בְּרֵאשִׁית‎

BeReshit

Genesis

CHAPTER 19

With Commentaries

“Have you anyone else here? …. bring them out of the place. For we are about to destroy this place because the outcry against its people has become great before YHVH, and YHVH has sent us to destroy it.”

Listen to this chapter in Hebrew

Torah Home

Tanakh Home

◄ Ch. 18

And the two messengers/angels come to Sodom in the evening/sunset/night. And Lot set at the gates to Sodom, and Lot saw and rose to meet them. And he bowed down face to the ground.

1 וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הַמַּלְאָכִים סְדֹמָה בָּעֶרֶב וְלוֹט יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר־סְדֹם וַיַּרְא־לוֹט וַיָּקָם לִקְרָאתָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַפַּיִם אָרְצָה׃

א

הַמַּלְאָכִים/HaMalAkhim

This word means “The Messengers,” whom most people nowadays know as angels. I have discussed this before, but the word angel is not Hebrew to English. The word angel comes from the Greek language, which is a Greek translation of the word מַלְאָך/MalAkh/messenger” in Hebrew. So, when you say angel, it is using a Greek word of a translation from the Hebrew word MalAkh=messenger. To say messenger means to use a direct translation from Hebrew to English and bypass the Greek.

These two messengers are the same messengers who departed from Avraham and HaShem in the previous chapter. However, they are no longer called men. Now, they are being identified as who they are: messengers from God. Avraham hosted three messengers, but one was missing because his job was done, and now he has gone wherever that messenger’s place was. That messenger’s job was to give Avraham and Sarah the news of their son being born from Sarah for Avraham. This means that Avraham will father this son and be the one Sarah will beget. This son is the one who will inherit the promises given to Avraham and not Yishmael, the son who was born to Avraham through Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian servant.
Some commentators say that one of the messengers came to heal Avraham. Still, I do not see what Avraham needed healing from, as it was Sarah who needed healing from her infertility. The only concern for Avraham and Sarah mentioned in the last chapter was their age. They were both too old. Avraham, through Scripture, has been proven to have no problems with having children, as he had already fathered Yishmael. However, Sarah needed a miracle so that she could have menstrual cycles again, and for that to take place meant rejuvenation. You could say that HaShem could have just given Sarah her menstrual cycle back by giving her new eggs, but being that she was 89, almost 90 years old, would she be able to withstand labor? Or the hardships of carrying a child for nine months? Let us not forget that Sarah kept her beauty into old age. We see this in the Pharaoh incident. But for Avraham and Sarah, having children at such an age would mean youth. This is what the messenger who left did. The messenger gave Avraham and Sarah youth and healed Sarah from her infertility—all of the things needed for both of them to conceive a child. We will have proof of their youth in a later chapter.
The remaining two messengers are responsible for witnessing Sodom and Gomorrah’s guilt for their multiple sins, saving Lot, and destroying Sodom, Gomorrah, and the surrounding area.

Let us talk about Lot for a bit. What was he doing sitting at the gates? There could be two explanations: one, he disagreed with the behavior of the people of Sodom and was already thinking of leaving; this might be why he sat at the gates to get away from everyone; or two, this was a common hangout place for some people. One thing is true: Lot retained some of Avraham’s humbleness in him. We know this by how he reacted to the two messengers of God. Did Lot see them as messengers of God or men? I think that Lot saw them as men, and the only reason they are identified as messengers of God now is for our information. However, Lot could perceive the power of God in them because he was Avraham’s nephew, and Lot was not as high in spiritual power as Avraham by far.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: שני TWO — One to destroy Sodom, the other to rescue Lot — it was he who had come to heal Abraham — whilst the third, who had come to make the announcement to Sarah, had departed as soon as he had carried out his mission (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 8).
המלאכים ANGELS — But elsewhere (Genesis 18:2) Scripture calls them men! When the Divine Presence was with them, it speaks of them as men. Another explanation is: in connection with Abraham whose power to receive heavenly visitors was great and whom angels visited as regularly as men, it calls them men, but in connection with Lot it calls them angels (Genesis Rabbah 50:2).
ולוט ישב בשער סדום AND LOT WAS SITTING IN THE GATE OF SODOM — The word is written without a ו so that it may be read יָשַׁב (he sat) — because that day they had appointed him as their judge (Genesis Rabbah 50:3).
'וירא לוט וגו AND LOT SAW THEM etc. — From the practice in Abraham’s house he had learned to look out for strangers (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: AND HE FELL DOWN ON HIS FACE TO THE EARTH. Until his nose touched the earth. Appayim (his face) refers to the nostrils which protrude from the face.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: ויקם לקראתם/And stood up to meet them, in order to prevent them from spending the night in the street. This was customary also in cities other than Sodom when no one had offered shelter to unexpected strangers. In such instances there was always the danger that the strangers would be harmed by some of the residents of the city.
וישתחו אפים ארצה, they clearly looked sufficiently imposing to warrant being treated differently.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: ויבאו שני המלאכים, “the two angels arrived, etc.;” Rashi points out that when these two individuals arrived in Eloney Mamre in front of Avraham’s tent, the Torah had referred to them as אנשים, men, mortal human beings, whereas now they are described as angels. If you were to counter that in the ensuing argument between the townspeople and Lot they are also described as אנשים, (verses 5,8,12) this sentence has to be understood as follows: “the ones whom the men of the city called אנשים, “men of substance, etc;” the whole dialogue must be understood thus:Alternately; Lot is saying to his fellow citizens: “do not do any harm to the guests in my house to whom you refer as אנשים. He realised that whereas he had recognised these individuals as angels, his fellow citizens obviously had not. This explanation is also applicable to verse 16, ויחזיקו האנשים, “the men” took hold of, etc.”

The Torah's description of the messengers, sometimes as men and sometimes as messengers of God, is certainly confusing. The only explanation I can give is the one I have given previously in other chapters. The messengers show themselves as men to whomever they want and as messengers of God to whomever they want. In this case, I think they showed themselves as men, but Scripture says messengers/angels for our benefit so that we know who they really are. All this time, they have been described as men, and we could certainly think they were men because Scripture says so. But now the Torah says they are not men but messengers of God, so we are forced to think back to the previous chapter and rethink everything from the last chapter if this is your first reading and have no commentaries. However, because Lot is Avraham’s nephew and has been trained by Avraham for most of his life, Lot has some righteousness to him and can see that these two men are not regular men.
Another thing we can see from this is that we should wonder how many times we have seen messengers of God and not known it. If we have encountered messengers of God, how did we treat them?

Rabbeinu Bahya (1255 – 1340) commentary: ויבאו שני המלאכים סדומה “When the two angels arrived at Sodom, etc.” At this point the Torah calls the men “angels.” In order to understand why the Torah switches between the terms “men” and the term “angels” according to the plain meaning of the text, we would have to say that whenever these messengers performed a mission involving mundane matters, matters which are the exclusive domain of terrestrial beings, the Torah refers to them as “men.” After they had completed their respective tasks on earth involving earthly creatures, the Torah reverts to calling them “angels.” They then assumed their original lofty stature. As far as a kabbalistic approach is concerned I have already dealt with this on 18:8.
וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם, “Lot saw and rose to meet them.” Avraham had beheld these “men” already from afar as it was full daylight, i.e. “during the heat of the day,” and this is why the Torah had underlined “he ran towards them.” Lot, however, did not see them until they were close by as they arrived in the evening. This is why the Torah merely mentions that “he arose (from his seat) to welcome them.”

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויבאו שני המלאכים, these were the two who had previously been described as שני האנשים, “the two men.” When next to Avraham, they did not outrank him; therefore the Torah did not accord them the title “angels.” When compared to Lot, they outclassed him spiritually so much that they could not be described as אנשים, men. (Bereshit Rabbah, 50:2)
וירא לוט ויקם לקראתם, he had learned the virtue of welcoming guests while he had been with Avraham.

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentery: Elsewhere they are called men. Rashi is answering the question: By calling them angels, the verse implies that they [appeared as angels and] wore angels’ garments. But this cannot be; why then would Lot bake matzos [for them]? Perforce, they appeared to him as men. Thus Rashi explains, “Elsewhere they are called men...” I.e., they are merely called so, not that they [now] divested themselves of physicality. Regarding Avraham they were called men, out of respect for the Divine Presence. But with Lot, the Divine Presence was not there — so they are called angels.
When the Divine Presence was with them they are called men... There is a difficulty with this explanation: It is obvious that angels have no importance relative to the Divine Presence. [Why does the verse switch terms to teach this?] Thus Rashi offers “another explanation.” And there is a difficulty with that as well: Why not call them men everywhere? And if you object that we would not know they were angels, so call them angels [everywhere]! And if [the term is switched] to teach that angels were common [to Avraham but not to Lot], do we not already know that Avraham was a greater tzaddik than Lot? Therefore, we need the first explanation too. (Maharshal)

And he said, “Behold, please, my lord/Adonai, please, turn aside to your servant’s house and pass the night/lodge, and wash your feet and rise and go on your way.” And he/they said, “No, for in the street/plaza, we will pass the night/stay.”

2 וַיֹּאמֶר הִנֶּה נָּא־אֲדֹנַי סוּרוּ נָא אֶל־בֵּית עַבְדְּכֶם וְלִינוּ וְרַחֲצוּ רַגְלֵיכֶם וְהִשְׁכַּמְתֶּם וַהֲלַכְתֶּם לְדַרְכְּכֶם וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹּא כִּי בָרְחוֹב נָלִין׃

ב

Lot sounds concerned about the two messengers of God. Whether he sees them as men or messengers, he tries to take them to his house and keep them safe. The wording from Lot implies that he wants the messengers to go to his house and spend the night safely and for them to continue on their way in the morning, which means that it is not safe during the night. Lot seems to be pleading and genuinely worried for them. It makes me think Sodom is like a bad neighborhood, an unsafe place during the day, but the nights are even worse. However, the messengers/angels decline the offer. This is obvious in my eyes, as their job is to be witnesses to Sodom and see how sinful they are. This is why they showed up at night, which is usually the worst time to be in a place like this. Staying in a safe place would not serve as witness to Sodom’s sins.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: רנה נא אדני BEHOLD NOW, MY LORDS — Behold now you are my lords since you have passed by me. Another explanation is: Behold now you should be careful with respect to these wicked people that they should not observe you, and, therefore this is the good advice that I give you, viz.: סורו נא—take a circuitous route to my house — a round-about way, that people should not notice you entering it. For this reason he said: סורו turn aside (Genesis Rabbah 50:4). ויאמרו לא AND THEY SAID, NAY — But to Abraham they had said, “So do [as thou hast said]”! Hence we may infer that one may readily decline an invitation from an inferior but one should not so readily decline an invitation from a superior (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: BEHOLD NOW, MY LORDS. Adonai is to be rendered my lords. It does not refer to God. When the word sur (turn aside) is followed by a mem it means to turn away from. When it is followed by the word el (to) it means turn from your place and come here, or turn from your place and go to a designated place. Compare, surah elai (turn in to me) (Jud. 4:18).

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: BEHOLD NOW, MY LORDS. Rashi comments: “Behold now you are my lords since you have passed by me” The correct interpretation is that it is an expression of pleadings: “My lords, behold now your servant’s house; turn aside, I pray you, to me” The word suru (turn aside) is as in the expressions: Turn aside (‘surah’), sit down here; Turn in (‘surah’), my lord, turn in to me; fear not. AND YE SHALL RISE UP EARLY, AND GO ON YOUR WAY. The purport of that was to tell them that they should not tarry in the city after the morning for Lot knew the nature of the men of the city and of their wickedness, but he thought, In the morning light they do it. It may be that he saw them as transients who would not tarry in the city, and so he said, And ye shall rise up early and go on your way if you desire.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: ולינו, “and spend the night (in my house);” he brought them into his house without delay before the people of Sodom could see them, and subsequently could identify them. \ורחצו רגליכם, “and wash your feet.” This was an additional precaution, as he reasoned if any of the townspeople will see their dusty feet they will realise that they recently arrived from beyond the city gates. This will cause the townspeople to investigate these men further. ולינו ורחצו, “spend the night and wash;” an unusual request, as most people wash (their feet) before going to bed at night. Besides we have it on the authority of Avraham who had asked the same men to first wash the dust off their feet before having lunch with him. (18:4) We therefore must understand Lot as follows: “if the men enter the house after having washed their feet, and they are seen as having clean feet, the townspeople will be suspicious believing that Lot had harboured guests secretly for several days already without their knowledge. He reasoned that the lesser evil is having these men sleep with dirty feet for one night than to provoke an altercation with the townspeople. Knowing of this danger, Lot added that the men (angels) should rise early and leave before they could be detected as guests of his.

Or HaChaim (approximately 1696 - 1743) commentary: והשכמתם והלכתם לדרככם, "and rise early and be on your way." Lot hinted to the angels that they had to hide from the local population because he was afraid that something might happen.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: הנה נא, א-דוני, the word נא always expresses a plea. In this instance the word הנה has the vowel segol, because of the dagesh (dot) in the letter נ of the word נא .א-דני, the vowel under the נ is a patach instead of the kametz we might have expected. This proves that the word is not a sacred attribute of the name of G’d. Lot, at that stage, had assumed that these strangers were simply extraordinary important people, judging by their attire and their general demeanour. When looking at them at the beginning he had thought they looked like angels. ולינו, he had to ask them to stay the night, seeing that had arrived in the evening. ורחצו, the letter ר has the vowel patach, as the word is in the imperative mode. Its meaning is just as it was when the angels arrived at Avraham’s in chapter 18. The invitation to wash one’s feet is normally extended as the first step in inviting guests to partake in a meal. In this instance, Lot did not bother to announce that he would feed these angels, seeing that he had already invited them to spend the night, something which would include supper as a matter of course. ויאמרו לא, from this verse our sages deduce that it is in order to decline invitations from insignificant people, whereas one must not turn down an invitation from prominent, highly placed people (quoted by Rashi) The same men, when visiting Avraham, had immediately accepted his invitation, whereas here, when an invitation seemed even more called for, they at first refused Lot’s offer of hospitality. כי ברחוב, in the public street or square of the town. They were not prepared to be the guests of anyone else in the city either.

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentery: Behold, you are now my masters since you have passed by me. According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Now” that you have passed by me, you are my masters. Turn off the main road... According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Please” turn in. Otherwise, why did he say to them סורו נא/pleas turn asid? He should have simply said, “Come to the home of your servant.”

This is true, the word נא/Na also means “now” but the words that Siftei quotes are not the words of Lot but of Avraham. Avraham said, “now that you have passed by your servant” and Lot said, “נא/Na/please/now, Adonai/my lord.” Continued by another נא/Na/plaese/now. Lot is pleading with the messengers to do as he says.

But he very much insisted for them to turn aside with him/to go with him and they went to his house and he made them a feast and baked unleavened bread for them to eat.

