Parshas Vayeira
1. The Rambam says1: "וגדולה הכנסת אורחים מהקבלת פני שכינה שנאמר וירא והנה שלשה אנשים" ("And hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as it says2, 'He saw, and behold, three men'").
From the fact that the Rambam cites only these four words (and does not even allude to the following words by adding "etc."3), it is implied that the proof is from these four words alone. This is not understood: how does one learn from "He saw, and behold, three men" that "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence"?
The question is even greater: the source of this statement4 is the Gemara in Tractate Shabbos5, and in the Gemara6 a different verse from the narrative is cited: "Hospitality to guests is greater than receiving7 the Divine Presence, as it is written8, 'ויאמר אדנ־י9 אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך אל נא תעבור וגו'' ('And he said, "My L‑rd, if I have found favor in Your eyes, please do not pass on…"')"10 (and as Rashi explains: "'Please do not pass on' — and he left Him and went to receive the guests"11).
That is: 1) the Rambam changes from the proof in the Gemara; 2) from a proof that is simple and clear, he brings a verse in which the proof is not understood at all; 3) contrary to "the way of the Rambam," he changes and brings a verse "that is not mentioned in the Gemara at all, since it is clearer"12?
2. Regarding the proof from the verse "He saw, and behold, three men" that "hospitality to guests is greater, etc.," it can seemingly be said that (according to the Rambam) the proof is from the very seeing of three men:
In a state of "וירא אליו ה'" ("G‑d appeared to him"), how is it fitting that at that very moment Avraham should look and notice "three men" — see them with attention (which leads to "he ran toward them")? When one stands "before G‑d," every movement must be precluded, and all the more so attention to a person or to anything else!
And a fortiori from the Shema, whose recital must be "with intent, in awe, fear, trembling1314 and sweat"15, because one is reading "a letter of the king to16 the people of his country," and it must be "like new";
and similarly in the Amidah prayer: since a Jew "must view himself as if the Divine Presence rests opposite him"17, he must then feel as if he were "standing before the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He"18. The law is that he may not interrupt for anything 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 with Avraham, whose "standing before G‑d"21 was in the most open and exalted manner. And in our case it was neither a "letter" nor "as if," but literally "G‑d appeared to him." How then is it that at that very time he should "see22, and behold…," noticing the three men?
This itself is the proof that "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence": knowing that hospitality to guests is (as the Divine Presence itself instructs) "greater" than "receiving the Divine Presence," Avraham therefore interrupts during "receiving the Divine Presence" — "he saw, and behold, three men."
The question remains, however: why does the Rambam change from the Gemara's proof and bring a different proof (for it is obvious that the proof from "He saw, and behold, three men" is not "clearer" than the Gemara's proof — on the contrary)?
3. Seemingly one could answer as follows:
In Tractate Shevuos23 the Gemara says that the statement "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence" is connected with the dispute of the Tannaim whether "all the Names stated in the Torah regarding Avraham are holy"24 includes also the Name in the verse "And he said, 'My L‑rd, if I have found favor in Your eyes…,'" or whether that Name is profane, since he did not say it to G‑d, but "was speaking to the angels"25 (especially since Rashi cites both opinions in his commentary on the Torah26).
Therefore the Rambam does not cite the verse "And he said… please do not pass on…," since the proof from it is not according to all opinions26 (especially according to his view in the Guide for the Perplexed27 that he said this to the angel).
One cannot answer this way, however, for in his work the "Yad"28 the Rambam explicitly rules: "All the Names stated regarding Avraham are holy; even this one, where it says 'My L‑rd, if I have found favor,' is holy"29.
4. In the Guide for the Perplexed30 the Rambam explains that the seeing of the three men and the continuation afterwards were all in a prophetic vision — it is a continuation of "G‑d appeared to him"31.
Accordingly one could seemingly answer that according to the Rambam there is no proof from the verse "And he said, 'My L‑rd… please do not pass on,'" because the content of the verse is not an account of an event that actually happened; rather (also) the saying "My L‑rd… please do not pass on" is part of what Avraham saw in the prophetic vision.
