Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

PARASHAT VAYERA

By Rav David Silverberg

            The opening verse of Parashat Vayera tells that God appeared to Avraham as the latter “was sitting at the entrance to his tent at around the heat of the day.”  For some reason, the Torah found it necessary to inform us of the time of day at which this prophetic revelation occurred – “at around the heat of the day.”  What does this particular detail contribute to the narrative?

            We find a number of different approaches to this question among the commentators.

            The Gemara (Bava Metzia 86b), cited by Rashi, explains that God “removed the sun from its sheath,” meaning, He brought exceptionally hot conditions upon Avraham’s area, in order that people wouldn’t travel.  According to the Gemara, this incident occurred several days after Avraham’s circumcision, at a particularly painful stage in the recovery process, and the Almighty therefore sought to spare Avraham the need to tend to guests.  To that end, He made the weather conditions especially harsh so that no travelers in need of hospitality would pass by Avraham’s residence.  Avraham, however, was saddened by the absence of wayfarers, and God therefore dispatched the three angels in the form of nomads for Avraham to invite and serve.  The verse thus emphasizes that this incident took place during “the heat of the day,” to indicate that the weather was particularly hot as a result of God’s intervention.

            The Rashbam suggests a much different explanation, namely, that this information explains the difference between Avraham and Lot’s invitations to the three guests.  After Avraham welcomes the three strangers and serves them a lavish meal, they proceed to Sedom, where Lot, Avraham’s nephew, offers them lodging (19:2).  One might have wondered why Avraham was so generous in offering his guests food, but did not invite them to sleep in his home.  The Torah therefore informs us that the angels arrived at Avraham’s tent during the middle of the day, when people normally do not require lodging, and for this reason Avraham served them a meal, and not invite them to stay over to sleep.  Lot, by contrast, encountered the strangers during the evening hours (see 19:1), and thus naturally offered them a place to spend the night.

            The Radak advances a particularly novel theory to explain the need for the Torah to tell us precisely when this incident took place.  He follows the famous and controversial theory of the Rambam, in Moreh Nevukhim (2:43; in some editions, 2:42), that the entire story of the three angelic visitors occurred only in a prophetic vision, and not in reality.  The Ramban, in his commentary to this verse, cites the Rambam’s comments and discusses them at length, strongly rejecting this theory and insisting that “these words contradict the text; it is forbidden to listen to them, all the more so to believe them.”  The Radak, however, adopts this theory, and claims that Avraham beheld this vision after he fell asleep as a result of extreme heat.  For this reason, he explains, the Torah writes that this all occurred during “the heat of the day,” because it was the heat that caused Avraham to drift off and experience this prophetic revelation.

            Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch, in his commentary, suggests a very simple explanation, claiming that the Torah emphasizes the extent to which Avraham exerted himself to look out for travelers in need of hospitality.  The scorching heat normally drives people indoors, into the shady comfort of their homes/tents, and yet Avraham, still reeling from his circumcision, sat outside in the heat to ensure that any passersby in need of food, drink and rest would avail themselves of his hospitality.

            We conclude with a beautiful homiletic interpretation to this verse suggested by Rav Menachem Bentzion Zaks, in his Menachem Tziyon.  The verse’s final clause reads, “Ve-hu yosheiv petach ha-ohel ke-chom ha-yom.”  The standard translation of this clause, as we translated it in our initial citation, reads, “as he was sitting at the entrance to his tent at around the heat of the day.”  However, the final two words of this phrase – “ke-chom ha-yom,” “at around the heat of the day” – could be also be read as, “just like the heat of the day” (with the prefix ke- serving as a kaf ha-dimayon).  Rav Zaks suggests that the verse perhaps alludes to a similarity between Avraham’s fervent search for guests outside his tent, and the midday heat of the sun.  The sun warms the entire earth and all its inhabitants, irrespective of their merits or virtues.  Avraham’s benevolence worked the same way.  As Rashi (18:4) cites from the Midrash, Avraham mistook the three angels for pagan nomads who “worship the dust of their feet.”  And yet, Avraham tended to them with love, enthusiasm and generosity.  Like the sun, he sought to provide warmth and comfort to all men on earth, even those whose theological orientation stood in direct contrast and opposition to everything he believed, represented and worked to promote.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed the opening verse of Parashat Vayera, which introduces the famous story of Avraham’s three mysterious visitors by informing us that Avraham sat by his tent’s entrance “ke-chom ha-yom” – around the time of the heat of the day.  Amidst our discussion of this phrase we cited Rav Shimshon Refael Hirsch’s explanation that this detail emphasizes the extraordinary efforts Avraham made to find wayfarers in need of hospitality.  At the time of day when most people stay indoors to protect themselves from the scorching sun, Avraham specifically remained outside, fully exposed to the harsh elements, in search of a weary and famished traveler.

