UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach ! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom ; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d. ” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d .

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.

MAKING THE MOST OF OUR STRENGTHS - KI SEITZEI -

“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, even their tenth generation shall not enter the congregation of Hashem, to eternity. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt, and because he hired against you Bilaam Ben Beor, of Pethor, Aram Naharaim, to curse you. ”

The Torah tells us that Ammon and Moav are the only nations who are prohibited to ever marry into the Jewish people and gives two reasons to explain this severe treatment; the first is that they did not show hospitality to the Jewish people in the desert and the second is that they hired Bilaam to curse them. The commentaries ask how the Torah seems to equate the lack of hospitality with the hiring of Bilaam to curse the Jewish people; surely attempting to curse is a far more serious misdemeanor than a lacking in chesed!

The Be’eros Yitzchak explains that the Torah sees Ammon and Moav’s failure to offer bread and water as a heinous sin because they inherited a natural tendency to hospitality from their ancestor, Lot. Lot, despite his failings, is portrayed as a highly hospitable person in the account of his efforts at hachnasas orchim in Sodom. He was willing to risk his life in order to serve the needs of travelers. As his descendants, Ammon and Moav inherited this self same mida and yet they deliberately acted against their teva and refused to offer bread and water to the Jewish people who were traveling through the desert and surely in need of the basic necessities. Even though hiring Bilaam to curse the Jews was objectively a far more damaging act, nonetheless, on their level of bechira, the refusal to help the Jews is judged on the same level and is deserving of such a strong punishment.

There are a number of lessons we can learn from Ammon and Moav’s failure to utilize their natural strengths. Firstly, we see that a person is judged according to his own nekduas habechira (free will point) and therefore is judged more stringently in his areas of strengths. Accordingly, an essential part of one’s self-growth should be improving one’s strong points. In this vein, the example of Ammon and Moav is particularly instructive; why indeed did they fail in an area where they naturally excelled? The answer is that their good mida of hachnasas orchim did not derive from significant effort at self-growth, rather it was an inborn trait that they inherited from their ancestor. Because their hachnasas orchim was not directed by the Torah’s guidelines, it was almost inevitable that it would be misused or not used at all in certain circumstances. When Ammon and Moav saw the Jewish people coming, their natural inclination was surely to offer them bread and water, however their hatred and fear of Klal Yisroel overcame their mida of chesed and caused them to refrain from offering such vitally needed assistance.

We see from here that if a person does not work on his natural strengths and align them with the requirements of the Torah then he will come to misuse them or not utilize them in the most effective way. For example, a person may be naturally friendly, but there may be occasions where he is tired and is unwilling to make the effort to befriend a stranger. In this case his natural mida is not strong enough to direct him in the right way because it is faced with something else, in this case tiredness, that makes it hard to be friendly. If, however he would strive to be friendly because it is a great mitzvo to make people feel important then he is far more likely to overcome his tiredness and make the effort to approach the other person.

Another very important lesson derived from Ammon and Moav is how much they could have achieved had they maximized their mida of chesed to its fullest potential; had they in fact come out and offered bread and water to the Jewish people it is very likely that the Torah would record this great act of kindness for eternity and of course they would be allowed to marry into the Jewish people . Instead, because they did not make the correct use of their strengths, they are treated with the greatest disdain. We see from here that a person can achieve great things by maximizing his strengths to their fullest and failure to do so is treated severely.

The Chofetz Chaim zt”l stressed this point in his Sefer, Chomas Hadas, which was an exhortation to people to help save Klal Yisroel from the many secular influences that surrounded it. He wrote at length of the need for each person to use his strengths to the fullest - for example, a person blessed with the ability to speak in public should give drashos in public. This also applies to midos; it is very likely that a person’s tafkid (purpose in life) would involve utilizing his good midos to their fullest.

We learn from Ammon and Moav how NOT to use one’s strengths - may we all use this lesson for the good and make the most use of those gifts that Hashem has granted us.

