Not the Man

כַּעַס הָיָה לְאָבִינוּ אַבְרָהָם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ לוֹט בֶּן אָחִיו מֵעַמּוֹ

When Avraham left Charan to enter Eretz Yisroel, he traveled not only with Sarah and the נֶּפֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ בְחָרָן, but also with his nephew, Lot. As time went on, we learn, it became impossible for the two to coexist, and Avrohom was forced to send Lot on his way. The Pessukim describe the events that led to this separation, as well as the way that each chose their new direction, and then the Torah tells us: אַבְרָם יָשַׁב בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְלוֹט יָשַׁב בְּעָרֵי הַכִּכָּר וַיֶּאֱהַל עַד סְדֹם.

The next set of Pessukim seems to open a new topic, as HKBH speaks to Avrohom about his eventual inheritance of the entire land of Eretz Yisroel with words that ring in our ears until today: קוּם הִתְהַלֵּךְ בָּאָרֶץ לְאׇרְכָּהּ וּלְרׇחְבָּהּ כִּי לְךָ אֶתְּנֶנָּה. The way this Passuk is written gives us pause, however: rather than sa y ing וַיֹּאמֶר ה׳, which would be more standard, the Passuk says וָהּ׳ אָמַר. The Medrash, here, seems sensitive to this point and explains the variation: כַּעַס הָיָה לְאָבִינוּ אַבְרָהָם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ לוֹט בֶּן אָחִיו מֵעַמּוֹ. As the Meforshim explain, the words וָהּ׳ אָמַר always indicate an element of כַּעַס from HKBH to the one who is being spoken to.

The Medrash continues, with a Memra of R’ Yehuda who explains why HKBH was upset when Lot took leave of Avrohom: אָמַר הקב״ה לְכָל הוּא מִדַּבֵּק וּלְלוֹט אָחִיו אֵין מִדַּבֵּק. Avrohom attached himself to all manner of people, bringing them within his orbit and closer to Hashem, as we know. When it came to his own relative, however, he was unable to do so, and HKBH was therefore angry.

The Medrash then brings a similar Memra in the name of R’ Nechemiah: כַּעַס הָיָה לוֹ להקב״ה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מַהֲלָךְ לוֹט עַם אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ. Hashem was indeed angry at Avrohom, but at a different point in time—when Lot decided to travel with him. The Medrash explains why this brough כַּעַס: אָמַר הקב״ה אֲנִי אָמַרְתִּי לוֹ לְזַרְעֲךָ נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת וְהוּא מַדְבִּיק אֶת לוֹט בֶּן אָחִיו כְּדֵי לְיָרְשׁוֹ. It seems that the fact that Avrohom allowed Lot to travel with him showed a lack of Bitachon in the promise that Hashem made to Avrohom, לְזַרְעֲךָ נָתַתִּי אֶת הָאָרֶץ, and therefore כַּעַס הָיָה לוֹ להקב״ה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מַהֲלָךְ לוֹט עַם אַבְרָהָם.

Several questions can be asked on this Medrash.

First, why was Avrohom faulted for distancing himself from Lot? He had brought him to Eretz Yisroel, and kept him close for as long as possible. It was clear, however, that he and his nephew had different desires and priorities, and Avrohom asked Lot to leave—why did this bring כַּעַס?

This question is bolstered by the way the words וָהּ׳ אָמַר אֶל אַבְרָם are explained by Rashi: וְכָל זְמַן שֶׁהָרֶשַׁע עַמּוֹ הָיָה הַדִּבֵּר פּוֹרֵשׁ הֵימֶנּוּ. Hashem did not speak to Avrohom while Lot was with him, and the Dvar Hashem returned to him now that Lot had left. This makes it clear that it was problematic for Lot to be in the presence of Avrohom—why then did Hashem say לְכָל הוּא מִדַּבֵּק וּלְלוֹט אָחִיו אֵין מִדַּבֵּק?

The second Memra is also difficult to understand: If it is true that כַּעַס הָיָה לוֹ להקב״ה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מַהֲלָךְ לוֹט עַם אַבְרָהָם, why do we not learn of this earlier? Why is it only mentioned here, when the Medrash is speaking about the Pessukim that took place after Lot left?

In a broader sense, we must understand how these two Memros can coexist, as they seem diametrically opposed to one another. Was the כַּעַס generated by Lot’s presence or his departure? How can these two Memros be resolved with one another?

In trying to explain this Medrash, it seems important to understand the character of Lot on a deeper level.

Although there are a few Pessukim that tell us over conversations between Avrohom and Lot, there is perhaps no greater indication of their innate connection than a Rashi that appears earlier in the Parsha.

