chessed vs rachamim -- the hallmark of Avraham

Last week I quoted the question of the Aderet as to why Hashem touts the fact that Avraham  is charitable וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה׳ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט and declares that as the basis for special reward when tzedakah is a mitzvah sichlit that all humanity is obligated in.  The Aderet answered that Avraham was special because he did chessed and tzedakah because it was the ratzon Hashem, not just because it was a nice thing to do or because he felt bad for the poor.  When I said this question over last week I added another answer that I didn't include in the post.  Avraham did not just wait to do chessed until the Salvation Army or the Red Cross or a poor person knocked on his door to ask for a help.  A Jew has to be "rodef tzedakah va'chessed."  A Jew has to go looking for chessed, not wait for it to come to him.  At the beginning of last weeks's parsha we see that even when Avraham had no one knocking on his door, when it was too hot for visitors to be wandering about, Avraham still went out and went looking for people to help despite the fact that he was ill himself recovering from milah.  Even if a ben Noach is obligated in chessed, I think that's only when the need lands in their lap, when it knocks on their door.  Avraham went above and beyond that standard.

In the sefer Sidduro Shel Shabbos and in the Be'er Mayim Chaim (by the same author) this same point is made in a discussion about our parsha.  He distinguishes between rachamim and chessed.  Rachamim is when the poor person knocks on your door and tells you a story that tugs at your heart strings, as I put it last week.  You feel sympathy and therefore want to give.  A gomeil chessed is someone who doesn't wait for the poor to come to him, but rather he looks for the opportunities to give.  The gemara (Shabbos 104) says that the leg of the letter gimmel sticks out towards the daled that follows because שֶׁכֵּן דַּרְכּוֹ שֶׁל גּוֹמֵל חֲסָדִים לָרוּץ אַחַר דַּלִּים.  Furthermore, he writes, rachamim stops when the needs of the poor, on some minimal level, are met.  Chessed extends to the rich and the poor alike, and goes beyond meeting bare needs.

 

Rashi in last week's parsha explains why Lot's wife was turned into a pillar of salt (19:26): אמר לה: תן מעט מלח לאורחים הללו. אמרה לו: אף המנהג הזה הרע אתה בא להנהיג במקום הזה.  Lot's wife was not as bad as the people of Sdom.  She had rachmanus on the angels who came as guests.  She let them into her home.  She was willing to provide them sustenance in the form of plain bread.  However, more than that she was not willing to do.  She was not a gomeles chessed.  To provide salt, to do a little extra so that there would not only be bread, but so that it would be tasty bread and not bland, that she was not willing to do (Oznayim laTorah).  Lot, for all his faults, had the midah of chessed impressed upon him because he spent time living under Avraham's roof.

 

Coming to our parsha, Eliezer's test for Rivka was  וְהָיָ֣ה הַֽנַּעֲרָ֗ אֲשֶׁ֨ר אֹמַ֤ר אֵלֶ֙יהָ֙ הַטִּי־נָ֤א כַדֵּךְ֙ וְאֶשְׁתֶּ֔ה וְאָמְרָ֣ה שְׁתֵ֔ה וְגַם־גְּמַלֶּ֖יךָ אַשְׁקֶ֑ה (24:14).  Eliezer only asked Rivka to draw a little water for him, וַיֹּ֕אמֶר הַגְמִיאִ֥ינִי נָ֛א מְעַט־מַ֖יִם מִכַּדֵּֽךְ.  Notice that he made a point of asking only for מְעַט־מַ֖יִם.  Even by offering him enough to fully quench his thirst, Rivka proved that she was willing to go above and beyond, but she did far more than that.  She offered to water the camels as well.  This was not just rachmanus; this was chessed.  Rivka thus proved that she was fit to be part of Avraham's household.

 

I want to turn to what seems to be a contradiction in the description of what Rivka did.  When Rivka first comes out to the well to draw water, וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל,  Rashi tells us that ראה שעלו המים לקראתה (24:18 See Ramban, Mizrachi, Gur Aryeh what this derash is based on). The waters rose up from the well into Rivka's bucket.  Yet, as Ramban notes, just a few pesukim later (24:20), we read וַתְּמַהֵ֗ר וַתְּעַ֤ר כַּדָּהּ֙ אֶל־הַשֹּׁ֔קֶת, that Rivka had to lower her bucket into the well to draw water.  Did the water rise up to greet Rivka or did they not?

