Parshas Lech Lecha
1. On the verse, "Your name shall no longer be called Avram; your name shall be Avraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations,"[1] Rashi quotes from the verse the words "for the father of a multitude of nations" and explains:
"An expression that is an acronym (notarikon) of his name. And the resh that was in it at first, when he was a father only to Aram, which was his place, and now (a father[2] to the whole world; and even the resh that was in it originally) did not move from its place — for even the yud of Sarai complained before the Shechinah until it was added to Yehoshua, as it says,[3] 'And Moshe called Hoshea the son of Nun, Yehoshua.'"
The simple meaning of this commentary of Rashi is: the wording of the verse, "for the father of etc." — that "I have made you the father of a multitude of nations" is given as the reason for the name Avraham — proves that the idea of "father of a multitude of nations" is alluded to in the name Avraham. Rashi therefore explains that "father of a multitude of nations"[4] is "an expression that is an acronym of his name."
[Accordingly, it is precise that Rashi quotes from the verse the word "for" (ki) — even though "ki" is not part of the acronym[5] — because the basis for, and what compels, Rashi to say that it is "an expression that is an acronym" (even though an acronym is not something usual[6] in the study of the plain meaning of Scripture[7]) is the word "ki."]
This, however, raises the question: if so, why did the letter resh remain (in Avraham), seeing that it has no connection to the acronym? To this Rashi answers, "And the resh that was in it at first etc. did not move from its place," and brings as an example (and proof) "the yud of Sarai"[8] [as is stated further on in the parshah,[9] "You shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name"], which "complained before the Shechinah (over its having been taken away from Sarah) until it was added to Yehoshua"; and similarly in our case: "so that it should not complain before the Shechinah like the yud of Sarai,"[10] the resh was not taken away from the name Avraham.
2. This, however, requires understanding:
a) The case of "the yud of Sarai" is seemingly a proof to the contrary,[11] for the yud of Sarai did in fact "move from its place" (and it was added to a different a) name and b) person — to Yehoshua[12]), whereas in our case the resh "did not move from its place"[13]!
b) From Rashi's wording, "for even[14] the yud of Sarai etc." — and not "and likewise the yud etc." — it is evident that with "the yud of Sarai" there is less room for complaint than with the resh of Avraham ("for even etc." — that is, not only the resh of Avraham, but even "the yud of Sarai complained").
This is puzzling: what is the difference between them? Seemingly, in both cases the reason and cause for complaint is the same — that the letter is being taken away from the name of a tzaddik.
3. This will be understood by first considering the lengthy wording of Rashi, "And the resh that was in it at first, when he was a father only to Aram, which was his place, and now a father to the whole world, and even the resh etc. did not move from its place." For seemingly:
From the fact that Rashi does not mention the name "Avram" here at all, but begins with "And the resh that was in it at first etc." (and only in continuation of this does he explain "when he was a father only to Aram") [especially since he departs from the wording of our Sages,[15] where the emphasis of the explanation is (also) on the name Avram: "'Your name shall no longer be called Avram; your name shall be Avraham' — at first .. a father .. to Aram .. and in the end .. a father to the whole world"], it is evident that Rashi is not out here (to that extent) to explain the acronym of the (earlier) name Avram, but (only) to explain the resh that remained in the name Avraham[16].
[And it is understood why Rashi does not undertake to explain the acronym of the name "Avram": for the explanation of the acronym of the name Avraham — "father of a multitude of nations" — it is of no great consequence whether or not the earlier name Avram[17] also has a (similar) meaning.]
Now, since Rashi's intent is not to explain the acronym of the name Avram, but only to resolve why the resh "did not move from its place," he should seemingly have said briefly: "An expression that is an acronym, 'father of a multitude of nations'; and the resh that was in it at first did not move from its place, for even the yud etc." Why is it necessary here to explain (a matter and a name from (the end of) Parshas Noach) that the letter "resh that was in it at first" (is there because) "he was a father only to Aram"?
The precise wording of Rashi, "and even the resh .. did not move from its place," also requires explanation, for this is an unusual expression in such a case. Seemingly, Rashi should simply have said "it was not taken from him"[18] or "it was not removed from his name"[19] (or the like).
4. The explanation of this may be said to be as follows:
As has been discussed many times,[20] according to the plain meaning there is no compelling reason to assume that a name alludes to and expresses the nature (and virtue) of its bearer[21] (unless the verse itself emphasizes it,[22] as in our case — "your name shall be Avraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations" — or at least alludes to it).
Consequently, there is no room to explain that the name "Avram" (which Terach gave him[23]) has any connection to the life of Avraham.
What compels us (according to the plain meaning) to explain that "Avram" means "father to Aram" is the fact that the resh remained in the name Avraham.
