Commentaire sur La Genèse 19:39

שני TWO — One to destroy Sodom, the other to rescue Lot — it was he who had come to heal Abraham — whilst the third, who had come to make the announcement to Sarah, had departed as soon as he had carried out his mission (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 8).

ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה בערב, even though they arrived at that city without “time” having elapsed since they departed from Avraham, (compare Berachot 4 the angel Gavriel needing two steps, and the angel Michael only one step) they remained outside the city gates, invisible, not entering and appearing to Lot until evening. The same is true of 18,22 וילכו סדומה. Avraham had concluded his dialogue with G’d already some time previously.

ויבאו…בערב. They arrived in the evening. The reason for this whole story of the angels being hosted by Lot was to afford Lot the opportunity to justify his being saved. Although Bereshit Rabbah 50,11 attributes Lot's escape to Abraham's merit, we still need to find some redeeming feature in Lot's conduct to understand the efforts made by G'd to save him. Had the angels arrived at Sodom in daylight Lot would have lacked the moral courage to offer them hospitality even by devious means.

ויבאו שני המלאכים, these were the two who had previously been described as שני האנשים, “the two men.” When next to Avraham, they did not outrank him; therefore the Torah did not accord them the title “angels.” When compared to Lot, they outclassed him spiritually so much that they could not be described as אנשים, men. (Bereshit Rabbah, 50,2)

ולוט יושב בשער סדום, “and Lot was sitting in the public square of Sodom.” He distanced himself somewhat from the residential areas of the born and bred Sodomites. Alternately, the Torah writes these words to forestall your asking how he managed to bring the angels to his home without being afraid of being seen. When the angels arrived they found him a good distance away from the local citizenry [it was evening, after all. Ed.] He was therefore confident that he would escape detection when bringing guests to his house.

Elsewhere they are called men. Rashi is answering the question: By calling them angels, the verse implies that they [appeared as angels and] wore angels’ garments. But this cannot be; why then would Lot bake matzos [for them]? Perforce, they appeared to him as men. Thus Rashi explains, “Elsewhere they are called men...” I.e., they are merely called so, not that they [now] divested themselves of physicality. Regarding Avraham they were called men, out of respect for the Divine Presence. But with Lot, the Divine Presence was not there — so they are called angels.

ישב בשער העיר. Das Tor war nicht ein Sitz für Privat leute. Nur von Königen finden wir ein Sitzen im Tore (Sam. 11. 19, 9. Jirmij. 38, 7). oder wie bei Boas (Ruth 4, 1) zur Vornahme einer öffentlichen, amtlichen Handlung. Auch an ein Wohnen im Tore ist nicht zu denken, es müsste dann wie bei Rachab -heißen. Es bezeichnet daher, wie die Weisen bemerken, eine hervorragende öffent בחומה liche Stellung, die Lot in der Kommune inne hatte.

ויבואו שני המלאכים סדומה בערב, “two of the angels arrived in Sodom in the evening;” when Lot saw them, he asked them for the purpose of their visit. They told him that it was their mission to destroy the city. The reason why they volunteered this information was that they said to themselves that if they were simply to order him to leave town with their families without giving them a plausible reason, they would simply ignore them. But, since they had taken it upon themselves to reveal something G–d had not intended to be revealed at that time, they were punished by Him, by being exiled from the celestial regions for 138 years. This was in spite of the fact that what they had done had been well intentioned. Angels are subject to penalties even for committing “minor” errors by not having checked with their Master first, relying on the superior wisdom with which they had been endowed. This superior knowledge enables them to know what goes on in the minds of human beings. We find another example of punishment as warnings for celestial creatures where Mattatron, G–d’s “general manager” for running the universe on His behalf, was punished as stated in the Talmud tractate Chagigah, folio 15. This angel was expelled (temporarily) from the celestial regions and punished with sixty fiery strokes, in order to warn him not to fall victim to the same error as Elisha ben Avuyah on earth, who had arrived at the conclusion that Satan is an independent force in the universe rather than also a messenger carrying out missions on behalf of his Divine master. Rabbi Yehudah hachassid said that angels are punished with sixty lashes whereas human beings are not punished by more than forty (39) lashes, is that on earth already thirteen year olds qualify for such punishment, whereas such punishments are inflicted on over twenty year olds in the celestial regions. Just as 39 lashes on earth are three times thirteen so sixty is three times twenty.

ויבאו שני המלאכים, “the two angels arrived, etc.;” Rashi points out that when these two individuals arrived in Eloney Mamre in front of Avraham’s tent, the Torah had referred to them as אנשים, men, mortal human beings, whereas now they are described as angels. If you were to counter that in the ensuing argument between the townspeople and Lot they are also described as אנשים, (verses 5,8,12) this sentence has to be understood as follows: “the ones whom the men of the city called אנשים, “men of substance, etc;” the whole dialogue must be understood thus:Alternately; Lot is saying to his fellow citizens: “do not do any harm to the guests in my house to whom you refer as אנשים. He realised that whereas he had recognised these individuals as angels, his fellow citizens obviously had not. This explanation is also applicable to verse 16, ויחזיקו האנשים, “the men” took hold of, etc.”

המלאכים ANGELS — But elsewhere (Genesis 18:2) Scripture calls them men! When the Divine Presence was with them, it speaks of them as men. Another explanation is: in connection with Abraham whose power to receive heavenly visitors was great and whom angels visited as regularly as men, it calls them men, but in connection with Lot it calls them angels (Genesis Rabbah 50:2).

ויקם לקראתם, in order to prevent them from spending the night in the street. This was customary also in cities other than Sodom when no one had offered shelter to unexpected strangers. In such instances there was always the danger that the strangers would be harmed by some of the residents of the city.

וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם, he had learned the virtue of welcoming guests while he had been with Avraham.

וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם, “Lot saw and rose to meet them.” Avraham had beheld these “men” already from afar as it was full daylight, i.e. “during the heat of the day,” and this is why the Torah had underlined “he ran towards them.” Lot, however, did not see them until they were close by as they arrived in the evening. This is why the Torah merely mentions that “he arose (from his seat) to welcome them.”

When the Divine Presence was with them they are called men... There is a difficulty with this explanation: It is obvious that angels have no importance relative to the Divine Presence. [Why does the verse switch terms to teach this?] Thus Rashi offers “another explanation.” And there is a difficulty with that as well: Why not call them men everywhere? And if you object that we would not know they were angels, so call them angels [everywhere]! And if [the term is switched] to teach that angels were common [to Avraham but not to Lot], do we not already know that Avraham was a greater tzaddik than Lot? Therefore, we need the first explanation too. (Maharshal)

וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם. Lot saw and rose to meet them. This means that Lot recognised that these people were of the type familiar to him as ministering angels of the Lord when he still travelled with Abraham. Because Lot realised this he was prepared to take risks for their sake against the inhabitants of his town. He told them to wash their feet, a custom he had learned from the way Abraham conducted himself with his guests. The Torah reports the details to show the difference between Abraham and Lot. Abraham commenced with his guests washing their feet, Lot suggested they sleep first. Lot did not mind if people who were idolators entered his home without first removing the traces of idolatry, something that Abraham was very particular about.

שער ist das jüdische Forum. Während פתח auch die kleinste Öffnung bedeutet, ist שער stets ein öffentlicher Eingang für eine Menge. Verwandt mit שאר und .שחר שאר Rest, Blutsverwandtschaft und Nahrung, insbesondere Fleischnahrung. Der gemeinschaftliche Grundbegriff scheint das Ergänzende zu sein. Daher Rest: das Zurückgebliebene, das, wenn es zu dem andern käme, dasselbe voll machen würde. Daher Nahrung. Daher vielleicht auch Blutsverwandtschaft und Ehefrau; die Frau ist ja ohne weiteres die Ergänzung des Mannes, und Blutsverwandte scheinen zusammen im kleinen eine Gesamtheit zu bilden, die zusammen den Begriff des Menschen verwirklicht, von welchem Begriff ein jeder einen eigentümlichen Bruchteil darstellt. Wir dürfen daher sagen, dass שער für die Gesamtheit ist, was שאר für die Familie. Im שער soll jeder einzelne das finden, was ihm fehlt, die Waise ihren Vater, der Vereinsamte seine Brüder, der Blinde sein Auge, der Elende seine Hülfe etc. etc. und Zwecke, die die einzelnen vereinzelt nie bewirken können, sollen im Vereine der Gesamtheit ihre Verwirklichung finden. So ist die Gesamtheit nicht da, den einzelnen zu drücken, vielmehr in ihrer Ewigkeit und Omnipotenz — אין צבור מת ואין צבור עני — da, den einzelnen zu ergänzen. שער ist somit begrifflich dasjenige Moment, in welchem der einzelne seine Ergänzung findet, und der konkrete Raum, der alle einladet, sich gegenseitig zu ergänzen, und wo jeder seine Ergänzung zu suchen hat, ist: שער.

ולוט יושב בשער סדום, while Lot was seated (as a judge) in the public square of Sodom;” this was at the time when the quarrel about his guests broke out and he returned home, which was close to the gate of the city. This is why he could be so insistent when inviting the angels (verse 3) as the area was narrow and not exposed to the influence of the evil eye. [No one was familiar with the layout of his house.]

בערב AT EVENTIDE — Did it, however, take the angels such a long time to travel from Hebron to Sodom? But they were angels of mercy and so they tarried — perhaps Abraham would succeed in his advocacy for them (Genesis Rabbah 50:1).

וישתחו אפים ארצה, they clearly looked sufficiently imposing to warrant being treated deferentially.

(Ähnlich verhält sich שהר zu בקש und דרש. Während בקש ein Objekt suchen, דרש ein Objekt suchen oder einen Zustand erforschen, also beide etwas Unbekanntes, oder etwas suchen bedeuten, von dem man nicht weiß, ob und wo es zu finden ist, heißt שחר aufsuchen eines Gegenstandes, dessen Ort uns sehr wohl bekannt ist, der aber nicht zu uns kommt, sondern den wir an seinem Orte aufsuchen. Daher auch שחר schwarz, die Farbe, die uns die Gegenstände in den Hintergrund treten lässt, so dass wir sie aufsuchen müssen. Der Moment, in welchem wir dies bereits können, aber noch müssen, heißt: שחר; der noch fortgeschrittenere, in welchem die Gegenstände schon von selbst in ihren Umrissen hervortreten: בקר, so wie im Gegensatz ערב die Zeit, in welcher die Gegenstände sich zu mischen beginnen, לו) ליל) in welcher sie bereits in einander geschlungen sind, und endlich אפל (verwandt mit אול) die Finsternis, die alles zweifelhaft lässt und in welcher nichts mehr zu erkennen ist —).

ולוט ישב בשער סדום AND LOT WAS SITTING IN THE GATE OF SODOM — The word is written without a ו so that it may be read יָשַׁב (he sat) — because that day they had appointed him as their judge (Genesis Rabbah 50:3).

They appointed him to be their judge. You might ask: How does Rashi know that he was a judge? The answer is: It is written he was “sitting at the gate,” and “the gate” is usually the place of judgment, as we find with Boaz (Ruth 4:1). Furthermore, it is written later וישפט שפוט (v. 9), implying he was a judge.

חסר ,ישב wie die Weisen bemerken, er war erst heute zu dieser Stellung gelangt. Es war dann gewiß etwas Ungeheuerliches, dass in Sodom, wo kein Fremder eine Stätte fand, hier sogar ein Fremder zum Vorgesetzten erhoben worden. Lot dürfte sich gefreut haben, heute zum erstenmale gegen den ersten Paragraphen im Kodex Sodoms, kein "׳üben zu dürfen, opponieren zu können. Er muß bis jetzt als "kluger הכנסת אורחים Mann geschwiegen haben, so dass sie ihn sogar zum Richter gemacht. Jedenfalls sehen wir ihn in einer Tätigkeit, wie Abraham sich einen צדיק in Sodom gedacht, wo er in Mitte des Volkes das Beispiel zum Bessern zu geben wagt.

'וירא לוט וגו AND LOT SAW THEM etc. — From the practice in Abraham’s house he had learned to look out for strangers (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

He had learned from the house of Avraham to seek out travelers. It cannot be because he was [generally] careful about mitzvah performance, as he was not careful about idolatry: he had them lodge before they washed (see Rashi 18:4).

רנה נא אדני BEHOLD NOW, MY LORDS — Behold now you are my lords since you have passed by me. Another explanation is: Behold now you should be careful with respect to these wicked people that they should not observe you, and, therefore this is the good advice that I give you, viz.:

BEHOLD NOW, MY LORDS. Rashi comments: “Behold now you are my lords since you have passed by me” The correct interpretation is that it is an expression of pleadings: “My lords, behold now your servant’s house; turn aside, I pray you, to me” The word suru (turn aside) is as in the expressions: Turn aside (‘surah’), sit down here;¹⁶⁹Ruth 4:1. Turn in (‘surah’), my lord, turn in to me; fear not.¹⁷⁰Judges 4:18.

כי ברחוב נלין, the same as if the Torah had written אלא ברחוב נלין, “but we will spend the night in the street.”

והשכמתם והלכתם לדרככם, "and rise early and be on your way." Lot hinted to the angels that they had to hide from the local population because he was afraid that something like what happened might indeed occur, i.e. that his guests would be molested.

הנה נא, א-דוני, the word נא always expresses a plea. In this instance the word הנה has the vowel segol, because of the dagesh (dot) in the letter נ of the word נא.

הנה נא אדו-ני, “Look here, sirs;” a courteously phrased request. In other words, “seeing that my house is nearby, please honour me by visiting with me.”

Behold, you are now my masters since you have passed by me. According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Now” that you have passed by me, you are my masters.

סורו אל: weichet ab von eurer bisherigen Richtung hin zu dem Hause eures Dieners. Die Anrede beginnt mit הנה נא אדני, Worte, die wir bei Abraham nicht finden und die hier noch charakteristisch durch das ungewöhnliche ֶ — und רגש hervorgehoben sind. הנה נא drückt das unerwartet sich Darbietende aus. Wer seinen Weg durch Sodom nehmen musste, wusste sehr wohl, dort keine Gastfreundschaft finden zu können und musste ganz darauf vorbereitet sein, auf der Straße zu übernachten. Diese Vermutung musste Lot bei ihnen voraussetzen und tritt ihnen nun mit dem Unerwarteten entgegen! Seht, meine Herren, es gibt hier doch noch einen Neffen Abrahams. Denn als solchen sehen wir in der Tat Lot sich bewähren. Er war nicht umsonst bei Abraham in die Schule gegangen, so sehr auch, wie wir gesehen, er sich durch seinen etwas zu sehr auf das Materielle gerichteten Sinn von Abrahams Richtung im allgemeinen hatte abziehen lassen. — לון übernachten und im Niphal: הִלוֹן murren. Grundbegriff wahrscheinlich Schutz vor Unbehaglichkeiten, vor Unannehmlichkeiten suchen. Daher הִלון על־ von jemandem die Abhülfe von angeblich durch ihn veranlaßten Widerwärtigkeiten fordern, sich Abhülfe von Widerwärtigkeiten durch Beschuldigung eines andern suchen.

ולינו, “and spend the night (in my house);” he brought them into his house without delay before the people of Sodom could see them, and subsequently could identify them.

סורו נא—take a circuitous route to my house — a round-about way, that people should not notice you entering it. For this reason he said: סורו turn aside (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

א-דני, the vowel under the נ is a patach instead of the kametz we might have expected. This proves that the word is not a sacred attribute of the name of G’d. Lot, at that stage, had assumed that these strangers were simply extraordinary important people, judging by their attire and their general demeanour. When looking at them at the beginning he had thought they looked like angels.

והשכמתם והלכתם לדרככם, “you may rise early and continue on your way.” He was not going to detain them until the sun was shining. He hoped thereby to escape the watchful eyes of the Sodomites also in the morning. He was not worried that they would notice them at night, or, that they would consider these men as passing through without stopping in the town.

Turn off the main road... According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Please” turn in. Otherwise, why did he say to them סורו נא? He should have simply said, “Come to the home of your servant.”

AND YE SHALL RISE UP EARLY, AND GO ON YOUR WAY. The purport of that was to tell them that they should not tarry in the city after the morning for Lot knew the nature of the men of the city and of their wickedness, but he thought, In the morning light they do it.¹⁷¹Micah 2:1. But at night they would not know of them. (Tur.) It may be that he saw them as transients who would not tarry in the city, and so he said, And ye shall rise up early and go on your way if you desire.

ורחצו רגליכם, “and wash your feet.” This was an additional precaution, as he reasoned if any of the townspeople will see their dusty feet they will realise that they recently arrived from beyond the city gates. This will cause the townspeople to investigate these men further.

ולינו ורחצו רגליכם AND LODGE OVER NIGHT AND LAVE YOUR FEET — Is it then customary for people first to tarry all night and then to wash? Furthermore, Abraham began by saying to them, “Wash your feet”! —But this is what Lot thought: If when the men of Sodom come they see that they have already washed their feet, they will make a charge against me saying, “Two or three days have already elapsed since these come to your house and you did not report it to us” — consequently he said: it is better that they should stay here with the dust on their feet so that they would seem to have just arrived. On this account he first said to them, “Lodge over night”, and afterwards “Wash [your feet]” (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

ולינו, he had to ask them to stay the night, seeing that had arrived in the evening.

ולינו ורחצו, “spend the night and wash;” an unusual request, as most people wash (their feet) before going to bed at night. Besides we have it on the authority of Avraham who had asked the same men to first wash the dust off their feet before having lunch with him. (18,4) We therefore must understand Lot as follows: “if the men enter the house after having washed their feet, and they are seen as having clean feet, the townspeople will be suspicious believing that Lot had harboured guests secretly for several days already without their knowledge. He reasoned that the lesser evil is having these men sleep with dirty feet for one night than to provoke an altercation with the townspeople. Knowing of this danger, Lot added that the men (angels) should rise early and leave before they could be detected as guests of his.

ויאמרו לא AND THEY SAID, NAY — But to Abraham they had said, “So do [as thou hast said]”! Hence we may infer that one may readily decline an invitation from an inferior but one should not so readily decline an invitation from a superior (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

ורחצו, the letter ר has the vowel patach, as the word is in the imperative mode. Its meaning is just as it was when the angels arrived at Avraham’s in chapter 18. The invitation to wash one’s feet is normally extended as the first step in inviting guests to partake in a meal. In this instance, Lot did not bother to announce that he would feed these angels, seeing that he had already invited them to spend the night, something which would include supper as a matter of course.

כי ברחוב נלין, “for we will spend the night outdoors.” When the angels realised how scared Lot was to give them shelter for even one night, they declined his invitation, suggesting that they would take care of themselves even when remaining in the street, visible to all. They considered it appropriate to be seen by the people whom they had been sent to destroy together with their miserable city. If they would begin to realise this, perhaps they would become penitents.

כי ברחוב נלין BUT WE WILL ABIDE IN THE STREET — Here כי is used in the sense of but; they said: We will not turn aside into your house but we will abide in the street of the city all night.

והשכמתם, if you want you may rise early and be on your way, a remark quite similar to that of Avraham in 18,5.

ויאמרו לא, from this verse our sages deduce that it is in order to decline invitations from insignificant people, whereas one must not turn down an invitation from prominent, highly placed people (quoted by Rashi) The same men, when visiting Avraham, had immediately accepted his invitation, whereas here, when an invitation seemed even more called for, they at first refused Lot’s offer of hospitality.

כי ברחוב, in the public street or square of the town. They were not prepared to be the guests of anyone else in the city either.

