Vayeira: A Lesson in Tznius from Lote's Daughters

One would not expect to find a lesson in tznius (modesty) in the rape of a father by his daughters - yet, this is what we learn from the conduct of Lote's two daughters.

Nov 03, 2023

Article voiceover

1×

0:00

-8:16

This week's Torah content has been sponsored anonymously in the hope that we will hear less sad news about things we can't control and learn more Torah to bring about change in ourselves, and in those aspects of the world which we can control.

Click here for a printer-friendly version of this article.

Artwork: DALL-E 3’s response to the prompt “draw a oil painting of an elderly Lot and his two twenty year old daughters pouring him wine in a cave,” by Jonathan R.

Vayeira: A Lesson in Tznius from Lote's Daughters

The Torah’s narrative about Sedom concludes with the origin story of Amon and Moav – the two nations that resulted from the incestuous rape of Lote by his own daughters. Here is the full episode (Bereishis 19:30-38):

Lote came up from Tzoar and settled on the hill, his two daughters together with him, for he was afraid to dwell in Tzoar; he dwelt in a certain cave, he and his two daughters. The elder said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man on earth to come [to bed] with us like the way of all the earth. Come, let us give our father wine to drink and let us lie with him, to give life to offspring from our father.” They gave their father wine to drink that night, and the elder came and lay with her father, and he knew not when she lay down or when she arose. And on the next day the elder said to the younger, “Look, last night I lay with my father. Let us give him wine to drink tonight as well, and come, lie with him, that we may give life to offspring through our father.” On that night as well, they gave their father wine to drink, and the younger arose and lay with him, and he knew not when she lay down or when she arose. The two daughters of Lote conceived by their father. The elder bore a son and called his name Moav; he is the father of the Moav of our days. And the younger as well bore a son and called his name Ben-Ammi; he is the father of the Ammonites of our days.

Despite the Torah’s negative stance on arayos (forbidden sexual unions, especially incest), and despite the natural revulsion we feel when we read this story, the mainstream view among Chazal and the classical commentators is that the daughters of Lote acted virtuously. Granted, they were mistaken in their assessment that “there is no man on earth to come [to bed] with us like the way of all the earth.” Rashi (Bereishis 19:31), citing Chazal (Bereishis Rabbah 51:8), explains: “They thought that the whole world had been destroyed as in the time of the Generation of the Flood,” and believed they were the only survivors who could repopulate the human species. Their actions were for the sake of heaven, and they were rewarded by God. Rabbeinu Bachya ben Asher (Bereishis 19:30) elaborates on their praiseworthy conduct and its reward:

[The daughters of Lote] were tzenuos (modest) and misbayshos (ashamed) of soliciting sexual intercourse from their father, even though a Noahide is permitted to sleep with his daughter. Our Sages said that their intention was for the sake of heaven, in order to populate the world, for they saw the enormous destruction in that generation and they were afraid that the human species would go extinct. Because their mother had already perished by being stricken as a pillar of salt, and their father was alone without a mate, therefore, it was necessary [in their view] to do this act in order to give life to offspring through him, so that the species wouldn't perish. [We know all] this from their statement, "and there is no man on earth etc." Because of this, you will not find that Scripture ascribes any zenus (lechery) to them in the entire parashah, since their intention was for the sake of heaven. Therefore, the elder daughter merited as a descendant Ruth the Moabite, [progenitor of King David,] who accepted upon herself the 606 mitzvos (numerical value of ר.ו.ת.) that Israel has in addition to the [seven mitzvos of] the Noahides. The younger one merited as a descendant Naamah the Ammonite, who was the mother of [King] Rechavam ben Shlomo. Both of them merited [that their offspring be part of] the royal dynasty of David.

The Torah gives credit where credit is due: these women engaged in an act that was repugnant even to the people of that time (according to Radak on Bereishis 19:32), but they did so for the sake of the human race, and they went about it with tznius (modesty), choosing a method that would prevent their father from feeling shame.

