- Chapter 18
- Chapter 19
- Addendum
- Appendix I
- Appendix II
- Appendix III
Chapter 18
Every week, a portion of one of the five books of Moses, known as the Torah, is read in the synagogue. The reading that I wanted to share some of my insights, and questions regarding is the portion known as Parashat Vayirah. The part of the portion that I discuss in this piece, consists essentially of Genesis, Chapter 18 & 19.
It is, to put it mildly, a heck of a text. It has three angels visiting Abraham, to tell him and Sarah, both approaching their 100th year of life, that she was going to have a baby. It contains the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, with Lot's wife turning into a pillar of salt. Then we have Abraham's lying about Sarah being his sister, and finally the binding of Isaac.
As much as I would have liked to have completed the whole chapter, at this stage, I am sharing just up to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot's ending up in a cave in the mountains with his two daughters.
Whenever I approach these texts more closely, I keep in mind the environment in which this story takes place, which, I have to admit, was probably something a lot different from that which we are accustomed to today. Ignoring the lack of “modern technology”for the moment, let us note some of the strangenesses that were spoken of from those days. Let that strangeness allow us to open our minds to the non-rational, or perhaps the supra-rational.
Using shaman methodology to investigate this story, I look at what part of it could be a journey, and what part of it could fit into my understanding of what I will refer to, as the “3D” or “consensual” reality in which we live. I do that because I take the journey to be one that will take me to a non-material realm. And the non-material realm is where the spiritual begins. For it is the realm of the ideal, of the vow, of the Brit.
However, this contains one of the difficult and heart-rendering passages—besides the total destruction of four cities: S'dom and Amorrah, Admah and Tzevo'im—it contains in it the brief narrative of Isaac's binding – akeidah. What father sacrifices his son to (a) G-d? What G-d would ask such a sacrifice from a father? It shakes my foundation to the core. Do I want to be part of this?
Admittedly this takes place in a very different time. Life was more immediate and brutal in many ways.
As far as the sacrificing of a child is concerned, many fathers are proud to send their son to war, even though he might die there. What about a child who dies from illness, or some accident? Or a child that commits suicide? And this is the good side of the coin. There are fathers that abuse their sons, neglect them, or exploit them. Are these all not forms of sacrifice?
However, in that time, Abraham was surrounded by many nations that carried out child sacrifices. These were to propitiate their gods/idols. The concept was of offering something pure and innocent, something of virgin blood. This is replaced in this narrative by animal sacrifice, with the animal needing to be pure. It also included the prohibition of the drinking of blood itself. Finally, one should only eat meat that is killed appropriately, which would also remove the possibility of any sort of cannibalism.
However, that is not what really fascinates me regarding this week's reading. But...
18 :1 HaShem appeared to him
א וַיֵּרָ֤א אֵלָיו֙ יְהֹוָ֔ה בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֖י מַמְרֵ֑א וְה֛וּא ישֵׁ֥ב פֶּֽתַח־הָאֹ֖הֶל כְּחֹ֥ם הַיּֽוֹם:1. Now HaShem appeared to him in the plains of Mamre, and he was sitting at the entrance of the tent when the day was hot.
Appeared
Approaching it from the English rendering, in which the Parasha begins with the nameless aspect of G!d, HaShem, the one we refer to as the Name, because It has no name, being beyond the realm of naming. Part of creation’s emergence was the need for Adam to name everything.
HaShem then is beyond this realm being the source of creation, the “One” that exists before creation. Now, this could alert us to the fact that this portion is starting in the presence of the Divine, “For HaShem appeared to him”, thus he must be in sacred space. We could say that he was visited by the Divine.
However, in the Hebrew, the first word is not HaShem, but is וירא – Vayerah. It can be rendered as “It (HaShem) will be seen”, a form of looking that is the looking into the future and hence “appeared” because of the biblical future tense being rendered as the past.
Note: There is a strange situation here. The word ירא actually means fear or terror, Why is it translated as "appearance"? If that was the case, would it not be spelt יראה This is the only phrase in which the word ַappears.
I find this straddling, this con-fusion of the past and the future, fascinating. It generally occurs in reference to the Divine though. It is as if She acts in the future, that is, exists as the future, yet we can only see her in the present as pregnant with future possibilities. Note: Is that not what a child means to us. It creates a present that is "pregnant" with future possibilities? The “past” is what has been actualised, been made manifest. But HaShem remains the only possible, potential action.
The use of אֵלָיו֙ ("to him") is also much more personal than the word לו ("to him) according to Rashi (Studies, pp 78,79 ).
In the Hebrew, HaShem is not the second word אֵלָיו֙, "to him", either. It is the third. Thus it intimates that first there needs to be the act of seeing, which requires also looking. In order for It to appear, he must have been looking for it. Thus "(It) appears TO(wards) him." Only then is It found, i.e. he sees It. This requires a stillness, an ability to hear, to receive.
According to Rabbenu Chananel, this appearance was a reward for observing the bris milah that Abraham had just performed. R' Samson Raphael Hirsch says that "there is, of course, no place where HaShem is not, but when a person offers himself unconditionally to HaShem, he is worthy of seeing/encountering the Shechinah. The Shechinah did not come to issue any commands (that is really not her task) but to honour them by her appearance, and as a sign that their deeds had found favour in HaShem's eyes.
Meleches Macheves concludes that every appearance of prophecy, even when it comes through an angel, is referred to as "the appearance of HaShem". Rashbam writes that all the events in this parashah were not physical manifestations, but only prophetic visions. The vision begins with the words, "And HaShem appeared". Afterwards we have the details of the words of the angels and all the events which followed, including the overturning of S'dom and the saving of lot, and all are part of the same vision (Studies, p80). There are different types of expression regarding prophetic visions, and our parashah has one of them. As to the description of Sarah baking and Avraham going to get cattle, they are also part of the prophetic vision, for such visions often reflect reality. Indeed, Abarbanel claims that "To state that seeing something in a prophetic vision is greater than actually seeing it is not something one is forbidden to hear."
Prophetic Vision
"Other commentators see this appearance as not just a visit or a revelation, but as a prophetic vision... Tzofanas Pane'ach says that these three sequences are a single long prophecy... (Studies, pp 79, 80.)
Entrance
Upon this appearance of the Divine, we find Abraham sitting “at the entrance”. Why is he sitting there in the first place? In the heat of the day would one not want to be in coolness of the tent itself? Especially after having a circumcision at 99 years of age. Was he waiting for some visitors? That is what Rashi intimates (from B.M. 86b). But, sitting somewhere in the desert, why would he expect passersbys?
Perhaps it is representative of the beginning of a shamanic journey, or, in modern parlance, a lucid, or conscious, dream — one which is as real as an unconscious, i.e. sleeping, dream can be. To explain further, although conscious of everything that is happening in the journey, you have become unaware of being in this 3d reality that we take as empirical, and what transpires in that lucid dream is as real as if it had occurred in your life.
Every journey will begin “at the entrance” (like "at the beginning"). The various types of journeying will differ according to the method, or road, one takes to get to "the entrance". The path you take to the entrance will also affect the results and experiences of the journey itself.