ויסרו אליו AND THEY TURNED ASIDE UNTO HIM — They took a circuitous route towards his house (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

AND HE URGED THEM GREATLY. His urging them was meritorious on the part of Lot, and he indeed had a sincere desire to welcome wayfarers. They, however, at first refused in order to increase his merit, and therefore they finally listened to him; but originally they did not want to come into his house as he was not a perfectly righteous man. But our Rabbis have said [in order to explain their original refusal]:¹⁷²Baba Metzia 87a. “One may decline an offer from an inferior person, but not from a superior person.”¹⁷³Hence, to Abraham the angels immediately said, So do, as thou hast said, (above, 18:5), but with Lot, they at first declined. If so, their declining his offer at first was merely an act of ethical conduct.

A feast. Literally, “a drinking feast.” Lot offered them wine because he was fond of it himself.

ויעש להם משתה. He prepared a feast for them. The correct meaning of the verse is that while Lot prepared a meal for them the angels ate only matzot. This was because Lot did not observe the commandments of the Torah as did Abraham. At Abraham's home the angels had no compunction about eating meat. The angels either knew that Lot had tithed the flour he used for baking the matzot, or they reasoned that in the absence of priests to give the tithe (תרומה) to, they assumed that function themselves and ate the part which could be considered terumah whereas they did not eat the regular matzah. According to our sages (Midrash Hagadol), the date was the 16th of Nissan and Lot had baked matzah in anticipation of the eventual Passover holiday some 400 years hence.

ויפצר בם מאד, he spoke to them intently on the subject, urging them to accept his invitation, until eventually, they did come to his house. Onkelos writes ותקיף בהם, that he actually took hold of these men until they concurred to spend the night with him.

ויפצר בם מאד, “he urged them very strongly.” They had first refused, in order to increase his merit if he kept insisting to host them.

ומצות אפה ויאכלו, “and he had baked unleavened bread, and they ate.” The reason the Torah mentions the kind of bread being served was to contrast it with the fact that Avraham never did serve bread to the angels. Here the Torah wanted to alert us to this. Here the angels did eat the bread as opposed to the meat which disappeared when it was served by Avraham to the angels. The “meal” when the angels were at Avraham’s resembled a sacrifice on the altar (compare our comments on 18,8).

It was Pesachhy, concerning Avraham, does it say (18:6), “Knead it and make rolls,” rather than matzos? It was Pesach, so it should have said “matzah rolls”! The answer is: Avraham ordered rich matzos to be made, [e.g. kneaded with oil and honey,] in honor of the guests.

פצר :durch Eindringen in einen Gegenstand ihm etwas abgewinnen, daher: פצירה die Feile. Verwandt mit בצר, die Weinlese. — Er bereitete das Mahl, er backte den Kuchen — wie sticht diese öde Isoliertheit trüb ab gegen die freudige Beweglichkeit im Abrahamshause, wenn es galt, die Mizwa der Gastfreundschaft zu üben! Nicht Frau, nicht Kind nahmen in Lots Hause Teil an der Mizwa des Vaters und Gatten. Mit dem, was er bei Abraham gelernt, stand er im eigenen Hause selber allein.

ומצות אפה AND HE BAKED UNLEAVENED BREAD —It was Passover (Genesis Rabbah 48:12).

ויעש להם משתה, seeing it was night he did not have time to slaughter an animal in their honour, but he prepared something at short notice, served them drinks, and unleavened bread which can be prepared at short notice. It is good manners to prepare something at short notice for guests who arrived unexpectedly. The guest arriving at such a time is usually tired and does not care to wait until an elaborate meal can be prepared in his honour. The story has been recorded for all times in order to teach us how to serve unexpected guests arriving at night.

ויאכלו. If the whole sequence is a vision which Lot did not actually experience, the meaning of the word ויאכלו must be understood literally; if the Torah describes actual events, the word means that Lot had the impression as if the angels ate and drank his food. The food and drink, which are composed of different components, simply dissolved into their basic ingredients so that they were not visible as such. [imagine water, i.e. H20, being dissolved into the gases oxygen and hydrogen, becoming invisible in the process. Ed.] This, of course, would occur miraculously.

טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום The following explanation is given in Genesis Rabbah 50:5: Before they lay down, the men of the city were a topic of conversation (literally, were in the mouths of the angels), for they asked Lot about their character and doings, and the latter replied that most of them were wicked. They were still speaking about them, 'ואנשי סדום וגו “when the men of Sodom etc.” However the real sense of the text is: The men of the city, wicked men, compassed the house. Because they were wicked he designates them as “men of Sodom”, just as Scripture said, (Genesis 13:13) “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners”.

כל העם מקצה, the Torah mentions this detail in order to show us that there was not even a single Sodomite who would qualify for saving, as suggested by Avraham in the event there would be 10 righteous people there.

טרם ישכבו, Before they went to sleep. The Torah is careful not to write: "after they had eaten, etc." From this we learn that something transpired between Lot and the angels after the time they completed the meal and before their retiring for the night. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 50,5 mention that when questioned about the townspeople by the angels Lot said that whereas all over the world there are both good and wicked people in a town, in Sodom the people were mostly wicked. We have previously explained why the angels did not immediately destroy the town when they heard this. Besides, according to the Midrash, Lot asked them to spare the city and they accepted his plea. It was only after they were about to add further sins (verse 5) to their already full register that the angels told Lot to save himself and his relatives (verse 12) prior to their destroying the city. There was an additional reason why the angels did not immediately destroy the town. They waited till morning, a period when the attribute of Mercy is in the ascendancy; at that time they would succeed in saving Lot. They could not have done this during the night. Our sages add that since the Sodomites worshipped both sun and moon they were smitten at a time when the moon is full (middle of the month) and the sun shone, to show that neither force protected them.

טרם, why did the Torah have to write the wordsאנשי סדום, “the men of Sodom,” having already immediately before identified these men as אנשי העיר, the men of the town?” The Torah wanted to emphasise that by their actions they proved that they must be inhabitants of the city of Sodom. This bore out the Torah’s previous characterisation of the inhabitants of this city as רעים וחטאים, “wicked and sinful,” (13,13)

ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום, ”and the men of the town, the men of Sodom, etc.” The Torah wanted to hint that the men of Sodom and the men of “the city and the Tower” (in Genesis 11,4) had a great deal in common. Both were absolutely wicked. The men here described as “the men of the city,” were survivors of that episode [less than 100 years earlier]. (According to another view, these men were re-incarnates of the people who had died at the time of the Tower and they resurfaced a third time as re-incarnates and formed the rebels who joined Korach in his uprising. (Compare our author’s comment on Numbers 27,29)

The people of the city, who were evil people, surrounded the house... Rashi is saying that “Sedomites” is used as a term for evil people, as the people of Sedom were [exceptionally] evil.

Es wird mit großem Bedachte berichtet, wer die Menschen waren, die sich um Lots Haus versammelten. Es war nicht etwa fremdes Gesindel, es waren אנשי העיר, Einheimische und zwar אנשי סדום, die den Staat vertretenden Bürger, die dem unerhörten "Angriff auf die alten herkömmlichen Gesetze und Gerechtsame der Stadt" entgegentraten.

מנער ועד זקן, “both young and old.” Seeing that all of them were wicked, Avraham had not received an assurance beyond a minimum of ten.

כל העם מקצה ALL THE PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER — from one end of the city to the other end, and no-one protested, for there was not even one righteous person amongst them (Genesis Rabbah 50:5).

ועד זקן, the old people were no better than the people in their prime whose perversions might have been due to their youthful vigour. All the people ganged up on Lot’s house. As a result of their extreme self-centeredness, they had passed a law that no stranger was to be entertained in that city. Lot’s having broken with this tradition so enraged them that they decided to teach him a lesson by attacking his guests. The reason why the Torah goes into all this detail is merely so that subsequent generations will realise that G’d’s action in destroying such people was justified.

There was not one who protested... Rashi is saying: Surely it is impossible that the small area around Lot’s house held all the people of the city! Perforce it means none of the people of the city objected, and thus it is considered as if they themselves did it.

Es war ferner jung und alt, und es war endlich das ganze Volk, מִקָצֶה von jedem äußersten Ende, d. h. die niedrigsten und die höchsten Stände, der Plebs und die קצינים. So Jirmij. 51. 31 כי נלכדה עירו מִקָצֶה, die Stadt ist von beiden Seiten erstürmt worden. Es war somit in diesem Zusammenlauf jedes Alter und jeder Stand vertreten, und dies ist für ihr Vorhaben und dessen so verhängnisvoll entscheidende Kraft von Bedeutung. Die Bevölkerung stand unter der Anklage רעים והטאים, unmenschlich und unsittlich im höchsten Grade zu sein. Dies Vorhaben liefert den letzten Beweis: הוציאם ונדעה אתם. Die Ausübung der Gastfreundschaft war ein so großes Verbrechen, dass an den aufgenommenen Fremden ein Exempel statuiert werden sollte, um jeden ferneren Versuch unmöglich zu machen, da ist die Unmenschlichkeit. Und diese Misshandlung soll durch die viehischste Wollust ausgeübt werden, da ist die Unsittlichkeit. Nun sind aber in der Empfänglichkeit für diese beiden Extreme der Schlechtigkeit die verschiedenen Alter und Stände verschieden. Die Jugend, die wohl für sittenlose Ausschweifung empfänglich ist, behält in der Regel ein menschlich fühlendes Herz, das sich gegen misshandelnde Härte empört. Ebenso die sogenannten niederen Stände finden wohl Gefallen an roher, grobsinnlicher Unsittlichkeit, aber selber gedrückt, stehen sie überall auf Seiten der Gedrückten und empören sich gegen die Misshandlung hülfloser Unglücklichen. Umgekehrt das Alter ist freilich durch die berechnenden Erfahrungen des Lebens hart geworden, allein, da es "ausgetobt" hat, wird es Ausschweifungen, denen es vielleicht in der eigenen Jugend selber gefröhnt, von dem jüngeren Geschlecht nicht dulden. Und ebenso die sogenannten höheren Stände, werden eben durch ihren Stand wohl hart und gefühllos gegen Leiden und Misshandlungen der "Niedern", allein wenn auch nicht aus Sittlichkeitsgefühl, so doch aus Anstandsgefühl, dem gewöhnlichen Produkte der Bildung, werden sie öffentlichen, rohen Skandalen der Unsittlichkeit steuern. Hätte daher nicht in Sodom die Schlechtigkeit eine so durchgreifende Höhe und Ausdehnung gewonnen gehabt, es wäre die Ausführung eines solchen Vorhabens in Mitte einer in jedem Alter und Stande vertretenen Bevölkerung eine Unmöglichkeit geblieben. Gegen die Unmenschlichkeit hätte sich die Jugend mit dem "Volke" verbunden, und für die Aufrechthaltung der Sitte wäre das Alter den höheren Ständen zur Seite getreten. Hier aber war jung und alt, hoch und niedrig einmütig zur Ausübung des Unmenschlichsten und Unsittlichsten verbunden, und das brach den Stab über die "Männer von Sodom".

נער, Grundbegriff Abschütteln, נוער כפיו מתמוך בשוחד (Jes. 33, 15). Dann: die Jugend, an welcher die Eindrücke noch nicht lange haften bleiben, die alles leicht noch abschüttelt. Dagegen זקן, vielleicht verwandt mit סכן, dessen Bedeutungen: סכן pflegen, סכנה Gefahr, מסכנות Dürftigkeit, auf die Grundbedeutung: für äußere Eindrücke empfindlich und empfänglich sein, hinweisen, daher sehr bezeichnend für: Krankenpflege, auf die schädlichen Einflüsse achten, die den Kranken treffen könnten, sie für den Kranken gleichsam auffangen und dadurch von ihm abwehren. Daher auch הַסכן etwas mit anhaltender hingebender Achtsamkeit tun. Daher denn זקן: der viel Erfahrene. Verwandt vielleicht auch mit זין: der Gerüstete.

ונדעה אותם AND WE SHALL KNOW THEM — with homosexuality, as in "who have not known a man" (Genesis Rabbah 50:5).

AND WE SHALL KNOW THEM. Their intention was to stop people from coming among them, as our Rabbis have said,¹⁷⁴Sanhedrin 109a. for they thought that because of the excellence of their land, which was as the garden of the Eternal,¹⁷⁵Above, 13:10. many will come there, and they despised charity. Lot, however, came to them with his riches and wealth [and was given permission to live in Sodom because] he either asked permission of them, or that they accepted him in honor of Abraham.
Now Scripture testifies that this was the intent of the people of Sodom, as it is said, Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fullness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.¹⁷⁶Ezekiel 16:49. The verse stating, And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners against the Eternal exceedingly,¹⁷⁷Above, 13:13. This would seem to indicate that they sinned only against G-d but not against their fellow man. really means that they continued provoking and rebelling against Him with their ease and the oppression of the poor. It is this thought which Scripture expresses by saying, And they were haughty, and committed abomination before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.¹⁷⁸Ezekiel 16:50.
In the opinion of our Rabbis,¹⁷⁹Sanhedrin 109a. all evil practices¹⁸⁰Such as blasphemy, bloodshed, etc. (Ibid.) were rampant among them. Yet their fate was sealed because of this sin — i.e., they did not strengthen the hand of the poor and needy — since this sin represented their usual behavior more than any other. Besides, since all peoples act righteously towards their friends and their poor, there was none among all the nations who matched Sodom in cruelty.
Know that the judgment of Sodom was due to the superiority of the Land of Israel since Sodom is part of the inheritance of the Eternal,¹⁸¹II Samuel 20:19. and it does not suffer men of abominations. And just as it later vomited out a whole nation on account of their abominations,¹⁸²See Leviticus 18:25. so it now anticipated and saw that this entire people behaved worse than all nations towards Heaven and mankind. It thus laid waste heaven and earth for them, and the land was destroyed forever, never to be restored, since they became haughty on account of the goodness that was bestowed on them. The Holy One, blessed be He, thus made Sodom a token against the rebellious children,¹⁸³Numbers 17:25. that is, against the children of Israel who were destined to inherit it, even as He warned them: The whole land thereof is brimstone, and salt, and a burning… like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah and Zeboiim, which the Eternal overthrew in His anger, and in His wrath.¹⁸⁴Deuteronomy 29:22. For there have been among nations those who were evil and exceedingly sinful, and yet He did not do to them as He did to Sodom. However it was all on account of the superiority of this land for there is the temple of the Eternal.¹⁸⁵Jeremiah 7:4. I plan to explain this in Seder Achrei Moth,¹⁸⁶Leviticus 18:24. if He Who taketh life and giveth life will sustain me in life.

ונדעה אותם. A euphemism for committing sodomy with these strangers. The same expression as a euphemism is also found in Judges 19,22.

ויקראו...ונדעה אותם, who these people are, and how such people had dared to enter our town at night in spite of our reputation. The word ונדעה is a euphemism for the intention to kill these people, just as it is in Judges 19,22 as reported by a party involved there in 20,5 Other commentators believe that the euphemism concerns the intention of sodomising these men.

ונדעה אותם, “so that we can become intimate with them.” They meant to indulge in homosexual relations with these strangers. According to the plain meaning of the text, they wanted to examine if these men were spies.

For the purpose of homosexuality... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? The answer is: It says afterward, “Behold! I have two daughters...” This implies that from the beginning they sought something similar, i.e., homosexual relations.

ונדעה אותם, “so that we may engage in homosexual relations with them;” the word ידע is familiar to us from Genesis 4,1 where it described Adam in engaging in carnal relations with Chavah. Besides, it is clear from Lot’s offer of his two virgin daughters as an alternative to satisfy the carnal desires of the men of Sodom (19,8), that these men were planning a criminal activity.

ויצא....סגר אחריו, either the person within the house locked the door from the inside, or Lot locked the door from the outside.

דלת, Wurzel דלה schöpfen, die Türe schöpft ein und aus (s. K. 6, Raw Hirsch on Genesis 19: 10).

ויאמר אל נא, “please guard the welfare of these men for you are my brothers and neighbours; do it for my sake and leave them alone!”

האל is the same as האלה THESE.

