וישב תשע"ג - VaYeshev 5773: Potiphar

וְהַמְּדָנִים מָכְרוּ אֹתו אֶל-מִצְרָיִם לְפוֹטִיפַר סְרִיס פַּרְעֹה שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים.‏

בראשית ל”ז: לו

And the Midianites sold him to Egypt, to Potiphar, one of Pharoah’s noblemen, the minister in charge of slaughtering.
Genesis 37:36

רש”י:‏

הטבחים: שוחטי בהמות המלך.‏

Rashi:
the slaughterers: the slaughterers (shechters) of the kings domesticated animals.

Ramban argues with Rashi on this verse, regarding the meaning of שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים, “the minister in charge of the slaughterers”.  Ramban instead prefers Onkelos’s rendition, as רב קטוליא, which roughly translates to “chief executioner”.  

I think we may find a clue to how to tip the balance of this debate, by looking at a possible meaning for Potiphar’s name.  (He is one of the few Egyptians for whom we will actually see a proper name.)   

Potiphar’s name,”פוטיפר” seems similar to the name of one of Pinchas's ancestors, as we see from Parshas VaEra:

 

וְאֶלְעָזָר בֶּן-אַהֲרֹן לָקַח-לוֹ מִבְּנוֹת פּוּטִיאֵל לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וַתֵּלֶד לוֹ אֶת-פִּינְחָס אֵלֶּה רָאשֵׁי אֲבוֹת הַלְוִיִּם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם.

שמות ו:כה

And Elazar, the son of Aharon took a wife from the daughters of Putiel, and she bore him Pinchas...

The name,  פוטי-אל (Putiel) has the same prefix as פוטי-פר.  In his comment on the above verse, Rashi explains the origin of this name:

רש”י:‏

מזרע יתרו שפטם עגלים לעבודת אלילם

Rashi:
("From the daughters of Putiel" means she was) a descendant of Yisro who fattened calves for worship of false gods.  

Rashi is apparently telling us that פוטי (Puti)  is derived from the verb פטם (Patam), which means fatten (an animal).  And of course אל is the generic term for a god.  If we dissect Potiphar’s name the same way, it is פוטי + פר, or in English, fatten + bull.   So it seems that just as Yisro’s name (or that of one of his descendants) was called by his vocation -- one who fattens cows -- so too Potiphar’s name can be translated as one who fattens bulls (or cows).  

Based on the foregoing, we might reason that “the one who fattens bulls” is a name especially suited to the שַׂר הַטַּבָּחִים, the slaughterer of the king's animals, which is Rashi’s interpretation.  So perhaps this is an argument in favor of Rashi, and against Ramban (and Onkelos).

One final point: Rashi again mentions this name for Yisro in his commentary on Parshas Yisro (Exodus 18:1):

רש”י:‏

שבע שמות נקרא לו רעואל יתר יתרו חובב חבר קיני פוטיאל...‏

Rashi:
Yisro had seven names: Reuel, Yeser, Yisro, Khovav, Khever, Kaini, Putiel...

Although Rashi explains the meaning of the other names, he skips over discussing פוטיאל in this comment.  This could be for one of two reasons: since he already translated this name in an earlier comment, he felt it would be redundant to mention it again, or, because this name is a degrading name for Yisro, he felt it would be inappropriate to elaborate it in Parshas Yisro, which is widely seen as a moment of praise for Yisro.  (To lend further credence to the second idea over the first, Rashi does repeat his explanation of the meaning of Putiel in his comment in Parshas Pinchas, where Pinchas’s lineage is mentioned again.)

ויצא תשע"ג -- VaYezte 5773

וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֹּאמֶר, אָסַף אֱלֹהִים אֶת-חֶרְפָּתִי. ‏

בראשית ל:כג

And she conceived, and gave birth to a son.  And she said, “G-d has gathered my shame.”