            Rav Hirsch explains Avraham’s insistence on finding a wayfarer to invite inside his home in light of Avraham’s circumcision, which occurred just prior to this episode.  (According to the Gemara, Bava Metzia 86b, the story of the three visitors took place three days after Avraham’s circumcision.)  Circumcision is meant to set Avraham and his descendants fundamentally apart from the rest of mankind, the physical sign binding all members of the future nation together in a singular pact, distinct and separate from other peoples.  After undergoing circumcision, Avraham’s primary concern, which, as Rav Hirsch writes, “drove him out into the burning sun,” was that people would withdraw from him, that he has now forfeited the public role he served and broad sphere of influence he had developed.  The zeal and enthusiasm Avraham displays in waiting on his guests should, Rav Hirsch claims, be attributed to Avraham’s “joy at the removal of his worry that he might now be isolated.”  Avraham eagerly jumps at this opportunity to demonstrate that his new covenant with God need not – and, in fact, must not – drive him into seclusion and sever the important ties he has established with his contemporaries, including his theological adversaries.

            Furthermore, Rav Hirsch suggested that this concern that weighed on Avraham’s mind helps explain why the Torah found it necessary to specify Avraham’s residence in the parasha’s opening verse: “The Lord appeared to him in the groves of Mamrei…”  Mamrei, as we know from Parashat Lekh-Lekha (14:13), was a formal ally of Avraham.  The fact that Avraham continued living in “the groves of Mamrei” suggests that he maintained this relationship despite his circumcision, the physical symbol of distinction and separateness.  (Of course, Rashi famously cites from the Midrash a much different perspective on Avraham’s residence in “the groves of Mamrei,” that only Mamrei, as opposed to Avraham’s other two allies, recommended that he go through with the circumcision.)  Avraham understood that the purpose of his designation is not to live in isolation and withdraw from the rest of mankind, but rather, to the contrary, to work towards creating a more perfect world by fostering kindness and benevolence, and involving himself in the needs of the world at large.

******

            The opening section of Parashat Vayera tells of the three angels who visit Avraham and inform him that his wife Sara will soon bear him a son (18:10).  The Gemara in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah (11a) discusses this incident and asserts that it took place during the festival of Sukkot.  The Gemara proves this from God's remark to Avraham during the angels' visit confirming their prediction that Sara will bear a child: "La-mo'ed ashuv eilekha…u-le-Sara vein" – "At the mo'ed I will return to you, and Sara will have a child" (18:14).  The word mo'ed, the Gemara claims, means "festival," and the Almighty is thus telling Avraham that Sara will deliver a child on the next festival.  Now at this point Sara has yet to conceive, as evidenced by her skepticism towards the angels' prediction (18:12).  Thus, this visit must have occurred at a point far enough before the next festival to allow for a complete pregnancy.  The Gemara notes that this is possible only if the angels visited Avraham and Sara during Sukkot, in which case the "next festival" was Pesach, which, in a leap year, occurs seven months after Sukkot, a period long enough for gestation and a healthy birth.  Thus, the Gemara concludes, the angels visited Avraham during Sukkot, and Sara conceived at that point and gave birth to Yitzchak seven months later, on Pesach.