LET ME, I PRAY YOU, BRING THEM OUT UNTO YOU. From the praise of this man Lot we have come to his disgrace: he made every effort on behalf of his guests in order to save them because they came under the shadow of his roof, but he is ready to appease the men of the city by abandoning his daughters to prostitution! This bespeaks nothing but an evil heart for it shows that the matter of prostitution of women was not repugnant to him, and that in his opinion he would not be doing such great injustice to his daughters. It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said,¹⁸⁷Tanchuma Vayeira 12. “It is the custom of the world that a man fights to the death for the honor of his daughters and his wife, to slay or to be slain, but this man hands over his daughters for dishonor. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him, ‘It is for yourself that you keep them.’”¹⁸⁸See further, Verses 30-36.
Now Lot was fearful [for the welfare of the angels] as he thought that they were men, but when they smote the men of the city with blindness and they said to him, For we will destroy this place… and the Eternal hath sent us,¹⁸⁹Verse 13 here. then he recognized them and believed in doing whatever they commanded him.
Know and understand that the matter of the concubine of Gibeah,¹⁹⁰Judges, Chapter 19. Ramban digresses here to explain the crime of Gibeah, which bears a certain resemblance to that of Sodom, and consequently explains also the civil war between the tribe of Benjamin and the rest of Israel. Thus Chapters 19 and 20 in the book of Judges are here explained by Ramban. even though it resembles this affair, does not attain the degree of evil of the inhabitants of Sodom. Those wicked ones of Gibeah had no intention of stopping people from coming among them. Rather, they were steeped in immorality and desired sexual relations with the wayfarer, and when he brought his concubine out to them, they were satisfied with her.¹⁹¹Ibid., Verse 25. The old man [who had invited the wayfarer to his house] and who said to the men of Gibeah, Behold, here is my daughter, a virgin, and his concubine; I will bring them out now… and do with them what seemeth good unto you,¹⁹²Ibid., Verse 24. knew that they would not want his daughter and that they would not harm her. This was why they refused to listen to him. And when he finally turned his concubine alone outdoors to them, they ceased molesting him. Now the master of the house, as well as the guest, both wanted to save the man through his concubine, as a concubine does not have the status of a man’s wife. Besides, she had already played the harlot against him.¹⁹³Ibid., Verse 2. In that breach, too, not all of the men of the city were involved as they were in Sodom, concerning which it is said, Both young and old, all the people from every quarter,¹⁹⁴Verse 4 here. while of Gibeah it is said, Behold, the men of the city, certain base fellows¹⁹⁵Judges 19:22. — only some of them, those who were the rulers and strong men of the city, even as the man said in relating the incident, And the masters of Gibeah¹⁹⁶“Masters of Gibeah.” This is obviously the way Ramban understood the verse since the Hebrew had “ba’alei [rather than anshei] Gibeah.” The J.P.S. translation, however, renders it: And the men of Gibeah rose against me. rose against me.¹⁹⁷Judges 20:5. This was why the others did not protest against them. Now the chiefs of all the people, of all the tribes of Israel¹⁹⁸Ibid., Verse 2. wanted to erect a great guard in the matter of immorality by slaying them, as it is said, Now therefore deliver up the men, the base fellows that are in Gibeah, that we may put them to death.¹⁹⁹Ibid., Verse 13. It is clear that according to the law of the Torah they were not guilty of the death-penalty as they had done no deed exclusive of the torture of the concubine — harlot. They did not intend her death, nor did she die at their hands for they let her go at the approach of dawn,²⁰⁰Ibid., 19:25. and she walked from them to her master’s house and after that she died,²⁰¹Ibid., Verse 26. weakened perhaps by her numerous violations, and chilled while lying at the door until it was light, and there she died. But because the men of Gibeah had wanted to do a shameful deed just as the men of Sodom, the tribes saw fit “to make a fence unto the Torah” so that this should never again happen or be contemplated in Israel, even as they said, And that we may put away evil from Israel.²⁰²Ibid., 20:13. This judgment has its origin in the principle which our Rabbis have stated:²⁰³Yebamoth 90b. “The Court may administer stripes and the death penalty which are not authorized by the Torah. However, they may not do this [with the intent of instituting a law which] transgresses the words of the Torah but only for the purpose of erecting a fence around the Torah.”²⁰⁴That is, as a temporary measure which the times require, they may act accordingly. See Rashi Sanhedrin 46 a, that this is its meaning. The tribe of Benjamin, however, did not consent to this²⁰⁵That the men of Gibeah, involved in the affair, should be put to death. as they were not guilty of the death-penalty for violating the concubine. Perhaps the Benjamites were also provoked by the fact that the tribes did not communicate with them first and reached a consensus without asking for their opinion.
In my opinion, this [failure to consult Benjamin] caused Israel’s punishment which resulted in their being routed at first since the war was done not in accordance with the law. The obligation of making “the fence”²⁰⁶To punish the men of Gibeah as an extraordinary measure. lay upon the tribe of Benjamin, and not upon them, as it is the tribe itself that is obligated to judge its constituents.²⁰⁷Deuteronomy 16:18. Sanhedrin 16 b: “It is commandatory upon the tribe to judge the people of the tribe.”
Thus both parties were deserving of punishment. Benjamin sinned by not bothering to punish the wicked ones or even rebuke them. Israel sinned by making war not in accordance with the law, and they asked not counsel at the mouth of the Eternal²⁰⁸Joshua 9:14. on this matter. Instead they questioned G-d and said, Who shall go up for us first to battle against the children of Benjamin?²⁰⁹Judges 20:18. They themselves had decided to do battle in any case. Similarly, they did not inquire concerning the outcome of the battle, “If Thou wilt give them into my hand,” since they relied on their man-power which was exceedingly great as they were now more than ten times [as numerous as the Benjamites].²¹⁰The Israelites mustered four hundred thousand (ibid., Verse 17) while the Benjamites numbered twenty-six thousand (ibid., Verse 15). All they asked was, Who shall go up for us first,²⁰⁹Judges 20:18. this being like casting lots among them. Perhaps each tribe was saying, “I will not go up first,” or each tribe was saying, “I will be first.”²¹¹A similar case occurred when the Israelites stood before the Red Sea. There is a difference of opinion among the Rabbis as to their attitude. According to one authority each tribe said, “I will not go into the sea first [to escape the Egyptians],” while another authority maintains that each tribe was saying, “I will go first.” And the Holy One, blessed be He, answered in accordance with their question: Judah first,²⁰⁹Judges 20:18. meaning Judah is always first, For He hath chosen Judah to be prince.²¹²I Chronicles 28:4. This was why He did not say, “Judah shall go up,” as in other places,²¹³As in Judges 1:2. for He did not give them permission. However, He did not stop them, and neither did he tell them, Go not up, neither fight,²¹⁴Deuteronomy 1:42. because of the merited punishment of the Benjamites. Thus did G-d walk with both of them by chance, leaving them to natural circumstances. Accordingly, the Benjamites, who were valiant men and whose cities were well fortified, destroyed the Israelites who had “made flesh their arm of strength.”²¹⁵See Jeremiah 17:5. But now the Benjamites compounded their merited punishment. It would have been sufficient for them to drive the Israelites away from Gibeah. Instead, they killed them, seeking to destroy them by a perpetual hatred,²¹⁶Ezekiel 25:15. and they slew the mighty number of twenty-two thousand of their people.²¹⁷Judges 20:21. Now when the Israelites suffered such a great defeat they became aware of their error, namely, that they did battle with their brethren without receiving Divine permission and engaged in a battle which was not in accordance with the law of the Torah. Therefore, on the second day they asked, shall I again draw nigh to battle against the children of Benjamin my brother?²¹⁸Ibid., Verse 23. Now they mentioned the brotherhood among them, asking whether He forbids them to do battle. But now on the second day, G-d permitted them, saying, Go up against him,²¹⁸Ibid., Verse 23. as it was now permissible for them to avenge the spilled blood of their brethren.²¹⁹Spilled needlessly. All the Benjamites had to do on the first day of battle was to drive the Israelites from Gibeah, as explained above. Instead, they killed twenty-two thousand of them. Hence, on the second day, it became “permissible” for the Israelites to attempt to avenge their death. However, they did not ask whether they will be victorious because they were still relying upon their superior numbers to bring victory under all circumstances. But since G-d had explained to them only that the battle was permissible to them, and since their first sin had not yet been atoned for, there fell among them also on the second day eighteen thousand.²²⁰Judges 20:25. On the third day they decreed a fast, and they fasted and they wept… before the Eternal,²²¹Ibid., Verse 26. and they offered burnt-offerings to atone for their sinful thoughts²²²A Burnt-offering is brought only for sinful thought. (Vayikra Rabbah 7:3.) through which they relied upon the strength of their arm. They also offered peace-offerings,²²¹Ibid., Verse 26. which were Thanksgiving peace-offerings, since they considered themselves as if they had all escaped from the sword of Benjamin. This indeed is the law of all who are delivered from danger: they are to bring a thanks-offering, just as it is said, And let them offer the sacrifices of thanksgiving, and declare His works with singing,²²³Psalms 107:22. and it is further written, And now shall my head be lifted up above mine enemies round about me; and I will offer in His tabernacle sacrifices with trumpet-sound; I will sing, yea, I will sing praises unto the Eternal.²²⁴Ibid., 27:6.
Now the number of dead among the Israelites during the two days was forty thousand, and in the end twenty-five thousand²²⁵Judges 20:35. of Benjamin’s warriors fell, besides those that were put to the sword from the whole city and all that they found.²²⁶Ibid., Verse 48. It is possible that among the men, women and children they totalled fifteen thousand additional casualties, thus making the punishment of the two groups equal.
And how significant are the words of our Rabbis²²⁷Sanhedrin 103b. who said that the anger of G-d at that time was due to the idol of Micah!²²⁸See Judges, Chapter 17. “Said the Holy One, blessed be He, ‘Concerning My honor, which was violated by those guilty of death and those who raised their hand against the principle of religion, namely, the unity of G-d, you did not protest; but for the honor of a mortal you did protest, to an extent which exceeded the limits of justice!”
Therefore He confounded the counsel of the two groups and made their hearts stubborn, and they remembered not the brotherly covenant.²²⁹Amos 1:9. But after the affair they had regrets, just as it is said, And the people came to Beth-eland sat there till evening before G-d, and lifted up their voice, and wept bitterly. And they said: O Eternal, G-d of Israel, why is this come to pass in Israel, that there should be today one tribe missing from Israel?²³⁰Judges 21:2-3. For now they realized their mistakes and punishment.
We have thus incidentally explained a concealed matter which is not clear [with a cursory reading of the text], and we have mentioned the cause thereof.

כי על כן,”seeing that they have already באו, come”.

אוציאה נא אתהן אליכן, he hoped that the fiancés of his daughters would come to their aid. (compare Hoseah 10,14 for the meaning of the author’s expression קאם שאון).

הנה נא, the words mean “now!” Now restrain your urge to kill these people. I will now hand over to you my two daughters and you can satisfy your urges with them. You can rape them, seeing that they are still virgins. Alternatively, you may even kill them. This is what he meant when he added the words כטוב בעיניכם. אל תעשו דבר, “do not do something evil.!” כי על כן באו, seeing they have come to spend the night under my roof, leave them be, in my honour, I would rather have you abuse my daughters or even kill them, than to do any harm to these men.”

הנה לי שתי בנות, “I have two daughters;“ whom I am willing for you to be intimate with.

Since they have come. Otherwise, the verse would mean they came to Lot so no one would harm them. But this cannot be, as the Sedomites were not previously harassing them. (Gur Aryeh)

הנה נא לי שתי בנות, Lot most certainly did not mean to “sacrifice” his daughters. His turn of phrase must be understood in the same sense as when someone says to his good friend: “my house is at your disposal. Help yourself to whatever you desire!” Or, the words may be understood as if someone under the threat of being murdered shouts at his would-be murderers: “go ahead and kill me, (if you dare)” He knew full well that these people were not going to do what he had proposed to them.

צֵל Schatten von צלל. Grundbedeutung: dem äußeren Eindruck unzugänglich machen, daher צֵל: der Schatten, wo dem Lichtstrahl der Zugang gehindert ist, צלל: die Betäubung des Ohres, dass der Schallstrahl nicht eindringt, woher auch צלצלים: betäubende Instrumente. צלל: iin die Tiefe sinken, wohin weder Schall noch Lichtstrahl dringt; endlich auch צללו שערים: das Geschlossenwerden der Tore, wodurch der räumliche Zutritt gesperrt wird. Verwandt mit זלל: durch Hinabdrücken in die Niedrigkeit und סלל: durch Hinaufheben in die Höhe, dem gewöhnlichen Bereiche entziehen. Auch שלל berauben. —

אשר לא ידעו איש, “who have not had carnal relations with any man.” According to proper grammar, Lot should have said: אשר לא ידען איש, “with whom no man had had carnal relations;” seeing that it is usually the male who seduces the female; however the daughters of Lot were not chaste and did not shy away from engaging in seducing men, as we know from later when they initiated carnal relations with their own father. (20,33) Their descendants, the daughters of Midian, kept up the tradition when they seduced the Israelite males in the desert (Numbers 31,17) As a result all the female Midianite prisoners who had lost their virginity were not allowed to live.

כי על כן באו FOR AS MUCH AS THEY HAVE COME — For (כי) this kindness please do out of respect to me because that (על כן) they have come בצל קורתי UNDER THE SHADOW OF MY ROOF. — In the Targum this is given by בטלל שרותי: the Targum (Aramaic) for קורה (a beam) is שרותא.

אשר לא ידעו איש, “who have never yet been intimate with a man.” Actually, he should have phrased it as: ”with whom no man has as yet been intimate.” This was the phrase used in Genesis 24,16 (Rivkah) ואיש לא ידעה, “no man had been intimate with her.” The reason why he chose the phrasing he did was to hint (subconsciously) that eventually they would take the initiative in sleeping with a man, their own father. (Genesis 19,31-36)

גש הלאה, they insulted him. They realised that Lot would not hand over his guests. They ordered him out of the way. When the angels saw how Lot endangered himself on their account they forgave him. (compare Nachmanides).

קרתי, von קרה, itreffen, zufällig begegnen, verwandt mit וקראהו אסון) קרא 1. B. M. 42, 38) את אשר יקרא אתכם (das. 49, 1 und sonst) rufen. Rufen heißt: jemanden veranlassen, sich geistig oder räumlich in die Richtung zu uns zu setzen. Was uns ruft, bringt uns aus der Richtung, der wir, uns selbst überlassen, uns hinzugeben im Begriffe sind, in die Richtung, die von ihm ausgeht. Was uns begegnet und wir Zufall nennen, ist das, was nicht in unserer Richtung, in unserer Berechnung lag, und, indem es sich begibt, uns "ruft", d. h. unsere bis dahin innegehaltene Richtung bestimmend verändert. Was wir Zufall nennen, ist nur uns zufällig, fällt uns nur zu, weil wir es nicht berechnet hatten. Dies schließt aber nicht aus, dass es nicht das Produkt der allerhöchsten Berechnung sei, ja vielleicht umsomehr sei, je weniger es in unserer Berechnung lag. Der jüdische Sprachgedanke hat daher vom Zufall die entgegengesetzte Anschauung, es fällt nicht uns, wir fallen ihm zu, es "ruft" uns: קרא ,קרה. Davon endlich auch konkret: קרה, das Gebälk, das die beiderseits aufrecht stehenden Wände, in die gegenseitige Richtung bringt und hält, sie gleichsam זו לקראת זו ,"ruft", und verhindert, dass sie nicht ihrer natürlichen Richtung folgen und fallen; also die Decke.

כי על כן, “for on account of” (their not wishing to be disturbed, they came to my house for shelter).

אוציאה נא אתהן, “I will bring them outside.” While the Torah credits Lot with the extent to which he went to protect his guests from the local mob, we also hear about his moral depravity, i.e. that a father uses his own daughters as bargaining chips to trade one abomination for another. Clearly, casual sex, without the sanctifying element of marriage, was a minor misdemeanour in his eyes. Lot had been under the impression that his guests were men of flesh and blood. As soon as he became aware of their true identities, and that the reason they had come was to destroy the city on the one hand, and to save him at the same time, he did whatever the angels asked him to do.

כי על כן באו וגו׳, denn ich fordere dies (nicht aus Menschlichkeit von euch), sondern darum, weil ich sie einmal aufgenommen. Tuet es meinetwegen.

ויאמרו גש הלאה AND THEY SAID, STEP BACK — Get you away over there — as much as to say, Take yourself aside and keep away from us. Similarly wherever the word הלאה occurs in Scripture it has the meaning of further away. For example: (Numbers 17:2) “Scatter (הלאה) yonder”; (1 Samuel 20:22) “Behold the arrows are beyond thee (הלאה)” Thus גש הלאה signifies, withdraw yourself further away (old French Retire-toi de nous). It is an expression of contempt, signifying, “we do not take any notice of you!” Of a similar character are: (Isaiah 65:5) “Stand by thyself (אל תגש בי) come not near unto me”, and (Isaiah 49:20) גשה לי “Give place to me that I may dwell” which means “withdraw aside for my sake (לי) that I may dwell where you are now”. — They really meant to say to Lot: “You intercede for these strangers; how dare you!” In reply to what he had said to them regarding his daughters they answered: “Get out of the way” — a somewhat gentle expression — whilst with regard to his advocacy for the strangers they retorted, האחד בא לגור THIS MAN CAME TO SOJOURN — You are the only strange man amongst us, for you have come to sojourn here, וישפוט שפוט and you make yourself a Reprover of us!

AND THEY PRESSED HARD (‘VAYIFTZERU’) UPON THE MAN, EVEN LOT. I have found this word vayiftzeru only in connection with words of pleading. If so, we will explain its usage here as follows: the men of Sodom begged him [Lot] exceedingly to open the door for them, and when he refused to do so, they approached in order to break it. It may be that he stood in front of the door, not letting them come near him, and they begged him to turn aside as they did not want to harm him. This is the meaning of their saying, Stand back,²³¹In the beginning of this verse. meaning “stand in another place.”

גש הלאה, This construction is similar to Isaiah 65.5 אל תגע בי כי קדשתיך, “do not touch me for I have consecrated you.” In other words: “get closer to a more distant place,” or simpler: “flee from us.”

גש הלאה, “away from the door so that we can break it down;”

ויאמרו גש הלאה, they told him to get away from them, to leave and go someplace else.

ויפצרו באיש בלוט מאד, “they coaxed the man Lot urgently;” Nachmanides claims that the word ויפצרו, [i.e. the root פצר, Ed.] only occurs as having a positive meaning, i.e. an attempt to calm someone down, to reconcile one’s differences with a person. When Lot proved impervious to the Sodomites’ attempts to compromise with him, they set about breaking down his door. Alternatively, seeing that Lot stood firm in front of the door and they did not want to harm him personally, they told him to get out of heir way, גש הלאה, i.e. that he should go elsewhere.

This one came as an immigrant. An immigrant is more deserving of punishment for violating local law than a native, especially in a place where immigrants are rarely accepted. And now he wants to be a judge. Lot had in fact been appointed a judge, which made his infringement even more serious.

Back away... גש means to draw close to them, while הלאה means to move away from them. Thus Rashi explains it as קרב להלאה, meaning: go away from us and thereby draw close to where you are going.

גש הלאה "rücke weiter an!" sagten sie einer zum anderen. עתה nun, da du dein Verfahren noch gar verteidigst, bist du noch strafbarer als sie, uns noch gefährlicher. באיש בלוט, Lot hatte sich mit seiner ganzen Manneskraft entgegengestemmt, sie drangen in Lot ein, der wie ein Mann ihnen entgegenstand.

עתה נרע לך מהם, “You are a guest here like they are, yet you conduct yourself like a native (citizen).”

הדלת THE DOOR — This term דלת signifies the wooden frame-work which swings round on hinges to close and open the entrance (cf. Verse 11).

בא לגור, Lot actually dwelled inside Sodom.

האחד בא לגור, “is there even a single man who can be audacious enough to get away with this?”

נרע לך מהם, “we will treat you even worse than them.”

You are the only stranger among us. “The only,” as it is written האחד. “Stranger,” as it is written בא לגור, which denotes a stranger.

נרע לך מהם, we will do more harm to you than to them.

ויפצרו, they became very insistent, speaking very threateningly, beginning to assault him physically.

And you have become our chastiser. As it is written, וישפוט שפוט. It cannot mean actual judgment, because there is no prosecution and defense here.

ויגשו לשבר הדלת, seeing that the door was locked.

They wearied themselves. They continued searching for the door even after they were stricken with blindness.

פתח THE DOOR (literally, opening) — This means the hollow space (opening) through which people go in and out.

בסנורים, a plague of blindness.

וילאו למצוא הפתח, even though they had already been smitten with blindness they did not therefore desist from their wicked intention. This is in line with the psychological insight of our sages in Eyruvin 19 that the wicked will not become penitents even when they stand at the gates of hell. [the Nazis persisting in the “final solution,” even while already defeated by the Russsians are the best example of this insight we know of. Ed.]

ואת האנשים, the angels punished the men of Sodom who were at the entrance to the house

סנורים, vielleicht zusammengesetzt aus סנה Dorn, und אור Licht; also Augenstechen.

בסנורים This is an attack of blindness (cf. Yoma 28b)

וילאו, they wearied and were unable למצוא הפתח, they gave up trying to find the doorway. We find the word נלאו describing the inability of the Egyptians to find water after digging for it when Moses had turned the waters of the Nile in to blood. (Exodus 7,18-21) There are numerous instances when the word is used when it expresses a total inability, such as in Jeremiah 20,9 ונלאתי כלכל לא אוכל, “I was totally unable to restrain.” Compare also Isaiah 16,12 כי נלאה מואב על הבמה ובא אל מקדשו להתפלל ולא יוכל, “when it became clear that Moav had gained nothing in the outdoor shrine, he shall come to pray inside his temple, also to no avail.” Job 4,2 also employs the word נלאה in a similar sense.

בסנורים, with a temporary blindness The word סנורים is a composite of the two words סני ראיה.

מקטן ועד גדול FROM SMALL TO GREAT — The small had begun this wrongdoing — as it is said, (Genesis 19:4) “both young and old” — therefore the punishment started with them (Genesis Rabbah 50:8).

עד מי לך פה WHOM HAST THOU YET HERE — The evident sense of the verse is: whom else have you in this city besides thy wife and daughters who are at home with you.

