קונטרס "דֶּבֶר בָּא לָעוֹלָם"

(8) Seven kinds of punishment come to the world for seven categories of transgression:When some of them give tithes, and others do not give tithes, a famine from drought comes some go hungry, and others are satisfied. When they have all decided not to give tithes, a famine from tumult and drought comes; [When they have, in addition, decided] not to set apart the dough-offering, an all-consuming famine comes. Pestilence comes to the world for sins punishable by death according to the Torah, but which have not been referred to the court, and for neglect of the law regarding the fruits of the sabbatical year. The sword comes to the world for the delay of judgment, and for the perversion of judgment, and because of those who teach the Torah not in accordance with the accepted law.

(10) My beloved spoke thus to me, “Arise, my darling; My fair one, come away! (11) For now the winter is past, The rains are over and gone. (12) The blossoms have appeared in the land, The time of pruning has come; The song of the turtledove Is heard in our land. (13) The green figs form on the fig tree, The vines in blossom give off fragrance. Arise, my darling; My fair one, come away!

(1) The commandment of a parapet: To remove stumbling blocks and obstacles from our dwelling places, and about this is it stated (Deuteronomy 22:8), "and you shall make a parapet for your roof." And the matter is that we should build a wall around the roofs and around the pits and the ditches and that which is similar to them, so that no creature should stumble to fall in them or from them. And included in this commandment is to build and fix every wall and fence from which it is likely that there come a mishap from it. And that which verse mentioned "for your roof," is [because] the verse spoke in the present (using the most common example). And the language of Sifrei is "'And you shall make a parapet' is a positive commandment" (see Sefer HaMitzvot LaRambam, Mitzvot Ase 184).

(2) It is from the roots of the commandment [that is is] since even though God, may He be blessed, supervises the details of people's [lives] and knows all of their deeds, and [that] everything that happens to them - good or bad - is through His decree and His commandment according to their merit or their guilt, and like the matter that they, may their memory be blessed, said (Chullin 7b), "A man does not [so much as] bruise his finger below (i.e. on earth), unless it is announced about him from above (in Heaven)"; nonetheless a person must guard himself from the accidents that are customary in the world. As God created His world and built it upon the foundations of the principles of nature and decreed that fire should burn and that water puts out the flame. And so too, nature requires that that if a large stone falls on the head of a man, that it will smash his brain; or that if a person falls from the top of a high roof to the ground, that he will die. And He, may He be blessed, graced the bodies of people and blew into them a living soul with a mind, to protect the body from all incidents, and [then] placed the two of them - the soul and the body - within the sphere of the [natural] elements, and [these elements] will move them and act upon them. And since God subjugated the human body to nature - as so did His wisdom require - from the angle of its being physical, He commanded him to guard [himself] from an accident. As nature, to which he is subjugated, will act upon him if he does not guard himself from it.

(3) However there will a few people that 'the King will desire their glory,' due to their great piety and the clinging of their souls to His ways, may He be blessed - these are the great pious ones 'who were of old, the men of fame,' like the great and holy forefathers and many of the sons that were after them, such as Daniel, Channiah, Mishael, Azariah and those similar to them, to whom God delivered nature into their hands. And at their start, nature was master over them and at their end - due to the greatness of the elevation of theirs souls - 'it was reversed,' as they were the masters over nature. As we know with Avraham, our father, that they dropped him into the fiery furnace and he was not injured; and [with] the four (and [with] the three) pious ones mentioned that they placed 'into the burning fiery furnace [...] and [not] a hair on their head was singed.' But most people have not merited this great level due to their sins, and therefore the Torah commands us to guard our dwelling places and our locales, lest death encounter us in our negligence. And we should not endanger our souls by reliance upon miracles; and they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sifra, Emor 8) that a miracle is not performed for anyone who relies on a miracle. And according to this approach will you see most matters written in every place. Since even in Israel's fighting of a war commanded by the word of God, they would [still] organize their war and equip themselves and do all of the [required] matters, as if they were completely relying on natural processes [to win the war]. And so is it fitting to do according to the matter that we mentioned. And the one who does not argue with the truth from a perverse heart will concede this.

(4) From the laws of the commandment is that which they, may their memory be blessed, said (Sukkah 3b) that the obligation of a parapet is only in a house that is being used as a residence, but a storehouse or a barn and similar to them [as well as] any house that does not have four square ells is exempt from [requiring] a parapet. And so [too] synagogues and study halls, because they are not made for residence. And [also among its laws is] that which they, may their memory be blessed, said that if the public domain is higher than his roof, it is not in need of a parapet, as it is stated, "if the faller should fall from it" - and not into it. And the measurement of the height of the parapet is ten hand-breadths.

(5) And they, may their memory be blessed, forbade many things (see Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 11:5 and 7) in order to guard ourselves from injuries and bad accidents, as it is not fitting for a person who has intelligence to endanger himself. And therefore it is fitting that he should put into his mind all of the things that can possibly result in injury. And the one who transgresses [these prohibitions] is rabbinically obligated in [getting] lashes of rebellion. From these [prohibitions] is what they said that a person should not place his mouth under the drainpipe and drink, lest he drink a leech. And they [also] forbade (Chullin 10a) uncovered waters because of the concern, that a poisonous [snake] not have drunk from it. And the measurement of it is [the amount of time] required for the [snake] to come out from the edge of the vessel and drink. And they said about this matter that there are liquids that are susceptible to [the concern] of being an 'uncovered' [liquid] and there are those that are not susceptible to being an 'uncovered' [liquid]. And from this concern itself, they forbade gnawed figs, grapes, pomegranates, squash, pumpkins and cucumbers - even if they are [many] (see Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 12:2 and 4). And they said that all fruits that have moistness and are found to be bitten are forbidden. And so too did they forbid that a person not put coins into his mouth, lest there is dry spit of one infected with [skin diseases] upon them - or that there be sweat [upon them], since the sweat of a person is a death potion, except for that from the face. And the rest of its details are elucidated in Bava Kamma and in sections of Sanhedrin and in Yerushalmi Shekalim 1 (see Mishneh Torah, Murderer and the Preservation of Life 11).

