[Par-reg] Parshat Vayera - shiur #1
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu Nov 17 12:12:39 EST 2005
*************************************************************
THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************
PARSHAT VAYERA
It is very comfortable to think of Sedom as a city of
thugs and perverts. After all, is that not the reason why God
decided to destroy it? And certainly, most of our own
societies are nowhere as bad - we should hope.
Yet, a more careful study of the Torah's presentation of
these events (as we will soon demonstrate), could lead to the
opposite conclusion - that Sedom was a city with a culture not
very different from our own.
In the following shiur weñll examine this possibility,
as we study how the Torah tells the famous story of Avraham
and the 'three angels'.
INTRODUCTION
Our series on Sefer Bereishit has been following the
theme of 'bechira', i.e. God's choice of Avraham Avinu to
become the forefather of His special nation. In last week's
shiur, we discussed why God chose Avraham Avinu - i.e. to
create a nation that will bring the Name of God and His
message to all mankind.
But how will this nation ultimately be able to achieve
that goal? In this week's shiur, we'll attempt to show how
the Torah answers this question in its presentation of the
story of God's consultation with Avraham Avinu before He
destroys Sedom.
We begin our shiur by paying attention to the lack of
any 'parshia' divisions in this entire narrative.
AN EXTRA LONG 'PARSHIYA'
Even though a 'parshia' break in Chumash is most
similar to a 'paragraph break', there are times when a single
'parshia' is extraordinary long. When this does happen, we
would expect it to be thematically significant, especially
when that 'parshia' contains more than one story.
And that is exactly what we find at the beginning of
Parshat Vayera, where the 'parshia' that begins in 18:1
continues all the way until the end of chapter 19, yet
contains two unrelated topics:
1) The news that Sarah will give birth to Yitzchak;
2) The story of God's destruction of Sedom (& Lot's rescue).
By including both of these events in the same 'parshia',
the Torah is already alerting the reader to search for a
thematic connection between these two events.
One could suggest that these events are recorded
together for the simple reason that the same "malòachim"
[angels or messengers] are involved in both stories. However,
this itself raises the same question from a different angle,
i.e. why are the same "malòachim" who are sent to destroy
Sedom - first instructed to inform Avraham about the
forthcoming birth of Yitzchak?
[If we adopt Rashi's position (see 18:2) that each angel was
assigned only one mission, then we would re-phrase our
question: Why must all three travel together, or why doesn't
each angel travel directly to fulfill his own mission?]
THE DEEPER 'CONNECTION'
The answer to this question can be found (right where we
would expect) - at the transition point between these two
stories.
As you review these psukim, note how the first topic, i.e.
the tiding that Sarah will have a child (18:1-16), clearly
concludes in 18:16 - while the story of God's destruction of
Sedom doesn't begin until 18:20. Hence, by default, 18:17-19
form the transition between these two stories.
Let's take a careful look at this 'segue', noting how it
forms a 'parenthetical comment' to the reader - before Chumash
continues with the story of Sedom :
"And God said: Shall I hide from Avraham what I am about to
do? For Avraham is to become a great nation ["goy gadol"],
and through him, all other nations will be blessed
["ve-nivrechu bo..."]
For I have 'come to know him' in order that he will
instruct his children and his household after him to keep the
way of God by doing what is just and right... - in order that
I shall bring upon Avraham all that I have spoken about him."
(See Breishit 18:17 19)
Review these psukim once again (in their context), noting
how it explains why God must first consult Avraham before
destroying Sedom; and hence, it forms an appropriate
transition between these two stories.
However, these psukim appear to allude to a much deeper
thematic connection - especially when we consider their
obvious textual parallel to the first three psukim of Parshat
Lech Lecha:
"... ve-e'escha le-goy gadol - and I will make you a great
nation - and bless you and you will be a blessing [to others]
-"ve-nivrechu becha kol mishpechot ha-adama / - and through
you all the nations will be blessed" (see 12:1-3).
