Lot's Failures

Parshat Lekh Lekha 

 by Rabbi Avi Billet

 Lot looked up and saw that the entire Jordan Plain, all the way to Tzoar had plenty of water. (This was before God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) It was like God's own garden, like the land of Egypt. Lot chose for himself the entire Jordan Plain. He headed eastward, and the two separated. Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot dwelt in the cities of the Plain, having migrated as far as Sodom. But the people of Sodom were very wicked, and they sinned against God. (13:10-13) 

From one general perspective, Avram’s nephew Lot is considered to be a positive, albeit tragic figure. We give credit to the trait of hakhnosas orchim (welcoming guests) that he learned from his uncle, and the Rabbis believed Lot was eventually a judge in Sodom. There were rules about how Ammon and Moav (Lot’s sons conceived through an incestual relationship) were to be treated by Moshe and the conquering Israelites on account of the familial relationship, which were only cancelled when Moav attacked Israel in Bamidbar 24, as described in Devarim 2:9, as well as the historical note of Sichon having conquered those lands (see Bamidbar 21:26), making them available to Israel to conquer from Sichon.



 When the Midrash looks at how the Torah describes Lot’s choice to move to Sodom, however, Lot is portrayed in an entirely different light.

 Rabbi Yosi bar Chanina explained that the verse “Lot looked up and saw that the entire Jordan Plain, all the way to Tzoar had plenty of water” alludes to “ervah” (lewdness). He raised his eyes, just as Potiphar’s wife raised her eyes to gaze upon Yosef, he saw the “kikar Hayarden” just as one desires a “kikar” of bread for the sake of a licentious woman (Mishlei 6:26). Sodom had water – it was all “mashkeh” – just as the Sotah (woman accused of adultery), was to be given to drink (“hishkah”). Lot saw this before God destroyed (“Shachet”) the land, and the term “Shichet” refers to the spilling of seed that was the cause of the death of Onan, son of Yehuda, in Bereshit 38:9. (Bereshit Raba 41:7) 

 The Talmud Nazir 23a and other Midrashic texts utilize different verses to make similar points about Lot’s proclivities.

 While one view is that Sodom is compared to the Garden of Eden and Egypt because none of them required rain, another view could suggest that one of the major criticisms of the Garden of Eden and Egypt relates to how they are associated with sexuality. This would suggest that Sodom was a draw for Lot because he was aware of how they behaved, and he wanted to get in on the action. Rashi quotes the Talmud Horayot 10b that since the people of Tzoar were entrenched in licentious behavior, Lot chose to go there. 

The end of Lot’s story in the Torah is a most unfortunate one, in which he is reduced to a dimwitted, drunk (though admittedly scarred) man who fathers a son with each of his surviving daughters. His legacy in the Torah becomes one of creating two nations which both became a thorn in the back of the nation of Israel forever, as his reputation becomes one in which what could have been a normal act of sexuality was transformed for him in all kinds of inappropriate ways. His face is the picture of incest in the Torah, his memory a far cry from what the nephew of the exalted Avraham could have been.

 Of course, there is another side to the story. There are many ways to make Lot look like a considerably good man who made some poor choices, who was misguided in some of his decisions.

 But as the reverse story goes about the Chofetz Chaim, after a lawyer told a judge an unbelievable story about his righteousness to prove his character as a witness in court, and the judge questioned its veracity, the lawyer said, “I don’t know, your Honor. But they don’t tell stories like that about you and me.”

 In other words, in Lot’s case, there is compelling evidence to suggest an element of truth to the accusation thrown his way by the Talmud and midrash.

 The lesson for us is very simple. If we want to have excellent reputations, we have to do the opposite of Lot: we must avoid getting into fights with neighbors, and especially with family members. If we do get into a fight, we must be able to compromise a solution. And the compromise must be reasonable. And when we are wrong, we must be able to admit we are wrong.

 We may not choose to live in an environment that will minimally be a negative influence on us, but may even have a detrimental impact on our character.

 The possibility of living in a place that has a great night life, or an enticing environment that focuses on anti-Jewish values, should be avoided if there isn’t a balancing act to be found in a Beit Midrash or spiritual-community that counters the negative outside influence.

 Whatever positives Lot brought to the table, they are completely overshadowed by the failures of his life. Our job is to make sure we do not fall into the same trap. To live a life in which they don’t tell such negative stories about you and me, because they most certainly are not true.