(6) And this commandment is practiced in every place and at all times by males and females. And one who transgresses it and leaves his roof or his pit without a parapet has violated this positive commandment and also violated the negative commandment of "you shall not place blood in your house" - as we will write in this Order (Sefer HaChinukh 447), with God's help.

(21) The answer: That sin which is cause for apprehension on the Blessed One's part as potentially resulting in the destruction of the Jews is idol worship, to which the sin of the golden calf was similar in character. For the other transgressions do not arouse the Blessed One's wrath to such a great extent; idol worship is to be much more feared in this regard. And there is more reason for apprehension of this sin in the desert than in the land of Israel. For the Jews knew that the other lands were under the ordinance of stars and constellations, as our sages state (Kethuboth 110b): "All who live in the land of Israel, it is as if they have a G-d; all who live outside the land of Israel, it is as if they do not have a G-d." This is because the other, gentile lands are under the ordinance of heavenly plenipotentiaries, an ordinance which cannot be changed except through miraculous, Heavenly intervention (this being the intent of "for he will not forgive your sins"). Therefore, if one lives outside the land of Israel, because he is under the ordinance of a star or of a constellation, his prayer is not so readily accepted as it would be if he lived in the land of Israel, which is not under the dominion of a chief, an officer, or a ruler, but of the Blessed One Himself, as it is written (Deuteronomy 31:16): "and they go astray after the strange gods of the land" — indicating that all gods, except the Blessed One Himself, are strangers in that land. And because the Jews knew this, they would be more apt to stray into idol worship outside the land of Israel, the province of other powers (as they, indeed, said [Exodus 32:1]: "Arise and make us a god which will go before us") than they would in the land of Israel itself. Add to this the fact that they would more likely cleave to the Holy One in the holy land than outside it and that there is more reason for apprehension that rebellion against the word of G-d would result in destruction in the desert than in the land of Israel in that the desert is a place fraught with the danger of "snakes, serpents, scorpions, and drought, no water being there" (Deuteronomy 8:15), so that destruction is more of a possibility there than in other places. This is not as the pseudo-pious would have it, that the power of G-d is constant in all places, for good or for evil. This is not so, but the Blessed One has stamped it into the nature of things that loss is more likely to result in dangerous places than in others, so that if He is not constantly providential of one in such places but abandons him to the vicissitudes of time, then evil will certainly befall him, unlike the case in other places, where there is not cause for such apprehension. Therefore, the Blessed One said to Moses: This does not require My apprising you of My ways, for I have no intention of separating Myself from you, but My presence will go in your midst when I grant rest to you — and them (what is stated of Moses applying to all of Israel, as in "to heed you on the way," where the meaning is obviously not to heed Moses alone). But this did not suffice for Moses, who answered (Exodus 33:15): "If Your presence does not go, do not take us up from here." That is, if Your presence does not go, we should not move from this spot at all. For how will it be known that we have been singled out from the other nations if not by Your going with us now? For when we are in the land of Israel, they will attribute our fortune not to us but to the land, seeing that when we were not in the land You did not walk in the midst of our camp. And the Blessed One acknowledged this, saying (Ibid 17): "This thing, too, that you have spoken I will do, for you have found favor in My eyes and I have known you by name." He elaborated here, saying "for you have found favor in My eyes" in response to Moses' first having said (Ibid 12): "and You said: 'I have known you by name and you have also found favor in My eyes'" — indicating thereby that He was doing so by virtue of Moses' having found favor in His eyes. And He added "and I will know you by name," in response to "and You said: "I have known you by name,'" not as Moses said (Ibid 16) "so that I and Your people be singled out from all the peoples," but "because you have found favor in My eyes." And this is also by way of intimating that His acquiescing in walking in their midst and not governing them through an angel would be limited to the days of Moses alone; but afterwards, in the days of Joshua, the aforementioned angel would lead the Jews until they came "to the rest and to the inheritance," as we shall explain.

(5) One must refrain from putting coins in one's mouth, lest it's covered with dried saliva of those afflicted with boils. He should not put the palm of his hand in his arm pit, lest his hand touched a metzorah or a harmful poison. He should not put a loaf of bread under his armpit, because of the sweat. He should not put a cooked item or drinks under the bed, since an evil spirit rests on them. He should not stick a knife in an esrog or a radish, lest one fall on its edge and die. Hagah: Similarly, he should be careful of all things that cause danger, because danger is stricter than transgressions, and one should be more careful with an uncertain danger than with an uncertain issur. They also prohibited to go in a dangerous place, such as under a leaning wall, or alone at night. They also prohibited to drink water from rivers at night or to put one's mouth on a stream of water and drink, because these matters have a concern of danger. It is the widespread custom not to drink water during the equinox, and the early ones wrote this and it is not to be changed. They also wrote to flee from the city when a plague is in the city, and one should leave at the beginning of the plague and not at the end. And all of these things are because of the danger, and a person who guards his soul will distance himself from them and it is prohibited to rely on a miracle in all of these matters.

(2) "The men of the city"

(3) The Mishnah in Avot 5,13 refers to four categories of people. One category lives according to the slogan, "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours." This is described as an average type of attitude. Some say that this is the attitude of Sodom. The second category of people live according to the slogan, "You are welcome to what is mine, and I expect to be welcome to what is yours." This is the attitude of ignorant people. The third category lives by the principle "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is mine also." This is a wicked attitude. The fourth category lives by the principle, "What is mine is at your disposal, and what is yours is yours." This is a pious attitude.

