After these things, we are told, God speaks to Abraham and assures him that he is indeed protected and that his faith will be rewarded. At this moment, I imagine Abraham turning to God and speaking to Him in a very low voice, a pained voice, as he asks, "What can you give me that is worth having, for I have no child? I shall see my estate and all I have in the hands of my steward Eliezer."
What are the things that have so hurt Abraham that at this moment he turns to God defenseless, wounded, voicing a pain that is not new?
I believe that Abraham feels profoundly disillusioned in this chapter, and his disillusionment comes about due to his encounter with Lot.
Abraham has an important quality, one that makes him willing to leave everything behind in order to embark upon a journey to the land that God will show him and to endure the difficulties that attend him. It is a kind of willful naivete, a belief not so much in people's innate goodness as in their capacity for redemption. Abraham is a kind of idealist. He searches for God in humanity and is shocked each time he does not find it. In Egypt, he recognizes that the people are corrupt, but believes that if he engages in a ruse where he pretends to be Sarai's brother, he will be able to save her, tricking the inhabitants of that country into behaving decently. But it is not so. This also explains why he uses the same ruse when he and his wife visit Avimelech; he assumes that even if it failed in Egypt, it cannot possibly fail twice. It is impossible that people could be so corrupt. Additionally, Abraham treats Hagar well, to the point that Sarai is frustrated and angry, feeling like her husband has not allied with her in making clear Hagar's role as surrogate mother as opposed to her own role as full wife. "May God judge between you and me!" she declares, believing that Abraham's kindness is to blame for Hagar's putting on airs. Later, he suffers greatly when Sarai determines that Ishmael and Hagar must leave for good, not believing that it is necessary- and God Himself must intervene to convince him that it is. And, of course, from the Midrashic reading due to the extra language in the verse, he is unclear as to which son he is to offer up to God - Isaac or Ishmael. It is not that Abraham cannot see evil or perversity. It is simply that he does not believe that is all there is to see. It is why he argues on behalf of Sodom- to him, the concept of totally wicked cities defies conception. He believes, with profound faith, that there is goodness in all beings, and that given the opportunity to act justly and correctly, man eventually will do so. If he can only succeed in showing them the light- they will change.
Abraham has just saved Lot, and it seems likely that he thought there would be some kind of powerful moment or reconciliation. Perhaps now the two of them can live in peace in one place. Perhaps Lot will come home with Abraham. But no such thing happens, and Abraham is forced to recognize that Lot prefers the company of others, those who are dissimilar to Abraham and who indeed may even be wicked (certainly, there is a focus on materialism, a constant emphasis on "Lot and his possessions") to what he has to offer. In the back of his mind, Abraham likely assumed that if he would not have children, Lot would be his heir. But now Abraham sees that this will not be. Lot is not the kind of man Abraham thought him to be- the kind of man who desires to ally with him in a quest for God- and spirituality over materialism. Leaving Lot his estate and inheritance would not advance Abraham's cause because Lot would see them as so many material goods, not as items that should be used in service of promoting the monotheistic vision. And so, having recognized all this, Abraham is at a loss. He feels disillusioned and upset. If this is what happened to Lot, his own kinsman, what will happen to him? Will he too be swayed and end up this way? And in that moment God reaches out to comfort him, informing him that no, he will not. God is His shield and will protect him. Abraham will never be Lot. And Abraham will not have to leave all he worked for in the hands of an unworthy individual - or a foreign servant. There will be someone to continue his efforts, his vision, his desire to bring knowledge of God to the world. This will be a child of his own body.
A special word is used in this narrative, a word that takes us back to a prior narrative. That word is תַרְדֵּמָה, and it means a deep, transformative sleep. The last time we saw this word was in the story of Adam in Chapter 2.
And I think the presence of this word is deliberate. We are meant to see a similarity between the two narratives.
Adam is searching, longing and wishing for an עזר כנגדו, a helpmate.
Abraham is searching, longing and wishing for an heir, someone to be יורש אותו.
They are each searching for someone who will help them carry the dream forward, serving as their torchbearer.