            Tosefot attempts to reconcile this conclusion with two other sources: the Gemara in Bava Metzia (86b), which establishes that the angels' visit took place three days after Avraham's circumcision, and the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (chapter 29), which claims that Avraham underwent circumcision on Yom Kippur (the tenth of Tishrei).  Combining these two sources results in the conclusion that the angels visited Avraham on the thirteenth of Tishrei, two days before the festival of Sukkot.  Nevertheless, Tosefot argue, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah is still justified in explaining "the next festival" as referring to Pesach, since just two days remained until Sukkot.

            As Tosefot go on to discuss, different sources in Chazal disagree with the Gemara in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah, and maintain that the angels' visit occurred on Pesach, a full year before Yitzchak's birth.  According to this position, "la-mo'ed ashuv eilekha" means not that the birth will occur "on the next festival," but rather that it will take place "at this time," meaning, at the same time of year, one year later.  (The word mo'ed in this verse would thus mean "season," or simply "time," rather than "festival.")  The Seder Olam (chapter 5) and Mekhilta (to Shemot 12:49) state this explicitly, and this is the opinion adopted by Rashi, in his commentary to 18:10.  Furthermore, later in the parasha (19:3), we read that Avraham's visitors left his home and arrived that night in Sedom, where Lot invited them and fed them matzot, to which Rashi very briefly remarks, "It was Pesach," consistent with his view that this entire narrative occurred on Pesach.  Similarly, Bereishit Rabba (48:12) writes that when Avraham instructed Sara to bake ugot (generally translated as "loaves") for the three guests (18:6), he refers to matzot, since it was Pesach when the angels arrived.  Tosefot cite yet another source expressing this view, namely, a liturgical poem composed by Rabbi Meir Sheli'ach Tzibur to be recited on Pesach eve, which tells that on this night – the night of Pesach – Lot baked matzot for his guests.  We should add that the poem Ometz Gevurotekha included in the Nirtza section of the Haggadah, which tells of several Biblical events that occurred on the night of Pesach, includes several passages describing the angels' visit to Avraham and Lot and the destruction of Sedom.  The author of this poem clearly followed the view of the Seder Olam and Mekhilta, that these events took place on Pesach, in contradistinction to the Gemara in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah, which claims that they occurred on Sukkot.

******

            Yesterday, we discussed the two opinions among Chazal regarding the visit of the three angels to Avraham's home, the event described in the opening section of Parashat Vayera.  The Gemara in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah (11a) maintains that this event occurred on Sukkot, or, according to Tosefot's reading of the Gemara, two days prior to Sukkot.  According to this view, Sara conceived during Sukkot and gave birth to Yitzchak seven months later, on Pesach.  Other sources, however, including Seder Olam, the Mekhilta and Bereishit Rabba, state explicitly that the angels' visit took place on Pesach, a full year prior to Yitzchak's birth.  As we saw, this debate revolves around the definition of the word mo'ed in God's prophecy to Avraham during the angels' visit (18:14).

            Tosefot discuss this debate and raise a question regarding the position taken by the Gemara, that the visit took place during Sukkot.  Towards the end of Parashat Lekh-Lekha, when God instructs Avraham with regard to berit mila, He promises him, "I will fulfill My covenant with Yitzchak, whom Sara will bear for you at this time in the following year" (17:21).  It is clear from this verse that Yitzchak's birth occurred the year after this prophecy, in which God commanded Avraham to perform circumcision and promised him a son.  Now as we mentioned yesterday, the Gemara in Masekhet Bava Metzia (86b) asserts that the angels' visit took place three days after Avraham's circumcision.  If so, Tosefot note, then we must seemingly conclude that Avraham performed circumcision around six months after having been commanded to do so.  Since the command came on Pesach, and the angels visited Avraham on Sukkot, three days after his berit mila, it turns out that six months passed in between the command regarding berit mila and Avraham's observance of this mitzva.  Understandably, Tosefot find it very difficult to believe that Avraham would delay the performance of this mitzva for so long.  At first glance, however, the Gemara's position, that the angels visited Avraham on Sukkot, necessarily yields such a conclusion.