SON-IN-LAW, AND THY SONS, AND THY DAUGHTERS. Rashi comments: “Whom else of your family have you in the city besides your wife and daughters who are at home with you? If you have additionally a son-in-law, or sons and daughters, take them out from this place.” Now if so, they [the angels] spoke in the manner of ordinary people for Lot had no sons, only daughters.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “Son-in-law, and thy sons — sons-in-law who are [as dear to you] as your sons.”
It is possible that Lot had grown sons who were married, and he spoke with his sons-in-law first as he thought that his own sons would listen to him [and leave the place]. But as his sons-in-law laughed at him and their conversation continued, dawn appeared, and the angels only permitted him to take those who were at hand. Thus the merit of Lot could have saved his sons and daughters and sons-in-law, not as Abraham had thought that He would make the righteous perish with the wicked.²³²Above, 18:25. It is clear that the angels were acquainted with the knowledge of the Most High on this matter since the city of Zoar was also saved by his prayer.²³³This is unlike the opinion of R’dak, who maintains that an angel who carries out a Divine mission also has the right to add or detract somewhat from the charge given to him. His proof is the fact that the angel here granted the sudden request of Lot to save the city of Zoar, (Verses 20-21). Ramban, however, is of the opinion that the angels were acquainted with the knowledge of the Most High and knew that He granted Lot’s request; they could thus assure Lot that the city of Zoar would be saved.
It is possible that [the salvation of Lot’s family was not on account of his merit but] was in honor of his hospitality for it is the ethical way of messengers to save their host and all that belong to him, just as the messengers of Joshua also saved all the families of their hostess.²³⁴Joshua 6:23. And in Bereshith Rabbah²³⁵50:21. it is said, “Because Lot honored the angel by offering him hospitality, he in turn befriended Lot.”²³⁶And granted his request to save Zoar.

?עוד מי לך פה, do you have any other relatives in the city apart from those in your house?

?ויאמרו...עוד מי לך פה, the same as asking “who else do you have here (in town)?”

עוד מי לך פה, חתן ובניך ובנותך, “who else belonging to your family is here; a son-in-law, your sons or your unmarried daughters?” According to Rashi, the word עוד means “apart from your wife who qualifies for being saved because she is part of you.” Although Lot did not have sons, only daughters, the angels asked in the manner ordinary people ask such a question, mentioning both sons and daughters. Ibn Ezra understands the word בנים as a question if Lot had sons-in-law who were as dear to him as sons would have been. Nachmanides presumes that it was quite likely that he had grown up sons who were married, however Lot spoke to his sons-in-law first as he was not sure they would heed his advice to flee. Concerning his sons, he was pretty sure they would heed him if he asked them to leave town immediately. When his sons-in-law laughed at him and time was being wasted in the meantime, dawn rose and there was no more time left, or he too would have been killed.

If you have a son-in-law or sons and daughters... “Who else do you have here” implies they did not know. Whereas “a son-inlaw, your sons, your daughters” implies they did know. Thus Rashi explains, “If you have...”

עוד מי לך פה: wen hast du sonst noch hier, außer den bei dir im Hause sich befindenden Gliedern, die wir bereits kennen. — חתן: Wie unsere Sprache in der Art und Weise, wie sie Mann und Frau, Vater und Mutter, Sohn und Tochter, Bruder und Schwester ausdrückt, den Begriff und die Bedeutung dieser nächsten Familienglieder veranschaulicht, so ist sie auch ungemein präzis in Bezeichnung der durch Anheiratung entstehenden verwandtschaftlichen Bande. Nichts dürfte so die Wahrheit bestätigen, dass der Gedanke Schöpfer unserer Sprache gewesen, als die auffallende Thatsache, dass sie den Begriff Schwiegereltern ganz verschieden wiedergibt, je nachdem er sich auf das Verhältnis zum Schwiegersohn, oder zur Schwiegertochter bezieht. In Beziehung zum Schwiegersohne heißen sie: חוֹתֵן ,חוֹתֶנֶת, so wie er ihnen gegenüber: חָתָן heißt; die Schwiegertochter aber ist: כלה, und ihre Schwiegereltern sind:חָמִיהָ וַחְַמוֹתָה. Die Schwiegertochter tritt weit inniger in das schwiegerelterliche Haus ein, als der Schwiegersohn. Mit ihrem Gatten geht sie in das Haus der Eltern desselben ein und auf, des Gatten Vater und Mutter werden ihre sie "mit umfangenden Mauern" und sie wird die "Vollenderin", die "Krone", der "Kranz", der zuletzt zu gewinnende Schmuck des Hauses. Der Schwiegersohn, der als Sohn nur das Haus seiner Eltern "aus- baut", ist mit seinen Schwiegereltern nur durch das freilich teuerste Band, ihre Tochter, verbunden. Diese Verbindung ist nicht das Aufgehen des einen in den andern, sondern das paritätisch neben- und miteinander verbindende Band, das somit in gleicher Weise Schwiegersohn und Schwiegereltern berührt, die daher zu einander durch dasselbe Ver hältnis verknüpft werden, das חתן ausdrückt, sie werden zu einander חוֹתֵן ,חָתָן und חוֹתֶנֶת eine Wurzel, die überhaupt die Verbindung der Häuser durch Heirat, die Ver, schwägerung ausdrückt. Ein Verhältnis, dass, wenn wir die Wurzel חתן in ihrer Lautverwandtschaft mit אטן, feinstes Gespinnst, und עדן Wonne, ja vielleicht wonnevolle Verbindung — התקשר מעדנות כימה (Job 38, 31) — betrachten, eine solche Verbindung ausdrückt, die auf die höchste gegenseitige Befriedigung hinweist, somit die innigste Harmonie der zusammentretenden Häuser in Lebensanschauungen und Bestrebungen voraussetzt.

חתן ובניך ובנותיך SON-IN-LAW, THY SONS AND THY DAUGHTERS — If you have a son-in-law, sons or daughters take them out of this place.

ובניך, your grandchildren, the children of your daughters. Lot did not have any sons. If he would have had any they would have been in the house with him, whereas married daughters would not. Or, he would have spoken to his sons also, just as he went out and spoke to his sons-in-law.

Your married daughter’s sons. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps they were his sons and not his grandsons! The answer is: Since it is written “son-in-law” first, followed by “your sons, your daughters,” it implies that “your sons, your daughters” refers back to “son-inlaw,” i.e., the married daughter’s sons.

Tief bezeichnend ist es aber, dass unsere Sprache zur eigentlichen Bezeichnung des Verhältnisses von Braut und Bräutigam zu einander kein Wort hat. Sie kennt nur Mann und Weib, und, während ihr von der anderen Seite das Verhältnis der Braut und des Bräutigams zu einander das höchste und innigste ist, man denke nur an das ומשוש חתן על כלה. usw. (Jes. 62, 5), hat sie doch zur Bezeichnung dieses Verhältnisses nur wiederum die Ausdrücke חתן und כלה, und sieht somit den tiefen Grund dieser innigsten und heißesten Zuneigung in dem wurzelnd, nicht was sie einander, sondern was sie den gegenseitigen Eltern sind und bleiben. Der jüdische Bräutigam liebt seine Braut darum erst so innig, weil er in ihr seinem elterlichen Hause die würdige, geliebte Tochter, den "Kranz" des elterlichen Hauses zuführt. Die jüdische Braut liebt ihren Bräutigam darum erst so innig, weil sie in ihm den Geist ihres elterlichen Hauses und die Befriedigung kennt, die die Eltern an seiner Lebensanschauung und seinen Bestrebungen finden. So sind es die Eltern, ist es die harmonische Übereinstimmung der beiderseitigen Häuser, auf welcher der Diamantboden der Verbindung ihrer Kinder beruht, und die ihnen Bürge ist, dass sie sich ineinander wiederfinden. Wir werden sehen, wie sich diese Verhältnisse in einem Lande wie Sodom, in dem Hause eines Lot gestalten. Die Engel nennen Schwiegersöhne, Söhne und Töchter, als die, außer den im Hause Befindlichen, dem Lot "noch in der Stadt" Angehörigen, sie begreifen somit wohl Schwiegertöchter mit unter die Töchter.

ובניך THY SONS means the sons of your married daughters. The Midrashic explanation of עוד YET is: since they have perpetrated so disgraceful an act, can you yet be so bold (more literally, “can you yet open your mouth”) to speak in defence of them? — for the whole night through he had been talking in favor of them. To obtain this explanation you must read: עוד מי לך פֶּה Have you yet a mouth! (instead of פֹּה here) (Genesis Rabbah 50:5).

וכל אשר לך בעיר, .and any livestock and chattels you may have in this town.

He was justifying them. Although Rashi explained (v. 4) that Lot said the majority of them are wicked, at first he told the angels so, but when he saw they wished to destroy the city, he justified the people. (Maharshal)

הוצא מן המקום, do not only remove it from this town but from the entire region.

וישלחנו, although in other instances when the word שלח is used it never has a dagesh, reinforcing it, here, seeing the dispatch of these angels was not in order to assist, but in order to destroy, this is indicated by the change in the mode and reinforcing the word with the dot in the letter ל. We find another example of this construction in a similar context in Deut. 32,24, ושן בהמות אשלח בם, “the teeth of beasts I will set loose against them,” where the verb שלח is also used destructively. The same is true of Psalms 78,45, ישלח בהם ערב “He dispatched ferocious beasts against them.”

כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה. "For we are about to destroy this place." Although only one of them had been entrusted with that task, the angels used the plural seeing that they were both together. Otherwise the other angel would have appeared as if he was only an assistant.

כי משחיתים.... כי גדלה צעקתם, the outcry to G’d by the victims of the cruelties of the Sodomites has become too great. In this construction the pronoun ending has been appended to the subject as well as to the predicate, just as in Isaiah 56,7 ושמחתים בבית תפלתי it has been appended to the predicate or in Isaiah 38,1 שמעתי את תפלתך where it has been appended to the subject.

כי משחיתים אנחנו את המקום הזה, “for we are about to destroy this place.” Nachmanides comments that surely there are many nations whose citizens are evil, wicked, etc., and nothing even remotely as drastic seems to happen to them. What happened to the people of Sodom was linked to their being located in the Holy Land, a land that has less tolerance for wickedness than any other place on earth. In the course of history it has spat out many peoples who have made their home in that land because those peoples never adjusted their lifestyles to the higher standards for human behaviour which are standard requirement for a successful residence in that land over a period of time.

כי משחיתים אנחנו, “for we are about to destroy, etc.” They should have said: “G’d is about to destroy this place.” Instead they made it appear as if they had a free hand in the matter. This is why G’d did not allow them to move from the town until they had made an admission that they themselves were unable to do anything by themselves, but that they merely carried out a mission from G’d. This is the meaning of the line (verse 13) “and G’d has dispatched us to destroy it.“ What happened in this instance with the angels lends support to what we read in Job 4,18 הן בעבדיו לא יאמין ובמלאכיו ישים תהלה, “If He cannot trust His own servants, and casts reproach on His angels.” Another verse along similar lines is found in Job 15,15: הן בקדושיו לא יאמין ושמים לא זכו בעיניו, “He puts no trust in His holy ones; the heavens are not guiltless in His sight.”
We find that even Moses was guilty of a similar slip of the tongue when — concerning the appointment of the chiefs of tens, fifty, hundred and thousands in Deut. 1,17 — he said: ”any matter which is too difficult for you, bring it to me so that I can hear it;” He was punished for this arrogant-sounding comment by being unable to resolve the problem posed by the daughters of Tzelofchod without first inquiring from G’d about their status as potential heirs. The prophet Samuel also once became guilty of such arrogance when he described himself to King Saul as “I am the Seer” (Samuel I 9,19). G’d showed him that he had been arrogant when he was unable to pick the son of Yishai who was to replace Saul as King. He had picked Eliav (Samuel I 16,6). G’d had to tell him that whereas he, Samuel, was only able to judge exteriors it was reserved for G’d to judge a person’s interior (Samuel I 16,7). David too was once guilty of such arrogance when he said ותורתך בתוך מעי , “and your Torah is in my entrails.” [He meant I can divine Your law as a gut-feeling. Ed.] (Psalms 40,9). David was punished in that he forgot the kind of commandment which even children in elementary school are familiar with. [I presume that the author refers to David having forgotten that the Holy Ark must be carried only on the shoulders of the Levites and not in a carriage. This law is clearly spelled out in Numbers 7,9. Had he not forgotten, Uzzah might not have died. compare Samuel II 6,7. Ed.]
The prophetess Devorah who complimented herself even in the song of thanksgiving when she said עד שקמתי אם בישראל “until I arose to function as a mother for Israel,” (Judges 5,7). According to our sages the moment she said these words the Holy Spirit departed from her and she regained it only in verse 12 of the same chapter when she said: עורי עורי דבורה דברי שיר, “awake, awake Deborah utter a song.”
As to the verse in Job 4,18 in which we heard that G’d even has occasion to rebuke the angels, this was a reference to the incident here where the angels arrogated to themselves the right to say: “we are going to destroy the place.” According to Bereshit Rabbah 50,9 the angels who were guilty of this statement were not allowed to return to their celestial habitat nor to perform another function on earth for 138 years, i.e. not until “and here angels of the Lord were ascending and descending on it,” (the ladder in Yaakov’s dream in Genesis 28,12). This vision is taken as proof that only at that time were these angels allowed back to earth to perform a function there. From all the above we learn that if someone makes use of G’d’s glory to enhance his own reputation he will face a major punishment.

Bedeutsam wird in dieser ganzen Erzählung ה׳, Gott in seiner barmherzigen Menschenwaltung, als der genannt, der hier den Untergang über Sodom herbeiführt. Auf dem Gipfel dieser Entartung ist der völlige Untergang selbst das Werk der barmherzigen Liebe.

כי משחיתים אנחנו, “for we are about to destroy, etc.” Throughout the mission of the angels they are referred to in the singular mode. (Compare 18,10; 19,17, 19,22) Here the Torah used the plural mode. Why? Seeing that the Torah had used the plural mode (verse 21) it used the same mode here also when the subject is the destruction.

לשחתה, to destroy the town, seeing the town is part of the larger region described as המקום previously.

Possibly, whenever the Torah speaks of the (avenging) angel Gabriel it is understood that the reference is not only to him personally, but includes his army. Alternatively, since Gabriel was not free to act until the angel Raphael had secured Lot's escape their activities were dependent on one another.

וישלחנו, “He has sent us;” this word is in the piel conjugation with a dot in the letter ל, although the word normally is used in the conjugation kal and without the dot, when the mission on which the messenger has been sent is a two way mission, i.e. he has to come back with an answer or something tangible before the mission is considered as complete, in this instance we find that the conjugation piel a “strong” conjugation has been used as the mission was one of destruction. Another such example is found in Deuteronomy 32,24: ושן בהמות אשלח בם, “and fanged beasts will I let loose against them.” Still another such example is Psalms 78,45: ישלח בהם ערוב, He dispatched against them wild beasts.”

חתניו SONS- IN-LAW — he had two married daughters in the city (Genesis Rabbah 50:9).

ויצא לוט, after they had given up and they had dispersed.

ויצא לוט ...לקחי בנותיו, they had become the sons-in-law having already betrothed his daughters to them. The Torah does not report that Lot spoke to his daughters, as it was understood that the daughters would concur with their husbands’ decision.

Those to whom the ones at home were betrothed. But we cannot say that חתניו and לוקחי בנותיו are one and the same, for if they were his sons-in-law, it is obvious that they married his daughters. Why would it need to write this?

Da geht nun der alte Mann in der Nacht hinaus zu seinen Schwiegersöhnen, zu den Männern, denen er seine Kinder anvertraut, bittet, beschwört sie, sich und sie zu retten — da lachen sie den alten Mann wie einen Spaßmacher aus! — Es steht nicht umsonst לוקחי בנתיו als Berichtigung des חתניו. Seine Töchter hatten sie genommen, aber seine "Eidame" in dem reinen Sinne "חתניו", waren sie nicht geworden. Waren ja Männer von Sodom, gab ja in Lebensanschauung und Streben kein "Band" zwischen ihnen und Abrahams Neffen. Für einen solchen gab es in Sodom keinen Eidam, und für seine Töchter, wenn er es verstanden hätte, seine Kinder für sich und seine Lebensrichtung zu gewinnen, gab es dort keine Männer. Allein, es war uns schon Raw Hirsch on Genesis 19: 3 angedeutet, wie der Mann, der persönlich einer besseren Richtung angehörte und sogar den Mut hatte, in der Gemeinde mit eigener Gefahr das Bessere zu vertreten, doch in seinem Hause, und seinen eigenen Kindern gegenüber, nur schwach, und darum isoliert war. Ein Abraham hätte sich nimmer mit לקחי בנתיו begnügt, die nicht חתניו werden konnten, Abrahams Töchter hätten solche Männer nimmer genommen, die dem Geiste ihres väterlichen Hauses sich nicht vermählten. Es offenbart sich hier eine Schwäche, die sich noch nach Jahrtausenden in ähnlicher Weise unter ähnlichen Verhältnissen wiederfindet, und in ähnlicher Weise rächt — als er zu seinen Schwiegersöhnen kam und von Gott sprach, lachten sie ihn aus! Und er hatte doch bei seinen Schwiegersöhnen noch eher Gehör und Rücksicht erwartet, als bei den eigenen Söhnen! Er machte den Versuch zuerst bei den Schwiegersöhnen, und als diese ihn ausgelacht, gibt er alles auf und versuchts nicht einmal bei den Söhnen!! Zu allem diesen liefert noch das frische Leben der Gegenwart leider einen traurigen Kommentar. —

לוקחי בנותיו THOSE WHO WERE MARRYING HIS DAUGHTERS — those to whom his daughters at home were betrothed (Genesis Rabbah 50:9).

ויאיצו THEY URGED [LOT] — as the Targum takes it, “they pressed” — i.e. they hurried him.

וכמו השחר עלה, the reason the Torah wrote this verse is seeing that it says in verse 23 that Lot had arrived in Tzoar as the sun had risen, this would have been at least 1-2 hours later than the early dawn described here. In other words, the angels delayed carrying out their mission for a considerable period all out of fondness for Avraham, so that his nephew would not perish in Sodom. [I suppose that seeing that Lot had tarried the whole night he could not now save his livestock and chattels, as the time for this had elapsed. Ed.]

ויאיצו, in order that their destruction should take place at the very moment the sun, their great god, would come forth. (compare Berachot 7)

וכמו השחר עלה, at the time when dawn broke forth.

קח, beschränke dich auf die Glieder, die du im Hause hast; bei längeren Versuchen könnte das heraneilende Unglück dich mit treffen.

וכמו השחר עלה, “and as dawn was about to rise, etc.” this verse was written as if describing an event in the future, as the Torah wished to portray for how long the angels delayed carrying out their mission involving the dual task of destroying Sodom and saving Lot, the latter not having been completed until after sunrise, as is clear from verse 23 where Lot’s arrival in Tzoar is reported. The angels delayed because of their fondness for Avraham. Rabbi Chanina is quoted as having said (B’reshit Rabbah 50,10) that the time between dawn rising and the sun rising is equivalent to the distance a normal person can walk a distance of about 1200 meters. He used verse 23 as the basis for his statement.

הנמצאות WHO ARE HERE (literally, who can be found) — who are ready at hand in the house to be rescued. There is a Midrashic explanation also, but this is the proper way to explain the text.

ויאיצו, they urged המלאכים, here the angels are described as angels again, not as in verse 10 where they were described as האנשים, “the men.” The reason is that here they performed the tasks of angels, i.e. they saved Lot and they destroyed the whole region.

תספה means [LEST] THOU BE MADE AN END OF. The words (Deuteronomy 2:14) עד תום כל הדור “until all the generation were completely ended” are translated by Onkelos: עד דסף כל דרא (the same root סף as in our text).

ויתמהמה BUT HE LINGERED in order to save his property.

AND THE MEN LAID HOLD UPON HIS HAND. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the word vayachziku (and they laid hold upon) clearly shows that Lot was afraid and had no strength to flee. The correct interpretation of the word is that it is like the verse, ‘Vatechezak’ (And) the Egyptians (were urgent) upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste.²³⁷Exodus 12:33. Here likewise they were pulling them with strength to send them out in haste.

