Parshas Vayeira
1. "And G‑d rained upon Sodom and upon Amorah brimstone and fire . . . and He overturned these cities, and the entire plain, and all the inhabitants of the cities . . ."
Rashi explains on this verse that "and He overturned these cities" refers not only to Sodom and Amorah, which were mentioned in the preceding verse, but to all four cities in the plain, as stated explicitly in Parshas Nitzavim: "like the overturning of Sodom and Amorah, Admah and Tzevoyim." [And although Rashi explained earlier that there were five cities in the plain (corresponding to the five kings mentioned in Parshas Lech Lecha: Sodom, Amorah, Admah, Tzevoyim and Tzoar), only four of them were overturned, since the angel agreed to Lot's request "not to overturn the city" (Tzoar), as explained by the commentators.]
The Tzafnas Pa'neach (of the Rogatchover) on the Torah explains the reason for the difference between the punishment of Sodom and Amorah and that of Admah and Tzevoyim — that the former were burned by fire from heaven, while Admah and Tzevoyim were only overturned: Sodom and Amorah were punished under the law of an ir hanidachas, a city led astray into idolatry (as understood from the Yerushalmi and the Tosefta), and they were therefore burned (as is the law of an ir hanidachas). Admah and Tzevoyim, however, could not be judged under the law of an ir hanidachas, in keeping with the ruling of the Mishnah that three cities are not made into an ir hanidachas, and they were therefore only overturned.
Now, this difference between the punishment of Sodom and Amorah and that of Admah and Tzevoyim is necessitated by the plain meaning of the verses as well. The punishment of burning (brimstone and fire from heaven) is mentioned only regarding Sodom and Amorah, while regarding the overturning of the cities it says "and He overturned these cities" (which refers to the four cities, as cited above from Rashi). If so, it must be examined: what is the reason for this difference according to the plain meaning of Scripture?
It is understood that the above explanation of the Tzafnas Pa'neach has no bearing on the plain meaning of Scripture, since according to the plain meaning: a) the main punishment of Sodom and Amorah was not because of the sin of idolatry but (in the words of the verse) because "she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy" (as will be explained in section 3); b) the entire law of an ir hanidachas does not apply to the descendants of Noach or before the Giving of the Torah; c) the plain meaning of Scripture does not mention the law that three cities are not made into an ir hanidachas; d) and if it is a matter of reasoning (as one opinion in the Gemara holds, that it is "because of making a bald patch [in the Land]") — then in this regard there is no difference between burning and overturning, for the same reasoning that forbids burning (and destroying) three cities also requires that they not be destroyed by being overturned.
2. This will be understood by first noting the precise wording of the verse (at the beginning of the account): "And G‑d said, 'The outcry of Sodom and Amorah is great, and their sin is very grave.'" It must be examined why the verse mentions (explicitly) only Sodom and Amorah and not the other cities in the plain (and only in Rashi is it brought that there were five cities).
[The Radak answers, "because they were the heads of the kingdoms" (and the other three cities were subordinate to them). But seemingly this is not a sufficient explanation, for if so the verse should have mentioned only Sodom, since (in the words of the Radak there) "Sodom was the mother of them all." As Rashi brings (on the reason G‑d said, "If I find in Sodom (specifically) fifty righteous people . . . I will spare the entire place for their sake"): "Since Sodom was the metropolis and the most important of them all, the verse made it dependent on it." Likewise we find that the angel went only to Sodom. If so, in our case too, if the verse's intention is only to mention the main one, it should have sufficed with mentioning Sodom here as well (along the lines of Rashi's wording several times regarding the mission of the angels, "to overturn (to destroy) Sodom") — why did it also mention Amorah?]
It is implied from this that the main sinners were the people of Sodom and Amorah.
And this is also the reason that only upon Sodom and Amorah did G‑d rain brimstone and fire, as Rashi explains on this verse that "when He comes to chastise the creatures, He brings fire from heaven upon them." That is, the people of Sodom and Amorah, whose sin was great, died and perished through the suffering of "fire from heaven," whereas the people of the other cities only perished through their being overturned.
But this is not a sufficient explanation. For from Rashi's comments on Lot's request, "Behold now, this city is near to flee to . . ." — "Its settlement is near: it was settled recently, therefore its measure [of sin] was not yet filled"; "Is it not small — are not its sins few" — it is proven that the other two cities (Admah and Tzevoyim) had filled their measure. If so, why were they too not punished by "fire from heaven"?