(4) Money can be used in four different ways. There are those who will employ their own funds, but will not use other people's money even as a loan. There are those who will employ other people's funds both willingly and reluctantly, if forced by circumstances. When such people use other people's money willingly, this can involve gifts, exchanges by means of barter, and other services. The first method is called shurat hadin, strict law. This is so, since such person will automatically impose on others restraints he has imposed upon himself. For this reason, he will not make his money available to others for whatever purpose. Such people fit the description of the first category mentioned in our Mishnah. The first method (in the Mishnah), being by far the most common, is called that of the am ha-aretz, the common people, the average person. The third method, involving complete disregard for other people's property, is labelled "wicked," and the last method stemming from a generous heart is described as the way of the pious, the devout. All commentators agree that the reason the first method is called "average" is because it represents a point midway between the two extremes possible. On the one hand, by not fulfilling the commandment to be helpful to our fellow man, people practicing this approach to life deny themselves the uplifting experience that fulfilment of such mitzvot entails. On the other hand, the fact that they scrupulously avoid infringing on other people's property, is insurance against their ever becoming guilty of theft, robbery, a whole register of transgressions. The minority opinion, viewing the lifestyle of the first category as like that of the Sodomites, bases itself on the verse in Ezekiel 16,49, "This then was the sin of Sodom your sister; surfeit of bread, undisturbed peace were hers and her daughters, but the hand of the poor and the needy they did not support." According to this, one may be puzzled at the fate of Sodom, seeing that they acted in a manner described as "average." Rabbi Nathan, who is normally the author of sayings in a Mishnah which contains such a statement as "there are some who say," tells us that "the golden mean," normally the path in life to be chosen, in this instance led to the destruction of those who were content to follow it. Aristotle in Ethics Book four, classifies as "the liberal man," i.e. as the average type, the one who shares his wealth with others who deserve it at the proper time and at the proper place and for the proper purpose. Such a person would also not be averse to accept help under similar conditions. This is no doubt acceptable behavior, and makes the problem of understanding the author of our Mishnah, who describes the "What is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" principle as an average attitude, even harder to understand. Furthermore, even though on rare occasions the desire not to touch other people's money may be motivated by the fear of violating someone else's property rights, in the vast majority of cases, the reason is simply that one does not want to be called upon to reciprocate on future occasions. Although in some cases the desire not to become a burden to others may be the reason one does not want to share, in the majority of cases it is simply an inability to give, to share with others, to extend help. How then can two combinations of negative attitudes be called "average?" It also seems hard to understand why a person who freely gives but refuses to receive help from others when the need arises, can be described as pious. Anyone who pursues such a course persistently will become insolvent and, at one stage or another, a burden on the community. The person who practices the principle of "he who hates gifts will live" (Proverbs 15,27), raises the suspicion that his attitude is really anti social, negative. After all, how can there be “giving" unless there are people willing to "receive?" In fact, however, this method is not one of refusing to accept anything, rather the pious person is generous both in heart and in spirit. He does not view his property as really his to dispose of. On the other hand, he does not view what is generally called "his generosity" as a basis entitling him to use someone else's property in return or exchange. In that respect he differs greatly from the am ha-aretz, the ignorant, whose willingness to share is based only on the realization that he will be likely to benefit from such behavior sooner or later in at least equal measure. To understand the meaning of "average" or "median," we must not assume that it is necessarily a halfway mark between two extremes. Let us assume that a very greedy individual aims to amass ten million dollars. On the other extreme of the scale, let us assume that a modest individual is content with amassing one hundred dollars. The "average" or "median" then is not an amount approximating five million dollars, which would be equivalent to the "golden mean.” Everyone realizes that such a definition of the "golden rule" would be quite erroneous. From this it follows that in matters of giving and taking, the median can only mean "not to take" (i.e. accept) while at the same time "not to to give." This is the halfway mark between greedy possessiveness and generous largesse. Still, this does not yet explain why on the frequent occasions when Israel seemed guilty of far greater sins than the ones quoted from Ezekiel above (as compared to those of Sodom), it was not punished, despite constant warnings by its prophets. Lamentations 4,6 makes it clear that Israel's sins were far greater than Sodom's. Moreover, why did Ezekiel ignore the behavior of the Sodomites described in our Parshah, surely a far more serious crime than merely refusing to share one's wealth? It is also puzzling that the Israelites who went to avenge the crime of Givah and made war against the tribe of Benjamin (Judges Chapter 19), suffered repeated setbacks at the hands of the people of Benjamin. As a matter of fact, the Benjaminites had perpetrated their crime on a fellow Jewess, not on aliens like the men of Sodom in our Parshah. Also, whereas the men of Sodom never had a chance to carry out their evil designs, the men of Givah had executed their heinous deed. Clearly then, Israel had sinned more grievously than the men of Sodom. Concerning the opinions offered that the other tribes retaliated against Benjamin illegally, there are only two possibilities. If indeed the tribes acted illegally, why did the tribe of Benjamin not emerge victorious? If, on the other hand, the attack by the tribes was legal, why did Benjamin succeed in inflicting such tremendous losses on the other tribes on two separate occasions? We may find the answer in Aristotele's Ethics Chapter 7 Section 10. We know from Abraham's prayer that G-d does not punish the innocent together with the guilty. His ways are always perfect. The difference then lies in the distinction between someone called rasha, evil, and someone called chote, someone committing an isolated sin. The latter merely lacks self-control, his body having become somewhat corrupt, whereas his mind and spirit have not been perverted. The rasha, however, is corrupt both in body and in mind. From this there follow two other distinctions. 1) The rasha is not subject to having remorse, since his corrupt mentality does not allow him to be reminded of the error of his ways. The chote, however, once his passions have cooled, will be reminded by his mind of the wrong he has done and is afforded an opportunity to repent and mend his ways. 2) The chote, because of his unimpaired mind is curable, whereas the rasha due to his perverted mind, is already incurable, since there is nothing left to start the process of the cure, the healing of mind and body. The problem of Sodom was that theirs was not just a crime of unbridled passion which ignored existing laws that should have restrained the people. These people had legislated the kind of laws which would prevent those laws from acting as a restraint against their evil inclinations. They legislated penalties against those who would breach the principle of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours." If someone were to step out of line and extend help to outsiders, he would be in defiance of the local laws and face death, even if his crime had only involved offering benefits to a third party at no cost or inconvenience to the donor. This is what really put them at the wrong end of the two extremes of greedy possessiveness and kind hearted generosity (Baba Batra 12). Our Torah has bent over backwards to include a host of legislation regulating our conduct in matters of extending help to others, both of a financial or physical nature. Tzedakah, loving kindness, interest-free loans, redeeming the property of an impoverished relative that has been sold to satisfy debts, are all part of this legislation. Even assisting an enemy when loading or unloading his donkey or taking into one's yard livestock lost by some neighbor at one's own expense to safeguard it on behalf of the absentee owner, are all examples of how not to emulate the behavior practiced by the Sodomites. Sodomite legislation prohibiting hospitality was designed to frighten off would be visitors and to ensure undisturbed life for its inhabitants.