You might think that this is a radical approach to take, but there is much that has been written around the meaning of the phrase "HaShem appeared". (See Y. Nachshoni, "Studies in the Weekly Parash")
The tent
So in the "heat of the day" – פתוֹם היום – pitom ha’yom – "He lifts his eyes" – וישׁא עיניו וַיַרְא –ve’yeseh einav va’yaar– while sitting at the entrance to the tent. This is another clue, for why is it referred to as the tent? Why is Abraham not sitting at the entrance to his tent? There may be a reference to what later became to be called “the tent of meeting” – אֹ֣הֶל מוֹעֵ֑ד – Ohel Mo-ed
18 :2 Three men
ב וַיִּשָּׂ֤א עֵינָיו֙ וַיַּ֔רְא וְהִנֵּה֙ שְׁלשָׁ֣ה אֲנָשִׁ֔ים נִצָּבִ֖ים עָלָ֑יו וַיַּ֗רְא וַיָּ֤רָץ לִקְרָאתָם֙ מִפֶּ֣תַח הָאֹ֔הֶל וַיִּשְׁתַּ֖חוּ אָֽרְצָה:2. And he lifted his eyes and saw, and behold, three men were standing beside him, and he saw and he ran toward them from the entrance of the tent, and he prostrated himself to the ground
The lifting of his eyes
The lifting of his eyes is also perchance a code phrase for something occurring, especially considering the context, in which this phrase is used. Normally it would be referring to something of the Divine,as in: “I lift up my eyes to the heavens”, etc. Is there a usage of it other than that context? And is it not a strange turn of phrase – "lifting my eyes"? Can I lift my eyes without lifting my head? How do I "lift my eyes? Is it a simple turning upward of my eyeballs? Or is it something more metaphorical? Say I close my eyes, and lift my consciousness, ascending to a “higher” plane...
A lot of Jewish literature, especially of the more esoteric nature, focuses on these journeys of ascent, in full realisation of their spiritually uplifting nature. Journeys in which you are encouraged to strive for the highest you can reach. That is the greatness of many of these stories and their continued fascination for us all.
One last point, the word use for “lift” here is נשׂא which also means to arise, heighten, to carry from one place to another. So the subtlety of “carrying your eyes from one place to another” implies lifting them from this place, the shifting of vision from this reality to another, by which, you ... "will see" – וירא.
The moment I see, things start happening. We could think of “seeing” as conscious looking, for until you become conscious of what you are looking at, you cannot see anything! Otherwise what you see, is not what you are looking at, but some patchwork approximation in your imagination.
A moment here, please. In the beginning there was light. But unless there are beings who could see light, of what use, purpose or significance is the light? Remember, the Parashah starts with the words “and he saw - it will be seen” translated as “appearance”, as if he had nothing to do with this visitation. But he “saw”, first the presence of HaShem, and now the three men/angels.
Three men
What is interesting is that three men appear to Abraham. Why three, where one would suffice? The Sages say that it is because each angel only carries out a single task. Well, that would mean that angels would be like quanta that appear to perform their mission and dissapear once it has completed. Are they extinguished, and a new angel created for the next task? However, we do have the archangels, like Raphael, the angel of healing. If Raphael is healing people, then he has many tasks to perform.
He ran
What comes next is lovely. “Behold!” thunders forth. First the act of seeing, then the act of “be-holding” – היני – "behold", the moment is here. It has arrived and is producing the here and now and you are commanded to behold, be present! Again, what we are looking at needs to be-held in order to have any meaning, otherwise, it comes and goes, merely flitting through our consciousness.
Now there “appear” three men, standing over him – נִצָּבִים עָלָיו. Yet he subsequently rises and ran to greet them. How can the two be reconciled? Again, we have vayirah – he saw, he perceived (here again the future is the past). What did he perceive exactly that caused him, sitting in pain after his recent circumcision, to rush out and tend to these people? Nowhere does it take into consideration his pain. For why would he be the one to run towards these men? Surely someone else would have? Was he the only who saw them?
Perhaps it was taking place in another context, not quite this 3d one. He was in fact, sitting there, tripping his brains out – in modern day parlance. I mean, just reading this jumble is causing my brain to beat like an excited boy’s heart.
n18 :3 Do not pass
ג וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אֲדֹנָ֗י אִם־נָ֨א מָצָ֤אתִי חֵן֙ בְּעֵינֶ֔יךָ אַל־נָ֥א תַֽעֲבֹ֖ר מֵעַ֥ל עַבְדֶּֽךָ:3. And he said, "My lords, if only I have found favour in your eyes, please do not pass on from beside your servant.
He approaches these men in the most regal fashion, bowing down to them, referring to them as “my lord”, and begs them to stay with the poetic phrase: “Please pass not away from your servant” – אַל–נָא תַעֲבֹר מֵעַל עַבְדֶּךָ. How come he refers to them as “my lord”? Surely he should have used the plural. How much of an expression of the many manifest as one, was he dealing with here?
I propose that we are engaging with another realm again. For this is the arrival of the manifest aspect of the Divine. The non-incarnate is represented by HaShem while the angels are the incarnate. They represent the function of the Divine purpose manifesting here – and perhaps in the whole of creation.
It is almost like we have entered the Abrahamic realm again. It exists as a strange admixture of the physical and the non-physical, where the people and the angelic realm are intertwined. They existed in such symbiosis that they are more closely connected to this realm, and the “group” slipped in and out together.
It is the sort of merging that happens when a number of people are practising together. Whether participating in entheogens, or in love, or fighting a war together, there can be moments where there is a knowing, and an ability to act as one. They can know at moments what the other is thinking and act accordingly.
In essence, whatever life was for these people, whether this is an imaginary tale of the times, or a real one; whether it was written during those times, or recorded later from stories and tales that had survived the age, it was different in ways we cannot even imagine. I mean, for a start, some people lived for about 900 years or so. Abraham and his wife were about to conceive as they approach their 100th years and Sarah was so beautiful, even then, that Avimelech—and the Pharoah— fell in love with her.
n18:6 Sarah
ו וַיְמַהֵ֧ר אַבְרָהָ֛ם הָאֹ֖הֱלָה אֶל־שָׂרָ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר מַֽהֲרִ֞י שְׁל֤שׁ סְאִים֙ קֶ֣מַח סֹ֔לֶת ל֖וּשִׁי וַֽעֲשִׂ֥י עֻגֽוֹת:6. And Abraham hastened to the tent to Sarah, and he said, "Hasten three _seah_ of meal [and] fine flour; knead and make cakes."
Food
Now Sarah begins to share his experience, when he runs back to the tent and tells her to make some cake for the guests. Cake in those days also could have referred to a sweet bread.
There is an interesting note here on diet. The diet is meat, and milk and cream and bread. That would be a nomadic feast, because if you are moving, you cannot carry that much grain. Animals can walk and thus can be used for food and milk, and they could be used to pull wagons or used as pack animals. Another point is that it was strictly kosher, with the mixing of milk and meat.
Stand over them
ח וַיִּקַּ֨ח חֶמְאָ֜ה וְחָלָ֗ב וּבֶן־הַבָּקָר֙ אֲשֶׁ֣ר עָשָׂ֔ה וַיִּתֵּ֖ן לִפְנֵיהֶ֑ם וְהֽוּא־עֹמֵ֧ד עֲלֵיהֶ֛ם תַּ֥חַת הָעֵ֖ץ וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ:8. And he took cream and milk and the calf that he had prepared, and he placed [them] before them, and he was standing over them under the tree, and they ate.
