Parshat Vayera Answers

VaYera 5728

Alef.

בראשית פרק יט

(יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

(יח) וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי:

(יט) הִנֵּה נָא מָצָא עַבְדְּךָ חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וַתַּגְדֵּל חַסְדְּךָ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי לְהַחֲיוֹת אֶת נַפְשִׁי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה פֶּן תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה וָמַתִּי:

(כ) הִנֵּה נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָּא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי:

Behold now, this city is near to flee unto, and it is a little one; oh, let me escape thither--is it not a little one?--and my soul shall live.'

(כא) וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ:

(כב) מַהֵר הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר עַד בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה עַל כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם הָעִיר צוֹעַר:

(כג) הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא עַל הָאָרֶץ וְלוֹט בָּא צֹעֲרָה:

(כד) וַיקֹוָק הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְקֹוָק מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

(כה) וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וְאֵת כָּל הַכִּכָּר וְאֵת כָּל יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה:

(כו) וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח:

1.   Mizrachi’s question on RaShI is: in light of ChaZaL thinking that the phrase “והוא מצער” is so obvious that a Derash is required to account for it, why does RaShI then proceed to treat it in accordance with the simple meaning? If the simple meaning was deemed by the Rabbis so problematic that the Rabbis had to reinterpret the phrase, why doesn’t  RaShI simply cite the Midrash and then move on to the next verse?

   Whereas Levush HaOra claims that the Peshat is nevertheless an implied Derash: if there are few people, then even if there is corruption among them, the relatively small quantity of corruption that could be carried out by such few people should justify the place being spared.

   An alternate interpretation of the Peshat to make it appear to be adding something to the discussion that is not readily apparent, would be to understand Lot as claiming that since there are so few people in this town, the likelihood of them negatively influencing him is far less than it was in Sodom and Amora. Consequently  it should be viewed as a proper sanctuary for Lot and his two daughters.

2. The last verse in Yona:

יונה פרק ד

(יא) וַאֲנִי לֹא אָחוּס עַל נִינְוֵה הָעִיר הַגְּדוֹלָה אֲשֶׁר יֶשׁ בָּהּ הַרְבֵּה מִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה רִבּוֹ אָדָם אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָדַע בֵּין יְמִינוֹ לִשְׂמֹאלוֹ וּבְהֵמָה רַבָּה:

The implication of this verse is that HaShem specifically has compassion over a large city and would Wish to spare it at all costs. Implied is that a small city would not come up for special consideration and perhaps would be included in the destructive Gezeira.

Beit.

According to R. S.R. Hirsch, when Lot says, “והוא מצער”, he is anticipating the objection that since the intention is that he should come away with only his life and no property, allowing him to take up residence in a near-by city might enable him to once again build his life up commercially and materially. Consequently, he says that this place is such an insignificant place, that personal advancement for him will prove impossible.

Whereas RaShI according to the Midrash has Lot focusing upon the minimal criminality of the place, and according to the Peshat, to the lack of damage that the few corrupt residents of the place might perpetrate, i.e., a reflection of the population of the place, R. Hirsch understands Lot’s concern to center upon his personal prospects in the city.

The problem with R. Hirsch’s interpretation might be the last two words of the verse, “ותחי נפשי” implying that his argument concerned only surviving in the place and therefore justifying that the place be spared from the destruction intended for the surrounding area, rather than whether he would possibly re-accumulate the riches that he had to abandon in Sodom and Amora.

Gimel.

1.  The verse in question:

כד) וַיקֹוָק הִמְטִיר עַל סְדֹם וְעַל עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְקֹוָק מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם:

Then the LORD caused to rain upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven;

RaLBaG appears to believe, that despite the fact that there is no explicit mention in the biblical verses of “Nevi’im” (this is apparently how the commentator understands the identity of the “Malachim”) bringing about the fire and brimstone inundating and destroying the cities and the surrounding area, much in the manner that Moshe and Aharon bring about the plagues in Egypt, but rather HaShem Caused it to rain down these substances on Sodom and Amora, nevertheless God did not independently initiate these phenomenon.

2.  Both RaLBaG and Chizkuni suggest that Mrs. Lot became a pillar of salt, matching the salt that covered the area as a result of its being subjected to fire and sulfur. Therefore the salt connected to her was not unique compared to the state of the rest of the area, but rather a way of saying that she was absorbed into the locale’s ruined condition. The typical interpretation of v. 26 is that while the rest of the area was destroyed in one way, Mrs. Lot’s transformation was into a different substance.

3.   In verse 17 where the angel gives Lot instructions, he specifically states that anyone who looks upon what is taking place in Sodom and Amora will be absorbed into the destruction:

יז) וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה:

Daled.

Abrabanel understands Mrs. Lot’s  “looking back” as figurative, i.e., that she never left the cities because she couldn’t bear to leave her possessions and two daughters.

Wiesel, on the other hand, interprets “looking back” literally, i.e., she really did turn around to see what was taking place in the cities that she had left. He  conjectures that Mrs. Lot’s hesitations about the having to leave originated from her lack of belief that the prediction that the cities were about to be destroyed was actually going to come true. She would have been left in the cities to meet the same fate as their inhabitants had HaShem not had Compassion on Lot, knowing that this would have deeply disturbed him. However, on the way out, Mrs. Lot by “looking back”, again demonstrates that she really didn’t believe what was happening and for this reason was caught up in the cities’ general punishment.

Heh.

A Rabbinic expression incorporated in RaShI’s commentary:

רש"י בראשית פרק יט

(לא) אבינו זקן - ואם לא עכשיו אימתי (אבות א:יד), שמא ימות או יפסוק מלהולי