The chapter in the Torah containing the negotiations between YHWH and Abraham relating to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and can be regarded as one of the most consequential chapters in the Torah as it contains the basis of Jewish ethics, namely the way of God, righteousness or tzedakah in Hebrew צְדָקָה)), justice or mishpat in Hebrew (מִשְׁפָּט), and loving kindness or chessed. All the stories in this chapter are related directly or indirectly to these four concepts.

 

The mission of Abraham is to teach these four concepts to his descendants, and from them it will reach the world. It is not surprising, therefore, that these words are found multiple times in the Bible. Thirty-two times, to be precise, for the word tzedakah, and 132 times for mishpat.

 

Some clarification is in order. The chapter numbering seen today in most Bibles is a late feature and was added by a Christian clergyman in the 13th century. A Hebrew chapter, on the other hand, is marked in a Torah scroll by multiple letter spaces between sentences. The Hebrew chapter discussed in this essay is a moderately lengthy chapter and extends from the beginning of chapter 18 to the end of chapter 19 and contains 61 sentences. It begins with God appearing to Abraham and ends with Lot’s daughters committing incest with their father at the end of chapter 19.

 

The concepts of the way of God, righteousness and justice are first raised in the Abraham story in a conversation between YHWY and Abraham in relation to the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah:  

 

And YHWH said: “Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing? And Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation and all the nations of the earth will be blessed though him. For I have a relationship with him so that he might command his children and his household after him to keep the way of YHWH, doing righteousness (tzedaka) and justice (mishpat), so that YHVH might bring upon Abraham that which He had spoken of him (Genesis 18:17-19).1

 

First, though, we should define what the Bible means by the terms tzedakah and mishpat.  

 

On a societal level, to practice “justice” means to have a judicial system in place. On an individual level, it means to adhere to the rules and regulations set by this judicial system. An example discussed later in the Torah is the use of honest measures for trade:

 

You shall not commit a perversion in justice (bamishpat) in measures of length, weight or volume (Leviticus 19: 35).

 

R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch defines justice as “…..  something that a person has the right to demand from another.”2 In other words, it is the right of any society that there should be equitable justice. Whether this be engrained in law or as convention, justice provides the framework for the smooth functioning of society.

 

In modern Jewish usage, “tzedakah” (righteousness) is often thought of as a voluntary charitable or benevolent act. This is also its use in the Talmud.2 However, the word tzedakah or righteousness when used in the Bible implies considerably more than charity and is not always discretionary, as is evident from this passage from Deuteronomy:

 

When you lend your neighbor any manner of loan, you shall not go into his house to fetch his pledge. You shall stand outside, and the man to whom you are lending shall bring the security to you outside.  And if he be a poor man, you shall not sleep with his pledge; you shall surely restore to him the pledge when the sun goes down, that he may sleep in his garment, and bless you; and for you it shall be an act of righteousness (tzedaka) before YHWH your God (Deuteronomy 24:10-13).4

 

In an attempt to include the non-discretionary aspect of tzedakah, R’ Hirsch defines tzedakah as: “something that no man has the right to demand from another, but which God has given everyone the justification to expect.”2 Another definition might be “social justice,” as proposed by R’ Sir Jonathan Sachs.5 A definition that includes obligation within it is the morally right thing to do.

 

The combination of “righteousness and justice” constitute the spectrum of moral activity within society. Mishpat or justice is often framed in the Torah as a negative prohibition, while tzedakah or righteousness is usually a positive command aimed at preventing injustice. This is evident from the following verse:

 

If you take your neighbor's garment as security, until sunset you shall restore it unto him; for it alone is his covering, it is his garment for his skin; in what shall he lie down? So that it will be, if he cries (yitzak) (יִצְעַק) out to Me, I shall listen; for I am compassionate (Exodus 22:25-26).

 

The purpose of righteousness is to prevent injustice. Hence, injustice is the mirror image of righteousness (tzedakah). Nevertheless, there is clearly a spectrum here. The absence of tzedakah may lead to no more than a person feeling disappointed at how he or she is being treated by the world. At the other extreme, the victim may cry out at the injustice to which he or she is being subjected to. At this point, crying out (tze’akah) and righteousness (tzedaka) constitute polar opposites of each other.