Eat
Why does Abraham stand over them while they are eating? Does it have any connection with the men standing over him when he first saw themn? The verb used for the angels standing is nitzav – ניצב, which implies some sort of structure. Whereas in Abraham’s case, the more common עומד (omed) is used. Surely a good host would sit and eat with his guests and not “stand over” them?
The men must have sojourned there a little while, for at least half a day, as Abraham had enough time to slaughter a calf and prepare its meat.Unless, of course, it was happening in a non-spatial/temporal realm.
18:9 Call to Sarah
ט וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ אֵלָ֔יו אַיֵּ֖ה שָׂרָ֣ה אִשְׁתֶּ֑ךָ וַיֹּ֖אמֶר הִנֵּ֥ה בָאֹֽהֶל:9. And they said to him, "Where is Sarah your wife?" And he said, "Behold in the tent."
Here is an interesting twist to this tale. Perhaps the three men came for Sarah. They needed to be physically manifest, because there was something they needed to “do” to her to enable her to conceive. That is why they ask for Sarah specifically. Abraham responds, “She is in the tent”. Where else would she be? In her tent? No, she is waiting in the tent.
18:10 She stands behind
י וַיֹּ֗אמֶר שׁ֣וֹב אָשׁ֤וּב אֵלֶ֨יךָ֙ כָּעֵ֣ת חַיָּ֔ה וְהִנֵּה־בֵ֖ן לְשָׂרָ֣ה אִשְׁתֶּ֑ךָ וְשָׂרָ֥ה שֹׁמַ֛עַת פֶּ֥תַח הָאֹ֖הֶל וְה֥וּא אַֽחֲרָֽיו:10. And he said, "I will surely return to you at this time next year, and behold, your wife Sarah will have a son." And Sarah heard from the entrance of the tent, and it was behind him.
She stands at its entrance but behind "it", listening to the conversation. What is the it that she stands behind? Is it her husband? Is it G-d (or the angels), or the tent itself?
When she laughs scornfully at the news that she will conceive, it is HaShem that is upset by her reaction, her lack of faith – not one of the angels. He rebukes her, addressing Abraham. It was as if He, HaShem, was there all the time. One could take a more sophisticated look at the landscape we are referring to here. HaShem enters, then sends down the angels.
However, it seems that he has been there the whole time. For it does not say that he appeared again. This is why I think that this tale is unfolding in the two worlds simultaneously. The divine, sacred world of HaShem, and the denser world of this reality. In the same way the future is rendered as the past in the readings.
18:11 Old
יא וְאַבְרָהָ֤ם וְשָׂרָה֙ זְקֵנִ֔ים בָּאִ֖ים בַּיָּמִ֑ים חָדַל֙ לִֽהְי֣וֹת לְשָׂרָ֔ה אֹ֖רַח כַּנָּשִֽׁים:1. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, coming on in years; Sarah had ceased to have the way of the women.
Referring to the Note 11, on p80 in the Chumash which refers to the statement that they are "well on in years", and Sarah "ceased the way of the women.
The Zohar comments that each day in a person’s life carries with it its own challenge and mission. What is to be accomplished today cannot be postponed till tomorrow, because tomorrow has its own set of things to do. In the normal course of events, people go through life with their “spiritual calendars” marred by countless days and hours that were wasted or, even worse, misused. But the greatest people, like Abraham and Sarah, come through life with all their days intact, all of them utilised properly and purposefully. This is the significance of the expression בָאִים בִַּיָמים.
Literally, "they came with days": They reached their old age with a rich harvest of days that truly mattered.
18:12 Sara laughs
יב וַתִּצְחַ֥ק שָׂרָ֖ה בְּקִרְבָּ֣הּ לֵאמֹ֑ר אַֽחֲרֵ֤י בְלֹתִי֙ הָֽיְתָה־לִּ֣י עֶדְנָ֔ה וַֽאדֹנִ֖י זָקֵֽן:12.And Sarah laughed within herself, saying, "After I have become worn out, will I have smooth flesh? And also, my master is old."
Remember, it was HaShem who became angry at Sarah! And in “Beholders of Divine Secrets” by Vita Daphne Arbel it says “The central truth is the ability of G!d to assume a form and let it be seen by man” a quote from J. Barr, “Theosopy and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament”, p32. Elliot Wolfson has written a whole book on the topic called "The Speculum that Shines" in which he discusses the phenomology inherent in the the "image" of G-d.
18:16 Rose
טזוַיָּקֻ֤מוּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיַּשְׁקִ֖פוּ עַל־פְּנֵ֣י סְדֹ֑ם וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם הֹלֵ֥ךְ עִמָּ֖ם לְשַׁלְּחָֽם:16. And the men arose from there, and they looked upon Sodom, and Abraham went with them to escort them,
After delivering their message, they get up and “gaze towards Sodom” and Abraham escorts them! Again we have a mixup of the visual and the actual. It does not say that they walked or travelled to Sodom, only that they “gazed”. So how could Abraham then accompany them? Once again we might be in the journey world.
18:17 Conceal
Now they are ready to go, having delivered the message. Abraham will escort them, and while he is doing that, HaShem is talking to Himself, debating whether to tell Abraham that He is going to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.
יזוַֽיהֹוָ֖ה אָמָ֑ר הַֽמֲכַסֶּ֤ה אֲנִי֙ מֵֽאַבְרָהָ֔ם אֲשֶׁ֖ר אֲנִ֥י עֹשֶֽׂה:17.And the Lord said, "Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing?
Why would HaShem feel obligated to share this information with Abraham? How does it affect their relationship? There is a note which says that He did not want anyone to talk badly about the way He handled the scene, in relation to Abraham. Why does He care? Why is it so important to have this balance? Was it because of the covenant with Abraham? Basically it said, if you obey My will, you will inherit this land. So, it is indicative of a very close relationship with the two, of how important Abraham was to HaShem.
18:21 S'dom's cry
כא אֵֽרֲדָה־נָּ֣א וְאֶרְאֶ֔ה הַכְּצַֽעֲקָתָ֛הּ הַבָּ֥אָה אֵלַ֖י עָשׂ֣וּ | כָּלָ֑ה וְאִם־לֹ֖א אֵדָֽעָה:21. I will descend now and see, according to her cry which has come to Me, what they have done; [I will wreak] destruction [upon them]; and if not, I will know."
Changing the meaning slightly, one could render this as: "I will descend now and see according to her cry which has come to Me; [They will] make (be) [like] a bride; and if not, I will know."
עָשׂוּ כָּלָה thus becomes an interesting phrase, meaning "to make like a bride," and "if not I will know", says the Lord. I mention this, because the people of Sodom, all the men, want to “know” the strangers. In the biblical sense this is used sexually, that is true. But, there is also לשׁכב which is to “sleep” with someone. And to know someone, is more than to have sex with them.
18:22 Leave
כב וַיִּפְנ֤וּ מִשָּׁם֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים וַיֵּֽלְכ֖וּ סְדֹ֑מָה וְאַ֨בְרָהָ֔ם עוֹדֶ֥נּוּ עֹמֵ֖ד לִפְנֵ֥י יְהֹוָֽה:22. And the men turned from there and went to Sodom, and Abraham was still standing before the Lord.
