R' Amnon Bazak spoke about this in this week's Parashat Hashavua shiur on Gush's KeSheT podcast:
http://torah.libsyn.com/index.ph...?
post_id=269087
This interpretation fits in better with the general narrative structures in the Torah, which often include header sentences, followed by the details. It also fits in better with the motif of people not realizing that they are talking to an angel of God at first (like Hagar, Manoach and wife, Moshe, Yakov, Yehoshua, et al). Also, the wording of Vayisa Einav Vaya'ar doesn't make a lot of sense if Avraham is already talking to God, especially since these three people are Nitzavim alav - standing over him - as thoguh they have just appeared. Avraham does not spot them coming over the horizon.
I have recently become more sensitive to the "header" function of many psukim; Genesis 1:1 is a good example.
My son is learning Vayera now, and we discussed this issue (he actually raised the question). He felt like the Rashbam, but when we looked at the closing, it seems to be more like the traditional approach.
It seems to often be the case that pshat is in conflict between two psukim, you have one that goes well as pshat, but the other as drash, so in one place or the other you end up having to rely on drash. Genesis 5:1-2 is another good example of this.
*In THE HIDDEN FACE OF GOD, Richard Elliott Friedman shows how angels are and expression of God’s presence; His emanation.*
Although the rest of the book isn't relevant to your post it is quite interesting.
He goes step by step through the entire bible and shows how a perfect theme develops. Even though there are clearly multiple authors (nevi'im, ketuvim) with different agendas who could never anticipate what future authors would write, there emerges the theme of the gradual disappearance of G-d from the visible world.
We start off with Genesis- G-d creates the world, clothes man, walks and talks with him in Eden. Step by step less manifest, prophets start to take on Godlike powers (performing miracles). first they are for the nation eventually for individuals...
This parallels the role of a parent towards a child. A parent is totally in control over an infant. As the child grows the parent takes a step back to let the child make mistakes and learn. As children grow older they rebel against their parents, ascerting they can manage on their own. Eventually they do and become adults.
G-d wants mankind to mature (spiritually grow, become better people, stop blowing up buses and thing like that) so he gives us room to learn. Yes he gets mad but not like the fire n brimstone version but as the parent that shows anger to direct the child and in the end always forgives and always loves.
i've read the book and enjoyed it (even the weird parts about nietzsche). i think i may have even blogged about it.
The Rambam says the same pshat in Moreh Nevuchim, and claims that this is the view of Rabbi Chiya in the Midrash.
Rambam's pshat is slightly more complex than the Rashbam's; according to him, none of this ever happened.
I can't believe we completely forgot to address your Matrix analogy, which bears further analysis. I will say that there is a character Seraph, who is not really an agent, but obviously from the name is meant to correlate to some kind of angel. Then again, the Matrix was based on Gnostic Christianity, which would seem to put the divine in an antagonistic position vis-a-vis Man, so it might not be a good correlation.
but when we looked at the closing, it seems to be more like the traditional approach. - Greg
Greg: What closing verse(s) are you considering problematic? I find that all the verses in this narrative make perfect sense according to the Rashbam's viewpoint. Avraham only directly addresses one of the angels. This is the one who remains behind to notify Avraham of the impending destruction of the 5 cities. The fact that he is termed "Hashem" is not a problem. Such a designation for an angel is directly given later in the torah. In Ki Tisa, Hashem tells Moshe that an angel will lead the people to Canaan, but they must not stray for he will not forgive their iniquities since he bears My Name.
As was mentioned, it is not uncommon in the torah to preface a narrative with a verse which serves as a brief summary. Both the beginning of the torah and this parsha are examples. This concept removes the difficulties noted or implied by Rashi.
Y. Aharon
In other words, he says that God appeared to Avraham - as described in the first verse - in the guise of three men - as described in subsequent verses.
A trinity, huh?
The closing verses fit with Rashbam, but a more straightforward interpretation is to say that all three angels walked off, and God stayed behind. I have to check if at any point later, the Torah specifically says that 2 angels visited Lot in Sodom, in which case it pretty much clinches it for the Rashbam.
Interesting idea about Ki Tissa, I hadn't thought of that.
greg - rashbam directly quotes that verse in ki tissa in his opening interpretation.
also, i'm not goreis 'seraph' or any other character introduced after the first movie.
I have to check if at any point later, the Torah specifically says that 2 angels visited Lot in Sodom, in which case it pretty much clinches it for the Rashbam.
It does indeed say that only 2 malachim were in sedom.
Is "your wife" my wife, or your wife? I'm guessing its your wife, because I don't think my wife ever saw The Matrix or the Rashbam. I've seen The Matrix, but not the Rashbam.
Jewish Exile: yep, I caught that in the laining.
'yur wife' is actually me. i didn't realize that she had left a comment earlier, and didn't change the name field in the comments.
I really don't want to think about what it means to be one's own wife.
Commenting by HaloScan
