*************************************************************
     THE TANACH STUDY CENTER [http://www.tanach.org]
          In Memory of Rabbi Abraham Leibtag
     Shiurim in Chumash & Navi by Menachem Leibtag
*************************************************************

             PARSHAT VAYERA

     It is very comfortable to think of Sedom as a city of
thugs and perverts.  After all, is that not the reason why God
decided to destroy it?  However, if one takes a closer look at
the Torah's presentation of these events, one could reach
almost the opposite conclusion - that Sedom was a city with
culture, boasting a society not very different from our own.
     In the following shiur we‘ll examine this possibility, as
we analyze the contrast between Sedom and Avraham Avinu, while
considering the very purpose for why God chose a special
nation.

INTRODUCTION
     Our series on Sefer Bereishit has been following the
theme of 'bechira', i.e. God's choice of Avraham Avinu to
become the forefather of His special nation.  In last week's
shiur, we discussed why God chose Avraham Avinu - i.e. to
create a nation that will bring the Name of God and His
message to all mankind.  However, we did not discuss the
Torah's plan for how this nation can ultimately achieve that
goal?   In this week's shiur, we attempt to answer this
question as we study of the story of God's consultation with
Avraham Avinu before He destroys Sedom.
     To better appreciate how the Torah presents its message
through these events; we begin our shiur by paying attention
to the lack of any 'parshia' divisions in this entire
narrative.

AN EXTRA LONG 'PARSHIYA'
     Using a Tanach Koren, follow the segment from the
beginning of Parshat Vayera (18:1) until the conclusion of the
story of Sedom at the end of chapter 19.   Note how this unit
contains two unrelated topics:
 1)  The news that Sarah will give birth to Yitzchak;
 2)  The story of God's destruction of Sedom (& Lot's rescue).

  Nonetheless, this entire narrative is recorded uninterrupted
by any 'parshia' break.  By including both of these events in
the same 'parshia', the Torah is already alluding to a
thematic connection between these two events.
     One could suggest that these events are recorded together
for the simple reason that the same "mal’achim" [angels or
messengers] are involved in both stories.  However, this
itself raises the same question from a different angle, i.e.
why are the same mal’achim who are sent to destroy Sedom -
first instructed to inform Avraham about the forthcoming birth
of Yitzchak?
  [If we adopt Rashi's position (see 18:2) that each angel was
  assigned only one mission, then we would re-phrase our
  question: Why must all three travel together, or why doesn't
  each angel travel directly to fulfill his own mission?]

THE DEEPER 'CONNECTION'
  The  answer  to this question can be found (right  where  we
would  expect)  at  the  transition point  between  these  two
stories.   Simply  take  a  look the  Torah's  'parenthetical'
comment,  inserted as Avraham escorts his guests on their  way
to  Sedom.   As you study these psukim, note how they  explain
why God must first consult Avraham before destroying Sedom:
  "And God said: Shall I hide from Avraham what I am about to
  do?  For Avraham is to become a great nation [goy gadol],
  and through him, all other nations will be blessed [ve-
  nivrechu bo...]
    For I have singled him out in order that he will instruct
  his children and his household after him to keep the way of
  God by doing what is just and right... - in order that I
  shall bring upon Avraham all that I have spoken about him."
       (See Breishit 18:17-19)

  Note how God's decision to consult with Avraham re: Sedom
relates directly to the destiny that he has been charged to
pass on to his son - Yitzchak.  But the thematic connection
between these two topics goes much deeper.  Let's explain how
and why.
     Review these three psukim once again, noting their
textual and thematic parallels to the first three psukim of
Parshat Lech Lecha (see 12:1-3), where the Torah details God's
original choice of Avraham Avinu:
  "... ve-e'escha le-goy gadol - and I will make you a great
  nation - and bless you and you will be a blessing [to
  others] -"ve-nivrechu becha kol mishpechot ha-adama /  - and
  through you all the nations will be blessed" (see 12:13).

     There can be no doubt that the Torah wishes to link these
two passages!  Then, note how after explaining (in verse 18)
why He has chosen Avraham Avinu, God explains how this will
happen - for Avraham will teach his children (and those
children their children, etc.) to do tzedaka u-mishpat!  (see
18:18-19)
     In other words, Avraham is expected to initiate a family
tradition - that will create a society characterized by acts
of tzedaka & mishpat.  In this manner, they will truly serve
as God's model nation.  [See also Devarim 4:5-8 for a very
similar explanation.  See also Yeshayahu 42:5-6.]