The explanation: according to the plain meaning there is no room to say that merely because a letter has "complaints" it should be left in a name that is meant to express a particular content — if the letter itself has no connection to the content (of the name)[24].
And this is what Rashi indicates in his wording, "and even the resh that was in it at first, when he was a father only to Aram, which was his place etc.": with this Rashi is saying that there is a difficulty here: according to the acronym — how does the resh come to be in the name Avraham? It follows that the resh too must have a meaning in keeping with the content of the name Avraham — "father of a multitude of nations"[25].
And Rashi explains, "when he was a father only to Aram etc. did not move from its place": the content of the resh is that he is "a father to Aram," and this remained afterwards as well: "a father to all the nations" includes, and does not exclude, being "a father to Aram"; it is only an addition[26].
And this is the precision in Rashi's wording, "did not move from its place" (and he does not say "it was not taken from him" etc., as mentioned above): even had the resh not been placed in his name (and his name had been "Avham"), this would not have meant that the content of the resh had been taken away — its content ("father to Aram") would have remained then too; but in that case it would have meant that the resh "remains" in a different "place" — only as part of "the world," "a father to the whole world." The emphasis "did not move from its place" brings out that afterwards too the resh remains in its own "place": "father to Aram" remains explicit in the acronym within the name (Avraham) as a matter in its own right (although it is included in "(a father to) the whole world").
5. In light of all this, the proof and a fortiori argument, "for even the yud of Sarai complained etc.," is also understood:
The resh of Avraham has a "claim," with its reasoning in hand: since the content of the resh remains in the name in any case, there is no reason to refuse its request that the resh itself be left in the name of the tzaddik.
With "the yud of Sarai," however, a "demand" based on such a claim is not applicable, since the content of the letter yud has no place in the content of the name Sarah (as will be explained below in section 7).
It follows that this is only a matter of plain complaint — "it complained" ("and even" — and even so, here too there was a "giving in," and "it was added to Yehoshua").
And thereby the difference with "the yud of Sarai" — that "the yud of Sarai" did "move from its place" — is also resolved:
The comparison and proof is only to the point that a letter's "complaint" brings about that it be appeased; but the manner of the appeasement is, understandably, in each case according to its circumstances:
In our case, where the content of the letter resh remained afterwards as well, the claim accomplished that "it did not move from its place"; whereas with "the yud of Sarai," where the content of the yud is not present in the new name, the yud cannot be left "in its place" — it ceases to be "its place."
Consequently the appeasement had to be in a different manner: the yud is placed into the name of another tzaddik, into a name that becomes "its place" — the acronym of the yud there is a new element in the name (and the person) ["it was added to Yehoshua, as it says, 'And Moshe called Hoshea the son of Nun, Yehoshua,'" and as Rashi explains there: "He prayed for him: 'May G‑d (Y-ah)[27] save you etc.'"].
6. Why is there no place for the content of the letter yud of "Sarai" in the name "Sarah"? Seemingly, on the contrary:
On the following verse, "You shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name," Rashi explains: "'You shall not call her name Sarai' — which implies 'my princess' (sarai li) and not others'; rather, 'Sarah,' unqualified, shall be her name, that she shall be a princess over all." Accordingly, it is exactly as with the name "Avram — Avraham," for "a princess over all" surely includes the particular of "Sarai — mine." Why, then, did the yud "move from its place"?
Moreover: precisely according to the way Rashi explains the difference between "Sarai" (Sarai — mine) and "Sarah" (a princess over all), the claim and demand of "the yud of Sarai" (that it remain in the name Sarah) should be even stronger than the claim of the resh of Avram:
In the Gemara[28] the wording is, "At first she became a princess (Sarai) to her own nation, and in the end she became Sarah, a princess to the whole world," which accordingly is exactly like the difference between "Avram" (father to Aram — his nation) and "Avraham" (father to the whole world).
Rashi, however, departs from the wording of our Sages and says that the meaning of "Sarai" is "(princess) to me," and since the verse speaks here of this name being called by Avraham (as is precise in the wording of the verse, "And G‑d said to Avraham, 'Sarai your wife — you shall not call her name etc.'"), it follows that "Sarai" means that she is a ruler over Avraham[29].
[Similar to what the Midrash[30] says: "A mistress (gevirah) to her husband: everywhere the man decrees, but here (with Sarah), 'Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice.'"[31]]
Accordingly, the opposite would be the more logical: with the name Avraham, the letter resh could not have a strong demand even if it were not placed in his name, since its content remained (as part of "father to (the whole world)");
whereas with "Sarah," her (having become) "a princess over all" is no proof that this also includes "Sarai — mine," because such rulership is the opposite of how it was established (according to Torah), that the husband is the ruler (as cited above from the Midrash), as stated earlier,[32] "and he shall rule over you." It follows, accordingly, that by taking the yud away from Sarah, the content of the yud (that she is "Sarai — mine") is taken away!