 

Note that there is a wordplay here — the words tze’aka and tzedakah sound similar, although they differ by a single letter. Nevertheless, that this is a word play should not detract from the seriousness of the situation. When the cries of humanity penetrate the portals of heaven, God cannot remain indifferent:

 

You shall not taunt or oppress a stranger; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt. You shall not cause pain to any widow or orphan. If you cause him pain! —for if he shall surely cry out (tza’ok yitzak) (יִצְעַק צָעֹק) to Me, I will surely hear (shamo’a eshma) (אֶשְׁמַע שָׁמֹעַ) his outcry (tza’akaso) (צַעֲקָתוֹ). My wrath shall blaze and I shall kill you by the sword and your wives will be widows and your children orphans (Exodus 22:20-23).

 

There is another wordplay here with two word repetitions. If the stranger, widow or orphan “surely cries out” (tza’ok yitzak)  (literally crying out, he will cry out), then “I shall surely hear” (shamoa eshma) (literally hearing I will hear).6 This wordplay is again a way of emphasizing the seriousness of the situation.

 

The necessity for the practice of righteousness and justice for redemption was stressed by the prophets of Israel. Isaiah will say: “Thus said YHWH: ‘Observe justice and perform righteousness for My salvation is soon to come and My righteousness to be revealed’” (Isaiah 56:1). Jeremiah will also say:

 

Behold days are coming — the word of YHWH — when I will fulfill the favorable matter that I spoke concerning the House of Israel and the House of Judah. In those days, at that time, I will cause a sprout of righteousness to sprout forth for David, and he will administer justice and righteousness in the land (Jeremiah 33:14-15).

 

As the following sentence indicates, God is the absolute moral authority on all matters of righteousness and justice and this constitutes the “way of God” — “. . . .  to keep the way of YHWH, doing righteousness tzedaka) and justice (mishpat) . . ." (Genesis 19:19)

 

As R’ Hirsch points out — “to keep the way of YHWH” has two meanings. It is the way that God takes, and also that which He wishes us to tread.”2

 

The way of God is the basis of Jewish ethics and for much of Christian ethics too. However, it is not a foundation stone of Islamic ethics, since Muhammad never accepted the authority of the Hebrew Bible and felt that his revelations were the only authentic expression of Allah’s will.

 

An aspect of the “way of YHWH” that is closely related to tzadekah is chessed, often translated as loving-kindness. Chessed is even more discretionary than tzedakah, and may be defined as putting oneself out to help a person in need. A person who would benefit from chessed has no overwhelming need and therefore does not cry out if it is not fulfilled. There is, therefore, no absolute obligation to perform an act of chessed. It is, nevertheless, the right thing to do when the opportunity arises. God describes Himself as “Abundant in Kindness” (rav chessed) (Exodus 34:6), and chessed or loving-kindness is part of the “the way of God.”

 

Abraham is considered the paradigm of someone who performs chessed (loving-kindness) at every possible opportunity. This is evident from the next section of this chapter.

 

 

The full measure of chessed or loving-kindness

 

The chapter begins with Abraham sitting at the entrance to his tent during the heat of the day:

 

And YHWH appeared to him at the oaks of Mamre and he [Abraham] was sitting at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day. And he lifted up his eyes and saw, and behold! Three men were standing before him; He saw, and he ran towards them from the entrance of the tent, and bowed down to the ground. And he said: “My lords, if now I have found favor in your sight, please pass not from before your servant. Let now a little water be fetched, and wash your feet, and recline under the tree. I will fetch a morsel of bread that you may nourish your heart; after that you shall pass on; inasmuch as you have passed your servant’s way.” And they said: “So do as you have said.” And Abraham hastened into the tent to Sarah, and said: “Make ready quickly three se’ahs of unsifted flour, sifted flour, knead it, and make cakes." Then Abraham ran to the herd, and took a calf, tender and good, and gave it to the youth who hastened to prepare it. He took curd and milk and the calf which he had made and placed these before them; he stood over them beneath the tree and they ate and they ate. . . .  And the men arose from there, and looked out toward Sodom; and Abraham walked with them to send them off (Genesis 18:2-16).

 

An idea brought down by Rashi based on the Talmud is that Abraham was sitting at the entrance to his tent searching for passing visitors to whom he could extend hospitality.7 However, this is by no means explicit in the text. Rather, the Bible says that the three men he noticed “were standing before him.” This raises the possibility of an element of need. They were travelling in the heat of the day and could have been approaching the groves of Mamre for shade. It was therefore a morally appropriate gesture, an act of chessed, to invite them into his tent so they could refresh themselves and partake of some refreshments. However, Abraham not only performed an act of chessed, but went out of his way to embellish it. 

