Midreshet Lindenbaum

Parshat Vayera
Rav Menachem Leibtag

1. QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION
2. SHIUR ON PARSHAT VAYERA
3. QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER IYUN

PART I - QUESTIONS FOR THE 'SHABBOS TABLE'

AVIMELECH vs. AVRAHAM

1. There are two encounters between Avimelech and Avraham Avinu in Parshat Va'yera, one in chapter 20, and the other in 21:22-34. What is the primary topic of each of these stories? How are these stories similar, and how are they different?
In what manner does Avraham criticize Avimelech in each?
In what manner does this relate to the reason for why Avraham Avinu was chosen?
What is the deeper meaning of Avimelech's name? In your opinion, what does he represent?

2. Based in 21:22-23, why does Avimelech initiate a covenant with Avraham? Based on 21:24-30, why does Avraham agree?
As above, how does this reflect the future relationships between Am Yisrael and other nations.
Note the final psukim of this unit (21:30-33), i.e. the covenant and how Avraham 'calls out in God's Name' in Beer Sheva. Relate this to your answer to this question, based on the parallel to Breishit 12:8 and 13:4 and the Ramban on 12:8!

YIRAT ELOKIM & the AKEYDA

1. For discussion:
In your opinion, can man determine on his own (i.e. without Torah) what is right and what is wrong? [This concept is often referred to as 'natural morality'.]
For example, does man understand instinctively that it is wrong to kill and steal, or must this be taught?
In your answer, relate to why God punished "dor ha'Mabul" (the generation of the Flood). Did they know what they were doing was wrong? Were they aware that they acted in an evil way?
Relate as well to the last five of the ten commandments. Had these commandments not been given at Har Sinai, would we have thought that they would have been permitted? If not, why are they included?
[Answer this question in relation to the first five commandments as well!]

2. After the Flood, we do find several commandments that God gives Noach (see 9:1-7). How would you categorize these mitzvot?
In your opinion, are these commandments that Noach should have been able to figure out on his own?
Relate these post "mabul" commandments to the contrast between 6:5 and 8:21!
In addition to these "mitzvot" in 9:1-7, does God have any other expectations from mankind? [Relate to 11:1-9!]

3. Now, how this relates to Parshat Va'yera:
Note how Avraham explains to Avimelech why he 'lied' regarding Sarah: "for there is no YIRAT ELOKIM [fear of God] in this place, and they would kill me [in order] to take my wife" (see 20:9-11).
In your opinion, what does Avraham refer to when he mentions "YIRAT ELOKIM"? Did he expect that Avimelech believes in God. Did God ever appear to Avimelech or his people beforehand and tell them what is right and what is wrong?
Furthermore, why is God's Name here Elokim and not shem Havayah?

4. The phrase "YIRAT ELOKIM" appears several other times in Chumash. Examine its meaning in the following sources, noting what type of behavior it relates to, and to whether it relates to 'the fear of God' by jews or by non-jews.
Breishit 42:18 - re: Yosef, pretending to be an Egyptian.
Shmot 1:21 - re: the midwives killing the male babies
Shmot 18:21 - re: Yitro's advice re: the appt. of judges
Devarim 25:18 - re: the sin of the Amalek.

What type of general behavior do all of these sources relate to?
Based on these examples, what does "yirat elokim" refer to in Breishit 20:9-11?

5. Now, back to Parshat Va'yera again.
Review the story of the AKEYDA (chapter 22), noting which Name of God the Torah uses (i.e. "shem Elokim" or "shem Havaya") when it describes God's various commandments to Avraham Avinu.
Can you find a pattern?
Compare and relate this to God's Name in the Torah's account of "brit milah" (see 17:3-11). At the most basic level, how do these two stories relate to one another?
Could one say that the AKEYDA presents Avraham with a conflict between 'natural morality' and 'divine command'? If so, explain why. In your opinion, what should Avraham do?
In your opinion, is it possible that God would command something that is not morally just?
How would this relate to the concept of "yirat elokim" discussed above?
Next, carefully read Breishit 22:12 (note how this pasuk is the climax of the story). How did you translate the word "ki" in this pasuk, as 'that' or 'because' or 'even though'? [As you are aware, the word "ki" can carry several different meanings in the Bible.]
What is the meaning of "yirat Elokim" in this pasuk! Again, how would this relate to the concept of "yirat elokim" discussed above?