In the Adam story, God creates beasts and birds. Adam sees them all, names them all and according to the Midrash, consorts with them all, but none of them are the person who will help him to build, conquer and inherit the land. None of them can help him create new life.
But then comes this gorgeous moment.
bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh. We will never be parted; we will never be dissolved. We are One, and when we come together, we are one again.
In the Abraham story, God has Abraham destroy beasts while the birds remain whole. Abraham cuts the beasts in half, leaves the birds intact, and protects all of the defenseless creatures from the carrion birds that descend to consume the flesh laid out before them. And then comes Abraham's moment.
There is a creation aspect here, too. It is darker. There is the promise of the child who will be born, the person who will help Abraham to carry the torch and bring his vision to the greater world. But there is also the promise of pain. This is the dream of the birth of a nation.
If Woman is created from Man's body, bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh, then the Nation is created from Pain, seed born of suffering. Abraham's pain, in the short term, seeking an heir and not finding likely candidates, and their own pain, in the long term, serving under other nations until such time that they can inherit the land.
To me, the smoking furnace and tongue of fire that pass through the pieces is the personification of this struggle, this journey. There will be darkness, intense and thick and black. There will be pain. But there will also be light, flaring brightly, and a people conceived from the darkness with matchless ability to endure, to continue and to create. We know that we find God in both darkness (I Kings 8:12) and light. With God, pain is creative. Whether it is the pain of wresting a bone from Adam's side and creating a woman, or forcing a nation to endure beatings, killings and slavery to ensure resilience, somehow both these narratives tell the story of continuity. This is how continuity is assured- how the torch passes from one to the next.
But did you see the flares in the sky?
Were you blinded by the light?
Did you feel the smoke in your eyes?
Did you, did you?
Did you see the sparks filled with hope?
You are not alone
'Cause someone's out there, sending out flares
-"Flares" by The Script
Showing posts with label Abraham. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Abraham. Show all posts
Thursday, August 02, 2018
Wednesday, August 01, 2018
929- Genesis 14: A King of Sodom Who Does Not Embody Middat Sodom
I learned this chapter with Rabbi Alex Israel's commentary found on TanachStudy.com. By the time I was done, it was clear to me that it would make a great TV episode! It features intense battles, funny moments and a one-sided bromance. It also includes diplomacy and symbolism.
Back when I learned this story as a child, the approach I was taught was largely Midrashic. We spent a lot of time on the fact that Og the Giant was the palit (refugee who informed Avraham of Lot's whereabouts) and that Og actually desired Sarai and was hoping to take her while Avraham went off to war. We also talked about how the 318 men was actually a reference to Eliezer, Avraham's servant, because he had the might and strength of 318 men. There's a lot to appreciate in the midrashic approach, but I enjoyed Rabbi Israel's focus on presenting the text through the lens of the peshat aided by an understanding of the geography of the land of Israel and historical context.
The first thing Rabbi Alex Israel clarifies is that while this seems to be an evenly matched battle- four kings against five- it absolutely isn't. Kedarlaomer and Company are mighty men of means who are able to go on a lengthy campaign to crush those who rebel against them. (Rabbi Israel proves this based on history, showing how the places they come from are far away, maybe even Persia or Turkey, and through mapping the route and campaign trail they take and showing how this would require great wealth.) These four kings are the unquestioned rulers of Mesopotamia. In contrast, the five local "kings" of Sodom can be better understood as sheriffs. This is the story of local leaders fighting against wealthy powerhouses (think your local police going up against Special Ops). In that vein, I was put in mind of a clip from Game of Thrones where the Lannister force (here representing the local lords of Sodom) thinks they can hold out against Daenarys Targaryen (here representing the might of Kedarlaomer and Co)...only to realize they are wrong about that.
Now for the funny moments. Rabbi Israel references Rashi who points out that all of the local leaders of Sodom are given names that point to their wickedness (there is a trope in Tanakh where people's names aren't always their given names but sometimes are used to make a point- consider Avigayil's husband Naval in I Samuel):
Thus, when these four mighty kings fight against the five local lords, the result is unsurprising. The lords of Sodom flee and hide in clay pits or underground bunkers and the rest flee for the hills. The five mighty kings loot the valley and take all the food- here Rabbi Israel quipped that "an army marches on its stomach."