Moreover, the elder daughter is praised for taking the initiative in this act, as Chazal state (Nazir 23b):

R’ Chiyya bar Avin said in the name of R’ Yehoshua ben Karcha: A person should always take the initiative in a mitzvah matter: as a reward for a single night in which the elder daughter preceded the younger, she merited to precede [the younger daughter] by four generations to the monarchy of the Jewish people. [The descendants of Ruth the Moabite ruled over the Jewish people for four generations - Oved, Yishai, David, and Shlomo - before the reign of Shlomo's son, Rechavam, whose mother was Naamah the Amonite.]

Nevertheless, Chazal do not refrain from criticizing the eldest of the two daughters for naming her son “Moav.” Both daughters alluded to incest in their choice of names: “Moav” derives from “me’Av” which means “from father,” and “Ben-Ammi” literally means “son of my people” or “son of my kinsman.” R’ Naftali Herz Wessely (ibid. 19:37) notes that “even though the elder daughter's intention was for the sake of heaven, she should have acted modestly by not publicizing the identity of the one with whom she cohabited.” Chazal express this critique in Bava Kama 38b and spell out the ramifications of the elder daughter’s misstep:

R' Chiyya bar Abba said in the name of R' Yochanan: Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu does not deprive any creature of its reward - even reward for pleasant speech (i.e. euphemisms). With regards to the elder [daughter] who said [that the name of her son would be] "Moav," Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe: "Do not be at enmity with Moav and do not contend with them in battle" (Devarim 2:9) - [implying that] specifically battle was not [authorized] but [that the Jewish people could] impose forced labor on them. [However, with regards to] the younger [daughter] who said [her son would be named] "Ben Ami," Ha'Kadosh Baruch Hu said to Moshe: "And when you come near the children of Ammon, do not harass them nor contend with them” (ibid. 2:19) – [implying] “at all,” [namely,] do not even impose forced labor on them.

Had the eldest daughter merely alluded to the paternity of her son, like her younger sister, that would have been fine. It was her open disclosure of her incestuous relationship that warranted censure.

There are several takeaways from Chazal’s assessment of the actions of Lote’s daughters:

(1) Intentions matter. Had the daughters of Lote drugged and raped their father for any reason other than repopulating the earth, their deed would have been considered abominable and condemned in harsh terms. It was their intent that made their action noble. This is the Ralbag’s takeaway (Bereishis 19, Toeles #24):

The 24th lesson is in character traits, namely, that it is proper for us to judge human actions based on their intent, not based on their inherent qualities. You see that since the intention of Lote's daughters was good in this despicable action, they were assisted by Hashem, and merited that two nations descend from them that filled the land at the time of the giving of the Torah.

(2) Divine rewards are nuanced. It is tempting to label all actions as either “good” or “bad.” Even when we acknowledge the complexity of human deeds, we are still hardwired to classify them in binary terms. We see from Chazal that this isn’t Hashem’s approach. The decision of Lote’s daughters to have relations with their father was praiseworthy because of its objective and because of the modest manner in which it was carried out. The elder daughter’s decision to initiate this act earned her a greater reward than her sister. At the same time, the elder daughter’s merit was diminished because of the immodest name she gave her son.

(3) Despicable acts should not be flaunted even when done for legitimate reasons. In a vacuum, the incest of the two daughters was disgraceful, even though it was permissible by Noahide law. It was their intention and their tznius which transformed this disgrace into praise. But because the elder daughter called attention to her own sexual immorality, proudly declaring that her son issued forth from her own father’s loins, she compromised the value of tznius for which she was initially lauded. There are cases in which it is necessary or even praiseworthy to engage in unsavory activities, but that is not a sufficient reason to flaunt these activities. One should not advertise, celebrate, or have pride in behavior which runs contrary to Torah values, even if that behavior is justifiable for other reasons which are endorsed by the Torah.

Do you have any other thoughts or takeaways on this episode and Chazal’s take on it? Let me know in the comments below!

The Rabbi Schneeweiss Substack

Discussion about this post