 

I want to share two insights that, although they read the pesukim in almost contradictory fashion, actually I think compliment one each other.

 

The Berdichiver explains as follows: When Rivka first came to the well, the water she drew was for her own sake.  That's why the water rose up to fill her bucket.  However, after Eliezer made his request for a drink, Rivka had to draw more water.  This time, when the water being drawn was for the sake of doing chessed, the water did not rise; she had to stoop down and draw it from the well.  There's no comparison between something you put in effort to accomplish and something done with no effort.  Hashem wanted Rivka to have the opportunity to not just do chessed, but to do a chessed that she put in effort for. That's a qualitatively different mitzvah entirely.

 

You have the same idea in last week's parsha as well, as I wrote about once before.   Rashi tells us that Hashem brought the sun out in full force so that Avraham would not be bothered with entertaining guests while recovering from his bris milah.  Avraham, however, would not be dissuaded from doing his usual hachnasas orchim and went out “’k'chom hayom,” in the middle of the hot day, to look for guests.  Since Avraham would not give up, Hashem sent him the three angels as guests.

 

Why did Hashem have to summon angels to appear as guests?  Why didn’t Hashem just remove the unusual heat wave that He had sent and then guests would come by as usual?

 

The answer is that once Avraham made the effort to do hachnasas orchim in the middle of the heat wave, Hashem wanted to give him the opportunity to do that mitzvah.  Had Hashem removed the heat wave, the mitzvah would have required far less effort.  A mitzvah without effort is a different animal entirely from one done with effort. 

 

The Be'er Mayim Chaim deals with the same basic question, but he frames it a bit differently (he actually has two solutions, one that he offers in Sidduro shel Shabbos 1:4 and one in the Be'er Mayim Chaim. I am presenting the latter one.) He points out that the pasuk ַוַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּ וַתָּֽעַל is itself a stira minei u'bei, self contradictory.  It starts with the words וַתֵּ֣רֶד הָעַ֔יְנָה וַתְּמַלֵּ֥א כַדָּ֖הּּ, telling us that Rivka went down to the well to fill her bucket, but then Rashi comments on  וַתָּֽעַל that the water rose to Rivka. You can't have it both ways!?

 

The Be'er Mayim Chaim answers that drawing water for Eliezer alone was rachmanut, not chessed, and for that, Hashem was not about to do a miracle and cause the waters to rise. Rivka had to descend to the water to draw enough for him.  Now came the test -- would Rivka do more than that and prove herself a baalas chessed?  At this point, the yetzer ha'ra and lots of negative forces were working overtime to mess things up, as this moment would determine whether the shidduch with Yitzchak would happen or not.  You can normally be a big baal chessed, but along comes the yetzer ha'ra and gets you angry about something just as a poor person is about to ask you for help, or gets you involved in some other "important" project just as someone needs chessed.  The yetzer ha'ra always is anxious to step in just as something good is about to happen to cause you to stumble.  Here too, as big a baalas chessed as Rivka was, the yetzer ha'ra was going to bring a full court press to try to make her stumble just now when Eliezer is watching. Hashem therefore gave Rivka a hint to point her in the right direction.  Even though she had already filled her bucket, the water continued to rise to her.  This was the signal that one bucket is not enough -- take more, come back for more.  You need more water because you have to bring some to the camels as well.  It's davka after she made the effort on the first bucket that Hashem made things go smoother so she would not stop before finishing her task.

 

Whether you learn that Rivka had to put more effort in when she was doing things l'shem mitzah or whether you learn she had siyata d'Shemaya and things got easier for her, I think the two lessons can go hand in hand.  The Berdichiver is speaking about what we have to put in.  The greater the effort we are prepared to make, the greater the mitzvah.  The Be'er Mayim Chaim is speaking about what we can take out with us.  If you are willing to make the effort, Hashem will help you out along the way.     