When he approaches Lot to discuss the rift between their respective shepherds, the Passuk tells us: וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְרָם אֶל לוֹט אַל נָא תְהִי מְרִיבָה בֵּינִי וּבֵינֶךָ...כִּי אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים אֲנָחְנוּ. The words אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים אֲנָחְנוּ are curious, because Avrohom refers to Lot as his brother, though they were uncle and nephew. Rashi offers two explanations for these words, including the following from a Medrash Agaddah : וְדוֹמִין בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים, they looked exactly alike.

Now, the Torah does not use the words אֲנָשִׁים אַחִים אֲנָחְנוּ to tell us that they merely bore a resemblance to one another; rather, it is clear that Avrohom and Lot were indistinguishable from one another. This would seem to indicate that Lot and Avrohom were closely related, and connected—that they were cut from one cloth, so to speak.

At the same time, we see later on that Lot had a completely different set of ideals as well.

When the Passuk discusses the departure of Lot from Avrohom’s camp, the words וַיִּסַּע לוֹט מִקֶּדֶם are used. Rashi, there, explains the use of the word מִקֶּדֶם, which seems unnecessary: הִסִּיעַ עַצְמוֹ מִקַּדְמוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, Lot took himself away from HKBH, who is the origin of the entire world. Rashi continues, explaining Lot’s attitude: אִי אִפְשִׁי לֹא בְּאַבְרָהָם וְלֹא בֶּאֱלֹקוּתוֹ. In leavening, Lot completely rejected Avrohom, and his connection to HKBH, the מִקַּדְמוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם.

We see here that Lot was unlike Avrohom—indeed, they were opposites—despite their resemblance. How can we understand this? Did something change in Lot’s character or outlook? If not, why didn’t Avrohom understand earlier that he should send Lot away, as R Nechemiah suggests? If, in fact, this was the first time that Lot expressed this attitude, why was Avrohom faulted for sending him away, as R’ Yehuda says?

There is another Medrash which seems relevant to this discussion, as opens our eyes to a different side of Lot.

In Parshas Vayera , when Lot is saved from the destruction of Sedom , the Passuk says: וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹקִים אֶת אַבְרָהָם וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת לוֹט מִתּוֹךְ הַהֲפֵכָה. Chazal, in a number of places, wonder why Avrohom’s name is mentioned here—we would expect that the Passuk tell us that Hashem remembered Lot, what do the words וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹקִים אֶת אַבְרָהָם teach us?

The Medrash Rabbah, there, answers this question as follows: נִזְכַּר לוֹ שְׁתִיקָה שֶׁשָּׁתַק לְאַבְרָהָם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר אַבְרָהָם עַל שָׂרָה אִשְׁתּוֹ אֲחֹתִי הִיא, הָיָה יוֹדֵעַ וְשׁוֹתֵק. When Avrohom was forced to go to Mitzrayim , as the Torah tells us in this week’s Parsha, he was afraid that the Mitzriyim would kill him in order to take Sarah as their own, and so he instructed her to obfuscate: אִמְרִי־נָא אֲחֹתִי אָתְּ לְמַעַן יִיטַב־לִי בַעֲבוּרֵךְ וְחָיְתָה נַפְשִׁי בִּגְלָלֵךְ. Lot, however, knew the truth, and he stayed silent—rather than trading his knowledge for fortune or adulation, he kept up the ruse—and he was later rewarded. The Passuk says וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹקִים אֶת אַבְרָהָם וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת לוֹט because it was the Chesed that he did for Avrohom that was recalled and saved him from the destruction of Sedom .

R’ Ahron Kotler, in Mishnas Reb Ahron here, asks a question on this Medrash: the Pessukim, and attendant Divrei Chazal, make it clear that Lot did the Mitzvah of Hachnasas Orchim in Sedom under the most trying circumstances. Even as the Anshei Sedom surrounded his house, threatening him and his family for housing the Malachim , Lot held fast and allowed them to stay. Why then was the Zechus of his silence, the שְׁתִיקָה שֶׁשָּׁתַק לְאַבְרָהָם , necessary? Why wasn’t the Zechus of his Hachnasas Orchim enough?

The answer, says R’ Ahron, can be found in the distinction between Avrohom and Lot, which he explains based on a thought from the Alter of Slabodka .

The essence of Avrohom Avinu was Chesed—this was his entire being and existence. When he did Hachnasa Orchim , it came from not only a desire, but an intense need to help others, to take care of those who needed it. This, explains the Rosh Yeshiva, is the type of person that the Passuk in Mishlei refers to with the words גֹּמֵל נַפְשׁוֹ אִישׁ חָסֶד. An Ish Chesed is not someone who just does Chesed, but who lives and breathes Chesed—this was the Madreigah of Avrohom Avinu .

