“I will descend now and see. If they have done as the cries that have come to Me, I will destroy them. And if not, I will know.” (Beresheit 18:21)
Our parasha
discusses the destruction of Sedom.
This pasuk introduces the
narrative. Hashem tells Avraham that
the cries of the people of Sedom have risen before Him. He will descend in order to judge the
wickedness of the people. If these
cries truly and accurately reflect the evil of the people, then He will destroy
the city and the surrounding communities.
There are a number of problems presented by this pasuk.
We will consider three of these difficulties. First, the pasuk
describes Hashem as “descending.” Hashem is not a material being.
We cannot ascribe descending or ascending to Him. It is clear that this term is used by the
Torah as a metaphor. But, what does the
metaphor represent? Second, the pasuk implies that Hashem conducted some
sort of analysis of Sedom. There was
some issue that Hashem investigated before he decided whether He would destroy
the city. But, Hashem is
omniscient. What further information
can He have required that added to His knowledge? Finally, the pasuk
seems to imply that Hashem conducted some sort of analysis in order to secure
this new information. Can we identify
the nature of this process of analysis?
In other words, can we determine the means by which Hashem secured the
additional information that was essential to His decision?
Let us begin with the first two issues. The pasuk
refers to Hashem as “descending.” The
same phrase is used earlier in the Chumash.
The Torah describes Hashem as “descending” in order to investigate the
activities of the Dor Haflagah – the
generation of the Dispersion.[1] This post-Deluge generation joined together
with the goal of unifying all of humanity. They wished to build a single
civilization that would encompass all humankind. Hashem “descended” to judge this generation. Based on this judgment, He intervened in
their plans by bringing about the Dispersion.
Rashi explains that in both instances – in our parasha and in the narrative regarding
the Dor Haflagah – the Torah’s
description of Hashem “descending” is intended to communicate that He conducted
an investigation. However, Rashi points
out that this message cannot be understood in a literal sense. Hashem is omniscient and does not need to
conduct an investigation in order to secure additional information. Instead, these references are to be
understood homiletically. In both
instances, the Torah is telling us that a judge should only render a decision
after thoroughly investigating the particulars of the case. The Torah ascribes a process of
investigation to Hashem in order to establish a standard of conduct for mortal
judges. The Torah is telling us that
just as Hashem only rendered a judgment based upon a full consideration of all
of the elements of the case, so, too, we are only to pass judgment after
conducting a thorough investigation.[2]
Rashi’s interpretation is unusual. He asserts that the Torah ascribes a
material activity to Hashem-- not as a metaphor, but, in order to teach a
lesson regarding our own conduct. In
other words, although the Torah often uses material expressions in describing
Hashem and His activities, these terms are usually mere metaphors. Here, Rashi asserts that the terminology is
not for some action emanating from Hashem.
In this case, the phrase is not related to Hashem in any sense. It is merely designed to teach us a lesson
as to the manner in which we should conduct ourselves.
Why does the Torah specifically employ the figure of
“descending?” Rashi discusses this
issue. He explains that the term
“descent” has an idiomatic meaning. It
refers to making a judgment based upon the ultimate outcome of a pattern of
behavior. The people of Sedom were not
judged solely on the basis of their behavior at the moment. They were judged based upon the ultimate
outcome of these behaviors. Hashem considered
the direction in which the people were progressing. He punished them because they were progressing towards absolute
evil. However, Rashi does not identify
the specific outcome towards which the people were progressing.
Radak offers a different explanation of the figure
of “descending.” He explains that when
Hashem involves Himself in the affairs of human beings, He is descending from
His exalted honor. Hashem is the
Creator. He is exalted over all of His
creations. When Hashem interferes with
the natural universe that He created in order to save humanity or punish
humankind, He is descending from His glory and majesty.[3] Netziv expands on this explanation. He explains that Hashem created a universe
governed by a natural order. It is His
will that this natural order be preserved.
However, He interferes with the natural order in two situations. First, He exercises His providence and
interferes with this order in order to help the righteous. Second, He interrupts the natural order in
order to punish the wicked. When we act
in a manner that demands providential punishment, we are – metaphorically –
requiring Hashem to “descend” from His throne of majesty to correct our
behavior.[4]
Both of these explanations present some
difficulties. Rashi does answer our
first two questions. According to
Rashi, our third question is not relevant.