THE POWER OF HABIT - KI SEITZEI

“An Ammonite and Moabite shall not enter the congregation of Hashem …. Because of the fact that they did not greet you with bread and water on the road when you were leaving Egypt. ” The men of Ammon and Moav displayed a great failing in the mida of chesed when they refused to give the Jewish people bread and water. This is one of the reasons that they can never marry into the Jewish people. The Maylitz Yosher notes that their failure to be gracious hosts is all the more difficult to understand when we bear in mind their patriarch - Lot. Lot excelled in hachnasas orchim (hosting people) to the extent that he risked his life to look after the angels who came to Sodom. In light of this, how is it possible that in a few generations this mida completely disappeared and his descendants displayed such indifference? He answers that if a person does chesed because of an internal recognition of its importance and a genuine desire to help others, then it will become ingrained in his descendants for many generations. However, if the chesed comes from habit then it will not be internalized by future generations. Lot did indeed excel in chesed, however this was only because he was brought up in the home of Avraham Avinu. He did not attain an internal recognition of the importance of chesed, it was merely a course of habit for him. Consequently actions such as those of Lot that are not internalized into a person’s soul do not last .

There are two important lessons that can derived from the explanation of the Maylitz Yosher: Firstly, it reveals one of the reasons for the all too common occurrences of youngsters brought up in observant homes leaving the path of Torah. If their parents keep the mitzvos, but their observance comes not out of internalization of what it means to be an Eved Hashem, but out of habit, then the children will surely pick up their parents attitude to mitzvos. At best, they will keep the mitzvos out of rote (which of course is highly undesirable) but at worst, the mitzvos will provide no meaning to their lives and consequently they will turn to other sources to find happiness and meaning.

Secondly, the Maylitz Yosher emphasises that even though Lot performed chesed out of habit he nevertheless did so to the degree that he was willing to give up his life for it! Thus a person may feel that since he is willing to spend much effort, money and time into the performance of mitzvos then this is a proof that he is not doing them out of habit. However, we see from Lot that the force of habit is so powerful that it can even drive a person to risk his life for it!

The Alter of Slobodka brings out another point with regards to Lot’s chesed. In the parsha about the rescue of Lot from Sodom, the Torah says that Hashem remembered Avraham and therefore freed Lot . The Medrash explains that Lot was saved because of a particular chesed that he performed for Avraham. When Avraham and Sarah were in Mitzrayim and Avraham said that Sarah was his sister, Lot could have easily revealed the truth to the Mitzrim and probably earn a great deal of money in return. The Alter asks, Lot was saved from destruction in Sodom for not committing the terrible act of informing on his own uncle to the Mitzrim; but surely his great mesiras nefesh to do hachnasas orchim in Sodom should be the source of his merit. He answers that because Lot’s hachnasas orchim was a result of his upbringing and not something he had internalized himself, it did not reflect in any high level and therefore deserves no reward. In contrast, he had a great natural love for money and this was so great that he felt a great temptation to at least hint to the Mitzrim that Sarah was Avraham’s wife and not his sister. In this area, he did not have the benefit of habit to help him, he had to turn to his own self-control and on this occasion he succeeded through his own efforts to do the right thing. In this instance, his ability to refrain from being an informer is considered greater than his tremendous chesed in Sodom .

We learn from here an example of Rav Dessler zt”l’s principle known as ’Nekudas habechira’ (the free will point). Rav Dessler argues that each person is not judged purely according to his mitzvos and maasim tovim, but to the degree to which he improves himself through his own efforts. Consequently he is judged according to his own standard, which takes into account his upbringing, surrounding influences and natural inclinations. This explains why we can never judge our friend until we stand in his place - we can never understand the nature of the tests that our friend faces because we can never know all the factors in his life.

It is true that there is reward for every mitzvo that is performed, however the main reward is for fighting the battle with the yetser hara and using one’s free will to become a better person. Thus, a person who is brought up in an atmosphere of shemiras hamitzvos and good midos does not receive his main reward for doing what he was naturally brought up to do . As we approach Elul, this is a frightening concept; we presume that all the mitzvos that we perform will be put on the scales against our aveiros, however the power of each mitzvo is judged according to the degree of free will that was exercised in its performance. Consequently, the mitzvos of a person who performs them simply because he was brought up that way, lose a great deal of their potency.