 

One of the hallmarks of Klal Yisrael is that we are gomlei chassadim.  The Beis Yisrael says that Avraham insisted on paying full price for me'aras ha'machpeila so that Efron could not claim even one iota of credit for doing him a chessed.  Avraham appreciated just how great the miztvah of chessed is, and so did not want someone unworthy to be able to claim any of its benefits.  Just things of what we earn and can earn though all the chessed we do. I think I've written before that for all those yelling about "tikkun olam," where is their Hatzalah, Chaveirim, Tomchei Shabbos, etc.?  It's davka our community which does all that and more.  Why?  Because Avraham is the beacon that guides us, and because chessed is part of our spiritual DNA.

charity for the right reason

Hashem chose to Avraham that he was going to destroy Sdom because כִּ֣י יְדַעְתִּ֗יו לְמַ֩עַן֩ אֲשֶׁ֨ר יְצַוֶּ֜ה אֶת־בָּנָ֤יו וְאֶת־בֵּיתוֹ֙ אַחֲרָ֔יו וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה׳ לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט (18:19).  The Meshech Chochma sees this pasuk as a d'oraysa source for the mitzvah of chinuch.  Avraham not only did tzedakah and mishpat himself, but he also inculcated these traits in his household. 

The Adere"t asks: Why is this zechus so special and so deserving of reward?  Charity is a "mitzvah sichlis," it is something any rational thinking human being can understand the need for.  In fact, the navi Yechezkel (16:49) highlights lack of charity as the sin that Sdom was culpable for: הִנֵּה־זֶ֣ה הָיָ֔ה עֲוֺ֖ן סְדֹ֣ם אֲחוֹתֵ֑ךְ גָּא֨וֹן שִׂבְעַת־לֶ֜חֶם וְשַׁלְוַ֣ת הַשְׁקֵ֗ט הָ֤יָה לָהּ֙ וְלִבְנוֹתֶ֔יהָ וְיַד־עָנִ֥י וְאֶבְי֖וֹן לֹ֥א הֶחֱזִֽיקָה.  The Chidushei HaRan (Sanhedrin 56b) writes that אלמא דבצדקה נמי מחייבי ואשכחן דמיענש עלה דכתיב ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקו.   Even a ben Noach is chayav in the mitzvah of tzedakah and held accountable for failing to fulfill that obligation.  It's only for various technical reasons that it is not counted among the 7 mitzvos.  Is fulfilling such a basic command, something all humanity is obligated to do, worthy of being put on a pedestal for carrying out?  Is it so noteworthy that in its merit alone לְמַ֗עַן הָבִ֤יא ה׳ עַל־אַבְרָהָ֔ם אֵ֥ת אֲשֶׁר־דִּבֶּ֖ר עָלָֽיו?

 

The Aderet answers with a fundamental yesod in the mitzvah of tzedakah.  When one comes across a poor person and he/she tells you a sob story about their needs and their predicament and it tugs at the heart strings, it's human nature to feel bad and to therefore want to give.  That, says the Aderet, is not the ideal of tzedakah.  When you give under those circumstances, you are not giving for the sake of the poor person.  You are giving for yourself; you are giving to alleviate the pain you feel in response to the poor person's plight. 

 

He quotes the following vort from his father:  נָתוֹן תִּתֵּן לוֹ וְלֹא יֵרַע לְבָבְךָ בְּתִתְּךָ לוֹ  (Devarim 15:10)  Simple pshat is that when you give, you shouldn't feel bad about the $ coming out of you pocket.   Derech derush, the way he explained the pasuk is, "Give to the poor -- but not because not doing so would make you feel bad."  Give because it is the right thing to do.  Give because it's a mitzvah.  The pasuk ends כִּי בִּגְלַל הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה יְבָרֶכְךָ ה׳ אֱלֹקיךָ בְּכׇל מַעֲשֶׂךָ וּבְכֹל מִשְׁלַח יָדֶךָ.  If you act for Hashem's sake, to fulfill his commandment, He will guarantee your reward.