(5) Bereshit Rabbah 50 discusses that the decision of the Sodomites to rob and rape every stranger was designed to establish a reputation that would keep strangers away. Their main concern was only their unwillingness to share their wealth. Their chet, criminal act, as distinct from their wickedness ra, namely the raping of strangers, was only incidental, not basic to their character. We can now understand Ezekiel who pronounced that the sin of Sodom was that they would not help the poor or destitute. When Jeremiah proclaims, "The iniquity of my people was greater than the chet of Sodom,” he refers to that failing of the Sodomites that was merely incidental, namely their immorality (Lamentations 4,6). Ezekiel does not bother to mention that sin, since it was not endemic to their character, could have been atoned for. The Talmud Sanhedrin 109 lists numerous examples of the Sodomites' misdeeds, all of which reflect the perverted monetary judgments that were the vogue there. On the evening when the angels arrived, the Sodomites merely behaved in a time honored fashion, not aware that the measure of their guilt had reached a state which called for Divine retribution. The men of Givah however, were quite different. Their laws were perfectly good, they only failed occasionally to live up to the standards of these laws and gave vent to their passions. For that reason, they did not deserve a rain of sulphur and brimstone. The leaders of the city should have punished the perpetrators of the crime. Since they neither interfered nor brought the rapists to justice for publicly committed crimes of the most vulgar kind, it became the duty of the other tribes to discipline the tribe of Benjamin (At this point the author criticizes leaders of his own generation for failing to deal with prostitutes and on occasion even harboring them and providing them with food and shelter, under the pretext that their plying their trade diminished the incidence of adultery). Any relatively insignificant sin, when committed in public and condoned by silent tolerance, becomes a big sin and threatens to assume the dimension of the sins committed by the people of Sodom who had hallowed their practices by enshrining them in law. Concerning the tribes who attacked Benjamin and initially suffered heavy defeats, our sages in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 38 tell us that these same tribes had been guilty of allowing the idolatrous image of Michah to flourish, without troubling themselves over G-d’s honor which was constantly being insulted thereby. They therefore had to pay the price when they showed that they considered the honor of the slain concubine and that of her husband as more deserving to be upheld than the honor of G-d. Altogether, before attacking their brother tribe, they should have undertaken to purge themselves of any wrongdoing, in order to be in a position to carry out a punitive expedition with a minimum of casualties. Our sages in Sotah 40 tell us that even when proceeding against pagans the verse, "He who is afraid must withdraw from battle” (Deut 20,8), refers to someone who feels he is guilty of some sin. If one goes to war against fellow Jews, one must most certainly purify oneself from sin before engaging in such an undertaking. Also, it would have been proper to obtain permission from G-d first to wage such a campaign. Even after their initial failure, when the tribes asked G-d if they should continue the war with "my brother Benjamin" (Judges 20,23), their philosophical concern was with the permissibility of engaging in civil war, not with their worthiness to conduct a punitive campaign without being free from guilt themselves. Only after having suffered the second defeat, having lost another eighteen thousand dead and a session of fasting, contrition sacrifice, and prayer, did the tribes receive the assurance of success of their efforts on the third attempt. Having seen how the attitude of "What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours" can reduce people to the level which borders on "What is mine is mine and what is yours is mine also," i.e. an attitude which once brought about the destruction of mankind at the time of the deluge, it is obvious that this must not be an attitude to be adopted. In his dealings with Avimelech, Abraham demonstrated that it is perfectly all right to share one's possessions, and when the need arises to accept help from one's fellow human being.

(6) Some problems in the text: 1) Since it was the purpose of the Sodomites to teach strangers not to come to Sodom, how could Lot's offer of his two daughters' virtue be expected to satisfy the townspeople? What is the meaning of Lot's answer, "This is why the men have come into my house?" Was this not exactly what the Sodomites objected to? How could Lot's argument help to assuage their outrage? 2) Why would the Sodomites get angry at Lot trying to "judge" them, when in fact, far from judging them, he was pleading with them? 3) What was all the urgency the angels subjected Lot to, and what was the reason of his hesitancy? Why could the angels not lead Lot gently and slowly, instead of jeopardizing part of their mission by their haste and their allowing Tzoar to survive? 4) What is the meaning of the line, "G-d remembered Abraham and sent away Lot?" Did the angels not say to Lot, "I forgive you also for this?" 5) What possessed Lot's daughters to commit incest with their father? The argument that their father was the only male left in the world was surely spurious, since they knew that the whole town of Tzoar had been spared! 6) Why did Abraham move away to a different part of the country where he was practically unknown now that he knew Sarah was about to conceive? 7) Why did G-d not appear to Avimelech before the latter appropriated Sarah, and save Sarah all the anguish? 8) When Avimelech justified his conduct to G-d, he referred only to statements made to him by Abraham and Sarah, not to the fact that intimacy with Sarah had not even taken place. Why? The Torah's comment that he had not touched Sarah also seems out of place at that juncture! 9) After Avimelech had been told by G-d that he would die, why did G-d tell him to give Sarah back to Abraham? Would that not be the natural thing for him to do anyways? 10) Why did Abraham stress in his reply to Avimelech that he had thought "there is no fear of the Lord in Palestine?" He had not made such a comment to Pharaoh at the time! Who required Abraham to reveal that Sarah was indeed the daughter of a brother, and therefore a sister of his? 11) Why did G-d announce that Abraham would pray for Avimelech? The report in the following paragraph already mentions Abraham's prayer and its having been successful. 12) Sarah's question, "Who has told Abraham that Sarah would nurse children?" is very strange! Since she had herself heard the prophecy of her becoming the mother of a son before she had become pregnant, they had both known about this for some time. 13) Why did Sarah try to banish Ishmael, seeing that she was aware that Abraham loved him? Why did G-d side with her? 14) Why did the angel attribute the miracle of saving Hagar and her son to Ishmael, when the latter had not even raised his voice in prayer? How could the Torah state "G-d listened to the voice of the lad?" 15) When Abraham and Avimelech concluded a treaty, the seven sheep are first described as testimony to Abraham having dug the well, yet in the same sentence they are given as the reason the site was named "Beer Sheva." How is this to be understood?