Bereshis 30:23

This verse about Rachel talks about the pain she felt before bearing her own child, and the relief she felt afterward.  To explain the shame mentioned in the verse, Rashi paraphrases part of the midrash on this verse:

רש”י:‏

‏...ואגדה כל זמן שאין לאישא בן, אין לה במי לתלות סרחונה משיש לה בן, תולה בו. מי שבר כלי זה בנך מי אכל תאנים אלו בנך.‏

Rashi:
… and the midrash (says), as long as a woman doesn’t have a child, she does not have someone on whom to hang her shame.  Once she has a child, she hangs it on him.  “Who broke this dish? Your son.  Who ate these figs? Your son.”

The original midrash is found in Bereshis Rabba:

אמר רבי לוי בר זכריה עד שלא תלד האשה אסרחון נתלה בה. לאחר שתלד האשה תלוי בבנה. מאן אכל הדא מקמתא ברך. מאן תבר הדא מקמתא אלא ברך.‏

בראשית רבה עג:ה

Rabbi Levi bar Zecharia said, as long as a woman has not given birth to a son, the shame is hung upon her.  After she has given birth, it is hung upon her son.  “Who ate this thing? Your son.  Who broke this thing? Your son?”.

Bereshis Rabbah 73:5

The basis for the midrash on the Torah verse, is the use of the word “shame” (חרפה).  The midrash as brought by Rashi, and in the original are explaining the meaning of this word as “sin” (or offense) (סרחון).  But as one commentary on Bereshis Rabbah notes, what sin is there in being unable to give birth?  It is not a moral offense, it is a problem due to natural causes (טבע).  Therefore the midrash explains that the shame which Rachel mentions relates to problems within the household, which are shameful to her, and not due to her lack of fertility.    

This meaning of this midrash seems very hard to understand.  The difficulty is that the midrash seems to be saying (לכאורה) that when things go wrong in the household (for example, eating something without permission or breaking something), and the wife is childless, it's her fault.  What makes it her fault?

To clarify the question further, is the midrash saying that she personally did the misdeed and this is why she is blameworthy?   And if so, is the midrash saying once she has a son/child, she can still do those things wrong, but now she can blame the child (even if the child didn't do it)?  That is what the midrash implies, but it's hard to believe it's the real meaning.

I didn’t find any commentaries which address those questions (or which offer a deeper understanding of this, other than defining some of the terms used).  So for now, we’ll need to use some imagination to try to understand its intent.

Perhaps the midrash is not necessarily saying that the wife herself is doing things wrong. Rather, when she has no children, she is expected to be more responsible for any household problem (even when caused by another person), because, with no children to distract her, she has more time and attention to devote to overseeing the household, and is expected to be more on top of the household items.  Once she has a child, she is now distracted with caring for the child.  So when she says "your son", she is not saying that the child literally caused the problem (eating/breaking), but rather she has a good reason why she can't prevent the damage (caused by someone else).  So this is a possible interpretation of what it means to "hang the blame upon the child".   

If we look at the midrash as above, it seems to be telling us something about the nature of a household, its expectations, and the effect of children on the mother's ability to supervise the household. However, it would be more satisfying if we could find something a little less cold and practical, and instead, more of an idea we can take to heart.

If we try to view this midrash through more of a Mussar lens, another approach might be as follows:  Let’s assume that it is the wife who ate or broke the thing in question.  When the midrash says "who ate this thing?", it's the husband asking his wife.  And when the midrash says "your child", it is the mother answering to her husband.  And her answer (and also probably his question), contain a smile for both of them, because, even though the mother still did something wrong, they are both so happy to have a baby that they can happily ascribe the fault to the influence of the child on the mother.



 

פרשת תולדות תשע"ג - Parshas Toldos 5773

וַיְהִי יִצְחָק, בֶּן-אַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה, בְּקַחְתּוֹ אֶת-רִבְקָה בַּת-בְּתוּאֵל הָאֲרַמִּי, מִפַּדַּן אֲרָם--אֲחוֹת לָבָן הָאֲרַמִּי, לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה: ‏וַיֶּעְתַּר יִצְחָק לַיהוָה לְנֹכַח אִשְׁתּוֹ, כִּי עֲקָרָה הִוא; וַיֵּעָתֶר לוֹ יְהוָה, וַתַּהַר רִבְקָה אִשְׁתּו: ֹ...  וְאַחֲרֵי-כֵן יָצָא אָחִיו, וְיָדוֹ אֹחֶזֶת בַּעֲקֵב עֵשָׂו, וַיִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ, יַעֲקֹב; וְיִצְחָק בֶּן-שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה, בְּלֶדֶת אֹתָם.‏