The men/angels then continue to Sodom, while Abraham remains behind with HaShem to negotiate the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah. Which further speaks of HaShem’s continued presence during this whole incidence.
It says later that "two arrive in S'dom" while Abraham stands before HaShem—whereas 3 men arrived at Abraham’s. This introduces the idea once again, that one of the 3 was HaShem!
This is the second time that it says that men went to Sodom, the first time Abraham escorted them, this time he stayed behind with the Lord.
18:23-32 Negotiations
כג וַיִּגַּ֥שׁ אַבְרָהָ֖ם וַיֹּאמַ֑ר הַאַ֣ף תִּסְפֶּ֔ה צַדִּ֖יק עִם־רָשָֽׁע:23. And Abraham approached and said, "Will You even destroy the righteous with the wicked?
They (Abraham and HaShem) conclude their negotiations having reached an agreement that if there are 10 good people in Sodom, G!d will not destroy it.
From that we could extrapolate that what one needs to keep a town alive is just ten good men. Also that Abraham has some pull regarding Ha’Shem. I pray that we would all have such a gift. The men of G!d arrive at Sodom at nightfall, and by morning, they are ready to destroy the cities. This does not give Abraham much time to find his ten good men. Or was Ha’Shem going to send an angel to scan the city? Did He not already know the tally? This negotiation is not mentioned again. So, what was its real purpose? What was the meaning of righteous in this context? It is often said that the issue that Sodom and the cities suffered that caused their destruction was sexual impurity. The other was that their renowned inhospitality was also a sin in G!d’s eyes. Which included not caring for the sick and the weak.
Perhaps the next events, hectic as they are, chased out any more thoughts of the ten righteous.
Chapter 19
This is a turbulent chapter.
19:1 At the entrance
א וַ֠יָּבֹ֠אוּ שְׁנֵ֨י הַמַּלְאָכִ֤ים סְדֹ֨מָה֙ בָּעֶ֔רֶב וְל֖וֹט ישֵׁ֣ב בְּשַֽׁעַר־סְדֹ֑ם וַיַּרְא־לוֹט֙ וַיָּ֣קָם לִקְרָאתָ֔ם וַיִּשְׁתַּ֥חוּ אַפַּ֖יִם אָֽרְצָה:1. And the two angels came to Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gate of Sodom, and Lot saw and arose toward them, and he prostrated himself on his face to the ground.
When the men arrive, Lot is sitting at the entrance to the city,just as Abraham was sitting at the entrance to the tent. How come Lot “hangs out” at the entrance to the city? Has he nothing to do all day, but hang around and greet the people who come and go from Sodom? Or is it a synchronicy of the manner we all experience. Where we "bump into" someone, or just happen to be at the place where we need to be. Again we encounter the significance of the entrance as a placement in the story.
Now Lot too ran up to them as well and fell on his face when he saw them approaching, just as Abraham did. One could have said previously that it was because Abraham was so hospitable, but then here Lot reacts in the same way. They both must have seen or recognised them as angels. This says in some form or fashion the angelic can be “seen” by some. Which gives some credence to the Christian and Moslem belief that Lot was a holy man in his own right.
Note that it is said that Abraham was still recovering from having circumcised himself, whereas Lot did not circumcise himself. So is he perhaps a progenitor of the uncircumcised races?
19:2 Stay
ב וַיֹּ֜אמֶר הִנֶּ֣ה נָּֽא־אֲדֹנַ֗י ס֣וּרוּ נָ֠א אֶל־בֵּ֨ית עַבְדְּכֶ֤ם וְלִ֨ינוּ֙ וְרַֽחֲצ֣וּ רַגְלֵיכֶ֔ם וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּ֖ם וַֽהֲלַכְתֶּ֣ם לְדַרְכְּכֶ֑ם וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ לֹּ֔א כִּ֥י בָֽרְח֖וֹב נָלִֽין:2. And he said, "Behold now my lords, please turn to your servant's house and stay overnight and wash your feet, and you shall arise early and go on your way." And they said, "No, but we will stay overnight in the street."
Lot invites them to stay at his place. Where they will "wash their feet” – וְרַֽחֲצ֣וּ רַגְלֵיכֶ֔ם. Remember that is what Abraham said to his visitors too. What is the significance of the washing of the feet? Is it just a form of greeting, of hospitality from those times? They respond that they will not stay with Lot, but will stay ברחוב – at the “broad“ (from רחב) place or “street” in modern Hebrew. Why do they say that? Are they just being polite? What is their reticence?
19:3 Feast
ג וַיִּפְצַר־בָּ֣ם מְאֹ֔ד וַיָּסֻ֣רוּ אֵלָ֔יו וַיָּבֹ֖אוּ אֶל־בֵּית֑וֹ וַיַּ֤עַשׂ לָהֶם֙ מִשְׁתֶּ֔ה וּמַצּ֥וֹת אָפָ֖ה וַיֹּאכֵֽלוּ:3. And he urged them strongly, and they turned in to him, and came into his house, and he made them a feast, and he baked unleavened cakes, and they ate.
Lot insists they stay with him.Yet he does not bake them cakes (as did Abraham). Instead he offers them מִשְׁתֶּה (mishte) which could be drink or feast, and matzoh – the unleavened bread, the bread of travellers.
The accepted line of reasoning here is that it was Pesach time and thus Lot ate matzoh. This does not make sense for a number of reasons. Firstly, why was Abraham not eating matzoh at that time then? Perhaps, you could respond, that Pesach began only that night. But then would Abraham not have insisted that his guests stay with him for the Passover Seder for a man of his hospitability to have guests at his Seder table would indeed have been a great honour? Secondly the Jews had not yet left Egypt. That was only to happen many hundreds of years later.
Perhaps matzoh was a type of bread that was made in those days. It has been referred to the traveller's bread, and various forms of flatbreads have been eaten in many parts of the world, especially the Middle East and North Africa. They are simple to bake, and easy to transport.
Another reason that he offered them could point to his concern about them staying there, as it was known that Sodom was not hospitable to guests. Something that was as much of a sin as their licentiousness. So, although he insisted on them staying, he was concerned, and offered them some drink and some matzoh. The matzoh speaks of his concern, because from the Exodus, we know of matzoh as a bread of affliction and of journeying, as it was prepared by the Jews for their flight from Egypt. For he must have known that offering to let them stay overnight was going to upset his neighbours.
Though there is the midrash regarding Lot’s matzoh – which speaks of Lot’s wife having to go out to the neighbours to ask for some salt to bake the matzoh and that this is what alerted them to the presence of the quests. However, if Lot was sitting at the entrance to the city, would not others have seen him run out and bow to these men, then take them to his home? Or can angels only be seen by some? Then why does what follows transpire?
19:4 People arrive
ד טֶ֘רֶם֘ יִשְׁכָּ֒בוּ֒ וְאַנְשֵׁ֨י הָעִ֜יר אַנְשֵׁ֤י סְדֹם֙ נָסַ֣בּוּ עַל־הַבַּ֔יִת מִנַּ֖עַר וְעַד־זָקֵ֑ן כָּל־הָעָ֖ם מִקָּצֶֽה:4. When they had not yet retired, and the people of the city, the people of Sodom, surrounded the house, both young and old, the entire populace from every end [of the city].