For Ad-noy had pity. Even though Lot was originally spared in Avraham’s merit, he would have been killed for tarrying if Hashem had not had pity on him.

ויחזיקו האנשים בידו. The men took hold of his hand. Although only one of them was charged with saving Lot, the other one could not proceed with his task pending Lot's rescue. Perhaps we should see in Raphael the principal agent of Lot's rescue; in that case the fact that Gabriel assisted (by taking Lot by his hand) is not viewed as his performing an additional task. This is especially so because Gabriel helped Lot only in order to be able to carry out his assignment of destroying the city (seeing he did not have permission to do so while Lot was within its borders).

ויתמהמה, Lot was still hesitant, apparently being loath to leave his wealth behind in the city. The angels therefore delayed until dawn, at which time they did not allow him time to save anything but his very life and the clothes he was wearing, even though, initially, they had asked him what else he owned in the city, implying that this too would be saved. (compare verse 12)

ויחזיקו האנשים בידו, “the men took hold of his hand, etc.” The plural mode of ויחזיקו is puzzling, seeing that only one of the angels had been charged with saving Lot, the other having been assigned the duty to bring about the destruction. Perhaps the involvement of the second angel in saving Lot was inevitable seeing that he was unable to commence with his task until Lot was clear of the city. In other words, saving Lot was part of the process of the destruction of Sodom. Interestingly, the Torah reverts to the use of the singular mode for the angel’s activities as soon as Lot was clear of the city. Compare verse 17 כהוציאם, ”when he had taken them out.” Seeing that Lot himself was not so clear about which angel had which function to perform, [they had said: “we are about to destroy,’ Ed.] he addressed the two angels in the plural mode when asking not to be made to climb the mountain to get himself into safety. Compare אליהם in verse 18, and “adonay” instead of “adoni.” On the other hand, seeing that one angel had proven to be the one who had saved him, he reverted to use of the singular mode when saying ותגדל חסדך, “your (sing.) kindness has been great.” (verse 19). Seeing that originally the angels had used the plural mode about their task, i.e. הנני משחיתים, the angel whose task it was to carry out the destruction, now responds to Lot saying that he could not begin his real task until Lot had reached safety.

And he tarried It is written in the Sefer Mikhlol, at the end of the section on verb grammar, that the latter mem has a qamaṣ on account of the shalsheleth cantillation, becuase it follows the rule of pausals. And it is masoretically recorded about this that "there are seven cantillation marks of the Thundering and Pausing" [translator's note: meaning, the cantillation mark shalsheleth appears seven times in the Tanakh, namely here, Genesis 24:12, Genesis 39:8, Leviticus 8:23, Isaiah 13:8, Amos 1:2, and Ezra 5:15] . And thus I saw handwritten in some books. But "If he tarries, wait for him" (Habakkuk 2:3) has a pathaḥ on the second mem.

To salvage his possessions. This is as Rashi explains on the next verse, regarding “Escape for your life.”

(16-17) ויתמהמה, von מהה, der Wurzel von מַה, was, das Unentschiedene, Unbestimmte. התמהמה eigentlich: in Unentschiedenheit zögern. Es ist nichts Geringes, Kinder und Enkel so dem Verderben zu überlassen. —

ויוציאה, “they took him outside;” there is a letter ו missing before letter ה, to hint that only one angel, i.e. ויוציא, singular, the angel Gavriel, had been charged with the task of saving Lot.

Lot could see that the angels didn't want to do anything until he left the city.  He thought that since the decree of destruction did not fall upon him, he would be able to withhold the destruction from entering the city (of Sodom) by not leaving it. 

ויחזיקו AND THE MEN LAID HOLD [UPON HIS HAND]— One of these was commissioned to rescue him whilst his fellow was to overthrow Sodom; that is why it is stated (v. 17) “And he said, escape”, and it is not stated “And they said” (Genesis Rabbah 50:11).

ויחזיקו האנשים בידו וביד אשתו וביד שתי בנותיו, in order to ensure that they could escape with their lives. Here the angels are referred to as “the men,” seeing that they acted like ordinary men, taking Lot and family by their hands, as if they themselves were physical beings.

ויחזיקו האנשים, according to Ibn Ezra these words prove that Lot had become immobilized from fright and that the angels had to help him to get moving. Nachmanides explains the verse as similar to Exodus 12,33 when the Egyptians urging the Israelites to get out of Egypt without delay, are described by the words ותחזק מצרים על העם למהר לשלחם. No doubt, the Egyptians did not literally take the Israelites by their hands and escorted them to the border.

In the mercy of The beth is plosive.

THE ETERNAL HAVING PITY UPON HIM. Not for Lot’s merit but only because of G-d’s pity and His abundant mercies. It may be that the verse is saying that they seized him to take them out while G-d’s pity was still upon him, lest the wrath go forth from G-d²³⁸See Numbers 17:11. and he perish.

חמל ,בחמלת ד׳, verwandt mit אמל ,עמל, also: eine schmerzliche innere Regung, bezeichnet in der Regel ein, meist unverdientes, oder doch jedenfalls ein solches Erbarmen, das nur aus Mitleid entsteht. Auch Lot verdiente kaum die Rettung. Wäre er selbst in Sodom geboren gewesen, er hätte es längst verlassen müssen; so aber hatte er, von materieller Rücksicht verlockt, sich mutwillig ins Verderben gejagt. Er wird auch gestraft. Alles, was er mitgebracht, und was ihn dorthin verlockt, muß er zurücklassen. Nicht gehen, flüchten muss er aus dem Weichbild der Stadt, das Verderben eilt hinter ihm her. Nicht umsehen darf er sich: was er zurücklässt, hätte er nie besitzen sollen, und seine Kinder verliert er nicht erst jetzt, die hat er in dem Augenblick bereits dem Verderben geopfert, als er —"um sie ihr Glück machen zu lassen" — seine Töchter an Männer von Sodom berheiratet und seine Söhne zu Bürgern von Sodom heranwachsen ließ, als er zu seinen Kindern sich also gestellt, dass er in der Stunde der Gefahr es nicht einmal wagen darf mit ihnen zu reden, ohne ausgelacht zu werden. — —

He, therefore, delayed a bit because he thought that the people of Sodom would repent and not be destroyed.

בחמלת ה' עליו, they hastened to take Lot out of the city for the sake of Avraham even though the time had arrived when the destruction was to take place.

בחמלת ה' עליו, “out of G’d’s pity on him.” Not because he had merits that would have entitled him to be saved. Alternately, the use of the word חמלה, “pity,” is to justify the angels grabbing him by the hand before G’d’s pity had expired and he would become a victim together with his townspeople.

ויצאהו וינחהו, Lot, his wife, and his daughters.

המלט על נפשך ESCAPE FOR THY LIFE — Let it suffice you to save your lives; do not give a thought to your possessions.

LOOK NOT BEHIND THEE, NEITHER STAY IN ALL THE PLAIN. The purport of the verse is to state: “Do not stay in all the Plain and do not look behind you after you have been saved.” For as long as Lot had not reached the mountain, disaster would not overtake the inhabitants of Sodom. It is for this reason that Lot said, “And I cannot escape to the mountain, lest the evil overtake me²³⁹Verse 19 here. when I am in the Plain since you will not extend the time for me more than a little, as you have said, Haste thee, escape thither.”²⁴⁰Verse 22 here.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said, “Look not behind thee, i.e., ‘thou and all who belong to thee.’ And similarly is the verse, Thou shalt not eat of it.”²⁴¹Above, 2:17. This command, given to Adam, must have included Eve as well, for otherwise she would not have been punished. Similarly, the command given to Lot must have included his wife and all who belonged to him.
But what need is there for this interpretation? The punishment here was not because they would violate the warning of the angel by looking at them. Instead, the angel merely warned them on his own that punishment would overtake them for such a glance, and he warned Lot because of his merit, and all who listened and took warning saved their lives.
Now as to the significance of the prohibition of looking, Rashi said: “You sinned with them but art saved through the merit of Abraham. You are not permitted²⁴²“You are not permitted.” In our Rashi the text reads, “It is not fitting that.…” to see their doom.”
There is yet another matter. Looking upon the atmosphere of a plague and all contagious diseases is very harmful, and they may cleave to him. Even the thought of them is harmful. Therefore, the leper is isolated and dwells alone.²⁴³Leviticus 13:40. Similarly, those who have been bitten by mad animals such as a mad dog and other animals besides, when they look into the water or any mirror, they behold in them the likeness of the offender, and as a result of this, they did just as the Rabbis have said in Tractate Yoma,²⁴⁴Yoma 84a. See also Ramban, Numbers 21:9. and as the students of nature have mentioned. It was for this reason that Lot’s wife turned into a pillar of salt²⁴⁵Verse 26 here. for the plague entered her mind when she saw the brimstone and salt²⁴⁶Brimstone and salt. Here in the chapter, brimstone and fire are mentioned (Verse 24). Salt however is mentioned in Deuteronomy 29:22, in connection with the overthrow of Sodom. which descended upon them from heaven, and it cleaved to her.
I am inclined to say that when G-d destroyed these cities the destroying angel stood between the earth and heaven,²⁴⁷I Chronicles 21:16. appearing in a flame of fire, as did the destroying angel whom David saw.²⁴⁷I Chronicles 21:16. Therefore, he prohibited them from looking.
In Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer²⁴⁸Chapter 25. there is a similar text: “The angels said to them, ‘Do not look behind you since the Divine Presence of the Holy One, blessed be He, has descended to rain brimstone and fire upon Sodom and Gomorrah.’ The compassion of Edis, Lot’s wife, welled up for her married daughters who were in Sodom,²⁴⁹Lot, according to Pirkei d’Rabbi Eliezer, had two married daughters in Sodom in addition to the two betrothed daughters who were yet in his house. See Verse 15. and she looked behind her to see if they were following her. She thereupon saw the back of the Divine Presence, and she became a pillar of salt.”

אל תביט אחריך, first of all on account of their going to experience the anguish of seeing the destruction of their city; secondly, in order not to afford them an opportunity to see the angels performing their destructive work as angels when there was no need for them to witness this. Watching divine beings in action and being saved by such spectacles requires Divine intervention and should therefore be avoided. Compare the awe with which Manoach comments on what he has seen in Judges 13,22, as well as Yaakov’s reaction in Genesis 32,31 after his wrestling match with the angel of Esau.

אל תביט אחריך, the evil would catch up with you as soon as you interrupt your march away from it. This is precisely what happened to his wife when she ignored the instructions and looked behind. (verse 26)

אל תביט אחריך, "do not look behind you!" The reason for this is simple. We believe that by looking at a person's face one (a צדיק) can detect whether he is good or evil. If Lot were to turn his face towards the city his sins would be reflected on his face and there would be no way he could have been spared.

ויהי כהוציאם, while they were in the process of removing them from the city of Sodom they urged them to hurry in order to be saved;

אל תבט אחריך “do not look behind you!” So that you will not lose momentum in your flight and the destruction would catch up with you.

You participated in their evil ways. You might ask: It said in v. 15, “Lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city.” Does this not imply that he did not participate in their evil ways [and was in danger only due to their sins]? This is not a question, as v. 15 means: If you remain in the city you might be swept away with them [regardless of your virtue or lack of It]. Avraham’s merit will not help you then — for a tzaddik’s merit would not save even his own life! As Rashi says on 18:32, Avraham did not pray to save the city if there were less than ten tzaddikim; consequently the few would be swept away with the city if they remain. But Rashi’s comment here, “Only for the sake of Avraham are you saved,” means: [Although you participated in their evil ways,] you will be treated as if you did not do evil and are not deserving of punishment. Thus, if you leave the city you will be saved. But if you stay, you might be swept away with their iniquity — and Avraham’s merit will not help! Furthermore, Rashi’s comment of “You are not worthy to see their punishment” answers the question: Lot might be swept away with the city if he remains because he is not worthy to see their punishment, as indeed happened to his wife. (R. Meir Stern)

ויהי כהוציאם אותם החוצה, “and it was as he took them outside;” the word אותם appears superfluous, as it is included in the plural suffix ם; the reason it was added was to emphasise that the angel only took Lot, his wife and the two daughters who were still unmarried. They were not allowed to take with them any of their belongings. The spelling of the verse is to teach us that Lot was so “married” to his material possessions that he could not face having to become separated from these. We have a similarly strange sounding grammatical formulation in Numbers 14,32: ופגרכם אתם “and you who are living corpses;”An alternate exegesis for the expression: ויהי כאשר הוציאם; the word is not exclusive but inclusive, i.e. “when the angel took Lot and his family out, etc.;”

אל תבט אחריך LOOK NOT BEHIND THEE — You sinned with them but art saved through the merit of Abraham. It is not fitting that you should witness their doom whilst you yourself are escaping (Genesis Rabbah 50:11).

ויאמר, the angel whose task it was to save him, even though there were two angels that worked together.

And only for the sake of Avraham are you saved. People ask: It says, “Elohim remembered Avraham and He sent Lot out of the upheaval” (v. 29). On this, Rashi comments that Elohim remembered what Lot did for Avraham. Although Lot knew Sarah was Avraham’s wife, Lot did not betray Avraham in Egypt [by telling Pharaoh about Avraham]. Accordingly, why does Rashi not say here that Lot was saved because of his own merit? Furthermore, [if he had such a merit,] why did the angel warn him not to look back? The answer is: Lot indeed saved Avraham from death by not revealing who Sarah was, and, measure for measure, he was saved from death. But this act was meritorious enough to save Lot only because Avraham’s merit was so great. Lot would not have been saved had he done this kindness for someone less righteous than Avraham. Thus, the merit of Lot’s act actually depended on Avraham’s merit. This is why it says, “Elohim remembered Avraham” (v. 29), when it should say, “Elohim remembered Lot,” according to [the initial understanding of] Rashi’s above-mentioned comment on that verse. Perforce, it is as we explained. (R. Meir Stern)

אל תביט אחריך, “literally: “do not look behind you;” the reference is not to what one sees with one’s eyes, but to what one sees with one’s mind’s eye, i.e. leaving behind other members of one’s family. The angel warned Lot to move forward with all possible speed, not allowing any other consideration to slow him down. The reason was that the cloud containing the lethal particles had already risen and was unstoppable. It would discharge its contents all over the region.

בכל הככר IN ALL THE PLAIN — the plain of the Jordan (cf. Genesis 13:11).

אל תביט אחריך, they said that to him in order that he should not thereby create a delay. He was afraid that Lot would want to ascertain if the city behind him was really being destroyed.

אל תביט, “do not look!” Although the command is issued in the singular mode, [presumably Lot’s wife and daughters did not qualify for being addressed by an angel. Ed.] the warning was meant for each of the members of Lot’s family also. We find a parallel example of such a formulation in Genesis 2,17: ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, where the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge is addressed to Adam in the singular mode, although it was intended both for him and his wife. This is the reason why Adam’s wife was punished for eating from it. אל תביט, the letter ב has the vowel chink, (instead of tzeyre.)

ההרה המלט ESCAPE TO THE MOUNTAIN — Flee to Abraham who is dwelling in the mountain — as it is said, (Genesis 12:8) “And he removed his tent thence unto the mountain”. He was still dwelling there, as it is said, (Genesis 13:3) “[And he went unto] … the place where his tent had been at first”, and although it is stated (Genesis 13:18) “And Abraham moved his tent etc.”, he had many tents and they stretched as far as Hebron.

בכל הככר, in the entire valley, seeing that all the towns in that valley were being turned upside down.

המלט ESCAPE — it means “slipping away” and similarly wherever this root מלט occurs in the Scriptures; in old French émisser. Examples are: (Isaiah 66:7) “she was delivered of (המליטה) a man child” i. e. the embryo slipped out of the womb; (Psalms 124:7) “[Our soul] is escaped (נמלטה) like a bird”; and (Isaiah 46:2) “They could not deliver (מלט) the burden”, i.e. discharge (make slip out) the burden of excrement in their bowel-passages.

פן תספה, “lest you will be destroyed with the people of the city if you stand still. I have no authority to save you from the destruction once the process has commenced. The destruction will occur instantaneously and simultaneously in al the towns slated for this.” (compare Lamentations 4,6 on the expression ההפוכה כמו רגע).

אל נא אדני OH NOT SO, MY LORD — Our Rabbis said, that this name (Lord) is holy (i. e. refers to God; Shevuot 35b), since it is said regarding him (i.e. regarding the one who was addressed by this name) (v. 19) “[and thou hast magnified thy mercy …] in keeping alive my soul”. Therefore it must refer to Him who has the power to kill or keep alive. Indeed the Targum renders it, “I beg of thee, O Lord)”

ויאמר...אל נא, he begged them not to make him rush up the mountain as he was physically unable to move so quickly.

Our Sages said that this Name is holy. In light of this we must understand Rashi’s next comments: אַל נָא אל תאמרו אלי וכו', נָא לשון בקשה. Rashi is saying that this verse is split delicately into two parts. Lot says to the angels [only one word]: אַל. By this, Lot conveys: “Do not tell me to flee to the mountain.” Then begins his prayer to Hashem: נָא ה', הנה מצא עבדך. And this is what Rashi means by, “נָא. It has the meaning of making a request.” In other words, Lot’s request to Hashem begins with the word נָא, as Rashi said before: “The Targum also translates it בבעו כען ה'.” I.e., בבעו is the translation of נָא, and expresses a request. This is why Rashi first explains that this Name is holy, and only then explains אַל נָא, contrary to the verse’s order. Rashi is telling us that since our Sages said this Name is holy, we must separate אַל from נָא. And אַל means: “[O angels,] do not tell me to flee to the mountain,” while נָא begins Lot’s prayer to Hashem. (R. Meir Stern)

אל נא אדוני, “not so my lord.” The word: adoni here is not sacred (attribute of Divinity). This is why the verse ends with this word. Subsequently, Lot turns to G-d, and prays: “seeing that Your servant has found favour in Your eyes, etc. “ (Talmud, Shavuot, 35) According to our tradition, the word אדני is sacred, according to that version, we vocalise the letter נ with a kametz.

אל נא OH NOT SO — do not tell me to escape to the mountain.

אדוני, the word is used in the secular sense, as proved by the fact that it concludes the sentence. Onkelos also translates it in this sense, writing בבבעו כען רבוני. [this may be so in the edition at Kimchi’s disposal; in our editions the words are rendered as בבעו י-י. Ed.] Our sages in Shevuot 35 claim that every time the word א-דני appears in connection with Avraham it is invariably a reference to G’d, i.e. is a sacred word. Every time the word occurs in connection with Lot it is secular, except here. The reason it is understood to be sacred in this instance is that Lot attributed to these angels the power to kill or to keep alive. The words of our sages are astounding, seeing Lot addressed them in the plural mode, something not appropriate when addressing G’d. Besides, when an angel is on a mission from G’d, he can obviously kill or bring to life just as his Master can. Moreover, the power to revive the dead was exercised even by such prophets as Elijah and Elisha.

נא — This word is used when a request is being made.

פן תדבקני הרעה [I CANNOT ESCAPE TO THE MOUNTAIN,] LEST SOME EVIL CLEAVE UNTO ME — Whilst I was with the people of Sodom the Holy One, blessed be He, compared my deeds with the deeds of the people of my city and I seemed to be righteous and deserving to be saved. When, however, I come to the righteous man (i.e. Abraham whom Rashi 5:17 stated to be dwelling in the mountain) I must be regarded as wicked. Thus, too, did the woman of Zarefath say to Elijah, (1 Kings 17:18) “Art thou come to bring my sin in remembrance?” Before you came to me the Holy One, blessed be He, compared my doings with the doings of my people and I was regarded as a righteous woman amongst them, but now that you have come to me, in comparison with your deeds, I am wicked (Genesis 50:11).