(7) (1) When Lot faced the people of Sodom, he had shut the door so that the angels would not overhear the negotiations and the indecencies that the Sodomites planned to perpetrate on them. Their objective was to reinforce their image as being anti-strangers, so that this kind of news would make others shun their city. Lot's argument was that the townspeople's quarrel was only with him, not with them, since it had been he who had breached the town's regulations. His guests could not have known about these regulations. He offered his daughters as expiation for his own disloyal conduct, not as substitute for the strangers. The reference "that is why the men came to my house for shelter" means they did not know that the laws of Sodom forbade visitors; they are not guilty therefore. (2) In their reply gesh hal-ah, "out of our way," the townspeople refused to accept this argument, and threatened to deal more harshly with Lot than with the strangers, since he, Lot, had dared put his own interpretation on the rights and wrongs of the case. Lot had classified the strangers as not subject to the town's jurisdiction. Therein lay his sin, in the eyes of the townspeople. The old man in Givah however, had not used his daughter and the concubine to atone for his mistakes as Lot did, thereby acknowledging the town's laws as proper and just. He had done so simply to relieve the pressure and the threat of death to himself and his guest. (3) When the angels saw that the whole town was of one mind, and that even Lot's sons-in-law considered the idea of heavenly retribution as absurd-- believing that no such retribution was called for-- they realized that G-d’s criteria, "if I see that what is happening is as bad as what I have heard, that is the end," had been met. Destruction was called for. The pressure on Lot was designed to make him pray for the survival of Tzoar, since there were an insufficient number of good people there who could have insured the town's survival. The arrival of Lot in Tzoar would augment that meager number of good people there. All this was to show Abraham that G-d had not only met the conditions Abraham's prayer had called for, but that G-d had done His best to engineer things in such a way that the right conditions would be created. (4) Because He remembered Abraham and his prayer, He sent Lot away in such a manner. For a similar reason, on the morrow, when Abraham would return to that spot, Sodom would be gone. (5) Lot's daughters thought that Tzoar had been spared only for the sake of their family, and that upon their departure, it too would be destroyed, as in fact they thought that the whole earth would be laid waste like at the time of the deluge. The entire story is told to put misdeeds perpetrated against Israel by nations who owed their entire existence to the prayer of Israel's first ancestor Abraham into perspective. At the same time, it also explains how two "pearls" in Jewish history, Ruth and Naamah, respectively, came out of those two nations and made their magnificent contribution to Jewish history by becoming ancestors of the ultimate redeemer, the Messiah, so that David as well as Rechavam both had blood from those nations flowing in their veins. (6) Concerning Abraham's migration to the South after this catastrophe, the sages in the Midrash offer a variety of insights. Some say that Abraham was afraid that the neighborhood would henceforth be shunned by travellers, thus limiting his opportunities to proselytize. Others believe that Abraham wanted to put some physical distance between himself and the bastards born to Lot by his daughters. I believe the reason is to be found in Abraham's new destiny, acquired simultaneously with his name having been changed. To become the founder of a variety of nations requires physical exposure to different societies. He had to move to areas where he was not yet well known, in order to be able to continue his life's work. Abraham's again asking Sarah to claim that she was his sister, despite his experiences in Egypt, proves that she had indeed regained a youthful appearance as a result of the angel's blessing. Her desirability once again posed a problem to both herself and Abraham, as proved by the prompt action of Avimelech seizing her. (7) If G-d did not immediately restrain Avimelech, it may have been in order to help Abraham's economic progress while in the land of the Philistines, and to demonstrate that a G-d-fearing man could enjoy great material prosperity. G-d had to communicate with Avimelech for two reasons: 1) His own personal standard of morality was superior to that of Pharaoh. 2) In the years that had elapsed since his stay in Egypt, Abraham had attained a much higher spiritual level, and as a result he qualified for more prompt Divine assistance. While in Egypt, Abraham had not yet been able to appreciate the personal intervention in his affairs that G-d would demonstrate; now however, he was well aware of that. For that reason, Pharaoh was alerted to his wrongdoing only through the plagues inflicted upon him and his household. In the case of Avimelech, however, G-d communicated with Avimelech by spelling out his complaint to him in a dream. (8) Since beney Noach, i.e. ordinary non Jews, are automatically guilty of the death penalty if they transgress those laws that apply to them-- of which adultery is one-- the Torah has to mention the fact that an adulterous relationship had not yet taken place. Therefore, G-d could confirm to Avimelech that indeed he was not yet guilty of death. Avimelech countered that since whatever he had been about to do had been the result of being misled by both Abraham and Sarah, such an act should not have been considered a crime even if he had committed it, and that therefore no question of guilt could arise. G-d replied to Avimelech that it was true that vis a vis his countrymen he had not sinned, but that He, G-d, knew that vis a vis Him a sin had been committed, since it had only been due to G-d’s interference, i.e. making him impotent, that he had not yet committed adultery. (9) He should not think, however, that since he had begun in innocence, he could now keep the lady and consider himself free from guilt as a result of Abraham and Sarah having tricked him. He would have to restore Sarah to Abraham, who, being a prophet, was aware that Sarah had not been touched due to G-d’s intervention. Abraham would pray for the king, allowing for the fact that he had not intended to commit adultery. Avimelech was warned not to become an intentional sinner at this stage. (10) Avimelech now wanted to know from Abraham why he had felt the need to go to such lengths of deception to protect himself. Abraham replied that since the fear of G-d would not act as a restraining influence on Avimelech's subjects, he had had to look for other deterrents. Being afraid that Avimelech would say now-- just as Pharaoh had done-- "You could at least have told me that she is your wife," Abraham could not very well tell him that such a revelation might not have been deterrent enough. Therefore, he mentioned that Sarah was indeed kind of a sister to him. Since it had been legal at that time to marry blood relations of such a category as Abraham and Sarah, i.e. a niece, a lie had in fact never been uttered. Avimelech had simply failed to ascertain whether there was an additional relationship that existed between Abraham and Sarah beyond their being brother and sister. Hence he had only himself to blame for the complications that had arisen. Abraham explained that it had long been his practice to describe Sarah as his sister, ever since they had started to wander and had not yet reached the site of a permanent settlement. The expression hittu, is used on numerous ocasions in the same sense as hiflig, i.e. to cause to depart (compare Genesis 21,14;37,15; Psalms 107,4). In presenting gifts to Abraham, Avimelech behaved in an appropriate manner. Inasmuch as he had contravened the principle of "What is yours is yours" by appropriating Sarah without asking Abraham whether she also happened to be his wife, he atoned now by using the "What is mine is yours" principle. (11) Also, of course, he was interested in Abraham praying for his impotence to be cured. To Sarah, he remarked reprovingly that the thousand pieces of silver he had given to Abraham as her dowry had served as an eye cover to let everyone think that she had been free to marry, and that though G-d knew well enough that she had not had marital relations, no one else would know about this. He told her to mend her ways and not again practice this kind of deception. The Torah merely reports that Sarah accepted the rebuke gracefully, and indicated her being prepared to avoid creating such a misleading impression in the future. Another meaning could be that Avimelech meant "although I have paid a thousand pieces of silver to your brother, you should not have accepted this and caused suspicion about your status amongst all the people around you." Abraham's prayer, recorded at this juncture, was the first prayer that Abraham offered that had not been triggered or prompted by someone else, but was offered completely of his own initiative. It seems, according to Bereshit Rabbah 52 that "something that had kept him tied up, had now been released." This refers to another step forward in Abraham's development toward the complete and perfect personality. By announcing beforehand that Abraham would pray, the Torah further underlined this landmark in Abraham's development. "G-d remembered Sarah as He had said," by making her pregnant. "He did for Sarah as He had said," He timed the event as promised. Sarah's exclamation means, "Let anyone who wants to mock do so, I am willing to bear it, even if G-d has made people mock me; the important thing is "He made a laughter, a joy for me." (12) The words mi millel, who would have foretold, seem an added expression of thanksgiving, such as "how wonderful he who foretold Abraham that Sarah would nurse children,” for I have indeed born a son in his old age. There are numerous examples of the use of the word mi in this sense. Compare Isaiah 49,21 "Who has born me these?" (masculine usage of the verb yalad, gave birth), or Isaiah 63,1 "Who is this that comes from Edom"? (13) The display of excessive joy at the meal celebrating the weaning of Isaac, may have caused Ishmael to become concerned lest he lose part of his heritage, and he may have mocked Sarah and her having given birth in her old age. This may have angered Sarah sufficiently to ask that both Hagar and Ishmael be expelled from the household. Associating Ishmael's behavior with his mother was meant to convey Sarah's opinion that Ishmael had acted as he did only because he was Hagar's son, not because Abraham was his father. Abraham was naturally disturbed for his son's sake, but G-d intervened by telling him to give Sarah carte blanche in the matter.