PREVENTING FUTURE CITIES LIKE SDOM
     This 'prelude' explains why the Torah records both
stories in the same parshia, for the reason why God has
promised a son to Avraham was in order to begin a nation that
will hopefully one day be able to save societies such as
Sedom, for they will serve as a 'model nation' from whom they
can learn.
     This can explain why the Torah records Avraham's petition
that God spare the doomed city.  Avraham does not ask that God
simply save the tzaddikim in Sedom; he begs instead that the
entire city be saved - for the sake of those tzaddikim!  [See
18:26.] - Why?
     Because - hopefully - those tzaddikim may one day
influence the people in Sedom towards proper 'teshuva', just
as the nation of Avraham is destined to lead all mankind in
the direction of God.

     This also explains when Avraham's petition ends.  After
God agrees to save the city for the sake of 50 righteous men,
Avraham continues to 'bargain' for the sake of 45, 40, 30,
etc. - until he reaches ten (see 18:23-32).  He stops at ten,
for there is little chance that such a small number would ever
be able to exert a serious influence upon an entire community.
  [This may relate to the concept of a 'minyan' - a minimum
  amount of people capable of making God's Name known.  Note
  as well the influence the ten 'spies' have on the entire
  nation in the incident of the 'meraglim', and how Chazal
  learn the number ten for a minyan from that incident!]

  It is God's hope that, in the future, Avraham's nation would
prevent the emergence of 'future Sedoms' - by creating a model
society established on acts of tzedaka u-mishpat.  As Yitzchak
is the son through whom this tradition will be transmitted, it
is meaningful that the same angels assigned to destroy Sedom
must first 'plant the seeds' for the prevention of future
Sedom's.
     Avraham makes this gallant effort to save Sedom, as this
reflects the very purpose for which he has been chosen.
Despite his failure at this time, it will be this tradition
that he must pass on to his son Yitzchak, and later to all
future generations.

AVRAHAM VS. SDOM
     Even though at this point in the narrative, we are not
yet aware of the precise sin of Sedom, this 'prelude'
certainly suggests that it must relate in some manner to a
lack of "tzedek u-mishpat".
     Now, we will attempt to determine more precisely what
their sin was, and how it represents the antithesis of
everything for which Avraham stands.
     Chapter 18 is not the first time in Sefer Breishit when
Sedom is mentioned.  As we explained in our shiur on Parshat
Lech Lecha, Lot's decision to leave Avraham and move to Sedom
(13:1-18) reflects his preference not to be dependent on God
and to dissociate himself from his uncle.  It is in that
context that we are told: "The men of Sedom were very wicked
to God" (see 13:13).
     Furthermore, after rescuing Lot from the 'four kings'
(see chapter 14), Avraham refuses to keep any property
belonging to Sedom which was recovered in that victory.
Although he rightfully deserves his 'fair share' of the spoils
from the battle which he himself fought and won, Avraham
Avinu, expressing his opposition to anything associated with
Sedom, prefers to completely divorce himself from any
resources originating from that city:
  "Avram said to the King of Sedom: I swear to the Lord, God
  Most High, Creator of heaven and earth: I will not take so
  much as a thread or a shoe strap of what is yours, so you
  can not say: It is I who made Avram rich" (14:22-23).

  Based on this backdrop, it would be safe to assume that the
sin of Sedom must relate in some manner to a lack of " tzedek
u-mishpat".  Therefore, we must read that ensuing story (in
chapter 19) in search of that theme.

A GOOD HOST
     Review the first three psukim of chapter 19, noting how
the Torah goes out of its way to describe how insistent Lot is
to provide these two 'unknown travelers' with a place to stay:
  "And the two mal’achim came to Sedom towards evening, and
  Lot was sitting by the gate of the city, as he saw them he
  approached them...  And he said -
    'Please come stay at your servant's house, for lodging
    and washing up, then you can continue on your way in the
    morning';
  but they declined.  But Lot very much insisted, so they came
  to his house; he gave them to drink and baked for them
  matzot [wafers] to eat."   (see 19:1-3).