הנה נא מצא עבדך חן בעיניך, seeing that the angel had told him המלט על נפשך, “save yourself,” it had become clear that the angel’s mission was to save him. Actually, both angels were on a mission of both saving Lot and destroying Sodom. The one who was speaking did so only because he was the senior of the two. The one who tried to save Lot said לבלתי הפכי את העיר, “I cannot yet overturn the city.” (verse 21) He also admitted that he was unable to destroy the town until Lot had been saved (verse 22).

And I appeared as a righteous person and worthy of rescue. [You might ask: Does this not contradict what] Rashi explained before, that Lot too participated in the evil ways of Sedom and was saved only in Avraham’s merit? The answer is: [What Rashi said before] is the truth. But Lot mistakenly thought he was saved in his own merit. Accordingly, when Rashi explains on v. 21: “I will spare the entire city for your sake,” it does not mean, “In your merit.” Rather it means, “In order that you will be saved.” Nonetheless, everything that is happening is in Avraham’s merit. (Nachalas Yaakov) But this is difficult: How could Lot make such a mistake after hearing the angel say, “Do not look back,” implying, “You did evil and are saved only in Avraham’s merit”? The answer is: Lot was not saying [that he appeared as a righteous person] to explain why he was being saved from Sedom’s upheaval. He was speaking generally about his residence in Sedom, during which time he was saved from punishment for his deeds because he was considered to be righteous when compared to them. (R. Meir Stern)

Ich verdiene allerdings die Rettung nicht und es ist schon eine große Gnade von dir, dass du mir das Leben erhalten willst; allein wenn ich dies nur durch ununterbrochenes Forteilen ins Gebirge hin soll erhalten können, so werde ich das nicht vollbringen können und von dem herbeieilenden Verderben erreicht werden.

פן תדבקני הרעה, “so that the disaster will not catch up with me.” He was afraid of the brimstone and sulphur that was beginning to spread all around him.

תדבקני, the vowel patach under the letter ק is in lieu of the vowel tzeyre.

העיר הזאת קרובה THIS CITY IS NEAR — Its settlement as a city is near in point of time — it has been populated quite recently and therefore its measure is not yet filled (Shabbat 10b). And how recent was its settlement? It dated from the generation of the Dispersal of Nations, when mankind was scattered and men began to settle down each in his own place. This took place in the year when Peleg died, and from that time until now was fifty-two years, because Peleg died when Abraham was 48 years old. How is this? Peleg lived after he begat Reu 209 years (11:19): deduct from this number the 32 years that Reu was old when Serug was born (v. 22) and the 30 from the birth of Serug until the birth of Nahor (v. 22) giving 62, and from the birth of Nahor until Terah was born (v. 24) 29, giving 91, and from then until Abraham’s birth 70, giving a total of 161. Add 48 years of Abraham’s life and you have the 209. That was the year of the Dispersion. When Sodom was destroyed Abraham was 99 years old, so that from the Generation of the Dispersal (in the 48th year of Abraham’s life) until this time was 52 years. The colonisation of Zoar took place one year later than that of Sodom and its sister cities. To this fact reference is made in the words אמלטה נא “let me escape נא” i.e. let me escape to the city which is (נ''א (51 in numerical value.

הלא מצער היא, its population is small and you can afford to leave them untouched for now, seeing that there are not many sinners.

הנה העיד הזאת קרובה, "This town is nearby, etc." The verse is difficult. If the inhabitants of that town were guilty, what difference did it make that it was close by? Moreover, how could the angel say: "I have granted your wish?" Since when was it up to him? If the town was innocent, who had given the angel permission to destroy it even if Lot had not pleaded on its behalf?

הנה נא העיר הזאת קרובה,“near” in the sense of “easy to escape to.”

Is it insignificant. A small town usually has fewer temptations to offer, therefore its sins are generally fewer as well).

Thus, from the generation of the Dispersion till this point, there are 52 years. You might ask: How does Rashi know that the other places [besides Zoar] were settled 52 years earlier? Perhaps people did not [start to] build for many years subsequent to the Dispersion. (Minchas Yehudah) This is not a question, as Rashi already said: “How recent is its settlement? From the generation of the Dispersion, when humanity dispersed and began to settle, each in his place... From then till now were 52 years.” Here, Rashi is explaining his proof: As soon as the people dispersed they began to build and settle in the various places. The reasoning is as follows. Originally, they sought to build a city and tower where they could settle. When they were dispersed over the face of the earth and stopped building the tower, each built in his own place and settled there. However, נא having the numerical value of 51 is no proof, as it is not the verse’s primary meaning. It is a mere allusion that supports the point as indicated from Rashi’s text here, and from the comments of Rashi and Tosafos in Shabbos 10b. And the Ein Yaakov writes there: “So explains Rashi on the Torah.” This refutes the Minchas Yehudah. (R. Meir Stern)

Wiederholt weist er darauf hin, dass die Stadt מצער ist. מצער ist nicht adjektive Form, sondern SubstantiRaw Hirsch on Genesis 19: Nicht: sie ist klein, sondern: etwas sehr Geringes, wenig Bedeutendes, keinen Reichtum und keinen Komfort gewährend. An dem Verbot zurückzuschauen, hatte Lot erkannt, dass der Verlust aller seiner Habe ihm absichtlich auferlegt sei, er soll nur mit dem nackten Leben davonkommen. Er meint aber, die Stadt bietet so wenig, ist ein so kümmerlicher Ort, dass selbst, wenn ihm nach der Üppigkeit in Sodom dieser Ort gestattet würde, er noch immer nur das Leben gerettet haben würde.

הלא מצער הוא IS IT NOT SMALL?— Are not its sins but few, so that you can let it alone.

והיא מצער, it is also a small town with few inhabitants. Even though the inhabitants are admittedly wicked, they are but few in number. They appear to have been spared from the destruction on my account.

Is it not a small city... The Re’m asks: I do not know what Rashi will do with the question raised by Chazal in Shabbos 10b: “[Why did Lot need to state that it was close and small?] They could see that!” And this question is what moved Chazal to depart from the plain explanation of our verse, as explained there. This is not a question, as Rashi brings the simple explanation [only] for the end of the verse, הלא מצער הוא, not for the beginning, הנה וגו' קרובה וגו' והיא מצער. The beginning surely follows [Chazal’s] Midrashic explanation: the city was recently settled and its sins are few. Although Rashi at first explains also the end of the verse Midrashically, he then brings the simple explanation, “A small city... and you should not mind...” This is because the end of the verse can bear this meaning, too. And Rashi needed to bring the simple explanation for the verse’s end, although the verse’s beginning must be understood [only] Midrashically, because he is answering the question: According to the Midrashic explanation, why is מצער repeated, stating twice that its sins are few? Thus Rashi brings the simple explanation: It is a small city. (R. Meir Stern)

We must view the situation in light of the Talmud Shabbat 10 that Tzoar was only 51 years old, whereas the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were founded 52 years previously. Lot knew this and reasoned that Tzoar's measure of guilt was not full as yet. We also have a principle (Baba Kama 60) that once permission has been granted to the destructive angel to execute G'd's judgment, it does not really matter whether the measure of guilt is full. However, the angel Gabriel was then in a position to exercise some discretion. Lot was aware of this and appealed to Gabriel's discretionary powers. Lot left Tzoar as soon as possible because he was afraid that the time limit for the angel's discretionary power would elapse.

ותחי נפשי SO THAT MY SOUL MAY LIVE? This is the Midrashic explanation (Shabbat 10b). The real meaning of the verse is: It is a small city with few inhabitants; you therefore need not be particular about leaving it alone, so that my soul may live in it.

ותחי נפשי, together with them.

אמלטה נא, the emphasis is on the letter ט. We have a similar construction in Samuel I 20,29 אמלטה נא ואראה את אחי, where the emphasis is on the מ instead of on the letter ט.

הלא מצער היא, he repeated the insignificance of the town due to its few inhabitants. Our sages understand the word מצער as meaning מזער, “young,” of recent origin; they therefore could not yet have accumulated so many demerits as the more established cities of the valley. (based on Shabbat 10) According to some sages Tzoar had been founded only 51 years previously, equaling the numerical value of the word נא used by Lot in his plea.

גם לדבר הזה CONCERNING THIS THING ALSO — Not only will you be saved, but I will also save the whole city for Your sake.

ויאמר אליו הנה נשאתי פניך, from this verse we may deduce that when G’d dispatches an angel on a major mission, He gives the angel some discretion in the manner in which he is to carry out the task assigned to him. The angel or angels may use their own intelligence in this respect. Clearly, an angel is not like a golem, but is an intelligent being.

Also … regarding this. Hashem agreed not to overturn Zoar at all.

I overturn... I.e., we should not mistakenly explain it as, “It overturns me,” since that too is a possible meaning when one speaks about another. But that meaning is not appropriate here. (R. Meir Stern)

גם לדבר הזה, “also to this request.” This is the angel speaking after Lot reminded him that it was his task to save him. [Lot speaking: “In addition to the mere fact that you have the task to save me, I ask you to delay destruction of Tzoar until I can reach higher ground.”]

הפכי means I OVERTHROW, just as (48:5) “until I come (בואי) , and (16:13) “after I have seen (רואי)” and (Jeremiah 31:19) “whenever I speak (דברי) of him)”.

כי לא אוכל לעשות FOR I CANNOT DO [ANY THING]—This admission of their powerlessness was the angels’ punishment for having said, (v. 13) “For we will destroy the city”, attributing the act to themselves; therefore they could not go away from there (i. e., the incident could not close) until they were compelled to admit that the thing was not in their power) (Genesis Rabbah 50:9).

מהר..כי לא אוכל, because I have been commanded not to destroy the region until you have been saved.

From this you can learn that one destroys and the other rescues... But v. 17 does not prove this. Although it is written there, “He [the one angel] said, ‘Escape for your life,’” and it is not written, “They said,” it could be that only one angel rescued, but they both overturned.

כי לא אוכל FOR I CANNOT DO ANY THING — The pronoun is singular number. This proves that one was to overthrow the city and the other to deliver, for two angels are not sent on the same mission.

קרא, the city formerly known as בלע was renamed on account of what transpired on this occasion [We encountered the city and its king in Genesis 14,8. Ed.]

Based on: “It is insignificant.” Rashi is saying that this verse must refer back to והיא מצער, [as only that explains the name צוער]. This verse does not refer to what immediately precedes it.

על כן קרא שם העיר צוער THEREFORE THE NAME OF THE CITY WAS CALLED ZOAR, with reference to Lot’s words (v. 28) “And it is (מצער) a little one”.

השמש...ולוט בא צוערה. As soon as Lot had entered Tzoar, the angel set in motion the rain that would obliterate Sodom, acting on instructions from G’d.

וה' המטיר AND THE LORD CAUSED TO RAIN — Wherever it is said 'וה “And the Lord”, it means He and His Celestial Court (Genesis Rabbah 51:2).

וה' המטיר, the angel Gavriel;

AND THE ETERNAL CAUSED TO RAIN UPON SODOM (AND UPON GOMORRAH BRIMSTONE AND FIRE FROM THE ETERNAL OF HEAVEN). Rashi wrote: “Wherever it is said, And the Eternal it means Him and His Celestial Court. From the Eternal. It is not written ‘from Him,’ [with the pronoun ‘Him’ replacing the noun ‘Eternal’ in the second part of the verse, for] this is the Scriptural way of speaking. For example, Ye wives of Lantech,²⁵⁰Above, 4:23. and he did not say ‘my wives.’ And David also said, Take you the servants of your lord,²⁵¹I Kings 1:33. and he did not say, ‘my servants.’ Ahaseurus also said, Write ye… in the name of the king,²⁵²Esther 8:8. and he did not say, ‘in my name.’”
Now I wonder about the Rabbi²⁵³Rashi. See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. who wrote down conflicting opinions and made them alike for there is a division of opinion on this matter in Bereshith Rabbah.²⁵⁴51:50. And there is yet a third opinion: “Aba Chilfi, the son of Rabbi Simki, said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon: ‘And the Eternal caused to rain upon Sodom — this refers to the angel Gabriel. From the Eternal out of heaven — this refers to the Holy One, blessed be He.’ Rabbi Eleazar said, ‘Wherever it says, And the Eternal, it means Him and His Celestial Court.’ Rabbi Yitzchak said, ‘We find in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, that a person mentions his name twice. In the Torah, And Lamech said to his wives,²⁵⁰Above, 4:23. etc.’” Thus there are three conflicting opinions here. Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon ascribes the first Divine Name mentioned in the verse as referring to Gabriel as he was the messenger sent to destroy the city, it being a case of the deputy being referred to by the name of Him Who sent him. And Rabbi Eleazar said that He and His Celestial Court agreed on the judgment, and it was from Him that the brimstone and fire came. And Rabbi Yitzchak said that it is the Scriptural way of speaking.
Now if you will understand what I have written above,²⁵⁵11:2, at the end. you will know the intent of the Sages’ expression, “He and His Celestial Court,” and then the plain meaning of the verse will be clear to you. In a similar manner is the verse, That they may keep the way of the Eternal… to the end that the Eternal may bring…²⁵⁶Above, 18:19. He did not say, “that they may keep My way… to the end that I may bring.” Likewise: Because the cry concerning them is great before the face of the Eternal, and the Eternal hath sent us.²⁵⁷Above, Verse 13. And similarly: And it came to pass, when G-d destroyed… that G-d remembered.²⁵⁸Further, Verse 29.

מאת ה' מן השמים, this was not a natural event such as a volcanic eruption, the ash, brimstone and lava afterwards descending on the surrounding earth. The source of this destruction did not originate in the bowels of the earth.

'וה, the angel now is called by the name of his Master, G’d. We already referred to this phenomenon in 18,3

Whenever וה' appears in Scripture, it represents Him and His Heavenly Court. I.e., Hashem and His Heavenly Court agreed upon the matter. You might ask: Why does the Heavenly Court [represented by the ו] come before Hashem? (Minchas Yehudah) This is not a question, because “the Heavenly Court” is not expressly written. It is merely hinted to, by the ו of וה'. Therefore, it would be impossible to write Hashem before the Heavenly Court, all in one word. (Maharshal) Although we might ask why did Rashi not make this comment on (18:17) וה' אמר המכסה אני מאברהם and on (21:1) וה' פקד את שרה, Re’m explained each case. See there for more detail. (Minchas Yehudah) But this is not a question, because the rule of “Whenever וה' appears in Scripture, it represents Him and His Heavenly Court” applies only when וה' has no direct connection to what preceded. [Thus it does not apply to those verses, as will be explained later]. This is because when “Hashem” is at the beginning of a phrase or matter, the verb should precede it. Here it should say וימטר ה' rather than וה' המטיר. Whereas the order [of וה' המטיר] implies it is in the middle of the matter, when it is not. Perforce, it comes to allude to Him and His Heavenly Court. But with וה' אמר המכסה אני, the ו simply means “and.” It connects to the previous point. “They [the angels] got up from there” to go destroy Sedom, and consequently, ה' אמר המכסה אני, as Rashi explained there: “I gave him this Land... Can I, then, destroy the children without informing the father?” Similarly is the case with וה' פקד את שרה. As Rashi explains there, “This is... to teach that whoever prays for another... will be answered first. For it said before, ‘He [Avraham] prayed,’ and right afterwards, ‘And Hashem remembered Sarah.’” But here it is not a continuation of anything previously mentioned. On the contrary, it is written, “The sun had risen, etc.” and afterwards, “[Hashem] caused it to rain, etc.” Actually, He caused it to rain before the sun came out as it states, “At the break of dawn, etc.” and Rashi explains that this is a time when both the sun and the moon rule.” (Maharmash)

מאת ד׳ מן השמים. Nachdem es bereits hieß וד׳ הממיר וגו׳, ist beides für die Erzählung völlig überflüssig. Es ist aber dieser wiederholte Zusatz von höchster Bedeutung. Wer jetzt die Gegend des toten Meeres sieht, die vielen Naphtaquellen, die ganze vulkanische Beschaffenheit des Bodens, der erklärt sich den Untergang dieser Städte als ein ganz gewöhnliches Naturereignis. Die vulkanische Beschaffenheit der Gegend erklärt die Entstehung des toten Meeres. Die Ursachen sind natürlich und irdisch, und es bedarf dazu keines Rekurses zu Gott und zum Himmel. Dieser irrenden Ansicht gegenüber bekundet das Gotteswort: מאת ד׳ מן השמים, von Gott, vom Himmel kam es. Ihr verwechselt die Wirkung mit der Ursache. Was euch als Ursache erscheint, ist in Wahrheit nur die Wirkung. Die gegenwärtige Bodenbeschaffenheit, aus welcher ihr die Katastrophe erklärt, ist erst eine Wirkung der Katastrophe, die nicht auf der Erde und von der Erde, sondern von Gott, vom Himmel bewirkt worden. Wohl ganz in ähnlicher Weise irrt überhaupt die geologische Spekulation über die Entstehung der Welt. Die Tatsachen der Erscheinungen, die sie zu Grunde legt, sind wahr; allein die Schlüsse sind falsch. Sie verwechselt ebenso Ursache und Wirkung. Was sie als Ursache der Erdrevolutionen ansieht, sind erst die Folgen von Revolutionen, die Gott zur Gestaltung der Erde hervorrief.

המטיר על סדום, “made it rain on Sodom, etc.” according to Rashi, this occurred at an hour when both the sun and the moon were visible in the sky; according to him the reason was that some of the Sodomites worshipped the sun, others the moon. If both were visible at the time of this disaster, they would all recognise the powerlessness of their deities to protect them against such disasters emanating in the heavenly regions. The basis of this exegesis is that the Torah does not use the immediate past tense, i.e. וימטר, but uses a pluperfect, המטיר, “had made it rain.” The “Passover” had already commenced on the previous evening before the angels had reached Sodom. [Compare 18,12 on the cosmic significance of that night. Ed.]

המטיר על סדום HE CAUSED IT TO RAIN ON SODOM — When the morning broke), as it is said, (v. 15) “And when the morning dawned”, i. e. the time when the moon is in the sky together with the sun. As some of them worshipped the sun and others the moon, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If I punish them by day, the moon-worshippers may say, “If it had taken place at night when the moon rules we would not have been destroyed.” And if I punish them by night the sun-worshippers may say, “If it had taken place at day time when the sun rules we would not have been destroyed.” For this reason it is written, “And when the morning dawned” — He punished them at that time when both moon and sun are ruling (Genesis Rabbah 50:12).

מאת ה', emanating from G’d, personally.

מאת ה' מן השמים, what is meant is that the origin of this lethal rain was very high up in the sky.

At the advent of the morning... Rashi is saying that “Hashem caused to rain” does not relate to the preceding verse, “The sun had risen upon the earth, when Lot came to Zoar,” [to say] that only after Lot came to Zoar did it begin to rain. Rather, it means that “Hashem caused to rain” already before Lot came to Zoar, at the very advent of the morning, before the sun had even risen.

'מאת ה, according to B’reshit Rabbah 51,3, this is to be understood as the angel Gavriel and Hashem dividing the labour; the former set these harmful substances in motion, the region it emanated from was provided by the Lord Himself. [The reason why our sages understand more than one celestial force to have been involved is the connective letter ו at the beginning of the word: 'וה. Ed.] According to an early version of Tanchuma on this verse, the first time the name Hashem is used in this verse it refers to the angel Gavriel, whereas the second time it refers to Hashem Himself.