(8) (14) Shmot Rabbah 1 tells us that Abraham was inferior to Sarah in prophetic insights. This may have been because she realized the fact that her son was Abraham's major issue. She was not beclouded in her judgment by the love for another son, begotten while he had not yet been circumcised. Abraham scrupulously carried out Sarah's instructions re the expulsion, and did not provide Hagar and Ishmael with money or luxuries beyond their immediate needs for survival. The "voice" of the lad that G-d heard needs to be understood in the same sense as "The voice of your brother's blood calls to Me" (Genesis 4,10), meaning G-d became aware of the great pain and discomfort suffered by Ishmael. That is why the angel said to Hagar, "Why are you afraid and raise your voice?" The Lord has already heard the suffering of the lad, even though the latter did not raise his voice. "As he is there", i.e. the situation he finds himself in is enough to warrant My intervention. The angel's appearance and instructions confirm the worthiness of Hagar that we have discussed in previous chapters when she had encounters with angels. The whole problem of her seed had been that Ishmael had been conceived while his father had still been uncircumcised. (15) Avimelech and his commander-in-chief had convinced themselves that G-d was with Abraham through three outstanding events. 1) His victory over Kedorlomer; 2) The safe return of Sarah to him after two royal kidnappings, including his own; 3) The birth of Isaac at an unbelievably old age of the parents, the other having barren up to then. For these reasons they wanted to conclude a peace treaty with Abraham. Abraham was willing and capable of swearing an oath. He said "I can certainly swear," since my honesty is not in doubt. Avimelech's honesty, however, had been cast in doubt by the actions of his servants who had been hounding Abraham's well diggers. There was reason to suspect that Avimelech had connived with, or at least condoned, the actions of his servants. Abraham wanted to study Avimelech's reaction to his complaints before entering into a treaty with someone who might be untruthful, making Abraham guilty of loving the enemies of G-d. Avimelech accepted the rebuke and replied in a proper manner, namely that justice would be done in all three areas: 1) The perpetrator of the crime would be removed from his post and be disciplined. 2) The wrong itself would be corrected. 3) Someone would be appointed to supervise that the judgment would be executed. Avimelech personally excused himself in three ways: 1) He did not know who the guilty party was, therefore he had not been able to punish that person. 2) Since Abraham had not even lodged a complaint until just then, he, Avimelech, could not possibly have redressed the wrong already. 3) He himself had only heard about the complaint just then, hence he could not have appointed a royal commission of enquiry already. When Abraham realized from the explanations offered that Avimelech had no intention of disputing the ownership of the wells, he took the sheep to proceed with the oath which had been suggested, and made a covenant. The seven extra sheep are roughly the equivalent of the field on which the well was situated, and would serve as testimony that Abraham had dug the well, not merely found it and used it. Since in dealing with royalty, he did not want to insult the king by appearing to place too much emphasis on what was after all a minor transaction, he gave Avimelech generous gifts before setting aside the seven sheep. Therefore, Avimelech asked, "What are the seven sheep that you put aside?" Abraham then answered him that those were to be the symbolic evidence that he had dug the well, and that the only thing that belonged to Avimelech was the ground the well was situated on. It was common practice at that time that anyone who found water on publicly owned land could claim the water as belonging to him. The name Beer Sheva first and foremost recalls the transaction connected with the well. However, beyond that, the site should be remembered as the spot at which the fateful covenant between Abraham and Avimelech had been concluded. The name therefore had a dual significance. By planting an orchard and staying there at least another thirty-eight years, Abraham introduced G-dliness into the land of the Philistines.