     Clearly, the Torah is emphasizing Lot's very own
'hachnasat orchim' [hospitality] as the opening theme of this
narrative.
     One could suggest that this same theme continues in the
Torah's description of the city's reaction to Lot's harboring
of his two guests:
  "..They [his two guests] had not lain down yet when the
  townspeople, the men of Sedom, gathered outside his house -
  from young to old - all the people until the edge [of the
  city].  And they protested [outside his house] and shouted:
  'Where are those men who came to visit you this evening?
  Take them out of your house so we can know them [ve-
  nei'da'em]" (see 19:4-5).

      Most of us are familiar with Rashi's interpretation,
that the gathering consisted of merely a small group of the
lowest social and ethical stratum of Sedom, who wanted to
'know them' in the Biblical sense (i.e. sodomy, based on 19:8
and 4:1).  However, recall that the Torah only states that the
demonstrators wanted to 'know them', which is open to a wide
range of interpretation.

NO GUESTS ALLOWED
     Ramban (and Rasag) advance a different interpretation,
explaining that the entire town did indeed join in this
protest (as the simple reading of this pasuk implies), for
they had all gathered outside Lot's house, demanding to 'know'
who these guests were.
     Why are they protesting?  As Ramban explains so
beautifully (see his commentary on 19:5), the people of  Sedom
are protesting against Lot's hospitality to these strangers -
as they would call for a mass protest anytime there was a fear
that someone in their town was 'harboring' guests!
     There appears to have been a strict law in Sedom: No
guests allowed!  As Ramban explains, the Sdomites didn't want
to ruin their exclusive [suburban] neighborhood.  Should Lot
accommodate guests this evening, tomorrow night more guests
may come, and by the end of the month, the city streets could
be flooded with transients and beggars.  Should the 'word get
out' that there is 'free lodging' in Sedom, their perfect
'country club' would be ruined.
  [One could even find a warped ideology in this type of city
  policy.  For example, one could reason in a similar manner
  that no one should help the needy, for if everyone agreed
  not to take care of them, then they would ultimately learn
  to take care of themselves.]
  
     Hence, should any citizen of Sedom bring home a guest
['chas ve-shalom'], the city's 'steering committee' would
immediately call for a public protest.  [See also Sanhedrin
109a.]
     There may have been mishpat, in Sedom - a standardized
system of laws - but it was terribly warped.  Not to mention
the fact that tzedaka had no place whatsoever in this bastion
of amorality.
  [Chazal remark in Pirkei Avot that the social norm of 'sheli
  sheli, shelcha shelcha' - what is mine is mine, what is
  yours is yours - is a 'custom of Sedom'.  The attribution of
  this social philosophy to Sedom reflects this same
  understanding (see Pirkei Avot 5:10 - 'arba midot ba-
  adam...').]

TZEDEK U-MISHPAT VS. SDOM
     This interpretation explains why, throughout Nevi’im
Acharonim, Sedom is associated with the absence of tzedek u-
mishpat.  In fact, the three most famous of the Nevi’im
Acharonim - Yeshayahu, Yirmiyahu, and Yechezkel - all of whom
foresee and forewarn the destruction of the first bet ha-
mikdash, compare the corrupt society in Israel to that of
Sedom, and see therein the reason for their own forthcoming
destruction.
     As we will show, in every instance where Sedom is
mentioned by the prophets, it is always in reference to a
society lacking social justice, and never in reference to
illicit behavior such as sodomy.
     Let's start with a quote from Yechezkel in which he
states explicitly that this was indeed the sin of Sedom (i.e.
the very same point discussed above concerning "hachnasat
orchim"):
  "...Your younger sister was Sedom... Did you not walk in her
  ways and practice her abominations?  Why, you are more
  corrupt than they in all your ways... This was the sin of
  your sister Sedom - she had plenty of bread and untroubled
  tranquillity, yet she did not support the poor and the
  needy.  In her haughtiness, they sinned before Me, so I
  removed them, as you saw..." (see Yechezkel 16:46-50).

     In Yeshayahu, the connection between the lack of tzedek u-
mishpat and Sedom is even more explicit.  As we all recall
from the Haftara of Shabbat Chazon, Yeshayahu compares Am
Yisrael's behavior to that of Sedom & Amora:
  "Listen to the word of God - you [who are like] officers of
  Sedom, pay attention to the teachings of our God - you [who
  are like] the people of Amora.  Why should I accept your
  many offerings... Instead, learn to do good, devote yourself
  to justice, aid the wronged, uphold the rights of the
  orphan, defend the cause of the widow... How has the
  faithful city, once filled with mishpat tzedek, now become a
  city of murderers..." (Isaiah 1:10-21, see also 1:3-9!)