One cannot say this, however, because the verse "He saw, and behold, three men," from which the Rambam brings the proof, was also (according to his explanation in the Guide) in the prophetic vision; one is no better than the other.
And if one would say that a proof can be brought even from a prophetic vision — namely, from the very fact that G‑d shows such a vision, from which it is evident that "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence" —
then, on the contrary, it would be more reasonable to bring the proof specifically from the verse "And he said, 'My L‑rd… please do not pass on'":
The Rambam explains there that the verse "G‑d appeared to him" is the "general statement," and with the verse "He saw, and behold, three men standing…" the detailing of the prophecy of "G‑d appeared to him" begins: "he began to explain what the form of that appearance was, and said that first he saw three men, etc."32.
Accordingly, since "He saw, and behold, three men" was in the prophetic vision, there is no indication at all in it of the preference of hospitality to guests over receiving the Divine Presence — since the seeing of three men does not interrupt the receiving of the Divine Presence; rather "he saw, and behold…" is itself the prophecy ("G‑d appeared to him")33 — the receiving of the Divine Presence.
Whereas the verse "And he said, 'My L‑rd… please do not pass on'" — since G‑d showed him this in the prophetic vision (as Avraham says to G‑d, "please do not pass on"*33) — comes to teach that "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence," as above34.
In addition to all this: in general it is very forced to interpret and explain the "Yad" according to his interpretation of the verses in his Guide for the Perplexed, since in the "Yad" the Rambam does not mention the above matter — that there was no actual speech and action, but that the entire passage was35 in a prophetic vision. Furthermore, and principally: in our passage of the Rambam (cited below) it is almost explicit that it took place in actuality.
5. This will be understood by first explaining the words of the Rambam in those laws (cited above in section 1). He writes (in halachah 1): "It is a positive mitzvah of Rabbinic origin to visit the sick… and to escort guests and to occupy oneself, etc." Afterwards, in halachah 2, the Rambam says: "The reward for escorting is greater than all. It is the statute that Avraham Avinu instituted and the path of kindness that he followed: he fed wayfarers and gave them drink and escorted them. And hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence, as it says, 'He saw, and behold, three men'; and escorting them is greater than hosting them. The Sages said36: Whoever does not escort is as if he sheds blood."
We need to understand: why does the Rambam say (in halachah 1), in the Rabbinic positive mitzvah, "and to escort guests," and not in the all-inclusive expression "hospitality to guests"?
Simply, one learns that in this halachah the Rambam is speaking of the Rabbinic positive mitzvah connected with acts of kindness performed with one's body — "to visit the sick and to comfort mourners, etc." — as he concludes in halachah 1, "and these are acts of kindness with one's body, which have no fixed measure"; whereas the part of hospitality that consists in feeding and giving drink to the guests is (mainly) a matter of acts of kindness with one's money, which does have a fixed measure (as the Rambam explains the distinction in his Commentary on the Mishnah37).
This, however, is not a sufficient explanation38:
In halachah 2 the Rambam says that "the statute that Avraham Avinu instituted" includes "he fed wayfarers and gave them drink," to the point that he brings on this "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence." According to the above, that this speaks of acts of kindness with one's body, how does the matter of hospitality with one's money come in here?
Had the Rambam intended only to bring out the virtue of escorting in itself, he should have said, "It is the statute… and he followed it, escorting guests," and the like; or at least, "that after he fed wayfarers and gave them drink, he escorted them," in order to emphasize that it speaks of the virtue of escorting*, an act of kindness with one's body39.
From the Rambam's wording it is implied that all the details of hospitality are relevant here, including "he fed wayfarers and gave them drink"40.
[And it is very forced to say that the Rambam brings the details of hospitality only as an introduction, in order to bring out further the virtue of escorting — "and escorting them is greater than hosting them" — especially since the statement he brings at the end of the halachah, "The Sages said: Whoever does not escort is as if he sheds blood," emphasizes in the strongest way the necessity and great importance of escorting.]