3 וַיִּפְצַר־בָּם מְאֹד וַיָּסֻרוּ אֵלָיו וַיָּבֹאוּ אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ וַיַּעַשׂ לָהֶם מִשְׁתֶּה וּמַצּוֹת אָפָה וַיֹּאכֵלוּ׃

ג

Lot was insistent in pleading with the messengers for them to go with him to his house and stay the night. In the end, Lot was successful in his pleading.
It is written that Lot made them a feast and unleavened bread. But what is the significance of the mention of unleavened bread? This contrasts with Avraham, who told Sarah to bake breadcakes, which do have leaven. The commentators have also noticed this and made their observations about it. However, my thinking is different from theirs. What is the significance of unleavened bread? Unleavened bread is now used for festivities in Jewish customs, but why? I have to skip ahead to explain correctly. If you know the story of Exodus, it is written that after ten plagues from HaShem, Moses successfully brought the Jewish people out of Egypt and from bondage, but they were in a hurry and had to make food for the road. It is written that they were so much in a hurry that there was not even time for the bread to rise, and they had to leave with poorly unprepared food. This is why, during Passover, the Jewish people eat unleavened bread for one week and are not even allowed to have leaven in their house during the festivity of Passover, as commanded in the Torah. This is done to remember the Exodus from Egypt and the freedom from their bondage. HaShem made this commandment for the people so they would not forget what HaShem did for them.
Now, let us go back to this verse. Lot made unleavened bread for them, which is denser, chewier, and flatter in texture compared to leavened bread. Some grow to like it, but leavened bread is softer and tastes different than unleavened bread, making leavened bread liked by most people. Even around the world, we mostly eat leavened bread for a reason. HaShem made the people eat unleavened bread in Passover so that they would remember and experience what their people went through.
So, knowing this, we should understand from this verse that Lot did not put much effort into this meal that he prepared for the messengers or men as Lot saw them. The food was rashly prepared and probably not all that good. Compare this to Avraham, who made breadcakes and personally chose the best of his flock and gave them milk and milk curd. Avraham’s food was the best anyone could have, while Lot’s was not and was far from it.
You may also ask, why doesn’t the Torah just say that the food was not the best and was rashly made? This is a simple answer best explained by this verse:

Psalms 19:8

“The law of YHVH is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of YHVH is sure, making wise the simple.”

In other words, reading and studying the Torah, like we are doing, has the additional property of making you think, which makes you smarter.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ויסרו אליו AND THEY TURNED ASIDE UNTO HIM — They took a circuitous route towards his house (Genesis Rabbah 50:4).

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: AND HE URGED THEM GREATLY. His urging them was meritorious on the part of Lot, and he indeed had a sincere desire to welcome wayfarers. They, however, at first refused in order to increase his merit, and therefore they finally listened to him; but originally they did not want to come into his house as he was not a perfectly righteous man. But our Rabbis have said [in order to explain their original refusal]: “One may decline an offer from an inferior person, but not from a superior person.” If so, their declining his offer at first was merely an act of ethical conduct.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: A feast. Literally, “a drinking feast.” Lot offered them wine because he was fond of it himself.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויפצר בם מאד, he spoke to them intently on the subject, urging them to accept his invitation, until eventually, they did come to his house. Onkelos (approximately 35 - 120 CE) writes ותקיף בהם, that he actually took hold of these men until they concurred to spend the night with him.
ויעש להם משתה, seeing it was night he did not have time to slaughter an animal in their honour, but he prepared something at short notice, served them drinks, and unleavened bread which can be prepared at short notice. It is good manners to prepare something at short notice for guests who arrived unexpectedly. The guest arriving at such a time is usually tired and does not care to wait until an elaborate meal can be prepared in his honour. The story has been recorded for all times in order to teach us how to serve unexpected guests arriving at night.

Before they lay down, people (or men) of the city, people (or men) of Sodom, surrounded the house, from the young to the old, all the people from all the borders (of Sodom).

4 טֶרֶם יִשְׁכָּבוּ וְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר אַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם נָסַבּוּ עַל־הַבַּיִת מִנַּעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן כָּל־הָעָם מִקָּצֶה׃

ד

אַנְשֵׁי/Anshey or Anshi

This word could mean both, men in plural or men and women mixed.

עם/Am

This word can mean people or people of the same nation or area.

קצה/Katze

This word can mean end, extremity, border, or outskirt.

Most Bible translations translate the word אַנְשֵׁי as “men,” but the word can also mean “mixed men and women.” The use of the word עם, which means people or nation, shows that they were all not just men but also women. Also, the use of the word קצה, which means extreme, border, or outskirt, tells me that they were all from the district of Sodom, but not just that, it also means that all of them showed up. Taking all these words into account, we can come to the conclusion that all the people, men and women, and even kids, were mixed in this mob surrounding Lot’s house because the verse says from the young to the old. So, people did not care about their kids and ruled themselves.
In reality, bringing all the people together like this would not be easy, and it would be unusual for all the townspeople to assemble on such short notice. This shows that the city was small and more like a small town for the news of newcomers to get around that fast. Seeing how fast everyone acted also tells me that this was a usual occurrence in Sodom, something that was looked forward to. This behavior was how Sodom acted when new people showed up at the gates of Sodom. It was almost like a celebration of sorts. Like in old times, when people had to go out to hunt, and the hunters came back with food, all the townspeople celebrated and gathered to meet the hunters because that showed that now they had food. But this was something sinister and disturbing, as we will see.

Another thing we can take from this verse is the part where it says, "young to the old." This means that even young people are liable for their sins. This is why teaching children morality and good behavior toward others from a very young age is very important. Kids are more intelligent than we think, and they puch their limits when they can, which makes it our responsibility to teach them as early as possible.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: טרם ישכבו ואנשי העיר אנשי סדום/Before they lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, The following explanation is given in Genesis Rabbah 50:5: Before they lay down, the men of the city were a topic of conversation (literally, were in the mouths of the angels), for they asked Lot about their character and doings, and the latter replied that most of them were wicked. They were still speaking about them, 'ואנשי סדום וגו/when the men of Sodom etc. However the real sense of the text is: The men of the city, wicked men, compassed the house. Because they were wicked he designates them as “men of Sodom”, just as Scripture said, (Genesis 13:13) “And the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners”.
כל העם מקצה ALL THE PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER — from one end of the city to the other end, and no-one protested, for there was not even one righteous person amongst them (Genesis Rabbah 50:5).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: ALL THE PEOPLE FROM EVERY QUARTER. Those who did not live in the vicinity of Lot’s house.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: מנער ועד זקן/both young and old. Seeing that all of them were wicked, Avraham had not received an assurance beyond a minimum of ten.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: טרם, why did the Torah have to write the words אנשי סדום/the men of Sodom, having already immediately before identified these men as אנשי העיר/the men of the town? The Torah wanted to emphasise that by their actions they proved that they must be inhabitants of the city of Sodom. This bore out the Torah’s previous characterisation of the inhabitants of this city as רעים וחטאים, “wicked and sinful,” (13:13).
ועד זקן, the old people were no better than the people in their prime whose perversions might have been due to their youthful vigour. All the people ganged up on Lot’s house. As a result of their extreme self-centeredness, they had passed a law that no stranger was to be entertained in that city. Lot’s having broken with this tradition so enraged them that they decided to teach him a lesson by attacking his guests. The reason why the Torah goes into all this detail is merely so that subsequent generations will realise that G’d’s action in destroying such people was justified.

Rashbam (approximately 1085 – approximately 1158) commentary: כל העם מקצה/all the people from the area, the Torah mentions this detail in order to show us that there was not even a single Sodomite who would qualify for saving, as suggested by Avraham in the event there would be 10 righteous people there.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Before they, the angels, lay down to sleep, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house, from young to old, all the people from every quarter. The mention of the men of Sodom evokes the earlier verse: “The men of Sodom were extremely wicked and sinful to the Lord” (13:13).

And they called out to Lot and said to him, “Where are the men who came to you this night? Bring them out to us so we can know them.”

5 וַיִּקְרְאוּ אֶל־לוֹט וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ אַיֵּה הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־בָּאוּ אֵלֶיךָ הַלָּיְלָה הוֹצִיאֵם אֵלֵינוּ וְנֵדְעָה אֹתָם׃

ה

These people did not knock; they just yelled out to Lot and demanded that Lot bring the two men he had taken into his house. The wording used is “so we can know them.” I do not know if you have read this commentary from the beginning, but in Scripture, to know someone is another way of saying to have sexual relations with them, usually used for husband and wife, as in verse Bereshit/Genesis 4:1, “And ADAM/the man knew Khavah/Eve, his wife, and she conceived and bore Kayin, saying, ‘I have acquired a man from YHVH.’” You may question this wording to mean that they just wanted to talk to them so they could get to know them, but that is questionable if you consider verses 7 and 8. These people of Sodom were going to do this unholy act whether Lot or the two men, who now we know are messengers from God, wanted it or not. The people of Sodom were there to sexually abuse the messengers of God, who looked like men to them. They were all there to take these men by force and abuse them sexually. All the people of Sodom were of one mind, from the young to the old.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ונדעה אותם AND WE SHALL KNOW THEM — with homosexuality, as in "who have not known a man" (Genesis Rabbah 50:5).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: THAT WE MAY KNOW THEM. A euphemism for sexual intercourse.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: ונדעה אותם/so we can know them, “so that we may engage in homosexual relations with them;” the word ידע is familiar to us from Genesis 4:1 where it described Adam in engaging in carnal relations with Chavah.

Rashbam (approximately 1085 – approximately 1158) commentary: ונדעה אותם. A euphemism for committing sodomy with these strangers. The same expression as a euphemism is also found in Judges 19:22.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: They called to Lot, and said to him: Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, and we will be intimate with them. The residents of the city demanded that Lot bring out his guests so that they could exploit them sexually. It was not clear at this point whether their demand was based on sexual desire or to demonstrate their absolute intolerance of guests. The only person in Sodom who accepted guests was Lot, who was not a native of the city.

And Lot came out to them at the entrance and shut the door after him.

6 וַיֵּצֵא אֲלֵהֶם לוֹט הַפֶּתְחָה וְהַדֶּלֶת סָגַר אַחֲרָיו׃

ו

Lot came out and put himself between the people and the entrance, shutting the door behind him and denying the people of Sodom entrance to the house. The wording makes me think that when Lot opened the door, the people were trying to get in, and Lot forced himself and them out. Then Lot had to shut the door to deny entrance to the house. Now Lot finds himself being pressed against the door by a mob of people.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויצא....סגר אחריו, either the person within the house locked the door from the inside, or Lot locked the door from the outside.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Lot went out to them, the residents of the city, to the entrance of his home, and he closed the door behind him, to prevent them from entering the house.

And he said, “Please, my brothers, do not be evil.

7 וַיֹּאמַר אַל־נָא אַחַי תָּרֵעוּ׃

ז

VaYomar | Al-Na | Akhay | TareU

Lot starts pleading with them by calling them brothers, meaning that he considers himself part of their community. He is one of them and part of Sodom. He does this to try to appeal to them some sympathy by considering them kinsmen. He also points out that their actions were evil in nature. And because their actions had evil intent, Lot is pleading them not to do it.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויאמר אל נא, “please guard the welfare of these men for you are my brothers and neighbours; do it for my sake and leave them alone!”

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: He said: Please, my brethren, do not do evil. He requested that they forgo their wicked demand.

Please, see I have to me two daughters, who have not known men. Please, I will bring them out to you and do to them as you see fit in your eyes. Except for these men, do not do these things, for they have come under the shadow of my beams (or shelter of my house).”

8 הִנֵּה־נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדְעוּ אִישׁ אוֹצִיאָה־נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל אַל־תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר כִּי־עַל־כֵּן בָּאוּ בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי׃

ח

Lot was offering his own two virgin daughters to these evil people to do to them as they would have done to the two messengers of God. The fact that Lot mentions that his two daughters had never been intimate with men shows the intentions of the people of Sodom there for the wording, “so we may know them.” Lot was trying to entice the people with his two virgin daughters for the security of the two messengers of God who had come under his protection. These actions saved Lot from being destroyed alongside Sodom. Lot was not righteous, but he had redeemable qualities that saved him.
Some say that Lot should have fought to the death, but who would have won against a mob like this? I would think that would have killed him and put at risk not only the two men but also all of Lot’s family. The people of Sodom have all the power to do whatever they want; the fact that they are willing to talk to Lot means that the only course of action left to Lot is democracy. To try to talk some sense into them and negotiate with the mob. The situation is similar to Avraham’s when he went to Egypt. Avraham found himself in a land without fear of God, and so did Lot. Avraham knew what he was getting into, and Lot did, too. Avraham formulated a plan of action, but Lot did not. If you ask me, Lot should have warned the men and told them to leave Sodom because they were in danger, but he did not; he invited them into his house from the get-go. Of course, the messengers of God would not have listened and stayed anyway because that was their job, and maybe that was what happened. That is why Lot had no choice but to take them into his house, but I do not think that is what happened, as I said. Lot may not have known that they were messengers of God, but I think they looked important enough that Lot wanted to take them into his house. One, for protection because he knows the people of Sodom, or two, for his gain of hosting important guests. Let us not forget that Lot was a greedy man. He showed us that when he separated from Avraham, Avraham told him to pick where he wanted to go, and he took the best-looking land for himself. This could also be why the people of Sodom go overboard in their dealings with Lot and his guests, as he took this important-looking guest into his house for himself. Now, he finds himself in the situation that he is in. Remember, the people of the Bible are not fictional; they were real men and women, and Lot was doing his best either because he was concerned for the messengers of God or because he was trying to get something out of it by hosting these important-looking men.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: האל is the same as האלה THESE.
כי על כן באו FOR AS MUCH AS THEY HAVE COME — For (כי) this kindness please do out of respect to me because that (על כן) they have come בצל קורתי UNDER THE SHADOW OF MY ROOF. — In the Targum this is given by בטלל שרותי: the Targum (Aramaic) for קורה (a beam) is שרותא.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: LET ME, I PRAY YOU, BRING THEM OUT UNTO YOU. From the praise of this man Lot we have come to his disgrace: he made every effort on behalf of his guests in order to save them because they came under the shadow of his roof, but he is ready to appease the men of the city by abandoning his daughters to prostitution! This bespeaks nothing but an evil heart for it shows that the matter of prostitution of women was not repugnant to him, and that in his opinion he would not be doing such great injustice to his daughters. It is for this reason that our Rabbis have said, “It is the custom of the world that a man fights to the death for the honor of his daughters and his wife, to slay or to be slain, but this man hands over his daughters for dishonor. Said the Holy One, blessed be He, to him, ‘It is for yourself that you keep them.’”

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: אוציאה נא אתהן אליכן/Please bring them out to you, he hoped that the fiancés of his daughters would come to their aid. (compare Hoseah 10:14 for the meaning of the author’s expression קאם שאון).

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: אשר לא ידעו איש, “who have not had carnal relations with any man.” According to proper grammar, Lot should have said: אשר לא ידען איש, “with whom no man had had carnal relations;” seeing that it is usually the male who seduces the female; however the daughters of Lot were not chaste and did not shy away from engaging in seducing men, as we know from later when they initiated carnal relations with their own father. (20:33) Their descendants, the daughters of Midian, kept up the tradition when they seduced the Israelite males in the desert (Numbers 31:17) As a result all the female Midianite prisoners who had lost their virginity were not allowed to live.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: הנה נא, the words mean “now!” Now restrain your urge to kill these people. I will now hand over to you my two daughters and you can satisfy your urges with them. You can rape them, seeing that they are still virgins. Alternatively, you may even kill them. This is what he meant when he added the words כטוב בעיניכם. אל תעשו דבר, “do not do something evil.!” כי על כן באו, seeing they have come to spend the night under my roof, leave them be, in my honour, I would rather have you abuse my daughters or even kill them, than to do any harm to these men.”

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentery: Since they have come. Otherwise, the verse would mean they came to Lot so no one would harm them. But this cannot be, as the Sedomites were not previously harassing them. (Gur Aryeh)

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Here now are my two virgin daughters who have not been intimate with a man; I will now bring them out to you, and you may do to them as is fit in your eyes. Only to these men do nothing, as for this they came under the shelter of my roof.

