit of the angels.31 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."32
Calling the angels by the name of Hashem - שם הוייה – According to this approach, which distinguishes between Hashem's revelation and the angels' visit, the name Hashem throughout the chapter refers to Hashem and not the angels. Thus, it is Hashem who is speaking or referred to in 18:1,13-14,17, 20, 22, 26ff.
Calling the angels by the name of Hashem - שם אדנות – This approach offers two understandings regarding to whom Avraham was speaking when he said, "אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ":
- Angels – According to all these sources, in these words Avraham was addressing the angels.33 Ramban and Abarbanel explain that Avraham referred to them by the sacred term "אֲדֹנָי" because he recognized that they were angels.34 R. Saadia, instead, asserts that Avraham assumed that the angels were prophets and meant, "איש האלהים"35 but spoke in short, skipping the word "איש".36 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 Seforno37 assert that originally, Avraham was only speaking to the leader, while Ramban38 suggests that Avraham addressed all in the plural, but then asked each one individually to stay.39 Afterwards he offered hospitality to all as a group.40
- Hashem – Both Rashi and Abarbanel bring a second opinion, following R. Elazar in Bavli Shabbat, that Avraham was addressing Hashem,41 asking Him not to leave despite the guests' appearance.42 This reading easily explains the switch between singular and plural language, since there is a change in addressee from Hashem to the angels.
Purpose of the angel's visit – According to this approach, the angel's visit is distinct from Hashem's desire to share the fate of Sedom with Avraham, and was instead aimed at telling Sarah43 about the impending birth of Yitzchak. Rashi further suggests that Hashem only sent the angels to Avraham because he desired to host guests, while Ramban views the visit as part of Avraham's reward for his circumcision.
Number of Angels – According to Rashi, each of the angels had a different task, one to announce the birth of Yitzchak, one to destroy Sedom, and one to cure Avraham and save Lot. After the first angel completed its task, it left, leaving two to continue to Sedom.44
Why are the guests referred to as both people and angels? The commentators offer several possibilities:
- Interchangeable terms - R. Saadia asserts that the terms are used interchangeably in many places in Tanakh so one need not question the usage here.45
- 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.46
- 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 Abarbanel the angels are called men when they behave like humans and angels when they do godly acts.47
Angelic or human actions – The supernatural abilities of the guests is easily explained by their being angels. These sources differ, though in how they explain their eating:
- Pretense - Rashi and Ramban, following Bereshit Rabbah, suggest that they simply pretended to eat.48
- 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.49 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.
Did Avraham recognize them as angels?
- 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.50
Sarah's laughter – Ramban51 asserts that Sarah was unaware that the men were angels and thus laughed at their announcement. She did not hear Hashem's rebuke (since Hashem spoke just to Avraham) but Avraham himself chastised her, leading to her denial. As such, Sarah was not trying to cover up her actions before Hashem, only before her husband.52
"'וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי ה" – This verse is not problematic for R. Saadia and Abarbanel who suggest that Hashem's presence had never left Avraham after the initial revelation. According to the others, though, Avraham was not standing before Hashem at this point of the story:
- 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.
Beliefs about angels
People
The three guests were human prophets. Their discussion with Avraham was distinct from Hashem's revelation in 18:1.
Hashem's revelation - "'וַיֵּרָא אֵלָיו ה" – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor and Ralbag, Hashem's revelation in 18:1 refers to Hashem's later words regarding the destruction of Sedom (18:17 and 20ff). The verse is out of order,53 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 enroute to destroy Sedom, which was the very matter which Hashem wanted to discuss with Avraham.54
Why isn't Avraham mentioned by name? This approach does not explain why Avraham is not referred to by his name until 18:6.
Purpose of the visit – 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.55
The name "Hashem" – 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 18:13 (לָמָּה זֶּה צָחֲקָה שָׂרָה) might be a guest speaking via prophecy.56 He is referred to as Hashem after the One who sent him.57
"אֲדֹנָי אִם נָא מָצָאתִי חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ"
- Hashem – According to R"Y Bekhor Shor the term "אֲדֹנָ" here refers to Hashem. Upon seeing the guests, Avraham offered up a prayer to Hashem that the group58 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 "אֲדֹנָ" 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).59
"וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי" – 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 them", referring to the guests.60 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.61
Why are the guests referred to as both people and angels? 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 "מַּלְאָכִים" does not necessarily refer to celestial beings but simply means messengers.62 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.63
Angelic or human actions – R"Y Bekhor Shor asserts that the fact that the people ate and slept proves that they cannot be angels.64 Their seemingly supernatural actions (foreknowledge that Sarah was to give birth, blinding the people of Sedom etc.) can be explained by their prophetic status.65
Prophet visiting a prophet? 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,66 they were definitely not greater than Avraham, so what would be the point of their sharing news with him?67 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.68
How many guests? 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.
