Parshat Vayera Answers (chayei sara answers below)

VaYera 5722.
Alef.
      As per Nechama’s directions, these questions will be addressed at the end of the study of the  Gilayan, after section Zayin.

Beit.

The problem in the text that precipitates ShaDaL’s comment is that in verses 26, 28 and 30, the language implies that God “Will Try to Find” the requisite number of Tzaddikim, implying that He “doesn’t Know” whether they are there or not. This can only be due to absolute freedom of choice as well as the ability of an individual by means of a test to demonstrate where s/he stands morally. This indeterminacy parallels v. 21 in which God States that He has to See whether the state of affairs in Sodom and Amora is actually in accordance with the scream that He has Heard arising from the cities.

Gimel.

1.  “LeMa’an” usually means “for the sake of.” However, if God were Concerned with Saving this small group, He could have Extracted them as He ultimately Does for Lot and his daughters, and Proceeded to destroy Sodom and Amora as He originally Intended. Consequently, “LeMa’an” should be interpreted acc. to Ibn Kaspi, as “because of, in order to” i.e., because of the continued existence of the 50, 40, etc., I will not destroy the rest of the city.

2.  Beraishit 18:19

         I Knew him in order that he command his offspring…

   I Melachim 11:34

         For the sake of David My Servant that I Chose him…

   II Melachim 19:34

         For My Sake and for the sake of David My Servant…

   Yeshayahu 62:1

         For the sake of Zion I will not remain silent…

   Tehillim 8:3

         You have Founded strength because of Your Enemies, that You might Still the enemy  and the avenger.

   Ibid. 122:8

         For the sakes of my  brothers and my friends I will now say, “Peace be within you.”

Daled.

1. RaMBaN is explaining why Avraham said twice “Chalila Lach.” Either it is reprehensible or it is not; why is it doubly reprehensible? RaMBaN therefore sees verse 25 as two separate arguments, each relating to a different Divine Attribute. “Chalila” were you to apply Midat HaDin; “Chalila” were you to apply Midat HaRachamim. Firstly, the Tzaddikim cannot meet the same end as the Reshai’m from the point of view of Midat HaDin. Secondly, since God Judges the world according to Midat HaRachamim, therefore not only should the Tzaddikim be spared, but everyone else as well.

2.   As opposed to the inhabitants of the cities upon which RaMBaN concentrates, RaDaK understands God’s Reluctance to destroy the area which has been inhabited, and which finally happens to Sodom and Amora when the requisite number of Tzaddikim cannot be identified. This is probably a function of the value of inhabiting the world stated in Yeshayahu 45:18--

“For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens, He is God; that formed the earth and made it, He established it, He created it not a waste, He formed it to be inhabited: I am the LORD, and there is none else.” 

   Apparently people are replaceable, while civilization is not.

   RaDaK additionally cites Yechezkel 22:29-30--

“The people of the land have used oppression, and exercised robbery, and have wronged the poor and needy, and have oppressed the stranger unlawfully.

         “And I sought for a man among them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the  breach before Me for the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found none.”

     The commentator explains that HaShem would prefer to maintain the inhabited area, and either punish or exile only the transgressors, even if that would also mean that some of the Tzaddikim would be hurt as well, as long as the habitation can be preserved.

3.  Re the “LeMa’an” in verse 24, RaMBaN would interpret from the standpoint of Midat HaDin, that destruction should not happen for the sake of the 50 Tzaddikim in the place that do not deserve to be destroyed.

   RaDaK on the other hand could interpret the word “because” in the sense that the place does not deserve to be destroyed because of the presence of the 50 Tzaddikim.

4.  The verses in Yechezkel seem to imply that a single person who is proactive in the sense of trying to change the criminal culture of the community in question could have justified saving it. But since there was no one like that, not only the people, but even the place had to be destroyed, implying no special consideration of saving the community.