Review these psukim once again, while comparing them
to 18:18. Clearly, the wording of 18:18 highlights how God
had originally chosen Avraham Avinu to become the forefather
of a great nation - but now 18:19 provides us with the
underlying reason for why he was chosen:
"...in order that he will instruct his children and his
household after him to keep the way of God by doing "tzedek
u'mishpat" - what is just and right..." (see 18:19)
First, Chumash explains to the reader (in verse 18) that
Avraham Avinu had been chosen to become a nation that would be
a blessing for all nations - and then (in verse 19) God
explains how this will happen - for Avraham will teach his
children (and those children their children, etc.) to do
tzedaka u-mishpat!
In other words, Avraham is expected to initiate a
family tradition - that will create a society characterized by
acts of tzedaka & mishpat [social justice]. In this manner,
they will truly serve as God's model nation. [See also
Devarim 4:5-8 for a very similar explanation. See also
Yeshayahu 42:5-6.]
As Avraham is commanded to pass on (and teach) this
destiny to his son - Yitzchak, it makes sense that the Torah
would inform the reader of this destiny, immediately after the
story of God's promise to Avraham concerning the birth of
Yitzchak.
With this background, we can suggest a reason for why the
Torah records both stories in the same 'parshia'.
PREVENTING FUTURE CITIES LIKE SDOM
According to 18:18-19, God had chosen Avraham to
become the forefather a 'model nation' that would be know for
its heritage of "tzedaka u'mishpat". Should that nation
fulfill that destiny, then it would be able to save societies
such as Sedom, for they will serve as a 'model nation' from
whom corrupt nations could learn from.
If this interpretation is correct, then it also
explains why the Torah records Avraham's petition that God
spare the doomed city. Avraham does not ask that God save
only the righteous men in Sedom; instead, he begs that God
should save the entire city - for the sake of those tzaddikim!
[See 18:26.] - Why?
Because - hopefully - those righteous few may one day,
by setting an example, influence the people in Sedom towards
proper behavior, just as the nation of Avraham is destined to
lead all mankind in the direction of God.
This also explains when Avraham's petition ends.
After God agrees to save the city for the sake of 50 righteous
men, Avraham continues to 'bargain' for the sake of 45, 40,
30, etc. - until he reaches ten (see 18:23-32). He stops at
ten, for there is little chance that such a small number would
ever be able to exert a serious influence upon an entire
community.
[This may relate to the concept of a 'minyan' - a minimum
amount of people capable of making God's Name known. Note as
well the influence the ten 'spies' have on the entire nation
in the incident of the 'meraglim', and how Chazal learn the
number ten for a minyan from that incident!]
It is God's hope that, in the future, Avraham's nation
would prevent the emergence of 'future Sedoms' - by creating a
model society established on acts of "tzedaka u-mishpat". As
Yitzchak is the son through whom this tradition will be
transmitted, it is meaningful that the same angels assigned to
destroy Sedom must first 'plant the seeds' for the prevention
of future Sedom's - by informing Avraham concerning the birth
of Yitzchak.
The Torah goes out of its way to record how Avraham
makes this gallant effort to save Sedom, for it reflects the
very purpose for why he had been chosen. Despite his futility
of his efforts at this time, it will be this tradition that he
must pass on to his son Yitzchak, and later to all future
generations of the Jewish people.
AVRAHAM VS. SEDOM
Even though at this point in the narrative, we are not
yet aware of the precise sin of Sedom, this 'prelude'
certainly suggests that it must relate in some manner to a
lack of "tzedek u-mishpat".
Now, we will attempt to determine more precisely what
their sin was, and how it represents the antithesis of
everything for which Avraham stands.
Chapter 18 is not the first time in Sefer Breishit
when Sedom is mentioned. As we explained in our shiur on
Parshat Lech Lecha, Lot's decision to leave Avraham and move
to Sedom (13:1 18) reflects his preference not to be dependent
on God and to dissociate himself from his uncle. It is in
that context that we are told: "The men of Sedom were very
wicked to God" (see 13:13).