6. An explanation is also needed: the Rambam begins, "The reward for escorting is greater than all," and afterwards concludes, "The Sages said: Whoever does not escort is as if he sheds blood" (and similarly he states in the following halachah41 regarding the court: "And the court would appoint agents to escort a person passing from place to place, and if they were lax in this, it is accounted to them as if they shed blood"). As one simply learns, the reason that the lack of escorting is "as if he sheds blood" is that escorting guards the guest from being killed on the road (as the proof the Gemara brings in Tractate Sotah42).
This is not understood: since he says that the virtue of escorting is so great that its absence is "as if he sheds blood," the virtue "the reward for escorting is greater than all" is, in comparison, a secondary matter — and "two hundred includes one hundred"43?
7. The point of the explanation can be said to be as follows:
In acts of kindness in general there are two aspects: a) the recipient of the mitzvah — through his act of kindness one fills a lack of his fellow, or brings a benefit to his fellow; b) the act from the standpoint of the person — the attribute of kindness of the one who does kindness.
Similarly, in hospitality to guests there are these two aspects: a) the things the guest receives — the food and drink, etc. — through the particular acts; b) the attribute of kindness of the host, the interest and attention that he shows the guest.
In general, with acts of kindness (and in general with mitzvos between man and his fellow), what (mainly) matters is the recipient — the good and benefit that his fellow actually receives44; and the attribute of kindness of the person doing kindness matters (mainly) not to the person receiving the kindness but to the person doing the kindness45 [to the point that, as we find regarding tzedakah46, if "one lost a coin from his hand, and a poor man found it and was sustained by it," he has fulfilled the mitzvah of tzedakah]47.
With hospitality to guests a special novelty is added: the attribute of kindness — the host's feeling of kindness — matters to the recipient, to the acts done for the guest. Hospitality must be done in such a manner that the guest feels that all the acts of the host on his behalf come from his interest, from his feeling, from his love of a fellow Jew (as alluded to in the words of the Rambam48 that "all these mitzvos… are included in 'Love your fellow as yourself'"49).
And this is expressed in the obligation "to escort guests." For escorting is not a matter of filling the needs of the guest while he is a guest (as in providing him with food and drink, etc.); rather it comes from the attribute of kindness (and therefore it applies even after the connection between them has ended and he has gone on his way). Consequently the guest feels that everything done for him comes from the heartfelt feeling of the host — that he takes an interest in him, that his welfare matters to him, etc.
8. And this is the continuity in the words of the Rambam: "The reward for escorting is greater than all. It is the statute that Avraham Avinu instituted and the path of kindness that he followed: he fed wayfarers and gave them drink and escorted them."
"The statute that Avraham instituted" relates not only to the detail of the act of escorting, but to the general manner of hospitality: Avraham Avinu established hospitality in such a manner that it should contain not only the act and the receiving side of kindness (the needs of the guest), but also the attribute of kindness of the host — which is "the path of kindness that he followed"50 — that escorting the guests comes together with "he fed wayfarers and gave them drink."
Accordingly one can also explain the conclusion of the Rambam's words, "The Sages said: Whoever does not escort is as if he sheds blood," and how it is consistent with the virtue of escorting ("the reward for escorting is greater than all") at the beginning of the halachah:
The Rambam means here not only that this can bring about the shedding of the guest's blood on his way, but (also)51 the feeling of bloodshed in the guest: when the host does not escort him, he sees that interest and devotion are lacking — the attribute of kindness in the act — and the hospitality does not satisfy him; "the red goes and the white comes"52 — he feels in this a humiliation, a "shedding of blood."
[Similar*53 to53 tzedakah54, which must be given "with a pleasant countenance and with joy," and the giver "commiserates with him over his distress"55; whereas if "one gives tzedakah to a poor man with an unpleasant countenance and with his face downcast… he has lost and forfeited his merit"55.]
And accordingly it is also understood why the Rambam singles out from the mitzvah of hospitality only the matter of "escorting guests": specifically in it is expressed an essential element of the mitzvah of hospitality — attention to the guest56. Moreover: when escorting is lacking, then something is lacking in the mitzvah of hospitality also in the food and drink that he gave him, as above57.