How can we begin to counter the power of habit? Rav Dessler writes that “the Gedolei hamussar and chassidus in the recent generations revealed to us the absolute necessity of limmudim of avodas halev that bring a person to an internalization [of mitzvos]. ” These include learning mussar, studying the meaning of tefilla, and a deepening of avodas Hashem. Of course it is difficult for a person to take on too much at the same time but Elul is an apt time to focus on one area of Avodas Hashem in which habit has taken over and to try to increase the inner meaning in our performance in this area. The rewards for such avoda are great - we can ensure that our external actions will become internalized in ourselves and consequently our descendants will be far more likely to follow in the path of Torah.

UNDERSTANDING THE TRUE MEANING OF CHESED - KEDOSHIM

In the latter part of the Parsha the Torah enumerates the various forbidden relationships and their punishments. Towards the end of this list the Torah states: “A man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother, and sees her nakedness, it is a chesed and they shall be cut off in the sight of the members of their people; he will have uncovered the nakedness of his sister, he shall bear his iniquity. ” There is a glaring problem with this passuk - the description of an incestuous relationship as being a ‘chesed’. Chesed is normally translated as kindness - what kindness is involved in arayos?!

In order to answer this question it is necessary to alter our understanding of what ‘chesed’ actually entails. It seems that chesed is more appropriately understood as a mida that is characterized by overflowing and lack of boundaries. One significant outgrowth of this is kindness in that chesed causes a person to want to unabashedly share with others, breaking his boundaries of selfishness. However, that is just one manifestation of chesed, and like all midos, chesed has negative, as well as positive, apects. One negative manifestation is that a person can lose his appreciation of a proper sense of boundaries. Arayos involves ignoring the Torah’s assertion that certain relationships break the appropriate boundaries. Consequently, the Torah describes arayos as chesed;

Two prominent characters in the Torah represent negative aspects of the mida of chesed; Yishmael and Lot. Chazal tell us that Yishmael was deeply involved in arayos and thievery . Both of these emanated from his distorted chesed which broke the acceptable boundaries. An attitude of ‘what is mine is yours and yours is mine’ causes a person to believe that he has the right to infringe on other people’s wives and material possessions. Lot grew up in Avraham Avinu’s home and therefore became habituated to doing chesed with others, as is demonstrated by his great hachanasos orchim in Sodom. However, Lot clearly developed a warped sense of chesed. For example, when the people of Sodom threatened to abuse his guests he preferred to offer them his own daughters! He wanted to do chesed with his guests at the expense of his own daughters .

Why did Yishmael and Lot so badly misapply the mida of chesed? The answer is that their chesed was not acquired through avodas hamidos based on the Torah‘s guidelines, rather it came as a result of genetics and upbringing. Even a generally positive mida such as chesed has undesirable offshoots if it is not applied in the correct way. For example, a person with a natural inclination to chesed may do kindness in the wrong way or quantity. He may be overflowing with chesed to friends, but forget about sufficiently caring for his own family. Another example is that a ‘chesed’ person may have a difficulty with making appropriate boundaries for himself in various aspects of life; he may find it hard to be punctual or reliable because he finds it difficult to set limits on his time. Further if a person does not have well-defined boundaries then he may have a nisayon of avoiding sheker because honesty requires the ability to adhere to the boundaries of truth.

The epitome of the correct balance of chesed is Avraham Avinu. He certainly had a natural propensity for chesed, however he did not merely allow his natural inclinations lead him blindly, rather he harnessed and even negated his chesed when necessary. On many occasions throughout the Torah, Avraham was placed in situations where he was forced to curtail his chesed . Avraham succeeded in these difficult nisyonos, thereby showing that his chesed was not directed by natural inclinations but by Yiras Hashem and Avodas HaMidos.

