The World Begins at Home

1. The Letter That Stayed in Place

{In this week’s Torah portion, G-d changes Avram’s name and gives the reason for the new one}:

Your name shall no longer be called Avram; rather, your name shall be Avraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations.

Rashi on this verse quotes the words “for the father of a multitude of nations” and explains:

These words are the expanded form (notrikon) of his name [אברהם — אב המון]. The reish that was in it at first signified that he was a father only to Aram, which was his place {of origin}. But now {he has become} (a father to the whole world {— so the reish no longer seems to belong}. Even so, the reish that was in it from the start) did not move from its place. For even the yud of Sarai [שרי — שרה] complained to the Divine Presence until it was added to Yehoshua, as it is written, “And Moshe called Hoshea the son of Nun, Yehoshua [הושע — יהושע].”

The straightforward explanation of Rashi’s comment {lies in that word “for.”} By saying “for I have made you the father of a multitude of nations,” the verse presents this phrase as the reason for the name Avraham. This shows that the idea of “father of a multitude of nations” is alluded to within the name itself. Rashi therefore explains that “father of a multitude of nations” is “the expanded form of his name (notrikon).”

[This also explains why Rashi takes care to include the word “for” when quoting the verse, even though “for” is not part of the notrikon. Notrikon is not a usual tool for explaining the plain meaning of Scripture. Rashi therefore needs something in the verse that compels him to read the name this way, and that is the word “for,” {which implies that there is a message to be inferred from the name}.]

This, however, raises a question: Why did the letter reish remain (in Avraham), when it has no connection to the notrikon?

Rashi answers this in the continuation of his comment: “The reish that was in it at first… did not move from its place.” He supports this with an example (and proof) from “the yud of Sarai.” [As stated later in the parsha, “you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name.”] That yud “complained to the Divine Presence (about being taken from Sarah) until it was added to Yehoshua.” The same holds in our case: “so that it would not complain to the Divine Presence like the yud of Sarai,” {G-d} left the reish in the name Avraham.

2. A Proof That Points the Other Way

However, {two points in Rashi’s comment} need to be understood:

(a) Seemingly, the example of “the yud of Sarai” undermines the very point it is brought to prove. After all, the yud of Sarai did in fact “move from its place.” (It was added both to another name and to another person: Yehoshua.) In our case, by contrast, the reish “did not move from its place”!

(b) Rashi’s wording, “For even the yud of Sarai…” rather than “And likewise the yud…,” proves that the yud of Sarai had less reason to complain than the reish of Avraham. (“For even…” implies that not only the reish of Avraham {would have complained}; even the yud of Sarai complained.)

This is puzzling: What is the difference between them? Seemingly, both have the very same reason and cause for complaint: a letter being taken from the name of a righteous person (tzaddik).

3. A Closer Look at Rashi’s Wording

This will be understood by first examining {why} Rashi’s wording is so lengthy: “The reish that was in it at first signified that he was a father only to Aram, which was his place {of origin}. But now {he has become} a father to the whole world. Even so, the reish… did not move from its place.”

Notice that Rashi does not mention the name “Avram” at all. Instead, he opens with “The reish that was in it at first…” (and only as a continuation of this does he explain that “he was a father only to Aram”).

[This is especially notable since Rashi departs from the wording of our Sages, where the explanation focuses (also) on the name Avram: “’Your name shall no longer be called Avram, but your name shall be Avraham’ — at first… a father… to all of Aram… and in the end… a father to the whole world.”]

This seemingly proves that Rashi is not setting out (to any great extent) to explain the notrikon of the (earlier) name Avram. He means (only) to explain the reish that remained in the name Avraham.