            Tosefot cite Rabbenu Tam as suggesting that the Gemara in Masekhet Rosh Hashana follows the position of Rabbi Yehoshua, who held that the world was created in Nissan, as opposed to Rabbi Eliezer's view, that creation occurred in Tishrei.  Rabbi Yehoshua's position, Rabbenu Tam explained, allows for the possibility that God's promise to Avraham, that Sara would bear a child "in the following year," took place on Sukkot, seven months before Yitzchak's birth.  Since the new year, according to Rabbi Yehoshua, occurs on the first of Nissan, Yitzchak's birth on Pesach would indeed be considered as having taken place during the year after this was conveyed, on Sukkot.

            The question arises as to why Tosefot found this to be a problem in the first plance.  As we discussed, the question of when the angels visited Avraham is very clearly subject to a debate among the Tanna'im.  Accordingly, the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah is not necessarily bound to accept the claim of the Gemara in Bava Metzia that the angels visited Avraham three days after his circumcision.  This claim perhaps applies only to the position of the Seder Olam and Mekhilta, that the angels' visit took place during Pesach.  This hypothesis would very easily resolve Tosefot's difficulty.  If the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah does not believe that the visit took place three days after Avraham's berit mila, then it could hold that the angels visited Avraham six months after the berit.  It would then turn out that God appeared to Avraham to command him with regard to circumcision and to predict the birth of his son the "following year" on Pesach, and the angels visited him six months later, on Sukkot.  Once we are no longer compelled to link the angels' visit to Avraham's circumcision, we can explain that God's prophecy to Avraham and his circumcision occurred on Pesach, and the angels visited him on Sukkot.

            Tosefot, of course, did not suggest this seemingly simple explanation.  For some reason, they assumed that the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah accepted the premise that the angels' visit took place three days after Avraham's circumcision, and they felt that this premise cannot be subject to debate.  It remains unclear why Tosefot made such an assumption, that all views agree that the angels visited Avraham three days after his berit.

******

            Over the last two days we have discussed the issue addressed in several sources as to the chronology of the events narrated in the opening section of Parashat Vayera, namely, the visit to Avraham's home by three angels.  The Gemara in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah (11a) claims that when God speaks to Avraham at this setting and promises that Sara will bear him a child "la-mo'ed" (18:14), he refers to the "next festival."  The Gemara thus concludes that this visit took place on Sukkot, and Sara delivered Yitzchak during the next festival – Pesach, seven months later.  (The Gemara asserts that that year was a leap year, and thus Pesach occurred seven months after Sukkot.)  Other sources, however, including Seder Olam and the Mekhilta, write that this visit occurred on Pesach, a full year before Yitzchak's birth.

            Chizkuni, in his commentary to 18:12, cleverly attempts to reconcile these two views, claiming that in fact there is no debate between these different sources.  He accomplishes this by drawing a chronological wedge between two sections of this narrative.  The angels' visit itself, Chizkuni argues, occurred on Pesach, one year before Yitzchak's birth, as the Seder Olam and the Mekhilta indicate, and as Rashi comments (18:10, 19:3).  However, the last several verses of this section, which tell of Sara's laughter in disbelief over the prospect of her conception, in response to which God guarantees that she will give birth "la-mo'ed," occurred six months later, on Sukkot.

            In order to explain Chizkuni's position, let us cite the relevant verses:

He [one of the angels] said: I will assuredly return at this time, and your wife Sara will have a child.  And Sara was listening at the entrance of the tent… Now Avraham and Sara were elderly… Sara had stopped having the periods of women.  Sara laughed to herself, saying, "After having withered, shall I be youthful…"  The Lord said to Avraham: "Why has Sara laughed… La-mo'ed I shall return to you…and Sara will have a child." (18:10-14)

According to Chizkuni, Sara did not laugh immediately upon hearing the angel predict her conception.  Her laughter happened six months later, when only another half-year remained until Pesach, the time when she was, according to the angel, to deliver a child.  Seeing that she was still "withered," she expresses her disbelief in the angel's prediction six months earlier.  In response, God assures her that she will deliver a son la-mo'ed – which, as the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah explains, refers to the following festival, Pesach.

