Shabbat Va-Yera
Written by Nathan Alfred Friday, 26 October 2007
I must confess that before compiling these words, I had not paid too much attention to Chapter 19 of Genesis, the story of Lot, that we read today. I mean, it’s not the kind of story they teach you in Cheder, and the progressive lectionary readings don’t often go there. Other sections of Vayera are deemed more suitable, particularly for bat mitzvahs. Yet the Talmud (Megillah 25b) confirms that this passage should be both read and translated, so I would like to tackle this problematic chapter head on, and investigate this episode, and indeed the character of Lot, a little more attentively.
Perhaps first it is worth outing the elephant in the room to which I have alluded, and stating what we find disturbing or challenging in this text. I guess there are two things: firstly, Lot’s offer of his daughters to the baying Sodomites (Gen. 19:8), and then, there is the incestuous end to the chapter, the seduction of Lot by his two daughters, giving rise to the Moabites and the Ammonites (Gen. 19:32-8).
But what kind of guy is Lot? And how has he been seen by different commentators? Read in the context of earlier Genesis stories, he may be related to Abraham but his story is more reminiscent of Noah. Noah was “a righteous man in his time” (Gen. 6:9, someone whom God thought worthy of saving from the flood. Similarly, Lot was saved whilst his neighbours perished. Lot is not described as righteous like Noah but he is certainly very hospitable. So much so in fact that he very generously offers his daughters to the marauding mob. And just as Noah’s story ended with some kind of intoxicated nudity with his son Ham, so too did Lot end up drunk and naked with his children.
But what is our problem with this? Likely it surrounds the failure of Lot to protect his daughters and their virginity, and in one of several reversals and ironies in the chapter, they, in turn, fail to respect their father’s sexuality later on. This lack of protection seems to run in the family: Abraham has previously offered his wife to Pharaoh, pretending that Sarai was his sister (Genesis 12), and in the very next chapter he will do similarly with Avimelech.
There is an interesting mashal in a midrash related to this, concerning the paternity of Isaac. It comments on the apparent redundancy of the phrase: “Abraham begot Isaac” (Genesis 25:19), that occurs at the beginning of parashat Toledot, which is also alluded to later in this week’s portion (Genesis 21:2).
“Do I not know that Abraham begot Isaac?! R. Hananiah Rabbah said: “This can be compared to a dove that was chased by hawks and ravens. She fled from them and went in and sat on her nest. People said: “These eggs are from the hawk,” and another said, “From the raven.” Another said to them: “As long as they are eggs we do not know if they are from the raven or the hawk, but leave them until she [hatches them] and they become chicks, and you will know from whom they are.” Thus Sarah was often moved about, [she was] with Pharaoh, with Avimelech. Thus [people] began to say, “She conceived by Pharaoh,” and others said, “She conceived by Avimelech.” The Almighty said to them: “The mouth of those who speak lies shall be stopped.” {Ps. 63:12}. Wait until she gives birth and you will see whom he resembles. At once the Almighty instructed the angel in charge of the newborn’s form, saying to him: “Do not fashion him to resemble his mother, but rather his father, so that all will know that he is none other than his father’s.” He came out forthwith resembling his father. Hence it is said: “These are the generations of Isaac, Abraham’s son. Abraham begot Isaac” (Gen. 25:19)” (Aggadat Bereshit 37).
This somewhat fanciful midrash attempts to address the perceived pleonasm, although there are some fundamental discrepancies between this story and the bible. Neither Pharaoh nor Avimelech chased Sarah as the bird analogy suggested. Nor should there have been a question of Isaac’s paternity – after all, these episodes occurred in her younger days, well before her nonagenarian conception. Yet again the concern here seems far more a guy thing, Sarah is literally “a bird” – with a meaning not so dissimilar to modern slang. Coming back to Lot, do the rabbis offer a similar bent?
Direct midrash on Lot and his daughters does not offer us a lot. Bereshit Rabbah glosses quickly over the offending verses, offering little in commentary. And in the Talmud: Berachot (54b) informs us that “for Lot and his wife two blessings are said. For his wife we say, “Blessed be the true Judge”, and for Lot we say, “Blessed be He who remembereth the righteous” – which is not overly helpful. Lot and his daughters are addressed in tractate Horayot (10b) – where a question is raised: “Surely she enjoyed it?”
The rabbis wave this away rather weakly with a citation: “Even the favours of the wicked are distasteful to the righteous”. But in fact, this argument is dealt with much more severely in a midrash from Numbers Rabbah:
“A woman came to Rabbi [Judah Hanasi] and said to him, “I have been raped”. Said he to her: “But was not the experience pleasant to you?” She retorted, “If a man dipped his finger in honey and put it into your mouth on the Day of Atonement, would not the act displease you, yet after all it would be tasty?”. He accepted her argument” (Numbers Rabbah 9.10).
This story is a sharp rebuke to this argument, and is rather striking. A woman defeats a rabbi – the Patriach Judah Hanasi – with his own logic, choosing a halachic example that will be comprehensible to him – using the violation of that supreme holy of holy days, Yom Kippur, as an analogy to the purity and chastity of a woman’s body.
We’ve strayed rather far from the story of Lot, but really anything to keep away from the cloying apologetics of certain modern commentators. The Encyclopaedia Judaica informs us that “fathers had disposition over their daughters to the extent that they could both sell them into slavery [citing Exod. 21:7] and even, according to rabbinic law, marry his daughter to a man who is disfigured and has boils” (Ketubot 9b). Other scholars have attempted to get around the difficulty by arguing that “moralistic judgements are unfruitful” (Tonson), or that Lot is placed in a position of “moral ambiguity between his guests and his daughters” (von Rad), and that any attempt to choose one way or another entirely misses the point.
And actually perhaps that’s where we end up with Lot, as a character replete with ambiguities. He neither possesses the easy righteousness that the Talmud ascribes to him, nor does he deserve to be damned as “inwardly and outwardly bankrupt”, as one commentator (von Rad) describes him. This problematic chapter remains just that – problematic – but by reading it, as today, we start to draw on the discomfort in which it envelops us, and uncover possible meanings.