Furthermore, after rescuing Lot from the 'four kings'
(see chapter 14), Avraham refuses to keep any property
belonging to Sedom which was recovered in that victory.
Although he rightfully deserves his 'fair share' of the spoils
from the battle which he himself fought and won, Avraham
Avinu, expressing his opposition to anything associated with
Sedom, prefers to completely divorce himself from any
resources originating from that city:
"Avram said to the King of Sedom: I swear to the Lord, God
Most High, Creator of heaven and earth: I will not take so
much as a thread or a shoe strap of what is yours, so you can
not say: It is I who made Avram rich" (14:22 23).
Based on this backdrop, it would be safe to assume that
the sin of Sedom must relate in some manner to a lack of "
tzedek u-mishpat". Therefore, we must read that ensuing story
(in chapter 19) in search of that theme.
A GOOD HOST
Review the first three psukim of chapter 19, noting
how the Torah goes out of its way to describe how insistent
Lot is to provide these two 'unknown travelers' with a place
to stay:
"And the two malòachim came to Sedom towards evening, and Lot
was sitting by the gate of the city, as he saw them he
approached them... And he said -
'Please come stay at your servant's house, for lodging and
washing up, then you can continue on your way in the morning';
but they declined. But Lot very much insisted, so they came
to his house; he gave them to drink and baked for them matzot
[wafers] to eat." (see 19:1-3).
Clearly, the Torah is emphasizing Lot's very own
"hachnasat orchim" [hospitality] as the opening theme of this
narrative.
Furthermore, it seems that this is precisely how the
'angels' planned to 'test-out' the city to see if it deserved
to be destroyed. Recall how God originally told Avraham:
"The crying out from Sedom is too great... I shall go down and
see whether they deserve destruction or not..." (18:21)
God sends these two 'angels' not only to destroy
Sedom, but first to determine if indeed the city deserves to
be destroyed (and if there are any "tzadikim" who deserved to
be saved). By pretending to 'sleep on the street' (see
19:1-2), they are testing if there is any hospitality in Sedom
- a test which Lot passes (see 19:3), and the rest of the city
failed terribly (see 19:4-6).
In fact, one could suggest that this same theme of
hospitality and the lack of "tzedek u'mishpat" continues in
the Torah's description of the city's reaction to Lot's
harboring of his two guests. To explain how, let's carefully
follow the narrative:
"..They [his two guests] had not lain down yet when the
townspeople, the men of Sedom, gathered outside his house -
from young to old - all the people until the edge [of the
city]. And they protested [outside his house] and shouted:
'Where are those men who came to visit you this evening? Take
them out of your house so we can know them [ve-nei'da'em]"
(see 19:4-5).
Most of us are familiar with Rashi's interpretation,
that this gathering consisted of merely a small group of the
lowest social and ethical stratum of Sedom, who wanted to
'know them' in the Biblical sense (i.e. sodomy, based on 19:8
and 4:1).
However, read this pasuk in its original Hebrew very
carefully, noting how the Torah only states that the
demonstrators wanted to 'know them', which is open to a wide
range of interpretation.
NO GUESTS ALLOWED
Ramban (and Rasag) advance a totally different
interpretation, explaining that the entire town did indeed
join in this protest (as the simple reading of this pasuk
implies), for they had all gathered outside Lot's house,
demanding to 'know' who these guests were.
Why are they protesting, and what they demanding?
As Ramban explains so beautifully (see his commentary on
19:5), the people of Sedom are protesting against Lot's
hospitality to these strangers - as they would call for a mass
protest anytime there was a fear that someone in their town
was 'harboring' guests!
According to Ramban, there appears to have been a
strict law in Sedom of: No guests allowed! As the people of
Sedom didn't want to ruin their exclusive [suburban]
neighborhood, they did everything possible to keep away
'transients'. It was their terrible fear that should Lot
accommodate guests this evening, tomorrow night more guests
may come, and by the end of the month, the city streets could
be flooded with transients and beggars. Should the word get
out that there is 'free lodging' in Sedom, their perfect
'country club' would be ruined.