His concern seems to have been justified, because טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבו even before they lay down, “the men of the city, the people of Sodom... both young and old... from all the quarters” had surrounded the house.
It did not take long for the news of their arrival to spread as “They have not yet lain down,” and the people are gathering. But this is not surprising, for surely Lot was not the only person at the entrance to the city at the time of their arrival, and they had to accompany him to his home.
There is the midrash regarding Lot’s matzoh – which speaks of Lot’s wife having to go out to the neighbours to ask for some salt to bake the matzoh and that this is what perhaps alerted them to the presence of the quests. However, if Lot was sitting at the entrance to the city, would not others have seen him run out and bow to these men, then take them to his home? Unless this tale is taking place on a non-real plane.
This sounds like quite an extreme response to a couple of men coming to stay at Lot’s house? Every single man and boy, old and young, from every part of the city, gathering around Lot’s house, wanting to “know” them? And why is there a repetition here: "The people of..." and "from all quarters"?
19:5 Know
ה וַיִּקְרְא֤וּ אֶל־לוֹט֙ וַיֹּ֣אמְרוּ ל֔וֹ אַיֵּ֧ה הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֛ים אֲשֶׁר־בָּ֥אוּ אֵלֶ֖יךָ הַלָּ֑יְלָה הֽוֹצִיאֵ֣ם אֵלֵ֔ינוּ וְנֵֽדְעָ֖ה אֹתָֽם:5. And they called to Lot and said to him, "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and let us be intimate with them."
Even if Sodom was known as sinful, this behaviour is rather bizarre, for is it not strange that every man, young and old, wanted to “know” these men?
They say “bring these people out to us that have come to you this night, so that we will know them.” According to the Rabbinic reading, it shows how evil the Sodomites had become. The whole city had risen up and they wanted to “know” these men. Was the city so desperate for new flesh that it needed to sodomise two men? That surely indicates something, if not the sinful state of affairs of Sodom.
Of course, we are not told of what their sin is exactly – but according to most commentators, it was the sin of licentiousness and/or the sin of inhospitality. We learn that it is sufficient for this city, and three others, to be completely annihilated.
I want to go out on a limb here and speak of the Angelic nature of the two men visiting Lot, and that this might be an, albeit perverse, desire for these people to be closer to the Divine. That even in the depths of their depravity, they in their brutish way, did desire to taste of the Divine made flesh. Perhaps this tale is really taking place on a non-real plane.
וְ חַטָּאתָם--כִּי כָבְדָה, מְאֹדVerily, their sin is exceeding grievous
19:6-8 The Mob
ו וַיֵּצֵ֧א אֲלֵהֶ֛ם ל֖וֹט הַפֶּ֑תְחָה וְהַדֶּ֖לֶת סָגַ֥ר אַֽחֲרָֽיו: ז וַיֹּאמַ֑ר אַל־נָ֥א אַחַ֖י תָּרֵֽעוּ: ח הִנֵּה־נָ֨א לִ֜י שְׁתֵּ֣י בָנ֗וֹת אֲשֶׁ֤ר לֹא־יָֽדְעוּ֙ אִ֔ישׁ אוֹצִֽיאָה־נָּ֤א אֶתְהֶן֙ אֲלֵיכֶ֔ם וַֽעֲשׂ֣וּ לָהֶ֔ן כַּטּ֖וֹב בְּעֵֽינֵיכֶ֑ם רַ֠ק לָֽאֲנָשִׁ֤ים הָאֵל֙ אַל־תַּֽעֲשׂ֣וּ דָבָ֔ר כִּֽי־עַל־כֵּ֥ן בָּ֖אוּ בְּצֵ֥ל קֹֽרָתִֽי:6. And Lot came out to them to the entrance, and he shut the door behind him. 7. And he said, "My brethren, please do not do evil. 8. Behold now I have two daughters who were not intimate with a man. I will bring them out to you, and do to them as you see fit; only to these men do nothing, because they have come under the shadow of my roof."
Upon them gathering in front of his house, and demanding to know the visitors, he wants to protect these men of G!d, and so Lot steps outside and closes the door behind him, then pleads with the men, offering his two virgin daughters instead. Now this is something that is also difficult to accept. There are a number of ways to look at this offering.
It could speak of Lot’s amorality in him offering his daughters to the mob. However, he is being virtuous on one hand in his sincere desire to protect these men of G!d, albeit to the detriment of his daughters. It could also point to the lack of value attributed to women in those days, as just possessions of the men. As is also perhaps represented in the previous verse, when they first speak of וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר ֬ – the people of the city, and then say מִנַּעַר וְעַד זָקֵן – from the youth to the elder” (both masculine).
Also, he offers his virgin daughters here, but he himself ends up having sex with them in the cave to which they flee, after they offer themselves to him.
How strangely convoluted this tale is.
There is perhaps another expression of this. It is: "These men are under my protection, and it is as if you would be raping my home, my very daughters by abusing them. It is as if you violated my home, my house, my family בְּצֵלקֹרָתִי – under ”the shadow of my roof”."
19:9 Sojourner
ט וַיֹּֽאמְר֣וּ | גֶּשׁ־הָ֗לְאָה וַיֹּֽאמְרוּ֙ הָֽאֶחָ֤ד בָּֽא־לָגוּר֙ וַיִּשְׁפֹּ֣ט שָׁפ֔וֹט עַתָּ֕ה נָרַ֥ע לְךָ֖ מֵהֶ֑ם וַיִּפְצְר֨וּ בָאִ֤ישׁ בְּלוֹט֙ מְאֹ֔ד וַיִּגְּשׁ֖וּ לִשְׁבֹּ֥ר הַדָּֽלֶת:9. But they said, "Back away." And they said, "This one came to sojourn, and he is judging! Now, we will deal even worse with you than with them."And they pressed hard upon the man Lot, and they drew near to break the door."
הָאֶחָד בָּא-לָגוּר וַיִּשְׁפֹּט שָׁפוֹט—This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs play the judge? The response of the mob is "how can you, merely a sojourner in our land, judge us", providing further credence to this idea, because by his offering of his daughters to keep the men safe, it sounds to them like a judgement of their behaviour, and angers them even more. Here again they break the code of hospitality, and say that in response נָרַ עלְךָ מֵהֶם – “We will deal even more harshly with you”. This of course, is the rallying call of all xenophobia. “You, who are the sojourner, cannot judge me nor my actions”.
19:10 Hand
י וַיִּשְׁלְח֤וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁים֙ אֶת־יָדָ֔ם וַיָּבִ֧יאוּ אֶת־ל֛וֹט אֲלֵיהֶ֖ם הַבָּ֑יְתָה וְאֶת־הַדֶּ֖לֶת סָגָֽרוּ:10. And the men stretched forth their hands, and they brought Lot to them to the house, and they shut the door.
וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֶת-יָדָם —And the men put forth their hand.
{Note: Although it is generally translated as hands, ידיים (yadai'im), in this case it is spelt, ִיָדָם, (yadam) which is closer to "their hand".}
They press "sorely" against Lot, ready to break down his door, then something strange and magical occurs. The men (of G!d) stretch out their hand – note the singular – the men (plural) put out their hand (singular). Perhaps this is referring to a collective action. But it also is reminiscent Abraham addressing the men in the singular, as “My Lord”. Or perhaps it was that there was one amongst the three who was the Lord, blessed by His name, and the other two were angels.