6. Note that at the end of the AKEYDA, God makes yet another promise to Avraham Avinu concerning the future of his offspring (see 22:15-19).
To which earlier promise (or promises) or Avraham Avinu is this promise most similar?
Is this promise only a repeat, or is something new added? If so, what is that new addition, and how does it relate to the Akeyda? (Relate this to "brit bein ha'btarim".) [See Ramban and Radak on 22:16.]

TOLDOT TERACH

1. Parshat Va'yera informs us not only of the birth of Yitzchak, but also of the birth of several other of TERACH's grandchildren and great grandchildren (see 19:30-38, 22:20-24.)
A. Why do you think these stories are an integral part of Sefer Breishit? [Relate to 11:26-32, the fact that we find a header "ayleh toldot Terach", and that later on in Sefer Breishit we never find "ayleh toldot Avraham". Relate also to our shiur on Parshat Noach.]
B. Which descendants of Terach later 'weave' their way back into the family of Avraham Avinu? Is this significant?
C. Note the number (and type) of wives and children born to Nachor (in 22:20-24)! Which of the Avot is this similar to? Who else in Sefer Breishit has twelve children?
[Relate to 17:20 and 35:23-26.]

PART II - QUESTIONS FOR PREPARATION (for weekly shiur)

1. Review chapters 18 and 19, noting that even though there appear to be two separate stories, the Torah includes both of them in the same "parshia". [We have explained that the "parshiot" are the "paragraphs" the Torah uses to divide its text into units.]
In your opinion, why does the Torah combines these two stories into one "parshia"? [i.e. can you identify a thematic connection?]
In your answer, relate to 18:17-21, and especially to pasuk 19.)

2. Study 18:17-19 carefully.
Note the obvious parallel to the psukim that describe God's original choice of Avraham in 12:1-3. Explain the thematic significance of this parallel, and how it relates to why Avraham was chosen?
How will doing "tzedaka u'mishpat" relate to becoming a great nation and a 'blessing' for other nations?

3. To better appreciate the meaning of the phrase "tzedaka u'mishpat", as it appears in 18:19, see the following sources, noting how it relates to a primary theme in the entire Tanach:
Shmuel Bet 8:15;
Melachim Aleph 3:7-11;
Yeshayahu 1:9-17,21-27, 5:1-7, 11:1-6;
Yirmiyahu 9:22-23, 21:11-22:4, 22:13-17, 23:5-6,13-14;
Yechezkel 16:48-50.
[That should keep you busy.]

4. In 18:19, what does the word "y'daativ" mean, and how does it relate to the word "l'maan" which follows it?
Does this imply that God 'knows' what will happen, or does it relate to the purpose why God has chosen Avraham?
[See Ramban on this pasuk!]

5. In 18:23-32 - the conversation between God and Avraham concerning the future of Sdom - does Avraham request that God save only the righteous men in Sdom, or the entire city? If the latter, can you explain why, and how this relates to the 'reason' why Avraham was chosen to become God's special nation?

6. As you study the rest of this parshia, note how often this "shoresh" - "yud.daled.ayin" - is used. Pay careful attention in 18:19-21 and in 19:5-8. Based on these examples, what does the word "yadah" imply?
Note also the parallel to Yirmiyahu 22:13-17 re: "yadah" and "tzedek u'mishpat", as well as Yirmiyahu 9:23.

7. Based on 18:19 and its context, would you expect that the sin of the people of Sdom is in someway related to a lack of "tzedaka u'mishpat"?
To the best of your recollection, what was the sin of Sdom? Is this based on psukim or on Midrashim?

Now, let's take a closer look at the psukim that describe what happened with Lot in Sdom.

8. Based on 19:1-3, does Lot show exemplary behavior? Why does he go 'out of his way' to make sure that the guests have a place to stay?

9. Note that in 19:4 an entire group gathers around the house of Lot. Does a simple reading of this pasuk give the impression that the ENTIRE city gathered there, or only some of the people? Does it appear that the group includes both young and old people, or only one group? Does it appear that only men were there, or that there were women and children as well? (See also 19:11.)
In your opinion, why did they gather. [See Ramban.]

10. Review once again Yechezkel 16:48-50, noting how he describes the sin of the people of Sdom. Note also how Chazal describe the sin of Sdom in Mishnayot Avot 5:10 (re: "midat Sdom") and Sanhedrin 109a. Does this concur with Yeshayahu's comparison between Sdom and Am Yisrael in Yeshayahu 1:9-27?

11. In 19:9, what prompts the men of Sdom to say to Lot:

"You have just come to live here, and now you 'judge' us [v'iyishpot shafot]..."

