[Avodah] The Delet Hakodesh and Lot

[Arie Folger]

On Fri, Nov 6, 2020 at 5:24 AM R Brent Kaufman wrote:

> >>The Torah is pretty explicit. The door is closed, Lot is outside, and
> they begin abusing him, perhaps violently so.
>
> I disagree. They aren’t abusing him. Their concerned with what’s inside
> the house. They aren’t concerned with Lot and tell him to “Step aside”
> (‘Gash hal’ah’).
>

I context, that's a threat.

>
> The crowd is pushing its way forward, like Europeans at a football/soccer
> game, by shear force of the crowd. Nothing here implies abuse towards Lot,
> himself.
>

Have you ever faced hooligans at a football game? They can be pretty scary;
the Sodomites were similar but worse.

>
> But this doesn’t address my question. I often express myself poorly. I
> apologize. I meant that this is not just your average door. It is mentioned
> 3 times. The narrative could have been told without drawing any attention
> to the logistics of goin to speak to, and calm, the mob.
>

I want to suggest that the focus on the door is to underline how precarious
the situation was. Once the door would be broken, they would commit a
massacre. That's what mobs often do.

But since you report seeing a teaching from the Ari which satisfies you,
please share it with us.

>
> >> famous enlightenment thinkers struggled with the question of whether
>> one is morally obligated to family more than to strangers, .......His
>> daughters, as citizens of Sedom, would not have that additional claim
>> against Lot, unless one posits, as you do and to which Torah would agree,
>> but which isn't the only or most obvious enlightened position,
>>
>
> However, no; just no.  There was no apparent moral dilemma before Lot
> brought up the idea of substituting his daughters. Before that it was
> either giving over the men, or not.
>

Not giving them up and they all probably die after being gang raped.

>
> A parent protects his family, young women, girls, his wife. This isn’t a
> moral dilemma. The Torah tells us to prioritize how we give tzedaka; those
> who are closest come first.
>

Very nice, so you agree that the Torah disagrees with those Enlightenment
thinkers. But the debate exists and those not impacted sufficiently by
Torah may think it virtuous to treat their guest better than family even
when that means sacrificing one for the other.

The thinker I was trying to quote is Montesquieu. "A truly virtuous man
would come to the aid of the most distant stranger as quickly as to his own
friend. If men were perfectly virtuous, they wouldn't have friends."

So Lot, who isn't Avraham, may have felt like Montesquieu.


>> >>The opposite claim is that parenthood is accidental and thus does not
>> give rise to any special moral claims.
>>
>> It is only accidental for people who are promiscuous or that live in
>> promiscuous cultures.
>>
>
No, accidental means that it happens without giving rise to moral
obligations (in the twisted thinking of people who think like Montesquieu).
Of course, kibud av va'em disapproves, but Lot wasn't keeping kol hatorah
kullah.

But there are also other possible solutions to your dilemma. Lot could have
been using sarcasm and implying "I am as likely to set you losoe on them as
I am to give you my daughters. Here they are, do you think I will let you?"
This is Rav Menachem Leibtag's interpretation.
-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen,
Yours sincerely,

Arie Folger,
Visit my blog at http://rabbifolger.net/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.aishdas.org/pipermail/avodah-aishdas.org/attachments/20201106/84151596/attachment.html>