It says a lot about Lot

In last week’s parashah, we met Abraham’s nephew Lot. 

As both Abraham’s and Lot’s prosperity increased, quarreling began between the herdsmen of Abraham’s cattle and those of Lot’s. The immediate actions of Abraham to mitigate the discord clearly illustrates his magnanimity: “Let there be no strife between you and me, between my herdsmen and yours, for we are kinsmen” (Genesis 13:8). Although he is the older man and the uncle, Abraham does not insist on priority of rights, but instead selflessly offers his nephew first choice of grazing land and watering places. Whereas an appropriate response would be to respectfully defer to one’s elders, Lot takes advantage of the opportunity to choose the whole arable and well-watered plain of the Jordan, the cities of which include the wicked inhabitants of Sodom (Genesis 13:10-11). Lot selects a setting of wealth and comfort, without concern for the nature of the morality of its inhabitants. 

God speaks to Abraham and repeats God’s promise to him only after Lot departs, as if to emphasize that the land of Canaan had been given exclusively to Abraham and his descendants, not Lot. Lot’s “departure” from Abraham is not only a physical one, but a moral one that symbolically etches the stark contrast between their characters.

Fast forward to this week’s parashah, Vayeira, where two of the three extraordinary guests who originally appeared to Abraham now visit Lot to announce the imminent destruction of Sodom. Interestingly, when these beings visited Abraham, the Hebrew term to characterize them was אֲנָשִׁים“men.” Now as they descend upon Lot, they are מַלְאָכִים“angels.” One midrashic explanation outlined in Bereishiyt Rabbah 50:2 is that, in relation to Abraham whose power was great, and angels were as common to him as men, they appeared in the image of men; to Lot, whose strength was inferior, they appeared in the image of angels. Lot, to his credit, takes these visitors into his home despite the mortal danger of being hospitable to guests in the cruel environment of Sodom. He had learned from his years with Abraham to seek out travellers. Yet again, we see a subtle difference. Here, the angels initially refuse Lot. They instead state that they will spend the night in the street. They only acquiesce after Lot strongly urges them (Genesis 19:2-3). In contrast, they immediately accept Abraham’s invitation. From this, the Rabbis derive the lesson that one may decline the offer of a lesser man but should not decline the offer of a great man (BT Bava Metzia 87a).

Lot’s guests had not yet lain down to rest when hordes of depraved Sodomites converged on the house with the intention of sexual intimacy. Lot is steadfast in his morals when it comes to the sacred duty of hospitality and the right of asylum to strangers under his roof. He risks his life to defend the angels, begging the townspeople not to lay a hand on them. However, in the same breath, he readily offers up his two daughters to the crazed mob. Ramban and other commentators condemn him for such an action, declaring that a man should face death rather than permit his wife or daughters to be dishonoured. The Midrash Tanchuma quotes God’s harsh rebuke and declaration to Lot: “By your life! It is for yourself that you keep them.” This rebuke foreshadows the end result: a destroyed Sodom, with Lot’s two previously betrothed daughters now having no one left to marry in the usual manner, and who therefore each resign themselves to getting their aging father drunk and lying with him in order to perpetuate their father’s line. While these incestuous relations produced the nations of Moab and Ammon, they did subsequently lead to two righteous descendants of Lot who would become the mothers of the Davidic dynasty, namely Ruth the Moabite, the ancestress of King David, and Naamah the Ammonite, who would marry King Solomon.

At the break of dawn, the angels urge and hurry Lot to leave Sodom lest he and his family be swept away in the iniquity of the city. Still, he hesitates. He hesitates to the point where the angels are forced to grab his hand and that of his wife and two daughters and bring them out of Sodom and place them outside the city (Genesis 19:16). Rashi believes that Lot hesitated in order to salvage his possessions. Rashi derives this notion from the next verse (Genesis 19:17) where the angel admonishes Lot, “Run for your life” (i.e., Forget about your possessions; do not look back). Incidentally, the cantillation sign over the word וַֽיִּתְמַהְמָ֓הּ (“He delayed”) is the rare Shalshelet, which occurs only seven times in the entire Hebrew bible. The symbol for Shalshelet is a chain of three arrowheads, piled up one on top of the other. Shalshelet (שַׁלְשֶׁ֓לֶת) means “chain” in Hebrew. The name reflects both the shape of the symbol and the contour of the melody. Some rabbis discerned an exegetical significance to this unusual trope, namely that it calls attention to the lingering and hesitation. Commenting on the Shalshelet on the word וַיְמָאֵ֓ן (“he refused”) in Genesis 39:8 when Joseph refuses the advances of Potifar’s wife, the sages taught: “He saw the image of his father’s face. He saw his distinguished lineage and did not want to break the golden chain” (BT Sotah 36b). The name of the trope thereby serves as a pun, as the “chain” of generations of righteous ancestors inspires Joseph to refuse the enticing charms of his master’s wife. 

The Midrash Lekach Tov views it differently, saying that Joseph hesitated, and that the shalshelet implies a chain of multiple refusals. Regarding the Shalshelet in our example in Genesis 19:16 cited above, the Midrash writes: “He hesitated – he expressed wonderment after wonderment; he said: ‘What a great loss of silver, gold, gems, and jewels.’ That is what is written: “Wealth is accrued for its owner to his detriment” (Ecclesiastes 5:12). Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said, “This refers to Lot” (Midrash Rabbah Genesis 50:11). The implication is that Lot lingered not just once, but several times. The repetitiousness of the Shalshelet illustrates this hesitation, both in its name, in its shape, and in its wavering melody.

The Artscroll Chumash outlines a common principle:

Someone who is totally righteous like Abraham may be saved by miracles even when everything around them is crashing down. Less righteous people may be granted an opportunity to save themselves from impending doom, but once the destruction begins, they will be caught up in the general carnage.

Noah, although a seemingly righteous man in his generation, falls into this latter category. And so does Lot. Neither of them compares to Abraham. Noah only manages to rescue himself and his family before the flood hits. He later plants a vineyard, drinks from the wine, and becomes drunk and naked in his tent. Although the Torah tells us that Noah’s son Ham “saw” the nakedness of his father, the text seems to indicate sodomy or castration, something more sexual in nature than merely seeing (Genesis 9:21-24; BT Talmud Sanhedrin 70a). Lot is rescued from Sodom only before the upheaval begins, not from its midst. God does take pity on him and rescues him because of what Lot did in Egypt to spare Abraham and Sarah. In Egypt, Lot heard Abraham say to Pharoah that Sarah was his sister rather than his wife; yet Lot did not betray Abraham, because he was sympathetic towards him (Bereishiyt Rabbah 51:6) Whether Lot is rescued on account of his own merit, or Abraham’s merit, or the fact that two women would descend from him to forge the Davidic dynasty, the above biblical examples and rabbinic commentaries paint Lot as a perplexing hero. Whether it is his greed to have the best grazing land, his immediate willingness to sacrifice his daughters, or his stubborn hesitation in letting go and leaving Sodom and his life’s possessions, it says a lot about Lot’s character or lack thereof.