המטיר גפרית ואש HE RAINED BRIMSTONE AND FIRE — At first it was rain (מטר) to see whether they would repent and this was then turned into brimstone and fire (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 15).

God said: If I punish them by day... Question: They will all be destroyed. How then will they be able to say this? The answer is: Hashem wanted to demonstrate that they did not repent [when they saw the punishment begin], although they had no excuse not to. (Maharshal) However, this is not a question. Rashi means that the sun and moon worshipers in other places would say this, not those in Sedom who were destined for destruction. [You might object to this answer:] Rashi says, “We would not have been destroyed,” implying that those in Sedom are saying this about themselves. The answer is: People in other places could speak in this manner too, [identifying with them] as if they were speaking about themselves. This is similar to (Shemos 18:9) ויחד יתרו, [on which Rashi explains:] “Yisro’s flesh felt sharp stinging [as he was grieved by the destruction of Egypt].”

'מאת ה FROM THE LORD — This is the Scriptural way of speaking (the Lord rained … from the Lord); e. g., (4:23) “Ye wives of Lamech” and he did not say “my wives”. Thus, too, did David say, (1 Kings 1:33) “Take with you the servants of your lord” and he did not say, “my servants” and so, too, did Ahasuerus say, (Ester 8:8) “in the king’s name” and did not say, “in my name”. So, also, here: “From the Lord” and He did not say, “from Him” (Genesis Rabbah 51:2).

מאת ה' מן השמים, “from G’d from heaven.” This is a reference to the “great” name of G’d. We find something similar in Kings I 8,32 when Solomon offered a prayer to G’d on the occasion of dedicating the Temple he had built. He appealed to the G’d in heaven to listen to his prayer by saying ואתה תשמע השמים, “You, the heaven, will hear,” instead of saying ואתה תשמע בשמים, “You will hear in heaven.” Clearly, Solomon did not pray to “heaven,” he prayed to G’d. The wording of Solomon’s prayer indicates that he expected an agent of G’d whom he referred to as “heaven,” to hear his prayer. The reason the Torah referred to the agent of G’d who carries out G’d’s judgment as G’d is because for the moment he acts in lieu of G’d Himself. We have encountered the expression “I will go down,” or “we will descend,” both in Genesis 18,21 and Genesis 11,4 prior to such judgment being carried out. In each such instance the reference is to the agent of G’d carrying out the punishment.

It began as rain and turned into sulfur and fire. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Caused to rain”? It should say, “Hurled down.” Furthermore, “Caused to rain” contradicts [what follows], as sulfur is not rain. Thus Rashi explains: “It began as rain, and turned into...” (R. Meir Stern)

מן השמים FROM HEAVEN — The text (Job 36:31) refers to this: “For by them (the heavens; see the preceding verses) He judges the peoples etc.” When God is about to punish mankind He brings upon them fire from heaven, just as He did to Sodom (cf. 5:32 of the same chapter); and when he caused the Manna to fall it was also from heaven (cf. the second half of 5:31) as it is said, (Exodus 16:4) “Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 10).

'ויהפוך את הערים וגו AND HE OVERTHREW [THOSE CITIES] etc. — The four cities were situated on one rock and He turned them upside down, as it is said, (Job 28:9) “He putteth forth His hand upon the flinty rock [and overturneth the mountains by the roots]” (Genesis Rabbah 51:4).

ויהפוך, the earth as well as its inhabitants underwent a total chemical transformation being turned into brimstone and fire, similar to what David means in Psalms 105,29 “He turned their waters into blood.” The dew that rose from the earth prior to sunrise turned into salt. Compare Deut. 29,22 גפרית ומלח שרפה כל ארצה, meaning that the moisture descended back onto earth but this time mixed with solid burned particles.

ויהפך, He turned these cities and the valley from having been most fruitful to becoming most desolate. According to Job 28,6-8 the region had not only been good pasture land but its soil had yielded gold, gemstones, etc. The sulfur and brimstone which made up most of this rain made the earth forever incapable of producing crops or other matters of value to mankind. We know that even birds shun that region.

.ויהפך את הערים האל , “He overturned these towns.” The choice of the word האל to describe “these” instead of the more common ההם, is somewhat puzzling. The reason the Torah chose this expression may be that two of the names of the towns had been named before. By using the prefix ה before the word האל the Torah may hint that actually five towns were being overturned by the angel in charge of this destruction. The reason that Avraham at the time had commenced his plea by mentioning the number fifty was also because he was aware that each of five towns required a minimum quorum of ten good people each in order for the whole town to have any hope to escape immediate judgment.

He overturned these cities. The sulfur and fire only fell upon Sedom and Amorah, but the movement of the earth affected all the cities of the plain.

ויהפוך את הערים, “He overturned the cities;” it is clear from this verse that the destruction of these cities preceded Sarah’s death, whereas in the Talmud Sanhedrin 109 we read the opposite. The Talmud there relates; Eliezer the servant of Avraham once passed the place where Sodom had been located. He was invited to rest on a bed. He replied that he had made a vow ever since Sarah had died not to ever rest on a bed again. From this it is clear that Sarah had already died. We therefore have to assume that Eliezer was speaking about the town of Tzoar, one of the satellite towns of Sodom which had been spared by the prayer of Lot.

וצמח האדמה, “and the vegetation on the ground.” Rabbi Yoshua son of Levi stated that when a person takes soil from a piece of land that once was Sodom and he transplants it, it will never grow anything again.

ותבט אשתו מאחריו AND HIS WIFE LOOKED BACK FROM BEHIND HIM —behind Lot.

AND HIS WIFE LOOKED BACK FROM BEHIND HIM. From behind Lot, who was following them, acting as the rearguard for all his household, who were hurrying to be saved.

ותבט אשתו מאחריו, Lot’s wife who had been walking behind him turned around, seeing that she had little faith in such miracles as she had been warned would occur; This, in spite of the fact that she had personally overheard the angel warning Lot that no one was to turn around on pain of their becoming a victim of this destruction. Even though salt has not been mentioned as having been part of the lethal rain, the Torah speaking of sulfur and fire, it appears that the people themselves were turned into pillars composed partly of sulfur and partly of salt. We have proof of this in Deut. 29,22 when Moses describes the valley as it appeared in his time. The Israelites had not yet seen it, never having set foot in the land of Canaan as yet.

ותבט אשתו מאחריו, “His wife looked behind him.” According to Ibn Ezra, the suffix in the word מאחריו refers to Lot. Rashi claims that the suffix refers to her having ignored the angel’s command. In Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer it is said that the angels said to both Lot, his wife and daughters, not to look behind, as the Presence of the Lord raining sulphur and fire on the Sodomites was descending on earth immediately behind them. Lot’s wife Iddit, who was concerned about the fate of her married daughters, ignored the instructions, and, as a result, was turned into a pillar of salt. According to this version, the masculine suffix in the word מאחריו would refer to the שכינה, the manifestation of G’d’s presence.

ותבט אשתו מאחריו ותהי נציב מלח, ”his wife looked behind him and was turned into a pillar of salt.” It is possible to understand the word “behind him” as referring to the angel who overturned these towns, seeing the angel has already been credited with this activity in verse 25 where the Torah mentioned sulfur and fire being rained on the towns. The reason Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt may have had to do with the power of the fire [which dehydrated all fluids and left only solids which endure like salt? Ed.] When we find Moses refer to this event in Deut. 29,22 where he credits “G’d” with having turned that area into uninhabitable sulfur and salt, something completely burned, he refers to the agent of G’d who performed this as אפו וחמתו. The fact that he first mentioned “G’d,” and then “אף and חמה,” indicates that these were the names of the respective angels who had carried out this destruction.

Behind him [meaning: in back] of Lot. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say, “Behind herself”? Perforce, it means that when she was behind Lot, she looked. The Maharshal explains that it says “behind him” because she reasoned: since she is being saved due to Lot, she may look behind him — just not behind herself.

Indem sie stille stand, ward sie von dem ihr auf die Ferse folgenden Tode erreicht.

ותהיא נציב מלח, “she was turned into a pillar of salt;” her punishment fitted her crime, as Rashi has explained. Rashi claims that when her husband asked his wife to give some salt to his guests so that their food would taste better, she absolutely refused by challenging his right to violate the laws of Sodom concerning the entertaining of any guests. (based on B’reshit Rabbah,50,4) *Alternatively, "his wife gazed behind him and it became... - "it" referring to the entire land becoming filled with salt as it says "all its soil devastated by sulfur and salt." (Deuteronomy 29:22)

ותהי נציב מלח AND SHE BECAME A PILLAR OF SALT — By salt had she sinned and by salt was she punished. He (Lot) said to her once: “Give a little salt to these strangers” and she answered him, “Do you mean to introduce this bad custom, also, into our city?” (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

נציב מלח, a ruin resembling a castle of salt which had largely disintegrated.

ותהי נציב מלח. “she turned into a pillar of salt.” Nachmanides (on verse 17) explains that mere looking at polluted air containing all kinds of harmful ingredients transfers such harmful images to the brain and thence to the rest of the body. The effect is liable to be lethal. [The Talmud claims that if one sees the reflection of a rabid dog in the surface of waters of, say a lake, the effect is also liable to be deadly. Ed.] Nachmanides speculates that the angel causing all this destruction had taken up position between the earth and the sky. An effective medication may be to isolate oneself so that one is no longer exposed to the harmful influences either visually or through inhaling them. This would explain what happened to the wife of Lot by attributing it to natural causes, rather than assuming that G’d performed a miracle in order to kill her. My sainted father, the רא'ש, was troubled about the timing of the death of Lot’s wife. From the plain meaning of the text it appears that the rain of fire and sulphur did not commence until Lot had safely reached the small town of Tzoar. This is also borne out by the description of the events in Pirkey de Rabbi Eliezer chapter 25. If the destruction did not commence until Lot was in Tzoar, why would his wife be punished more severely than the people in Sodom? Rabbi Ysrael answered my father by letter that there is no doubt that the destruction did not commence until Lot had reached Tzoar, and that his wife had lagged behind so that the sulphur and fire struck her. The Torah only revealed to us the reason why she had lagged behind; she was always trailing behind her husband, and the suffix מאחוריו describes that she was at all times behind him. The reason why she kept lagging behind was that she constantly looked backwards hoping that her daughters would join her. This also explains the angel saying: ”do not look behind you.” If correct, this means that he did not forbid her the looking behind per se, but warned her that her lagging behind due to her looking behind was liable to turn her into a victim of the destructive forces overtaking Sodom and that valley. If Nachmanides’ explanation were correct, i.e. that looking at the air behind her were to cause her lethal consequences, the angel should have said: “do not look behind you so that the harmful substances will not cling to you.” The fact that the angel added the words “do not stand still in the entire valley,” proves conclusively that time was of the essence, not what he or she would see when turning around. Lot followed the instructions of the angel, whereas his wife did not, with fatal results to her. The Torah reveals that Lot’s wife died as a result of disregarding the angel’s instructions. If not for this, she would have been saved, just as her unmarried daughters were saved. The whole story may have been related by the Torah to explain what prompted Lot’s daughters to sleep with him, i.e. the death of his wife.

ותהי נציב מלח, “she became a pillar of salt.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that the word ותהי in our verse refers to the “earth.” In other words, the earth beneath her turned into a pillar of salt, not she herself. Our sages interpret vatehi that Lot’s wife turned into salt herself. The Midrash relates that a poor person came to her door to borrow salt and she refused to give any, and was therefore punished measure for measure: by salt she has sinned and with a pillar of salt she was punished.

אל המקום אשר עמד שם את פני ה, to the place to which he had accompanied the angels. This is where the punishing hand of G’d had first appeared to him. Since he had not been able to save the inhabitants of Sodom legally, he prepared to intercede for them by asking G’d s mercy for them.

וישכם...אל המקום אשר עמד שם, this is similar to 18,22 where we were told that Avraham was still standing in the presence of the Lord. This was the place where the angels had parted from him in his vision. Our sages (Berachot 26) state that Avraham initiated the morning prayer shacharit, as whenever the word עומד is used it refers to the amidah, the principal prayer. David makes reference to this in Psalms 106,30 where he said ויעמוד פנחס ויפלל, that Pinchas stood and prayed, meaning that it behooves man to recite prayers in the morning in which he gratefully acknowledges the daylight in the universe which was provided for him before he set out to go to work. They also add (on folio 6) that it is appropriate for a person to select a specific place where he offers up his prayers on a regular basis.

קיטר signifies a column of smoke. old French torche; English torch.

וישקף, to see if 10 righteous people had been found there (and the city had survived).

וישקף, a hostile kind of looking, motivated by their excess wickedness.

וישקף...קיטור הארץ, smoke, from the fire which had burned the earth.

וישקף על פני סדום, “he looked down in the direction of Sodom” to see if 10 just people had been found that were deserving of being saved.

הכבשן A FURNACE — an excavation in which they burn stone to lime. This is the meaning of כבשן wherever it occurs in the Torah.

קיטור הארץ, when he saw the smoke he realised that it was too late to pray on behalf of these people.

הכבשן, a sort of kiln in which one fires stones and loam into earthenware. Alternately, this kiln is used to wash earthenware vessels.

ויזכר אלהים את אברהם GOD REMEMBERED ABRAHAM — What bearing has God’s remembering Abraham upon the rescue of Lot? He remembered that Lot knew that Sarah was Abraham’s wife and that when he heard that Abraham said in Egypt regarding Sarah, “She is my sister”, he did not betray him because he had sympathy with him. For this reason God had mercy upon him (Lot) (Genesis Rabbah 51:6).

AND G-D REMEMBERED ABRAHAM, AND SENT LOT OUT FROM THE CATASTROPHE. The purport of this verse is that Lot had shown kindness towards the righteous one²⁵⁹Abraham. by going with him and roaming here and there, following him wherever he went. This is the intent of the verse, And Lot went with him,²⁶⁰Above, 12:4. meaning that he went at Abraham’s command. Therefore he had the merit to be saved on account of Abraham’s meritoriousness as it was on account of him that he lived in Sodom, and were it not for Abraham he would have still been in Haran with his family. Now it is inconceivable that some evil should overtake him [Lot] because of Abraham who had left his country at his Creator’s command. This was also the reason why Abraham endangered himself by pursuing the kings on account of him.²⁶¹Ibid., 14:14.

מתוך ההפכה בהפוך את הערים, seeing that he had escaped by the merit of Avraham from the destruction of these cites, a process which had begun even before Lot had been outside the outer perimeters of the valley due to his laziness. (compare verse 16) As a result, he was afraid to settle in Tzoar thinking that its destruction had been delayed only on account of his having taken refuge there.

ויהי בשחת, the reason why the Torah phrases this thus is to remind us that Lot’s having been saved was due to the merit of Avraham. Even though, by comparison to the people of Sodom he was relatively righteous, he was not righteous enough to have deserved G’d extending Himself to save him as a result of his own merits. G’d now wanted to put Avraham’s mind at rest by indicating to him that Lot had indeed been saved from this conflagration.

בהפוך את הערים אשר ישב בהן לוט, “when He overturned the cities wherein Lot had dwelled.” The meaning is as if the Torah had written: “in one of which Lot had dwelled.”

ויהי בשחת אלוקים, ”it was when G’d destroyed, etc.” The word אלוקים here refers to the angel of G’d who performed this task.
ויזכור אלוקים את אברהם, “G’d remembered Avraham.” Here the word אלוקים refers to G’d Himself.
וישלח את לוט, “He sent away Lot, etc.” As soon as the name of Avraham is mentioned G’d saves those who cleave to him. The meaning of the verse is that had it not been for Avraham, Lot would still have been in Charan, his land and his birthplace. He left his birthplace only for the sake of Avraham and in his honour. This is what the Torah testified in Genesis 12,4 “Avraham went as G’d had told him, and Lot went with him.” Having this in mind, the Torah says here that G’d remembered Avraham and that as a consequence He saved Lot. The Torah is careful not to say that Lot was saved because G’d remembered Avraham. This what our sages meant when they said (Tanchuma Vayera 9) “one may save the cover of a book together with the book itself just as one may save the bag containing the phylacteries together with the phylacteries contained therein even if there was also money inside that container at the same time” (in case of a fire on the Sabbath). The reason for this is that the container or cover respectively lend additional distinction to the phylacteries or the sacred text inside the cover. From these words of the Tanchuma we learn “hail to the righteous as well as to those who support them.” We can support this from Genesis 8,1: “G’d remembered Noach and all the creatures that were with him inside the Ark.”

How does the remembering of Avraham affect Lot? He remembered... [Rashi is answering the question:] Whenever it says, “Hashem remembered,” the one who needs the deliverance is remembered. For example (30:22): “Elokim remembered Rochel,” and (Shmuel I, 1:9): “Hashem remembered her [Channah].” But here, why is Avraham remembered, while Lot is delivered? Therefore Rashi explains that Hashem indeed remembered Lot, who needed the deliverance. And when it says את אברהם, it means that Hashem remembered for Lot the kindness he did “with Avraham.” Thus, את אברהם is to be understood as עם אברהם (with Avraham). (R. Meir Stern)

Während in der ganzen Erzählung der Name ׳ה genannt ist, steht hier Gott als Richter. Lot gegenüber war seine Rettung ein Akt der Barmherzigkeit, Abraham gegenüber gehörte seine Rettung ebenso wie Sodoms Untergang zur Gerechtigkeit Gottes, wie sie eben Abraham erschaut hatte, die um des nahestehenden Gerechten willen des Schuldigen schont, um in seinem Untergange nicht den Gerechten mit leiden zu lassen.

אשר ישב בהן לוט, “in which Lot used to live;” he had not lived in all of them but in one of them. We find a similar construction in Judges 12,7, where Yiftach is reported as having been buried “in the cities of Gilead,” and it clearly does not mean that he had been cut up and been buried in different parts of the region of Gilead. [The Book of Judges merely makes the point that any of these cities would have been proud to have provided his grave. Ed.] Compare also Zachariah 9,9: ועל עיר בן אתונות, “and on a male donkey foaled by one of the sheasses.”

וישלח את לוט מתוך ההפכה, He had sent away from the midst of this upheaval, i.e. immediately preceding it.

And he did not betray him because he was sympathetic towards him. Re’m asks: Why is the [greater] kindness of Lot leaving his country and birthplace to follow [i.e., accompany] Avraham wherever he went, not mentioned [instead]? It seems to me that this is no question on Chazal’s statement [that Hashem remembered only Lot’s kindness to Avraham in Egypt], because the answer is: When Lot went with Avraham, he did not go for Avraham’s good but for his own good. For if Avraham would die, Lot would inherit his property! As Rashi explains [that Lot’s herdsmen thought] as much, on (13:7), “There was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Avram’s flocks...” But when Lot did not reveal who Sarah was, this was indeed considered to be for Avraham’s good. The whole reason he went with Avraham was to inherit him, so he should have told them that Sarah was Avraham’s wife, so they would kill Avraham, and he would inherit him. After all, he had set his eyes on Avraham’s money. Therefore, [because Lot did not reveal this to Pharaoh,] it was considered a [true] kindness.

בהפך את הערים, when He was about to turn these cities inside out, for the angel had told Lot that he could not carry out his task until he had brought Lot to safety. (verse 22).

כי ירא לשבת בצוער FOR HE FEARED TO DWELL IN ZOAR, because it was near to Sodom.

