Why did the malachim sent to rescue Lot and destroy Sdom stop off at Avraham's home first? The malach sent to destroy Sedom played no role in the story until later -- why did he come along for the visit?
The Midrash comments, "Matzasi David avdi," that David haMelech was found / discovered by Hashem in Sedom. It was through the illicit relationship of Lot and his daughters that Amon and Moav were born, which led to Rus, which led to David haMelech. Thus the genes of David haMelech, the genes of the lineage of Moshiach, have their roots in Lot, mayor, and, in the merit of those genes, sole survivor of the city of Sdom.
The gemara (Yevamos 77) tells us that not everyone accepted David. Doeg ha'Edomi taught that the din of, "Lo yavi Amoni u'Moavi b'kahal Hashem," (Devarim 23) means that the Torah permanently excludes descendants of Amon and Moav from Klal Yisrael. Avner ben Ner, however, argued that the pasuk can be darshened, "Moavi" -- v'lo Moavis"; only male Moavites are barred, but females converts are accepted. Doeg challenged: If so, why not similarly darshen, "Mitzri -- v'lo Mitzris," that only male Mitzri'im are barred from marrying into Klal Yisrael, but not females? Just as this derasha is wrong, so too, the derasha "Moavi v'lo Moavis" is wrong. Avner answered that the case of Amon and Moav is different. Here the Torah tells us exactly why they are excluded -- "Al asher lo kidmu eschem b'lechem ub'mayim" -- because they did not show any hospitality to Klal Yisrael when they needed food and drink. Who normally comes out to serve food and drink to strangers? Men, not women. Therefore, said Avner, the prohibition against marrying Moavite converts applies only to men, not to women.
The malach sent to destroy Sdom and the malach sent to rescue Lot had to come to Avraham's home to hear his answer to one question -- "Ayeh Sarah ishtecha?" Where is Sarah your wife? Why is she not out serving us as well? Avraham responded that she is in the tent; as Rashi explains, Avraham told them that the trait of modesty dictated that only he, not his wife, come out to serve the strange guests. A psak din: Tzniyus trumps hachnasas orchim! Without this psak of Avraham, the malachim could not do their job. It was this psak that justified the Moavi women not coming out to serve Klal Yisrael, which in turn justified David haMelech's lineage, which in turn is why Lot deserved to be saved.
According to another opinion in Chazal the angels asked Avraham where Sarah was because they wanted to give her a taste from the kos she bracha. There was no bread served at this meal -- as Rashi explains, the bread became tamei because Sarah became a nidah -- so what kos shel bracha are Chaza; talking about? The Lev Simcha explains that the kos shel bracha is the kos from bentching over the future seudas Livyasam. Chazal (Pesacim 119b) tell us that the kos shel bracha will be passed from tzadik to tzadik, from Avraham to Yitzchak to Ya'akov etc. and each one will have a reason why he should not lead bentching. Avraham will decline because he had Yishmael; Yitzchak will decline because he had Eisav, etc. Finally, the kos will get to David haMelech and he will accept it. The tzenius of Sarah which provided the justification for the derasha of "Moavi v'lo Moavis," paving the way for the acceptance of David haMelech, is rewarded with a taste of the future kos shel bracha that only David haMelech can accept at that seudah of Livyasan in the time of future geulah.
2 questions I've always had:
ReplyDelete1) So Sarah Imeinu was a nidah and the bread was tamei. So what? Since the melachim didn't really eat but just appeared to and since Avraham Avinu wasn't offering any sacrifices, who cares if it was tamei?
2) Where did Doeg get off paskening against David HaMelech when Boaz had already paskened the din when he married Rus?
1. Avraham thought they were really eating.
ReplyDelete2. Take a look in the piece on that sugya in Ch haGRI"Z al haTorah (stencil). The Rambam in Hil Mamrim holds that a derasha can be overturned by another Sanhedrin which choses to pasken differently.
Fine on (2) but on again on (1), if we go with the Rashi that says Avraham Avinu thought they were Arabs, since when do Arabs care if their bread is tamei?
ReplyDelete>>> David haMelech's lineage...is
ReplyDeletewhy Lot deserved to be saved
in chess (which in more than one post you mention), this whole roll-back approach is referred to as
"retrograde analysis"; however
1) such analysis is "only feasible
in late game situations of
reduced complexity, such as... where few pieces remain in play" (Wikipedia); and
2) the moves played to reach a particular [final] position must be each one "legal"
(...given the play of free-will over centuries of time, & dubious behaviors early & late,) it's not clear that either of these 2 analytic preconditions have been met by the drasha at hand!
Rabbi Reisman asked this question in his weeekly shiur for the Matzav Website last week great answer
ReplyDelete>>>if we go with the Rashi that says Avraham Avinu thought they were Arabs, since when do Arabs care if their bread is tamei?
ReplyDeleteYou can ask this kashe irrespective of anything I wrote. Simple pshat is Avraham didn't serve the bread because *he* couldn't eat it because it was tamei (see sifsei chachamim).
>>> The tzenius of Sarah...is rewarded with a taste of the future
ReplyDeletekos shel bracha that only David haMelech can accept
to the extent that Sarah was
contractive (modest), to that
extent could David be religiously
expansive-- the Davidic pasuk of 119b, tehillim 116:13, is followed by royal action "negdah...l'kol amo"(116:14)
I quoted you on Mi.yodeya for the answer
ReplyDeletehttp://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/11148/kos-shel-bracha-but-no-bread/11288#11288
Avraham responded that she is in the tent; as Rashi explains, Avraham told them that the trait of modesty dictated that only he, not his wife, come out to serve the strange guests. A psak din: Tzniyus trumps hachnasas orchim!
ReplyDeleteWhile I like your overall derasha, this characterization seems overstated. Sarah was involved in preparing the food; the men of the household (including Avraham, and if need be others like Yishmael and Eliezer) were involved in serving it.
If a woman cooks a meal and her husband and other male members of the household are sufficient to serve it to the (male) guests, can one really say the woman is being mevattel hachansas orchim? I think that rather altogether they have performed hachansas orchim, each doing their part.
What this Midrash does suggest, however, is that the custom among Chassidim and some other Charedim to not mix men and women when men outside the family are guests, has support and is indeed laudable.
{Tal, by tzedakah, words earn 11
ReplyDeleteblessings, substance 6 (bava basra
9b); perhaps that distinction blends with hachnasas orchim? what
journeyman would not feel more comfortable receiving the welcoming words of a smiling matron, in addition to her stew? (her speech would soothe like dew on sunburnt ears!) maybe Sarah/womankind did mevattel a number of brachos for herself?}
>>>I think that rather altogether they have performed hachansas orchim, each doing their part.
ReplyDeleteI meant only that it trumps the going out aspect, as we see in the sugya in Yevamos with respect to the women of Amon/Moav having an excuse not to go out.