And they said, “Approach further!” And they said, “This one, he came as a stranger, and he is judging as a judge. Now, we will be more evil to you than to them!” And they pressed very hard against the man, Lot, and approached to break the door.

9 וַיֹּאמְרוּ׀ גֶּשׁ־הָלְאָה וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָאֶחָד בָּא־לָגוּר וַיִּשְׁפֹּט שָׁפוֹט עַתָּה נָרַע לְךָ מֵהֶם וַיִּפְצְרוּ בָאִישׁ בְּלוֹט מְאֹד וַיִּגְּשׁוּ לִשְׁבֹּר הַדָּלֶת׃

ט

גֶּשׁ־הָלְאָה

This literally says “Approach further” but it means to say “get closer.” Get closer to us and further from the door. I know these are contradicting words, but you must consider what is happening and that this is ancient Hebrew. All the commentators and I got confused by this wording, and we all share different opinions on these two words.

The people of Sodom start by talking to Lot, telling Lot he is nobody to demand anything. They seemed to be around the house but far from the door, so they asked him to get closer. Most likely to get Lot away from the door. Finally, they tried to force their way in by approaching Lot and pushing him. Now they were trying to get past Lot so they could get to the door to break it; they were done talking. The people of Sodom started by talking, then escalated to violence, which is the part where they tried to push past Lot to break the door. These people were there with a purpose, and they were not leaving without what they came for. This is probably one of the worst situations you can find yourself in.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: AND THEY PRESSED HARD (‘VAYIFTZERU’) UPON THE MAN, EVEN LOT. I have found this word vayiftzeru only in connection with words of pleading. If so, we will explain its usage here as follows: the men of Sodom begged him [Lot] exceedingly to open the door for them, and when he refused to do so, they approached in order to break it. It may be that he stood in front of the door, not letting them come near him, and they begged him to turn aside as they did not want to harm him. This is the meaning of their saying, Stand back, meaning “stand in another place.”

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ויאמרו גש הלאה AND THEY SAID, STEP BACK — Get you away over there — as much as to say, Take yourself aside and keep away from us. Similarly wherever the word הלאה occurs in Scripture it has the meaning of further away. For example: (Numbers 17:2) “Scatter (הלאה) yonder”; (1 Samuel 20:22) “Behold the arrows are beyond thee (הלאה)” Thus גש הלאה signifies, withdraw yourself further away (old French Retire-toi de nous). It is an expression of contempt, signifying, “we do not take any notice of you!” Of a similar character are: (Isaiah 65:5) “Stand by thyself (אל תגש בי) come not near unto me”, and (Isaiah 49:20) גשה לי “Give place to me that I may dwell” which means “withdraw aside for my sake (לי) that I may dwell where you are now”. — They really meant to say to Lot: “You intercede for these strangers; how dare you!” In reply to what he had said to them regarding his daughters they answered: “Get out of the way” — a somewhat gentle expression — whilst with regard to his advocacy for the strangers they retorted, האחד בא לגור THIS MAN CAME TO SOJOURN — You are the only strange man amongst us, for you have come to sojourn here, וישפוט שפוט and you make yourself a Reprover of us!

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: האחד בא לגור, “is there even a single man who can be audacious enough to get away with this?”

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: עתה נרע לך מהם, “You are a guest here like they are, yet you conduct yourself like a native (citizen).”

Malbin (1809 - 1879) commentary: This one came as an immigrant. An immigrant is more deserving of punishment for violating local law than a native, especially in a place where immigrants are rarely accepted. And now he wants to be a judge.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויאמרו גש הלאה, they told him to get away from them, to leave and go someplace else. ויפצרו, they became very insistent, speaking very threateningly, beginning to assault him physically.

Rashbam (approximately 1085 – approximately 1158) commentary: גש הלאה, This construction is similar to Isaiah 65:5 אל תגע בי כי קדשתיך, “do not touch me for I have consecrated you.” In other words: “get closer to a more distant place,” or simpler: “flee from us.”

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentary: Back away... גש means to draw close to them, while הלאה means to move away from them. Thus Rashi explains it as קרב להלאה, meaning: go away from us and thereby draw close to where you are going.
You are the only stranger among us. “The only,” as it is written האחד. “Stranger,” as it is written בא לגור, which denotes a stranger.

And the men reached out their hands and brought Lot into the house to them, and they closed the door shut.

10 וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֶת־יָדָם וַיָּבִיאוּ אֶת־לוֹט אֲלֵיהֶם הַבָּיְתָה וְאֶת־הַדֶּלֶת סָגָרוּ׃

י

The messengers of HaShem are called men again, even though we already know they are not men but messengers of HaShem, maybe because this is how everyone perceives them at that moment. However, I think this is done for a specific reason. You should know by now that messengers of God and even some men are called Elohim/god in scripture, when they are not, and you should know the reason for that by now, and if you are not thought to know that this is done in Scripture, you would think that the actions of these messengers or men were God himself, in person. The switching back and forth from calling the messengers men and sometimes messengers of HaShem is to let us know to be careful with the wording and pay attention to the context of the text. Do not read just for reading; go beyond plain text and decipher its meaning.
This verse goes together with the next, and each of the messengers of HaShem extended their own hand, one to pull Lot in and the other to deal with the mob, which will be on the next verse.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: The men, the angels, who had the appearance of men, extended their hand and brought Lot to them, to the house, and closed the door. With their ability to perform miracles, the angels were able to spirit Lot into the house without letting the mob force its way inside.

And the people who were at the entrance to the house were stricken with blindness from small/(or young or weak) to the great/(or old or strong), and they were weary/exhausted/tired/wore themselves out to find the entrance/door.

11 וְאֶת־הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־פֶּתַח הַבַּיִת הִכּוּ בַּסַּנְוֵרִים מִקָּטֹן וְעַד־גָּדוֹל וַיִּלְאוּ לִמְצֹא הַפָּתַח׃

יא

This verse goes together with the last, explaining how the messengers of HaShem saved Lot and confused the people at the door. One messenger of HaShem grabbed Lot while the other struck the people with blindness and confusion. Each extending one hand to do two different jobs; if you are with a bunch of people, trying to force your way into a home, and all of a sudden you go blind or can not see, I am sure that you would forget what you were doing. All your concentration would be on the fact that you can not see at all, but these people kept on trying.
Another thing I should say is that for the longest time, I thought that a bright light had blinded the people, but this would have blinded Lot as well. However, this is not the case, and now I think that the people in front of the entrance to the house lost their sight. I looked it up and found a translation that says that a bright light did indeed blind them, but there is nowhere in this verse that it mentions light as the cause. The word for light in Hebrew is אוֹר/Or/light and is not in this verse. Also, the word לָאָה/LaA/weary/exhausted/tired/worn out tells me that even after they were stricken with blindness, they were still trying to find the door, which means that the blindness did not deter them from trying to find the door. They kept trying, but this gave the messengers of HaShem enough time to bring Lot into the house. They were pretty persistent.

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: WITH BLINDNESS. Sanverim (blindness) has a quadriliteral root. This term is also found in the account of Elisha (II Kings 6:18). It refers to physical and intellectual blindness. [Netter. Had they only been blind they still could have found the door.]

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: וילאו למצוא הפתח, even though they had already been smitten with blindness they did not therefore desist from their wicked intention. This is in line with the psychological insight of our sages in Eyruvin 19 that the wicked will not become penitents even when they stand at the gates of hell.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ואת האנשים, the angels punished the men of Sodom who were at the entrance to the house בסנורים/with blindness, with a temporary blindness. The word סנורים/blindness is a composite of the two words סני ראיה.

And the men said to Lot, “Who do you have here, besides you? Son-in-law, your sons, your daughters, all that belong to you in the city. Take them out of the city/land/region/from this location.

12 וַיֹּאמְרוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֶל־לוֹט עֹד מִי־לְךָ פֹה חָתָן וּבָנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־לְךָ בָּעִיר הוֹצֵא מִן־הַמָּקוֹם׃

יב

The messengers of HaShem asked Lot who he had in the city, meaning that Lot could choose who could be saved from his relatives. The wording says “yours or that is yours or that belongs to him.” Sons were in the plural, daughters were in the plural, but son-in-law was in the singular. This will come into play in verse fourteen because he had more than one.
The reason the messengers of HaShem asked this question, who Lot has in the city, has two possible meanings: one, the messengers wanted Lot to decide who to save, or two, the messengers do not know because they are not all knowing like HaShem is. But I think that they do know, why? This has to do with the reason why they said son-in-law in the singular when Lot has two sons-in-law, and we will get to that in verse fourteen.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: עד מי לך פה WHOM HAST THOU YET HERE — The evident sense of the verse is: whom else have you in this city besides thy wife and daughters who are at home with you. חתן ובניך ובנותיך SON-IN-LAW, THY SONS AND THY DAUGHTERS — If you have a son-in-law, sons, or daughters, take them out of this place. ובניך THY SONS means the sons of your married daughters. The Midrashic explanation of עוד YET is: since they have perpetrated so disgraceful an act, can you yet be so bold (more literally, “can you yet open your mouth”) to speak in defence of them? — for the whole night through he had been talking in favor of them. To obtain this explanation you must read: עוד מי לך פֶּה Have you yet a mouth! (instead of פֹּה here) (Genesis Rabbah 50:5).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: HAST THOU HERE ANY BESIDES? SON-IN-LAW. If you have a son-in-law here. AND THY SONS, AND THY DAUGHTERS. Or sons-in-law who are considered as your sons and daughters.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: SON-IN-LAW, AND THY SONS, AND THY DAUGHTERS. Rashi comments: “Whom else of your family have you in the city besides your wife and daughters who are at home with you? If you have additionally a son-in-law, or sons and daughters, take them out from this place.” Now if so, they [the angels] spoke in the manner of ordinary people for Lot had no sons, only daughters.
Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained: “Son-in-law, and thy sons — sons-in-law who are [as dear to you] as your sons.”
It is possible that Lot had grown sons who were married, and he spoke with his sons-in-law first as he thought that his own sons would listen to him [and leave the place]. But as his sons-in-law laughed at him and their conversation continued, dawn appeared, and the angels only permitted him to take those who were at hand. Thus the merit of Lot could have saved his sons and daughters and sons-in-law, not as Abraham had thought that He would make the righteous perish with the wicked. It is clear that the angels were acquainted with the knowledge of the Most High on this matter since the city of Zoar was also saved by his prayer.
It is possible that [the salvation of Lot’s family was not on account of his merit but] was in honor of his hospitality for it is the ethical way of messengers to save their host and all that belong to him, just as the messengers of Joshua also saved all the families of their hostess. And in Bereshith Rabbah it is said, “Because Lot honored the angel by offering him hospitality, he in turn befriended Lot.”

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ?ויאמרו...עוד מי לך פה, the same as asking “who else do you have here (in town)?” ובניך, your grandchildren, the children of your daughters. Lot did not have any sons. If he would have had any they would have been in the house with him, whereas married daughters would not. Or, he would have spoken to his sons also, just as he went out and spoke to his sons-in-law. הוצא מן המקום, do not only remove it from this town but from the entire region.

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentary: If you have a son-in-law or sons and daughters... “Who else do you have here” implies they did not know. Whereas “a son-inlaw, your sons, your daughters” implies they did know. Thus Rashi explains, “If you have...” Your married daughter’s sons. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps they were his sons and not his grandsons! The answer is: Since it is written “son-in-law” first, followed by “your sons, your daughters,” it implies that “your sons, your daughters” refers back to “son-inlaw,” i.e., the married daughter’s sons.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: The angels had yet to perform the tasks for which they were sent: the destruction of Sodom and the rescue of Lot. Although Lot was not altogether righteous, he was saved due to Abraham, his uncle. The men said to Lot: Who else have you here? Do you have any family in the city? A son-in-law, and your sons, and your daughters, and everyone whom you have in the city, remove from the place.

Then we will destroy this place/region, for great, their cries have been before/in the face of YHVH. And YHVH has sent us to destroy her/it.”

13 כִּי־מַשְׁחִתִים אֲנַחְנוּ אֶת־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי־גָדְלָה צַעֲקָתָם אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה וַיְשַׁלְּחֵנוּ יְהוָה לְשַׁחֲתָהּ׃

יג

The messengers of HaShem went as witnesses to Sodom to see if the situation was as HaShem had heard, and indeed it was. “For great, have their cries been before HaShem.” I have already explained where and from whom the creis came. HaShem's messengers found all these people guilty of their crimes, and it did not take long for them to find out how sinful they were. They arrived at Sodom as the sun went down, and no sooner had they eaten and were about to go to sleep than this all happened. Now, they tell Lot to save his people, only those that belong to him, before they destroy the whole region, and they said that because HaShem had sent them to do so. They do this from direct orders from HaShem. The people of Sodom have been judged and found guilty, and now punishment is at hand.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: כי משחיתים אנחנו, “for we are about to destroy, etc.” Throughout the mission of the angels, they are referred to in the singular mode. (Compare 18:10; 19:17, 19:22) Here the Torah used the plural mode. Why? Seeing that the Torah had used the plural mode (verse 21) it used the same mode here also when the subject is the destruction. וישלחנו, “He has sent us;” this word is in the piel conjugation with a dot in the letter ל, although the word normally is used in the conjugation kal and without the dot, when the mission on which the messenger has been sent is a two way mission, i.e. he has to come back with an answer or something tangible before the mission is considered as complete, in this instance we find that the conjugation piel a “strong” conjugation has been used as the mission was one of destruction. Another such example is found in Deuteronomy 32,24: ושן בהמות אשלח בם, “and fanged beasts will I let loose against them.” Still another such example is Psalms 78,45: ישלח בהם ערוב, He dispatched against them wild beasts.”

Rashbam (approximately 1085 – approximately 1158) commentary: וישלחנו/and we were sent, although in other instances when the word שלח/Send is used it never has a dagesh, reinforcing it, here, seeing the dispatch of these angels was not in order to assist, but in order to destroy, this is indicated by the change in the mode and reinforcing the word with the dot in the letter ל. We find another example of this construction in a similar context in Deut. 32:24, ושן בהמות אשלח בם, “the teeth of beasts I will set loose against them,” where the verb שלח is also used destructively. The same is true of Psalms 78:45, ישלח בהם ערב “He dispatched ferocious beasts against them.”

And Lot went out to speak/warn his sons-in-law, who had taken/married his daughters, and said, “Get yourself up, and get out/escape from this place/region, because YHVH will destroy the city/this place.” But he was as if joking in the eyes of his sons-in-law.

14 וַיֵּצֵא לוֹט וַיְדַבֵּר׀ אֶל־חֲתָנָיו׀ לֹקְחֵי בְנֹתָיו וַיֹּאמֶר קוּמוּ צְּאוּ מִן־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי־מַשְׁחִית יְהוָה אֶת־הָעִיר וַיְהִי כִמְצַחֵק בְּעֵינֵי חֲתָנָיו׃

יד

Lot runs to his sons-in-law to warn them of the impending doom, the destruction of Sodom. Notice that in this verse the plural form of son-in-law is used. We do not know the number, if they were all together, or if Lot ran from place to place to warn them all. We also have to remember that in verse twelve, the singular form of the word son-in-law is used. This tells me that only one of them has redeemable qualities to be saved; the rest, whatever the number is, do not. Unfortunately, none of them listened to Lot. They all thought that he was joking around and stayed.
I was thinking, and it would seem that the sons-in-law might have been all together. Why? We have to take into account what has just happened. When Lot was in his house protecting the messengers of God, the people of Sodom surrounded his home. It is written that all the people of Sodom, young and old, were there. That includes Lot’s sons-in-law. Since they know each other, the chances are high that they were there together, and when the people of Sodom could not do the evil deed they had planned, they disbanded back to their homes or gathered to discuss the event. And that is where Lot found them—probably talking and having a good time. When Lot came in, they did not listen or take Lot seriously.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: חתניו SONS- IN-LAW — he had two married daughters in the city (Genesis Rabbah 50:9). לוקחי בנותיו THOSE WHO WERE MARRYING HIS DAUGHTERS — those to whom his daughters at home were betrothed (Genesis Rabbah 50:9).

