1) Which thing mentioned in this week’s parsha would you make two brachos if you were to see it?
The Gemara says (Brachos 54b) that on observing Lot’s wife one says the bracha דַּיָּן הָאֱמֶת and on Lot himself one says זוֹכֵר אֶת הַצַּדִּיקִים. According to the Shulchan Aruch (Orach Chaim 218, 8) both of these blessings are recited when seeing Lot’s wife, as seeing her also reminds one of her husband.
The implication of this is that the Gemara took for granted that Mrs. Lot’s remnants were extant and visible. The Torah itself indicates that the destruction of Sedom would be remembered and referenced long into the future (Nitzavim 29, 21) and many sources refer to the enduring nature of Mrs. Lot’s remnants. Here is a sampling:
- She became a pillar of salt that is still standing. Each day the cattle (other sources mention goats) lick her down to her feet and at morning she regenerates (Pirke D’Reb Eliezer #25).
- Iris, the wife of Lot, is not subject to reincarnation, as is written[1]: “until this day”. Her soul is ‘still’, all that the animals lick of her reverts to her original state. Her ‘rectification’ is by the salt brought with the karbanos as well as the salt on our tables (R. Menachem Azarya of Fano, Gilgulei Neshamos).
- The pillar of salt remains until the resurrection of the dead (Targum Yerushalmi).
- Lot’s wife rebelled against the word of G-d and she became a pillar of salt. I have seen with my own eyes the pillar of salt that still stands there (Josephus, Antiquities 11).
On the other hand, R. Ovadya of Bartenura (Avraham Yari, Igros Eretz Yisrael pg. 135) reports that when he was in Yerushalyim he inquired about seeing the pillar of salt and was told that there are many pillars of salt in the region. Indeed, the consensus is that nowadays we can no longer identify this pillar of salt. (Reda”l (in his commentary to Pirke D’Reb Eliezer), attributes this to an earthquake that impacted the region).
We have discussed in the past that in the field of פְּשׁוּטוֹ שֶׁל מִקְרָא, things often differ substantially than in the field of הֲלָכָה. Here too there are some commentators who interpret the pasuk to be saying, not that she became a pillar of salt, but that the city became a pillar of salt. (Ralba”g. Chizkuni. Regardless, the story does still make it clear that Lot’s wife died). According to this approach it is difficult to understand why the Torah mentions her having looked back at this juncture in the story (R. Yitzchak karo (uncle of R. Yosef Karo), Toldos Yitzchak). The Bechor Shor suggests that וַתְּהִי נְצִיב מֶלַח means, not that she was transformed into salt, but that she became covered (or drowned) in a salt avalanche (see also Ibn Ezra). He concludes however with the disclaimer that there are reports of her ‘body-gone-salt’ still being visible .
In addition to Lot’s wife, there are traditions regarding pillars of smoke being observed in the region (Reda”k to Yeshayahu 34, 9) and to the earth or the water of the region being infertile (Berashis Raba 51, 4).
We’ll discuss all of this in much more detail at the class on Sunday and I hope to post a recording of that class.I hope to also discuss the connection between Lot’s wife and mayim achronim.
2) Who said to who וְנֹכָחַת (20, 16)?
It would seem that Avimelech said it to Sara. According to Rashi the meaning of the word is הוכחה - proof. Sara had proof of her miraculous salvation from Avimelech to show the world. Rashi uses the Old French word esprover – to prove.
Others understand the word to mean נכח - present. Anything Sara would ask for her would be present, available to her (Resa”g).
Yet others understand it to mean תוכחה - rebuke. Avimelech rebuked Sara for having lied to him about Avraham being her mother (Chizkuni).
Ibn Ezra adopts this last translation but understands it to be, not Avimelech’s words to Sara, but rather the words of the Torah’s narrative to us. The Torah is telling us that after this episode Sara was ‘rebuked’, she ‘learned her lesson’, and never again lied about her being Avraham’s wife.
Ramban too understands these words to be part of the Torah’s narrative to us. He translates it as ויכוח - debate. Sara argued with Avimelech refusing to accept his apology.
Incidentally, Ibn Ezra invokes here a rule which he famously invokes dozens of times, that the prefix letter ‘ו’ before this word, does not mean ‘and’ but rather it is ‘like the soft פ in Arabic’. Loosely this is along the line of the word ‘so’ in English.
[1] This does not seem to be quoting an actual pasuk. Perhaps it is a paraphrase or a quote from Sefer Hayashar or the like?