Parshat Vayera
Rabbi Avrohom Gordimer

Did you ever think about what in the world happened to Lot? How could he change from being Avrohom Avinu's nephew, raised in Avrohom's house of Torah and mitzvos, of miracles and love of God, to being a disgraced and shameful sinner, who rejected the God and Torah to which he had been taught to cling? (See Rashi from Medrash on Bereshis 13:11.) How could it happen? Was Lot so at-risk?

If we carefully examine the course of events which led to Lot's downfall, we may find an answer. To the best of our knowledge, Lot was a good man during his early travels with Avrohom and family. Lot's fatehr, Haran, had died, and Lot remained with Avrohom for the duration of Avrohom's initial quest for God's closeness and His land. (In fact, Lot retained many of Avrohom's noble virtues even after the two parted ways, as we see from Lot's most dedicated and vigorous hachnosas orchim (welcoming of guests) in the third aliyah of the parshah.)

The first of many conflicts experienced by Lot occurred during the stay of Avrohom, Sarah and Lot in Mitzrayim (ibid. 12:10-20). In that story, Pharoah took custody of Sarah for illicit purposes, and he was punished for his actions. In fact, Rashi quotes a Medrash (ibid., pasuk 17) which records that Sarah had sought such punishment in order to save her from Pharoah's lust. Lot was with Avrohom and Sarah throughout the course of events, and he took note. Similarly, a dispute between the shepherds of Avrohom and Lot ensued (13:7), in which Lot's shepherds objected to being told that they should not graze their flocks on fields which were not theirs. (Rashi from Medrash, ibid.) Lot's shepherds felt that since Avrohom would inherit the land anyway and he had no heir, Lot was the logical heir-to-be and was thus entitled to use the land at his disposal, even before it was formally granted to Avrohom or Lot.

The above two events teach a requirement to refrain from taking what is not rightfully his. Both Pharoah and Lot's shepherds sought to take to themselves that to which they had no title. They were told that one must limit oneself and even be punished (Pharoah) for unlawful taking.

It may be that Lot rejected this firm, restrictive side of Torah. Lot was attracted and gravitated to the chesed of Avrohom, and he held fast to it for all of his days. However, those prohibitions which seemed to contradict chesed were negated by Lot (not "sharing" one's wife nor endorsing "free love"; the notion that one could not graze herds on others' land, in the spirit of "chesed" and open sharing). Lot was turned off by these apparently anti-chesed occurrences, and he thus spurned Avrohom and his God. (See Rashi on 13:11.)

It must be noted that Lot's obvious misunderstanding of true chesed underscores that his commitment to God was not really based on a sincere desire to cleave to God and adhere to His Will; rather, Lot was attracted to the love (chesed) with which Torah flows, and Lot's discovery that such love must be defined by Torah and expressed (and even held back) per the Torah's dictates was the factor which precipitated Lot's departure from the ways of Avrohom. Thus, it can be said that Lot's interest in Torah was external. The warmth of Torah appealed to him greatly, but commitment to the will of God for its own sake ("leshmah") was not in Lot's heart or mind.

Lot's father, Haran, suffered from a similar problem. Rashi quotes the Medrash (Bereshis 11:28) that Haran was killed when he saw that Avrohom was saved by God from the furnace of Nimrod, upon which Haran followed suit, entered the fire and was consumed. Chazal elaborate that Haran had initially refused to commit to faith in One God, and he stipulated that he would not believe in HaShem unless he saw Avrohom spared and proven to be right in his beliefs. Only if Avrohom would be saved would Haran believe in One God. Otherwise, Haran would continue to pursue the ways of idolatry. Haran lacked a core commitment to God; he was only an external follower (literally!) of Avrohom, failing to internalize the Torah's essence. Lot was indeed a spiritual product of his father in this regard.

The use of the term "Adonay" in the later pesukim of Vayera is also uncanny. Chazal understood Avrohom's use of the term (when he welcomed the angelic guests) as a name of God, whereas Lot used the word "Adonay" accordng to its secular meaning ("Sirs") when he referred to his guests in Sdom. The message of this dichotomy is that Avrohom viewed hashnosas orchim as a divine imperative, treating visitors as God's children and fulfilling a divine mission out of a sincere commitment to core Torah values. Lot, on the other hand, treated hachnosas orchim in secular terms, and his perception of the mitzvah of welcoming guests was unrelated to love and service of God and Torah. (This is why Avrohom's hachnosas orchim system insisted on guests cleansing their feet from idolatry, while Lot paid no attention to this matter. (See Rashi from Medrash on 19:2.))

May all of our actions be l'shem shomayim, in the spirit of Avrohom Avinu, and may we always adhere to the true ways of God.

Archive

www.ou.org