בראשית כה:כ-כא,כו

And Yitzchak was 40 years old when he took Rivkah, daughter of Besuel the Aramite, from Padan Aram, sister of Lavan the Aramite, as his wife.  And Yitzchak pleaded to Hashem in the presence of his wife, because she was barren, and Hashem accepted his pleas, and Rivkah his wife conceived.  … Afterwards his brother came out, and his hand grasped Esav’s heel, and they called his name “Yaakov”, and Yitzchak was 60 years old when they were born.

Genesis 25:20-21, 26

What we learn from these verses, is that it took 20 years of marriage for Yitzchak and Rivkah to have children.  And furthermore, it required intense prayer by Yitzchak to bring this about.  

It is necessary to have some background to understand what is really happening in these verses.  Taking a look back to parshas Lech L’cha, we see that Avraham and Sarah were also barren. However, their path to having children was quite different:

וַתֹּאמֶר שָׂרַי אֶל-אַבְרָם, הִנֵּה-נָא עֲצָרַנִי יְהוָה מִלֶּדֶת--בֹּא-נָא אֶל-שִׁפְחָתִי, אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּה; וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָם, לְקוֹל שָׂרָי. וַתִּקַּח שָׂרַי אֵשֶׁת-אַבְרָם, אֶת-הָגָר הַמִּצְרִית שִׁפְחָתָהּ, מִקֵּץ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים, לְשֶׁבֶת אַבְרָם בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן; וַתִּתֵּן אֹתָהּ לְאַבְרָם אִישָׁהּ, לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה. ‏

בראשית טז:ב-ג

And Sarai said to Avram, behold Hashem has prevented me from giving birth.  Please go to my maidservant, perhaps I will be built up through her.  And Avram heeded Sarai’s voice.  And after Avram’s dwelling in Canaan for 10 years, Sarai, the wife of Avram, took Hagar the Egyptian, her maidservant, and gave her to Avram her husband, as a wife.

Genesis 16:2-3

We see that, when Sarah was unable to conceive Avram took another wife, instead of praying, as Yitzchok did.  (Or if he prayed, the Torah does not mention it, perhaps because it was not successful.)  Rashi explains as follows:

רש”י

אוּלַי אִבָּנֶה מִמֶּנָּה: בזכות שאכניס צרתי לתוך ביתי.‏

מִקֵּץ עֶשֶׂר שָׁנִים: מועד הקבוע לאשה ששהתה עשר שנים ולא ילדה לבעלה חייב לישא אחרת.‏

Rashi:
Perhaps I will be built up through her: in the merit that I am bringing in my antagonist (i.e. a second wife) into my house.
At the end of ten years: this is the period of time fixed for a woman, who has been unable to give birth to her husband after ten years, (he) is required to marry another.

Rashi is bringing his second comment from the Mishnah/Gemara in Yevamos 64a, and is letting us know the halakhah as stated there:

משנה:‏

נשא אשה ושהה עמה עשר שנים ולא ילדה אינו רשאי לבטל...‏

גמרא:‏

אע”פ שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר “מקיץ עשר שנים לשבת אברן בארץ כנען”‏

Mishnah:
A man who married a woman and waited with her 10 years and she did not give birth, he is not permitted to abstain (from the mitzvah of procreation).

Gemara:
Even though there is no proof to the thing, there is a mention of it, “And after Avram’s dwelling in Canaan for 10 years...”

The Mishnah and Gemara are teaching that the commandment (mitzvah) of procreation has a specific time period associated with it.  If a couple has not given birth after 10 years, the man is required to take a second wife (or divorce the first wife and remarry) in order to try again to fulfill the mitzvah.  (The wife is also permitted to remarry, as noted in the continuation of the Mishnah).  The 10 year time limit is learned from the passage in Genesis about Avram, Sarai and Hagar.