            One might question this interpretation in light of the Torah's parenthetical remark that as the angel spoke to Avraham, "Sara was listening at the entrance of the tent…"  Seemingly, this piece of information provides the background for the following verse, which tells of Sara's laughter, suggesting that Sara laughed immediately upon hearing this prediction.  Apparently, Chizkuni read this verse to mean that Sara heard the prediction and therefore anticipated the restoration of her reproductive faculties and her conception in the ensuing months.  Therefore, Sara laughed six months later, when this had yet to occur.

            It should also be noted that Chizkuni's approach to these verses entails an unconventional reading of the aforementioned Gemara in Masekhet Rosh Hashanah.  In assessing the possibility of Sara having conceived around the time of Sukkot and delivered on Pesach, the Gemara mentions that we must take into account yemei tum'a – the seven-day period of ritual impurity brought on by menstruation.  The Gemara assumes the Sara experienced a menstrual flow soon after God's promise of a child la-mo'ed, and she therefore could not have conceived until after the seven-day period of ritual impurity, during which marital relations were forbidden.  Why did the Gemara assume that Sara became impure at that point?  The straightforward explanation, as Rashi comments, stems from the Gemara's remark in Masekhet Bava Metzia (87a) that Sara's youthful bodily cycle returned on the day the angels visited her home.  The Gemara makes this statement to explain why Avraham did not serve the angels the bread Sara had prepared, which had contracted her ritual impurity.  If, indeed, this Gemara in Rosh Hashanah refers to that comment in Masekhet Bava Metzia, then it necessarily held that the angels visited Avraham during Sukkot, and for this reason it must take into account Sara's period of impurity when determining whether she could have conceived on Sukkot and delivered on Pesach.  According to Chizkuni, however, the angels visited on Pesach, and thus Sara's menstruation at that point would be entirely irrelevant to the Gemara's discussion of whether she could have conceived on Sukkot and delivered on Pesach.

            Presumably, Chizkuni understood the Gemara differently, such that it assumed that Sara became tamei on Sukkot, around the time when she despaired from the fulfillment of the angel's prediction and God reassured Avraham that she would have a child on Pesach.  Indeed, the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba, 48) indicates that only Rabbi Meir held that Avraham did not serve Sara's bread to the guests because of its state of impurity; according to the majority position, the bread was indeed served.  The majority perhaps dismissed the notion that Sara experienced her menstrual flow during the angels' visit, and the bread was thus suitable for their consumption.  Conceivably, Chizkuni adopted this majority view, and thus explained the Gemara in Rosh Hashanah as referring to a period of tum'a that occurred during Sukkot, six months after the angels' visit, and not during the visit itself.  (The Maharsha in Rosh Hashanah develops this approach in reading the Gemara.)

******

            We have devoted our last several discussions to the issue surrounding the chronology of the opening section of Parashat Vayera, which tells of the three angels who visit Avraham and predict the birth of his son, Yitzchak.  As we saw, several Midrashic sources indicate that this visit occurred on Pesach, a full year prior to Yitzchak's birth.  Rashi, as we mentioned, very clearly adopts this position (in his commentary to 18:10).