 

All Abraham’s efforts for his guests demonstrated his consideration for their comfort and how special they were to him. He initially downplayed what he was going to do for them, but then went far beyond what he said he was going to do. Common practice is to do exactly the opposite — to impress everyone about how much one intends doing, but in actuality to do very little. Abraham mobilized his entire household — his wife and his servants — to provide for his guests. The words “hurried” or “ran” are mentioned three times. The couple went out of their way to prepare a delicious meal using “sifted flour, “cakes,” and “a tender and good calf.” The amount of flour he asked his wife to prepare was incredibly large and far more than these guests could have eaten.8 Abraham personally served them rather than leaving this to his servants. And as they were leaving, he escorted them from his tent to demonstrate how special they were to him.  

 

Abraham had no ulterior motive for treating them in this way. He did not know them beforehand and it is unlikely he would ever meet them again. They were almost certainly pagans. He could have argued that now that he was circumcised and had a special relationship with God, his acts of chessed should be confined to members of his own household and his converts. Yet nothing was further from his intent. His chessed was for everyone in need who showed up near his tent. 

 

Where was God?

 

The first five words in the opening of this chapter are puzzling.

 

And YHWH appeared to him in the grove of Mamre while he was sitting at the entrance of the tent in the heat of the day. And he [Abraham] lifted up his eyes and saw: And behold!  Three men were standing before him (Genesis 18:1-2).

 

The problem is an obvious one. God appears to Abraham, but then nothing happens and the story moves on to describe the appearance of three men. It is as if God showed up for no purpose. He also receives no homage from Abraham, whereas Abraham bows to the ground in submission when three men appear. 

 

A well-known midrashic explanation is that God was paying Abraham a sick call. This would explain the lack of movement in this sentence. In the previous chapter, Abraham and his household underwent circumcision. It was the third day from this procedure and God came to wish Abraham a speedy recovery.9 When the three men appeared, Abraham excused himself from God’s presence. There is a lesson to be learnt from this — hospitality to one’s fellow takes preference even over being together with God. Nevertheless, this explanation is far from being explicit in the text.

 

Maimonides suggests that whenever the Bible describes the appearance of God it is always in the context of a dream (other than for Moses).10 Abraham’s dream is about the appearance of God and the details of this vision are the arrival of three men in the heat of the day. Nachmanides argues strongly against this.11 How could it be that all the characters in such a dream engaged in very real-life activities such as eating and debating? It is also difficult to understand how Sarah could be the person to whom this visit was directed when this was Abraham’s dream.

 

A more literal interpretation is provided by Rashbam who suggests that this opening sentence is an introduction to the appearance of the three angels.12 There are also other times in the Bible when angels are called God. For instance, when an angel of God appears to Moses at the burning bush, the angel is later called God (Exodus 3:4). Jacob struggles with a man, but appreciates that he has been wrestling with God (Genesis 32:31). It would seem that the Torah considers the appearance of a messenger of God as being identical to the appearance of God Himself. 

 

This would explain why Abraham did not greet God when He first appeared, but greeted only the angels. Moreover, only when one of the angels prophesized that Sarah would have a child in one year did YHWH speak up: “Then YHWH said to Abraham: ‘Why is it that Sarah laughed saying . . .” (ibid 18:!3), since it is only then that Abraham and Sarah came to the realization that the three “men” were in actuality messengers of God.

 

Rashbam also assumes that when Abraham spoke to YHWH about the fate of Sodom and Gomorrah he was speaking to the most senior of the angels. This would explain why only two angels went down to investigate Sodom, since the senior one remained behind to negotiate with Abraham as a representative of God. Hence, the Torah explains “and Abraham was still standing before YHWH” (Genesis 18:22) after the other two angels had left.13

 

These opening words about God are, in actuality, functioning as an aid to the reader in highlighting the fact that Abraham initially had no knowledge that these men were agents of God when performing his acts of chessed. We, on the other hand, are privy to this fact and can appreciate the flow of the story and the couple’s sudden realization that they were talking to angels of God.

