Parashat Vayerá 5771 - English

Rabbi Mario Gurevich

Beth Israel Synagogue 

Aruba

I was just a child when I heard the story of the destruction of Sodom for the first time, and I remember being pretty shocked at the magnitude of the catastrophe that had hit that city.

I already knew the story of the flood and destruction of humanity, with the exception of Noah, his immediate family and all animals. But at least, the story of the flood ended with God’s promise to never

again vanish humankind, and there was the rainbow to remind Him of His decision.

Sodom, however, perished due to its evil ways; I was still too young to understand the sexual connotations of the matter, and there was no further promise whatsoever. I thought, and in fact I still think, that the wickedness of a city, of a society, creates within itself the germs for its own destruction.

But let us not talk today about the destruction of Sodom but rather about its survivor, the enigmatic Lot, of whom we know so little. The Torah tells us that he was Abraham’s nephew and, in some way, his adoptive son, and that he accompanied him since his departure from a comfortable situation in his native land up to his unknown destiny in Canaan-Israel.

Reading in today’s parashah the discussion and haggling between Abraham and the Lord concerning Sodom’s destruction (if there were 50 righteous men, or forty-five, or forty, until they got to the magical number of ten as the minimum to not destroy the city), one feels tempted to think that the only righteous man found there was Lot, and thus, he became the only survivor. Nevertheless, this answer does not seem absolute.

First of all, when Abraham departed from Haran, Lot went with him, Vayelech ito Lot (Gen. 12:4).

Later on, when Abraham is forced to abandon Canaan and head toward Egypt fleeing from the famine, Lot is still with him, and so he is when Abraham returns from Egypt. Lot, however, has suffered atransformation, as the Torah subtly tells us: “And Abram went up out of Egypt, he, and his wife, and all that he had, and Lot with him, into the South”, veLot imo (Gen. 13:1).

Both words, ito and imo, mean “with”, and in the translation, the difference doesn’t stand out. But in the original Hebrew, ito has its root on et, which precedes a subject with the purpose of emphasizing that subject. While imo entails an equal status.

Lot left Haran with Abraham, ito: Abraham was the teacher, the leader and guide. But after the experience in Egypt, when Lot was already extremely wealthy, perhaps as much as Abraham, he returned imo, no longer as a subordinate and without carrying that perspective.

This implies that, at the first opportunity, he decides to move away; he doesn’t want to see Abraham as his teacher any longer, but rather feels he’s the one who should serve as teacher or guide to others. And he reaches the disastrous decision of settling at Sodom (I don’t believe he ignored the bad reputation emanating from that place), giving precedence to his economic activity above the moral qualities of the society in which he was to live.

Even in the description of his meeting with God’s messengers, who arrive at Sodom and find him seated at its gates, enjoying his social bearing in the city, and although he appears as a hospitable character, just as he had learned from Abraham, the text suggests a very conditioned invitation: “and ye shall rise up early, and go on your way” (Gen. 19:2).

Finally, Lot is saved but his wife will turn into a statue of salt, his daughters will commit incest as a desperate measure, believing they were the last creatures on earth, and nothing else will be known about Lot.

Saved perhaps more for his kinship with Abraham than for his righteousness (a sort of biblical “protektzia”), Lot offers us a pathetic example of where bad decisions can take us, should we place economic wellbeing above any other consideration.

Shabbat Shalom.