So we see that the mitzvah of procreation is so important (see Parshas Noach), that a man (and woman) must take extraordinary action to fulfill that mitzvah, as Avraham and Sarah did.  (In our times, we do not strictly follow this halakhah).   And Sarah entertains the hope that, on account of her selfless action to enable Avraham to fulfill the mitzvah, as well as her acceptance of the suffering she will inevitably feel by bringing a second wife into the home, that she herself will merit to bear children in the future.

Now that we know the halakhah, and what Avraham and Sarah did to fulfill it, we have to question Yitzchok’s behavior.  Why did he wait twenty years, instead of ten (as seems to be required), before taking action?  Also, why didn’t he take a second wife as Avraham did?  Rashi brings answers to both questions:

רש”י:‏

בן ששים שנה: י’ שנים משנשא עד שנעשית בת י’”ג שנה וראויה להריון וי’ שנה הללו והמתין לה כמו שעשה אביו לשרה כיון שלא נתעברה טדע שהיא עקרה והתפלל עליה ושפחה לא רצה לישא לפי שנתקדש  בהר המוריה לעלה תמימה.‏

Rashi:
Sixty years old: 10 years (elapsed) from the time he married her (when she was three) until she was thirteen years old and able to conceive.  And these (next) 10 years he waited for her as his father waited for Sarah. Once he saw that she did not become pregnant, he knew she was barren and he prayed on her behalf.  And he did not want to marry a maidservant because he had been sanctified at Mount Moriah as a pure elevation offering.

So in essence, Yitzchok only waited the requisite ten years. And because of his unique level of sanctity, marriage to a lesser woman was not an option.  Therefore he pleaded intensely to G-d, that they should merit to have children.

The Ohr HaChaim makes an interesting clarification of Yitzchok’s act of prayer:  

ויעתר לו וגו’: טעם שלא אמר וידע יצהק את וגו’ כאומרו והאדם ידע וידע אלקנה וגו’ אולי היתה התפילה אחר שידע תוך שלושה ימים הריאשונים כאומרם  ז”ל שלושה ימים הריאשונים יתפלל אדם  שלא יסריח זו היתה תפילתו של יצחק(ברכות ס:א) .‏

And Hashem accepted his pleas, etc:  The reason that (the Torah) did not say “and Yitzchok knew (his wife)”  the way it said “And the man knew (Eve his wife)” (and also in the story of Chana) “and Elkanah knew (Hannah his wife)”, is perhaps because Yitzchok’s prayer was after he knew (her) and within the first three days (of intimacy), following the dictate of our sages of blessed memory: “The first three days, a man should pray that (his seed) should not spoil (Berachos: 60a)” - (perhaps) this was the prayer of Yitzchok.

To make the logic of the Ohr HaChaim’s statement explicit, he is saying that we would expect the Torah to first narrate that Yitzchok prayed, then was intimate with Rivkah, and then she conceived.  He bases this assumption on how the Torah narrates the genealogy of many other figures in the Torah.  

But this comment raises several questions.  The first is: since the other forefathers (and foremothers) (avos), had difficulty bearing children, wouldn’t it be more logical to compare Yitzchok with them, rather than with Adam HaRishon and Elkanah?   For example with Avraham and Sarah:

וַיהוָה פָּקַד אֶת-שָׂרָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר אָמָר; וַיַּעַשׂ יְהוָה לְשָׂרָה, כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבֵּר. וַתַּהַר וַתֵּלֶד שָׂרָה לְאַבְרָהָם בֵּן, לִזְקֻנָיו, לַמּוֹעֵד, אֲשֶׁר-דִּבֶּר אֹתוֹ אֱלֹהִים. ‏

בראשית כא:א-ב

And the LORD remembered Sarah as He had said, and the LORD did unto Sarah as He had spoken.  And Sarah conceived, and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him.
Genesis 21:1-2

And with Yaakov and Rachel:

וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים, אֶת-רָחֵל; וַיִּשְׁמַע אֵלֶיהָ אֱלֹהִים, וַיִּפְתַּח אֶת-רַחְמָהּ.  וַתַּהַר, וַתֵּלֶד בֵּן; וַתֹּאמֶר, אָסַף אֱלֹהִים אֶת-חֶרְפָּתִי. ‏

בראשית ל:כב-כג

And G-d remember Rachel, and G-d heeded her, and opened her womb.  And she conceived and gave birth to a son.  And she said, G-d has collected my shame.

