Hagaon Rav Yaakov Kamenetsky zt”l on Lech Lecha
(from Emet LeYaakov on Parshat Hashavua)
Print Version

Lot’s Choice:  Pardes of the Torah, Pardes in a Person | Avraham and Lot: A Message About Machloket (Dissent)

Lot’s Choice:  Pardes of the Torah, Pardes in a Person
“Lot lifted up his eyes and saw how lush the whole plain of the Yarden was, before G-d destroyed Sodom and Amora, like the Divine garden, like the land of Egypt, going towards Tzoar (Heb. boacha Tzoar).”

Rashi : " Until Tzoar":  The Midrash explains this [reference to Tzoar -- later on the scene of Lot’s incestual relations with his daughters] in a derogatory way.  Lot actually chose to live among them {the people of Sedom) because they were steeped in immoral sexuality.

Doesn’t the simple meaning of the verse already tell us why Lot picked the area -- because of its fertile land?!  Why did the Sages introduce this new, much darker, element into Lot’s intentions? The Torah explicitly tells us why he picked Sodom -- for economic reasons?

This and other midrashim can be explained by understanding the Sages' general approach to human motivations and the human psyche.   Just like there is “Pardes” (acronym for 4 levels of understanding, Peshat, Remez, Derach and Sod) with regards to the Torah -- multiple layers of meaning starting from the straightforward and reaching to allusions and hidden meanings -- so there is “Pardes” with regards to a person.  Underlying a person's thoughts and speech are his inner motivations. The person himself may not even be conscious of these motivations, hidden in the recesses of his being.

This approach is at the heart of many comments by the Sages.  For instance, when the people of Israel complained about life in the desert, they said, “We remember the fish we used to eat in Egypt for free . . . ” (Bemidbar 11:5). The Sages see the fish as a reference to Egypt’s sexual immorality.  Why not just say they were reminiscing about the food -- the fish, onions and garlic?  Why introduce sexual immorality into the picture?  Chazal are speaking of subconscious motivations.  Given the wonderful picture the Torah paints about the manna, it is difficult to say that they had such nostalgia about fish, onions, and garlic. Even though the Jews were actually talking about fish -- and also thinking about it -- there must be an inner side to their complaint.  Through the Sages’ understanding of people or their mystical wisdom, they comment that Israel was really reminiscing about Egypt’s immorality.

The Sages understood Lot’s choice in a similar way.  How could Lot think of distancing himself from Avraham?  Could money really be the motivation? Did he not initially become rich through his contact with Avraham (see Rashi on 13:5)?!  There must have been more to it, even though Lot himself was consciously thinking about the fertility of the Jordan plains.  In fact, the rest of the story bears out their comment, for the Torah’s narrative about Lot later focuses on sexual immorality -- the people of Sodom demanding the guests and the episode of Lot and his daughters.

Avraham and Lot: A Message About Machloket (Dissent)
Avraham said to Lot, “Let there not be an argument between me and you, and between my shepherds and yours, for we are relatives.” (Bereishit 13:8)

This verse teaches a a powerful lesson about the severity of machloket. 

Later on in the parsha, we see that when Lot was captured, without any hesitation Avraham went to battle to save him against tremendous odds.  Furthermore, we find after the war that Avraham was afraid (G-d had to reassure him, saying, “Be not afraid, Avraham”).  Rashi explains that after experiencing the great miracle of his victory in battle, Avraham was worried that he lost his portion in the World to Come.  Avraham was willing to risk both his physical and spiritual life for Lot. 

See how terrible a machloket is.  Despite the powerful connection between Lot and Avraham, when Avraham saw that a fight was brewing between himself and Lot he immediately suggested to Lot that they should separate in order to avoid dispute. He viewed the evils of machloket as more severe than the positive side of their connection.  

[prepared by Eliezer Kwass]