Rabbi Israel then clarified that likely when Avraham comes after Lot, he isn't chasing the whole mighty army (or else how could he possibly win?) It's more likely that he is fighting against the slower force at the rear that has the captives such as women and children and loot.
There are several instances in this chapter where close reading enhances our perspective.
1. Note that Lot has moved from being on the outskirts of Sodom to actually being in Sodom. Also note that Lot keeps on being referred to with the line "Lot and his Possessions" which symbolizes his materialism.
2. Avraham divides his 318 men into three divisions and attacks at night, which is similar to what occurs later with Gideon and his 300 men, also dividing into three divisions and attacking at night.
3. This is just a hilarious tidbit, but note how the lord of Sodom goes out to meet Avraham, but then is undercut by MalkiTzedek, who takes control of the conversation, and in an effort to reclaim it, has to butt in with his demand, "Give me the people..." You can just picture his injured dignity in that moment.
4. (This is my own idea). Note that when MalkiTzedek greets Avraham with bread and wine, this is actually the customary gift offered to kings. We see that bread and wine are offered to Saul when he is appointed king (I Samuel 10), when David joins his service (I Samuel 16:20) and that Avigayil offers it to David when she tries to avert his wrath from coming down upon her and Naval (I Samuel 25). Thus, the very gift MalkiTzedek offers can either be the prototype of the later custom or could be a way of demonstrating that MalkiTzedek sees Avraham as an ally or equal.
5. Note the clever diplomacy that Avraham employs. MalkiTzedek is clearly some kind of monotheistic leader or priest, and he has a specific term for God.
(As a side note, this may be one of the first places where we see a kind of terumah or tithing- Avraham perhaps giving MalkiTzedek as a priest 1/10 of his possessions.)
Later, when Avraham responds to the lord of Sodom, he cleverly uses the phrasing that MalkiTzedek used, verbally allying himself with him.
This is very diplomatic, because in refusing the lord of Sodom's offer, Avraham still allies himself with the other lord in the storyline- MalkiTzedek.
I also found Rabbi Israel's conclusion that there is much more to this story than Avraham rescuing Lot- that indeed, we can look at the story as proof of Avraham truly traversing the land (and thus, biblically speaking, taking possession of it) and additionally, MalkiTzedek of Shalem as opposed to the Lord of Sodom can be a larger symbolic dialogue between what Jerusalem stands for and what Sodom stands for- to be fascinating.
Now for something I noticed that I am still thinking over. In Genesis 14:21, the lord of Sodom requests that Avraham give him his people, allowing Avraham to keep the goods he looted.
This struck me as interesting because of the rabbinic conception of what middat Sodom was. See Pirkei Avot 5:10:
(Of course, a more cynical approach could be that he would not long remain in the role of lord or king if his people did not feel that he cared for them, and thus this is self-serving. It's possible he only wants them to be his subjects, and does not actually care about how they are treated. But let's assume for right now that it is not, and that it shows a true desire to focus on the welfare of his people as opposed to material possessions.)
If so, then the lord of Sodom would find himself in the company of others who were considered wicked but who had redeeming qualities when it came to their personal interactions. Two examples came to mind. First, there is King Ahab, a constant idolater. However, when famine comes, he is ceaseless in his efforts to locate Elijah in order to end it, and he also personally goes out searching (along with his head of house Obadiah) to find water. Malbim reads this as him hoping to find water in order to save his people.
Similarly, there is a tradition that the evil queen Jezebel had her hands and feet spared when the rest of her was eaten by dogs because she used to dance and make merry in front of the new brides.
Thus, both of these individuals are not irredeemable...and neither is the lord of Sodom.
If my reading is correct, this then sheds light on Genesis 18 when Avraham asks his famous question:
Perhaps one of the reasons Avraham fights so hard for Sodom is because he has personal experience with the lord of Sodom, and recognizes that the lord cared more for his people than for physical objects. If so, it suggests there is goodness in him, and perhaps that goodness may also find root in others.
