Rabbi Bernie Fox
The Court Must Be
Situated at the Gate of the City
Hashem sends two messengers
to Sedom. One is charged with the duty
of destroying the city. The second will
save Lote – Avraham’s nephew – and his family.
The pasuk comments that Lote
was sitting at the gate of the city.
Rashi explains that the
people of Sedom had appointed Lote to be their judge.[1] Siftai Chachamim further explains that the
wording of the pasuk substantiates Rashi’s comment. The Chumash
describes Lote’s location as “the gate of Sedom.” The gate of the city is often identified in TNaCh with the court.[2]
The identification of the
court with the gate of the city is not merely a result of idiomatic usage. This relationship is expressed in halacha. Maimonides explains that the
court is physically located at the gate of the city.[3]
Why is it proper to place the
court at the gate? The answer to this
question involves two issues. First, we
must consider the role of the courts.
Maimonides explains that the obligation to establish courts is one of
the seven laws commanded to all descendants of Noach. These courts must be
established in every political or governmental jurisdiction.[4] In other words, a court must be established
in every place in which people live as a society. Therefore, cities require courts. A community is required to govern itself with justice. The court must be part of the fabric of the
society.
Second, the location of the
court demonstrates this integral relationship to the community. The significance of placement at the gate
can be appreciated though consideration of another mitzvah. We are obligated to place a mezuzah upon the doorpost of our house. Through placement of the mezuzah
upon the doorpost, the entire house is transformed. The mezuzah can be
compared to a badge. A police officer
pins a badge upon his or her shirt. But
it is the officer who is wearing the badge, not the shirt. The officer wears
the badge through pinning it on his shirt.
In a similar manner, the mezuzah does not transform the
doorpost. It transforms the entire room
or house through placement upon the doorpost of the residence or room.
Similar to the mezuzah, the court transforms the
city. Just as the mezuzah is integrated into the home though placement upon the
doorpost, so too, the city is transformed by placing the court at its gate.
Lote Offers His
Daughters to the Mob
Please, I have here two daughters who are
virgins. I will bring them out to you, and you can do with them as you please.
But to these men do nothing, as they have come under the shade of my roof.
(Beresheit 19:8)
The
messengers of Hashem come to Lote in Sodom. Their mission is to rescue him and
his family from the destruction of his city. Lote invites the messengers to
share the hospitality of his home. The residents of Sodom soon surround Lote’s
home. These residents wish to abuse
Lot's guests. Lote offers to exchange his daughters for the safety of his
visitors.
Nachmanides
observes that Lote's behavior demonstrates an improper understanding of the
obligation of hachnasat orchim — extending hospitality to guests. Our
responsibility to display hospitality does not supersede our duties to our own
families. Lote, however, in his fervor to fulfill his obligation of hachnasat
orchim, was willing to sacrifice his own daughters.[5]
This
is an illustration of one of the basic principles of Torah life. In order to
fulfill our obligation to Hashem, fervor alone is unacceptable. In Lote’s case,
extreme fervor led him dangerously close to violating his duty to his own
family. Overzealousness can lead to a superficial interpretation of our
obligations. Even when accompanied by good intentions, such behavior is
inadequate. Instead, we are expected to guide all of our actions with wisdom
and understanding.
Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno proposes an entirely different approach to understanding
Lote’s offer. He suggests that Lote did
not actually intend to sacrifice his daughters. He
explains that Lote was attempting to create confusion and dissention within the
mob. His daughters were already
engaged. Lote expected that his offer
would be accepted. This would alarm his
future sons-in-law. They would turn
against the mob. They would probably
attract sympathetic supporters among the people. The mob would be split and turned against itself.[6]
The
Greatness of Yishmael
Yitzchak is born and begins
to mature. Yishmael – the son of
Avraham and Hagar – is also a member of the household. Sarah urges Avraham to send away Yishmael
but Avraham resists. Hashem tells
Avraham that he should follow Sarah’s advice and send Yishmael away. Hashem assures Avraham that Yishmael too
will develop into a great nation.
What was the intent of this
assurance? Surely, Hashem was not
merely telling Avraham that Yishmael would be the progenitor of a nation with a
large population! Avraham was not
concerned with the number of descendants Yishmael produced. Hashem must have been alluding to some
meaningful accomplishment to be attributed to Yishmael’s descendants.
Rabaynu Avraham ben HaRambam
offers a fascinating interpretation of Hashem’s assurance. Before Avraham, the concept of a single
indivisible Creator had been all but forgotten. Avraham was devoted to re-introducing Hashem to humanity. This mission would be continued through the
Jewish nation. However, another
religion would emerge and teach the concept of uncompromised monotheism. This would be Islam. This religion would develop and be
promulgated through Yishmael’s descendants.