9. According to all this it can be said that this is the reason why the Rambam brings the source for "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence" from the verse "He saw, and behold, three men," and changes from the Gemara, which learns it from the verse "And he said, 'My L‑rd… please do not pass on'":
This follows the content of the halachah — "the statute that Avraham Avinu instituted and the path of kindness that he followed" — that an essential element of hospitality is the attribute of kindness in it, the interest in and attention to the guest; and this applies not only while one performs the act of hospitality, when "he feeds wayfarers," and afterwards, but also before it: immediately when he sees and receives the guests, the attention to and interest in the guest matter.
And this is expressed in the verse "He saw, and behold, three men" (as above, section 2): he paid attention to the three men in the midst of "receiving the Divine Presence."
10. According to all the above, one can answer another question regarding learning from Avraham that "hospitality to guests is greater than receiving the Divine Presence":
Ultimately it turned out that by feeding the three men and giving them drink, Avraham did not fulfill a mitzvah of hospitality, for in truth they were not men but angels, who need no food — especially according to the opinion that they did not eat but only "appeared as if they ate"58.
And even according to the opinion59 that "they actually ate and drank," this was not because they needed the food and drink, but only "out of respect for Avraham"60, or because "when you go to a town, follow its customs"61; consequently, in actuality this was not hospitality to (and kindness for) guests.
Accordingly there is a wonder:
a) Since in truth it was not the fulfillment of the mitzvah of hospitality62, one may not interrupt "receiving the Divine Presence" for it — how could Avraham Avinu, G‑d forbid, have stumbled by leaving the reception of the Divine Presence?
b) It is difficult to say that one learns a (true) law — "hospitality to guests is greater, etc." — from an act that in truth was not hospitality to guests.
One must say that although Avraham Avinu's guests were only "in the form of men," nevertheless nothing at all was lacking in Avraham Avinu's "hospitality to guests." It is not that he fulfilled the mitzvah of hospitality only according to what his eyes saw; rather the truth was so.
The explanation of this can be said to be63:
The essential matter of hospitality is emphasized (not so much in the act on the object — the food that the guest receives — but) in the attribute of kindness, "the path of kindness in it," the attention and interest on the part of the person, the host, toward the guest; and the act of the person and his attention were complete in the hospitality of "Avraham Avinu."
Moreover: the receiving side of hospitality (in the guest) was also brought about completely by Avraham, for the above matter — the guest's satisfaction from the attention — exists also with angels (especially when they come in the form of men)64;
and especially when it concerns the attention of Avraham Avinu, who is so "beloved" to G‑d — as He also says in our parsha65, "כי ידעתיו" ("for I have known him"), "an expression of affection" — and in general "the Patriarchs are the Chariot"66, whose virtue is openly higher than the virtue of the angels: certainly the content and essence of hospitality existed on the part of Avraham toward the angels.
(From the sichos of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira, 5725, and 29 Elul, 5722)
Notes
1) Laws of Mourning 14:2.
2) Our parsha, 18:2.
3) As in the Semag (which follows the Rambam — see Yad Malachi, Principles of the Rambam… the Semag, §46), positive commandments, §2, which also cites the verse as the Rambam does, but adds "etc., as stated in the chapter Mefanin." In the Semag it can be said that he cited only the beginning of the matter and of the discussion, and his intent is also to the verse cited there in the Gemara.
4) As noted in the Kesef Mishneh there.
5) 127a, end. And similarly in Shevuos (35b) — cited below, section 3. But there the proof from the verse is not cited explicitly (in the words of R. Yehudah in the name of Rav), although it is understood from the continuation. And see note 26.
6) And similarly in Midrash Tehillim (Buber edition) 18:29; She'iltos, our parsha, She'ilta 11 (according to our version; and see below, the gloss to note 10); and elsewhere.
7) So in Shabbos there. In Shevuos there: "more than receiving the Divine Presence."
8) Our parsha, there, verse 3.
9) Whose plain meaning refers to the Holy One, blessed be He — and see below in the text, section 3.
10) So in the Gemara and Ein Yaakov there. In the other places the full wording is not cited: in Midrash Tehillim, "And he said, 'My L‑rd…' — 'please do not pass on from Your servant'" (and in our She'iltos: "please do not pass on from Your servant"); in the Rif, Shabbos there (and similarly in the Rosh, Shabbos there (§2)): "And he said, 'My L‑rd, if I have found favor in Your eyes, etc.'" And similarly in Dikdukei Sofrim from a manuscript. This is not the place to elaborate.