~~~
ADDENDUM: I spoke to my friend Yair who disagreed with Rabbi Alex Israel's characterization of the MalkiTzedek story and suggested an alternate reading.
"El was one of the many gods in ancient near Eastern mythology. One of his nicknames was Elyon, referring to the fact that he was seen as being above other gods. MalkiTzedek worshipped this deity. Avraham, in his response to the king of Sodom who likely worshipped El as well, is actually stating a polemic against the Canaanite gods- only Yahweh is worthy of the title 'El Elyon' and nobody else.
"These polemics occur hundreds of times throughout Tanakh and only once you know ancient near Eastern mythology can they be fully appreciated. As an example, Ba'al was known as Rochev Aravos. Tehillim 68 seizes upon this and says 'L'Rochev B'aravos-B'Yah Shemo'- it is only Yah (Hashem) who rides among the clouds, not your god, Canaanites."
ברע BERA —Evil (רע) towards God and evil towards mankind (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8).Now, the route that the four kings take involves their "taking back control of what we call the Derech HaMelekh/ King's Highway which goes through the mountain country of Ever HaYarden. It's one of the most important trade routes from Mesopotamia down to Egypt. Kedarlaomer and Company are going North to South as they defeat people." They aren't even interested in the kings of the Jordan Valley; they have a larger goal which is to reclaim the highway route. They want to ensure that this region stops causing trouble to the caravans and trade routes. In short, "they come to restake their claim and destroy most of the local forces."
ברשע BIRSHA — Because he rose by means of wickedness (רָשַׁע) (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8)).
שנאב SHINAB — He hated (שנא) his Father (אב) in heaven (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8)).
שמאבר SHEMEBER — He set his wings (שם אבר) to fly, flapping them to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8)).
בלע BELA is the name of this king’s city (but the king’s own name is not mentioned here).
Thus, when these four mighty kings fight against the five local lords, the result is unsurprising. The lords of Sodom flee and hide in clay pits or underground bunkers and the rest flee for the hills. The five mighty kings loot the valley and take all the food- here Rabbi Israel quipped that "an army marches on its stomach."
Rabbi Israel then clarified that likely when Avraham comes after Lot, he isn't chasing the whole mighty army (or else how could he possibly win?) It's more likely that he is fighting against the slower force at the rear that has the captives such as women and children and loot.
There are several instances in this chapter where close reading enhances our perspective.
1. Note that Lot has moved from being on the outskirts of Sodom to actually being in Sodom. Also note that Lot keeps on being referred to with the line "Lot and his Possessions" which symbolizes his materialism.
2. Avraham divides his 318 men into three divisions and attacks at night, which is similar to what occurs later with Gideon and his 300 men, also dividing into three divisions and attacking at night.
3. This is just a hilarious tidbit, but note how the lord of Sodom goes out to meet Avraham, but then is undercut by MalkiTzedek, who takes control of the conversation, and in an effort to reclaim it, has to butt in with his demand, "Give me the people..." You can just picture his injured dignity in that moment.
4. (This is my own idea). Note that when MalkiTzedek greets Avraham with bread and wine, this is actually the customary gift offered to kings. We see that bread and wine are offered to Saul when he is appointed king (I Samuel 10), when David joins his service (I Samuel 16:20) and that Avigayil offers it to David when she tries to avert his wrath from coming down upon her and Naval (I Samuel 25). Thus, the very gift MalkiTzedek offers can either be the prototype of the later custom or could be a way of demonstrating that MalkiTzedek sees Avraham as an ally or equal.
5. Note the clever diplomacy that Avraham employs. MalkiTzedek is clearly some kind of monotheistic leader or priest, and he has a specific term for God.
(As a side note, this may be one of the first places where we see a kind of terumah or tithing- Avraham perhaps giving MalkiTzedek as a priest 1/10 of his possessions.)