 

This happens to be the second time in the Bible we meet such agents of God. The first time is also in the Abraham story when Hagar, the maidservant of Abraham, is met by an angel of God in the desert after fleeing from Sarah’s oppression (ibid 16:7-13).

 

The concept of angels is a unique one for the Bible, and only makes sense in a theology that holds that God is intimately involved in the affairs of man. This concept reaches its climax when Jacob has a vision of angels ascending and descending on a ladder that stretches between heaven and earth (ibid 28:12). This vision might even imply that angels are part of the routine way that God handles His affairs on earth.

 

 

Sarah’s laughter

 

An important theme of this biblical chapter is the revelation to Sarah that in a year from now she will have a son. The prophecy reads as follows:

 

And He [one of the angels] said: “'I will certainly return to you at this time next year and behold! Sarah your wife shall have a son.” And Sarah heard at the entrance to the tent door which was behind him. Now Abraham and Sarah were old, well on in years; it had ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. And Sarah laughed (vatizchak) (וַתִּצְחַק ) within herself, saying: “After I have withered shall I have pleasure, my husband also being old?” And YHWH said to Abraham: “Why did Sarah laugh (tzachaka) (צָחֲקָה), saying: ‘Shall I truly bear a child, though am old? Is anything beyond YHWH?’ At this appointed time I will return to you at this time next year and Sarah will have a son.” Sarah denied, saying: “I did not laugh (tzochakti) (צָחַקְתִּי),” for she was afraid. And He said: “No; but you did laugh (tzochackt) (צָחָקְתְּ)” (Genesis 18:10-15).

 

Questions spring to the fore. Why was it necessary for God to tell Sarah that she would deliver a child? Had not this information already been conveyed to Abraham a chapter earlier following the Covenant of Circumcision? Surely, Abraham would have informed his wife about this important news? And why did God reprimand Sarah for expressing skepticism, when Abraham seemed to have had exactly the same reaction and was not criticized?

 

Any answer to these questions has to be speculative. R’ Hirsch suggests that Abraham was waiting for instructions from God regarding informing his wife.14 In a similar vein, Nachmanides suggests that God Himself needed to reveal the news to Sarah.15 Another possibility is that Abraham was so busy in the three days between circumcising himself and his household and this later prophecy that he had no time to tell her!

 

However, there are a number of reasons why it was appropriate that Sarah be personally informed of her future pregnancy. Firstly, she is the one who will bear the son, and she will also be the one who will experience the joy of her pregnancy after she recovers from her initial skepticism.

 

Biblical critics, on the other hand, have noted that this passage constitutes a duplication and they suggest that this related to different sources. Hence, Abraham is told the prophecy about a son in the Covenant of Circumcision, which is a so-called P source, while Sarah is told about this pregnancy in a J source. It should be noted, incidentally, that if one puts together all the P sentences for the Abraham narrative, the account becomes so truncated as to be almost valueless, since the sentences related to Elohim are so few and far between.16 This is unlike the Noah story where each of the two presumed sources make up a very abridged but nevertheless plausible account in its own right. The Bible critics are certainly onto something, although not in the way they are presenting it.

 

An alternative way of viewing this duplication is that it relates to the names of God used. Abraham was told about his future son in the Covenant of Circumcision, which was conveyed to him through the name Elohim. The prophecy given to Sarah in this chapter was conveyed by YHWH. The communication between the couple is not an issue for the text (and hence not for us) and can, in any case, only be answered with guesswork.

 

Abraham is informed about the pregnancy within the context of the Elohim-given Covenant of Circumcision and the prophecy that “I [Elohim] will make you most exceedingly fruitful” (ibid 17:5). It is worth reviewing this version of the prophecy in the Covenant of Circumcision:

 

And Elohim said unto Abraham: “As for Sarai your wife, do not call her name Sarai, but Sarah is her name. And I will bless her, and I will also give you a son of her; yea, I will bless her, and she shall be a mother of nations; kings of peoples through her.” And Abraham fell upon his face and laughed (vayitzchak) (וַיִּצְחָק); and thought: “Shall a child be born to him that is a hundred years old and shall Sarah, that is ninety years old, give birth?”' And Abraham said unto God: “Oh that Ishmael might live before You!” And Elohim said: “Indeed Sarah your wife will bear you a son; and you shall call his name Isaac (Yitzchak) (יִצְחָק); and I will fulfill My covenant with him as an everlasting covenant for his offspring after him” (Genesis 17:15-19).