One could answer, with great difficulty, that Avraham was then elevated to a higher level — "Walk before Me and be perfect"[33] — such that after his elevation[34] Sarah was no longer[35] a ruler over Avraham (Sarai — mine).
But this cannot be said, because:
a) According to this, it would emerge that the change of name — "Sarai your wife — you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name" — is for her (also) a matter of descent!
b) The verse "Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice" appears later, in Parshas Vayeira[31] — quite some time after G‑d said, "You shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name."
7. This will be understood on the basis of the precise wording of Rashi on the verse "You shall not call her name Sarai": "which implies 'my princess' and not others'; rather, 'Sarah,' unqualified, shall be her name, that she shall be a princess over all."
For seemingly, Rashi should have said (along the lines of the wording of our Sages[36]), "At first, my princess, and now she shall be a princess over all," similar to Rashi's wording regarding Avraham: "at first .. a father .. to Aram .. and now a father to the whole world."
The explanation of this is:
According to Rashi's commentary (study according to the plain meaning), Sarah was in fact not a ruler over Avraham (even when she was called "Sarai"). For, as discussed earlier, in study according to the plain meaning there is no necessity at all that people's names have a connection to (the life of) their bearer. And so too in our case: the name "Sarai" (which Haran gave her[37]) did not carry the meaning that she was otherwise than the directive "and he shall rule over you" and, on the contrary, a ruler over her husband[38] (Avraham)!
[And as for the statement "Whatever Sarah tells you, listen to her voice," a) it was said years later, and b) mainly — it was said as something new.]
And this is why Rashi is precise in his wording, "'You shall not call her name Sarai' — which implies 'my princess' and not others'; rather, Sarah .. that she shall be a princess over all": the meaning is not that "at first" she was "Sarai — mine"; this is only an implication of the name[39]. But even such an implication must be negated: since G‑d now wishes to give her rulership ("Sarah"), and that this be expressed in her name, she therefore cannot remain with her name "Sarai" (although "Sarai" too derives from the word for rulership[40]), because "it implies (at least) 'my princess' and not others'," whereas the rulership of Sarah is to be in the manner of "a princess over all."
8. The "wine of Torah" in Rashi's commentary:
The explanation above of the resh "not moving from its place" (that the content of the resh remained afterwards as well) also corresponds to the inner explanation of the two names "Avram" and "Avraham":
The Alter Rebbe explains in Torah Or[41] that "Avram" is made up of two words, "av" and "ram,"[42] and this means "the intellect that is hidden from all thought": "av" (father) alludes to Chochmah[43], and "ram" (lofty) points to a high, abstract intellect — "hidden from all thought."
And the change from "Avram" to "Avraham" ("father of a multitude of nations") alludes to revelation: Avraham was given the power to bring down "the intellect that is hidden from all thought" all the way to "a multitude of nations." He could explain even a "wondrous intellect"[44] (even one that is (in itself) "above the receptive capacity of human intellect"[45]) in a manner that "even the simplest person can understand it"[44].
It follows that the content of the letter resh ("(av) ram") is present in the name Avraham as well: the intellect hidden from all thought is there, only as it shines forth and is revealed below, all the way to "a multitude of nations"[46].
One might think, however, that through "the intellect that is hidden from all thought" being drawn down to "a multitude of nations" it undergoes a descent, G‑d forbid. To this Rashi says that the resh "did not move from its place"[46]: it remained in its "place" and level[47], just as in the name "Avram" (the intellect hidden from all thought) —
because this is the accomplishment (and hence the elevation) of Avraham: that through him comes about the joining of "above" and "below," that "the intellect that is hidden from all thought" is drawn down, as it is, into "a multitude of nations"[48].
9. The directive from this in man's service of G‑d:
It is known[49] that the qualities of the three Patriarchs were passed down to every Jew as an inheritance[50]. The same applies to the quality of "Avraham" — "father of a multitude of nations": every Jew has the power to accomplish among "a multitude of nations" — in the entire world.
He must know, however, that the "resh .. a father .. to Aram, which was his place .. did not move from its place":
Although a Jew must accomplish in the entire world, he must know that first and foremost there rests upon him an obligation to influence his own place and surroundings[51], and only afterward, once he becomes "a father to his place," to be "a father to the whole world."
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Lech Lecha, 5744)
Key Lesson
When Avram became Avraham, "father of a multitude of nations," the resh of "father to Aram" stayed in his name because its content was never lost: being a father to the whole world includes, rather than replaces, being a father to one's own place. Inwardly, the resh is the lofty, hidden intellect ("av ram") that Avraham brought down to the masses without its losing its height. Every Jew inherits Avraham's power to influence the entire world, but the order matters: first one must be a "father" to his own home and community, and from there reach out to all.