            There is considerable discussion, however, as to precisely when during Pesach the angels visited Avraham, according to Rashi's view.  On the one hand, Rashi writes (18:1) that the angels' visit occurred on the third day after Avraham's circumcision, and when God instructed Avraham with regard to this obligation, He declared that Sara would deliver Yitzchak "at this time, next year" (17:21).  This would imply that God instructed Avraham to perform berit mila precisely one year before Yitzchak's birth, which is traditionally believed to have occurred on the first day of Pesach.  Given that Avraham underwent circumcision "on that very day" ("be-etzem ha-yom ha-zeh" – 17:26), it emerges that the angels visited Avraham on the third or fourth day of Pesach (depending on whether the day of circumcision is included in the "three days" mentioned by Rashi).  On the other hand, Rashi later (21:2) writes that when God reiterated his promise to Avraham at the time of the angels' visit (18:14), He made a mark on the wall and proclaimed that the child would be born when the sun's rays return to that precise spot.  This would suggest that Yitzchak was born precisely one year after the angels' visit, in which case the angels had to have visited Avraham on the first day of Pesach.  If this is the case, then Avraham's mila took place either two or three days before Pesach.

            Various different theories exist in determining Rashi's position.  Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi (18:1 and 18:10) and the Maharal of Prague (Gur Aryeh, 18:10) claim that according to Rashi the angels visited Avraham on the third day of Pesach, whereas the Siftei Chakhamim (18:1) contends that the visit took place on the twelfth of Nissan, three days before Pesach.  The Revid Ha-zahav, cited by Rav Mordechai Frankel of Baltimore, in his work Mayim Rabim, argues that this event occurred on the thirteenth of Nissan, two days before Pesach.

            Fascinatingly enough, Rav Frankel cites the Chatam Sofer as applying this discussion in a halakhic context.  The Shulchan Arukh (O.C. 429:2) rules that the somber tachanun prayer is omitted throughout the entire month of Nissan.  The Magen Avraham explains that the first twelve days of Nissan mark the days on which the tribal leaders offered the inaugural sacrifices in the Mishkan (Bamidbar, chapter 7), warranting the omission of tachanun, and these days are followed by Erev Pesach and Pesach.  Pesach concludes on the 21^st of Nissan (or, in the Diaspora, on the 22^nd), and once the majority of the month is observed as a festive period in which tachanun is omitted, we continue to omit it for the remaining week of Nissan, as well.  Some writers have noted that the Magen Avraham mysteriously ignores the 13^th of Nissan, the day in between the 12-day celebration of the tribal leaders' offerings, and Erev Pesach.  Why does this day warrant the omission of tachanun?  The Chatam Sofer explained based on the position that the angels visited Avraham on the first day of Pesach, and his circumcision occurred two days earlier, on the 13^th of Nissan.  Perhaps, the Chatam Sofer speculated, we omit tachanun on the 13^th of Nissan because this day commemorates the first circumcision ever performed – that by Avraham.  This event is perhaps sufficient grounds for some degree of festivity, warranting the omission of tachanun.

*******

            Parashat Vayera tells of God's destruction of Sedom, and Lot's escape from the city through the intervention of two angels.  The Torah writes that at the time of Sedom's destruction, "God remembered Avraham; He sent Lot away from the midst of the upheaval" (19:29).  The Midrash (Bereishit Rabba, 51:6), cited in Rashi's commentary, notes the peculiarity of God's "remembrance" of Avraham accounting for Lot's rescue.  Seemingly, the Torah should have said that God "remembered" Lot himself, and therefore decided to spare him the fate of his fellow townspeople.  The Midrash therefore explained that God "remembered" – or took into account – what Lot had done for Avraham years earlier.  When Avraham, Sara and Lot relocated in Egypt, and Avraham posed as Sara's brother, rather than husband, to protect himself from those who might seek to kill him and marry Sara, Lot kept the secret.  He remained loyal to his uncle and aunt and did not reveal the truth about their relationship.  In this merit, the Midrash writes, God spared Lot.