Hashem did not conduct an actual analysis. The phraseology employed by the Torah is not intended to be
applied to Hashem. However, Rashi’s
explanation is somewhat radical. As we
have noted, it is unusual for the Torah to ascribe a material behavior to
Hashem that does not have a metaphorical meaning. In addition, Rashi asserts that Sedom was not punished for its
present behavior. Instead, the people
were destroyed because they were destined to perform some great evil. Yet, Rashi does not indicate the specific
nature of this evil.
Radak’s and Netziv’s explanation also answers our
first two questions. Yet, they seem to
leave our third question unanswered.
What was the nature of the investigation performed by Hashem?
Sforno offers a comprehensive explanation of the
events in our parasha that resolves
all three of our difficulties. He
begins by adopting an element of Rashi’s explanation. Like Rashi, he asserts that the term “descending” must be
understood idiomatically. When the
Torah describes Hashem as descending, it is identifying a particular type of
judgment. Hashem is making a judgment
based upon the ultimate outcome of a pattern of behavior. But, at this juncture, Sforno extends his
explanation beyond this initial observation.
In each instance in which the figure of “descending” is employed, Sforno
identifies the outcome that demanded Hashem’s interference. Let us focus on our parasha. What outcome demanded
the destruction of the people of Sedom?
A corrupt society can reverse itself. Sforno asserts that as long as the potential
for repentance exists, the society can be spared. However, there is a point at which the society can no longer
reverse its direction. At some point,
repentance is no longer possible. This
occurs when no dissent is tolerated – when no one remains that can provide the
society with a new direction. When all
members of the society have accepted and champion the corrupt values of the
civilization, there is not opportunity for reevaluation and repentance. If this point is reached, the society can
only continue in its deterioration into absolute evil.[5]
Hashem “descended” in order to test Sedom. He designed a test to determine whether
Sedom had reached the point at which there was no longer an opportunity to
repent. What was this test?
“And the two angels came to Sedom in the evening and Lote was sitting
at the gate.” (Berseshiet 19:1)
The Torah tells us that three angels came to visit
Avraham. They foretold the birth of
Yitzchak. After taking leave from
Avraham, two of these angels proceeded to Sedom. The angles told Lote that Sedom would be destroyed. They urged him to gather his family and flee
the city. Lote left with his wife and
two daughters. Lote’s wife died during
their flight. But, Lote and his
daughters escaped the destruction of Sedom.
It is clear from the Torah that these angels had two missions. They were charged with the mission of
destroying Sedom, and they were sent to save Lote and his family. However, the Torah describes in detail the
activities of these angels in Sedom and their interaction with the people of
the city. Why is this information
included in the account?
“They had not yet lied down and the people of the city, the people of
Sedom, surrounded the house – from the young to the old, all of the people,
from every quarter.” (Beresheit 19:4)
The angels came to Lote and agreed to spend the
night in his home. The people of Sedom
did not extend hospitality to strangers and were not willing to tolerate Lote’s
offer of lodging to these visitors.
They surrounded Lote’s home and demanded that he deliver his guests to
them. The Torah explains that all of
the people of Sedom were involved in this protest – the young and old, all of
the people, from every quarter. Why
does the Torah provide such a detailed description of the mob that surrounded
Lote’s home?
Sforno explains that the Torah’s intent is
clear. The message is that the entire
population of Sedom – without exception – joined into this mob that congregated
against Lote. There was no
dissent. Not one opposed the mob. No one even held back from joining the
mob. The opposition to Lote was
unanimous and complete.
Sforno explains that this was the test. Hashem provided the people of Sedom with an
opportunity to demonstrate either that they deserved to be spared, or to be
destroyed. The test was simple. Would anyone rebuke this mob? Would anyone refuse to join in the attack on
Lote’s home? The people of Sedom failed
the test. There was no opposition to
the evil designs of the people. Every
person joined the mob. The people of
Sedom failed the test. They lost their
last opportunity to be spared. No one
in Sedom was willing to oppose the evil of the citizens. No one resisted the urge to join the
mob. Repentance was not longer
possible.[6]
[1] Sefer Bereshiet 11:5
[2] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 11:5, 18:21.
[3] Rabbaynu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 11:5.
[4] Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehuda Berlin (Netziv), Commentary Hamek Davar on Sefer Beresheit 11:5.
[5] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 18:21.
[6] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit, 18:21.