[It is understandable why Rashi does not undertake to explain the notrikon of the name “Avram.” For explaining the notrikon of the name Avraham, “father of a multitude of nations,” it hardly matters whether the earlier name Avram also carries a (similar) meaning. {As noted above, notrikon is not a usual tool for explaining the plain meaning of Scripture. Rashi invokes it only when the verse compels him to, as the word “for” does for the name Avraham, while nothing in the verse does so for the name Avram.}]

Now, since Rashi’s intent is not to explain the notrikon of the name Avram, but only to explain why the reish “did not move from its place,” he could seemingly have said briefly: “This is the expanded form of his name, ‘father of a multitude of nations.’ The reish that was in it at first did not move from its place, for even the yud….” Why must he explain (a matter, and a name, belonging to (the end of) Parshas Noach) that the letter “reish that was in it at first” (was there because) “he was a father only to Aram”?

We must also explain Rashi’s precise wording, “Even so, the reish… did not move from its place,” which is an unusual expression in such a context. Seemingly, Rashi should simply have said “it was not taken from him,” or “it was not lacking from his name,” or the like.

4. Included, Yet in Its Own Place

This may be explained as follows:

As discussed on several occasions, the plain meaning of Scripture does not compel us to assume that a name alludes to and expresses the nature (and distinction) of the person who bears it (unless the verse itself emphasizes this, 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).

Therefore, there is no room to explain that the name “Avram” (which {his father} Terach gave him) is {intrinsically} connected to the life of Avraham.

What compels us (according to the plain meaning) to explain that “Avram” means “a father to Aram” is the fact that the reish remained in the name Avraham, {which G-d gave him}.

To explain: According to the plain meaning, there is no basis for saying that a letter should be kept in a name meant to express a specific meaning {— as with the name Avraham —} merely because the letter has “complaints,” if the letter itself has no connection to the meaning (of the name).

Rashi alludes to this in his wording: “Even so, the reish that was in it at first, {which} signified that he was a father only to Aram, which was his place {of origin}….” With this, Rashi indicates that there is a difficulty here: according to the notrikon, how does the reish come to be in the name Avraham? Consequently, the reish too must have a meaning consistent with the meaning of the name Avraham, “father of a multitude of nations.”

Rashi then explains, “{It signified} that he was a father only to Aram… did not move from its place.” The meaning of the reish is that he is “a father to Aram,” and that remained true afterward as well. Being “a father to all the nations” includes being “a father to Aram” rather than excluding it; it is merely an addition.

This is why Rashi chooses the precise wording “did not move from its place” (and not “it was not taken from him,” etc., as mentioned above). Even had the reish not been placed in his name (and his name had been “Avham” [אבהם]), this would not mean that the meaning of the reish had been taken away. Its meaning (“a father to Aram”) would remain even then. In that case, however, it would mean that the reish “remains” in a different “place”: only as part of “the world,” within “a father to the whole world” {— being a father to Aram would still be true, but only by implication, the way being a father to the whole world automatically includes any single country, with Aram receiving no mention of its own}.

The emphasis “did not move from its place” indicates that even afterward the reish remains in its own “place.” “A father to Aram” remains spelled out in the notrikon of the name (Avraham) as a distinct matter in its own right (even though it is included in “(a father to) the whole world”). {In other words, even as father of the whole world, Avraham remains distinctly a father to his own place.}

5. Grounded Claim, Mere Complaint

In light of all this, we can also understand Rashi’s proof, which argues from the lesser case to the greater: “For even the yud of Sarai complained….”

The reish of Avraham has a “claim” with solid grounds. Since the meaning of the reish remains in the name in any case, there is no reason to refuse leaving the reish itself in the name of the tzaddik.

With “the yud of Sarai,” however, no such “demand” can be made, for the meaning of the letter yud has no place in the meaning of the name Sarah (as will be explained in Section 7).

It follows that {the yud’s grievance} was merely a matter of plain complaint, {hence Rashi’s wording}: “it complained.” (“For even” implies that even so, {G-d} “gave in” here too and “added it to Yehoshua.”)

This also resolves the difference regarding “the yud of Sarai,” namely, that it did “move from its place”:

The comparison and proof show only that a letter’s “complaint” earns it appeasement. The manner of appeasement, of course, varies in each case according to its circumstances.

In our case, the meaning of the letter reish remained {in Avraham’s name} afterward as well, so its claim achieved that it “did not move from its place.” With “the yud of Sarai,” by contrast, the meaning of the yud is absent from the new name. The yud therefore cannot be left “in its place,” because it is no longer its “place.”