 

The Divrei Shaul, R' Yosef Shaul Natahanson, similarly explained the gemara וחנתי את אשר אחון אע"פ שאינו הגון ורחמתי את אשר ארחם אע"פ שאינו הגון (Brachos 7).  To have mercy on those who deserve mercy, who need mercy, is the natural response of any caring and feeling person.  That's faint praise to give Hashem.  Chazal therefore take the pasuk to mean that Hashem shows mercy and kindness even to those who are undeserving of our sympathy and kindness, those who we otherwise might have antipathy for.  Even when it is not the natural emotional response or rational response to have, Hashem still responds with kindness. He expects the same of us.  Show mercy and kindness regardless of whether you are moved to do so or not.

 

The last Rambam in Hil Me'ila writes:

 

הרי נאמר בתורה ושמרתם את כל חקותי ואת כל משפטי ועשיתם אותם. אמרו חכמים ליתן שמירה ועשייה לחוקים כמשפטים. והעשייה ידועה והיא שיעשה החוקים. והשמירה שיזהר בהן ולא ידמה שהן פחותין מן המשפטים. והמשפטים הן המצות שטעמן גלוי וטובת עשייתן בעולם הזה ידועה כגון איסור גזל ושפיכות דמים וכיבוד אב ואם. והחוקים הן המצות שאין טעמן ידוע. ... שבעשיית החוקים והמשפטים זוכין הישרים לחיי העולם הבא. והקדימה תורה ציווי על החוקים. שנאמר ושמרתם את חקותי ואת משפטי אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם

 

The Rambam uses the linkage between chukim to mishpatim to make the point there that although we may not understand chukim, we should treat them with no less respect than the mishpatim which make sense to us.

 

The Aderet uses the same linkage in the reverse direction.  Just like we do chukim only because G-d commanded so, so too, when we do mishpatim, it should be because G-d commanded so, not just because it makes sense to us and appeals to our reason or emotion.

 

Avraham is praised and deserves reward not just because he is a person who knows לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט.  Every human being has that obligation and should do the same. 

 

Avraham is praised and deserves reward because  וְשָֽׁמְרוּ֙ דֶּ֣רֶךְ ה׳** לַעֲשׂ֥וֹת צְדָקָ֖ה וּמִשְׁפָּ֑ט**.  His acts of kindness and charity stem from the need to fulfill ratzon Hashem, because Hashem commanded it.

 

Who else would beg G-d to spare the wicked people of Sdom of not someone who does tzedakah l'shem Shamayim alone?  Surely the evil  inhabitants of Sdom were not people who deserved mercy or elicited sympathy. But when you do kindness and feel mercy because it is a mitzvah, not just because you feel sympathy or feel your heart strings tugged on, then you can find it within you to even speak up for Sdom.  That is what was so special about Avraham.

 

Many meforshim comment on the fact that the one example of Avraham's hachnasas orchim which the Torah highlights is an example where the guests really had no need of Avraham's hospitality.  The three visitors who Avraham serves food to at the beginning of the parsha were angels.  They only ate so as to fit in and keep up the pretense of being who they were not.  The lesson here is similar to the point made by the Aderet.  The reason to be hospitable is not just because the other person needs our help.  It's because Hashem commands us to do so. 

a test of faith for Lot and Avraham

I should probably break this post into different ideas instead of one big jumble, but hopefully lumping everything together doesn't ruin it.  

Nedarim 32a

 אמר רבי אבהו אמר רבי אלעזר מפני מה נענש אברהם אבינו ונשתעבדו בניו למצרים מאתים ועשר שנים מפני שעשה אנגרייא בת"ח שנאמר וירק את חניכיו ילידי ביתו

 

M'mah nafshach: If Avraham was justified in going to war to save Lot, it is a milchemet mitzvah and there should be no penalty for taking talmidei chachamim to battle.  If there was no justification, then Avraham himself should be culpable for fighting, even if no one else was involved.