 

As the one who will be circumcised, whose male descendants will interact with the nations of the world, and who will ensure the continuation of the covenant at Mount Sinai, it is most appropriate that Abraham be the person to initially receive this information from Elohim.

 

However, Sarah and Abraham are also partners in the historic-political drama of the Covenant of the Pieces, a covenant promised through the name of God YHWH, the name that represents the immanent and tribal aspect of God. Sarah will be intimately involved with her husband in teaching her son the importance of righteousness, justice and chessed, the moral values that will ensure Jewish survival. Moreover, when it comes to rearing younger children, the mother has the primary role.

 

Nevertheless, note the similarities between the prophecies. Both Abraham and Sarah remind God that they are old and that a pregnancy is impossible. Both express their amazement and the text uses the Hebrew word letzachek, to laugh. Both sources are also complementary in that only Abraham is told the relationship between their reactions of laughing and the future name of their son Yitzhak.

 

The beauty of these two prophecies in relation to the name Yitzhak is that there are several meanings to the Hebrew word letzachek. One might even say that without this information, the significance of this part of the story is lost.

 

Letzachek can mean to laugh in disbelief. It can also mean to laugh with joy. It would seem to have this meaning when Isaac is weaned:

 

And Sarah said: “God has made laughter (tz’chok) (צְחֹק) for me; whoever hears will laugh (yitzchak) (יִצְחַק) for me” (Genesis 21:6).17

 

Another meaning of this verb is to laugh in mockery, as occurred during Isaac’s weaning party when Ishmael mocks Sarah’s family:  

 

And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, mocking (metzacheck) (מְצַחֵק) (Genesis 21:9).

 

This will be the final straw for Sarah when she realizes that Ishmael and Hagar have different values from that of her household, and she persuades Abraham to evict them both from their home.

 

In the prophecy quoted at the beginning of this section, Sarah’s laughter expresses disbelief. This is at first inwardly and then outwardly when she is forced to admit her inner thoughts.18  But what about Abraham’s laughter on learning the news about his son?  Is this an expression of disbelief or joy? 

 

Rashi suggests that his reaction was one of pure joy.19 However, this is by no means clear from the text, and it could well be that his laughter was also an expression of disbelief:20

 

And Abraham fell upon his face and laughed; and he thought: “To a man of a hundred years shall there be born? And shall Sarah – a woman of ninety years – give birth?” (Genesis 17:17).

 

If this were the case, why was Sarah reprimanded by God and Abraham not? One answer may be that she was not reprimanded.21 Sarah was asked to openly display her skepticism by revealing her innermost thoughts. Until this time, neither of the couple realized they were talking to angels. She is then informed that nothing is impossible for God. End of issue. A pregnancy will happen.

 

An important aspect of this part of the story relates to the name Yitzhak. This name encompasses all these meanings — pure joy, disbelief and mocking.

 

Moreover, the Torah is a prophetic book — and so are the names of some of its characters. The name Yitzhak relates not only to Abraham’s and Sarah’s future son, but to all the progeny of the Jewish people. The eternal nature of the Jewish people is foretold as part of the Covenant of Circumcision, but like Sarah’s pregnancy, this verges on the impossible. The Jewish people have survived thousands of years of persecution because YHWH and Elohim engineered the impossible. As God Himself said: “Is anything beyond YHWH?” (ibid 18:13). This impossibility in relation to eternity is contained within the meanings of the name Yitzhak.

 

Along the way, the Torah informs us about some interesting theological concepts. Firstly, God knows the innermost thoughts of people. Secondly, he can also do a sex determination.

 

 

Negotiating the fate of Sodom with God

 

The negotiations between God and Abraham regarding the fate of Sodom read as follows:

 