Another common failing of a person naturally endowed with doing chesed is that he expects people that he helps to be equally giving to him. Consequently he may not hesitate to request that others do significant favors for him because he would do the same for them. However, whilst demanding that we give in great abundance, the Torah requires that we strive not to rely on the kindness of others. This is demonstrated in Shlomo HaMelech’s assertion that “one who hates gifts will live. ” Our Gedolim were overflowing with chesed and yet they often refused to take anything from anyone else. A striking example of this is the Brisker Rav. When he was the Rav of Brisk, there were a number of children whose father’s identities were unknown and whose mother were unable to raise them. No one wanted to assume the tremendous responsibility of caring for these children. What did the poor mothers do? They would come in the middle of the night and place their children on the Brisker Rav’s doorstep. When morning came and the Rav found a crying child outside his door, he brought him inside. He took upon himself the task of finding someone to take care of the child. If he was unsuccessful, then he himself took care of all the child’s needs.

Whilst he was overflowing in helping others the Brisker Rav was extremely careful never to accept gifts of any kind, even under the most difficult of circumstances. When he first arrived in Palestine in 1941, along with the Mirrer Rosh Yeshivah, Rav Eliezer Yehuda Finkel, they were detained in the passport control offices. The delegation awaiting the two Gedolim was told that they did not have the money with which to pay the poll tax of one-half to a full-lira (approximately 80 shekels) and it was forbidden to allow entry to anyone who had not paid. One of the heads of the Jewish Agency offered to pay the tax for the Brisker Rav, but he staunchly refused, saying, “Never in my life did I take money from anyone.” After much deliberation, an old resident of Brisk had an idea - he entered the office and approached the Brisker Rav, “The members of the Brisker Community who have come to Eretz Yisroel want the Rav to continue serving as our Rav. We will pay the Rav a salary just as we did in Brisk. Therefore, I want to either give or lend the Rav the money to pay the tax, which will then be deducted from his salary.” “That’s an offer I can accept,” agreed the Brisker Rav and he accepted the money . The Brisker Rav may or may not have been naturally endowed with the mida of chesed. Regardless of his natural inclinations he excelled in the correct form of chesed and simultaneously avoided its negative aspects.

We have seen that chesed does not simply mean kindness, rather it represents the propensity for overflowing and lack of boundaries, and this can be utilized for the good or bad. Moreover, there is a striking difference between a person who has the mida of chesed through genetics or habit, as opposed to someone who develops his chesed within the lens of the Torah. May we all use the mida of chesed only for the good.

UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach ! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom ; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d. ” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d .

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways. ” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah . A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot. ” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him . However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus . However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo ! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.