  Recall also how Yeshayahu concludes this nevu’a:
"Tzion be-mishpat tipadeh, ve-shaveha bi-tzedaka - Zion will
be redeemed by our doing "mishpat"; her repentance - through
our performance of tzedaka.

     In chapter five - Yeshayahu's famous 'mashal ha-kerem'
[the parable of the vineyard] - the prophet reiterates God's
initial hope and plan that Am Yisrael would perform tzedaka u-
mishpat, and the punishment they deserve for doing exactly the
opposite:
     "va-yikav le-mishpat - ve-hiney mispach"
     [God had hoped to find justice, and found instead
injustice],
      "li-tzedaka - ve-hiney tze'aka."  (Yeshayahu 5:7)
          [to find "tzedaka," and instead found iniquity]
               [note amazing parallel with Breishit 18:19-21!]
     (See Isaiah 5:1-10, as well as 11:1-6.)

     Perhaps the strongest expression of this theme is found
in Yirmiyahu.  In his powerful charge to the House of David
[whose lineage stems not only from Yehuda but also (& not by
chance) from Ruth the Moabite, a descendant of Lot!],
Yirmiyahu articulates God's precise expectation of the Jewish
king:
  "Hear the word of God, King of Judah, you who sit on the
  throne of David... Do mishpat u-tzedaka... do not wrong a
  stranger, an orphan, and the widow.." (Yirmiyahu 22:1-5).
                    [See also 21:11-12.]

     Later, when Yirmiyahu contrasts the corrupt king
Yehoyakim with his righteous father Yoshiyahu, he admonishes:
  "... Your father (Yoshiyahu)... performed tzedaka u-mishpat,
  and that made him content.  He upheld the rights of the poor
  and needy - is this not what it means to know Me [la-da’at
  oti], God has said!  But you (Yehoyakim) - on your mind is
  only your ill-gotten gains..." (see 22:13-17)

     Note that Yirmiyahu considers doing tzedaka & mishpat as
the means by which we come to 'know God' ['la-da’at et Hashem'
- (compare with Breishit 18:19, see also Yirmiyahu 9:23)]!
     Finally, when Yirmiyahu speaks of the ideal king who will
bring the redemption, he emphasizes this very same theme:
  "A time is coming - Hashem declares - when I will raise up a
  true branch of David's line.  He shall reign as king and
  prosper, and he will perform mishpat and tzedaka in the
  land.  In his days, Yehuda shall be delivered and Israel
  shall dwell secure..." (23:5-6).  [See also Zecharya 7:9;
  8:8, 16-17, II Shmuel 8:15!]

     This reason for the choice of the Kingdom of David
corresponds with the underlying purpose behind God's choosing
of Avraham Avinu.  As we have explained numerous times, God's
designation of Avraham came not in reward for his exemplary
behavior, but rather for a specific purpose: to establish a
model nation - characterized by tzedek u-mishpat - that will
bring all mankind closer to God.  For this very same reason,
God chooses a royal family to rule this nation - the House of
David.  They too are chosen in order to teach the nation the
ways of tzedaka u-mishpat.
     But even without proper leadership, this charge remains
our eternal goal, the responsibility of every individual.  To
prove this point,  and to summarize this theme, we need only
quote one last pasuk from Yirmiyahu (not by chance, the
concluding pasuk of the Haftara for Tisha Be-av):
"Thus says the Lord:
     Let not the chacham [wise man] glory in his wisdom;
     Let not the gibor [strong man] glory in his strength;
     Let not the ashir [rich man] glory in his riches.
     - But only in this should one glory:
  Let him be wise to know Me [haskel v-yado’a oti] -For I the
  Lord act in the land with chesed [kindness], mishpat, and
  tzedaka - for it is this that I desire, says the Lord."
       (see Yirmiyahu 9:22-23).
    [See also the Rambam's concluding remarks to the last
    chapter of Moreh Nevuchim!]

     Once again we find that knowing God means emulating His
ways, acting in accordance with the values of tzedek u-
mishpat.  Should the entire nation act in this manner, our
goal can be accomplished.
     Thus, what appears at first to be simply a parenthetical
statement by God (concerning Avraham) before destroying Sedom
(in Breishit 18:19) unfolds as a primary theme throughout
Tanach!