    However, RaDaK interprets the verses as follows: Either God was not threatening to destroy the place completely, only partially. Or, even if what was being justified was complete destruction of the community, that was only because of the nature of the transgressions that were taking place, i.e., “Chamas”—oppression, robbery, economic crimes. This is the same type of crime that was used to justify the bringing a Flood to destroy everyone but Noach, his family, and representatives of various animal species:

בראשית פרק ו

(יא) ותשחת הארץ לפני האלקים ותמלא הארץ חמס:

רש"י

ותמלא הארץ חמס - גזל:

   When the description of Sodom’s inhabitants appears in the Tora, the crimes of which they were guilty were not necessarily economic ones:

בראשית פרק יג

(יג) ואנשי סדם רעים וחטאים ליקוק מאד:

רש"י

רעים - בגופם:

וחטאים - בממונם:

לה' מאוד - יודעים רבונם ומתכוונים למרוד בו:

   While “VeChata’im BeMamonam” could refer to monetary crimes such as thievery, it could also refer to sinful behavior with their property, i.e., what they do with their possessions, using them for idolatry, wasting and destroying the property needlessly, not being careful to guard their herds from doing harm to others, etc. If the sins of Sodom and Amora were not the same as those indicated in Yechezkel, then there is no need to compare the two sources.

5+6.   Tehillim 79:2

   “Lift up Thyself, Thou Judge of the earth; render to the proud their recompense.

   They have given the dead bodies of Thy servants to be food unto the fowls of the heaven, the flesh of Thy saints unto the beasts of the earth.”

   If the RaDaK believes that unless the sin is a monetary sin like thievery, the place should essentially be spared and only the evil doers destroyed, then why in Tehillim above is the implication that the Tzaddikim will also be punished? RaDaK answers that it is inevitable that when the evildoers are destroyed, there will be some collateral damage, some of the Tzaddikim will also be harmed; however, the majority of the Tzaddikim will be spared. Furthermore, based upon Yirmiyahu 5:1 “Run ye to and fro through the streets of Jerusalem, and see now, and know, and seek in the broad places thereof, if ye can find a man, if there be any that doeth justly, that seeketh truth; and I will pardon her,” RaDaK suggests that while Tzaddikim who attempt to positively influence the rest of society by going out and interacting with the Reshaim will be spared (if they are interacting with them, won’t they be susceptible to suffering the same punishments when time for judgment arrives?), those who are interested in only preserving their personal righteousness will be subject to destruction. (This begs the question regarding Noach who is depicted as the “poster boy” for worrying only about himself and not the rest of his generation, a “Tzaddik Im Peltz.”¹)

7.  At the end of v. 24 Avraham describes the Tzaddikim as “Asher BeKirbah” (that are in its [the cities] midst), while in v. 26 HaShem Agrees that if these people are “BeToch HaIhr” (in the midst of the cities), then he will spare the cities, suggesting that only Tzaddikim that are interacting with the rest of society and thereby serving as models, rebukers, etc., justify the cities’ continued existence as opposed to those who keep to themselves.

Heh.

1.  Abrabanel takes a third approach, different from RaMBaN and RaDaK. RaMBaN cited the Middot of Din and Rachamim that should at least protect the Tzaddikim from destruction and perhaps even the entire city. RaDaK was concerned about the city itself rather than a particular portion of its population, unless the crimes were so severe that it merited total destruction. Abrabanel claims that even if there was a surgical elimination of only the Resha’im, this would still adversely affect the Tzaddikim who depend upon their presence for basic necessities of life. Consequently punishing the Resha’im in the short term would mean hardship and even destruction of the Tzaddikim in the long term and that is not appropriate for God to Bring about.

