Lot, Abraham’s nephew, is the character that provides us with a glimpse of what Abraham could have become. Like Abraham he was wealthy. Apparently, like Abraham, he received a respected status in the community despite having arrived from outside. He does trust the word of God, as we see when he escapes the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet, he is a very different person. Holding up this mirror to Abraham gives us an opportunity to begin contemplating what the fine differences were that made Abraham the founder and father that he became.
View the introductory video below:
We are first introduced to Lot at Gen 11:31 as he leave Ur Casdim with his grandfather Terah and Abraham, with the intention of going to Canaan. They stop at Haran and settle down there. As Abraham continues on to Canaan, Lot goes with him.
Is there any difference in Lot’s going in 11:31 and in 12:4-5?
Lot as a Herds Owner
As Abraham returns from Egypt, Lot is with him. We discover that Lot seems to be independently wealthy, but added property comes at a cost.
Gen. 13:5-8: Was the problem that causes the split objective or subjective?
Read the text carefully. Is your impression that it was physically impossible to live in close proximity (too many sheep and not enough food) or was there a subjective element that pushed the 2 apart?
What might the fight have been about?
Why are we told that Canaanites and Pereezites were then in the land?
Who does Abraham hold responsible for the friction?
Gen 13: 9-13: What is Abraham offering Lot?
The offer sound silly if you imagine the scene: Abraham and Lot are facing each other, and Abraham proposes to go to the left if Lot chooses to go to the right, and vice versa. It would mean that they would go in the same direction… Here it is important to understand that “right” and “left” are south and north, not a direction relative to the body of the person. Orientation in the bible is exactly that: Facing the orient, the east. In Hebrew we find this direction called Kedem, and hence the term for ‘forward’ – kadima. Once we face east, our right hand (Yamin) is the south (also known as Tayman) and our left is in the north.
When Lot chooses the area of Sodom, is he simply doing what his uncle told him to do?
If you stopped and thought through the previous question, did Abraham offer his nephew the area of Sodom which is located east from Abraham’s tent are in the mountains north of Jerusalem (v.3)?!
Lot’s hospitality (19:1-11)
Both by content and language this story seems to be a continuation of the events of chapter 18. Just like Abraham, Lot sees the guests, runs to them and pleads to be allowed to host them. Here, too, we have a story of hospitality where the host promises little but delivers plenty. The consequences for the actions are very different.
19:4-11: What do we learn about the people of Sodom?
We might be trying to learn about Lot, but a person’s environment is significant in understanding him, especially considering that Lot chose to live in Sodom. The text gives us a sense of a town where all stand together, even in criminal and morally repugnant activities. Was the motive for their demand to hand over the people that came that night only to satisfy their lust?
Why did Lot offer his daughters instead of the guests that have just come?
This might be a cultural issue gone wrong. Hospitality has a very high value among at least some nomadic tribes (and Lot, the shepherd, had been nomadic). But sometimes one does what is right by the book and wrong by any moral standard.
Why do the people of Sodom refuse Lot’s proposal to give them his daughters? (I will not even ask you if your stomachs are feeling sick yet…)
Perhaps their motive was not lust. What were they hoping to achieve by raping the newcomers?
Saving Lot (19:12-26)
It is not easy to read about the saving of Lot from the destruction of Sodom. Being saved from destruction should be a positive event, yet, when we consider what it means, it is hard to avoid the bitter taste of the destruction that took with it the person’s community and some of his family.
Who does Lot lose in the process of escaping? Why do they die?
Most of Lot’s family does not seem to escape to safety. His sons in law consider him a fool, his wife does not obey the order not to look back. Could it be part of human nature not to believe that it could be that bad?
If you are able to read the Hebrew, pay attention to some of the vocabulary that is used here. The roots of שחת, שלח, ארץ, מטר, זכר (destroy, send, the Earth, raining down, remember) bring us back to the story of Noah. In case we did not notice it in the language used, the next scene, of improper sexual relations and wine drinking, should certainly remind us of the aftermath of Noah’s exit from the ark after his entire world had been destroyed by a natural/Godly event.
Lot and His Daughters (19:30-38)
This section deserves a full session, but since some of us studied it already as part of the “Villains in Tanakh” course last year, we will focus on the role of Lot here, not that of his daughters.
Our main question about Lot (that could perhaps be answered by hints in the text) is:
Was Lot merely a hapless victim of his daughters’ conniving, or was he aware of what was going on (at least at some point)?
The answer to this question is crucial to our understanding of Lot in this story, and in retrospect at the entire episode of [excessive] hospitality at his daughters’ expense. Read the text carefully, better yet in Hebrew. Are the accounts of the episode with the 2 daughters identical? (In Hebrew the term for sexual intercourse is slightly different.) What might this tell us?