            Later writers have addressed several difficulties that arise from this Midrashic passage.  Firstly, Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi wonders why the Midrash found this verse difficult in the first place.  After all, Avraham clearly loved and felt very devoted to his nephew, going so far as to risking his life to rescue him from the four eastern empires (Bereishit, chapter 14).  Why did the Midrash not accept the straightforward reading of this verse, as meaning that Lot was spared on Avraham's account, in his merit, due to God's concern for Avraham?  Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi answers that had this been the case, the Torah would have described the Almighty as "remembering" not Avraham," but rather Lot.  Even if Lot was, indeed, saved on his uncle's account, the "remembrance" was directed towards Lot himself, and not the man on whose coattails he escaped death.

            The Maharal of Prague, in his Gur Aryeh, cites and resoundingly rejects Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi's entire discussion.  According to the Maharal, God will take into account the merits of parents and ancestors when judging individuals, but not the merits of other relatives.  Avraham's love and concern for his nephew thus would be of no avail in saving Lot from the catastrophe that befell his city.  This is especially true, the Maharal argues, in the case of Lot, who parted ways with his uncle, both geographically and ideologically (see Rashi to Bereishit 13:11).

            It appears, at least at first glance, that the Maharal misunderstood Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi's argument.  Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi contended that Lot should be saved not through his access to Avraham's accrued merits, but rather due to the pain and distress his death would cause his concerned and loving uncle.  "God remembered Avraham" would thus mean that He ensured to rescue Lot in order to spare Avraham the personal tragedy of his nephew's death.  Indeed, Rav Yisrael Salanter is famously quoted as commenting that when the Almighty judges an individual and considers punishing him for his wrongdoing, He takes into account the suffering this punishment would cause his family and those close to him.  (In this vein Rav Yisrael understood the verse in Parashat Ha'azinu – Devarim 32:4 – "Ha-tzur tamim pa'olo.")

            A second question discussed by Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi is why Lot was spared specifically in the merit of his conduct in Egypt, and not for a seemingly far more significant virtue – that he left his homeland to join Avraham in relocating in Canaan.  Shouldn't this have earned him greater merit than simply refraining from divulging Avraham and Sara's relationship?  Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi offers no solution to this question.

            The Maharal, once again, takes issue with Rav Eliyahu Mizrachi's reasoning, correctly noting that Lot did not necessarily leave his homeland with altruistic motives.  In fact, we read towards the end of Parashat Noach (11:31) that after Lot was orphaned, his grandfather, Terach, took him, together with Avraham and Sara, out of their homeland of Ur Kasdim to resettle in Canaan.  And although Terach never made it to Canaan, as he died in Charan, it seems clear that Lot did not join Avraham in fulfillment of the divine command, but rather because his grandfather had decided to bring him there.

Others have questioned why the Midrash did not point to yet another attribute of Lot – his gracious hospitality, as evidenced in this parasha, which tells of how he invited the angels into his home and even risked his life to protect them.  Why did this quality not suffice to save Lot from Sedom's destruction, requiring instead the merit of his silence during the family's sojourn in Egypt?

            Rav Dov Weinberger, in his Shemen Ha-tov, cites an answer from the work Mishnat Aharon.  Lot welcomed guests not out of an internal sense of care and concern for others, but rather by force of habit that had developed during his years living with his uncle.  His hospitality was not genuine, but rather the product of conditioning.  His silence with regard to Avraham's identity in Egypt, by contrast, stemmed from a sincere sense of devotion and loyalty to Avraham, and for this he deserved to be rescued from Sedom.

            This explanation of the Mishnat Aharon lends itself to some discussion concerning the value of conditioned religious behavior.  One might argue that even if Lot's hospitable nature developed by force of habit, rather than from a deep-seated awareness of the virtue of gemilut chasadim, his kindness to wayfarers in need of lodging should still be commended and earn him reward.  Does an act of kindness – or, for that matter, any religious act – lose all value if it is done simply because "this is what we did in my parents' home"?  Or, does the commitment to one's parents' – or, in this case, one's uncle's – values and traditions itself a laudable quality that should earn one merit, even if it is not accompanied by a sense of religious conviction?  And should we distinguish between acts performed strictly by force of habit, as the Mishnat Aharon appears to describe Lot's hospitality to the angels, and those performed out of a sense of fealty to one's predecessors?