[Par-lite] for Parshat Va'yera - shiur #1
Menachem Leibtag
tsc at bezeqint.net
Wed Nov 4 15:36:39 EST 2009
**********************************************************
***
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://mail.atlchai.org/pipermail/par-lite/attachments/20091104/4c313dc7/attachment-0001.pdf
More information about the Par-lite
mailing list