*) And see the variant versions in the She'iltos (Jerusalem 5707), manuscript versions. In one of them it is cited (from the beginning of the verse): "G‑d appeared to him… and he lifted his eyes and saw."
11) Shabbos there. And see also Rabbeinu Chananel and Rashi, Shevuos there.
12) Yad Malachi there, §4.
13) The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, beginning of §61.
14) Seemingly it should read "u'virses" ("and in trembling") with a vav (and so it reads in two printings of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch — Zhitomir 5616, and ibid. 5622), as it is in the continuation of the paragraph there, in citing the words of the Midrash*. And see Berachos 22a (and Moed Katan 15a): "in awe, in fear, and in trembling, and in sweat." But in the Shulchan Aruch of the Mechaber at the beginning of the siman here, "birses" is without a vav (and so in the first printing of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch here**), and so in many places***. One can explain the precision of this version: awe and fear are a feeling in the soul, while trembling and sweat are a matter of the body**** — separate categories*****. And similarly with the four letters of the Name Havayah (which correspond to them) — the hidden and the revealed.
*) So it is in the wording of the Tur there (in our editions, and likewise in the Venice 5306 printing, the first printing of the Tur with the Beis Yosef) regarding the Shema; and so the wording of the Beis Yosef there (in our editions and in the above Venice printing) the first time. The second time, "b'yirah" too is without a vav; and so in Tanchuma, Emor 10, and in the Tur there (in our editions and in the above Venice printing) in citing the parable of the Midrash. And see the variant readings in Vayikra Rabbah (Margulies edition, Jerusalem 5732) 27:7, with several variants: "b'yirah" without a vav, or also "u'virses" with a vav. The above four expressions "in awe, etc." are also cited in Yoma 54b, beginning — according to the version of Ein Yaakov and manuscripts (see Dikdukei Sofrim there); and likewise in Avos d'Rabbi Nosson, beginning of ch. 1, regarding Torah, and there "b'yirah birses" without a vav; in Vayikra Rabbah there, earlier, in a parable (on another matter), where our editions read "u'v'yirah u'virses," both with a vav, and the Margulies edition has both without a vav; and in Vayikra Rabbah 1:7, in the wording of the parable, where there are also several variants — see the Margulies edition. In Toras Kohanim, Shemini 10:4 (Yalkut Shimoni there, §526), and likewise in Tanchuma, Shemini, there are only three expressions, "in awe and in trembling and in sweat," and so in Yoma there in our editions. It is plausible to say that this is a copyist's omission; this is not the place to elaborate.
**) And so in the Tur, Augsburg printing 5300, both times; and in the Bach and the Prishah there (citing the Beis Yosef), both times.
***) Among them: in its source in the Midrash — Vayikra Rabbah 27:7 (in our editions, and likewise in the Margulies edition) — from which the continuation of the Alter Rebbe's wording is drawn, as noted in the margin of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch (and as the Tur writes (Beis Yosef there)); Pesikta d'Rav Kahana, Parshas Shor O Kesev (Buber edition, and likewise the Oxford manuscript and others); Ein Yaakov, Moed Katan there; the manuscript version in Dikdukei Sofrim, Moed Katan there. And so it is cited from a manuscript on Berachos there (end of note 10).
****) See Likkutei HaShas of the Arizal, Moed Katan there (s.v. "Mah lehalan"); Sefer HaMaamarim 5701, p. 250, and note 2 there; Likkutei Sichos vol. 20, p. 548.
*****) Note also the wording of the Bach on the Tur there: "and since it did not also say 'not in awe and fear and not in trembling and sweat,' etc."
15) So also in the continuation of the paragraph in the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch there (and likewise in the first printing of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch). And so in the Talmud, Moed Katan there (with a hei). But in the Shulchan Aruch of the Mechaber it is without the hei (and there "v'zia" — without a beis). And so in the two Zhitomir printings of the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch mentioned above, and in all the other places cited in the previous note (and its glosses); and so in Berachos, and in Ein Yaakov on Moed Katan, and Dikdukei Sofrim there, in the manuscript and printed versions.