And YHWH said: “Shall I conceal from Abraham what I do. An Abraham will surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth will be blessed through him? . . . So YHWH said: “Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see: If they acted in accordance with its outcry which came to me — then destruction! And if not, I will know.” The men turned from there and went to Sodom, and Abraham was still standing before YHWH. And Abraham came forward, and said: “Will you also sweep away the righteous along with the wicked? What if there are fifty righteous within the city; will You indeed sweep away and not spare the place (lamakom) for the sake of the fifty righteous within it? It would be sacrilege to You to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked letting the righteous and wicked fare alike; it would be sacrilege to You; shall not the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” And YHWH said: “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare the entire place (lechol hamakom) for their sake (ba’avuram).”  And Abraham answered and said: “Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto my Master, although I am but dust and ashes. What if the fifty righteous lack five; will You destroy all the city for five?” And He said: “I will not destroy it, if I find there forty-five.” And he continued to speak to Him, and said: “What if forty would be found there?” And He said: “I will not do it for the forty's sake.” And he said: “Oh, let not my Master be angry, and I will speak. What if thirty would be found there?” And He said: 'I will not do it, if I find thirty there.” And he said: “Behold now, I have taken upon myself to speak to my Master. What if twenty would be found there?” And He said: “I will not destroy on account of the twenty.” And he said: “Oh, let not my Master be angry, and I will speak yet but this once. What if ten would be found there?” And He said: “I will not destroy on account of the ten.” And YHWH departed when He had finished speaking to Abraham; and Abraham returned to his place (Genesis 18:17-18, 20-33).

 

The first question that could be asked is why did God consider it necessary to include Abraham in His deliberations regarding Sodom. As the Torah says: “And YHWH said: ‘Shall I conceal from Abraham what I am doing?’” (Genesis 18:17).

 

A number of suggestions have been proposed by Jewish commentators. Rashi suggests that since ownership of the land of Canaan had been bestowed upon Abraham (in previous chapters), it would be inappropriate that he not be informed about the destruction of some its inhabitants.22 Sforno takes a very different approach. He suggests that God was demonstrating His goodness to Abraham and that He was prepared to save the entire city if there was a chance that the few remaining righteous people would lead to the city’s repentance.23 This idea of Sforno warrants deeper probing. 

 

At first glance, the Torah is telling us that God exercises justice, and the wicked city of Sodom needs to be destroyed because of this. Nevertheless, it will be saved for the sake of a sufficient number of innocent inhabitants (tzadikim) of the city. Abraham’s debate with God is about how many innocents. This is the interpretation of the majority of Jewish biblical commentators. Yet one is left with a certain discomfort with this conclusion. From the perspective of justice, what difference does it make how many righteous people are in the city? Does not justice demand that one innocent person be deserving of the same consideration as many?

 

Until this time Abraham had accepted that the way of God is righteousness and justice. But what if, in reality, God’s actions lack these two attributes? YHWH would then be no different from the multitude of pagan deities whose activities within nature lacks any semblance of righteousness and justice. God had just delivered a bombshell to Abraham. The entirety of Abraham’s belief system was now hanging in the balance. One can almost feel his anguish as he asks of God:

 

It would be sacrilege to You; shall not the Judge of all the earth not do justice?” (Genesis 18:25).

 

However, it is suggested that Abraham was mistaken. The negotiations that follow were now intended to strengthen Abraham’s belief in a God who practices righteousness and justice.

 

Abraham begins his plea for the tzadikim (righteous/innocent) of Sodom with two requests:

 

• That the innocent (tzadikim) not be swept away with the wicked.

 

• That the city of Sodom be spared if there are fifty or more righteous people in the city for the sake of these innocent people.

 

Abraham’s focus is on the injustice that would be done if so many righteous people were to be swept away when the city is destroyed. For the sake of these righteous people, justice demands that the city be saved:

 

However, a careful reading this passage shows that God does not answer Abraham’s concern, but swings the conversation around. God’s focus is as much on the fate of the city of Sodom as the righteous within it. This is because if there are sufficient righteous people, this has the potential to change the city and its propensity to do evil.24

 

There are a number of stylistic indicators that justify this interpretation:

 

• Whereas Abraham uses the word “lema’an” (לְמַעַן), which has the connotation of purpose and means “in order to” or “for the sake of the fifty righteous within it,” God uses the word “ba’avuram” (בַּעֲבוּרָם). “Ba’avuram” can have the same meaning as lema’an (“for their sake”), but can also mean “on their account” or “because of them.”25 As we read:

 

Will You indeed sweep away and not spare the place for the sake of (lema’an) the fifty righteous within it? . . . .  And YHWH said: “If I find in Sodom fifty righteous people in the midst of the city, then I would spare the entire place because of them (ba’avuram)” (ibid 18:24).

 

• Whereas Abraham initially talks about “sparing the place,” God talks about saving the “entire place.”  