[One could even find a warped ideology in this 'policy'. For
example, one could reason in a similar manner that no one
should help the needy, for if everyone agreed not to take care
of them, then they would ultimately learn to take care of
themselves.]
Hence, should any citizen of Sedom bring home a guest
['chas ve-shalom'], the city's 'steering committee' would
immediately call for a public protest. [See also Sanhedrin
109a.]
There may have been "mishpat" in Sedom - a
standardized system of laws and ordinances - but it was
terribly warped. Not to mention the fact that "tzedaka" had
no place whatsoever in this bastion of immorality.
[Chazal remark in Pirkei Avot that the social norm of 'sheli
sheli, shelcha shelcha' - what is mine is mine, what is yours
is yours - is a 'custom of Sedom'. The attribution of this
social philosophy to Sedom reflects this same understanding
(see Pirkei Avot 5:10 - 'arba midot ba-adam...').]
TZEDEK U-MISHPAT VS. SEDOM
This interpretation explains why, throughout Neviòim
Acharonim, Sedom is consistently associated with the absence
of "tzedek u-mishpat". In fact, the three most famous of the
Neviòim Acharonim - Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, and Yechezkel - all
of whom foresee and forewarn the destruction of the first bet
ha-mikdash, compare the corrupt society in Israel to that of
Sedom, and see therein the reason for their own forthcoming
destruction.
As we will show, in every instance where Sedom is
mentioned by the prophets, it is always in reference to a
society lacking social justice, and never in reference to
illicit sexual behavior - such as 'sodomy'.
The simplest proof of this point is found in Sefer
Yechezkel, as he states explicitly that this was indeed the
sin of Sedom (i.e. the very same point discussed above
concerning "hachnasat orchim"):
"...Your younger sister was Sedom... Did you not walk in her
ways and practice her abominations? Why, you are more corrupt
than they in all your ways... This was the sin of your sister
Sedom - she had plenty of bread and untroubled tranquillity,
yet she did not support the poor and the needy. In her
haughtiness, they sinned before Me, so I removed them, as you
saw..." (see Yechezkel 16:46-50).
In Yeshayahu, the direct connection between the lack
of "tzedek u-mishpat" and Sedom is even more explicit. As we
all recall from the Haftara of Shabbat Chazon, Yeshayahu
compares Am Yisrael's behavior to that of Sedom & Amora:
"Listen to the word of God - you [who are like] officers of
Sedom, pay attention to the teachings of our God - you [who
are like] the people of Amora. Why should I accept your many
offerings... Instead, learn to do good, devote yourself to
justice, aid the wronged, uphold the rights of the orphan,
defend the cause of the widow... How has the faithful city,
once filled with mishpat tzedek, now become a city of
murderers..." (Isaiah 1:10-21, see also 1:3-9!)
Recall also how Yeshayahu concludes this nevuòa:
"Tzion be-mishpat tipadeh, ve-shaveha bi-tzedaka - Zion will
be redeemed by our doing "mishpat"; her repentance - through
our performance of tzedaka.
In chapter five - Yeshayahu's famous 'mashal ha-kerem'
[the parable of the vineyard] - the prophet reiterates God's
initial hope and plan that Am Yisrael would perform tzedaka
u-mishpat, and the punishment they deserve for doing exactly
the opposite:
"va yikav le mishpat ve hiney mispach"
[God had hoped to find justice, and found instead
injustice],
"li-tzedaka ve-hiney tze'aka." (Yeshayahu 5:7)
[to find "tzedaka," and instead found
iniquity]
[note amazing parallel with Breishit
18:19-21!]
(See Isaiah 5:1-10, as well as 11:1-6.)
Perhaps the strongest expression of this theme is
found in Yirmiyahu. In his powerful charge to the House of
David [whose lineage stems not only from Yehuda but also (&
not by chance) from Ruth the Moabite, a descendant of Lot!],
Yirmiyahu articulates God's precise expectation of the Jewish
king:
"Hear the word of God, King of Judah, you who sit on the
throne of David... Do mishpat u-tzedaka... do not wrong a
stranger, an orphan, and the widow.." (Yirmiyahu 22:1 5).