2.  The verse from Yona 4:11 “And should not I have pity on Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand, and also much cattle?” suggests that there are many inhabitants that have no developed intelligence or perhaps moral compass (knowing the difference between right and left), and that such people are hardly differentiated from animals. Yet like the Kikayon plant that provided Yona with shade (4:6) and whose demise caused Yona to be terribly affected by the son (v. 8), so too the people in Ninveh and the animals serve a purpose in their existence, at the very least for other people who have developed their human traits properly. Consequently, HaShem is not determined to destroy them from the perspective of what such an act would do to those who would be left behind.

3.  In the first Mishna in Pirkei Avot, one of the directives of the Men of the Great Assembly is that one should be “Metunim BaDin”, deliberate before reaching a judgment. As RaMBaM explains on the Mishna, further details or developments might come to light that will affect the ultimate decision. Consequently, Avraham is not necessarily saying that carrying out the destruction of Sodom and Amora is an impossibility for God. HaShem is certainly Capable of Doing what He Wishes. However, a rush to judgment would not be appropriate and therefore the evaluation should not only include whether (v. 21) the “cry” that HaShem “Heard” reflects the immorality of the place, but are there any additional considerations, such as the presence and influence of a cadre of people working to change the adverse culture in Sodom and Amora.

Vav.

   V. 24 in which “LeMa’an” appears suggests that if the 50 Tzaddikim are in the cities, then for that reason, the cities should be spared, not so much for the a benefit to these people, but rather the cities by containing such people are entitled to a pass. V. 26 in which “Ba’Avuram” is used, suggests that God States that He is not Moved by the appeal to spare the cities full of evildoers; however, if this will create problems and/or hardship for the Tzaddikim then for the sake of these people, He will Spare the cities.

Zayin.

1.  R. Nachman, in Sanhedrin 99b, by citing Beraishit 18:26, suggests that Tora scholars by virtue of their existence, deflect punishment from human civilization.

2.  It would appear that R. Nachman is thinking similarly to the approach of  RaMBaN, who claimed that from the perspective of Midat HaRachamim, the mere presence of Tzaddikim should be enough to spare Sodom and Amora.

Alef.

1.  What does Avraham think about collective punishment?

   While on the one hand, Avraham rails against the idea that the same fate should befall both the Tzaddik and the Rasha, he stops arguing once the number ten is reached, implying that if there are less than ten righteous people in the place, then he would understand if the entire place was destroyed, including those few Tzaddikim. He was never told that God would extract Lot, his wife and daughters should the requisite number of people not be found.  When something happens to a particular individual independent of the rest of his community or society, one seems to be able to wonder about theodicy; however, when something happens to an entire community, e.g., a natural disaster, a man-made disaster, an epidemic, to assume that there is no overlap on any level and that some Tzaddikim are not caught up with Reshaim in these catastrophes, is difficult to imagine. Furthermore, to have to draw the conclusion that if something terrible happens to someone, it is due to their being an evildoer whether they know it or not, is also very difficult to accept. While all people are sinners to one degree or another according to Kohelet 7:20 “For there is not a righteous man upon earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not,” to correlate a specific form of suffering or even death with a particular sin can be cruel and inappropriate. There are also such things as trials and “Yisurin Shel Ahava” (afflictions that emanate from love. )

2.  Comparing Avraham’s pleadings re Sodom and Amora with those of Moshe following the third major sin of the Jewish people (the first was the Golden Calf, the second the Spies) i.e., (BaMidbar 16:22) Korach’s rebellion, raises the possibility of comparing their arguments. Moshe appears to be accepting the idea that the guilty party should be punished. The question that he raises is why can’t the sinner be isolate and published alone, in this case the ringleader Korach, without anyone else  suffering? Another difference between the two cases is that whereas re Sodom and Amora the overwhelming majority of people were sinful with only a tiny minority not transgressing, with respect to Korach, while there were several hundred followers, they still did not constitute the majority of the Jewish people, as had been the case in the sins of the Golden Calf and the Spies. So while Moshe does distinguish between the leader and his followers, the numbers of people at risk is far smaller than what Avraham was dealing with.