Later, when Avraham responds to the lord of Sodom, he cleverly uses the phrasing that MalkiTzedek used, verbally allying himself with him.
| כב וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם, אֶל-מֶלֶךְ סְדֹם: הֲרִמֹתִי יָדִי אֶל-יְהוָה אֵל עֶלְיוֹן, קֹנֵה שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ. | 22 And Abram said to the king of Sodom: 'I have lifted up my hand unto the LORD, God Most High, Maker of heaven and earth, |
This is very diplomatic, because in refusing the lord of Sodom's offer, Avraham still allies himself with the other lord in the storyline- MalkiTzedek.
I also found Rabbi Israel's conclusion that there is much more to this story than Avraham rescuing Lot- that indeed, we can look at the story as proof of Avraham truly traversing the land (and thus, biblically speaking, taking possession of it) and additionally, MalkiTzedek of Shalem as opposed to the Lord of Sodom can be a larger symbolic dialogue between what Jerusalem stands for and what Sodom stands for- to be fascinating.
Now for something I noticed that I am still thinking over. In Genesis 14:21, the lord of Sodom requests that Avraham give him his people, allowing Avraham to keep the goods he looted.
| כא וַיֹּאמֶר מֶלֶךְ-סְדֹם, אֶל-אַבְרָם: תֶּן-לִי הַנֶּפֶשׁ, וְהָרְכֻשׁ קַח-לָךְ. | 21 And the king of Sodom said unto Abram: 'Give me the persons, and take the goods to thyself.' |
אַרְבַּע מִדּוֹת בָּאָדָם. הָאוֹמֵר שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ, זוֹ מִדָּה בֵינוֹנִית. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים, זוֹ מִדַּת סְדוֹם. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי, עַם הָאָרֶץ. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלְּךָ וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלָּךְ, חָסִיד. שֶׁלִּי שֶׁלִּי וְשֶׁלְּךָ שֶׁלִּי, רָשָׁע:
There are four temperaments among men: the one who says "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" -- that's an [average] temperament. And there are some who say that is the temperament of Sodom. [A second type is one who says] "what is mine is yours, and what is yours is mine" -- [that's an] am ha'arets (uneducated person). [A third type is one who says] "what is mine is yours, and what is yours is yours" -- [that's a] pious person. [A final type is one who says] "what is yours is mine, and what is mine is mine" -- [that's a] wicked person.
Even worse than this middas Sodom are anecdotes told about Sodom in the Talmud, all of which show wanton disregard for human life (specifically Sanhedrin 109b):
הויא ההיא רביתא דהות קא מפקא ריפתא לעניא בחצבא איגלאי מלתא שפיוה דובשא ואוקמוה על איגר שורא אתא זיבורי ואכלוה והיינו דכתיב (בראשית יח, כ) ויאמר ה' זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב על עיסקי ריבה:
There was a young woman who would take bread out to the poor people in a pitcher so the people of Sodom would not see it. The matter was revealed,and they smeared her with honey and positioned her on the wall of the city, and the hornets came and consumed her. And that is the meaning of that which is written: “And the Lord said: Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great [rabba]” (Genesis 18:20). And Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Rabba is an allusion to the matter of the young woman [riva] who was killed for her act of kindness. It is due to that sin that the fate of the people of Sodom was sealed.
On the one hand, you could argue that the lord of Sodom embodies the approach laid out in Pirkei Avot because he declares that the booty belongs to Avraham but the people belong to him. But on the other hand, you could also argue that the lord of Sodom is not embodying the approach because according to the ancient laws of warfare, everything should belong to Avraham as victor. In pleading for his people, the lord of Sodom is betraying the fact that he cares about their welfare- that even this wicked man has the noble impulse of desiring to protect his people, and that the people are worth more to him than material goods.(Of course, a more cynical approach could be that he would not long remain in the role of lord or king if his people did not feel that he cared for them, and thus this is self-serving. It's possible he only wants them to be his subjects, and does not actually care about how they are treated. But let's assume for right now that it is not, and that it shows a true desire to focus on the welfare of his people as opposed to material possessions.)