Typically, you do not call a man son-in-law until the man has married your daughter. This term says that a man has married your daughter and is now your son-in-law. The word for a man who is to marry a woman but is not yet married is fiancé, and in Hebrew, it is אֲרוּס/Arus. So, in the case of this verse, these men are not married to the unmarried virgin daughters of Lot living with him, but are already married to other daughters of Lot.

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: WHO MARRIED HIS DAUGHTERS. Lot had two other daughters who perished in Sodom. This is clear from Scripture’s statement: Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters that are here (v. 15).

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentary: Those to whom the ones at home were betrothed. But we cannot say that חתניו/his sons-in-law and לוקחי בנותיו/taking/married his daughters are one and the same, for if they were his sons-in-law, it is obvious that they married his daughters. Why would it need to write this?

And as the dawn ascended, the messengers (of God) hasted/urged to say to Lot, “Arise/get up/hurry! Take your wife and your two daughters, we will protect/secure you, lest you get caught in the punishment of the city/region!”

15 וּכְמוֹ הַשַּׁחַר עָלָה וַיָּאִיצוּ הַמַּלְאָכִים בְּלוֹט לֵאמֹר קוּם קַח אֶת־אִשְׁתְּךָ וְאֶת־שְׁתֵּי בְנֹתֶיךָ הַנִּמְצָאֹת פֶּן־תִּסָּפֶה בַּעֲוֺן הָעִיר׃

טו

This all happened in one night. The messengers of HaShem came to Sodom as night was coming in, and it is now morning, just before the sun came out. The sun was not visible yet, but some dim light could be seen. The messengers of God in this verse are called by their proper title, מַלְאָךְ/malAkh/messengers, or more commonly known as angels, sadly. The messengers of God frantically told Lot to hurry up and leave. Also, they told Lot to take his wife and two daughters along with him. The next part also has a lot of variations in Bible translations. The part where I translated as we will protect/secure you. Some write, “that are in the house with you,” when the word house or with you is not even present in this verse; with you is just inferred that they were with him in the actual Hebrew language. Some Bible translations omit the word מָצָא/Matza altogether, which means to find or to secure. However, the word used in this verse is הַנִּמְצָאֹת/HaNimTzaot, which makes it very confusing for the verse. This word has two prefixes, “the” and “We will.” Which can be translated, word for word, the we will find or the we will secure.” The word also has a suffix that makes the word find or secure feminine. In BeReshit/Genesis 47:15 we have the same word construct minus the sufix and in that verse it says, “You have saved our lives.” Like usual, I considered the chapter and went with secure as in the word to protect, because that is what the two messengers of God were doing for Lot. The messengers guaranteed Lot's safety by personally protecting them if he listened. The messengers told Lot to flee or he would be destroyed or harmed by the punishment coming to Sodom and the surrounding area.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ויאיצו THEY URGED [LOT] — as the Targum takes it, “they pressed” — i.e. they hurried him.
הנמצאות WHO ARE HERE (literally, who can be found) — who are ready at hand in the house to be rescued. There is a Midrashic explanation also, but this is the proper way to explain the text.

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: THEN THE ANGELS HASTENED. Va-ya’itzu (hastened) means they pressured. Compare, And the taskmasters were urgent (atzim), saying (Ex. 5:13).

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: ויאיצו/to hasten, in order that their destruction should take place at the very moment the sun, their great god, would come forth. (compare Berachot 7)

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: וכמו השחר עלה, at the time when dawn broke forth.
ויאיצו, they urged המלאכים, here the angels are described as angels again, not as in verse 10 where they were described as האנשים, “the men.” The reason is that here they performed the tasks of angels, i.e. they saved Lot and they destroyed the whole region.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: About when the dawn broke, the angels urged Lot, saying: Arise; take your wife and your two daughters who are present, lest you too be destroyed in the iniquity of the city. There is nothing we can do to save the rest of your family, whom you were unable to convince to flee. The time has arrived to leave the city.

But he lingered, and for the compassion that YHVH had for him, the men forcefully/strongly grabbed his hand, the hand of his wife, and the hand of his two daughters, and they sent/took him out and rested/placed him outside the city.

16 וַיִּתְמַהְמָהּ׀ וַיַּחֲזִקוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּיָדוֹ וּבְיַד־אִשְׁתּוֹ וּבְיַד שְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו בְּחֶמְלַת יְהוָה עָלָיו וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ וַיַּנִּחֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר׃

טז

Lot was wasting time. Why? I can not say, the only explanation that I can think of is that Lot was hoping that his sons-in-law would change their minds and meet him so that they could escape together. After all, they were married to his other daughters, and I would think they also had his grandkids; they are family. However, the messengers of HaShem had a job to do, and it seemed that the time was near to destroy the city and the surrounding area. So, they urged Lot very insistently until they finally made him leave by force, and it is written that they did this because HaShem was showing compassion for Lot. Some commentators say that HaShem had compassion for Lot because of Avraham’s sake, and others do not believe that. I think Lot had his own merits and was not far gone into sin. Lot was worth saving, HaShem was giving him the chance to do teshuva/repentance for Lot to change his ways and return to HaShem. The way Lot behaved himself in this chapter shows us that. He did not do everything right, but when things went wrong, he did try to do the right thing.
Now, let us discuss the verse's ending. The wording is very peculiar; it suggests they took Lot out miraculously, by flying, or some other means. Is that the way it was done? Who knows? The words used for the process are “sent” and “rest.” The wording used was that they took him and his family and set them down outside the city. Sounds like they flew them outside the city and landed there. For that part of the verse translation, it took me a long time to settle on the wording because it just did not make sense by human standards and capabilities. The suggestion of flight, by the wording used, is high. Also, let us not forget that the people of Sodom were looking for them, and if they had run through the city, they would have been in trouble. I am not saying that this is what happened, but the wording used suggests it very strongly, but it leaves room to doubt that. Remember what I said in other chapters: HaShem does not want you to love him for the miracles He can do, but for his love and compassion for those who love Him back. Also, I said, that miracles in Scripture are worded in a way that sounds very much like they are not miracles, so that you do not get wowed by them.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Perhaps Lot himself did not completely believe the angels’ warning. Their power to strike the residents of the city with blindness would certainly have impressed him, but he may still not not have entirely placed his confidence in them, and he may also have harbored concern about his uncertain future outside the city. Therefore, he hesitated. And the men forcefully grasped his hand, the hand of his wife, and the hand of his two daughters who were in the house. All this was performed out of the compassion of the Lord for him; although he was unworthy of being saved, it was the angels’ task to save him, even against his will. They took him out and placed him outside the city. They led him by foot to the entrance to the city or supernaturally transported him to the city’s outskirts.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ויחזיקו AND THE MEN LAID HOLD [UPON HIS HAND]— One of these was commissioned to rescue him whilst his fellow was to overthrow Sodom; that is why it is stated (v. 17) “And he said, escape”, and it is not stated “And they said” (Genesis Rabbah 50:11).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: AND THE MEN LAID HOLD UPON HIS HAND. The verse notes that Lot was overcome with fear and had no strength to flee on his own.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: AND THE MEN LAID HOLD UPON HIS HAND. Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said that the word vayachziku (and they laid hold upon) clearly shows that Lot was afraid and had no strength to flee. The correct interpretation of the word is that it is like the verse, ‘Vatechezak’ (And) the Egyptians (were urgent) upon the people, to send them out of the land in haste. Here likewise they were pulling them with strength to send them out in haste.
THE ETERNAL HAVING PITY UPON HIM. Not for Lot’s merit but only because of G-d’s pity and His abundant mercies. It may be that the verse is saying that they seized him to take them out while G-d’s pity was still upon him, lest the wrath go forth from G-d and he perish.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: For Adonai had pity. Even though Lot was originally spared in Avraham’s merit, he would have been killed for tarrying if Hashem had not had pity on him.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויתמהמה, Lot was still hesitant, apparently being loath to leave his wealth behind in the city. The angels therefore delayed until dawn, at which time they did not allow him time to save anything but his very life and the clothes he was wearing, even though, initially, they had asked him what else he owned in the city, implying that this too would be saved. (compare verse 12)
בחמלת ה' עליו, they hastened to take Lot out of the city for the sake of Avraham even though the time had arrived when the destruction was to take place.

As they sent/brought them outside, they said, “Escape for your life, do not look behind you, and do not stop in all the surrounding area, escape to the mountain or you will be destroyed/consumed.”

17 וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל־נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל־תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל־תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל־הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן־תִּסָּפֶה׃

יז‎

This verse goes back to when they were on their way to the outside of the city, meaning it happened somewhat in the middle of the previous verse.
The verse says, “As they sent/brought them outside, they said.” This means that the messengers of HaShem did not depart from them. So, if we want to believe in miraculous transport, the way they took them outside the city was not teleportation, but they ran without being seen or flew.
The messengers told him or them to run for their lives, not look behind them, and not stop. If they did not do as instructed, they would die. They were also instructed to go directly to a specific mountain because the word “the” was used. I'm not sure if there was only one mountain or many, but the messengers wanted him to go to that one specific one.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: המלט על נפשך ESCAPE FOR THY LIFE — Let it suffice you to save your lives; do not give a thought to your possessions.
אל תבט אחריך LOOK NOT BEHIND THEE — You sinned with them but art saved through the merit of Abraham. It is not fitting that you should witness their doom whilst you yourself are escaping (Genesis Rabbah 50:11).

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: אל תביט אחריך, the evil would catch up with you as soon as you interrupt your march away from it. This is precisely what happened to his wife when she ignored the instructions and looked behind. (verse 26)

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: ויהי כהוציאם אותם החוצה, “and it was as he took them outside;” the word אותם appears superfluous, as it is included in the plural suffix ם; the reason it was added was to emphasise that the angel only took Lot, his wife and the two daughters who were still unmarried. They were not allowed to take with them any of their belongings. The spelling of the verse is to teach us that Lot was so “married” to his material possessions that he could not face having to become separated from these. We have a similarly strange sounding grammatical formulation in Numbers 14:32: ופגרכם אתם “and you who are living corpses;” An alternate exegesis for the expression: ויהי כאשר הוציאם; the word is not exclusive but inclusive, i.e. “when the angel took Lot and his family out, etc.;”
אל תביט אחריך, “literally: “do not look behind you;” the reference is not to what one sees with one’s eyes, but to what one sees with one’s mind’s eye, i.e. leaving behind other members of one’s family. The angel warned Lot to move forward with all possible speed, not allowing any other consideration to slow him down. The reason was that the cloud containing the lethal particles had already risen and was unstoppable. It would discharge its contents all over the region.
אל תביט, “do not look!” Although the command is issued in the singular mode, [presumably Lot’s wife and daughters did not qualify for being addressed by an angel. Ed.] the warning was meant for each of the members of Lot’s family also. We find a parallel example of such a formulation in Genesis 2:17: ומעץ הדעת טוב ורע לא תאכל ממנו, where the prohibition to eat from the tree of knowledge is addressed to Adam in the singular mode, although it was intended both for him and his wife. This is the reason why Adam’s wife was punished for eating from it. אל תביט, the letter ב has the vowel chink, (instead of tzeyre.)

Or HaChaim (approximately 1696 - 1743) commentary: אל תביט אחריך, "do not look behind you!" The reason for this is simple. We believe that by looking at a person's face one (a צדיק/righteous) can detect whether he is good or evil. If Lot were to turn his face towards the city his sins would be reflected on his face and there would be no way he could have been spared.

Rashbam (approximately 1085 – approximately 1158) commentary: אל תביט אחריך/Don't look behind you, first of all on account of their going to experience the anguish of seeing the destruction of their city; secondly, in order not to afford them an opportunity to see the angels performing their destructive work as angels when there was no need for them to witness this. Watching divine beings in action and being saved by such spectacles requires Divine intervention and should therefore be avoided. Compare the awe with which Manoach comments on what he has seen in Judges 13:22, as well as Yaakov’s reaction in Genesis 32:31 after his wrestling match with the angel of Esau.

And Lot said to them, “Please do not Adonai/my lord!

18 וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל־נָא אֲדֹנָי׃

יח‎

VaYomer | Lot | Alehem | Al-Na | Adonai

Lot addresses both messengers of HaShem because the verse says “them,” but he says “my Lord” in the singular. One messenger is obviously more important than the other. It is like in court with a jury: When giving testimony, it is for all to hear, but you address the judge.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: נא/Na/Please — This word is used when a request is being made.

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: OH, NOT SO MY LORD. Adonai (my lord) does not refer to God. It is vocalized with a kamatz only because it comes at the end of the verse. Rabbi Samuel Ha-Nagid the Spaniard, of blessed memory, said that al (not so) in al na (Oh, not so) is derived from the same root as ho’il (wanted, was willing). However, I believe that al means no. The meaning of our verse is as follows: When the angels told Lot, escape to the mountain, Lot replied, “Oh, not so my lords.”

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: אל נא אדוני, “not so my lord.” The word: adoni here is not sacred (attribute of Divinity). This is why the verse ends with this word. Subsequently, Lot turns to G-d, and prays: “seeing that Your servant has found favour in Your eyes, etc. “ (Talmud, Shavuot, 35) According to our tradition, the word אדני is sacred, according to that version, we vocalise the letter נ with a kametz.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויאמר...אל נא, he begged them not to make him rush up the mountain as he was physically unable to move so quickly.

Behold, please, your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have done great kindness to me, for I continue in life living, and I will not be able to escape to the mountain before the evil clings to me and kills me.

19 הִנֵּה־נָא מָצָא עַבְדְּךָ חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וַתַּגְדֵּל חַסְדְּךָ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי לְהַחֲיוֹת אֶת־נַפְשִׁי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה פֶּן־תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה וָמַתִּי׃

יט‎

The beginning of this verse is self-explanatory,

“Behold, please, your servant has found favor in your eyes, and you have done great kindness to me, for I continue in life living.”

He says that the messengers of HaShem have seen some good in him to help him out, whether he sees it in himself or not, and that they, the messengers, have been very kind to him because Lot continues living in this life. Meaning that if it had not been for the messengers of HaShem who saved him from the mob of Sodom, he would be dead by now and no longer have life, for a body that is dead has no life in it.

I will not be able to escape to the mountain before the evil clings to me and kills me.