Consequently, the appeasement must take a different form. The yud is placed in the name of another tzaddik, a name that becomes “its place,” where the notrikon of the yud is a new element in the name (and in the person) {— the yud adding a meaning suited to that person}. [“It was added to Yehoshua, as it is written, ‘And Moshe called Hoshea the son of Nun, Yehoshua.’” As Rashi himself explains there: “He prayed for him: ‘May G-d [י-ה] save you [from the counsel of the spies].’” {Yehoshua needed precisely this meaning, so the yud found a fitting place in his name.}]

6. A Stronger Claim for the Yud

But why does the meaning of the letter yud in “Sarai” have no place in the name “Sarah”? Seemingly, the very opposite is true:

Rashi on the next verse quotes the words “you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name” and explains:

“You shall not call her name Sarai,” which implies {by its final yud} “a princess to me,” and not to others. Rather, “Sarah,” unqualified, shall be her name, meaning that she will be a princess over all.

Accordingly, this is exactly like the change from “Avram” to “Avraham.” Being “a princess over all” surely includes the particular case of “Sarai, a princess to me.” Why, then, did the yud “move from its place”?

Moreover, precisely according to Rashi’s own explanation of the difference between “Sarai” (“a princess to me”) and “Sarah” (“a princess over all”), the “yud of Sarai” should have an even stronger claim and demand (to remain in the name Sarah) than the reish of Avram:

The Gemara’s wording: “At first she became Sarai, a princess to her own nation, and in the end she became Sarah, a princess to the entire world.” On that reading, the change is exactly like the difference between “Avram” (a father to Aram, his nation) and “Avraham” (a father to the whole world).

Rashi, however, departs from the wording of our Sages and says that “Sarai” implies “(a princess) to me.” The verse speaks of Avraham as the one calling her by this name (as its precise wording indicates: “And G-d said to Avraham, ‘Sarai your wife — you shall not call her name…’”). It follows that “Sarai” means she is a “princess” over Avraham.

[This is similar to what the Midrash says: “She was mistress (gevirah) over her husband. Everywhere {else}, the man decrees, but here (with Sarah): ‘All that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice.’”]

Accordingly, the opposite seems more logical. In the name Avraham, the letter reish cannot have a strong demand, even if it were not placed in his name, since its meaning remained (as part of “(a father to) the whole world”).

With “Sarah,” by contrast, the fact that she became “a princess over all” offers no proof that this also includes “Sarai, a princess to me.” Such authority runs contrary to what was established (by the Torah), namely that the husband holds authority (as cited above from the Midrash), as the verse states earlier: “and he shall rule over you.” It follows that removing the yud from Sarah removes the meaning of the yud (that is, “Sarai, a princess to me”) {— an authority G-d evidently did grant her, as the verse states, “All that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice”}!

One could answer, with great difficulty, that Avraham had by then ascended to a higher level, as G-d told him, “Walk before Me and be perfect,” so that after his ascent Sarah was no longer a “princess” over Avraham ({and no longer} “Sarai, a princess to me”).

This, however, cannot be said, for two reasons:

(a) It would then follow that the change of name, “Sarai your wife — you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name,” was (also) a descent for her!

(b) The verse “All that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice” appears later, in Parshas Vayeira, much time after G-d said, “you shall not call her name Sarai, for Sarah is her name.” {Clearly, then, even after Avraham’s ascent and the change of her name, Sarah still held this authority over him.}

7. An Implication, Not a Status

This will be understood in light of Rashi’s precise wording on the verse “you shall not call her name Sarai”:

…which implies “a princess to me,” and not to others. Rather, “Sarah,” unqualified, shall be her name, meaning that she will be a princess over all.

For seemingly, Rashi should have said (similar to our Sages’ wording): “At first {she was} ‘a princess to me,’ and now she will be ‘a princess over all.’” This would parallel Rashi’s wording regarding Avraham: “At first… a father… to Aram… and now a father to the whole world.”