They bring Lot inside and close the door. Now there is no mention of them opening it! Aaah, isn’t poetic license so welcome in a story? And if they had, would not the people have streamed into the house?
19:11
יא וְאֶת־הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֞ים אֲשֶׁר־פֶּ֣תַח הַבַּ֗יִת הִכּוּ֙ בַּסַּנְוֵרִ֔ים מִקָּטֹ֖ן וְעַד־גָּד֑וֹל וַיִּלְא֖וּ לִמְצֹ֥א הַפָּֽתַח:11. And the men who were at the entrance of the house they struck with blindness, both small and great, and they toiled in vain to find the entrance.
הִכּוּ בַּסַּנְוֵרִים — they smote the men... with blindness ... so that they wearied themselves to find the door.
{Note: Or: The men were struck with a plague of blindness, so that they wearied themselves looking for the door.
What a picture. There is some "magician/wizard" who appears at your door, and is able to cast a spell on the people outside the entrance To cause a "plague of blindness" to descend upon them, and they eventually wandered off. But, if I was suddenly struck by blindness, and couldn't see, I would become disorientated, and the mob would immendiately break apart. They would no longer be interested in any entrance, but would be absorbed in the "shock of blindness".
However, if a spell of darkness (like the double darkness of the plagues in Egypt) descended upon them, they would not be as disorientated (freaked out), for they would be able to feel one another, and glimpse things in that darkness. It would just not have disorientated them as much. That might explain why they continued to seek the entrance, and did not immendiately abandon their quest. They could not see anything and stumbling around in the darkness, eventually "wearied", i.e., gave up, and wandered off, their passion having subsided.}
וַיִּלְא֖וּ לִמְצֹ֥א הַפָּֽתַח — toiled to find the entrance.
In their blindness they still sought the entrance, until they wearied of this. How long did this plague of blindness last? If one assumes that it lasted till they wearied and went back home, would they then have decided to give up this quest to know the men? Would they forget and forgive and go onto something else, till the morning? If it was so important to them that they all gathered at Lot’s house, would they just wander off after being blinded? Or did they realise they were dealing with forces that were magical and this scared them off.
An interesting line to note is that the angels just made manifest an inner state of blindness that already existed in these men. They, in essence, just allowed the darkness of what was inside to emerge on the outside. Human character, when enraged and in a mob, becomes blinded by the rage of righteousness. They will then continue on blind, often destructive, or cruel and violent paths... “continuing to seek the entrance”.
This also speaks to the fact that only G-d can "change what is", in other words "create something out of nothing". All other beings, including angels, can only use what is already there to create. In this situation, the angels used the blindness of the mob (which was made up of sinners, both young and old) to manifest darkness.
19:12-14 Leave now
יב וַיֹּֽאמְר֨וּ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֜ים אֶל־ל֗וֹט עֹ֚ד מִֽי־לְךָ֣ פֹ֔ה חָתָן֙ וּבָנֶ֣יךָ וּבְנֹתֶ֔יךָ וְכֹ֥ל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ֖ בָּעִ֑יר הוֹצֵ֖א מִן־הַמָּקֽוֹם:12. And the men said to Lot, "Whom else do you have here? A son-in-law, your sons, and your daughters, and whomever you have in the city, take out of the place.
The angels urge Lot to leave – yet he lingers. It is like someone comes along and tells you that a tsunami is going to occur and you linger. Would you believe him? When he tried to approach his son-in-laws and the suitors of his daughters to leave the city, they laughed at his fears.
וַיְהִי כִמְצַחֵק בְּעֵינֵי חֲתָנָיו“He seemed to his son-in-laws as one who was in jest.” (19:14)
Which meant that his betrothed daughters could not leave with him, as was the custom of the day.
19:15 Dawn rose
טו וּכְמוֹ֙ הַשַּׁ֣חַר עָלָ֔ה וַיָּאִ֥יצוּ הַמַּלְאָכִ֖ים בְּל֣וֹט לֵאמֹ֑ר קוּם֩ קַ֨ח אֶת־אִשְׁתְּךָ֜ וְאֶת־שְׁתֵּ֤י בְנֹתֶ֨יךָ֙ הַנִּמְצָאֹ֔ת פֶּן־תִּסָּפֶ֖ה בַּֽעֲוֹ֥ן הָעִֽיר:15. And as the dawn rose, the angels pressed Lot, saying, "Get up, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you perish because of the iniquity of the city."
So, at dawn, they take him, his wife and his two daughters בְּחֶמְלַת יְהוָה עָלָיו – “in the Lord’s mercy” out of the city. They tell them: הִמָּלֵטעַל נַפְשֶׁךָ – "Flee for your life" or rather “Save your soul”...
אַל-תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ, וְאַל-תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל-הַכִּכָּר: הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵטDo not look behind you, do not tarry on the plains, escape to the mountains.
But Lot objects! אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי – “Not so, my Lord”. Who
is he addressing here? Then he says something strange:
אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה--פֶּן-תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה, וָמַתִּי"I cannot escape to the mountain, lest the evil overtake me, and I die."
What evil is he referring to? And how can it overtake him if he has fled (or is fleeing) to the mountain? So instead he asks to take refuge in the small city that is close by וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי – "and my soul shall live” It is interesting again that it is not “I shall live”, or “you shall live”, but that it is his soul, his נֶפֶש that shall live.
And He agrees. who is he addressing? Can the angels make such a decision, or does it require HaShem’s agreement? It seems that Lot might also have access to HaShem. Which is interesting as he is not looked at in a very positive light by the Jewish tradition, though in both the Muslim and Christian, he is revered as a prophet. They have a point, for would one not revere the brother of Abraham to whom HaShem also appeared, who was saved from the destruction wrought on Sodom and Gomorrah, who also negotiated with G!d, and was responded to?
Anyways, the response is “Hurry...”
כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר, עַד-בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּהFor I cannot do anything till you get there
Again attesting to the importance of Lot in this particular saga. Let us spend a moment on why that is – not that I can necessarily answer that question. But it is a question in my mind. What is so important about Lot that HaShem has to wait till he is safe before he can rain terrible destruction upon these evil cities?
Just note that everyone is taken as evil in these cases – even the young ones, the children too. How can children be tainted? In what fashion are they tainted? Do they carry the sins of their fathers? Is it that they will become evil because they are the pawn of those that behave abominably?
Meanwhile,
הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ, יָצָא עַל-הָאָרֶץThe sun had risen upon the earth
I love this turn of phrase. The biblical Hebrew can be so poetic. It speaks here of the sun having emerged upon the land. In English, we say the sun rises upon the land.
Lot arrives at Zoar. Now we have an interesting sequence of events. The popular version of the tale is that as Lot and his family were leaving the city, his wife looked back and was turned into a pillar of salt. However, that here it is added as an afterthought. For this is how it goes. Lot arrives at Zoar, and the fire and brimstone rain upon Sodom and Gomorrah and destroy all the inhabitants and all that grows there. Then only does it say:
וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ, מֵאַחֲרָיו; וַתְּהִי, נְצִיב מֶלַחhis wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt
Remember, nothing could happen until he arrived at Zoar. This sequence confirms this. Did she gaze at the destruction from Zoar? Did she linger? In our rational view of a non-rational event, we fit it nicely into the sequence that this must have happened when they were leaving. However here, it is inserted only after Lot has arrived at Zoar.