DEPTH AND SUPERFICIALITY - NOACH

The Parsha ends with a very short account of the early life of Avraham Avinu. It outlines his family, including his brother, Haran, and how he met an untimely death. The Torah briefly tells us that Haran died in front of his father. The Medrash provides the details to the background of this tragedy. It discusses how Avraham rejected the rampant idol worship of his time and came to belief in one G-d. He destroyed the idols in his father, Terach’s store, and as a result, Terach handed him over to King Nimrod. Nimrod tried to force him to worship idols and when he refused, Nimrod had him thrown into a fire. Haran was an onlooker to all this and knew that he would be forced to side either with Avraham or Nimrod. Before Avraham was thrown into the fire, Haran took a very practical approach – if Avraham would survive, then Haran would join him, but if he would die, then he would side with Nimrod. When Avraham emerged unscathed from the fire, Haran accordingly declared his support for Avraham. As a result, he was thrown into the fire and was killed.
The Medrash points out that his death was somewhat unusual in that only his internal organs were destroyed, implying that his external body was left undamaged. What is the significance of this unusual death? The answer is given that on an external level, Haran was righteous, in that he made himself out to be of the same ilk as Avraham, however, internally, he was totally insincere in his beliefs. Accordingly, his insides were destroyed because they were lacking merit. However, his exterior was unharmed because it appeared righteous.
This explanation provides us with an example of the principle that it is possible to observe Torah and Mitzvos on two different levels – internally or externally. Internal observance means that a person imbues himself with the attitudes espoused by the Torah – his outlook and life goals are solely defined by the Torah. External observance means that a person may observe all the Mitzvos, however, his deep-seated desires and aspirations are not in tune with doing ratson HaShem (HaShem’s will), rather, other factors drive him. Haran proved himself to be someone whose adherence to belief in one G-d was purely superficial, therefore, he was only protected on a superficial level. Avraham, in contrast, held a deep internal commitment to fulfilling ratson HaShem on all levels, as a result he was fully protected from Nimrod’s fire.
Haran’s trait of externality was emulated by his son, Lot. On a superficial level, Lot observed the Torah, however, many of his actions demonstrated that internally, he was lacking a true desire to follow Avraham’s ways. He was more interested in satisfying his desire for financial success and immorality. The extent to which Lot represents a dichotomy between his internal and external nature is borne out by Chazal in Parsha Lech Lecha. Having settled in Eretz Yisroel, Lot’s shepherds begin to justify grazing their animals on the land of the inhabitants. Avraham’s shepherds protested his, correctly arguing that it constituted thievery, and as a result, a dispute broke out. At that point, Avraham requested that they separate, arguing that they were ‘brothers’ . The obvious problem with this argument is that they were not brothers, Avraham was Lot’s uncle. Moreover, what was the rationale of his argument that they were brothers? The Medrash explains that Avraham was saying that they were like brothers in that they were extremely similar in appearance. Accordingly, Avraham was concerned that people would see Lot grazing other people’s land with his animals and think it was Avraham. We see from here that on a superficial level, Lot was very similar to Avraham, indeed he must have appeared to be a very righteous person, yet internally, he resembled his father, Haran.
Haran had another child, Sarah Imeinu. It seems that she succeeded in avoiding the failing of her father and brother, and became someone whose external observance was matched by internal righteousness. In our Parsha, she is called by a second name, that of Yiskah. The Gemara offers two reasons for this name. One is that she saw with ruach Hakodesh, the other is that everyone would gaze at her beauty. It seems that these two explanations complement each other. The beauty she possessed was not merely of a physical nature, rather it was a spiritual beauty. This emanated from her high spiritual level, which was demonstrated by the fact that she had ruach Hakodesh. Thus, her external beauty was a result of her internal righteousness. In this way, we see that she was able to emulate Avraham in matching her external observance with internal sincerity.
There are many lessons that can be derived from the failings of Haran and Lot, and the greatness of Avraham and Sarah. As Haran demonstrated, it is very easy to be a ‘superficial tzaddik’, it is not hard to dress in a certain way and perform certain actions that make a person look ‘righteous’. However, such externality is very dangerous in that it can cause a person to be a mere shell of an Eved HaShem (one who serves HaShem), whilst on the inside, he is anything but an Eved HaShem. The Prophet, Yeshaya, informs us of the seriousness of this failing: He describes how HaShem will punish Klal Yisroel, “because this people approached [Me] with it mouth and honored me with its lips, but its heart was far from me…”
Moreover, emphasis on externalities can actually hinder one’s internal gowth. One of the methods of the yetser hara is to make a person who wants to grow focus on external changes, whilst distracting him from internal growth. My Rebbe, Rav Yitzchak Berkovits describes a secular person who had a tendency to violence. He became ‘observant’, dramatically changing his dress code and external actions, however, he retained his internal tendency to violence. Now he channeled it in a different, ‘frum’ way, by throwing stones at people whom he disagreed with, but he did not change his true self. In a less dramatic fashion, this pitfall can affect all people who try to improve their Avodas HaShem and overemphasize external changes at the expense of true growth. It is essential that a person make a cheshbon hanefesh of the balance between his external and internal Avodas HaShem. May we all merit to emulate Avraham and Sarah and internalize what we believe in.