This part of the verse has many different translations, some examples are, “I cannot escape to the hills, lest the disaster overtake me and I die,” or “I cannot flee to the mountains, lest the disaster overtake me and I die.” Yes, these translations are correct, but they do not give you an understanding of what is meant. See, in most, if not all, translations, they write that the disaster, or destruction, would overtake or catch up to Lot, but in the original Hebrew text, it is the evil that could cling to Lot, and it, the evil, will kill him. The destruction itself is not evil, but it is the justice of HaShem being dealt to the evil people of Sodom. What Lot is saying is that the evil itself might cling to him, and if it does, the destruction or punishment of HaShem will get him. Why? Because the destruction is coming to kill the evil in Sodom. So if the evil clings to him, then the destruction will chase him, and it does not matter if he is fast or slow, the destruction of God will overtake him and kill him. Evil is seen here as a living entity, but what is evil? Once again, I must tell you to remember throughout the nineteen chapters (which I hope you have read), because the answer is not in one verse that I can quote here, but is scattered all over.
Evil is not something living; it is something you bring into existence. Evil manifests itself first from a thought, then from a decision to act on that thought. If you have an evil thought and follow through with an action from that thought, that is an evil action; you created evil. Then you become evil yourself. The evil actions you do make you evil. Similar to Leviticus 11:4-24, there you will find a list of things you may eat and things you may not eat. The things you may not eat are called unclean and should be seen as detestable to you. Finally, Leviticus 11:24, “And by these [the unclean animals you ate] you shall become unclean.” Eating, and it reads that also touching the carcasses of these creatures makes you unclean; you become unclean, just like the unclean animal you ate. Similarly, if you give in to your evil thoughts and act on them, you become evil just like the evil action you did.
What does all this have to do with Lot not making it to the mountain or evil clinging to him? This is not that an evil entity will chase him down and attach itself to him, but it means that Lot likes this place and that he, himself, has done some evil things that he liked, even though he knew they were evil, as was the custom of Sodom. Lot liked that place, and what he is afraid of is the longing for the place and its evil ways, and we will see that this will happen to one of Lot’s family members who are with him. That family member will not make it to the destination and will be destroyed by the punishment of HaShem. Evil clung to her and died.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: פן תדבקני הרעה [I CANNOT ESCAPE TO THE MOUNTAIN,] LEST SOME EVIL CLEAVE UNTO ME — Whilst I was with the people of Sodom the Holy One, blessed be He, compared my deeds with the deeds of the people of my city and I seemed to be righteous and deserving to be saved. When, however, I come to the righteous man I must be regarded as wicked.

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: He then turned to one of the angels and said, behold now, thy servant hath found grace in thy sight, etc. (v. 19). He did so because he considered this angel to be the more important of the two. The truth is that even among angels there are superiors who lord it over other angels.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: פן תדבקני הרעה, “so that the disaster will not catch up with me.” He was afraid of the brimstone and sulphur that was beginning to spread all around him.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: הנה נא מצא עבדך חן בעיניך, seeing that the angel had told him המלט על נפשך, “save yourself,” it had become clear that the angel’s mission was to save him. Actually, both angels were on a mission of both saving Lot and destroying Sodom. The one who was speaking did so only because he was the senior of the two.

Behold, please, that city is near to flee to, and it is relatively new/little to escape to. Is it not? Please, is it not new/little? And my life will continue.”

20 הִנֵּה־נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִיא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָּא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי׃

כ

“Please, that city is near to flee to.”

We need to consider some things. Lot was not new to the area, so he knew the names of all the surrounding towns. I translated “that city” when it should have been “the city " so that the verse would make sense in English. The definite article, “the”, means they all knew what city Lot was referring to. It did not have a name as we will find out later when a name is given to it.

“And it is relatively new to escape to.”

The word מִצְעָר/MitzAr has two meanings: little in size or little of time. This city was within the border of destruction, and Lot wanted to escape to it as it was so near, closer than the mountain. He gives an argument or more like pleading, to escape to it, and the word can imply two reasons. One is that the town was very small in size, and it should not have that many people who are sinful, in other words, insignificant. Two, that the town is very new and sin must not have existed there too long, or that their sins are not completely full yet. Skipping to the next verse, we find out that the messengers grant Lot this. Considering Avraham’s and HaShem’s conversation on the number of righteous people, and if there are fewer than ten, HaShem would not destroy it. Also, knowing that the town was within the border of destruction means that there are more than ten sinful people there. So the only conclusion for the meaning of the word is that the town’s sin is not completely full because of the recent settlement of the town. This town was saved because the argument that Lot put forth was good. The town was very new or small in size, and there was the possibility that the people of that town might change their ways. Lot says that the town is very near, and given the proximity to Sodom, why start this new town? Maybe it is because the people who settled there disagreed with the sinful ways of Sodom, but they were not entirely sinless. Of course, there is no way to know that; we can only say that by the clues given. Furthermore, the angels granted this to Lot, as seen in the next verse.
How could messengers of God make this decision when HaShem had already decided to destroy it? We can deduce two things from this: one, messengers of God have the power to make such a decision, and two, the messengers of HaShem were in constant communication with HaShem as all of this was happening. I think option two is the right one. Why? Some commentators say that one of the Messengers of HaShem's job was to save Lot and the other to destroy Sodom and the surrounding area, but this is not stated anywhere in Scripture. Not only that, but both saved Lot and both destroyed Sodom. So, the only logical explanation is that the messengers were getting instructions from HaShem as they progressed in their job, which was to be witnesses and destroy Sodom and the surrounding area. Lot behaved in a way that made him worth saving, and HaShem told his messengers to save him and his family. Lot asked for him to be saved by going to this nearby and newly established city or town, and HaShem granted it to him by ordering his messengers to do this for Lot.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: הלא מצער היא, he repeated the insignificance of the town due to its few inhabitants. Our sages understand the word מצער/MitzAr as meaning מזער/MitzAr, “young,” of recent origin; they therefore could not yet have accumulated so many demerits as the more established cities of the valley. (based on Shabbat 10) According to some sages Tzoar had been founded only 51 years previously, equaling the numerical value of the word נא used by Lot in his plea.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: העיר הזאת קרובה THIS CITY IS NEAR — Its settlement as a city is near in point of time — it has been populated quite recently and therefore its measure is not yet filled (Shabbat 10b).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: A LITTLE ONE. The meaning of mitzar (a little one) is small. It comes from the same root as tza’ir (young, little). It is an adjective. Even so, it is written without a heh at its end. Compare, shegal (consort).

Or HaChaim (approximately 1696 - 1743) commentary: הנה העיד הזאת קרובה, "This town is nearby, etc." The verse is difficult. If the inhabitants of that town were guilty, what difference did it make that it was close by? Moreover, how could the angel say: "I have granted your wish?" Since when was it up to him? If the town was innocent, who had given the angel permission to destroy it even if Lot had not pleaded on its behalf? We must view the situation in light of the Talmud Shabbat 10 that Tzoar was only 51 years old, whereas the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah were founded 52 years previously. Lot knew this and reasoned that Tzoar's measure of guilt was not full as yet. We also have a principle (Baba Kama 60) that once permission has been granted to the destructive angel to execute G'd's judgment, it does not really matter whether the measure of guilt is full. However, the angel Gabriel was then in a position to exercise some discretion. Lot was aware of this and appealed to Gabriel's discretionary powers. Lot left Tzoar as soon as possible because he was afraid that the time limit for the angel's discretionary power would elapse.

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentary: Is it not a small city... The Re’m asks: I do not know what Rashi will do with the question raised by Chazal in Shabbos 10b: “[Why did Lot need to state that it was close and small?] They could see that!” And this question is what moved Chazal to depart from the plain explanation of our verse, as explained there. This is not a question, as Rashi brings the simple explanation [only] for the end of the verse, הלא מצער הוא, not for the beginning, הנה וגו' קרובה וגו' והיא מצער. The beginning surely follows [Chazal’s] Midrashic explanation: the city was recently settled and its sins are few. Although Rashi at first explains also the end of the verse Midrashically, he then brings the simple explanation, “A small city... and you should not mind...” This is because the end of the verse can bear this meaning, too. And Rashi needed to bring the simple explanation for the verse’s end, although the verse’s beginning must be understood [only] Midrashically, because he is answering the question: According to the Midrashic explanation, why is מצער repeated, stating twice that its sins are few? Thus Rashi brings the simple explanation: It is a small city. (R. Meir Stern)

And he said to him, “Behold, I will do this favor/kindness for your person (or for you) as well/also, for this matter/words I can not overthrow the city of which you spoke.

21 וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת־הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ׃

כא

“Behold, I will do this favor/kindness for your person (or for you) as well/also.”

As well or also means that a kindness has already been done for Lot, and that is saving him from inside Sodom. This means that Lot was supposed to be destroyed with the people of Sodom, but he was saved. Now, he is being granted this other kindness of letting him escape to this nameless town, of which he begged to be let escape.

“For this matter/words I can not overthrow the city you spoke of.”

This city or town was also supposed to be destroyed, but because Lot asked for this and it was granted to him, the messengers can not destroy it now.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: גם לדבר הזה CONCERNING THIS THING ALSO — Not only will you be saved, but I will also save the whole city for Your sake.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: גם לדבר הזה, “also to this request.” This is the angel speaking after Lot reminded him that it was his task to save him. [Lot speaking: “In addition to the mere fact that you have the task to save me, I ask you to delay destruction of Tzoar until I can reach higher ground.”]

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויאמר אליו הנה נשאתי פניך, from this verse we may deduce that when G’d dispatches an angel on a major mission, He gives the angel some discretion in the manner in which he is to carry out the task assigned to him. The angel or angels may use their own intelligence in this respect. Clearly, an angel is not like a golem, but is an intelligent being.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: He, the angel, said to him: Behold, not only have I taken you out of the city, but I have granted your request for this matter as well, not to overturn the city of which you spoke. I will destroy only the large cities on the plain, Sodom, Gomorrah, Adma, and Tzevoyim, but I will leave standing the city to which you referred.

Hurry and flee there, for I am not able to do the matter (at hand) until you get there!” Therefore, the name of the city is Tzoar.

22 מַהֵר הִמָּלֵט שָׁמָּה כִּי לֹא אוּכַל לַעֲשׂוֹת דָּבָר עַד־בֹּאֲךָ שָׁמָּה עַל־כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם־הָעִיר צוֹעַר׃

כב

“For I am not able to do the matter (at hand) until you get there.”

The messenger of HaShem can not destroy Sodom or the surrounding area until Lot gets to safety. This is the meaning of this verse. Lot was granted his safety, and because of it, the messenger could not destroy the area because if he started the destruction, Lot would surely get caught up in it and die. Let us also remember that verse sixteen says “for the compassion or mercy that HaShem had for Lot”, which means that all that the messengers of God are doing is by orders of HaShem. Saving Lot, HaShem’s decision, letting Lot escape to this town, is HaShem’s decision and sparing the town. All for Lot’s sake because HaShem is being merciful to him, and the messengers can not do anything that HaShem ordered. According to other commentators, this is the messenger who is supposed to save Lot, but he says he will also be part of the destruction. They are both saving Lot and both destroying Sodom. When the messenger says, “I am not able”, it does not mean that he is deciding all this by his own, but that he, at least it seems, is the leader, the messenger in charge. Meaning that the other messenger can not start the destruction until the leader decides to do so. The leader messenger of God can not start the destruction because if he does, he will be killing Lot, and because of HaShem’s mercy for Lot, they can not do it, and if they do, they will be disobeying HaShem. The messengers of HaShem have to manage both jobs, saving Lot and destroying Sodom.
Ever since Lot delayed his escape, the messengers have been in a panic to do both jobs. The messengers forced Lot and his family out of the city by grabbing them by the hand. Lot pleaded for a shorter escape, and they granted this to him, telling him to hurry and get there, for they needed to do this job, which is to destroy the place. Lot is not making it easy for the messengers of HaShem.
What else do we see here? The urgency conveyed by the messengers. Messengers are not robots; they have feelings as well. Remember BeResit/Genesis;

“And ELOHIM said, ‘We will make Adam/Man/Mankind in our image, like us.’”

We were made in the image of God, and so were the messengers of HaShem, and the messengers of HaShem were created first. As I have explained more than once, the reason we have feelings is that we were created in the image of God and He has feelings there for so do we, and since the messengers of HaShem were created in His image too, then they too have feelings just like HaShem does. Messengers and we are all created in the image of HaShem. This chapter teaches us this about the messengers/angels of HaShem.

The end of the verse says that the name of this city is Zoar/little because of what transpired in this chapter, and in BeReshit/Genesis 14:8 it reads;

“The king of Bela, that is Tzoar.”

Bela was the previous name of the Tzoar, and because of this event, it was renamed. BeReshit/Genesis 14 is where the account of the battle between the four kings and the five kings of Sodom was told, the four kings that Avraham defeated and that the five kings of Sodom could not.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: כי לא אוכל לעשות FOR I CANNOT DO [ANY THING]—This admission of their powerlessness was the angels’ punishment for having said, (v. 13) “For we will destroy the city”, attributing the act to themselves; therefore they could not go away from there (i. e., the incident could not close) until they were compelled to admit that the thing was not in their power) (Genesis Rabbah 50:9).

Rashi contradicts himself in this comment. As he himself said that one of the messengers’ jobs was to destroy Sodom, why can’t he say, " I cannot do [anything]?” if it is his job.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: על כן קרא שם העיר צוער THEREFORE THE NAME OF THE CITY WAS CALLED ZOAR, with reference to Lot’s words (v. 20) “And it is (מצער) a little one”.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: מהר..כי לא אוכל/Hurry...because I can not, because I have been commanded not to destroy the region until you have been saved.
קרא, the city formerly known as בלע was renamed on account of what transpired on this occasion [We encountered the city and its king in Genesis 14,8. Ed.]

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Hurry and flee there, as I will not be able to do anything until your arrival there. Since an angel is only a messenger of God, he has no choice but to obey the instructions given to him. These angels had been directed to destroy the sinful cities and to save Lot. They could not strike the cities if that would put Lot in danger. The Torah notes: Therefore, because the city was small [mitz’ar], he called the name of the city Tzoar. This became an additional name of the city.

The sun came out onto the earth and lot went into Tzoar.

23 הַשֶּׁמֶשׁ יָצָא עַל־הָאָרֶץ וְלוֹט בָּא צֹעֲרָה׃

כג

It happened at the same time. As Lot reached and entered the city of Tzoar, the sun came out; the sun was visible.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Lot and his family left at daybreak. A short while later, the sun rose upon the earth, and Lot came to Tzoar.

And YHVH rained upon Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from YHVH out of the heavens/skies.

24 וַיהוָה הִמְטִיר עַל־סְדֹם וְעַל־עֲמֹרָה גָּפְרִית וָאֵשׁ מֵאֵת יְהוָה מִן־הַשָּׁמָיִם׃

כד

This was a synchronized effort. HaShem only destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah after His messengers prepared everything for Him. The messengers of Hashem had to bear witness to Sodom, and Lot had to be in a safe place for him and his family before the destruction began. Also, we should note the pressure that the messengers were under trying to save Lot. This tells us that the destruction had to be done at a specific time. Do I know why it had to be as the sun came out? No, I do not, because Scripture does not tell us, but when I read the commentary from Rashi, I read that the reason was that the people of this region had the sun and the moon as gods, and that HaShem wanted these two to be up in the sky at the same when the destruction started so that they would see that these false deaties would not save them. You can also be asking yourself, but why does that matter if they will die anyway? And you would be right because I was thinking the same thing. But we can say that the inhabitants of the neighboring nations would know, which makes more sense. As an example, in the time of the plagues of Egypt, when HaShem brought the Israelites out of bondage, the reason given for the ten plagues was so that the world would know the power of HaShem, and that the world would know who He is; that He is the true and only God of the world and that there is no God like Him and this time with Sodom is the same.

The verse says that HaShem caused it to rain brimstone and fire from HaShem out of the heavens. What does this mean? We will find out that this has many controversial commentaries. I can only tell you what I think happened. When the messengers said, “Everything is ready, ” HaShem started the destruction by bringing down this rain of brimstone and fire. Where did the rain of destruction come from? It was directly from HaShem; He created it, just like He created everything else in the creation story of this book, chapter one. If you have been reading from the beginning of my studies, you will know that HaShem creates whatever He wants by speaking. Whatever HaShem wants to create, He just has to speak and bring anything He wants into existence. His words and breath are life and destruction.

