Pensamiento judío sobre Génesis 13:13

Midrash Tanchuma on Parshat Nasso as well as on Parshat Pekudey quotes Rabbi Shimon ben Nachman as saying that at the time G-d created the universe, He wished to have a place of abode on earth, just as He has a place of abode in Heaven. He created man, commanded him "from every tree in the garden you may eat, but from the tree of knowledge of good and evil you must not eat" (Genesis 2,16). Man violated this commandment. G-d said, "I wanted an abode on earth, but man did not even observe the one commandment I gave him." Thereupon, G-d removed His presence to the lowest of the Heavens. When the generation of Enosh began to worship idols (see chapter 4,26), "then man began to call by the name of G-d," He withdrew to the third heaven, having moved to the second Heaven when Cain slew his brother. During the generation of the deluge, G-d moved to the fourth Heaven, and when the tower of Babel was built, He moved to the fifth Heaven. G-d continued withdrawing further and further from earth till at the destruction of Sodom, He had already moved to the sixth Heaven. When Amrafel and his companions waged war in the world, subjugating nations, G-d withdrew to the seventh and last heaven. According to Psalm 94,16, this was the time G-d exclaimed, "Who will arise on My behalf against the doers of evil, who will stand up for Me against the perpetrators of sin?" What did G-d do? He "folded" all the preceding generations together and let Abraham arise, whose deeds prompted G-d to descend from the seventh Heaven back to the sixth. When Isaac offered himself as a sacrifice on the altar, G-d descended from the sixth Heaven to the fifth. When Jacob arose, He descended from the fifth to the fourth level, and when Levi arose He descended to the third level. The lifestyles of Amram and Kehot were such that G-d descended to the second and first level successively. With the advent of Moses, G-d was able to return to earth since we read, "The Lord descended on Mount Sinai" (Exodus 19,18). In Song of Songs, this thought is expressed in the words, "I have come to the garden of My bride" (Song of Songs 5,1).

Bereshit Rabbah 50 discusses that the decision of the Sodomites to rob and rape every stranger was designed to establish a reputation that would keep strangers away. Their main concern was only their unwillingness to share their wealth. Their chet, criminal act, as distinct from their wickedness ra, namely the raping of strangers, was only incidental, not basic to their character. We can now understand Ezekiel who pronounced that the sin of Sodom was that they would not help the poor or destitute. When Jeremiah proclaims, "The iniquity of my people was greater than the chet of Sodom,” he refers to that failing of the Sodomites that was merely incidental, namely their immorality (Lamentations 4,6). Ezekiel does not bother to mention that sin, since it was not endemic to their character, could have been atoned for. The Talmud Sanhedrin 109 lists numerous examples of the Sodomites' misdeeds, all of which reflect the perverted monetary judgments that were the vogue there. On the evening when the angels arrived, the Sodomites merely behaved in a time honored fashion, not aware that the measure of their guilt had reached a state which called for Divine retribution. The men of Givah however, were quite different. Their laws were perfectly good, they only failed occasionally to live up to the standards of these laws and gave vent to their passions. For that reason, they did not deserve a rain of sulphur and brimstone. The leaders of the city should have punished the perpetrators of the crime. Since they neither interfered nor brought the rapists to justice for publicly committed crimes of the most vulgar kind, it became the duty of the other tribes to discipline the tribe of Benjamin (At this point the author criticizes leaders of his own generation for failing to deal with prostitutes and on occasion even harboring them and providing them with food and shelter, under the pretext that their plying their trade diminished the incidence of adultery). Any relatively insignificant sin, when committed in public and condoned by silent tolerance, becomes a big sin and threatens to assume the dimension of the sins committed by the people of Sodom who had hallowed their practices by enshrining them in law. Concerning the tribes who attacked Benjamin and initially suffered heavy defeats, our sages in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 38 tell us that these same tribes had been guilty of allowing the idolatrous image of Michah to flourish, without troubling themselves over G-d’s honor which was constantly being insulted thereby. They therefore had to pay the price when they showed that they considered the honor of the slain concubine and that of her husband as more deserving to be upheld than the honor of G-d. Altogether, before attacking their brother tribe, they should have undertaken to purge themselves of any wrongdoing, in order to be in a position to carry out a punitive expedition with a minimum of casualties. Our sages in Sotah 40 tell us that even when proceeding against pagans the verse, "He who is afraid must withdraw from battle” (Deut 20,8), refers to someone who feels he is guilty of some sin. If one goes to war against fellow Jews, one must most certainly purify oneself from sin before engaging in such an undertaking. Also, it would have been proper to obtain permission from G-d first to wage such a campaign. Even after their initial failure, when the tribes asked G-d if they should continue the war with "my brother Benjamin" (Judges 20,23), their philosophical concern was with the permissibility of engaging in civil war, not with their worthiness to conduct a punitive campaign without being free from guilt themselves. Only after having suffered the second defeat, having lost another eighteen thousand dead and a session of fasting, contrition sacrifice, and prayer, did the tribes receive the assurance of success of their efforts on the third attempt. Having seen how the attitude of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" can reduce people to the level which borders on "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine also," i.e. an attitude which once brought about the destruction of mankind at the time of the deluge, it is obvious that this must not be an attitude to be adopted. In his dealings with Avimelech, Abraham demonstrated that it is perfectly all right to share one's possessions, and when the need arises to accept help from one's fellow human being.

Shemot Rabbah 7 states that G-d revealed the course of events to Moses so that the latter would not be dumbfounded by the apparently counterproductive results of his mission to Pharaoh. Even so, Moses was appalled, asking G-d: "Why have You caused things to get worse since I have come to Pharaoh?" This is what Solomon meant in Kohelet 7,7, "Oppression causes the wise to become foolish." Even a Moses can become confused in his faith when confronted by excessive oppression and apparent injustice. At any rate, G-d ascribes Pharaoh's obstinacy to Pharaoh himself, not to Divine interference. Maimonides's reason for Sichon King of the Emorites having been denied the exercise of free will when he denied the Israelites passage through his country seems inadequate. Why was his sin worse than that of the kings of Edom and Moab who did not have their freedom of choice interfered with according to Maimonides (compare Deuteronomy 2,30)? Most difficult however, is the thought frequently expressed in scriptures that the gates of repentance are never closed (Jeremiah 3, Psalms 25, to quote but a few).