In narrating the procreation of the other avos, the Torah never uses the the word וידע (and he knew).  So this raises a difficulty with the Ohr HaChaim’s initial premise.   I think, that this difficulty is possibly the reason why he uses the word אולי (perhaps) in his comment.  It is as if to acknowledge that since  the word וידע was not used with any of the other avos, the basis of his interpretation is not so strong.

The second question on the Ohr HaChaim is: of all the people in the Torah to bring as examples for how the Torah should have narrated the story of Yitzchok and Rachel, why did he select Adam HaRishon and Elkanah?

Perhaps we can say in answer to this last question, that he selected Adam HaRishon, because he was the first person in Torah to whom the mitzvah of procreation was commanded, and therefore serves as an archetype for how the Torah mentions this.  Although there are many other in Genesis about whom the Torah says וידע, Ohr HaChaim skips to the Book of Samuel for his next example, Elkanah.  Perhaps the reason for this is because the story of Elkanah and Chana is the most analogous toYitzchok and Rachel, meaning, that it was a direct result of Chana’s prayer that she conceived and gave birth.  

It seems that the Ohr HaChaim is very focused on the fact that the verse states: “and Hashem accepted his pleas, and Rivkah his wife conceived”.  It moves directly from Yitzchok’s prayer to conception, as if the step of being intimate was skipped.  This would also explain why he mentions that the prayer was within three days, since we know that the seed only maintains its life giving potential for three days.  We see this from Exodus:

וַיֹּאמֶר, אֶל-הָעָם, הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים, לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים:  אַל-תִּגְּשׁוּ, אֶל-אִשָּׁה.‏

שמות י”ט:טו

רש”י: …‏אבל מי ששהתה ג’ ימים, כבר הזרע מסריח ואינו ראוי להזריע...‏

And he (Moshe) said to the nation, prepare yourselves for three days, do not touch your wives.
Exodus 19:15

Rashi: but whomever has waited 3 days, the seed has already spoiled and is no longer fit to cause conception.

I don’t know all the reasons why the Ohr HaChaim is moved to this interpretation.  If we assume that Yitzchok (and Rachel) have been praying for children since early on in their marriage, perhaps, he is making us aware that Yitzchok’s prayers were very specific and timed.  Or perhaps the Ohr HaChaim is implying that until the ten year maximum waiting period had elapsed, Yitzchok relied only on natural efforts to fulfill the mitzvah of procreation.  But once he had reached the limit he began to pray.  And the time of that first prayer was after their last time of intimacy.  

If we take this last explanation, we can perhaps see this as another example of Yitzchok’s gevurah (strength) in following mitzvahs.  Meaning, the very day when the tenth year had ended, he stood up in intense prayer, with no further delay.  And this happened to be within the specific period of time mentioned by the Ohr HaChaim, which explains why the verse in the Torah moves directly from prayer to conception.