LA-DA’AT - THE KEY WORD
     It is not by chance that Yirmiyahu (in the above
examples) uses the Hebrew word 'la-da’at' in the context of
following a lifestyle of tzedek u-mishpat.  As we have already
seen, the shoresh 'daled.ayin.heh' has been a key word
throughout the narrative concerning Sedom.  First and foremost
in a positive context: "ki yeda’tiv lema’an asher... la'asot
tzedaka u-mishpat..." (18:19), but also in a negative context:
've-im lo eida’a' (see 18:21!).
     However, this same word also surfaces in a rather
ambiguous manner later on in the story.  As noted briefly
earlier, Rashi and Ramban dispute the meaning of 've-neida
otam' (see 19:5 - when the protesters demand that Lot
surrender his guests).  From this pasuk alone, it is not at
all clear what this phrase implies.

     Rashi explains that the men of Sedom wanted to 'know
them' in the Biblical sense (to 'sleep' with them 'mishkav
zachar' - see 4:1 & Chizkuni on 19:5).  Ramban contends that
they wanted to 'know' their identity in order to 'kick them
out of town,' in accordance with their city ordinance
prohibiting visitors.
     Clearly, Ramban takes into consideration the psukim from
Yechezkel (which he cites explicitly, and most probably also
took into account Yeshayahu chapter 1) that clearly identify
Sdom's [primary] sin as their unwillingness to help the poor
and needy.  In light of the direct contrast drawn between
Avraham's devotion to tzedek u-mishpat and the character of
Sedom (as in 18:17-19), we can readily understand why Ramban
sought to interpret 've-neida otam' as relation to 'kicking
out' unwanted guests.

     Rashi (and many other commentators) argue that ve-neida
otam implies mishkav zachar (sodomy - and hence its name!).
This opinion is based primarily on Lot's reaction to the
protestors' request of offering his two daughters instead of
his guests, and his comment, 'asher lo yad’u ish' (see 19:8 /
note again the use of the same 'shoresh').
     Had it not been for the psukim in Yechezkel 16:48-50, and
the prelude in Breishit 18:19, then Rashi's explanation seems
to be the most logical.  However, when we examine the story a
little more carefully, the story itself can support Ramban's
approach as well.
     The most obvious problem with Rashi's explanation (that
the protestors are interested in sodomy) stems from their
sheer number.  From 19:4 it appears that the group that
gathers outside Lot's house includes the entire city, most
likely hundreds of individuals, young and old!  If they are
simply interested in sodomy, pardon the expression, how could
two guests 'suffice'?
  [Rashi, in light of this problem, offers a somewhat novel
  explanation for 19:4, that only the 'thugs of Sedom'
  ('anshei Sedom' implying a specific group and not the entire
  city) banged on Lot's door.  The Torah mentions the rest of
  the population - 'from young to old' - only in regard to the
  fact that they did not protest the gang's depraved behavior.
  Rasag (on 19:4) disagrees, proving from 19:11 that both
  young and old had gathered outside Lot's house.]

     Ramban combines both explanations, criticizing Lot's own
character for foolishly offering his two daughters in exchange
for the protection of his guests.  However, this explanation
of 19:8 is also quite difficult, for how (and why) should this
offer appease this mass crowd who claim (according to Ramban)
to be interested only in expelling unwanted guests!
     One could suggest an explanation for Lot's remarks that
solves all of the above questions, leaving Lot's character
untainted, while keeping the focus of these events entirely on
the lack of tzedek u-mishpat in Sedom.

GIVING MUSSAR
     Lot's statement must be understood in light of the
crowd's reaction.  Note how the crowd responds to Lot's
'offer':
  "And they said to him: Go away [gesh hal'ah - move a far
  distance, you have just (recently) come to dwell (in our
  city) and now you judge us!  Now we will deal with you worse
  than with them..." (see 19:9).

     What did Lot say that prompted such a severe reaction?
If he simply had offered his daughters, why couldn't they just
say: No, we prefer the men?  Instead, they threaten to be more
evil with Lot than with his guests.  Does this mean that they
want to 'sleep' with Lot as well?
     One could suggest that when Lot pleads: "My brothers,
don't do such evil [to my guests], here are my two
daughters..." (see 19:6); he is not seriously offering his
daughters at all.  Rather, he makes mention of them as part of
a vehement condemnation of the people.  In a sarcastic manner,
Lot is telling the crowd that he'd rather give over his
daughters than his guests!  He has no intention whatsoever of
giving them over to a mass mob.
  [Note how Reuven's statement to Yaakov that he would kill
  his own two sons... etc. (see Breishit 42:37) could be
  understood in a similar manner; i.e. not that he would do
  that, but to emphasize his seriousness to his father.]

