Parshas Vayeira 5781
Avraham’s three guests are thoroughly enjoying his hospitality when one begins to inquire about his wife. No mere small talk, this guest shares with Avraham of a miracle that will soon unfold: Sarah, his aged wife, will conceive, and give birth to a son at this time next year. Little doubt could remain as to the true identity of this pack of travelers; they are no mere mortals, but angels. The Rabbis say as much in the Midrash and note further that it is two of these same three angels that continue on towards Sodom, one to overturn the city, and one to save Lot and his family.
The mysterious prophecy may well be a clear give away, and yet at no point are Avraham’s guests actually referred to as “angels” in the text of the Torah. The Torah introduces these travelers simply as “אנשים—men” when they appear on the horizon outside Avraham’s tent. It is not until they travel to Sodom, that their true identity is revealed by the Torah itself: “וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה בָּעֶרֶב—And the two angels came towards Sodom in the evening.” (Bereishis 19:1)
Why the metamorphosis? Did their appearance actually change? Were the human disguises worn while being tended to by Avraham shed upon entry into Sodom? The Midrash offers an explanation:
אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי אַבְרָהָם שֶׁהָיָה כֹּחוֹ יָפֶה נִדְמוּ לוֹ בִּדְמוּת אֲנָשִׁים, אֲבָל לוֹט עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה כֹּחוֹ רַע נִדְמוּ לוֹ בִּדְמוּת מַלְאָכִים
בראשית רבה פ׳ נ
Rabbi Tanchuma said in the name of Rabbi Levi: Their appearance was that of men in Avraham’s presence, for his ability was great. But their appearance was that of angels in Lot’s presence, for his ability was poor.
Bereishis Rabbah 50
The answer may well be more puzzling than the original question. Wouldn’t Avraham’s greatness give him more of an ability to see the angels’ true essence, rather than only the human veneer? Wouldn’t Lot’s lack of spiritual prowess prevent him from seeing the angels as true angels?
I’d like to suggest a novel approach to this cryptic Midrash. Perhaps at the heart of the difference between Avraham and Lot is not in how they saw angels, but in how they saw people. Avraham was the paragon of Chessed. His care and concern for his fellow man knew no bounds and he longed for opportunities to dote on them, as evidenced by his waiting at the entrance of his tent, waiting for passersby as our parsha opens.
Lot is a more complicated character. To be sure, Lot was no stranger to hachnassas orchim either. And yet his compassion towards others was incomplete, even somewhat warped. Consider, if you will, the offering of his own daughters to the angry mob that converges upon his home, so long as they leave his houseguests alone. According to the Midrash, it is Lot’s shepherds’ allowing his sheep to graze on the land of others that triggers Avraham’s suggestion that they take leave of one another. Lot invites guests into his home on the one hand, but will overlook basic human rights on the other.
What if the angels had not been angels at all, but had truly been men? What would have been Avraham’s perception of such guests? He would have seen the tzelem Elokim—the Divine imprint upon the human form. He would have seen the potential for greatness, the ability to walk in Hashem’s path, the ability of a human being to live a life of morality and decency.
This is why Avraham offers up his five-star hospitality to three wayfarers. It is because when Avraham saw an actual person, he saw an angel. So when he sees an angel, he appears no different than a man. How Avraham sees his guests says less about how he perceived of an angelic being and more about how he perceived of a human being.
For Lot, of course, a man is decidedly less. If I can take from another that which is not mine, if I can use my own daughter as a bargaining chip, my impression of a fellow human being is far from angelic. Lot sees angels as angels and men as men because the difference between the two are so stark. Avraham sees angels as men because in his eyes they are very much the same.
It is critical that we remember that Avraham was far from naive. Avraham saw evil and called it by that name. Avraham criticizes Avimelech for the lack of morality amongst his people, embraces the reality that Yishmael is a poor influence on Yitzchak. Avraham is not living in the blissful haze of self-imposed ignorance of other’s misdeeds. He discerns right from wrong not only in his own behavior, but in others’ as well. And yet what he sees in people is a certain fundamental goodness and wellspring of potential that cannot be dismissed.
It is possible to passionately argue and vehemently disagree with the decisions, lifestyle, even values of another person and still see the Divine spark that shone so brightly in the eyes of Avraham Avinu. We tend to read Parshas Vayeira with a certain regret over no longer being able to see angels. But far more worrisome is that we have trained ourselves to no longer see men.
If we could learn to see men the way Avraham did, perhaps angels would be more willing to pay a visit.