16) Perhaps it should read "elei" ("to")?
17) The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch, Orach Chaim, beginning of §98, and the sources cited there.
18) Berachos 33a, beginning.
19) Shabbos 10a; Tur and Shulchan Aruch (and the Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch), Orach Chaim, end of §95.
20) The Alter Rebbe's Shulchan Aruch there, §104:2.
21) As in the wording of the verse, our parsha 18:22.
22) Note Bereishis Rabbah (48:9): "He saw in the Divine Presence, and he saw in the angels." And see the commentary Yedei Moshe there; Birkei Yosef, Yoreh De'ah, beginning of §244, and there s.v. "Va'asher gamar."
23) 35b. And similarly in Tosafos, s.v. "Dichsiv," Shabbos there.
24) The wording of Tosafos, Shabbos there. And see Rashi, Shevuos there and on our parsha.
25) On our parsha there. And he concludes, "and both versions are in Bereishis Rabbah" (see Bereishis Rabbah 48:10 — only one opinion). And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 2, p. 69 ff., and the sources cited there. This is not the place to elaborate.
26) And although in Shevuos there it is explicit that R. Yehudah's statement "hospitality to guests is greater" follows "that pair" who hold that the Name is holy (and see Rabbeinu Chananel there; Ran, Shabbos there), it can be said (that the intent is not that according to the opinion that it is profane, hospitality to guests is not greater, etc., but rather) that the intent is that according to the opinion that it is profane, one cannot learn this from the verse "please do not pass on," from which R. Yehudah learned it. And in Iyun Yaakov, Shabbos there: "R. Yehudah (who says, 'Come and see that the attribute of the Holy One, blessed be He, is not like, etc.') wants to establish that even according to the opinion that this Name is profane… one can (also) learn that hospitality to guests is greater, etc." See there. And see Shaar Ephraim, Yoreh De'ah (§64, s.v. "Ukazeh nireh"), who explains the words of Tosafos in Shabbos there along these lines. See there. This is not the place to elaborate. ↩
27) Part 1. And see there, Part 2, ch. 43 — cited below in the text.
28) Laws of the Foundations of the Torah, end of ch. 6. And see Kesef Mishneh there.
29) Perhaps it can be said that the Rambam interprets the verse "please do not pass on" according to Tosafos (s.v. "Chazya") on the Gemara (Bava Metzia 86b, end), that the Divine Presence wished to depart from Avraham (because "it is not proper conduct to stand there," in the words of the Gemara, Bava Metzia there); accordingly there is no proof from there for R. Yehudah's teaching that "hospitality to guests is greater, etc.," as Tosafos writes there. And see Chiddushei Aggados of the Maharsha there, s.v. "V'haynu dichsiv," that the learning in Tractate Shabbos is not from Avraham's words "please do not pass on," but "from this matter it is expounded, since he went, etc." See there. And see Rosh David of the Chida on our parsha, on the verse; Iyun Yaakov cited in note 26. And see also the commentary of the Rif on Ein Yaakov there.
30) Part 2, there.
31) And see the Ramban at the beginning of our parsha, regarding his question on the Rambam in the Guide. And see the commentators on the Guide there, and Sefer HaZikaron of the Ritva, explaining the Rambam's view in the Guide. This is not the place to elaborate.
32) The Rambam's wording in the Guide there.
33) See the Ritva there; Abarbanel on the Guide there, near its beginning, and as he writes in resolving the Ramban's first question.
*33) But this is not according to what he explained in the Guide there, based on the words of "R. Chiya the Great" — "that this too is an account of what he said in the prophetic vision to one of them; he said it to the greatest of them" — as above, section 3 (see the discussion of his interpretation in the commentators on the Guide there). And see Iyun Yaakov (and Shaar Ephraim) cited in note 26, that even according to the opinion that it is profane one can learn that hospitality to guests is greater, etc.