"'וְאַבְרָהָם עוֹדֶנּוּ עֹמֵד לִפְנֵי ה" – This verse is difficult for this approach since it is hard to say that "Avraham was still standing before Hashem" when Hashem did not even appear to him until after the guests left.
Polemical Motivations – 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.
Divine Prophecy
All of chapter 18 was a Divine prophecy and the guests that visited Avraham did so only in this vision.
Vision and guests – These commentators say that the content of Hashem's revelation in 18:1 is not missing, since the entire chapter and maybe even 19 is the prophecy that Avraham received.71 According to this approach, 18:1 is related to what comes after it and not what came beforehand.72 Ralbag the Torah does not say explicitly the whole chapter was in a vision.
Purpose of vision = visit – Radak says the purpose was to tell Avraham about Sedom,73 and even though Hashem already told Avraham in chapter 17 he will have a child he repeated it here to emphasize and so Sarah will hear. Ramban questions the Torah's need to tell us Sarah baked cakes, laughed, and Avraham made meat if it was all in a vision, and Radak and Abarbanel answer the story teaches us to act kindly like Avraham did.
How are the guests referred to – Rambam says Avraham saw angels often and was not surprised to see them therefore they are called people, but Lot did not see them too often so they are called angels by him. Abarbanel asks that they are only called angels twice by Lot and people more often. Radak says the guests are called people when they act in ways people act, and angels when they act in ways angels act.74
Is "Hashem", Hashem or the guests
Angelic or human actions – According to this approach the guests did not eat nor blind the people of Sedom, rather it was all what Avraham saw in his prophecy.77 Did Avraham see angels or people in the vision?
End of prophecy – One would need to assume the people who came to Lot since they are the same people who came to Avraham, in reality did not come, and Lot saw them only in a prophecy just like Avraham. But how could Lot and the people of Sedom78 have prophesied? Where did the prophecy end?
- After the end of chapter 1879 – Radak.80 18:33 which says Hashem left is talking about the end of the prophecy. According to Radak, Sedom was really destroyed which makes sense from later verses in Torah which mention the destruction of Sedom,81 but he does not explain where the guests in chapter 19 came from.
- Avraham prophesied chapters 18-19 – Abarbanel. According to Abarbanel, Sedom was destroyed and Lot was saved but not by angels rather Hashem burnt the cities and brought winds which caused Lot to leave. Abarbanel explains 18:33 which seems to end a vision that Avraham in the verse thought the prophecy ended but it did not.82 He explains the repetition between 19:27-28 and 29, that the first two verses were in the prophecy, and 29 is explaining how Lot was saved in reality, and verse 30 he notes makes sense that Lot was afraid to stay in Tzoar because only in Avraham's prophecy did Lot know Tzoar was saved.
- Lot prophesied chapter 19 – Ibn Kaspi. He also understands 18:33 as the end of Avraham's prophecy, but he says Lot had a similar prophecy just he saw only two guests. Ibn Kaspi says Sedom was destroyed besides from in Lot's prophecy. Ibn Kaspi is assuming Lot can have a prophecy, which Rambam and Ralbag do not agree with.83 Ralbag also asks how then the people of Sedom talked if it was all in a prophecy, and Ibn Kaspi probably answers like he says about Sarah, that Lot in his prophecy heard the people of Sedom talking to him.
Sarah prophesied – Radak brings a parallel to Daniel 11:7 where the people in the room with Daniel also felt something even though just Daniel was prophesying, and he says that was the case by Sarah which heard something even though just Avraham was prophesying. Sarah did not know he was an angel rather thought he was a prophet and that is why she laughed. Ralbag is not convinced and says Sarah could not have heard Avraham's prophecy, and if she prophesied herself she would not laugh at it. Ibn Kaspi says Avraham saw Sarah laughing in his prophecy, but she did not really laugh.
Beliefs about angels – Rambam84 is consistent with his general approach towards angels that any seeing or talking of a מלאך did not really happen rather was in a prophecy or dream, though he does bring some exceptions where the word is used to refer to a prophet. Radak and Ibn Kaspi say explicitly that Avraham was sleeping when he prophesied all of chapter 18. It is not clear according to Ibn Kaspi if Avraham imagined this or prophesied this.
How many guests – Ibn Kaspi says Lot had a similar prophecy but he only saw two people as opposed to Avraham who saw three.
Crux of the position