UNDERSTANDING LOT - VAYEIRA

Avraham Avinu’s nephew, Lot’s is one of the most enigmatic characters in the Torah. There are a number of instances in the Torah which indicate that he possessed a certain level of righteousness and a number of other places which suggest that he had many flaws. On the one hand he is one of the only people that join Avraham on his spiritual journey to Eretz Yisroel, showing a sense of self-sacrifice and willingness to learn from Avraham; He consistently excels in chesed, even risking his life in Sodom to host strangers; He is complimented by Chazal for his self-control in not revealing that Avraham and Sarah were married; He even eats matzos on Pesach! Moreover, he never seems to commits a clear sin b’meizid. On the other hand, he shows a great love of money and znus which causes him to leave Avraham and settle in the evil city of Sodom; He lets himself be made drunk and seduced by his younger daughter after he realized what had happened the previous night with his elder daughter. His shepherds are moreh heter to allow their sheep graze on other people’s land; And worst of all, when he separates from Avraham, the Medrash tells us that he says, “I don’t want Avraham or his G-d.” This is particularly difficult, because we see, that even after this strong statement, Lot seemed to still have a recognition that Hashem was the true G-d.

To answer this question it is instructive to turn to an incident in Parshas Vayishlach, Yaakov Avinu, on his return to Eretz Yisroel, sends a message to his hostile brother Esav, “I lived with Lavan.” Rashi elaborates on Yaakov’s words: “I lived with the evil Lavan and I kept the 613 mitzvos and I did not learn from his evil ways.” Yaakov is telling Esav that he has maintained his righteousness despite living with Lavan for so many years. However, Rav Yaakov Yitzchak Ruderman zt”l asks, why did Yaakov need to say the second part of the sentence about not learning from Lavan’s evil ways; If Yaakov kept all the mitzvos then obviously he did not learn from Lavan’s evil ways! He answers that, in truth, shemiras hamitvos and learning from the ways of reshaim do not necessarily go hand in hand. A person can keep all the mitzvos and nevertheless be influenced by values that are alien to Torah. A person can know the truth; that there is a G-d and that He gave the Torah to the Jewish people on Har Sinai and that this recognition requires following His commands. As a result, he grudgingly accepts that he must follow the Torah because if he does not then the consequences will be very unpleasant. However, his sheifos in life do not coincide with the Torah’s view, and he may devote his life to such goals as making money, hedonism, or acquiring power and honor, and all the while he would not explicitly break any laws of the Torah.

Lot represents the classic example of this duality. This is illustrated by a glaring contradiction in the passukim at the beginning of Parshas Lech Lecha. The Torah, describing Avraham’s departure to Eretz Yisroel, says that, “Avraham went as Hashem had commanded him, and Lot went with him.” The very next passuk says that, “Avraham took Sarai his wife and his nephew Lot.” At first Lot went willingly with Avraham, but then Avraham needed to take him forcefully. It seems that there were two conflicting forces guiding Lot’s actions. He recognized that there was one G-d and that this truth required accompanying Avraham on his spiritual journey. However, whilst knowing the truth, his desires in life did not necessarily include leaving behind his whole life for a spiritual quest, he loved money and traveling as a pauper did not promise great riches!

With this explanation we can approach Lot with a whole new level of understanding. He recognized the truth in Avraham’s teachings and the obligations that accompanied this recognition. Consequently he never blatantly transgressed any Torah mitzvos. He actively observed Pesach and, hachnasas orchim because he knew that was required of him. However, his sheifos in life were NOT to achieve closeness to G-d and to develop himself spiritually. Instead he was driven by a desire for pleasures, epitomized by money and znus. What happens when a person is faced with this dichotomy - he knows that he must keep the Torah because it is true but he is driven by goals that conflict with it. Lot’s actions answer this question; He could never bring himself to sin but deep down he wanted to fulfill his desires. Consequently, even after he became aware of what had happened with his elder daughter, he nevertheless allowed himself to be seduced the next night in order that he could fulfill his taiva without blatantly doing so. Another outcome of Lot’s character is that he made life decisions that clearly indicated where his heart lay; he preferred to leave Avraham and live in Sodom, showing a clear preference of love of gashmius over ruchnius. It is hard to say that this action is technically forbidden but it clearly reflects where his desires lay. We can also now understand how Lot could say that he wanted no part in Avraham of Hashem and yet continue to observe certain mitzvos! This statement was a rejection of Avraham’s hashkafas hachaim that emphasized closeness to G-d and rejection of base physicality. However, Lot still knew that there was a G-d whose instructions had to be followed. When a person lives his life acknowledging the truth of Torah but simultaneously pursuing goals alien to spirituality, the inevitable result is that his descendants and students will follow in his path and probably degenerate even further.