כי ירא לשבת בצוער, seeing the angel had spared the town only because there had not been time enough for Lot to escape to the mountain. Now that Lot could climb the mountain at his leisure, he was afraid to stay there longer than necessary.

FOR HE FEARED TO DWELL IN ZOAR. Rashi wrote, “Because it was near to Sodom.”
This is not so.²⁶²For since the angel had assured Lot, See, I have accepted thee concerning this thing also, that I will not overthrow the city [Zoar], (Verse 21), Zoar would no longer be in danger of destruction even though it was near Sodom. (Mizrachi.) Rather, since it was one of the places upon which destruction had originally been decreed and it was only by Lot’s supplication that the angel exempted it because Lot could not make his escape to the mountain on that day,²⁶³Verse 19 here. Lot now thought that the angel would no longer extend his request, for he now had sufficient time to make the escape to the mountain.²⁶⁴This was why he feared to dwell in Zoar. This was why his daughter said, And there is not a man in the earth,²⁶⁵Verse 31 here. for she thought that with her father’s departure from Zoar the city was destroyed.

וישב בהר, because he thought that the entire valley would be destroyed, excluding the surrounding mountains.

ויעל, as soon as he had the opportunity, after all that was to be destroyed had already been destroyed. He left Tzoar being afraid that Tzoar might face the same fate as Sodom, even though a little later, seeing that he was well aware that its inhabitants were also wicked people.

כי ירא לשבת בצוער, “for he was afraid to dwell permanently in Tzoar. According to Rashi he was afraid to live in a town so close to Sodom. Nachmanides disagrees, writing that his fear was based on the fact that the decree of destruction had included Tzoar, though the timing had been amended. He felt that the angel would not extend the grace period much longer. This is also why the daughters were convinced that there would be no other men left on earth as possible marriage partners for them. (compare 31) Some say that Lot’s daughters definitely did not think that what had happened in Sodom had been worldwide. They only thought that there would not be any men willing to marry them, seeing they had been part of the condemned population of Sodom. They assumed that such men would feel they had been genetically harmed so that they could not bear healthy children, if at all. As a result, they would die without children unless they would be impregnated by their father.

כי ירא לשבת בצוער, “for he was afraid of taking up residence in Tzoar.” The angel had saved Tzoar only temporarily until Lot would recover sufficiently to escape to the mountain. As soon as he would have done so, he became afraid that the angel would complete the task of destroying it.

וישב בהר, this was the mountain which the angel had originally told him to go to. (verse 17)

וישב במערה, a cave in the side of the mountain

אבינו זקן OUR FATHER IS OLD — And if not now, when? He may die or may cease to beget children.

ואיש אין בארץ, they thought that the whole universe had been turned upside down and that G’d had brought on a deluge of fire.

AND THE FIRST-BORN SAID. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said, “It is possible that Lot had another wife²⁶⁶Since Scripture mentions that Lot had married daughters (Verse 14), these two mentioned here must surely have been younger ones as it was customary for the older ones to marry before the younger ones. (See further, 29:26.) If so, how does Scripture call one of the single daughters the first-born? It must therefore be, concluded Ibn Ezra, that the ones mentioned above were from another wife who had died. Ramban, however, differs with this suggestion, as explained below in the text. who died before.”
But there is no need for this; the first-born is just in contrast to the younger. In fraternal relations the one who is older is called “first-born,” and all those younger than he are called “the younger ones.”
Thus the first fruits of the year are called bikurim;²⁶⁷Bikurim has as its root the word b’chor (the first born). Here also the first fruits are relative to this year’s crop. likewise, the first-born of the poor,²⁶⁸Isaiah 14:30. meaning the most destitute, the poor of the poor. Likewise, With the loss of his first-born shall he lay the foundation thereof, and with the loss of his younger shall he set up the gates of it.²⁶⁹Joshua 6:26. Onkelos also here translated, rabtha.²⁷⁰“The older.” And he did not translate, as elsewhere, buchra (the first-born).

ותאמר...אבינו זקן, there is no chance that he will marry again and have children from such a woman. If we will die without having children there will not be a memory of our father at all. If you were to say that we should take husbands and have children, where would we find such husbands?

In dieser Erzählung wird wiederholt das ונחיה מאבינו זרע als Motiv der Handlung hervorgehoben, und darf dasselbe bei einer Beurteilung nicht außer acht gelassen werden. Die Töchter waren in dem Irrtum befangen, die einzigen überlebenden Menschen auf Erden zu sein. Sie sahen mit dem nicht lange mehr ausbleibenden Hinscheiden ihres Vaters sich vermeintlich vereinsamt auf Erden, diese Angst, und der Gedanke an das nur so mögliche Fortbestehen der Menschen, trieb sie zu dem Verbrechen. Ihr Motiv war jedoch ein sittliches, und sie glaubten nicht nur nicht unrecht, sondern sogar recht zu handeln. Die Weisen (Horioth 1, 2) sehen in dem Punkte über ובקומה die Andeutung, dass er nicht so ganz schuldlos gewesen, und findet hierin ב"ר z. St. ein Motiv zu dem späteren: עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית des Gesetzes.

ואיש אין בארץ לבא עלינו “and there is no other man left on earth to impregnate us with his sperm.” According to Ibn Ezra, they did not think that there were no more males alive on earth, but they thought no other man would be a suitable marriage partner for them for spiritual reasons. Since they had been miraculously saved by G–d, they considered themselves as of superior status.

ואיש אין בארץ AND THERE IS NOT A MAN IN THE EARTH — They thought that the whole world had been destroyed as in the time of the generation of the Flood. (Genesis Rabbah 51:8).

איש אין בארץ לבא עלינו. Most interpreters assume that these daughters thought that that just as there was no survivor left from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, so there were none in the rest of the world. It is very difficult to accept such an interpretation, seeing that they had just left Tzoar which had not been destroyed, so that they had every reason to believe that other regions of the earth had also not been affected. Not only that, but their father had told them that the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah had been destroyed was due to their inhabitants’ wickedness. I therefore prefer an explanation which I have heard in the name of Rabbi Yoseph Karo (the elder) that the elder sister told her younger sister that none of the remaining men of the world would want to marry them, seeing they had lived in the wicked city of Sodom. People would not want to associate with anyone who had only narrowly escaped the fate of the Sodomites.

THAT WE MAY KEEP ALIVE SEED FROM OUR FATHER. The intent is perhaps that they said: “Let us do what we can, so that G-d should have mercy, and we shall give birth to a boy and a girl from whom the world shall be sustained, for the world will be built with kindness,²⁷¹Psalms 89:3. and it is not in vain that G-d has saved us.” Now they were modest and did not want to tell their father to marry them, as a Noachide²⁷²See Seder Bereshith, Note 288. is permitted to take his daughter.²⁷³Sanhedrin 58b. It may be that the matter was extremely repulsive in the eyes of the people of those generations and was never done. Our Rabbis,²⁷⁴Bereshith Rabbah 51:11-12. in Agadic expositions, likewise discredit Lot very much.

לכה, we have already explained the meaning of this expression on Genesis 11,9 as well as the meaning of the word לכו, the same in the plural mode.

לכה נשקה את אבינו יין, “let us give our father wine to drink preparatory to sleeping with him.” Even though, halachically speaking, it was permissible for a father to have sexual relations with his daughter, so that there was no legal impediment to their father marrying them, it had become a universally accepted norm after the deluge that fathers would not touch their daughters, sexually. The matter is discussed in Horiyot, where deviates were described as being guilty of committing an abomination.

נשקה את אבינו יין, enough to make him drunk, so that he will not know what to do when we sleep with him. He certainly would not agree to sleep with his daughters while in full possession of his faculties. Anyone subscribing to the cultural mores of an Avraham would not knowingly engage in such a practice. This story is related in order to teach us that even people not subscribing to the moral standards of the Torah would not stoop to this kind of sexual licentiousness. The entire story reveals the origin of the peoples of Ammon and Moav, two nations who will feature prominently in Jewish history from the time even before the Jews entered the Holy Land until the destruction of the first Temple. G’d prevented the Jewish people under Moses from attacking these nations seeing that their founder, Lot, had been a nephew of Avraham. Also, the Jewish people were not given any part of the lands occupied by these nations at the time when Moses and Joshua were involved in conquering the lands which became their home land.

'ותשקין וגו AND THEY MADE THEIR FATHER DRINK [WINE] etc. — Wine was at hand for them in the cave out of a set purpose that they might bring forth two nations (Midrash Tanchuma, Beshalach 12).

ותשקין...בלילה הוא, the letter ה at the end of the word which would have served as the definitive article for the adjective is missing here, as it is also Samuel II 6,2 את העגלה חדשה, [which should have beenהחדשה Ed.] just as it is also missing in Numbers 28,4 את הכבש אחד, instead of האחד.

ותשקין את אביהן יין בלילה הוא, “they gave their father wine to drink in that night.” Actually, the Torah should have written בלילה ההוא instead of בלילה הוא. The absence of the prefix ה suggests that the word הוא is a reference to G’d, i.e. that it is one of G’d’s names. This is why the sages said that Lot’s daughters enjoyed a divine assist in their undertaking. The wine itself was found in their cave. They had not brought it with them. G’d had provided it to make their undertaking easier. [G’d’s interest was to commence the process which would ultimately result in the birth of King David.]

Wine presented itself to them in the cave... The Re’m asks: Why does Rashi disregard the opinion in Bereishis Rabbah (51:8) that says Lot’s daughters had wine in the cave because the people of Sedom had a lot of it, and would store it in caves? Instead, Rashi follows R. [Yehudah] bar Simon, who says that something resembling [the World to Come] was done for them, [as it says (Yoel 4:18): “And it shall come to pass on that day that the mountains shall drip with wine,”] showing that the intention of Lot’s daughters was for the sake of Heaven. But Rashi later comments that the older daughter initiated zenus—implying that their intention was for zenus, not for the sake of Heaven! Re’m answers: Rashi’s opinion is that even according to the one who says their intention was for zenus would agree that Hashem presented them with wine so that two nations might come forth from them, as Rashi explains on ותשקין.

ותשכב את אביה, “she had carnal relations with her father;” according to Rashi, what she did was not proper; if you were to argue that we have a statement in the Talmud Baba Kamma 38, according to which her conduct was to teach us that she was praised for being the first of the two sisters to fulfill this commandment, the meaning is that if something inadmissible (basically) has to be undertaken due to circumstances, the person who is the first to do so is given special credit. Rashi criticises the fact that objectively speaking, she committed incest. [According to the rules about incest, as stipulated in Maimonides, gentile daughters are allowed to have carnal relations with their fathers, based on Sanhedrin 58] According to the mechilta, the fact that they found wine in the cave was a sign for them that what they did had heavenly approval. Ed.]

ותשכב את אביה AND SHE LAY WITH HER FATHER — In the case of the younger daughter it is written (Genesis 19:35) “and she lay with him”, and it does not state “she lay with her father”. But because the younger did not originate this unchaste conduct but her sister taught it to her, Scripture glosses over her sin and does not explicitly make mention of her shame; but since the elder originated this unchaste conduct Scripture exposes her fully (Numbers Rabbah 20:23).

ולא ידע, even when his daughter broke off the physical contact with her father, Lot remained totally unaware of this. [this is why we speak of “drunk as Lot,” when referring to someone’s drunken stupor. Ed.] The Torah mentions this detail to hint that had he noticed any of this Lot would have resisted the sexual union with his daughter and would have severely remonstrated with her for performing such a despicable act. According to an allegorical approach, (quoted by Rashi,) the dot over the letter ו in this word suggests that Lot did notice when his daughter broke the contact, and therefore he can be faulted for not ensuring that the same did not happen to him on any of the following nights.

To tell us that once she arose he was aware... You might ask: Is it not written, “He was not aware that she lay down or got up”? The answer is: At first he was not aware of her lying down or getting up, but when he began drinking the second night he remembered what he had done, yet he drank anyway. (Maharshal) [Alternatively:] You might ask: Why is it written, “He was not aware that... she got up,” if he was aware? The answer is: Lot surely was aware she got up from his bed. But he was not aware he had relations with her. (Gur Aryeh) But this answer is difficult, for if he was aware that she got up from his bed, the original question stands: Is it not written, “He was not aware that she... got up”? Rather, it means that at the moment she got up from his bed he was not aware [immediately of her having lied down]. And the dot tells us that later he became aware of both her lying down and getting up. And so we must say, simply speaking, that when she got up he was aware of this, and consequently he became aware of her lying down as well, for one cannot get up without having lied down. And when Rashi writes that “once she arose he was aware,” this is as opposed to between the lying down and the getting up, he was not aware. (R. Meir Stern)

ובקומה, “and when she got up;” there is a dot above this word. [as opposed to the same word when the Torah describes her sister’s breaking off that intimacy with her father. That word is also spelled without the letter ו when describing the completion of the act of the younger sister. Ed.]

ובקומה NOR WHEN SHE AROSE — This word where it occurs with reference to the elder sister (Genesis 19:33) has dots above it (as though it is not written at all), implying that when she arose, he (Lot) was aware of it, and yet he did not take care on the second night to abstain from wine. (Horayot 10b.) R. Levi said, Whoever is inflamed by sexual desire will, in the end, be made to eat his own flesh (Genesis Rabbah 51:9).

ויהי...אמש, the previous night; the same word is used to describe a previous night when Lavan had been chastised by G’d and warned not to harm Yaakov in Genesis 31,42.

ותשקן..ובקמה, this time with the letter ו in the word ובקמה missing.

ותהרין וגו AND THEY BECAME PREGNANT, ETC. — Even though a woman does not become pregnant from the first intercourse, these [women] mastered themselves and took out their hymens; and they became pregnant from the first intercourse (Genesis Rabbah 51:9).

ותהרין, they each became pregnant as a result of one sexual union with their aging father. As soon as they became aware of this, they desisted from further such contact with their father.

These did it with themselves... שלטו means “had relations,” since לרבעה is translated by Onkelos as למשלט. In other words, they “had relations with themselves” and removed their virginity [beforehand. This enabled them to conceive]. This is the meaning of והוציאו ערותן לחוץ. Some versions of Rashi say והוציאו עדותן (“they removed their evidence”), which means the same. It refers to their virginity, which are the evidence they are virgins, as it is written (Devarim 22:17) אלה בתולי בתי, which Targum Yonasan explains as אלה עדות בתי.

ותהרין, “they became pregnant;” according to Rashi, this point is made by the Torah to show the miraculous intervention by G–d that although it is a natural law that a virgin does not become pregnant as a result of sleeping with a man for the first time, in this instance there was help from heaven. [If this had not been a firm conviction by earlier generations, all the documented stories about priests being the ones to deflower virgins before they were given to their respective husbands, would make no sense at all, as many such virgins would have given birth to children from such priests’ semen. Ed.] According to Bereshit rabbah 51,9 quoting Devarim 22,17, the words: ואלה בתולי בתי, “these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity,” are proof that Judaism does not accept the so-called principle accepted by the gentiles on this subject.

.ומהרין שתי בנות לוט, “the two daughters of Lot became pregnant;” According to Rashi, although normally virgins do not become pregnant from the first time they have carnal relations, these two girls had first removed their hymens, so as to enable them to conceive from the first intercourse with a male. [The author refers to an obscure Midrash, according to which the word ervah, used as synonym for genitals, is spelled with the letter ד instead of ר, i.e. instead of עדותן it should be ערותן as their “proof,” that they had been virgins prior to this. This is based on Deuteronomy 22,17 where the mother of a daughter whose newly wedded husband had accused her daughter of not entering marriage as a virgin by saying: “here is the proof that my daughter was a virgin when she married you.” Ed.] At any rate, Lot’s daughters, through tricks known to girls, contorted themselves in a manner that could serve them as “proof” that they had been innocent virgins up to that time.

מואב MOAB — This daughter who was immodest openly proclaimed that the son was born of her father (מֵאָב) but the younger named her child in a euphemistic fashion and was rewarded for this at the time of Moses, as it is said regarding the children of Ammon, (Deuteronomy 2:19) “Do not contend with them” — in any manner at all — whereas in reference to Moab it (Scripture) only forbade waging war against them but permitted them (the Israelites) to vex them (Genesis Rabbah 51:11).

עד היום, the time frame mentioned refers to the period when the Torah was written by Moses.

ותקרא שמו מואב...ותקרא שמו בן עמי. They called the names of their children thus to show the world that the father was not someone who was an unworthy, sinful person. [from the point of view of Jewish law as it pertains to gentiles, a father may sleep with his daughter. Ed.]

ותלד..מואב, meaning מאב, “from my father I bore this son.”

ותקרא שמו מואב, “she named him Moav, (by my father.)” A most inappropriate name for a child, tainting him for the future. She was punished by the Torah for naming her son thus, by the Torah only forbidding the Israelites to oppress the Moabites and Ammonites and to wage war against them, but enslaving them was not forbidden. Even so, the sages say that the older daughter who initiated sleeping with her father a single night before her sister was rewarded by G’d in that from her issue Ruth joined the Jewish people, whereas Naamah from Ammon who became the wife of Rechavam, son of Solomon, did not join the Jewish people until four generations later. Still, this did not exonerate her from the shame of naming her son in such a way. (Bereshit Rabbah 51,10, and Midrash Hagadol on Genesis)

ותלד הבכירה בן ותקרא שמו מואב, “the older one gave birth to a son whom she called Moav (from the father).” Our sages say: “do not read this name as מואב, but as מאב, “from the father.” The naming of the baby was certainly not a chaste thing to do. The younger daughter, by contrast, displayed more discretion when she named her son בן עמי, “a member of my people.” Our sages in Horiot 10 taught that G’d does not withhold a reward even for such minor things as appropriate conversational expressions. When G’d told Moses not to harass either Moav or Ammon, He used different terms for the type of harassment the Israelites were not allowed to employ. In the case of Moav (Deut. 2,9), G’d said אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה “do not harass Moav and do not provoke them into war,” whereas in the case of the בני עמון G’d said: אל תצורם ואל תתגר בם “do not harass them or start a fight with them (Deut. 2,19).” The latter were not to be harassed in any shape or form by the Israelites. This added prohibition was the way G’d rewarded their ancestral mother for employing discreet language when naming her son.

(37-38) Es sind dies noch die Stammväter der heutigen Moabiter und Ammoniter. Es hat das Land nicht seine Bewohner gewechselt und den alten Namen dann auf die neuen Ankömmlinge übertragen, wie in so vielen anderen Fällen, sondern die heutigen Ammoniter und Moabiter stammen von diesen Söhnen Lots.

הוא אבי מואב...הוא אבי בני עמון, the ones who would in a short while inherit large parts of what would eventually be part of the land of Israel on the east bank of the Jordan river. Seeing that the intentions of both daughters in sleeping with their father had been honourable, they were rewarded with founding two nations, both from the same father. (Nazir 23) In a certain sense they had become heirs of Avraham to whom all the Canaanite lands had been promised. This reflects the statement in Proverbs 3,6 בכל דרכיך דעהו, “know (try to emulate) G’d in all your undertakings;” (even when involving an apparent sin. [based on Berachot 63. Ed.]

אבי מואב, the founding father of the people called Moabites until this day.

והצעירה...בן עמי, meaning “the father of this child was a member of my family.” This name was somewhat more chaste than the name given by her older sister, as she did not spell out that Lot was the father of her child.

והצעירה גם היא, “and the younger sister did also give birth to a son;” the reason this is reported in a separate verse, is to signal that her son too would be originator of a family destined to produce kings. A distant descendant of her was Naamah who became the mother of Rechavam, son of Solomon (Talmud Baba Kamma, 38).