“Out of the heavens.”

This teaches us that it was not a natural disaster, like a volcano. The brimstone and fire came out of the heavens from HaShem, who created it for the sole purpose of destroying these sinful people. It had no other purpose and can not be blamed on a natural disaster. We will discuss the significance of using brimstone or sulfur and fire as the means of destruction.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: וה' המטיר AND THE LORD CAUSED TO RAIN — Wherever it is said 'וה “And the Lord”, it means He and His Celestial Court (Genesis Rabbah 51:2). המטיר על סדום HE CAUSED IT TO RAIN ON SODOM — When the morning broke), as it is said, (v. 15) “And when the morning dawned”, i. e. the time when the moon is in the sky together with the sun. As some of them worshipped the sun and others the moon, the Holy One, blessed be He, said, “If I punish them by day, the moon-worshippers may say, “If it had taken place at night when the moon rules we would not have been destroyed.” And if I punish them by night the sun-worshippers may say, “If it had taken place at day time when the sun rules we would not have been destroyed.” For this reason it is written, “And when the morning dawned” — He punished them at that time when both moon and sun are ruling (Genesis Rabbah 50:12).
'מאת ה FROM THE LORD — This is the Scriptural way of speaking (the Lord rained … from the Lord); e. g., (4:23) “Ye wives of Lamech” and he did not say “my wives”.
מן השמים FROM HEAVEN — The text (Job 36:31) refers to this: “For by them (the heavens; see the preceding verses) He judges the peoples etc.” When God is about to punish mankind He brings upon them fire from heaven, just as He did to Sodom (cf. 5:32 of the same chapter); and when he caused the Manna to fall it was also from heaven (cf. the second half of 5:31) as it is said, (Exodus 16:4) “Behold I will rain bread from heaven for you” (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayera 10).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: FROM THE LORD. This is a poetic way of saying from Himself. We similarly find Scripture repeating the term the children of Israel five times in one verse (Num. 8:19).

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: AND THE ETERNAL CAUSED TO RAIN UPON SODOM (AND UPON GOMORRAH BRIMSTONE AND FIRE FROM THE ETERNAL OF HEAVEN). Rashi wrote: “Wherever it is said, And the Eternal it means Him and His Celestial Court. From the Eternal. It is not written ‘from Him,’ [with the pronoun ‘Him’ replacing the noun ‘Eternal’ in the second part of the verse, for] this is the Scriptural way of speaking. For example, Ye wives of Lamech, and he did not say ‘my wives.’ And David also said, Take you the servants of your lord, and he did not say, ‘my servants.’ Ahaseurus also said, Write ye… in the name of the king, and he did not say, ‘in my name.’”
Now I wonder about the Rabbi who wrote down conflicting opinions and made them alike for there is a division of opinion on this matter in Bereshith Rabbah. And there is yet a third opinion: “Aba Chilfi, the son of Rabbi Simki, said in the name of Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon: ‘And the Eternal caused to rain upon Sodom — this refers to the angel. From the Eternal out of heaven — this refers to the Holy One, blessed be He.’ Rabbi Eleazar said, ‘Wherever it says, And the Eternal, it means Him and His Celestial Court.’ Rabbi Yitzchak said, ‘We find in the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, that a person mentions his name twice. In the Torah, And Lamech said to his wives, etc.’” Thus there are three conflicting opinions here. Rabbi Yehudah the son of Rabbi Simon ascribes the first Divine Name mentioned in the verse as referring to the angel as he was the messenger sent to destroy the city, it being a case of the deputy being referred to by the name of Him Who sent him. And Rabbi Eleazar said that He and His Celestial Court agreed on the judgment, and it was from Him that the brimstone and fire came. And Rabbi Yitzchak said that it is the Scriptural way of speaking.
Now if you will understand what I have written above, you will know the intent of the Sages’ expression, “He and His Celestial Court,” and then the plain meaning of the verse will be clear to you. In a similar manner is the verse, That they may keep the way of the Eternal… to the end that the Eternal may bring… He did not say, “that they may keep My way… to the end that I may bring.” Likewise: Because the cry concerning them is great before the face of the Eternal, and the Eternal hath sent us. And similarly: And it came to pass, when G-d destroyed… that G-d remembered.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: מאת ה' מן השמים, this was not a natural event such as a volcanic eruption, the ash, brimstone and lava afterwards descending on the surrounding earth. The source of this destruction did not originate in the bowels of the earth.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: מאת ה, according to Bereshit Rabbah 51:3, this is to be understood as the angel and Hashem dividing the labour; the former set these harmful substances in motion, the region it emanated from was provided by the Lord Himself. [The reason why our sages understand more than one celestial force to have been involved is the connective letter ו at the beginning of the word: 'וה. Ed.] According to an early version of Tanchuma on this verse, the first time the name Hashem is used in this verse it refers to the angel Gavriel, whereas the second time it refers to Hashem Himself.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: מאת ה' מן השמים/From the Eternal from heavean, what is meant is that the origin of this lethal rain was very high up in the sky.

Shabbethai ben Joseph Bass (1641–1718) (Hebrew: שבתי בן יוסף; also known by the family name Strom[1]), born at Kalisz, was the founder of Jewish bibliography[2] and author of the Siftei Chachamim supercommentary on Rashi's commentary on the Pentateuch. Commentary: At the advent of the morning... Rashi is saying that “Hashem caused to rain” does not relate to the preceding verse, “The sun had risen upon the earth, when Lot came to Zoar,” [to say] that only after Lot came to Zoar did it begin to rain. Rather, it means that “Hashem caused to rain” already before Lot came to Zoar, at the very advent of the morning, before the sun had even risen.
It began as rain and turned into sulfur and fire. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Caused to rain”? It should say, “Hurled down.” Furthermore, “Caused to rain” contradicts [what follows], as sulfur is not rain. Thus Rashi explains: “It began as rain, and turned into...” (R. Meir Stern)

And He overthrew those cities, and all around them/region, and all who dwell on them, and all that grew (vegetation) on the ground.

25 וַיַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת־הֶעָרִים הָאֵל וְאֵת כָּל־הַכִּכָּר וְאֵת כָּל־יֹשְׁבֵי הֶעָרִים וְצֶמַח הָאֲדָמָה׃

כה

The verse starts or continues from the last, and reads, “And He overthrew those cities.” The word used here is הָפַךְ/Hafakh, which means to overturn or overthrow. It could also mean to change or transform. The meaning of overthrow is to remove forcibly from power, which is what HaShem did. Overturn would also fit, but not in the literal way, as to flip them over upside down and put them back down, but the meaning is that he eradicated them, blotting them from existence. The meaning of this word, to change or to transform, also fits, as this land would be unusable from then on. It would become a lifeless place where nothing grows or lives.
Everything was destroyed, from the cities to the people in them, and even every living bush and tree in the whole region of these cities/kingdoms. This is the reason for using brimstone, which is sulfur, and fire. This combination, in the right amounts, is very lethal. This is chemical warfare on a grand scale. When sulfur burns, it reacts with oxygen in the air, producing the toxic gas sulfur dioxide (SO2) and sulfuric acid. Just because the word brimstone is used, do not think of solid rocks destroying everything; sulfur is brittle. Most likely coming apart as it fell, but when it burned as it came down in combination with the fire that was sent down with it, it would produce the very toxic sulfur dioxide gas and sulfuric acid, which is very corrosive and reacts poorly with water or any living thing. Let us not forget that HaShem caused it to rain before the brimstone and fire. So everything was wet, and sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid react violently with water. Sulfuric acid is used inside batteries, so if you have smelled damaged batteries, you would have an idea. Also, to have a better picture of this event, a blue flame can be seen when sulfur is burnt. So you have a yellow and red hail coming down, which is catching fire, blue in appearance, and a mist all around it, which is the sulfur dioxide gas. Among all these, thick red sulfuric acid drops also come down with it. The sulfur dioxide and sulfuric acid burn the skin, and the gas damages the lungs when inhaled, among other nasty side effects in the body. Combine these with water; you just put the sulfur dioxide and the sulfuric acid on steroids. The people of this region had no chance to escape. They were trying to escape projectiles coming down on them, plus sulfur dioxide, and sulfuric acid burning their skin and eyes, and breathing in sulfur dioxide gas. There is nowhere to hide and nowhere to run. If the projectiles do not get you or the sulfuric acid, the sulfur dioxide gas will. This is a horrible way to die. You can not see, you can not breathe, and your skin is on fire with burning blisters all over you.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויהפך, He turned these cities and the valley from having been most fruitful to becoming most desolate. According to Job 28:6-8 the region had not only been good pasture land but its soil had yielded gold, gemstones, etc. The sulfur and brimstone which made up most of this rain made the earth forever incapable of producing crops or other matters of value to mankind. We know that even birds shun that region.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: 'ויהפוך את הערים וגו AND HE OVERTHREW [THOSE CITIES] etc. — The four cities were situated on one rock and He turned them upside down, as it is said, (Job 28:9) “He putteth forth His hand upon the flinty rock [and overturneth the mountains by the roots]” (Genesis Rabbah 51:4).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: AND THAT WHICH GREW UPON THE GROUND. The trees growing there were consumed.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: ויהפוך, the earth as well as its inhabitants underwent a total chemical transformation being turned into brimstone and fire, similar to what David means in Psalms 105:29 “He turned their waters into blood.” The dew that rose from the earth prior to sunrise turned into salt. Compare Deut. 29:22 גפרית ומלח שרפה כל ארצה/Sulfur and salt burned all over the land, meaning that the moisture descended back onto earth but this time mixed with solid burned particles.

But his wife, behind him, looked and she became a pillar of salt.

26 וַתַּבֵּט אִשְׁתּוֹ מֵאַחֲרָיו וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח׃

כו

וַתַּבֵּט/VaTabet

The word means “And Look.” The verse does not say that she looked back.

Okay, since we know that the destruction did not start until after Lot and his family made it to the city that we now know as Tzoar, this means that as soon as they made it to safety, Lot’s wife was behind Lot and looked, we assume that she looked back to Sodom, something that was forbidden for them to do. But does it mean they were not supposed to look back physically, or is it something else? I ask this because, in the following two verses, we will read that Avraham goes back in the morning, and that was when the destruction started, and looks towards Sodom as well, and nothing happens to him. You can say that Avraham had special protection from HaShem, but I do not believe this is why nothing happened to him. I think the meaning is that Lot’s wife looked back longingly, because she was losing something precious to her. Lot’s wife was a sinner like the people of Sodom, and she liked the lifestyle that she had there. She would miss the sinful life that she used to have and enjoyed, and because of this, she died too. Not in the horrible way as the people of Sodom, but she died nonetheless.
It could also be said that only people with enough sin would turn into salt, which is why Avraham was unharmed. That would also explain why the messenger of HaShem told Lot not to look back. The messenger knew that Lot was a good person, but with enough sin for the destruction to affect him and his family.

Why did Lot’s wife turn into a pillar of salt? I do not have an answer to that. Not one that I could find in Scripture. The only reference I could find is the one in which Moses said;

Deuteronomy 29:21-22

“And the next generation, your children who rise up after you, and the foreigner who comes from a far land, will say, when they see the afflictions of that land and the sicknesses with which YHVH has made it sick—The whole land burned out with brimstone and salt, nothing sown and nothing growing, where no plant can sprout, an overthrow like that of Sodom and Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboiim, which YHVH overthrew in his anger and wrath.”

Our chapter does not mention salt except in this verse, in which Lot’s wife turns into a pillar of salt. However, it would stand to reason that if she turned into salt, maybe she was not the only one. Maybe everything alive there, people, animals, and even plant life, turned into salt. If you remember, I said that it is believed that this city or kingdom of Sodom, the whole area, was where the sea of salt in Israel is today.
One other thing worth mentioning is that Sulfur is often found in salt deposits, particularly in salt domes, because of the geological processes that lead to the formation of these domes and the subsequent interaction of hydrocarbons with sulfate minerals in the presence of water, which can lead to the formation of native sulfur. I do not know if this answers some questions or raises even more.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ותבט אשתו מאחריו AND HIS WIFE LOOKED BACK FROM BEHIND HIM —behind Lot.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: AND HIS WIFE LOOKED BACK FROM BEHIND HIM. From behind Lot, who was following them, acting as the rearguard for all his household, who were hurrying to be saved.

Rabbeinu Bahya (1255 – 1340) commentary: ותבט אשתו מאחריו ותהי נציב מלח, ”his wife looked behind him and was turned into a pillar of salt.” It is possible to understand the word “behind him” as referring to the angel who overturned these towns, seeing the angel has already been credited with this activity in verse 25 where the Torah mentioned sulfur and fire being rained on the towns. The reason Lot’s wife was turned into a pillar of salt may have had to do with the power of the fire [which dehydrated all fluids and left only solids which endure like salt? Ed.]
ותהי נציב מלח, “she became a pillar of salt.” Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that the word ותהי in our verse refers to the “earth.” In other words, the earth beneath her turned into a pillar of salt, not she herself. Our sages interpret vatehi that Lot’s wife turned into salt herself. The Midrash relates that a poor person came to her door to borrow salt and she refused to give any, and was therefore punished measure for measure: by salt she has sinned and with a pillar of salt she was punished.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ותבט אשתו מאחריו, Lot’s wife who had been walking behind him turned around, seeing that she had little faith in such miracles as she had been warned would occur; This, in spite of the fact that she had personally overheard the angel warning Lot that no one was to turn around on pain of their becoming a victim of this destruction. Even though salt has not been mentioned as having been part of the lethal rain, the Torah speaking of sulfur and fire, it appears that the people themselves were turned into pillars composed partly of sulfur and partly of salt.
נציב מלח/pillar of salt, a ruin resembling a castle of salt which had largely disintegrated.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: His, Lot’s, wife looked behind him, despite the angel’s warning. She had been rescued due to her relationship with Lot, but she may have been a native of Sodom, and apparently still felt connected to the city. Whether out of curiosity or emotional distress, she turned to look at her city, and she became a pillar of salt. This could be meant literally or metaphorically that she froze in place and died.

And Avraham arose early in the morning to the place where he stood in the face/before YHVH.

27 וַיַּשְׁכֵּם אַבְרָהָם בַּבֹּקֶר אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר־עָמַד שָׁם אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה׃

כז

This is the same place where Avraham negotiated with HaShem about the righteous people and where the two messengers of HaShem departed to go to Sodom.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: אל המקום אשר עמד שם את פני ה, to the place to which he had accompanied the angels. This is where the punishing hand of G’d had first appeared to him. Since he had not been able to save the inhabitants of Sodom legally, he prepared to intercede for them by asking G’d s mercy for them.

And he looked upon the surface of Sodom and Gomorrah, and upon all the surface of the region of the land, and he looked and beheld thick smoke, smoke like a kiln/smelting forge/furnace.

28 וַיַּשְׁקֵף עַל־פְּנֵי סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה וְעַל־כָּל־פְּנֵי אֶרֶץ הַכִּכָּר וַיַּרְא וְהִנֵּה עָלָה קִיטֹר הָאָרֶץ כְּקִיטֹר הַכִּבְשָׁן׃

כח

Avraham had a high-altitude view of this land, from the Canaan or Israel side nowadays. Most commentaries translate that Avraham was looking down on Sodom and the surrounding area, but it does not say that. The wording in our verse is that he was looking upon the face/surface of Sodom and Gomorrah. This region was not a small place because it housed several cities, most with their own kings. So that you get an idea, watch this video of a descent to the Dead Sea by Relaxing WALKER.