What 'judgement' are they referring to, and how does this relate to Lot's previous statement and the context of these events?
Compare this to the use of shoresh "li'shpot" in Shmuel I 7:6 and 12:7. What type of 'judgement' do these psukim refer to?

12. What can this event teach us regarding the importance of "tzedek u'mishpat"? Based on the above questions, can you find significance in the fact that Avraham is told about the destruction of Sdom by the same messengers who tell him about the birth of his son Yitzchak?
In your answer, be sure to relate to 18:18-19!

PART III - PARSHANUT

The Wicked Men of Sdom

1. See Rashi's comment to 19:5 concerning the group of men that gather around Lot's house. According to Rashi, why do they gather? If so does it make sense that so many people had gathered, young and old, outside his house? How does Rashi on 19:4 'solve' this problem - i.e. who are "anshei Sdom"?

2. Next, see Ramban on 19:5, and read his peirush carefully.
a) In what manner is Rabman's pirush totally different than Rashi's?
b) Based on Ramban's explanation, can you explain WHY they argue.
c) Which approach would you consider more comprehensive?
d) How does Ramban's peirush solve the problem in 19:4 concerning WHO gathered around Lot's house?
Note how Ramban disagrees, and why!

3. Upon their sudden arrival, Lot bakes MATZOT for his guests (see 19:3).
a) According to pshat, why do you think that Lot baked matzot instead of chametz?
b) Rashi claims that it was "pesach"! In your opinion, is this pirush "pshat" or "drash"?
c) What other thematic parallels exist between the story of the destruction of Sdom (& Lot being saved) and the story of Yetziat Mitzrayim? Based on those parallels, can you find a deeper meaning to Rashi's peirush?

"And God said: Shall I hide from Avraham what I am about to do, since Avraham is to become a great nation, and through him all other nations will be blessed? For I have singled him out in order that he will instruct his children and their family afterward 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 18:17-19)

First of all, note the obvious thematic and textual parallels to the Torah's explicit reason for God's original choice of Avraham Avinu as detailed at the beginning of Parshat Lech L'cha (see 12:1-3):
"v'e'escha l'goy gadol - [I will make you a great nation]
"v'nivrchu bcha kol mishpchot ha'adama / go'ay ha'aretz" - [through you all the nations will be blessed]

After reviewing why He chose Avraham Avinu (in 18:18), God continues to explain how this will happen, for Avraham will teach his children (and those children their children, etc.) to do tzedaka u'mishpat (see 18:19).
Avraham is expected to initiate a family tradition to create a nation that will be characterized by a society of "tzedaka & mishpat" - thereby serving as God's model nation. [See also Devarim 4:5-8 for a very similar explanation.]
At this point in the narrative, we are not yet aware of the precise sin of Sdom. However, whatever that sin may be, this 'prelude' certainly suggests that it must relate to a lack of "tzedek u'mishpat" in Sdom.
As we continue, we will see how.

Preventing Future 'Sdom's

This 'prelude' explains how both stories in this one "parshia" are connected. When God's master plan for the nation of Avraham will materialize, societies such as Sdom could be saved, for there will be a 'model nation' from whom they can learn from. However, at this point in time, Sdom is a 'lost cause' for it lacks a minimal number of "tzadikim" who could possibly influence the rest of the city.
This concept is reflected in Avraham's petition that God spare the doomed city. Avraham does not ask that God simply save the "tzadikim" in Sdom; he begs that the entire city be saved for the sake of those "tzadikim"! [See 18:26.] Why? Because hopefully those "tzadikim" will lead all the people in Sdom towards proper "teshuva," just as the nation of Avraham is destined to lead all mankind in the direction of God.
[Note as well how Avraham prays that God should save the entire city should there be only 50 or 45, or 40, or 30, or even 10 "tzadikim" / see 18:23-32). But if less than ten, there is little chance such a small number can exert an influence.]
In the future, it is God's hope that Avraham's nation, by setting the proper example, will prevent the emergence of similarly corrupt populations. As Yitzchak is the son through whom this tradition will be transmitted, it is meaningful that the same angels assigned to destroy Sdom must first 'plant the seeds' for the prevention of future Sdom's.
Avraham makes this gallant effort to save Sdom despite its being an exercise in futility. His petition reflects the very purpose for which he was selected, the tradition he must pass on to his son Yitzchak and all future generations.