There is no mention of Lot following this episode. Why?
Was it because there were no more relevant stories? Had Abraham lost interest? Did Lot ever turn to his uncle for help after his community was destroyed?
The stories around the patriarchs are sometimes echoes in later stories of the People of Israel.
Who are nations that came from this questionable union of Lot and his daughters, and what was the relationship between them and the descendents of Abraham?
Read Deuteronomy 2:9, 18-19 and Deuteronomy 23:4-7. Two different approaches are evident here. How do we explain the difference between them?
Lot Part II – Some Other Views:
Rashi Genesis 13:7
(א) ויהי ריב לְפִי שְׁהָיוּ רוֹעִים שֶׁל לוֹט רְשָׁעִים וּמַרְעִים בְּהֶמְתָּם בִּשְׂדוֹת אֲחֵרִים, וְרוֹעֵי אַבְרָם מוֹכִיחִים אֹותָם עַל הַגֶּזֶל, וְהֵם אוֹמְרִים נִתְּנָה הָאָרֶץ לְאַבְרָם, וְלוֹ אֵין יֹורֵשׁ, וְלוֹט יוֹרְשׁוֹ, וְאֵין זֶה גֶּזֶל, וְהַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר וְהַכְּנַעֲנִי וְהַפְּרִיזִי אָז יוֹשֵׁב בָּאָרֶץ, וְלֹא זָכָה בָהּ אַבְרָם עֲדַיִין (ב"):
(1) ויהי ריב AND THERE WAS A QUARREL because Lot’s shepherds were wicked men and grazed their cattle in other people’s fields. Abram's shepherds rebuked them for this act of robbery, but they replied, “The land has been given to Abram, and since he has no son as heir, Lot will be his heir: consequently this is not robbery”. Scripture, however, states: “The Canaanite and the Perizzite abode then in the land”, so that Abram was not yet entitled to possession (Genesis Rabbah 41:5).
Rashi, following an old Midrash, raises two issues: One personal and one universally human.
How wrong were the shepherds of Lot? Was Lot not Abraham’s heir (as Abraham had no children)? What was the quarrel about?
According to this Midrash the quarrel is (partially) about the right to inherit. It is interesting that at no point does Abraham seem to suggest that Lot is his designated heir, just the opposite. Even when he tells God that he is childless and his servant will inherit from him, Lot is not mentioned. Abraham is the first in the Bible that we are told passes on an inheritance, and we sense that it is the spiritual inheritance that he is concerned about. For those who have read the book of Genesis, as well as some other parts of the Bible, it is clear that the Bible does not believe in inheritance due to biology and hierarchy. For example: Isaac, Jacob, Judah, and Solomon were all younger (but better suited) sons. Moses passes his position to his student Joshua.
Midrash rarely limits itself to a specific incident. What is the human, universal issue raised by this Midrash?
We all know that stealing is wrong, but there are many gray areas of theft. Are you entitled to take something that will be yours anyway if you just wait a little? Am I obligated to prevent an animal in my possession from damaging what belongs to others?
Below is what Rashi says in Exodus 3:1, when we meet Moses the shepherd who is about to become the leader of the Israelites:
Rashi Exodus 3:1
(1) אחר המדבר [HE LED THE SHEEP] BEHIND THE DESERT — in order to keep them away from private property (גֶזֵל i. e. things which can be appropriated only as the result of “robbery”) — that they should not graze in other people’s fields (Exodus Rabbah 2:3).
What might this teach us about Rashi and his demands of leaders?
Nachmanides Genesis 19:8
(א) אוציאה נא אתהן אליכם מתוך שבחו של האיש הזה באנו לידי גנותו שהיה טורח מאד על אכסניא שלו להציל אותם מפני שבאו בצל קורתו אבל שיפייס אנשי העיר בהפקר בנותיו אין זה כי אם רוע לב שלא היה ענין הזמה בנשים מרוחק בעיניו ולא היה עושה לבנותיו חמס גדול כפי דעתו:
I shall bring them out to you – From the praise of this man we have come to his disgrace. For he worked very hard on his hospitality to save them since they came under his roof; but to appease the town’s people by abandoning his daughters is simply wicked-heartedness! For improper sexual relations with women were not a distant thing from his mind, and he did not think that he was doing a great evil to his daughters.
How does (Ramban) Nachmanides sum up this very disturbing story of Lot’s hospitality?
To Ramban’s criticism I can only add what an experienced educator once said to me: There is nothing worse than the person who is very concerned about doing the appropriate thing. His preoccupation with being “correct” prevents him from proper judgment and common sense regarding his actions.