I do not know if this walk was the highest place you can be or if Avraham was lower or higher than the walk from this video, but it should give you an idea of the view. The only difference is that the landscape was different at the time of this story. That morning, though, Avraham’s view was a different one.

“He looked and beheld thick smoke like a kiln/smelting forge/furnace.”

The view was of a thick smoke, like a kiln, smelting forge, or furnace; the word used can refer to any of these things. But it does not matter which one you pick because any of them are very hot. A kiln for pottery can reach temperatures ranging from 2000°F to 2400°F (1093°C to 1316°C). A melting forge can reach temperatures between 2,200°F and 2,500°F (1,205°C to 1,370°C) for steel and iron alloys. A furnace used for metal processing or heat treatment, comparable to a kiln, can reach temperatures significantly higher than a typical pottery kiln, often exceeding 2400-3000°F (1316-1649°C). This is what the verse tries to explain and what Avraham looked down to. The sulfur and fire, in combination with the water, had this reaction on the land. Avraham could probably feel the heat from where he was standing.
Here are more facts on what happens to soil when it gets extremely hot, like in an extreme forest fire—and this was no forest fire; this was the wrath of HaShem. After a severe forest fire, soil can become hydrophobic (water-repellent), increasing runoff and erosion. It can also experience changes in its chemical and physical properties, including nutrient loss and altered pH. Soil pH measures the acidity or alkalinity of soil on a scale of 0 to 14, with 7 being neutral, and it significantly impacts plant nutrient availability and overall soil health. Salt water, especially seawater, is naturally alkaline due to the presence of dissolved salts and minerals, which increase the pH level. The Dead Sea in Israel has a salinity of around 34.2%, which is about 9.6 times saltier than the ocean. The Dead Sea, known for its extreme salinity, is a place in Israel where, due to the harsh environment, plants and animals cannot flourish, except for some bacteria.

Zephaniah 2:9

“Therefore, as I live, declares YHVH of hosts, the Elohei/God of Israel, ‘Moab shall become like Sodom, and the Ammonites like Gomorrah, a land possessed by nettles and salt pits, and a waste forever.’”

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: He looked over Sodom and Gomorrah, and over all the land of the plain of the Jordan, the region that is currently the Dead Sea. And he saw that behold, the smoke of the earth rose thickly and in abundance, like the smoke of a kiln. The entire plain was burnt, leaving no trace of anything that had stood there.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: הכבשן A FURNACE — an excavation in which they burn stone to lime. This is the meaning of כבשן wherever it occurs in the Torah.

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: A FURNACE. A place where fire is continually burning.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: וישקף על פני סדום, “he looked down in the direction of Sodom” to see if 10 just people had been found that were deserving of being saved.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: וישקף...קיטור הארץ, smoke, from the fire which had burned the earth.
הכבשן, a sort of kiln in which one fires stones and loam into earthenware. Alternately, this kiln is used to wash earthenware vessels.

And it was that, when ELOHIM left the cities of the region/plain in ruin/decay, and ELOHIM remembered Avraham, and he/they sent Lot out from the midst of the overthrow, the overthrow of the cities in which Lot lived.

29 וַיְהִי בְּשַׁחֵת אֱלֹהִים אֶת־עָרֵי הַכִּכָּר וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת־אַבְרָהָם וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת־לוֹט מִתּוֹךְ הַהֲפֵכָה בַּהֲפֹךְ אֶת־הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר־יָשַׁב בָּהֵן לוֹט׃

כט

This verse is a chapter break and summarizes the events of Lot's salvation, which we have already read about in this chapter. The word for God in the plural form, Elohim, is used because saving Lot was a group effort, ordered by HaShem and done by the messengers of HaShem, all of course in concordance with HaShem’s will. The verse also tells us that it was because of Avraham that they saved Lot. However, he showed some merit for his salvation through his actions.
The overthrow of the cities in which Lot lived. Lot lived in Sodom, and Sodom is the only place we know he lived. But at the same time, we know from when Lot separated from Avraham that Lot lived in tents, and it stands to reason that he probably moved around to graze his animals all over the place. We also know that he was very wealthy regarding money and animals. He probably did this and lived near all the cities of the plain until he settled in Sodom. There could also be another reason for Scripture saying the cities where Lot lived: they were all as one, having the same sin among them all. After all, they were all destroyed at the same time and in the same manner as they were all guilty of the same sins.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ויזכר אלהים את אברהם GOD REMEMBERED ABRAHAM — What bearing has God’s remembering Abraham upon the rescue of Lot? He remembered that Lot knew that Sarah was Abraham’s wife and that when he heard that Abraham said in Egypt regarding Sarah, “She is my sister”, he did not betray him because he had sympathy with him. For this reason God had mercy upon him (Lot) (Genesis Rabbah 51:6).

I guess you could say this, but it sounds like too much speculation, as I do not remember where Scripture says this. If I think about it, I like to think that it is more like when HaShem saved Kham, son of Noakh, even though he was a sinner, for the sake of the earth's future and Noakh, for Kham was his son. I explained all of this in the Great Flood account, or more precisely, the account of Noakh after the Flood.
How are Kham and Lot similar? First, let me tell you the easy one. Kham was Noakh’s son and was saved for Noakh’s sake, and Lot was Avraham’s nephew and was saved for Avraham’s sake. Now for the more complicated one. The reason why HaShem saved Kham, who was a very sinful person, is that the world was starting over, with Noakh and his sons. The world had to be repopulated by these men and women, Noakh’s sons and wives. HaShem made sin to exist in the world, and Kham, who was a sinful person, was the means by which sin was to continue after the Great Flood. Sin is needed to exist all the way to the Kingdom to come. HaShem needs sin so that we can prove ourselves to him. To show Him that we are worthy of His love for us. Now for Lot. Lot will be the father of two nations, one of them being the Moabites, and one of his descendants, through the Moabites, will be Ruth. The same Ruth from the Bible, from the book called by her name, Ruth. She marries into Israel, and from Ruth and the man she married comes Jesse, the father of David. Long story short, Lot was needed for the story of Ruth to happen, and for King David to be born.

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: WHEN HE OVERTHREW THE CITIES IN WHICH LOT DWELT. In one of which Lot had been living. All of these were similarly sinful.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: AND G-D REMEMBERED ABRAHAM, AND SENT LOT OUT FROM THE CATASTROPHE. The purport of this verse is that Lot had shown kindness towards the righteous one by going with him and roaming here and there, following him wherever he went. This is the intent of the verse, And Lot went with him, meaning that he went at Abraham’s command. Therefore he had the merit to be saved on account of Abraham’s meritoriousness as it was on account of him that he lived in Sodom, and were it not for Abraham he would have still been in Haran with his family. Now it is inconceivable that some evil should overtake him [Lot] because of Abraham who had left his country at his Creator’s command. This was also the reason why Abraham endangered himself by pursuing the kings on account of him.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: מתוך ההפכה בהפוך את הערים, seeing that he had escaped by the merit of Avraham from the destruction of these cites, a process which had begun even before Lot had been outside the outer perimeters of the valley due to his laziness. (compare verse 16) As a result, he was afraid to settle in Tzoar thinking that its destruction had been delayed only on account of his having taken refuge there.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: אשר ישב בהן לוט, “in which Lot used to live;” he had not lived in all of them but in one of them. We find a similar construction in Judges 12,7, where Yiftach is reported as having been buried “in the cities of Gilead,” and it clearly does not mean that he had been cut up and been buried in different parts of the region of Gilead. [The Book of Judges merely makes the point that any of these cities would have been proud to have provided his grave. Ed.] Compare also Zachariah 9,9: ועל עיר בן אתונות, “and on a male donkey foaled by one of the sheasses.”

Rabbeinu Bahya (1255 – 1340) commentary: ויהי בשחת אלוקים, ”it was when G’d destroyed, etc.” The word אלוקים here refers to the angel of G’d who performed this task.
ויזכור אלוקים את אברהם, “G’d remembered Avraham.” Here the word אלוקים refers to G’d Himself.
וישלח את לוט, “He sent away Lot, etc.” As soon as the name of Avraham is mentioned G’d saves those who cleave to him. The meaning of the verse is that had it not been for Avraham, Lot would still have been in Charan, his land and his birthplace. He left his birthplace only for the sake of Avraham and in his honour.
בהפוך את הערים אשר ישב בהן לוט, “when He overturned the towns in which Lot used to reside.” The question arises why G’d chose such a drastic means of punishing the people of Sodom. It is likely that other nations or the inhabitants of people in other times throughout history have been guilty of similar or even worse conduct and neither they nor the earth they lived on have been wiped out. Besides, seeing that Avraham the most successful exponent of the efficacy of repentance was alive, why was he not encouraged to try and influence the lifestyle of the Sodomites? If he would have achieved a measure of success this would have prevented this human disaster!
The principal reason that the judgment of the Sodomites was so harsh was the fact that they lived in the Holy Land. This land cannot tolerate sinful people for long and has always expelled them as one vomits indigestible food.

What happened to the Sodomites was an illustration of how the very earth of ארץ ישראל responds to the perversion of all human and religious values such as practiced by the people who live on it. Sodom’s destruction was to serve as a warning to the Israelites in the future not to become guilty of similar acts. Before the Israelites conquered the land they themselves became witnesses to the manner in which the land vomited the Canaanites. Even the spies had described the land as “consuming its inhabitants,” (Numbers 13,32) but they had misinterpreted the cause for this. For all these reasons Moses recalled what happened to Sodom and the Sodomites in his parting address to the Jewish people in Deut. 29,22. He warned his people of what would happen to them if they failed to adhere to the Torah and would forsake its laws.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויהי בשחת, the reason why the Torah phrases this thus is to remind us that Lot’s having been saved was due to the merit of Avraham. Even though, by comparison to the people of Sodom he was relatively righteous, he was not righteous enough to have deserved G’d extending Himself to save him as a result of his own merits. G’d now wanted to put Avraham’s mind at rest by indicating to him that Lot had indeed been saved from this conflagration.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: The Torah summarizes the previous events: It was when God destroyed the cities of the plain, and God remembered Abraham. And due to Abraham’s merit, He sent Lot from the midst of the upheaval, as He overturned the cities in which Lot lived.

And Lot went up from Zoar and dwelt in the mountain, and his two daughters with him, for he feared to dwell in Zoar; and he dwelt in a cave, he and his two daughters.

30 וַיַּעַל לוֹט מִצּוֹעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב בָּהָר וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו עִמּוֹ כִּי יָרֵא לָשֶׁבֶת בְּצוֹעַר וַיֵּשֶׁב בַּמְּעָרָה הוּא וּשְׁתֵּי בְנֹתָיו׃

ל

Lot, having lost his wife, only had his two daughters, and he learned to fear HaShem. He feared Him so much that he did not stay in Tzoar and went to the mountain, where the messengers of HaShem had told him to flee to at first. Lot knew that the people of Tzoar were sinners, too. So he left, and his daughters went with him. The use of the word “dwelt ” means that they stayed there for a long time. We should know that the town or city of Tzoar is mentioned and has existed for about one thousand years after this event. The last time it was mentioned was in Jeremiah 48:34. After that, Tzoar is not mentioned again, and this town or city does not exist anymore. Even though the rough location of it is known, other cities exist with different names in that location.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: כי ירא לשבת בצוער FOR HE FEARED TO DWELL IN ZOAR, because it was near to Sodom.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: FOR HE FEARED TO DWELL IN ZOAR. Rashi wrote, “Because it was near to Sodom.”
This is not so. Rather, since it was one of the places upon which destruction had originally been decreed and it was only by Lot’s supplication that the angel exempted it because Lot could not make his escape to the mountain on that day, Lot now thought that the angel would no longer extend his request, for he now had sufficient time to make the escape to the mountain. This was why his daughter said, And there is not a man in the earth, for she thought that with her father’s departure from Zoar the city was destroyed.

Sforno (approximately 1470/1475-1549) commentary: וישב בהר, because he thought that the entire valley would be destroyed, excluding the surrounding mountains.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: כי ירא לשבת בצוער, “for he was afraid of taking up residence in Tzoar.” The angel had saved Tzoar only temporarily until Lot would recover sufficiently to escape to the mountain. As soon as he would have done so, he became afraid that the angel would complete the task of destroying it.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ויעל, as soon as he had the opportunity, after all that was to be destroyed had already been destroyed. He left Tzoar being afraid that Tzoar might face the same fate as Sodom, even though a little later, seeing that he was well aware that its inhabitants were also wicked people.
וישב בהר, this was the mountain which the angel had originally told him to go to. (verse 17)

Rashbam (approximately 1085 – approximately 1158) commentary: כי ירא לשבת בצוער, seeing the angel had spared the town only because there had not been time enough for Lot to escape to the mountain. Now that Lot could climb the mountain at his leisure, he was afraid to stay there longer than necessary.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Lot ascended from Tzoar and lived in the hills, and his two daughters with him, because he feared to live in Tzoar. Lot had stayed in Tzoar on the first night, but he was afraid to remain there, as it was one of the cities of the plain that had originally been intended for punishment. As Lot suspected that its destruction had been merely delayed due to his presence and request, he felt anxious. Therefore, he eventually ascended into the mountains, as the angel had originally instructed him. And he lived in a cave, he and his two daughters.

Many reasons are given for Lot deciding to not staying in Tzoar, but by Scripture, the reasons are not known for sure.

And the firstborn (of women) said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man in the land to come into us like the manner of all the earth.

31 וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל־הַצְּעִירָה אָבִינוּ זָקֵן וְאִישׁ אֵין בָּאָרֶץ לָבוֹא עָלֵינוּ כְּדֶרֶךְ כָּל־הָאָרֶץ׃

לא

“There is no man in the land to come into us like the manner of all the earth.”

The two daughters believed that there was no man (in the singular) to give them children. Some interpreters, and to a certain point, I also do, understand the verse to mean that these two daughters, and maybe even Lot, thought that the whole world was destroyed and that they were the only three left. But I question some things, like how could these be, since Tzoar was still there? I know that the belief is that maybe they believed that even Tzoar was going to be destroyed. Also, they were told by the messengers of HaShem that they were going to destroy the region, not the whole world, like in the time of the Great Flood.

“Like the manner of all the earth.”

Why would the daughter of Lot say this when she had already said that there was no man to have sexual intercourse with them? Why add this statement? If we remember when Lot confronted the mob of people that wanted the two men, who were the messengers of HaShem, for sexual pleasures, they declined the two virgin daughters of Lot. They could have taken them all, the men and the women. Could it be that from the daughters’ perspective, who probably have not known any other place but Sodom, men did not have sexual intercourse with women, and this was the only way they knew that men behaved? And maybe thought that the rest of the world was the same? Maybe this verse and ending statement should be understood, or rephrased like this;

“There is not a single man in the world to be intimate with us, as it should be normal for a man and a woman.”