Now we turn to the question of what would turn someone into salt. She was not vaporised like the rest of the people, but remained as a pillar of salt. There is also an interesting note from Tanchuma that it came down from the heavens as rain and turned into sulphur and fire as it approached earth. There are also many that say that Lot’s wife turned around to see whether her married daughters were following her, and that she was a Sodomite, so she could not resist a last glance at the city of her birth and saw the LORD about to start destroying the cities, and that is why she turned into salt. But would not the others in Sodom and Gomorrah also have seen the LORD and thus also have been turned into sand? Perhaps it is because those that are steeped in the ways of evil cannot see the LORD even when he is present. A kind of cognitive dissonance. “None so blind as those who cannot see?” Even more radical is the notion that she needed to be taken out of the picture so that Lot’s daughters would then sleep with him to procreate and to continue the unfolding of our history.
Finally, on a scientific note, there are many metallic salts, though it might be even more intriguing to consider what would
turn her into a metallic salt.
Abraham rises the next morning and sees the destruction, and we are reminded that the only reason that Lot was saved was because of Abraham’s righteousness. In other words he was saved in Abraham’s name. Though as mentioned before, both the Christians and the Muslims disagree, and believe Lot to be a holy man and a prophet in his own right.
כִּי יָרֵא, לָשֶׁבֶת בְּצוֹעַרfor he feared to dwell in Zoar
Even Zoar was not safe for Lot, forcing him to leave (or does he “flee”) into the mountains with his daughters. He was afraid to remain there, understandably so, as I cannot imagine that his reception could have been that warm, considering that four cities had just been wiped out, and he and his daughters were the only survivors. In fact, not only did he survive, but he left before the event occurred. That must have made the inhabitants of Zoar very suspicious of him. That is perhaps why he “feared ..”
וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ, כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל-הָאָרֶץthere is not a man in the earth to come in unto us after the manner of all the earth
Then the elder daughter tells the younger that there is no man left on earth to make babies with them, so that she needs to sleep with her father to continue the human race. This is from a commentary which says that she slept with her father, because she believed that everyone on earth had been wiped out. But they had just left Zoar, which had been spared – so how could this have been true?
But what I have to say, and wonder if the commentaries deal with this topic at all, that it dealing with a deep, urge that lies buried in the human race. Many daughters would like to sleep with their fathers, and many fathers would like to sleep with their daughters. Incest has occurred in most societies, and is rampant in some. It is a very sexual theme that is being “mentioned” here, a deep, dark sexual urge. Nor does it say that it should not happen at this point of the unfolding of the human story. In fact, it is somewhat justified as necessary in the light of the future, as Ruth the Moabite ancestor of David Ha’Melech was born from the offspring of the younger daughter’s son, Moav, and the wife of Solomon descended from the loins of the elder daughter’s son, Ammon.
There is no judgement of the incident. In fact, most commentaries do not fault the daughters, but say the Lot was the immoral one in the story, as he was aware of his elder daughter leaving his bed, and did not take heed when the younger began plying him with wine that night.
There is very little discussion regarding the moral and sexual implications of this act of the two virgin daughters. Neither
from the point of view of the feminine depths, nor from the deep sexual urges of both the male and the female. Considering the occurrence of this in societies in general, one would have expected some manner of discussion in dealing with it.
Does this connect somehow with Lot's offering of his two virgin daughters to the mob rampaging outside his door?
I dedicate this piece to my love of the Divine, as an expression of my ongoing dialogue with the Divine in me and in my surroundings and especially as I wrestle with It in the form that I have encountered It in my tradition.
ב”ה B’Shem Elohim
Addendum
Appendix I
Jewish Legend
Another Jewish legend says that because Lot's wife sinned with salt, she was punished with salt. On the night the two angels visited Lot, he requested of his wife to prepare a feast for them. Not having any salt, Lot's wife asked of her neighbours for salt which so happened to alert them of the presence of their guests, resulting in the mob action that endangered Lot's family.
In the Midrash, Lot's wife is given the name Edith.
Appendix II
Sin of S'dom
(From Studies, p83 - 91)
There is no specific statement in the Torah as to the sin of the people of S'dom. They were merely very wicked and sinned greatly and that a cry had come up from S'dom to the Heavens, until HaShem, as it were came down by Himself to see if indeed they had done "as its cry". But what the cry was, is not specified.
An Anti-Moral Regime (p89)
It is important to differentiate between a person who is "a sinner" and between institutionalised cruelty and wickedness. In the case of a sinner, his lust gets the better of him, but his mind is sound. In the case of a wicked person, though, both his mind and his lusts are polluted. A wicked person will never repent, but a sinner, once his lust has passed, will return to his former ways. A wicked person carries out his deeds in secret, and that is the reason he is more dangerous, but a sinner does not act secretely. If a wall has been breached, one can repair it, but in the case of a wicked peson there is simply no wall there to repair.
That was the sin of S'dom and Amorah. Not only did they not have a moral wall restraining them, but they had erected a wall of brambles — of "laws" which were unust. They were not like the sinner in other places, where at least the laws were just, but the sinners had violated thme. The people of S'dom acted wickedly in accordance with thal w on the books, the law upon which their entire regime was based. The people of S'dom transformed their justice into mockery, and justified theft as being ethical. The reason that HaShem doomed them was because they had turned wickedness into the law of the land and cruelty into justice.
A Pillar of Salt
Only Lot and his family will be saved. There is one condition. Don't look back. But the temptation is too great. And Lot's wife looks. And she is turned into a pillar of salt.
So I too am often that pillar of salt. Stuck and hardened between where I never should have been and where I need to go. If only I could have the strength to let go. I try to reason, to rationalize why certain things are good for me. And even if they aren't good for me, they are good for someone, right? At least one person, right? Wrong. There is no good there. There is nothing to be redeemed. It must be destroyed. The relationship cannot exist. The only thing that can be saved is me. And only if I leave and don't look back. Never look back.
Yet I can't help it. I take the first step away. I leave where I never should have been towards where I must go. If only I can make it there and leave this behind. Truly leave behind me what aims to bring me down and destroy me with it. If I can keep going it will be gone forever. If I can let go, it will lose its power to hurt me. And yet, time and time again, I look back. And I am once again as frozen as that pillar of salt.
What is Mine
The average conduct is certainly not the golden mean. It is a numerical average between the positions of "What is mine is mine what is your is mine", and "What is mine is yours and what is yours is yours". It is a numberical average—without discussing the values invovled behind this position—but is not the golden mean, which is a combination of the two extremes.
The Fear of God prevents Sin (p92)
There are not, nor can there be, human morals without faith in HaShem and fear of heaven (yhirat shamayim). A "synthetic" type of humanly devised moral code cannot prvent the comitting of th worst possible sins when one's personal egotism demandts it.
... In a place where there is no yirat shamayim, moral codes and upright behaviour are valueless. In such places people can commit the worst crimes, including idolatry, sexual offenses and bloodshed.