 

•  Abraham discusses the righteous being “bikirbam” (within it [the city]), while God talks about “betoch ha’ir” (in the midst of the city). For God to save the city, its righteous inhabitants need to be embedded within it.

 

• Abraham’s initial focus is on the number of righteous people that could be swept away. What about five less than fifty people, he asks. God’s concern, however, is less about how many less righteous people would suffice to saved, but about how many righteous people are needed in total to save the city?

 

From this point on, Abraham accepts God’s emphasis rather than his own. Both he and God now talk only about the number of righteous people that need to be within the city for it to be saved.

 

When they reach the number ten, the conversation is terminated. The presumption must be that both parties are satisfied with the results of their negotiations. Nevertheless, the question remains — why is it that fewer than ten righteous people do not justify saving the city whereas more than ten do?

 

The answer is that the number ten can be considered a body or congregation of people that can have an impact on a city and bring about change.

 

None of the points raised here regarding the role of the righteous in saving Sodom are conclusive on their own, but in combination they present a persuasive argument that God has indeed shifted Abraham’s perspective and that Abraham has accepted this. Ten righteous people provide hope that the city can yet change its ways. Without ten righteous people ensconced within the city the situation is hopeless.

 

With this dialogue, God has demonstrated to Abraham that He does indeed run His world with the attribute of justice. Abraham’s faith remains intact. More than this. He has also shown to Abraham that His conduct of justice is intricately bound up with His attribute of righteousness in His willingness to save the city. God’s runs this world with both justice and tzedakah (righteousness). And because God is the model for all human behavior, it follows that Abraham and his descendants should also interact with the world around them with righteousness combined with justice.

 

But what if it turns out there are only a few innocent people living in the city? What of their fate? God does not provide an answer to this question. One has to accept that God has His own calculations. Given that He has the capability of saving an entire wicked city, one has to take it on faith that He also has the ability of taking care of the righteous within it. It may be that in certain situations God’s justice justifies sweeping them away together with the wicked. However, it is also within His powers to save them from destruction — as He will do with Lot.

 

In conclusion, many treatises have been written about the bases of the morality of society. In the Torah, this treatise takes the form of several interlocking stories told in a chapter of 61 sentences. Part of its effectiveness is the use of contrasts. This will become apparent as we discuss the actual destruction of Sodom and more about Abraham’s nephew Lot in the next essay, particularly as to whether he and his family have imbibed the values of Abraham and the ways of God.

 

References

1. The translation I have used obscures the debate that surrounds this sentence. Questions arise as to the meaning of the Hebrew word leda’at, which at its simplest means to know, and the combination of words lem’an asher, which translates as in order that that, and is a duplication. Onkelos and Nachamanides suggest that the verse is saying “For I know that he will command his children. . . ”  Rashi, however, notes that this ignores the meaning of the word לְמַעַן which means “in order that.” He therefore translates this sentence as “For I have loved him, because he commands His children….” Nachmanides suggests that the verb can mean to provide intimate individual providence. In Biblical language, the verb “to know” can have its usual meaning of to have knowledge of, but can also mean to have sexual relations with someone. It is suggested in this essay that the word to “know” also has the meaning of developing a relationship, which is somewhat like the explanation of Nachmanides. This suggestion fits in nicely with the name of God YHWH, in that YHWH is a God of relationships.

 

2. The Pentateuch.  Translation and Commentary by Samson Raphael Hirsch Commentary to Genesis 19:19, p320, Judaica Press Ltd, Gateshead 1989.

 

3. TB Yevamos 79a. On a halachic level, too, tzedakah is usually regarded as being charity — see Maimonides, Hichos Matanos Anuyim 10:1.

 

4. This passage is discussing a loan or other financial obligation past due and the creditor is therefore entitled to approach the court for collateral. However, neither the creditor nor the court are entitled to enter the debtor’s home and the collateral must be returned if it is needed by the debtor. See the Stone Edition of The Torah, Haftaros and Five Megillos with a Commentary Anthologized from the Rabbinic Writings, p1061, Artscroll Series.

 

5.  “Compassion: the Idea of Tzedaka” in The Dignity of Difference. How to Avoid the Clash of Civilizations by Jonathan Sacks, p105, Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2003.