 

This question requires a halachic explanation (It is important to note that the rule is that everyone fights in a milchemet mitzvah.  It's this gemara that requires an explanation.  Using this as a prooftext to argue that yeshiva students are exempt from the draft, putting side whether a 20 year old yeshiva bachur is really what is meant by "tamid chacham" in this context, confuses the rule with the exception.  Aside from the fact that this is an aggadita, it is just one of three views quoted in that gemara, there is also an interesting Shita M'Kubetzet which explains that אנגרייא means unpaid volunteer (אנגרייא = אין אגרא).  The problem is that Avraham did not pay his soldiers properly, not in the fact that he took them to war with him.),  R' Chaim Elazari  at least provides us with a moral explanation.  Regarding Lot's being saved from Sdom, Ramban writes in next week's parsha (19:29):

 

ויזכור אלקים את אברהם וישלח את לוט – ענין הכתוב הזה כי לוט נתחסד עם הצדיק ללכת עמו לשוט בארץ באשר ילך, והוא שנאמר: וילך אתו לוט (בראשית י״ב:ד׳) כי לצוות שלו הלך, ולכן היה לו זכות להצילו בזכות אברהם, כי בעבורו הוא גר בסדום, ולולי אברהם עודנו היה בחרן עם מולדתו, ולא יתכן שתבא אליו רעה בעבור אברהם שיצא במצות קונו. וגם זה היה הענין ששם אברהם נפשו בכפו לרדף המלכים בעבורו.

 

Lot did not have to leave home and travel to Eretz Yisrael with Avraham.  He voluntarily took it upon himself so that Avraham would have a travelling companion.  True, Lot have made some bad choices that led to his being in Sdom, but it all started with a good choice -- to follow Avraham on his journey.  If not for having taken that first step, he would be safely ensconced in his home in Charan and in no danger at all.

 

That first step was for the sake of the tzadik Avraham; therefore, Lot deserved in return to be saved in the merit of Avraham and not suffer on his behalf.

 

Avraham's obligation to save Lot was not m'din milchemet mitzvah, but m'din hakarat ha'tov.  Since Lot went out of his way for Avraham, Avraham owed him something in return.  No one else among Avraham's followers had a similar obligation; therefore, Avraham should not have involved them in this war. 

 

The flipside of this Ramban is the Ramban's justification of לֹֽא־יָבֹ֧א עַמּוֹנִ֛י וּמוֹאָבִ֖י בִּקְהַ֣ל ה׳ (Devarim 23:9): והנראה אלי כי הכתוב ירחיק שני האחים האלה שהיו גמולי חסד מאברהם, שהציל אביהם ואמותם מן החרב והשבי, ובזכותו שלחם השם מתוך ההפכה והיו חייבים לעשות טובה עם ישראל, והם עשו עמהם רעה

 

Maharal in Gevuros Hashem ch 9 offers a different explanation of what the gemara means to suggest.  Maharal faults Avraham for a lack of bitachon.  If he needed to raise an army, he should have enlisted the help of professional soldiers, not talmidei chachamim who had no prior training in battle.  Doing so reeks of desperation, lack of faith, and that is what Avraham is faulted for.  The punishment of galus is a tikun, as it would serve as the means for Avraham's descedents to aquire more perfect faith in Hashem.

Hold that thought in mind for a little while as we make a little detour...

 

וַיֵּחָלֵ֨ק עֲלֵיהֶ֧ם ׀ לַ֛יְלָה ה֥וּא וַעֲבָדָ֖יו וַיַּכֵּ֑ם (14:15)

 

Rashi explains al pi pshat the the pasuk's words are out of order.  The word וַיֵּחָלֵ֨ק applies to ה֥וּא וַעֲבָדָ֖יו; meaning, Avraham and his men divided themselves so as to lead a two pronged attack.

 

Rashi then quotes a Midrash:

 

ומדרש אגדה: שנחלק לילה, ובחצות ראשון שלו נעשה לו הנס, וחציו השיני נשמר ובא לחצות לילה של מצרים

 

It was the night that was divided in two.  In the first half, there were miracles done to enable Lot to be saved and Avraham to win the war.  The second half of the night was also primed for miracles, but those would only happen at the time of yetzi'as Mitzrayim.

 

Is there a shortage of nights that can be used for miracles?  We can only give Avraham half a night or miracles, because we need to hold the other half in reserve for Bn"Y in the future?  Why not give Avraham the whole night, and in the future give Bn"Y some other whole night so that things don't need to be divided up?