I don’t know; I could be wrong, but it certainly points to this. We should also understand that Scripture says that Lot and his two daughters dwelt in the cave, but it does not say for how long they dwelt there. They were up in the mountain, on the Canaan side, facing the destroyed region of Sodom, so maybe they did think that the whole world had been destroyed. Their view was destruction, and in the distance, there were more mountains, and if they knew the lay of the land, they knew that there was desert on the other side of those mountains as far as the eye could see. They also knew that Canaan was behind them, and then the ocean. How big did they believe that the region destroyed was? No one knows. Israel or Canaan, then, is not very big, width-wise. In their eyes, they had nowhere to go. Could they have started walking to find more cities or survivors? Maybe they could have, but the starting statement of Lot’s daughter says that their father was old. Perhaps they thought that he could not make it anywhere before he died. No matter what you want to believe, in their eyes, they are stuck there and have no way of procreating children of their own.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ואיש אין בארץ AND THERE IS NOT A MAN IN THE EARTH — They thought that the whole world had been destroyed as in the time of the generation of the Flood. (Genesis Rabbah 51:8).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: AND THE FIRST-BORN SAID. Lot possibly had a wife who predeceased the wife who turned into a pillar of salt. Lot’s daughters thought that the world was destroyed by fire and brimstone in the same manner that it had previously been destroyed by the flood.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: איש אין בארץ לבא עלינו. Most interpreters assume that these daughters thought that that just as there was no survivor left from the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, so there were none in the rest of the world. It is very difficult to accept such an interpretation, seeing that they had just left Tzoar which had not been destroyed, so that they had every reason to believe that other regions of the earth had also not been affected. Not only that, but their father had told them that the reason why Sodom and Gomorrah had been destroyed was due to their inhabitants’ wickedness. I therefore prefer an explanation which I have heard in the name of Rabbi Yoseph Karo (the elder) that the elder sister told her younger sister that none of the remaining men of the world would want to marry them, seeing they had lived in the wicked city of Sodom. People would not want to associate with anyone who had only narrowly escaped the fate of the Sodomites.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Lot and his two daughters stayed alone in the cave, surrounded by total desolation. The destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah presumably prevented any traveler from approaching the area. Lot’s daughters did not know that the destruction was limited to Sodom and its environs. They assumed that a global catastrophe like the flood had occurred and that they were the only survivors. As stated earlier (verse 8), both were young and unmarried. Therefore, the elder said to the younger: Our father is old; we cannot expect that he will have use of his faculties for long. And there is no man on the earth aside from him to consort with us in the way of the world. The continuation of the human race depends on us. Although we are his daughters, we must act like the family of Adam, the first man, and procreate from family members, in order to prevent the extinction of humanity.

Yes, this verse has many interpretations, but that is because of the complexity of the Ancient Hebrew language and how it was written. It leaves a lot of room for thought, and most likely, it was intended to make us think. So far, I am not happy, even with my interpretation. I linger between mine and that they thought the entire world population was destroyed. I know that I will continually come back to this verse until I can be satisfied as to its meaning.

Come, let us make our father wine/drink and we will lie with him and we will sustain life from our father’s seed.”

32 לְכָה נַשְׁקֶה אֶת־אָבִינוּ יַיִן וְנִשְׁכְּבָה עִמּוֹ וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ זָרַע׃

לב

The older sister formulated a plan to become pregnant and have children. Let us remember that they thought that there was not even a single man that could do this for them, aside from their father, and also, no matter where you stand in your believe as to why this is, according to the last verse, she intended to continue life or keep on living, because that is what the word used for this verse is and means, וּנְחַיֶּה/Unkhaye/And we will live. For in Scripture, to have children that can carry your genes is to live on after you are dead.
The plan was to get their father drunk enough, and this probably meant extremely drunk. The reason for this is apparent, I think. The reason for getting their father drunk was that they knew their father would not do it. He would not agree to do such a thing, but he would not even know it or remember if he were sufficiently inebriated.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: THAT WE MAY KEEP ALIVE SEED FROM OUR FATHER. The intent is perhaps that they said: “Let us do what we can, so that G-d should have mercy, and we shall give birth to a boy and a girl from whom the world shall be sustained, for the world will be built with kindness, and it is not in vain that G-d has saved us.” Now they were modest and did not want to tell their father to marry them, as a Noachide is permitted to take his daughter. It may be that the matter was extremely repulsive in the eyes of the people of those generations and was never done. Our Rabbis, in Agadic expositions, likewise discredit Lot very much.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: נשקה את אבינו יין, enough to make him drunk, so that he will not know what to do when we sleep with him. He certainly would not agree to sleep with his daughters while in full possession of his faculties. Anyone subscribing to the cultural mores of an Avraham would not knowingly engage in such a practice. This story is related in order to teach us that even people not subscribing to the moral standards of the Torah would not stoop to this kind of sexual licentiousness. The entire story reveals the origin of the peoples of Ammon and Moav, two nations who will feature prominently in Jewish history from the time even before the Jews entered the Holy Land until the destruction of the first Temple. G’d prevented the Jewish people under Moses from attacking these nations seeing that their founder, Lot, had been a nephew of Avraham. Also, the Jewish people were not given any part of the lands occupied by these nations at the time when Moses and Joshua were involved in conquering the lands which became their home land.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: Let us give our father wine to drink so that he will be drunk, and we will lie with him, and we will give life to offspring from our father. Lot’s daughters chose to intoxicate their father rather than plan with him, whether out of concern that he would react negatively or because they were embarrassed to discuss the idea with him.

And they made their father drink wine that night, and the firstborn went in and lay with her father, and he did not know when she lay down and when she arose.

33 וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ אֶת־אֲבִיהֶן יַיִן בַּלַּיְלָה הוּא וַתָּבֹא הַבְּכִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב אֶת־אָבִיהָ וְלֹא־יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקׄוּמָהּ׃

כז

The firstborn did as she planned. The two daughters made their father, Lot, drunk, and the firstborn went in and had intimacy with her father. Lot was so drunk that he had no memory of it all. He did not remember his daughter coming in to do so or had no recollection of the whole event afterwards.
We do not know if they had wine with them or, as some commentators think, if it was found in the cave itself. I believe that Lot brought it with him. Why? This goes back to what I have been saying all along. Do not think of these people as characters in a story, but know that these were real people in history. You must put yourself in their shoes, which is why Scripture does not state the obvious. Think of what Lot and his family have been going through. Lot lost his money, animal stock, and his wife and other family members. Do you think he would be thinking of forgetting it all and getting drunk to forget, at least for a little while? This is a better reasoning than finding wine in a random cave.
You could also deduce that the oldest daughter had planned this from the start, before they went up the mountain with her plan in mind and brought the wine from Tzoar. Both are possibilities. Also, a possibility is that Lot brought the wine, and his oldest daughter saw it, and that is when the plan came to her—all possibilities of this occurrence.

Chizkuni (13th Century) commentary: ותשכב את אביה, “she had carnal relations with her father;” according to Rashi, what she did was not proper; if you were to argue that we have a statement in the Talmud Baba Kamma 38, according to which her conduct was to teach us that she was praised for being the first of the two sisters to fulfill this commandment, the meaning is that if something inadmissible (basically) has to be undertaken due to circumstances, the person who is the first to do so is given special credit. Rashi criticises the fact that objectively speaking, she committed incest. [According to the rules about incest, as stipulated in Maimonides, gentile daughters are allowed to have carnal relations with their fathers, based on Sanhedrin 58] According to the mechilta, the fact that they found wine in the cave was a sign for them that what they did had heavenly approval. Ed.]

Rabbeinu Bahya (1255 – 1340) commentary: ותשקין את אביהן יין בלילה הוא, “they gave their father wine to drink in that night.” Actually, the Torah should have written בלילה ההוא instead of בלילה הוא. The absence of the prefix ה suggests that the word הוא is a reference to G’d, i.e. that it is one of G’d’s names. This is why the sages said that Lot’s daughters enjoyed a divine assist in their undertaking. The wine itself was found in their cave. They had not brought it with them. G’d had provided it to make their undertaking easier. [G’d’s interest was to commence the process which would ultimately result in the birth of King David.]

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ולא ידע, even when his daughter broke off the physical contact with her father, Lot remained totally unaware of this. [this is why we speak of “drunk as Lot,” when referring to someone’s drunken stupor. Ed.] The Torah mentions this detail to hint that had he noticed any of this Lot would have resisted the sexual union with his daughter and would have severely remonstrated with her for performing such a despicable act.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: They gave their father wine to drink that night. The wine was likely brought from Tzoar, along with the other provisions they had taken for their survival. The elder came and lay with her father, and in his drunken state, he did not know when she lay or when she arose.

And it came to pass on the next day, that the firstborn said to the younger, "Behold/see, I lay with my father last night; let us make him drink wine again tonight, and you go in and lie with him, and we will sustain life from our father’s seed."

34 וַיְהִי מִמָּחֳרָת וַתֹּאמֶר הַבְּכִירָה אֶל־הַצְּעִירָה הֵן־שָׁכַבְתִּי אֶמֶשׁ אֶת־אָבִי נַשְׁקֶנּוּ יַיִן גַּם־הַלַּיְלָה וּבֹאִי שִׁכְבִי עִמּוֹ וּנְחַיֶּה מֵאָבִינוּ זָרַע׃

לד

The older sister told the younger sister that she had done as they had planned and told her that she should do the same. I am not sure if they both agreed or if the older sister was pushing the younger sister to do as she planned. What makes me wonder is the beginning of the verse, where she says, “Behold/See.” It's kind of like saying, “Look, I did it, and so should you.”

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: It was the next day, and the elder said to the younger: Behold, I lay last night with my father. Since I have already broken the taboo, let us give him wine to drink tonight as well, and you come and lie with him; and we will give life to offspring from our father. We cannot know yet if I have become pregnant. Since we must guarantee the survival of the human race, we will improve our chances of success if you lie with him as well.

And they also gave their father wine to drink that night, and the younger rose and lay with him, and (he) did not know when she lay down and when she arose.

35 וַתַּשְׁקֶיןָ גַּם בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא אֶת־אֲבִיהֶן יָיִן וַתָּקָם הַצְּעִירָה וַתִּשְׁכַּב עִמּוֹ וְלֹא־יָדַע בְּשִׁכְבָהּ וּבְקֻמָהּ׃

לה

The two daughters differ in their descriptions of going to the father to do the deed. For the older sister, the word used is בּוֹא/Bo, which means “she went in,” and for the younger sister, the word is קוּם/Kum, which means “to rise.” This reinforces my belief that the younger sister, even though she was doing it, was not so committed to doing what they did, and was being influenced by the older sister. Again, Lot was so drunk that he did not notice or remember the events of those two nights. This is not Lot saying that he did not notice or remember, but it is Scripture telling us, or the narrative. So, it is true that he did not notice or remember.

Hakketav Vehakkabbalah, a Torah commentary by Yaakov Tzvi Mecklenburg (19th century). Commentary: And the younger one got up and lay down. The elder one, who began to seduce the younger one, was not ashamed to reveal that she was conceived by her father, and the act was to her as something easy without internal resistance. Therefore, it is said about her, "And she came and lay down." But the younger one, whose heart was troubled about revealing the disgrace of her actions, and even in the act itself, she had some hesitation in doing it after her father had already sensed the elder's actions on the first night, and she had to exert effort in the act. Therefore, it is said about her, "And she got up and lay down," because in every action that requires awakening and promptness, the term "getting up" is used, as in the matter of when a man rises against his neighbor and kills him.

And (the) two daughters of Lot became pregnant from their father.

36 וַתַּהֲרֶיןָ שְׁתֵּי בְנוֹת־לוֹט מֵאֲבִיהֶן׃

לו

VaTahareina | Shetey | VeNot-Lot | MeAvihen

This verse is very short and seems to have little to say, but the wording seems to try to clarify something, like telling us that these were two biological daughters of Lot and not adopted, or something similar. It is written in a way in which HaShem, through Moses, tries to tell us not to get this wrong.
I noticed that Scripture does not say if this was a one-time occurrence or if they tried more than once, because this is a question that one may have. As we know, pregnancy might not happen the first time, and sometimes, it takes years for a woman to achieve pregnancy. However, the text suggests that it happened on the first try.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: ותהרין וגו AND THEY BECAME PREGNANT, ETC. — Even though a woman does not become pregnant from the first intercourse, these [women] mastered themselves and took out their hymens; and they became pregnant from the first intercourse (Genesis Rabbah 51:9).

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ותהרין, they each became pregnant as a result of one sexual union with their aging father. As soon as they became aware of this, they desisted from further such contact with their father.

And the firstborn bore a son and called his name Moav; father of Moavites to this day.

37 וַתֵּלֶד הַבְּכִירָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מוֹאָב הוּא אֲבִי־מוֹאָב עַד־הַיּוֹם׃

לז

The consequence of this pregnancy between Lot and his oldest living daughter was that the Moabite people came to be. The Moabite people do not exist today, so Scripture says “to this day” because they were still around when Moses wrote this book.
Moav means “from the father or seed of the father” and should be understood as “from the father.” This means that, in the end, Lot's oldest daughter did not try to hide what she did. Could this mean that she repented for what she did? Maybe, and it is believed that she did, but Scripture does not say.

Rashi (approximately 1040 - approximately 1105) commentary: מואב MOAB — This daughter who was immodest openly proclaimed that the son was born of her father (מֵאָב/Meav) but the younger named her child in a euphemistic fashion and was rewarded for this at the time of Moses, as it is said regarding the children of Ammon, (Deuteronomy 2:19) “Do not contend with them” — in any manner at all — whereas in reference to Moab it (Scripture) only forbade waging war against them but permitted them (the Israelites) to vex them (Genesis Rabbah 51:11).

Ibn Ezra (approximately 1089 - 1092 to approximately 1164 - 1167) commentary: MOAB. Moab is the same as me-av and means from a father.
[UNTO THIS DAY.] No other people were intermingled with them. Unto this day may also signify that the incestuous origin of the Moabites is known to this day.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: ותלד..מואב, meaning מאב, “from my father I bore this son.”
אבי מואב, the founding father of the people called Moabites until this day.

Ramban (1194-1270) commentary: עד היום, the time frame mentioned refers to the period when the Torah was written by Moses.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: The elder gave birth to a son and called his name Moav; he is the ancestor of the Moavites to this day. The name Moav can be understood to mean: From father [me’av].

And the younger, she also bore a son, and called his name Ben-Ami; he is the father/descendents of Ami/Amon/Amonites to this day.

38 וְהַצְּעִירָה גַם־הִוא יָלְדָה בֵּן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ בֶּן־עַמִּי הוּא אֲבִי בְנֵי־עַמּוֹן עַד־הַיּוֹם׃ס

לח

The name Ben-Ami means “Son of my People.” Once again, “to this day” means in the time of Moses and not today. These people do not exist today, as do the Moavites. We will read about these two families only a few times as we continue studying, but the story of Moab will really pick up, not until the book of Ruth. The book of Ruth is her story. Ruth marries an Israelite named Mahlon, but he dies on her. Ruth’s mother-in-law tells her to go back to her people, but she decides to stay with her mother-in-law. As the story continues, an Israelite man had a farm, and the law says that it is prohibited to harvest the corners of the fields, and these are to be for the poor. Ruth and her mother-in-law were poor, and Ruth picked at the corners of this man’s fields. Long story short, Ruth and this man end up marrying each other, and from their lineage came King David. The book of Ruth was written around 1011-931 BCE.

Radak (1160-1235) commentary: והצעירה...בן עמי, meaning “the father of this child was a member of my family.” This name was somewhat more chaste than the name given by her older sister, as she did not spell out that Lot was the father of her child.

Steinsaltz (1937-2020) commentary: The younger too gave birth to a son, and called his name Ben Ami, which has a similar meaning, as the word ami can denote a close familial relationship (see, e.g., 49:29). Nevertheless, this was a more subtle reference to his sordid origins than Moav. He is the ancestor of the descendants of Amon to this day.

Torah Home

Tanakh Home

◄ Ch. 18