(13) And sometimes calamities occur in faraway places and in the distant isles to arouse Israel to repentance and to fill them with fear and trepidation lest the disaster descend upon them, as the prophet writes (Zephaniah 3:6-7): "I have cut off nations. Their high places are desolate. I have laid their streets waste, without a passerby. Their cities are destroyed, without a man, without an inhabitant. I said: 'Surely, you will fear Me; you will accept chastisement…'" And when they refuse to be chastised by the evil descending upon the others, it draws closer and closer to them. And there is no doubt that one who witnesses these calamities (which are, in truth, the warnings of the Blessed One) and persists in his evil way is comparable to one who transgresses and is warned, in which case he incurs the death penalty with repeated transgressions. Therefore, there is no doubt that in these times one must earnestly seek healing for the soul and give it precedence to the healing of the body. This is the intent of King-David, may peace be upon him (Psalms 41:5): "I said, O L-rd, be gracious to me. Heal my soul, for I have sinned against You." That is, when I was ill I prayed for the healing of my soul, and made that the focal point of all my exertions, not the healing of my body. And there is no question that every thinking man should place the healing of his soul before that of his body. For even as concerns bodily ailments the question is raised in the practice of medicine: If there are two ailments affecting two organs, which organ should be healed first? And the answer is given that the following take priority: first, that organ which is in greater danger; second, that organ which is the cause of the other's illness; third, that organ whose healing is a prerequisite for the healing of the other. And all of these three apply to the healing of body and soul. For there is no doubt that the danger to the soul is greater than that to the body, the body being ephemeral and the soul eternal. And there is likewise no doubt in my mind that the illnesses of the soul are the cause of the bodily ailments and that the latter cannot be healed without the soul being healed first. As our sages state (Berachoth 33a): "In the locale of R. Chanina b. Dosa there was a killer serpent. When they came and told R. Chanina about it, he went and placed his heel upon its lair. The serpent bit him — and died, whereupon R. Chanina took it to the study hall and said: 'See, my children, it is not the serpent that kills, but sin!'" It is hereby plainly indicated that spiritual ills are the cause of bodily ills and that the healthy soul repels all causes of bodily death. And if one would err and say that this is true only of R. Chanina b. Dosa or of those like him but that it does not even remotely apply to the common run of mankind, this would be an error indeed and a complete misapprehension. For the health and sickness of the soul follow the same path as the health and sickness of the body. And just as you see men of such defective constitutions and weak organs that even the weakest forces injure them, their bodies, because of their weakness, being unable to offer any resistance to these forces — in the same way, those whose souls are defective will not repel any counter-force whatsoever. And just as those who are healthy can, in the access of their health, withstand some of the things that are normally injurious to the body, in the same way healthy souls can withstand injurious influences in proportion to their health. And just as one in the prime of health, by drinking theriac or other such specifics can ward off the effects of all of the poisons and not be injured by them, in the same way, that soul which is in the prime of health, which yearns for mitzvoth and drinks the theriac of repentance — that soul will repel all adverse influences, and this was the estate of R. Chanina b. Dosa and of all those like him.