 

R' Mordechai Eliyahu explained that what Rashi/Chazal are trying to tell us is that Lot did not really deserve a miraculous victory to be done on behalf of his being saved.  Having abandoned Avraham for the pleasures of Sdom, he had allied himself with the wrong team.  He was saved only because he rode the coattails of Avraham Avinu, so to speak. 

 

In reality, that night was a night of miracles only because Bn"Y would need it to be so in the future. However, once is was going to be a night of miracles anyway, Hashem skimmed off a little and gave something to Lot.  All boats rise with the tide, whether they deserve it or not.

 

In a similar vein, there were three angels sent to Avraham (18:3)  מיכאל, וגבריאל, ורפאל, מיכאל שבא לבשר את שרה, רפאל שבא לרפאות את אברהם, גבריאל דאזיל למהפכיה לסדום  Rashi adds that the angel who came to heal Avraham was the same angel that later saved Lot from Sdom.  Here too, one might ask: is there a shortage of angels upstairs?  Why not send another angel to fulfill the mission of saving Lot?

 

R' Mordechai Eliyahu says this is the same idea.  Lot rides Avraham's coattails.  He did not have enough zechyus to merit earning his own angel, but once one came for Avraham, he was saved as well.

 

Perhaps one can answer the original question a little differently.  

Rashi writes that the two sheep which Rivka prepared for Yaakov to serve to Yitzchak on the night he intended to bless Eisav were the korban pesach and korban chagigah.  I once quoted Malbi”m who explains that Pesach is the time when we reach l’ma’alah min ha’teva.  There is no way barring supernatural intervention that Klal Yisrael could have escaped the bondage of Mitzrayim and there was no way based purely on merit that we deserved to escape.  “Halalu ovzei avodah zarah v’halalu ovdei avodah zarah.”  Pesach means destiny trumps zechuyus/chiyuvim.  The bracha of the Avos that Yitzchak was going to pass on was a bracha that transcended any and all obstacles.

 

The famous vort is "pasach Hashem al ha'pesach," even though normally Hashem says pischu li at least a pesach shel machat, on leil ha'seder Hahsem is even willing to forgo that.  This is why Eisav thought he had a shot at those brachos.  When you are not counting merits/demerits, anything is possible. 

 

Perhaps this is why Lot was able to merit being saved that night as well.  Had it been any other night, all bets would be off, but leil ha'seder is different.  Lot could experience his own personal "yetzi'as Mitzrayim" and be rescued from captivity even if unworthy because that night is a night like no other.

 

All this is well and good, but When I took a peek at the language of the Midrash Rabbah that Rashi is based on, my impression of what's going on here changed. 

 

וַיֵּחָלֵק עֲלֵיהֶם לַיְלָה – רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בַּר יֶפֶת מִשֵּׁם רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן הַלַּיְלָה נֶחְלַק מֵאֵלָיו. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי יוֹצְרוֹ חִלְּקוֹ, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֲבִיהֶם פָּעַל עִמִּי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה, אַף אֲנִי פּוֹעֵל עִם בָּנָיו בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה. וְאֵימָתַי בְּמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיְהִי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה וַה׳ הִכָּה כָל בְּכוֹר וגו׳ (שמות י״ב:כ״ט).

אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אִית דְּמַפְקִין לִישְׁנָא אַחֲרִינָא אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֲבִיהֶם יָצָא בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה אַף אֲנִי אֵצֵא עִם בָּנָיו בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: כֹּה אָמַר ה׳ כַּחֲצֹת הַלַּיְלָה אֲנִי יוֹצֵא (שמות י״א:ד׳).

 

R' Mordechai Eliyahu's approach is that Hashem was going to do miracles for Bn"Y anyway, so he threw some miracle power Lot's way as well.  According to the Midrash, aderaba, it's the reverse -- Hashem did miracles for Bn"Y on this night because of what Avraham did!  It's not an absolute proof, but look at the order in which things occurred: if Lot is riding the coattails of the future miracles for Bn"Y, then shouldn't the first half of the night be dedicated to those miracles, as they are primary, and Lot get the second half, the leftovers, similar to how the malach came to heal Avraham as its primary mission and then only secondarily went on to save Lot?  From the fact that the first half is dedicated to Lot, it seems that is primary, and what happened in Mitzrayim is secondary. 