3. The explanation of this may be given on the basis of Rashi's comment earlier, in Parshas Lech Lecha, on the meaning of the kings' names: "Bera, king of Sodom . . . Birsha, king of Amorah, Shinav, king of Admah, and Shem'ever, king of Tzevoyim." Rashi says: "Bera — evil (ra) toward Heaven and evil toward people; Birsha — who became exalted in his wickedness (resha); Shinav — who hated (sonei) his Father (av) in Heaven; Shem'ever — who made (sam) himself wings (ever) to fly and leap and rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He."
Thus, in the last two, only their rebellion against the Holy One, blessed be He (between man and G‑d) is emphasized in their names, whereas in "Bera" there was a twofold evil — evil toward Heaven and evil toward people. Simply, this is the meaning of "Bera" — "two (kinds of) evil" (beis ra). Accordingly, it appears that what Rashi says afterwards in explaining "Birsha" — "who became exalted in his wickedness" — is an addition to "Bera": that with "Birsha" too there were two kinds of wickedness ("beis resha"), toward Heaven and toward people, and he is called "Birsha" (and not "Bera") because "he became exalted in his wickedness."
It may be said that this is also the difference between the wickedness of the people of these cities in the later years (when they were punished for their sin): the wickedness of Admah and Tzevoyim was mainly in sins between man and G‑d, evil toward Heaven; whereas in Sodom and Amorah there was a twofold evil, both toward Heaven (they rebelled against G‑d and worshipped idols) and toward people. On the contrary: the main wickedness of Sodom and Amorah, because of which they were punished with such a severe punishment, was (as stated explicitly in the verse) "she did not strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy." As Rashi also brings in our parsha: "'According to her outcry' — the outcry of a certain girl whom they put to death in an unusual manner because she gave food to a poor person" (and as is also understood from the conduct of the people of Sodom when the angels came to Lot).
4. On this basis, the difference between the punishments of the cities is also understood — so much so that Rashi does not need to explain it, since it is understood from Rashi's earlier comments:
At the end of Parshas Noach, Rashi explains the difference between the punishment of the Generation of the Flood and that of the Generation of the Dispersion: "Which was worse, that of the Generation of the Flood or that of the Generation of the Dispersion? These did not stretch out their hand against the Principle [of faith], and those stretched out their hand against the Principle to wage war against Him; yet these were swept away, while those did not perish from the world. But the Generation of the Flood were robbers and there was strife among them, therefore they perished; whereas these conducted themselves with love and friendship among themselves, etc. You learn that strife is hateful and peace is great."
It is thus explicit that the punishment of the Generation of the Flood, who were swept away and perished, was mainly because "they were robbers and there was strife among them." This is also understood from Rashi at the beginning of Parshas Noach on the verse "for the earth is filled with violence" — "their sentence was sealed only because of robbery." That is: although they also sinned with immorality and idolatry, as Rashi explains there itself, "'And [the earth] was corrupt' — an expression of immorality and idolatry," and this was even the cause of a punishment in the form of "the end of all flesh," as Rashi explains there, "wherever you find immorality and idolatry, indiscriminate destruction comes to the world and kills both good and wicked" — nevertheless, "their sentence was sealed only because of robbery."
The commentators explain the reason for this: robbery and strife are the opposite of the settlement of the world, and return the world to tohu, chaos. It appears that the intent of this is that the Flood was not merely a severe punishment for severe sins; rather, it was a kind of regret over the creation of man and the world as a whole. The conduct of the creatures brought about that the Holy One, blessed be He, regretted, as it were, the creation itself, and consequently destroyed the world He had created, in the manner of "and He wiped out all existence . . ." — a total annihilation. And this is why the main cause of this decree was the sin of robbery and strife: for only conduct that returns the world to chaos, the opposite of the settlement of the world, opposes the creation itself.
