Spiritual and Ethical Issues in the Historical Books of Tanach; SPIRITUAL AND ETHICAL ISSUES IN THE BEREISHIT STORIES
by Dr. Meir Tamari

These four books ostensibly are merely the history of Israel from the entry into the Promised Land until the destruction of the Temple and the temporary loss of independent statehood. In fact they are actually, in a specifically Jewish sense, the most deeply religious and spiritual books of the Bible. One does not have to be specifically Jewish to see or feel the religion and spirituality in the revelations of the prophetic writings or in the words of the Tehillim. They speak to all people, as evidenced by the fact that the Bible is still the world's bestseller and there are millions of non-Jews who regularly recite the Psalms. However, it is specifically and intrinsically Jewish to understand that G-d is revealed in the prosaic material, in the political, social and military events in the lives of ordinary men and women, kings and leaders that are described in the Nevim Rishonim. Here are described the ideology and religious thoughts in Judaism, while in Chronicles we have the purely historical.

Avraham, Lot, and S'dom [2]
The two angels, one to save Lot and the other to destroy the cities, came to S'dom in the evening. Their timing was not accidental but explains the different sequences in their welcome by Lot and Avraham. The latter thinking them to be idolaters who worshipped the dust of their feet, first asked them to wash their feet and then to enter his camp. Lot, however, was not concerned with their religious beliefs but rather was worried about the risk of transgressing the laws of S'dom that forbade giving shelter to strangers. Such and allied legislation making immorality and evil legal, distinguished S'dom from the other nations and made its destruction inevitable. It being evening, Lot could rely on their appearing to be way- farers just passing through which violated no law. However, for such wayfarers to have clean feet would arouse suspicion, so he bade them enter quickly, closed the door and only then bade them wash their feet. Yet no sooner had they entered his home than the whole city gathered there, from young to old, even from the furthest corners of S'dom to demand that the strangers that he had dared take into his house contrary to their laws, should be handed over to them.

The whole subsequent story immediately calls to mind the incident of the mass rape of the concubine in the city of Giv'a that led to a civil war between the Tribes of Israel and the tribe of Binyamin (Shoftim 19). At the outset it should be noted that verse 22 in that story tells us that the evil men of the city gathered around the home that had given hospitality to the stranger and his concubine, whereas in S'dom we are told that all the people, young and old, demanded that Lot hand over his guests; in the former it was an act of some evil individuals, whereas in the latter it was the result of public policy supported unanimously. However, the commentators see further basic differences between the two stories, differences that highlight the under- lying idea behind the evil that was S'dom.

"The Torah tells us that S'dom was rich and prosperous. They lived in constant fear that the poor of the neighboring tribes would come and settle in their city and thus detract from its wealth, so they made laws to keep out the strangers" (Malbim). Even today, rich countries limit emigration not only for nationalistic, racial or cultural reasons but also to limit competition for jobs or for natural resources.

Halakhically, the entry of non-residents was conditional on their paying their share of the taxes; however, in medieval Franco-Germany the right of the autonomous self-governing Jewish communities to restrict free entry was recognized through the Cherem HaYishuv. Refugees have, unfortunately, been a constant in Jewish history, but although the question of allowing them refuge in the Jewish communities on the grounds of the economic competition they posed did arise, halakhic authorities never allowed denial of entry; the restriction on entry by the community of Rome is the one glaring exception.

"The people of Giv'a had no intention of keeping strangers or poor people out of their town. However, the powerful ones among their leaders were driven by sexual desire to demand that the stranger and his concubine be handed over to them. They had consideration and respect for the old man who had sheltered the stranger and his concubine, and did nothing to his daughter even though she was offered to them together with the concubine. However, when the stranger offered his concubine to placate them, they permitted themselves to rape her as she was not considered a wife and therefore there was no adultery; furthermore, as the text in Shoftim tells us, she had acted promiscuously. So Giv'a did not warrant destruction and all that the Tribes of Israel wanted was that Binyamin should hand over the criminals since they had not fulfilled their obligation as a tribe to judge them. The aim was to make a fence to prevent sexual immorality and this in accordance with the halakha that Bet Din has the power and obligation to beat and prosecute whenever they see that public moral and spiritual welfare is threatened (Yevamot 90b). In their starting war, the Tribes sinned only in not protesting equally the idol of Micah, but later recognized their error and repented of the killing of most of Binyamin.

S'dom was different. There the whole population gathered in front of Lot's house to demand that he hand over the strangers to them as they did not permit entry to strangers. The motivation here however, was not sexual immorality but rather the desire to prevent the entry and settlement of poor strangers, since they considered that it was harmful to their wealth that was equal to the plenty symbolized by Egypt. They had permitted Lot to dwell in S'dom either because he was wealthy [the equivalent of the modern capitalist visas that make entry into all countries easier] or out of respect to Avraham; in both cases he represented no economic danger to them" (Ramban).

It seems that the idea that economic and social oppression as in S'dom was considered a more onerous sin than the sexual immorality that existed there and in Giv'a, may find its parallel in the halakhic ruling brought by Rambam (Mishne Torah, Hilkhot G'neiva 7:12) that the sin of false weights and measures is more serious than sexual immorality; the former being a sin both between Man and G-d and between Man and Man, whereas the latter is between Man and G-d only. "For the latter it is possible to repent and do teshuva, however, the former requires that restitution be made in order to do teshuva. False weights and measures injure many and often unknown parties, so such restitution may prove to be difficult if not impossible. It is this difficulty of true teshuva that makes them more onerous" (Mei'ir Einayim, Choshen Mishpat 131:19).

Nevertheless, the Torah sees sexual transgressing as a cause for galut from Eretz Yisrael.

"This seems strange since sexual morality is not one of the mitzvot ha'teluyot ba'aretz. However, when Hashem took us to be His Chosen People, He announced His Kingship over us, to be fulfilled by our keeping His commandments in the Land chosen by Him for our settlement. So the Torah foretells galut from that Land should the list of forbidden sexual relationships be transgressed" (Ramban, Vayikra 18)

This is the 107th installment in Dr. Tamari’s series on “Tanach and its messages for our times”

[The Parshat Vayishlach Homepage]
[The TORAH tidbits Homepage] [How to use TORAH tidbits]
[About The OU/NCSY Israel Center] [About TORAH tidbits]
 [www.ou.org]