34) See Abarbanel on the Guide there, in resolving the second question (of the Ramban on the Rambam): there was benefit in showing him all this (all the acts of Avraham and Sarah in hosting the angels) to make known that this was his custom all his days, to do so for the guests who came to him; therefore the matters appeared as though they were in a waking state. See there. And similarly writes R. Avraham, son of the Rambam, in his book HaMaspik L'Ovdei Hashem (Jerusalem 5733), the chapter on generosity.
35) Although regarding other passages he mentioned in the Laws of the Foundations of the Torah (7:3) that they were in a prophetic vision.
36) Sotah 46b.
37) Beginning of Pe'ah. And see also there, at the beginning, s.v. "V'habikkurim" (according to the Jerusalem Talmud).
38) Also: in halachah 1 the Rambam wrote, "and likewise to gladden the bride and groom and to provide for all their needs," which in the plain sense of the wording seemingly includes (also) kindness with one's money — see Nimukei Maharai on the Rambam there. If so, in our matter too he should have said simply "hospitality to guests," or at least added this too.
*) And see below, p. 320, note 89; Likkutei Sichos vol. 16, end of p. 501.
39) Note that in the Semag there: "escorting is the statute that he instituted, etc.," and he continues (in the Rambam's wording), "and the path of kindness… he fed… and escorted them."
40) As in the plain sense of our Sages' saying on this passage (our parsha 21:33), "'He planted an eshel' — what is eshel? Eating, drinking, escorting" (Midrash Tehillim 36, 110). And see Targum Yonasan and Targum Yerushalmi there; Pesikta Zutrasa there; Rashi, Kesubos 8b (s.v. "B'veiso shel Avraham"); Sotah 10a, end; and elsewhere. And in Radak on our parsha there, after citing our Sages' acronym of "eating, drinking, escorting," he wrote: "This means that he instituted for the people of Be'er Sheva to host guests, and that a person is obligated to receive a guest with these three things."
41) Halachah 3 there.
42) 46b (the source of the Rambam's words). And so is the plain interpretation of the Mishnah there (45b, end).
43) Note the Migdal Oz on the Rambam there: "and from the punishment, learn the reward."
44) And see Asvan d'Oraysa, principle 23, at its end; Likkutei Sichos vol. 9, p. 202 ff., and the sources cited there.
45) And along the lines of the Rambam's wording (end of the Laws of Forbidden Altar Offerings): "One who wishes to gain merit for himself should subdue his inclination, etc."
46) Sifri, Teitzei 24:19; Rashi there; Rashi, Vayikra 5:17, at its end. And see Asvan d'Oraysa there.
47) Note Nesivos Olam (of the Maharal), Nesiv Gemilus Chassadim, ch. 2 (near its end), the distinction between acts of kindness and tzedakah: acts of kindness are from the side of the giver, and tzedakah is from the side of the recipient. And see there, ch. 4.
48) There, end of halachah 1. And so he wrote in Sefer HaMitzvos, Shoresh 2. And see the discussion in the Ramban on Sefer HaMitzvos, Shoresh 1, near its end ("in the third answer"), and the commentators on Sefer HaMitzvos there; Likkutei Sichos vol. 14, p. 61 ff.
49) And although even one who loses a coin so that a poor man will find it fulfills the mitzvah of tzedakah, as above, nevertheless in tzedakah too the main thing is that it be given with a pleasant countenance, as below in the text.
50) And see Likkutei Sichos vol. 3, pp. 768–769.
51) Except that according to this the Rambam's wording "the Sages said" requires a little further study, since his intent is not as in the words of the Sages in the Gemara; he should have said simply "whoever does not, etc.," similar to what he writes further on there regarding visiting the sick.
52) Bava Metzia 58b, end, regarding shaming a person publicly, which is "as if he sheds blood."
53) Note Menoras HaMaor of R. Yisrael Al-Nakawa, chapter on tzedakah (vol. 1, p. 39): "The most praiseworthy form of tzedakah is hospitality to guests" (and see the Rambam's wording there, halachah 3: "one compels escorting as one compels tzedakah"). But see the Likkutim at the end of the Maharil (cited in Gilyonei HaShas on Shabbos there): "Wherever hospitality to guests is mentioned, it means specifically hosting the wealthy and honored… he should receive them with a pleasant countenance and treat them with honor, etc., and the proof is from Avraham Avinu, etc.; but hosting the poor is included in tzedakah."