פרשה וירא תשע"ג - VaYera 5773

וַיְהִי כְהוֹצִיאָם אֹתָם הַחוּצָה וַיֹּאמֶר הִמָּלֵט עַל נַפְשֶׁךָ אַל תַּבִּיט אַחֲרֶיךָ וְאַל תַּעֲמֹד בְּכָל הַכִּכָּר הָהָרָה הִמָּלֵט פֶּן תִּסָּפֶה: וַיֹּאמֶר לוֹט אֲלֵהֶם אַל נָא אֲדֹנָי:‏הִנֵּה נָא מָצָא עַבְדְּךָ חֵן בְּעֵינֶיךָ וַתַּגְדֵּל חַסְדְּךָ אֲשֶׁר עָשִׂיתָ עִמָּדִי לְהַחֲיוֹת אֶת נַפְשִׁי וְאָנֹכִי לֹא אוּכַל לְהִמָּלֵט הָהָרָה פֶּן תִּדְבָּקַנִי הָרָעָה וָמַתִּי : הִנֵּה נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה לָנוּס שָׁמָּה וְהִוא מִצְעָר אִמָּלְטָה נָא שָׁמָּה הֲלֹא מִצְעָר הִוא וּתְחִי נַפְשִׁי:‏ וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הִנֵּה נָשָׂאתִי פָנֶיךָ גַּם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְבִלְתִּי הָפְכִּי אֶת הָעִיר אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ:‏

בראשית י”ט:י”ז-כ”א

And when they (the angels) took them (Lot and his family) outside (the city), he (the angel) said, “Escape for the sake of your life, do not look behind you, and do not  remain in the entire plain, flee to the mountain, lest you be destroyed”.  

And Lot said to them, “Please, no, my Lord.  Behold, please, your servant has found grace in your eyes, and you have dealt very kindly with me to give life to my soul.  And I cannot flee to the mountain, lest the evil cling to me and kill me.  Behold, please, this city which is near enough to flee there, and it is young-- I shall escape there, please --  is it not small?  And my soul shall live.”

And he (the angel) said to him (Lot), “Behold, I have accepted your plea also for this thing, and will not destroy the city that you mentioned”.

Genesis 19:17-21

The verses above narrate how Avraham’s nephew Lot was saved from the destruction of the city of Sodom.  From what we see of Lot in the verses prior to this episode, we might be inclined to think that he is a righteous person - he risks his life to extend hospitality to two strangers (who are actually angels in disguise) and to protect them from the evil inhabitants of the city.

However, the commentators point take a dim view of Lot’s behavior, and consider him immoral and unworthy.  In the previous parsha (Lech Lecha), Lot separates from Avraham, and he voluntarily moves into the neighborhood of Sodom, in spite of its reputation for wickedness.  This act, together with his lack of concern over grazing his flocks on other people’s land, and other hints from the Torah, bring the commentators to brand him as a wicked person.   

In his comments on verse 17 (above), Rashi is careful to point out that Lot only merits to be saved from Sodom on account of Avraham’s merit:

רש”י:‏

יז) אל תביט אחריך: אתה הרשעת עמהם ובזכות אברהם אתה ניצול, אינך כדאי לראות בפורענותם ואתה ניצול.‏

Rashi:
17) do not look behind you: You behaved immorally with them, and it is in Avraham’s merit that you are saved.  You are not worthy to be saved, and to see their punishment (as well).

We should clarify, however, that G-d deals with Lot favorably because Lot did not reveal to the Egyptians that Sarah was Avraham’s wife (when Avraham told the Egyptians that she was his sister):

כ”ט)…וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת אַבְרָהָם וַיְשַׁלַּח אֶת לוֹט מִתּוֹךְ הַהֲפֵכָה...‏

29) …and G-d remembered Avraham, and He sent Lot out of the destruction...

רש”י:‏

כ”ט) ויזכור אלהים את אברהם: … לוט יודע ששרה אשתו של אברהם ושמע שאמר אברהם במצרים על שרה “אחותי היא” ולא גילה הדבר, שהיה חס עליו, לפיכך חס הקב”ה עליו.‏

21)  … Lot knew that Sarah was Avraham’s wife, and he heard Avraham say in Egypt about Sarah, “She is my sister”, and he (Lot) did not reveal the matter, because he took pity on Avraham.  Therefore the Holy One took pity on him.

We can understand Rashi’s earlier comment, “it is in Avraham’s merit that you are saved”, with a little more subtlety now.  We can say it was because of Lot’s kindness to Avraham, whose merit is so great, that Lot is saved.  

Continuing the narrative of Lot’s rescue from Sodom, we find something puzzling.  Lot is told by the angel to “flee to the mountain”.   Lot responds instead, with a request to go to a nearby city, “lest the evil cling to me and kill me”.  What is the reason for this, and what is special about this city?