(1) (Numb. 19:2:) Blessed be the name of the supreme King of kings, the Holy One, blessed be He, who created the world in wisdom and understanding; for His wonders have no limit and His greatness is beyond reckoning. (Ps. 33:7:) “He has gathered the waters of the sea like a mound, and He has put the deeps in storehouses.” Now what is the meaning of “He gathers the waters of the sea like a mound?” When the Holy One, blessed be He, created the world, He said to the ministering angel of the sea, “Open your mouth and swallow all the waters of creation,” he said [back] to Him, “Master of the world, it is enough for me to continue with what is [already] mine.” Then he began to weep. [So God] kicked him to death, as stated (in Job 26:12), “In His power He stilled the sea, and in His understanding He struck down Rahab.” You find that the ministering angel of the sea was named Rahab. What did the Holy One, blessed be He, do? He subdued [the waters] and trampled them down; and so it was that the sea accepted them, as stated (in Amos 4:13), “He tramples on the heights of the earth; the Lord God of hosts is His name.” So for [the waters] He set sand in place as bar and gates, according to what is stated (in Job 38:8, 10), “And [who] blocked off the sea with doors…. and I set bar and gates in place.” Moreover, it says (in Jer. 5:22), “’Do you not fear Me,’ says the Lord; ‘Will you not tremble because of Me, when I have placed sand as a boundary for the sea?’” And it says (in Job 38:11), “And I said, ‘You may come this far and no farther [...].’” Then the sea said to Him, “Master of the world, in that case my sweet waters will be mingled with the salt [waters]!” He said to it, “No! Each and every one will have a storehouse for itself, as stated (in Ps. 33:7), “and he has put the deeps in storehouses.” If you should say that this is a great wonder for their waters not to mingle, then consider the face, which the Holy One, blessed be He, created in people. [Although only] the [size of] a full sit, it has so many springs (from 'yn); yet they do not mingle with one another. The waters of the eyes ('yn) are salty; the waters of the ears are oily; the waters of the nose are putrid; the waters of the mouth are sweet. For what reason are the waters of the eyes salty? Because when someone weeps for the dead, [doing so] all the time, he would immediately become blind; however, because [tears] are salty, he stops and does not weep. For what reason are the waters of the ears oily? Because when a person hears bad news, if he held it in his ears, it would collect in his heart, and he would die. Because they are oily, [the news] goes in one ear and out the other. For what reason are the waters of the nose putrid? Because when a person smells a bad odor, if the waters of the nose were not putrid [enough] to stop it, he would soon die. And for what reason are the waters of the mouth sweet? It sometimes happens that someone eats food that does not agree with him, and he vomits. Now if the waters of the mouth were not sweet, he would not recover. Moreover, since he reads the Torah, of which it is written (in Ps. 19:11), “sweeter also than honey and the drippings of the comb,” the waters of the mouth are therefore sweet. Now here are the grounds for arguing a fortiori (qal wehomer), that if [something the size of] a full sit has so many springs [without them mingling with one another], how much the more so in the case of the Great Sea, of which it is stated (in Ps. 104:25), “There the sea is great and wide […].” [This is] to teach that in everything, the Holy One, blessed be He, accomplishes His mission and that He has not created one thing in vain. Sometimes the Holy One, blessed be He, has accomplished His mission by means of a frog, by means of a gnat, by means of a wasp, or by means of a scorpion. R. Hanan of Sepphoris said, “There is a story about a certain scorpion that went to carry out the Holy One, blessed be He's mission (to sting a certain person) beyond the Jordan; so the Holy One, blessed be He, summoned a certain frog for him, and he crossed over upon it. Then that scorpion went and stung [the] person so that he died. [There is] also a story about a certain reaper who stood and reaped in the valley of Beth-Kuzevah. When burning heat came, he took grass and tied it on his head. [When] a certain mighty serpent came at him, he killed it. A certain [snake] charmer passed by him. He saw the slain serpent. He said to him, ‘Who killed that serpent?’ [So the reaper] said to him ‘I [did].’ He looked at the grass on his head. He [then] said to him, ‘Remove the grass from your head and [then you can brag (if you still have that power)].’ When he did so, [the charmer] drew near. He had not succeeded in touching him, before [the reaper’s] body parts [all] shed.” R. Jannay was sitting as a judge at the gate of his city, [when] he saw a serpent hissing and coming toward the city. When they would secure against it in one place, it would go to another. He said, “It seems to me that this [serpent] is on its way to carry out its mission.” When it entered the city, a rumor spread in the city, “So-and-so ben so-and-so was bitten by a serpent and he is dead.” R. Elazar was strolling by the seashore of Caesarea. He found a femur bone strewn on the path. [So] he removed it from there, but he found it there again; he removed it from there [a second time] and found it there again. He said, “It seems to me that this [bone] is arranged to carry out its mission.” After [some] days, a minister came and fell over it and died. They looked into him and found evil documents against the Jews in his hand. There is a story about two people who were walking on the way. One who could see, and one was blind. They sat down to eat. They reached out their hands for the herbs of the field and ate. The one who could see became blind, and the one who had been blind became sighted. They did not move from there until the former was being supported by the latter whom he had been supporting. There is a story about a certain person who was going from the land of Israel to Babylon. While he was eating, he saw two birds fighting with each other. One of them killed its companion. Then going to get an herb, [it placed it on its mouth,] and made it live again. That person (the one who saw what had happened) went and took the very herb that had fallen from the bird. Then he went to make the dead live with it. When he arrived at the Ladder of Tyre, he found a dead lion lying in the open. He touched the herb to its mouth and made it live. The lion got up and ate him. The proverb says, “Do not do good to the evil, and evil will not happen to you.” There is a story of Shihin (a town near Sepphoris) about a certain blind person who went down to bathe in the waters in a cave. He happened upon the well of Miriam, immersed [himself in it], and was healed. Titus the wicked entered the interior of the holy of holies. When he had cursed and blasphemed, he stood up and slashed the veil. Then he took a Torah scroll and brought it out. Next he unrolled it; and bringing two whores, he transgressed upon them. Then he drew his sword to cut up the book. A miracle took place in that blood began to spew forth from it. He began to boast, saying that he had killed himself (i.e. God). He began to become bolder and bolder. When he reached the sea, the sea began to grow stormier and stormier. He said, “The God of these people only has power in the sea. When Pharaoh arose, He drowned him in the sea, and Sisera as well. Now if He would, let there be dry land between Him and I. Then let us see who overcomes.” The Holy One, blessed be He, said, “O you wicked one, son of a wicked one, I am sending against you a tiny creature, the least of My creatures, to eradicate you from the world.” A gnat entered his nostril, and stayed in his nostril for three years. When he passed by a place where blacksmiths were working [and the gnat] heard the sound of iron, it was still. Whenever a gentile [blacksmith] would pass him, [Titus] would hire him for four dinars and say to him, “Bang your hammer in front of me the whole day.” And when he would do this the whole day, [Titus] would give him his four dinars. But when a Jewish [blacksmith] passed him, he would say to him, “Take [your hammer] and bang it [here] and I will give you your wage.” And he would bang the whole day. [But] when he was about to leave him and the Jew would say to [Titus], “Give me my wage,” he would answer and say to him, “It is enough for you that you see your enemy like this.” So would he do every day for three years. When he died they split open his head and found that [the gnat had grown] to be like a partridge and a sparrow and its claws were as hard as copper. And he died an unnatural death. Why is it named a base creature? Because it takes in but does not excrete. Moreover, sometimes it is by means of a hornet [that God's will is carried out]. Thus it is written (in Exod. 23:28), “I will send the hornet before you [to drive out the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites from before you].” Our masters have said, “When the Holy One, blessed be He, sent the hornet before Israel to kill the Amorites, see what was written about them (in Amos 2:9), “Yet I destroyed the Amorites [before them, whose stature was like the cedars in height and who were as strong as the oaks].” It entered one's right eye and poured out its poison in it. Then [that person] burst open and dropped dead. This indeed is the way of the Holy One, blessed be He, to carry out His missions by means of small things against all who vaunt themselves against Him. He sends them a small creature to exact punishment from them, in order to inform them that there is no substance to their might. Also in the world to come the Holy One, blessed be He, is going to exact punishment from the [idol-worshiping] peoples of the world by means of small things. It is so stated (in Is. 7:18–19), “And it shall come to pass on that day that the Lord shall whistle for the fly. They all shall come […].”