[See also 21:11-12.]
Later, when Yirmiyahu contrasts the corrupt king
Yehoyakim with his righteous father Yoshiyahu, he admonishes:
"... Your father (Yoshiyahu)... performed tzedaka u-mishpat,
and that made him content. He upheld the rights of the poor
and needy - is this not what it means to know Me [la-daòat
oti], God has said! But you (Yehoyakim) - on your mind is
only your ill-gotten gains..." (see 22:13-17)
Note that Yirmiyahu considers doing tzedaka & mishpat
as the means by which we come to 'know God' ['la-daòat et
Hashem' - (compare with Breishit 18:19, see also Yirmiyahu
9:23)]!
Finally, when Yirmiyahu speaks of the ideal king who
will bring the redemption, he emphasizes this very same theme:
"A time is coming - Hashem declares - when I will raise up a
true branch of David's line. He shall reign as king and
prosper, and he will perform mishpat and tzedaka in the land.
In his days, Yehuda shall be delivered and Israel shall dwell
secure..." (23:5-6). [See also Zecharya 7:9; 8:8, 16 17, II
Shmuel 8:15!]
This reason for the choice of the Kingdom of David
corresponds with the underlying purpose behind God's choosing
of Avraham Avinu. As we have explained numerous times, God's
designation of Avraham came not in reward for his exemplary
behavior, but rather for a specific purpose: to establish a
model nation - characterized by tzedek u mishpat - that will
bring all mankind closer to God. For this very same reason,
God chooses a royal family to rule this nation - the House of
David. They too are chosen in order to teach the nation the
ways of "tzedaka u-mishpat".
But even when there is a lack of proper leadership,
this charge to follow the 'way of God' to do "tzedka
u'mishpat" remains an eternal challenge for every individual.
To prove this point, and to summarize this theme, we need only
quote one last pasuk from Yirmiyahu (not by chance, the
concluding pasuk of the Haftara for Tisha Be-av):
"Thus says the Lord:
Let not the chacham [wise man] glory in his wisdom;
Let not the gibor [strong man] glory in his strength;
Let not the ashir [rich man] glory in his riches.
- But only in this should one glory:
Let him be wise to know Me [haskel v-yadoòa oti] -For I the
Lord act in the land with chesed [kindness], mishpat, and
tzedaka - for it is this that I desire, says the Lord."
(see Yirmiyahu 9:22-23, see also Y. 22:13-20).
[See also the Rambam's concluding remarks to the last chapter
of Moreh Nevuchim!]
Once again we find that knowing God means emulating
His ways, acting in accordance with the values of tzedek
u-mishpat. Should the entire nation act in this manner, our
goal can be accomplished.
Thus, what appears at first to be simply a
parenthetical statement by God (concerning Avraham) before
destroying Sedom (in Breishit 18:19) unfolds as a primary
theme throughout Tanach!
LA-DAòAT - THE KEY WORD
It is not by chance that Yirmiyahu (in the above
examples) uses the Hebrew word 'la-daòat' in the context of
following a lifestyle of tzedek u-mishpat. As we have already
seen, the shoresh 'daled.ayin.heh' has been a key word
throughout the narrative concerning Sedom. First and foremost
in a positive context: "ki yedaòtiv lemaòan asher... la'asot
tzedaka u-mishpat..." (18:19), but also in a negative context:
've-im lo eidaòa' (see 18:21!). However, this same word
also surfaces in a rather ambiguous manner later on in the
story. As noted briefly earlier, Rashi and Ramban dispute the
meaning of 've-neida otam' (see 19:5 - when the protesters
demand that Lot surrender his guests). From this pasuk alone,
it is not at all clear what this phrase implies.
Rashi explains that the men of Sedom wanted to 'know
them' in the Biblical sense (i.e. to 'sleep' with them
'mishkav zachar' - see 4:1 & Chizkuni on 19:5 - and hence the
English word for this act: 'sodomy'). Ramban contends that
they wanted to 'know' their identity in order to 'kick them
out of town,' in accordance with their city ordinance that
prohibited visitors.