Avraham vs. Sdom

In Sefer Breishit, Sdom represents the antithesis of everything for which Avraham stands. As we explained last week, Lot's decision to leave Avraham and move to Sdom (13:1-18) reflects his preference not to be dependent on God and to dissociate himself from his uncle. It is in that context where we are told that: "The men of Sdom were very wicked to God" (13:13).
Furthermore, after rescuing Lot from the 'four kings' (see chapter 14), Avraham refuses to keep any property belonging to Sdom 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 Sdom, prefers to completely divorce himself from any resources originating from that city:

"Avram said to the King of Sdom: 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)

These two events - Lot's settlement in Sdom and Avraham's refusal to take a single item therefrom - as well as God's statement concerning Avraham's mission to teach "tzedaka u- mishpat" before He destroys Sdom (in Parshat Va'yera/ 18:19), all indicate that Sdom is a society bereft of "tzedaka u-mishpat."
This backdrop allows us to read the ensuing story in chapter 19, in search for a lack of "tzedek u'mishpat" in Sdom.

No Guests Allowed!

Although "mishpat" may be found in Sdom, "tzedek" is most definitely absent. The best example is the account of the city's reaction to Lot's harboring of his two guests. Review the story from 19:1, and we'll pick up the narrative from 19:4. "...they [his two guests] had not lain down yet when the townspeople, the men of Sdom, 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 [v'nay'da'eym]." (see 19:4-5) Most of us are familiar with Rashi's interpretation, that the gathering consisted of merely a small group of the lowest social and ethical stratum of Sdom, who wanted to 'know them' in the Biblical sense (based on 19:8 and 13:13; see also 4:1 and further iyun section)].

Simple "pshat," however [as Rasag & Ramban claim], is that the entire city joined in the protest demonstration. Why were they protesting? As Ramban explains so beautifully (see his pirush on 19:5), the Sdomites protested against "hachnasat orchim" - taking in strange visitors!
There's a strict law in Sdom: no guests allowed! The Ramban explains that the Sdomites don't want to ruin their exclusive [suburban] neighborhood. Should Lot accommodate guests this evening, tomorrow night more guests will come. [Like cats,] by the end of the month, the city streets will be flooded with transients and beggars. Should the 'word get out' that there is 'free lodging' in Sdom, their 'perfect' city would be ruined. Furthermore, if everyone agrees not to take care of the needy, the needy will ultimately learn to take care of themselves. Thus, in the 'best interest' of the needy, the government of Sdom enacted such a policy

Hence, should any citizen ["chas v'shalom"] bring home a guest, the city's 'steering committee' immediately calls for a public protest. [See also Sanhedrin 109a.]
Sdom may have "mishpat," a standardized system of laws, but it is warped. Not to mention the fact that "tzedaka" had no place whatsoever in this bastion of amorality.
[Chazal remark in Pirkei Avot that the social norm of "sheli sheli, shelkha shelkha" - what is mine is mine, what is yours is yours - is a 'custom of Sdom.' The attribution of this social philosophy to Sdom reflects this same understanding (see Pirkei Avot 5:10 - "arba midot b'adam...").]

Tzedek U'Mishpat vs. Sdom

This interpretation explains why throughout Nviim Acharonim Sdom is associated with the absence of "tzedek u'mishpat." In fact, the three most famous of the Nviim Acharonim - Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, and Yechezkel - all of whom foresee and forewarn the destruction, compare the corrupt society in Israel to that of Sdom, and see therein the reason for their own forthcoming destruction.
Let's start with an example from Yechezkel, as he states explicitly that this was the sin of Sdom (i.e. the very same point discussed above concerning "hachnasat orchim"):

"...Your younger sister was Sdom...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 Sdom - 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 connection between the lack of "tzedek u'mishpat" and Sdom is even more explicit. As we all recall from the Haftara of Shabbat Chazon, Yeshayahu compares Am Yisrael's behavior to that of Sdom & Amora:

"Listen to the word of God - you [who are like] officers of Sdom, 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 n'vuah (1:27):

"Tzion b'mishpat tipadeh, v'shaveha b'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 injustice], "l'tzedaka - v'hiney tza'aka."
[to find "tzedaka," and instead found iniquity]
(Isaiah 5:7, see entire chapter, see also 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)

"... 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 [l'daat 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' ["l'daat et Hashem" - (compare with Breishit 18:19)]!
Finally, when Yirmiyahu speaks of the ideal king who will bring the redemption, he emphasizes the 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 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 without proper leadership, this charge remains our eternal goal, the responsibility of every individual. To prove this 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 B'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'yadoah 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 the Rambam's concluding remarks to the last chapter of Moreh N'vuchim!]
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 will be accomplished.
Thus, what at first appears to be simply a parenthetical statement by God (concerning Avraham) before destroying Sdom (in Breishit 18:19) unfolds as a primary theme throughout Tanach!