Accordingly, the doubled expression in the verse may be explained: "The end of all flesh has come before Me, for the earth is filled with violence . . . and behold, I will destroy them with the earth." "The end of all flesh" means the punishment of the sinners for the greatness of their sin; and since it speaks of the sin of immorality and idolatry, the punishment is in the form of "the end of all flesh," "indiscriminate destruction, etc., which kills both good and wicked" (and such a punishment is not limited to the time of the Flood, as is precise in Rashi's wording, "wherever you find immorality and idolatry, etc."). Whereas because "the earth is filled with violence (the sin of robbery) . . . behold, I will destroy them with the earth," as Rashi explains, "with the earth — for even the three handbreadths of the depth of the plowshare were washed away and obliterated" — the earth itself was destroyed. This is because the Flood was not only a punishment for the sinners, but the destruction of the earth itself (the opposite of the creation of the world).
And according to all this, our matter is also understood — the punishment of Sodom and Amorah, etc.:
The difference between the raining of "brimstone and fire . . . from heaven" and the overturning of the cities is as follows. Through the overturning of the cities, the inhabitants of the cities were killed and all the vegetation of the ground was destroyed as well, but this did not involve destruction of the ground itself. This is what is added by "And G‑d rained . . . brimstone and fire": in addition to the suffering of the creatures, and even more importantly, through this the cities were burned and utterly destroyed (similar to "behold, I will destroy them with the earth" through the Flood).
Therefore this punishment was imposed only on Sodom and Amorah, whose main sin was between man and his fellow (similar to the punishment of the Generation of the Flood, because "they were robbers and there was strife among them"), whereas Admah and Tzevoyim, whose main sin was between man and G‑d, were punished only with overturning.
5. In the inner dimension of the matter, it may be said:
It is explained in Chassidus, regarding the reason for the punishment of Sodom, that it was utterly destroyed and laid waste, because the conduct of Sodom, the opposite of peace and unity, is like the World of Tohu, where "each one is by itself, the branches are separated." This is the reason for the opinion that "one who says, 'What is mine is mine and what is yours is yours' . . . this is the trait of Sodom": the very matter of separation and division from one another is like the World of Tohu, "the branches are separated." And this is the destruction of Sodom and Amorah, etc., which is like the "shattering" of the World of Tohu (as our Sages say, "He would create worlds and destroy them"), whose purpose is "destroying in order to build," for the sake of creating the World of Tikkun, whose nature is a world of inclusion and unity, etc.
However, the ultimate intent is that in the "vessels" of Tikkun the "lights of Tohu," which are beyond measure and limitation, should also be drawn down and revealed. But since this will be in the "vessels of Tikkun," it will involve no separation and shattering; on the contrary, it will be the ultimate unity, etc.
Accordingly, it is possible to explain what is said in Yechezkel, that in the future the cities of Sodom will be restored: "And I will return their captivity, the captivity of Sodom and her daughters." It may be said that the inner content of the restoration and rebuilding of these cities is that in the time of the Redemption the lights of Tohu will be revealed below, except that then these lights will be drawn down specifically in the vessels of Tikkun (building, the opposite of shattering).
This is also what is said in the Midrash: "'I have found David My servant' — where did I find him? In Sodom." This is seemingly puzzling: how could it be that David, King Moshiach, would be connected specifically with Sodom? But this is because of the inner virtue in it, the revelation of the lights of Tohu. Therefore "I found him in Sodom" specifically, for this is the role of David, King Moshiach: through him there will be a revelation of the lights of Tohu (which are beyond measure and limitation), except that they will be drawn down specifically in the vessels of Tikkun.
Accordingly, perhaps it may be said that this is the inner content, in a positive sense, of the two kinds of cities of "Sodom and her daughters" which will be restored in the Time to Come: Sodom and Amorah (which were burned) allude to the lights of Tohu, which are beyond measure and limitation; while the two cities Admah and Tzevoyim (which are similar to the Generation of the Dispersion, as mentioned above, where there was not (so much) robbery and strife) correspond to the inclusion of the vessels of Tikkun. And the restoration of all four cities together indicates the joining and union of the lights of Tohu and the vessels of Tikkun.
(From the talks of Shabbos Parshas Vayeira and Chayei Sarah 5743; Shabbos Parshas Noach 5742)
Key Lesson
Sodom and Amorah received the harsher punishment of fire from heaven, which destroyed the very land, because their main sin was cruelty to other people, refusing to help the poor and needy. Selfishness and strife between people tear apart the settlement of the world that G‑d intends. A Jew should therefore take special care in kindness, generosity and peace with others. Then even great, unbounded energies are channeled into unity and building, which is a foretaste of the Redemption through Moshiach.