Clearly, Ramban takes into consideration the psukim
from Yechezkel (which he cites explicitly, and most probably
also took into account Yeshayahu chapter 1) that clearly
identify Sedom's [primary] sin as their unwillingness to help
the poor and needy. In light of the direct contrast drawn
between Avraham's devotion to tzedek u-mishpat and the
character of Sedom (as in 18:17-19), we can readily understand
why Ramban preferred to interpret 've-neida otam' in relation
to 'kicking out' these unwanted guests.
Rashi (and many other commentators) argue that
ve-neida otam implies mishkav zachar (sodomy). This opinion
is based primarily on Lot's reaction to the protestors'
request of offering his two daughters instead of his guests,
and his comment, 'asher lo yadòu ish' (see 19:8 / note again
the use of the same 'shoresh').
Had it not been for the psukim in Yechezkel 16:48-50,
and the special 'prelude' to these events in Breishit 18:19,
then Rashi's explanation would seem to be the most logical.
However, the wider context of these events certainly supports
Ramban's approach.
To bring additional support for Ramban's approach, let's
examine the story a little more carefully, as we will try to
show the entire story may center around "tzedek u'mishpat",
and it could be that Lot really never intended to give over
his daughters to that crowd.
WHO HAD GATHERED OUTSIDE THE HOUSE?
The most obvious problem with Rashi's explanation
(that the protestors are interested in sodomy) stems from
their sheer number. According to 19:4, it appears that the
group that gathers outside Lot's house includes the entire
city, most likely hundreds if not thousands of individuals,
young and old - the entire city! If they are simply
interested in sodomy, pardon the expression, how could two
guests 'suffice'?
[Rashi, in light of this problem, offers a somewhat novel
explanation for 19:4, that only the 'thugs of Sedom' ('anshei
Sedom' implying a specific group and not the entire city)
banged on Lot's door. The Torah mentions the rest of the
population - 'from young to old' - only in regard to the fact
that they did not protest the gang's depraved behavior. Rasag
(on 19:4) disagrees, proving from 19:11 that both young and
old had gathered outside Lot's house.]
Ramban combines both explanations, i.e. he criticizes
Lot's own character for foolishly offering his two daughters
in exchange so that he could continue to provide proper
hospitality for his guests. However, this explanation of 19:8
is also quite difficult, for how (and why) should this offer
appease this mass crowd who claim (according to Ramban) to be
interested only in expelling unwanted guests!
One could suggest an explanation for Lot's remarks
that solves all of the above questions, thus leaving Lot's
character untainted, while keeping the focus of these events
entirely on the lack of tzedek u-mishpat in Sedom.
GIVING MUSSAR
Any attempt to understand Lot's bizarre offer of his
daughters must take into consideration not only the context,
but also the crowd's reaction. Let's take a closer look at
how the crowd responds to Lot's 'proposal':
"And they said to him:
Go away [gesh hal'ah - i.e. move a far distance]
You have just (recently) come to dwell (in our city) -
and now you judge us!
Now we will deal with you worse than with them..."
(see 19:9, read carefully).
What was there in Lot's offer that prompted this
severe response and censure? If Lot was seriously offering
his daughters, why couldn't they just say: No, we prefer the
men! Instead, they threaten to be more evil with Lot than
with his guests. Does this mean that they want to 'sleep'
with Lot as well?
It seems more likely that they are now threatening to throw
Lot out of town!
One could suggest that when Lot pleads: "My brothers,
don't do such evil [to my guests], here are my two
daughters..." (see 19:6); he is not seriously offering his
daughters at all. Rather, he makes mention of them as part of
a vehement condemnation of the people. In a sarcastic manner,
Lot is telling the crowd that he'd sooner give over his
daughters than his guests - even though he has no intention
whatsoever of actually doing that.
