[Par-lite] VAYERA - shiur #1
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Oct 24 18:00:37 EDT 2007
********************************************************
*****
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 --------------
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/20071024/eefcc654/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list