If so, then the lord of Sodom would find himself in the company of others who were considered wicked but who had redeeming qualities when it came to their personal interactions. Two examples came to mind. First, there is King Ahab, a constant idolater. However, when famine comes, he is ceaseless in his efforts to locate Elijah in order to end it, and he also personally goes out searching (along with his head of house Obadiah) to find water. Malbim reads this as him hoping to find water in order to save his people.
ויאמר לכן צוה לו לבקש מזון לבהמותיו, ועל צד הצורה אמר אליו שיבקש מזון להבהמות ע''פ שאמרו במדרש כשאין בני אדם ראוים לגשמים יורד המטר בשביל בהמה, כי האדם הבחיריי ניתן לגמול ועונש, לא כן הבע''ח שלהם ברית כרותה, ברית הטבעי שלא יכרתו מיניהם, וע''י הברית הזאת יורד המטר גם על האדם הגם שהוא נידון לפי המעשים, וז''ש ,אולי נמצא חציר ונחיה סוס ופרד ועי''כ ,ולא נכרית מהבהמה, לא נגרע מהבהמה וע''י הבהמה לא יכרתו גם בני אדם :
Similarly, there is a tradition that the evil queen Jezebel had her hands and feet spared when the rest of her was eaten by dogs because she used to dance and make merry in front of the new brides.
Thus, both of these individuals are not irredeemable...and neither is the lord of Sodom.
If my reading is correct, this then sheds light on Genesis 18 when Avraham asks his famous question:
| כג וַיִּגַּשׁ אַבְרָהָם, וַיֹּאמַר: הַאַף תִּסְפֶּה, צַדִּיק עִם-רָשָׁע. | 23 And Abraham drew near, and said: 'Wilt Thou indeed sweep away the righteous with the wicked? |
Perhaps one of the reasons Avraham fights so hard for Sodom is because he has personal experience with the lord of Sodom, and recognizes that the lord cared more for his people than for physical objects. If so, it suggests there is goodness in him, and perhaps that goodness may also find root in others.
~~~
ADDENDUM: I spoke to my friend Yair who disagreed with Rabbi Alex Israel's characterization of the MalkiTzedek story and suggested an alternate reading.
"El was one of the many gods in ancient near Eastern mythology. One of his nicknames was Elyon, referring to the fact that he was seen as being above other gods. MalkiTzedek worshipped this deity. Avraham, in his response to the king of Sodom who likely worshipped El as well, is actually stating a polemic against the Canaanite gods- only Yahweh is worthy of the title 'El Elyon' and nobody else.
"These polemics occur hundreds of times throughout Tanakh and only once you know ancient near Eastern mythology can they be fully appreciated. As an example, Ba'al was known as Rochev Aravos. Tehillim 68 seizes upon this and says 'L'Rochev B'aravos-B'Yah Shemo'- it is only Yah (Hashem) who rides among the clouds, not your god, Canaanites."
Tuesday, July 31, 2018
929- Genesis 13: A Fundamental Difference in Lot & Abraham's Natures
When reading Genesis 13, I was struck by a particular verse. It's Genesis 13:6
The reason this verse struck me was because it personifies the land. It suggests the land is unable to bear both Lot and Avraham. Why should this be so? The implication that immediately came to mind is that Lot might have already shown signs of problematic (or sinful) behavior. The reason I thought this might be plausible is because we later find out that the land of Israel has special properties and cannot bear sin. See Leviticus 18:24-28.
We know that Esau is seen to be a sinner, or at least to allow sin in his household, even according to the peshat, because he marries women outside of the family construct and religion (see Genesis 26:34-35 and 27:46). This supports my thesis that the land could not bear Abraham and Lot together, not simply because there wasn't enough grass to support both their flocks, but because they were fundamentally different- one was given to sin and one was not.
So then I perused some commentaries and found that the Netziv says exactly what I intuited.
So now the question is- at this point, what exactly is Lot's flaw? In what way is his nature different from Abraham's? And how can we determine it from this point in the narrative (prior to his having done anything that could be seen as problematic, such as the episode with his daughters?)
