[Par-lite] Parshat VAYERA - shiur #1 [Sedom & Avraham Avinu]
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Thu Nov 9 06:09:27 EST 2006
*************************************************************
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 we'll 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 "mal'achim" [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 "mal'achim" 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 mal'achim 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 Nevi'im Acharonim, Sedom
is consistently associated with the absence of "tzedek u-mishpat". In
fact, the three most famous of the Nevi'im 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 nevu'a:
"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-da'at 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-da'at 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-yado'a 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-DA'AT - THE KEY WORD
It is not by chance that Yirmiyahu (in the above examples) uses the
Hebrew word 'la-da'at' 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
yeda'tiv lema'an asher... la'asot tzedaka u-mishpat..." (18:19), but
also in a negative context: 've-im lo eida'a' (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 yad'u 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 'mo'avi 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 --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20061109/de783a33/attachment-0001.htm
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: vayera1.pdf
Type: application/pdf
Size: 52863 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://www.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20061109/de783a33/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list