 

What bothers me about this Midrash is the idea of הוּא אֲבִיהֶם פָּעַל עִמִּי בַּחֲצִי הַלַּיְלָה.   Those words פָּעַל עִמִּי makes it sound like Avraham was acting for Hashem's sake. Wasn't he acting for Lot's sake?  For his family's sake? 

 

I don't know if I have a good explanation, but let me try.  I want to revisit something I wrote 10 years ago.    At the end of the pasuk וַיִּקְח֨וּ אֶת־ל֧וֹט וְאֶת־רְכֻשׁ֛וֹ בֶּן־אֲחִ֥י אַבְרָ֖ם וַיֵּלֵ֑כוּ the Torah adds וְה֥וּא יֹשֵׁ֖ב בִּסְדֹֽם.  We already know Lot was living in Sdom.  Why stick that in again here?  I suggested is that the Torah is telling us that Lot had no regrets.  "Put yourself in Lot's shoes: you left Avraham to go move to greener pastures, and suddenly you find yourself in the midst of a war, taken hostage, and all the wealth you had accumulated thanks to Avraham gone.  What would be going through your mind?  I know what I would be thinking.  I would be imagining the quiet evenings sitting in an armchair in Avraham's tent and kicking myself for turning my back on that."  That's not what Lot thought.  וְה֥וּא יֹשֵׁ֖ב בִּסְדֹֽם -- his mind was still fixated on his home in Sdom, happy to be where he was, irrespective of what had occurred. 

 

R' Shlomo Kluger suggests this pshat, but then he suggests something different, 180 degrees the opposite, and I am going to put a slight twist on what he says while keeping the basic idea.   The reason Lot was calm and at peace with where he was is not because he was so steeped in the culture of Sdom that he was incapable of regret, but aderaba, it was because he still had faith.  His bitachon was intact.  Even though he knew he was in Sdom, the bottom of the barrel, he was confident, whether because of something he had done or in the merit of Avraham, that he would be saved.

 

רַבִּ֥ים מַכְאוֹבִ֗ים לָ֫רָשָׁ֥ע וְהַבּוֹטֵ֥חַ בַּֽה׳ חֶ֝֗סֶד יְסוֹבְבֶֽנּוּ (Teh 32:10). The Yalkut explains that the seifa of the pasuk is referring to the same rasha as the reisha: רבים מכאובים לרשע. רבי אליעזר ורבי תנחום בשם רבי ירמיה אפילו רשע ובוטח בה׳ חסד יסובבנו.  You can be a Lot who has turned his back on Avraham and gone to Sdom, but so long as you have bitachon left, Hashem will not abandon you.

 

Did Avraham want to save Lot because he was family?  Imagine you had a nephew like Lot who turned his back on you after you had given him everything, who walked away from everything you valued, who chose a lifestyle antithetical to your entire belief system.  Is that the guy you are going to endanger your life to save?  Blood is thicker than water, but ad k'dei kach?! 

 

Maybe it's not family ties that motivated Avraham to go to bat for Lot. פָּעַל עִמִּי means Avraham on a personal level may have wanted nothing to do with Lot, but for the sake of doing good l'shem Shamayim, since he recognized Lot as a fellow man of faith (albeit on a far lower level), Avraham put aside his personal feelings and came to Lot's rescue.  In turn, Hashem put aside all the many faults of Bn"Y and granted them miracles upon miracles in leaving Egypt.

 

You didn't forget how I started this post  I hope : )   Perhaps this is the context that helps us better understand and appreciate Maharal's view that Avraham is held accountable here for taking talmidei chachamim to war because it showed a lack of bitachon.  The whole justification for the war here is an outgrowth of the bitachon of Lot, of a rasha.  When someone like that rises to the occasion and shows that in his heart of hearts he still has faith, how much more so is it incumbent upon Avraham Avinu, the tzadik, to rise to an even higher level in his bitachon.  That's why Hashem was so medakdeik here on Avraham.