If we see a person (or a nation) who is a great philosopher, who is just in his ways, and has accustomed himself to act properly based on his intellect, we still cannot trust that person or nation, for at a time of passion he (or it) may act evilly – rather than having his intellect dominate his passion, the fire of his passion may burn for a woman the he desires, or for the wealth of his fellow. In such circumstances, even his intellect will be led astray; to murder, to commit adultery, or any other evil act. Theree is only one force in man's soul which can guarentee that he will not sin, and this the characteristic of yirah which is planted in his soul, which comes down to one thing – yirat Elokim (the fear of G-d) (Malbim).
Rambam, too, discusses at length the power of yirat shamayim, as preserving human morals within oneself, between man and wife, and at a time when there is none to see him.
Ikarim says that "The religion of ethics errs and say that what is ugly is beautiful". He brings proof from Plato, who proposed a regime in whic hthe elite would share women. He lists many weaknesess in a religion based on human ethics, and especially the fact that it cannot prevent a person from committing a crime in private, when there is no one to see and he has no one to fear.
His fear of sin (p94)
Chazal says: "Whoever's fear of sin precedes his wisdom, his wisdom will continue to exist; if not, his wisdom will not continue to exist. In Pirkey D'Rebbi Eliezer, we are told, "Do not fear a person whic is an officer or a ruler, but fear people that have no yirat shamayim.
There is no ideal which can survive without the life force of the fire of G-dliness. The individual and social person remains as a golem without a soul, and there is nothing that moves in him except a small measure of mechanical life which the flow of blood gives technical power. As a result, there is nothing that is more frightening to the world the the wicked-foolish denial of the existence of G-d. This is the most senseless view which finds itself into the hearts of the least worthy.
For example, the chutzpah of Avimelech, who, having taken Sarah, then attemps to blame Avraham for his own misconduct. Not only did Avimelech steal his fellow's wife, while pretending that he had not known the facts, but he also has the audacity to reprimand Avraham for trying to avoid death by means of a ruse. That has always been the way of a secular regime. Not only is it not ethical at its very foundation, but it has thee chutzpah to ciritise the morals of others, blaming them for its own ethical faults.
(From Studies in the Weekly Parashah, Bereishit by Y. Hachshom.)
Appendix III
Lot and his wife
From Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible
But his wife looked back from behind him, That is, the wife of Lot, whose name the Jewish writers say was Adith, or as others Irith. According to the Targums of Jonathan and Jerusalem, she was a native of Sodom. Now, as they were going from Sodom to Zoar, she was behind Lot, his back was to her, so that he could not see her; this was a temptation to her to look back, since her husband could not see her; and this she did, either, as the above paraphrases suggest, that she might see what would be the end of her father's house and family, or whether her married daughters, if she had any, were following her, after whom her bowels yearned; or being grieved for the goods and substance left behind, and for the people of Sodom in general, for whom she had too much concern; however, be it on what account it may, she was severely punished for it. For she became a pillar of salt; was struck dead at once, either by the immediate hand of G!d, or by the shower of fire and brimstone; and her body was at once changed into a metallic substance, a kind of salt, hard and durable, such as Pliny speaks of, cut out of rocks, with which houses were built, and hardened with the sun, and could scarcely be cut with an iron instrument; so that she did not fall to the ground, but stood up erect as a pillar, retaining very probably the human form. Josephus [1] says, this pillar continued to his times, and that he saw it; Irenaeus [2] and Tertullian [3] speak of it as in their times, a thing incredible; and Benjamin of Tudela says [4], it stood in his times two parsas from the sea of Sodom; and though the flocks were continually licking it, yet it grew again to its former size.
Rauwolff [5] relates something of the same kind by information, but not on his own testimony; that the pilgrims who visit it used to beat off some small pieces, and yet was found whole again; nay, which is beyond all credit, that they once knocked off a whole hand and took it away, and when they returned found it whole again. One [6] that travelled in those parts in the beginning of the sixteenth century affirms, that almost in the midway to Zoar is seen to this day the pillar of salt into which Lot's wife was turned; he does not say indeed that he saw it, but leaves his reader to think so. The Jerusalem Targum says, it will remain until the resurrection; but modern travellers of credit and intelligence could never see it; and when they have inquired of the country people about it, they either tell them there is no such thing, or say it stands in the mountains, where it cannot be come at, because of the Arabs, or because of wild beasts [7], but no doubt there was such a statue, but how long it continued cannot be said; nor should it be thought incredible, when there are similar facts affirmed by authors of the best credit and reputation. Aventinus [8] reports, that in Bavaria, in 1348, more than fifty peasants, with the cows they had milked, at the time of an earthquake were struck with a pestilential air, and stiffened into statues of salt, and which he himself saw. The chancellor of Austria, and Bisselius relates [9], that Didacus Almagrus, who was the first person that with his army penetrated through the cold countries from Peru into Chile, lost abundance of his men, through the extremity of the cold and a pestiferous air; and that, returning to the same place five months afterwards, he found his men, horse and foot, standing unmoved, unconsumed, in the same situation, form, and habit, the pestilence had fastened them; one lying on the ground, another standing upright, another holding his bridle in his hand, as if about to shake it; in short, he found them just as he left them, without any ill smell or colour, common to corpses: indeed, the very fables of the Heathens, which seem to be hammered out of this history, serve to confirm the truth of the whole of it. As the fable of Jupiter and Mercury coming to a certain place in Phrygia, where they were hospitably entertained by Baucis and Philemon, when the doors were shut against them by others; wherefore they directed their guests, after being entertained by them, to leave the place and follow them to the mountains, when they turned the town into a standing lake [10]. Also that of Niobe being changed into a marble stone while weeping for the death of her children; and of Olenus and Lethaea, turned into stones also [11]. But, leaving these, and passing by other instances that might be observed, we are directed to remember this wonderful case by our Lord himself, Luke 17:32.
[Christians](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christians" title=Christians) and Muslims revere Lot as a righteous man of G!d. According to Christianity, Jesus is a descendent of Lot through David's great-grandmother Ruth, who is descended from Lot's son Moab. The Qur'an does not include any references to Lot's drunkenness and incestuous relations. He is regarded as a prophet of Islam.
Footnotes
Antiqu. l. 1. c. 11. sect. 4. ↩︎
Adv. Haeres. l. 4. c. 51. ↩︎
In Carmine Sodoma. ↩︎
ltinerarium, p. 44. ↩︎
Travels, par. 3. c. 21. p. 313. by Ray. ↩︎
Baumgarten. Peregrinatio, l. 3. c. 12. p. 96. ↩︎
Universal History, ib. p. 124. Witsii Miscellan. Sacr. tom. 2. p. 195. ↩︎
Annal. Bojor. apud Heidegger. Hist. Patriarch. tom. 2. exercitat. 8. p. 270. & Witsii Miscellan. tom. 2. exercitat. 7. p. 201. ↩︎
Argonaut. Americ. l. 14. c. 2. apud Witsium, ib. p. 202. ↩︎
Ovid. Metamorph. l. 8. fab. 8. ↩︎
Ib. l. 6. fab. 4. & l. 10. fab. 1. Apollodor. de Deorum Orig. l. 3. p. 146. ↩︎