*53) And not exactly (see above, section 7, the distinction between hospitality to guests and matters of tzedakah — acts of kindness). For among the loftiest levels of tzedakah is "one who gives tzedakah to the poor without knowing to whom he gave, and the poor man does not know from whom he took, for this is a mitzvah for its own sake, like the chamber of secret donations that was in the Temple" (Rambam, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:8; similarly in Shulchan Aruch, Yoreh De'ah §249:6, where the words "for this is… in the Temple" are absent), which is higher even than giving tzedakah with a pleasant countenance. Whereas in hospitality to guests, the interest and the attribute of kindness of the host (which is expressed in escorting) is the essence of the mitzvah and matters to the recipient, as in the text.
54) And note what the Maharil writes (§2 there), that the pleasant countenance, etc., in tzedakah is the aspect of acts of kindness (within tzedakah).
*) The "great level, beyond which there is none" (among "the eight levels in tzedakah") does not pertain to our matter, for its advantage is that "he strengthens the hand of a Jew who has become poor and gives him a gift or a loan, or forms a partnership with him, or finds him work, in order to strengthen his hand so that he need not depend on people" (the Rambam's wording there, halachah 7; similarly in Shulchan Aruch there, §6). In all this the advantage lies in the recipient — the actual benefit to the poor man is greater than in the other levels of tzedakah — but not (so much) in the giver's attribute of kindness as expressed in it.
55) Rambam, Laws of Gifts to the Poor 10:4, and the sources cited there. ↩
56) Also according to the plain intent of escorting (according to the Gemara there) — so that the guest not actually come to harm and the like — at the time one escorts him he is not in a state of need and lack, unlike other acts of kindness and the like, etc., for a guest who is needy and lacking at that time. If so, in this too the host's attribute of kindness and goodness (his attention) toward the guest is recognizable and emphasized. And see Zohar I, 104a, end: "for everything depends on this" (and see there and further on — the explanation); Nesivos Olam there, ch. 5 — the effect of escorting.
57) See Rabbeinu Bachaye on our parsha 21:33: "Know that the mitzvah of escorting is the completion of the mitzvah of lodging and the ultimate reward." It is seemingly understood from his words (as explained in the text) that it is not only the completion of the mitzvah in time, but (also) the perfection of the mitzvah.
58) Rashi on our parsha 18:8 (from Bava Metzia 86b; Bereishis Rabbah 48:14; and so in the Vayikra Rabbah cited in note 62; and elsewhere).
59) Tosafos, s.v. "Nirin" (Bava Metzia there); Tanna d'Vei Eliyahu Rabbah (ch. 12); and so it is implied in Zohar I, 144a (see Sefer HaMaamarim 5663, p. 3). In the Zohar on our parsha (102a) both opinions are cited. And see the sources cited in the Radal on Bereishis Rabbah there; Bamidbar Rabbah 10:5 (at its end).
60) Tosafos there (but in the Zohar, 102a: "because of the honor of Avraham it appeared so"). And in Tanna d'Vei Eliyahu there: "in the merit of that righteous man (Avraham) and as a reward for the effort, etc."
61) See Shemos Rabbah 47:5; Zohar there, 144a.
62) And see Vayikra Rabbah 34:8: "Who is it that did kindness for those who did not need it? Avraham, with the ministering angels."
63) See at length Likkutei Sichos vol. 5, p. 329 ff.
64) In addition to this, giving the angels the possibility to fulfill "when you go to a town, follow its customs" (see the sources cited above, notes 58 and 61) was (akin to) feeding them.
65) 18:19, and Rashi there.
66) Bereishis Rabbah 47:6; end of 82:6.
Key Lesson
The heart of hospitality — and of every kindness — is not only the food and help a guest receives, but the genuine attention and caring of the host, expressed most of all in escorting him on his way. Avraham Avinu turned to his guests even in the midst of receiving the Divine Presence, teaching that sincere interest in another person is so precious that it is "greater than receiving the Divine Presence."