My suggestion is that the fundamental difference between Abraham and Lot has to do with how much appearance matters to them. Lot is led astray by his eyes while Abraham is not. Here's what I mean by this.
In Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" there is a scene where Portia's suitors must choose between three caskets- one made of gold, one made of silver and one made of lead- in order to win her. Her portrait is within one of the caskets. Each casket bears a legend. The gold one reads "Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire." The silver one reads "Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves." The lead one states "Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath." The point, of course, is to make sure the suitor is worthy.
Those who choose by appearance alone are caught in a trap. Morocco does so, choosing the gold, and here is what happens:
Lot is not at fault for selecting a place that would be good for pasturing his flock, but one can argue he is at fault for not a) seeking to learn more about the inhabitants of the town prior to moving there and b) not leaving the place once he is able to determine what they are like. Additionally, the very methodology behind his choice (focusing on appearance) is problematic because it is a repeat of the exact sin that Eve commits earlier in Genesis 3:6.
(I believe Rabbi David Fohrman of AlephBeta addresses this in some detail in one of his video series.)
In contrast to Lot, Abraham is someone who specifically does not look at appearances. Note that when Sarai, his wife, is first referenced in the text, her looks are not mentioned at all (see Genesis 11:29).
Only in Genesis 12:11 are her looks mentioned:
What this suggests is a fundamental difference between Lot and Abraham that is portrayed in the Torah from the get-go. Lot is the kind of person who looks at the outside and judges by appearances. Abraham is the kind of person who looks at the inside, judges a person by their worth, and only references the outside appearance when he must.
A person who cares about image and status is someone who looks to appearances and does not do further research. A person who cares about depth and is driven by mission as opposed to image or status is not concerned with appearances.
Abraham continues to demonstrate his focus on meaning and mission as opposed to image and status when, in the next chapter, he categorically refuses to benefit from the profits reaped in saving his kinsman Lot (Genesis 14:22-23) during a battle:
Indeed, he specifically mentions God (referencing his monotheistic beliefs as opposed to the common idolatrous ones) and credits God with the victory.
If we identify Lot's flaw as his being overly concerned with appearance, and thus image and status, we can come to understand his disturbing thought process when he privileges unknown strangers over his own virgin daughters (Genesis 19:8).
To Lot, maintaining the appearance of being a welcoming, hospitable host who upholds guest-right is more important than his daughters' welfare.
Unfortunately, even today there are far too many people who are concerned with maintaining appearances while their own brethren suffer:
Let us hope that we allow for more Abrahams and fewer Lots going forward.
| ו וְלֹא-נָשָׂא אֹתָם הָאָרֶץ, לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו: כִּי-הָיָה רְכוּשָׁם רָב, וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו. | 6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together; for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together. |
The reason this verse struck me was because it personifies the land. It suggests the land is unable to bear both Lot and Avraham. Why should this be so? The implication that immediately came to mind is that Lot might have already shown signs of problematic (or sinful) behavior. The reason I thought this might be plausible is because we later find out that the land of Israel has special properties and cannot bear sin. See Leviticus 18:24-28.
We know that Esau is seen to be a sinner, or at least to allow sin in his household, even according to the peshat, because he marries women outside of the family construct and religion (see Genesis 26:34-35 and 27:46). This supports my thesis that the land could not bear Abraham and Lot together, not simply because there wasn't enough grass to support both their flocks, but because they were fundamentally different- one was given to sin and one was not.
So then I perused some commentaries and found that the Netziv says exactly what I intuited.
ולא יכלו לשבת יחדו. הוא כפל לשון. ובא ללמדנו דלא משום שלא הספיקה מרעה הארץ לצאנם כמו דכתיב להלן ל״ו ז׳ ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם לשאת אותם מפני מקניהם. אלא משום שהיו הטבעים רחוקים ולא היה לוט לצוותא לאברם כי אם מרחוק. אבל יחדיו לא יכלו לשבת. ובאשר היה רכושם רב היו מוכרחים לפגוע זב״ז. והיתה פגישתם למשא על אברם ומ״מ לא מצא אברם עדיין לב להגיד לו להפרד עד.