 

6. Maimonides has this to say about the prohibition of mistreating a widow or orphan in his legal work the Mishneh Torah: “How should one deal with them?  One should only speak to them gently and treat them only with honor.  One should not cause pain to their persons with [overbearing] work or aggregate their feelings with harsh words and [one should] show more consideration for their financial interests than for one’s own.  Anyone who vexes or angers them, hurts their feelings, oppresses them, or causes them financial loss transgresses this prohibition … There is a covenant between them and He who spoke and created the world that whenever they cry out because they have been wronged, they will be answered, I will surely hear their cry” (Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De’ot, 6:10).

 

7. Rashi to Genesis 18:1 and TB Bava Metzia 86b.

 

8. Preparing the Feast in Abram to Abraham. A Literary Analysis of the Abraham Narrative by Jonathan Grossman, p259. Peter Lang, 2016. Grossman points out that Abigail prepared for David and his band of men five seah of grain.

 

9. Rashi to Genesis 18:1 based on TB Sotah 14a. Also Nachmanides to Genesis 18:1. The Talmud takes this as a source for visiting the sick.

 

10. Maimonides, Morah Nevuchim II, 42.

 

11. Nachmanides to Genesis 18:1.

 

12. Rashbam to Genesis 18:1.

 

13. Rashi to Genesis 18:22 based on Bereishis Rabba 49:7 points out that “the Holy One blessed is He came to [Abraham]” and writes that this is an “enhancement of the scribes.” The Sapirstein Edition of Rashi, the ArtScroll Series quotes the Gur Aryeh that this does not mean that later scribes emended the text, but that the Torah is written in the respectful and euphemistic language of scribes. The difficulty associated with another appearance of God disappears with the interpretation of Rashbam.

 

14. Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch to Genesis 18:1.

 

15. Nachmanides to Genesis 18:15. The Torah with Ramban’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated. Bereishis/Genesis Volume 1 by Rabbi Yaakov Blinder. Published by Mesorah Publications Ltd.

 

16. Other P sources proposed in the Abraham story are Genesis 23, the purchase of the Cave of Machpela, 25:7-11 the death and burial of Abraham, and the genealogy of Ishmael in 25:12-18. Only in the sentences for the Covenant of Circumcision and the death and burial of Abraham are a name of God mentioned, namely Elohim.

 

17. Rashi to Genesis 21:6 and also Targum Onkelos to this verse. According to Bereishis Rabba 53:8, also brought down by Rashi, many other prayers of infertility were answered along with hers and there was much joy in the world.

 

18. Rashi to Genesis 18:12 explains that it was not that Sarah was laughing internally, but she was looking at her withered internal condition and breasts. It is noteworthy that Sarah also remarked that her husband was old, whereas when God mentioned her inner thoughts, for the sake of peace He did not tell Abraham about Sarah’s remarks about him but only about herself being old (Rashi to Genesis 18:13). 

 

19. Rashi to 17:17. 

 

20. This would seem to be opinion of R’ Hirsch, for example, who suggests that the kal form of the verb to laugh expresses ironic involuntary laughter with an element of denying, whereas the piel form of the verb derisive mocking (Hirsch to Genesis 17:17). This would mean that both Abraham and Sarah displayed the same reaction — Abraham in an Elohim-passage and Sarah in a YHWH-passage.

 

21. This explanation is contrary to many Jewish commentators who feel that Sarah was reprimanded.  Nachmanides, for example, suggests that she should at least have said: “Amen, so be it.” (Nachmanides to Genesis 18:15). 

 

22. Rashi to Genesis 18:17.

 

23. Sforno to Genesis 18:7.

 

24. God’s focus on the entire city as much as its righteous inhabitants is developed in an insightful essay by R’ Yaakov Beasley and he raises some of the points discussed here. (Abraham’s Prayer for Sodom by Rabbi Yaakov Beasley in The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash, Tanakh, Parsha, Introduction to Parashat HaShavua, Bereishit, Vayera at http://etzion.org.il/en/avrahams-prayer-sodom).

 

25. See for example “I will not continue to curse again the ground because (ba’avur) of man, since the imagery of man’s heart is evil … “ (Genesis 8:21) The cessation of cursing the ground is not for the sake of man, but secondary to man’s character. Also, “They provoked at the Waters of Strife and Moses suffered because of them (ba’avuram) … “ (Psalms 106:32). In this instance, also, Moses did not suffer for their sake but because of their actions. Nevertheless, there are many instances in the Bible where it does mean for their sake.