This also explains the behavior of Lot’s shepherds. The Torah does not say that Lot explicitly instructed them to steal, however it is they were strongly influenced by his love of wealth. Therefore they placed greater priority to that goal than avoiding gezel, and as a consequence they created a dubious excuse to justify their thievery. This dichotomy is also apparent in Lot’s daughters. Rashi brings a Medrash that their kavana was leshem znus. However, the Gemara in Horayos says that their kavana was leshem mitzvo! The Maharal explains that they were driven by both the kavano for znus and for the mitzvo! It seems that they inherited these contradictory desires from their father.

These two elements of Lot manifest themselves later in history in the form of two of his descendants, Ruth and Orpah. They are daughters of the King of Moav, Eglon; they marry Jewish men but become widowed. They choose to leave their birthplace and accompany their mother-in-law Naomi on her return to Eretz Yisroel from Moav. They are prepared to give up their royal status and join Naomi in poverty. Naomi repeatedly tells them to return until Orpah finally gives in and returns to her life in Moav, Ruth, however, persists in her desire to remain with Naomi and convert to Judaism. This is a key moment in history - the two sisters are faced with the battle between clinging to the truth of Torah, or returning to the pleasures of life in Moav. This conflict represents the same dichotomy as that which characterized Lot - living according to the truth versus striving to satisfy taivas. On this occasion, the two attitudes split between the two women. Orpah is pulled by the same desires that plagued Lot - Chazal tell us that on the very that she returned to Moav, she committed many gross acts of znus. The culmination of her decision was her great-grandson Goliath, a man who was totally devoid of spirituality. Ruth, in contrast, clung to that part of Lot which knew the truth, she realized that she was undertaking a very difficult task in life, but she knew that it was the only true path. Her decision to cling to the truth ultimately lead to the birth of David HaMelech and will produce Mashiach.

Our job is to emulate Ruth and let our deep recognition of the truth be the driving force behind our desires. This is not easy in present day society . The western world persists in convincing us that the source of happiness and success is physical satisfaction, money, honor and power. It is quite possible for a person to observe the mitzvos and simultaneously be driven by these goals. The account of Lot teaches us about the consequences of such an attitude. A person’s observance will inevitably be compromised when he is faced with a conflict of interest between these dual driving forces. For example a person must ask himself, Is his ikar goal to make a living or to get close to Hashem. Of course there is nothing wrong with wanting to make a living, but it should only be a means to an end, a way of providing for one’s family and enabling them to live a rich Torah life. If a person views success in his career as the source of his happiness, then he will inevitably be pulled away from ruchnius. One common result of this is that his learning and Avodas Hamidos suffers. Many other life decisions will be defined by a person’s true sheifos; how much time he spends involved in mitzvos as opposed to making money; where he chooses to live and where he sends his children to school. One may think that these areas do not involve explicit issurim but they define whether a person’s life is driven by a desire to do Ratson Hashem or something else. Moreover, when a person is faced with this battle between his desires and his knowledge of the truth, then, it is very likely that he will come to be more lenient in halacho, justifying questionable behavior as being mutar. A good example of this is that one may be overly lenient in the area of mixing with the opposite gender as a result of taiva. Another is that a person may feel the need to compromise on his standards in kashrus in order to be able to mix with his non-Jewish business associates. We also learn from Lot that if we follow his path, then our children and students will do the same, but eventually the powerful pull of Western society will overcome the deep recognition of truth. The only way to avoid this disastrous but all too common phenomena is to clarify why we keep the Torah - is it because of grudging recognition that we have to, or also because we know that it is the best and indeed, only way of living a truly meaningful life. May we all merit to play our role in bringing Mashiach.