  Furthermore, as we mentioned above, how could two women
'appease' such a large crowd!   Instead, it would make more
sense to explain that Lot is making this harsh statement as a
form of rebuke, emphasizing how important it is that they
allow him to keep guests.  It's as if he said, "I'd sooner
give you my daughters than my two guests."
  [Note as well that Lot does not bring his daughters with him
  when he makes this so-called 'offer.'  In fact, he actually
  closes the door behind him (see 19:6) afterward, he leaves
  to negotiate with the rioters.  Had Lot really wanted to
  'appease' them with his daughters, he should have taken them
  outside with him!  Also, from the conclusion of the story,
  it seems that his two daughters were married (but their
  husbands didn't come along)]- v'akmal.]

     This explains why the crowd becomes so angered by Lot's
remarks.  They are taken aback by his harsh rebuke of their
'no guest' policy.
     Based on this interpretation [that Lot is 'giving them
mussar' and not 'making a deal'], we can better understand the
mob's response to Lot's offer (19:6-8).  They neither accept
nor reject Lot's proposal.  Instead, they express their anger
with Lot's rebuke:
  "One has just come to live by us - va-yishpot shafot - and
  now he is judging us; now we will deal more harshly with you
  than [we planned to deal] with them!" (see 19:8).
    [In other words: they seem to be saying: 'HEY, you're
    just a newcomer here in our town, and you already think
    you can tell us what to do!  No way - we're gonna kick
    you out of town now, together with your lousy guests!']
  [This would also explain what they mean by - "Now we will do
  more evil to you than to them" (see 19:9).  In other words,
  before we only wanted to expel you guests from town, now we
  are going to expel you and your family as well!]

     What do people mean by "you are judging us"?  Apparently,
there is something in Lot's response that suggests a type of
character judgment - but is it only his request that they 'not
be so mean' (see 19:7)?
     One could suggest that they consider Lot's sarcastic
offer of his daughters instead of his guests as a moral
judgment of their 'no-guest' policy; a reprehension of their
unethical social system.  If so, then this is exactly to what
'va-yishpot shafot' refers to.  They are angered for Lot has
'judged' their character.  No one likes being told what to do,
especially by 'newcomers'; hence their angry and threatening
reaction to Lot's remarks.

     This interpretation of 'shafot' in relation to rebuke is
found many other times in Tanach.  See for example I Shmuel
7:6, where Shmuel (at Mitzpa) rebukes the entire nation for
their behavior.  We find a similar use of the verb 'lishpot'
in I Shmuel 12:7, when Shmuel rebukes the nation for not
appreciating God's salvation when asking for a king to lead
them instead!  [See also Yirmiyahu 1:16, and its context.]
     If this interpretation is correct, then it may be that
Sedom's sin involved only social justice (as Yechezkel 16:48-
49 implies), and had nothing to do with 'sodomy' at all!  And
for this reason alone, God found it necessary to destroy that
city.
     Difficult as it may be to understand, this conclusion
should be seriously considered as we set our own values and
determine our lifestyle and community priorities.

               shabbat shalom,
               menachem
               
=====
FOR FURTHER IYUN

1. See Rambam in Sefer Zra'im, Hilchot Matnot Aniyim, chapter
10, the first halacha.  Note how he explains that the mitzva
of tzedaka requires the highest priority, and he supports his
statement from Breishit 18:18-19, as we discussed in our
shiur.

2. In Parshat Ki Tetzeh (see Devarim 23:4-5), the Torah
forbids the marriage of a Jew with a 'mo’avi ve-amoni'
[Moabite or Ammonite], the descendents of Lot.  But note the
reason, "for they did not greet you with bread and water when
you were traveling through the desert...".
     Once again we see the theme of hachnasat orchim in
relation to Sedom and Lot.
     Note as well how Ruth the Moabite does return one strain
of Lot back into Am Yisrael, which will later lead to David ha-
Melech.  However, in that story, Ruth's entry is replete with
incidents relating to acts of tzedaka.