[Note how Reuven's statement to Yaakov that he would kill his
own two sons... etc. (see Breishit 42:37) could be understood
in a similar manner; i.e. not that he would do that, but he
makes this bizarre offer to emphasize his seriousness to his
father.]
Furthermore, as we mentioned above, if indeed the entire
town has gathered, how could two women 'appease' such a large
crowd! Instead, it would make more sense to explain that Lot
is making this harsh statement as a form of rebuke,
emphasizing how important it is that they allow him to keep
guests. It is at though he was saying: "I'd sooner give you
my daughters than my two guests."
[Note as well that Lot does not bring his daughters with him
when he makes this so-called 'offer.' In fact, he actually
closes the door behind him (see 19:6) - and only afterward
leaves to negotiate with the rioters. Had Lot been truly
serious about his offer, he should have taken them outside
with him! Also, the conclusion of the story suggests that
Lot's daughters were actually married (see 19:14/ unless we
assume that Lot had more than two daughters).
This explains why the crowd becomes so angered by
Lot's remarks. They are taken aback by his harsh rebuke of
their 'no guest' policy.
Based on this interpretation [that Lot is 'giving them
mussar' and not 'making a deal'], we can better understand the
mob's response to Lot's offer (19:6-8). They neither accept
nor reject Lot's proposal. Instead, they express their anger
with Lot's rebuke:
"One has just come to live by us - va-yishpot shafot - and now
he is judging us; now we will deal more harshly with you than
[we planned to deal] with them!" (see 19:8-9).
What do people mean by "you are judging us"?
Apparently, there is something in Lot's response that suggests
a type of character judgment - but is it only his request that
they 'not be so evil' (see 19:7)?
One could suggest that they consider Lot's sarcastic
offer of his daughters instead of his guests as a moral
judgment of their 'no-guest' policy; a reprehension of their
unethical social system. If so, then this is exactly to what
'va-yishpot shafot' refers to. They are angered for Lot has
'judged' their character.
As no one likes being told what to do, especially by
'newcomers' - they react in very threatening manner.
In other words, the crowd is saying: 'HEY, you're just a
newcomer here in our town, and you already think you can tell
us how we should act! Now - we're going to kick you & your
guests out of town!
[This interpretation of 'shafot' in relation to rebuke (or
being 'judgmental') is found elsewhere Tanach: For example,
see Shmuel I 7:6, where Shmuel (at Mitzpa) rebukes the entire
nation for their behavior. We find a similar use of the verb
'lishpot' in I Shmuel 12:7, when Shmuel rebukes the nation for
not appreciating God's salvation when asking for a king to
lead them instead! See also Yirmiyahu 1:16, and its context.]
If our interpretation is correct, then it may be that
Sedom's sin related solely to the lack of social justice (as
Yechezkel 16:48-49 implies), and had nothing to do with
'sodomy' at all! And for this reason alone, God found it
necessary to destroy that city.
Agreed, that there are many other ways to explain
these events, but the very possibility that the entire story
of Sedom deals exclusively with the lack of social justice
certainly must be considered not only when we contemplate our
own values and lifestyle, but even more so when deciding our
community priorities.
shabbat shalom,
menachem
=====
FOR FURTHER IYUN
1. See Rambam in Sefer Zra'im, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, chapter
10, the first halacha. Note how he explains that the mitzva
of tzedaka requires the highest priority, and he supports his
statement from Breishit 18:18-19, as we discussed in our
shiur.
2. In Parshat Ki Tetzeh (see Devarim 23:4-5), the Torah
forbids the marriage of a Jew with a 'moòavi ve-amoni'
[Moabite or Ammonite], the descendents of Lot. But note the
reason, "for they did not greet you with bread and water when
you were traveling through the desert...".
Once again we see the theme of hachnasat orchim in
relation to Sedom and Lot. Note as well how Ruth the
Moabite does return one strain of Lot back into Am Yisrael,
which will later lead to David ha-Melech. However, in that
story, Ruth's entry is replete with incidents relating to acts
of tzedaka.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayera1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52864 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-reg/attachments/20051117/bf2269c8/vayera1-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-reg
mailing list