The answer is as follows:

According to Rashi’s interpretation (which follows the plain meaning of Scripture), Sarah indeed was not a “princess” over Avraham (even when she was called “Sarai”). As discussed earlier, in the plain meaning of Scripture there is no necessity at all for people’s names to relate to (the life of) the person who bears them. The same applies in our case. The name “Sarai” (which {her father} Haran gave her) did not mean that she was an exception to the decree “and he shall rule over you,” as if, on the contrary, she was a “princess” over her husband (Avraham)!

[As for the verse “All that Sarah says to you, listen to her voice”: (a) it was said years later, and (b) more importantly, it was said as a novel directive.]

This is why Rashi chooses his words precisely: “You shall not call her name Sarai, which implies ‘a princess to me,’ and not to others. Rather, Sarah… meaning that she will be a princess over all.” Rashi does not mean that “at first” she actually was “Sarai, a princess to me.” That is merely what the name implies, {not a description of her actual status}.

Yet even this implication had to be ruled out. Being that G-d now wishes to grant her authority (as a “princess”) and to express it in her name, she therefore cannot remain with the name “Sarai” (even though “Sarai” too derives from the word for authority). That name “implies (at least) ‘a princess to me,’ and not to others,” while the authority G-d is granting Sarah is that of “a princess over all.” {Unlike the reish, whose meaning, “a father to Aram,” fits within “the whole world,” the yud contributes only a limitation, “to me, and not to others,” which contradicts “over all.” Its meaning, then, has no place in the name Sarah.}

8. Drawn Down, Yet Undiminished

The “wine of Torah” {— the inner dimension —} in Rashi’s commentary is as follows:

The explanation above of why the reish “did not move from its place” (namely, that the meaning of the reish remained afterward as well) also accords with the inner explanation of the two names “Avram” and “Avraham.”

The Alter Rebbe explains in Torah Or that “Avram” consists of two words, av ram [אב רם], meaning “intellect hidden from all thought.” “Father” (av) alludes to wisdom (Chochmah), and “lofty” (ram) indicates a high, transcendent intellect, “hidden from all thought.”

The change from “Avram” to “Avraham” (“father of a multitude of nations”) alludes to revelation. Avraham was given the power to draw down the “intellect hidden from all thought” all the way to “a multitude of nations.” He could explain even a “wondrous intellect” (even one that is (in itself) “beyond the capacity of human intellect to contain”) in a manner that “even the simplest person can understand it.”

It follows that the meaning of the letter reish (“(av) ram”) is present in the name Avraham as well. The “intellect hidden from all thought” is there, but as it shines and is revealed below, all the way to “a multitude of nations.”

One might think, however, that when the “intellect hidden from all thought” is drawn down to “a multitude of nations,” it undergoes a descent, G-d forbid. To this Rashi says that the reish “did not move from its place.” It remained in its “place” and level, exactly as in the name “Avram” (“intellect hidden from all thought”). {Even as the simplest person grasps it, what he receives is not a diluted version but that same lofty wisdom itself.}

For this is Avraham’s achievement (and therefore an elevation {— the change from Avram to Avraham is an ascent, not a descent}): through him, “above” and “below” are joined, so that the “intellect hidden from all thought” is drawn down, as it is, into “a multitude of nations.” {The highest wisdom reaches the simplest people without losing any of its loftiness, and that union of highest and lowest is greater than the wisdom remaining hidden above.}

9. A Father to One’s Own Place First

The lesson from this for our Divine service is as follows:

As is known, the qualities of the three Patriarchs were passed down to every Jew as an inheritance. The same applies to the quality of “Avraham,” “father of a multitude of nations.” Every Jew has the power to make an impact on “a multitude of nations,” i.e., throughout the entire world.

He must know, however, that “the reish… a father… to Aram, which was his place… did not move from its place”:

Although a Jew must make an impact throughout the entire world, he must know that first and foremost he has an obligation to influence his own place and surroundings. Only afterward, once he has become “a father to his own place,” can he be “a father to the whole world.”

From a Sichah delivered on Shabbos Parshas Lech Lecha, 5744 [1983]