Komentarz do Rodzaju 19:33

'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).