In some of the Jewish nation’s lowest periods, Islam supplanted Judaism
as the world’s dominant religion. As a
result, when the influence of Judaism was minimal, Islam preached the
monotheistic concept of G-d. This was
the blessing that Hashem placed upon Yishmael.[7]
The Test of the Akeydah
And He said: Take now your son, your only child,
whom you love,
Yitzchak, and go to the land of Moriah and offer
him up there as a
sacrifice on one of the mountains of which I
will tell you. (Beresheit
22:2)
Parshat
VaYerah relates the incident of the Akeydah – the binding of Yitzchak in
order to be offered as a sacrifice. In
this passage, Hashem commands Avraham to sacrifice his beloved son Yitzchak.
The commentators regard this as the most difficult of the tests that Hashem
required of Avraham. Avraham's willingness to subjugate even his love for his
son to the service of Hashem was the ultimate testament of his devotion.
Beis
Halevi is troubled by this characterization of the event as a test for Avraham.
He points out that an even greater sacrifice was required of Yitzchak.
Yitzchak, after all, was thirty-nine years old at this time, and willingly
submitted himself to be sacrificed. Therefore, was not Yitzchak's demonstration
of devotion even more outstanding than his father's?
Beis
Halevi explains that indeed it was Avraham who faced the greater challenge.
Giving up one’s own life is certainly an act of awesome devotion. However, with
death the ordeal ends – there is no looking back, no haunting regrets. In
contrast, Avraham was faced with the challenge of taking his son's life and
then living with that decision. Avraham knew his ordeal would not end with the
death of Yitzchak – the trauma of the event would remain with him for the rest
of his life. Nonetheless, without hesitancy, Avraham demonstrated his
willingness to fulfill Hashem's commandment.[8]
Hashem
Descends to Judge the People of Sedom
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.[9] 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 are we only to pass judgment after
conducting a thorough investigation.[10]
Rashi’s interpretation is unusual. He accepts that, in general, when the Torah
ascribes a material activity to Hashem, it is in a metaphor intended to
describe His behavior. However, in this
instance, Rashi asserts that the metaphor is not intended to describe Hashem’s
behavior. Instead, the metaphor is
employed 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 metaphors that communicate information regarding Hashem. Here, Rashi asserts that the metaphor is not
referring to an action of Hashem. In
fact, the phrase is not related to Hashem in any sense. Instead, the metaphor is designed to teach
us a homiletic lesson regarding the manner in which we – specifically judges –
should conduct ourselves.
Why does the Torah specifically employ the metaphor of
“descending?” Rashi discusses this
issue. He explains that the term
“descent” has a precise 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.
Rabbaynu David Kimchi – Radak – offers a different
explanation of the metaphor 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.[11][1]
Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin – 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 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.[12][2]
Both of these explanations present some difficulties. Rashi does answer our first two
questions. He explains that Hashem’s
“descent” is a metaphor. Rashi also
explains the specific meaning of the metaphor.
“Descent” means making a judgment on a person or group based on the
ultimate outcome of a pattern of behavior, and not focusing solely upon the
person or group’s current behaviors.
According to Rashi, our third question regarding the specific issues
that Hashem investigated and considered 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 message regarding Hashem’s behavior. 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?
Rabaynu
Ovadia 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 who 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.[13]
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?
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?
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. This test established that
the people of Sedom were beyond repentance.[14]
[1] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 19:1.
[2] Siftai Chacahmim Sefer Beresheit 19:1.
[3] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Sanhedrin 1:3.
[4] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam / Maimonides) Mishne Torah, Hilchot Melachim 9:14.
[5] Rabbaynu Moshe ben Nachman (Ramban / Nachmanides), Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 19:8.
[6] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary
on Sefer Beresheit, 19:8
[7] Rabbaynu Avraham ben HaRambam, Commentary on Sefer Beresheit 21:13.
[8] RavYosef Dov Soloveitchik, Bais HaLeyve – Commentary on the Torah, Parshat VaYerah.
[9] Sefer Bereshiet 11:5
[10] Rabbaynu Shlomo ben Yitzchak (Rashi), Commentary
on Sefer Beresheit 11:5, 18:21.
[11][1] Rabbaynu David Kimchi (Radak), Commentary on Sefer
Beresheit 11:5.
[12][2] Rav Naftali Tzvi Yehudah Berlin (Netziv), Commentary
Hamek Davar on Sefer Beresheit 11:5.
[13] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer
Beresheit, 18:21.
[14] Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno, Commentary on Sefer
Beresheit, 18:21.