Low, however, was not an Ish Chesed. Yes, we see that he did Chesed, and was even Moser Nefesh for Hachnasas Orchim , but it was not because of a primal need and desire to do Chesed. Rather, explains R’ Ahron, his Chesed was a מַעֲשֵׂה חִקּוּי, an imitation of Avrohom Avinu . Living in the house of Avrohom taught Lot how to do Chesed, and maybe even why, but it did not make him into an Ish Chesed—his acts of Chesed were just that, actions done almost by rote.

It was for this reason that the Hachnasas Orchim he performed in Sedom was not the Zechus that saved him—because these were in the realm of מַעֲשֵׂה חִקּוּי they were not enough to protect him. His act of שְׁתִיקָה , however, was much more powerful because he was not merely imitating that which he had seen—this was a decision that he made of his own volition, from a desire to protect Avrohom, and this was the Zechus that protected him: נִזְכַּר לוֹ שְׁתִיקָה שֶׁשָּׁתַק לְאַבְרָהָם.

Perhaps we can explain the relationship between Avrohom and Lot, and the words of the Medrash, based on this idea.

As Rashi tells us, Lot looked like Avrohom, דוֹמִין בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים, a reality of which Avrohom himself was certainly aware. Perhaps Avrohom understood this resemblance to mean that Lot was exactly like him, a true Ish Chesed. It was for this reason that he took Lot with him into Eretz Yisroel—he saw his nephew as his spiritual heir of sorts. Even when HKBH said לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת־הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת, Avorom might have assumed that, in the absence of actual children, this referred to Lot, who looked and acted so similar to him.

The truth, however, was that Lot was not exactly like Avrohom. He was merely דּוֹמֶה בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים—a copy, an artificial representation of the true Ish Chesed. Even the acts of Chesed that Avrohom saw, which may have been similar to his own, were nothing more than מַעֲשֵׂה חִקּוּי, an imitation of the real thing.

When Lot left Avrohom, his true colors were seen. Rather than leaving to find his own space, he made a declaration: אִי אִפְשִׁי לֹא בְּאַבְרָהָם וְלֹא בֶּאֱלֹקוּתוֹ. Lot showed that his acts of Chesed until then did not come from his own decisions and aspirations, but were simply what he was trained to do, what he was used to. These words showed that he was merely דּוֹמֶה בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים, but had not truly subsumed the lessons of Avrohom’s home, and therefore never reached the level of Ish Chesed. This is why he was able to continue to do Chesed even once he had settled in Sedom —his rejection of אַבְרָהָם וְאֱלֹקוּתוֹ did not extend to his acts of Hachnasas Orchim because those were not rooted in his Neshama, they were physical actions.

This understanding of Lot and his character can allow us to explain the two Memros in the Medrash.

On one hand, כַּעַס הָיָה לְאָבִינוּ אַבְרָהָם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁפֵּרֵשׁ לוֹט בֶּן אָחִיו מֵעַמּוֹ. When Lot said אִי אִפְשִׁי לֹא בְּאַבְרָהָם וְלֹא בֶּאֱלֹקוּתוֹ, making it clear that he had not become an Ish Chesed, there was a moment of כַּעַס : why wasn’t Avrohom able to affect Lot to the maximum extent? Why, in fact, did Lot remain דּוֹמֶה בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים and not become a true representation of Avrohom in every way? Avrohom was able to affect so many people, but not his own flesh and blood: לְכָל הוּא מִדַּבֵּק וּלְלוֹט אָחִיו אֵין מִדַּבֵּק.

It is now that the Medrash brings up the words of R’ Nechemiah: כַּעַס הָיָה לוֹ להקב״ה בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה מַהֲלָךְ לוֹט עַם אַבְרָהָם. Perhaps Avrohom should have realized this from the very beginning. He should never have assumed that their likeness was anything but physical. Had Avrohom understood that Lot was דּוֹמֶה בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים, but in no other way a true representation of his ideals, Avrohom would have seen him in a different light. Of course, he would not have assumed that the words לְזַרְעֲךָ אֶתֵּן אֶת־הָאָרֶץ הַזֹּאת referred to Lot, but their relationship would also have been much different. If Avrohom had understood that Lot was not a finished product, but was merely דּוֹמֶה בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים, perhaps Avrohom would have put more effort into his nephew and molded him into a true Ish Chesed.

Now, when Lot departed with the words אִי אִפְשִׁי לֹא בְּאַבְרָהָם וְלֹא בֶּאֱלֹקוּתוֹ, it became clear that Avrohom should have approached their relationship differently. The words of R’ Yehuda and R’ Nechemiah are therefore not in conflict: there was a moment of כַּעַס when Lot left, but it was related to the כַּעַס that was generated well before. Avorhom , the consummate Ish Chesed, did not see his nephew for what he truly was, a mere דּוֹמֶה בִּקְלַסְתֵּר פָּנִים, and therefore לְכָל הוּא מִדַּבֵּק וּלְלוֹט אָחִיו אֵין מִדַּבֵּק.