So now the question is- at this point, what exactly is Lot's flaw? In what way is his nature different from Abraham's? And how can we determine it from this point in the narrative (prior to his having done anything that could be seen as problematic, such as the episode with his daughters?)
My suggestion is that the fundamental difference between Abraham and Lot has to do with how much appearance matters to them. Lot is led astray by his eyes while Abraham is not. Here's what I mean by this.
In Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" there is a scene where Portia's suitors must choose between three caskets- one made of gold, one made of silver and one made of lead- in order to win her. Her portrait is within one of the caskets. Each casket bears a legend. The gold one reads "Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire." The silver one reads "Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves." The lead one states "Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath." The point, of course, is to make sure the suitor is worthy.
Those who choose by appearance alone are caught in a trap. Morocco does so, choosing the gold, and here is what happens:
O hell! what have we here?We know that Lot chooses his future dwelling place by appearance alone (Genesis 13:10-11).
A carrion Death, within whose empty eye
There is a written scroll! I'll read the writing.
ReadsAll that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:Many a man his life hath soldBut my outside to behold:Gilded tombs do worms enfold.Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been inscroll'd:
Fare you well; your suit is cold.
Cold, indeed; and labour lost:
Then, farewell, heat, and welcome, frost!
Portia, adieu. I have too grieved a heart
To take a tedious leave: thus losers part.
Lot is not at fault for selecting a place that would be good for pasturing his flock, but one can argue he is at fault for not a) seeking to learn more about the inhabitants of the town prior to moving there and b) not leaving the place once he is able to determine what they are like. Additionally, the very methodology behind his choice (focusing on appearance) is problematic because it is a repeat of the exact sin that Eve commits earlier in Genesis 3:6.
| ו וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה-הוּא לָעֵינַיִם, וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל, וַתִּקַּח מִפִּרְיוֹ, וַתֹּאכַל; וַתִּתֵּן גַּם-לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ, וַיֹּאכַל. | 6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat. |
In contrast to Lot, Abraham is someone who specifically does not look at appearances. Note that when Sarai, his wife, is first referenced in the text, her looks are not mentioned at all (see Genesis 11:29).
| כט וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם וְנָחוֹר לָהֶם, נָשִׁים: שֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-אַבְרָם, שָׂרָי, וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-נָחוֹר מִלְכָּה, בַּת-הָרָן אֲבִי-מִלְכָּה וַאֲבִי יִסְכָּה. | 29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah. |
What this suggests is a fundamental difference between Lot and Abraham that is portrayed in the Torah from the get-go. Lot is the kind of person who looks at the outside and judges by appearances. Abraham is the kind of person who looks at the inside, judges a person by their worth, and only references the outside appearance when he must.
A person who cares about image and status is someone who looks to appearances and does not do further research. A person who cares about depth and is driven by mission as opposed to image or status is not concerned with appearances.
Abraham continues to demonstrate his focus on meaning and mission as opposed to image and status when, in the next chapter, he categorically refuses to benefit from the profits reaped in saving his kinsman Lot (Genesis 14:22-23) during a battle:
Indeed, he specifically mentions God (referencing his monotheistic beliefs as opposed to the common idolatrous ones) and credits God with the victory.
If we identify Lot's flaw as his being overly concerned with appearance, and thus image and status, we can come to understand his disturbing thought process when he privileges unknown strangers over his own virgin daughters (Genesis 19:8).
| ח הִנֵּה-נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּ אִישׁ--אוֹצִיאָה-נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם, וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם; רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל, אַל-תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר, כִּי-עַל-כֵּן בָּאוּ, בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי. | 8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.' |
To Lot, maintaining the appearance of being a welcoming, hospitable host who upholds guest-right is more important than his daughters' welfare.
Unfortunately, even today there are far too many people who are concerned with maintaining appearances while their own brethren suffer:
Let us hope that we allow for more Abrahams and fewer Lots going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)