La'daat - The Key Word

It is not by chance that Yirmiyahu (in the above examples) uses the Hebrew word "la'daat" 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 Sdom. First and foremost in a positive context:
"ki'ydaativ lmaan asher... la'assot tzdaka u'mishpat..." (18:19), but also in a negative context:
"v'im lo ay'daah" (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 "v'neyda 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 Sdom wanted to 'know them' in the Biblical sense (to 'sleep' with them "mishkav zachar" - see 4:1 & Chizkuni on 19:5). Ramban contends that they wanted to 'know' their identity in order to 'kick them out of town,' in accordance with their city ordinance prohibiting 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 Sdom'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 Sdom (as in 18:17-19), we can readily understand why Ramban sought to interpret "v'naydah otam" as relation to 'kicking out' unwanted guests.
Rashi (and many other commentators) argue that "v'nayda otam" implies "mishkav zachar" (sodomy - and hence its name!). This opinion is based primarily on Lot's reaction to the protestors' request by offering his two daughters instead of his guests, and his comment, "asher lo ya'du 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 prelude in Breishit 18:19, then Rashi's explanation seems to be the most logical. However, when we examine the story a little more carefully, the story itself can support Ramban's approach as well. The most obvious problem with Rashi's explanation (that the protestors are interested in sodomy) stems from their sheer number. From 19:4 it appears that the group that gathers outside Lot's house includes the entire city, most likely hundreds of individuals, young and old! If they are simply interested in sodomy, pardon the expression, but how could two guests 'suffice'?
[Rashi, in light of this problem, offers a somewhat novel explanation for 19:4, that only the "thugs of Sdom" ("anshei Sdom" 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, criticizing Lot's own character for foolishly offering his two daughters in exchange for the protection of his guests. However, this explanation 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! (See board #7) One could suggest an explanation for Lot's remarks that solves all of the above questions, leaving Lot's character untainted, while keeping the focus entirely on "tzedek u'mishpat".

Giving Musar

Lot's statement must be understood in light of the crowd's reaction. Note how the crowd responds to Lot's 'offer':

"And they said to him: Go away [gesh hal'ah - 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)

What did Lot say that prompted such a severe reaction? If he simply offered 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?
One could suggest that when Lot pleads: "My brothers, don't do such evil [to my guests], here our 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 rather give over his daughters than his guests! He has no intention whatsoever of giving them over to a mass mob. [As we mentioned above, how could two women 'appease' such a large crowd!] He is simply rebuking them, emphasizing how important it his that they allow him to keep guests. It's as if he said, "I'd sooner give you my daughters than my two guests".
[Furthermore, Lot does not bring his daughters with him when he makes his so-called 'offer.' In fact, he actually closes the door behind him (see 19:6) after he leaves to negotiate with the rioters. Had Lot really wanted to 'appease' them with his daughters, he should have taken them outside with him!]
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 musar' 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 sha'fot - and now he is judging us; now we will deal more harshly with you than [we planned to deal] with them!" (see 19:8)

[In other words, they seem to be saying: 'Hey, you're just a newcomer here in our town, and you already think you can tell us what to do!? No way - now we're gonna kick you out of town now, together with your guests!']
[This would also explain what they mean by - "Now we will do more evil to you than to them" (see 19:9). In other words, before we only wanted to expel you guests from town, now we are going to expel you and your family as well!]
What do people mean by "you are judging us"? Apparently, there is something in Lot's statement the suggests judgement; but is it only his request that they 'not be so mean' (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. No one likes being told what to do, especially by 'newcomers'; hence their angry and threatening reaction to Lot's remarks.
This interpretation of "shafot" in relation to rebuke is found many other times in Tanach. See for example I Shmuel 7:6, where Shmuel (at Mitzpah) 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 King to lead them instead! [See also Yirmiyahu 1:16, and its context.]
If this interpretation is correct, then it may be that Sdom's sin involved only 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. Difficult as it may be to understand, this conclusion should be seriously considered as we set our own values and determine our lifestyle and community priorities.

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER IYUN

1. See Rambam in Sefer Zraim, Hilchot Matnot Aniyiim, chapter 10, the first halacha. Note how he explains that the mitzvah of "tzedaka" requires the highest priority, and he supports his statement from Breishit 18:18-19, as we discussed in our shiur

For more articles by Rav Menachem Leibtag, visit his web site, www.tanach.org

Missed a Parsha? Visit our Parsha Archives