Rashi tells us that “to the mountain” really meant that Lot should return to living with Avraham (the one who camped on the mountain).  Lot, however, is fearful of doing this, and the reason understood by Rashi is:

יט) פן-תבקני הרעה: כשהייתי אצל אנשי סדום, היה הקב”ה רואה מעשי ומעשה בני העיר והייתי נראה צדיק וכדאי להנצל. וכשאבוא אצל צדיק, אני כרשע...‏

19) lest the evil cling to me: While I was with the people of Sodom, the Holy One May He Be Blessed, would see my actions and the actions of the people of the city, and I would appear to be a righteous person, and worthy of saving.  And if I shall go to a (true) righteous person (i.e. Avraham), I would appear as a wicked person.

This idea mentioned by Rashi is similar to the one of the opinions of our sages, ז”ל, on the verse, “Noach was a completely righteous person in his generations”.  In this opinion the verse is considered a detrimental statement about Noach, i.e. that would Noach have lived in Avraham’s generation, he would not have been considered righteous at all.  And perhaps Rashi’s comment indicates that Lot was concerned about the same problem.

Rashi further tells us the meaning of the hebrew words describing the city, which help us understand why Lot is asking to be allowed to escape there:

רש”י:‏

הִנֵּה נָא הָעִיר הַזֹּאת קְרֹבָה: קרובה ישיבתה, נתיישבה מקרוב, לפיכך לא נתמלא סארה עדיין...‏

Rashi:
Behold, please, this city which is near: It’s inhabitation is recent, therefore it’s measure (of sin) is not yet filled.

The angel accedes to Lot’s request, allowing him to flee to the nearby city, and furthermore stating, that he “will not destroy the city that you mentioned”.   Rashi seems to explain however, that the angel’s agreement was not without rebuke:

רש”י:‏

כא) גם לדבר הזה: לא דייך שאתה ניצול, אלא אף כל העיר אציל בגללך.‏

Rashi:
21) also for this thing: It is enough for you that you are saved - however, I will even save the entire city on your account.  

One of the Sifsei Chachamim (commentators on Rashi), the Nachalas Yaakov, is concerned about possible contradictions we may see when comparing Rashi’s comments from above, regarding Lot and his level of righteousness. Commenting on the reason given by Rashi as to why Lot was afraid to flee to the mountain (i.e. to Avraham), he writes:

נחלת יעקוב:‏

והייתי נראה צדיק וכדאי להנצל:‏  ואע”ג דלעיל פירש אתה הרשעת עמהם, ובזכות אברהם אתה ניצול, י”ל שהאמת הוא כן, אבל לוט טעה בזה והיה סבור שבזכות עצמו הוא ניצול. והא דפירש הרב בסמוך, אף כל העיר אציל בגללך, לאו למימר בזכותך אלא שתנצל אתה. ומכל מקום הכל בזכות אברהם...‏

Nachalas Yaakov:
and I would appear to be a righteous person: even though above (verse 17), Rashi explained: “You behaved immorally with them and it is in Avraham’s merit that you are saved”,  (although Lot saw himself as righteous compared with the people of Sodom, and thus merited to be saved), the truth is (that only for the sake of Avraham’s merit he was saved).  But Lot was mistaken about this (his own righteousness), and therefore thought that it was in his own merit that he was being saved.  And as far as what the Rav (Rashi) explained in the the later verse (21), “however, I will save the even entire city on your account”, it is not to say that in your merit (that the city is saved), rather just so that you are saved, and in any case, all of it is being done in the merit of Avraham.

So we should understand, according to the Nachalas Yaakov, that when Lot says “I would appear (in G-d’s eyes) to be a righteous person” (as compared with the people of Sodom), we should understand that Lot did not really understand the truth of the situation.  The Torah’s point of view is that on his own merit, he is not worthy of being saved.  Therefore, Rashi’s comment about Lot appearing as righteous does not contradict the earlier comment which said “you behaved immorally with them”.   

Most interesting to me, is the problem Nachalas Yaakov attempts to resolve at the end of his comment.  Rashi stated that the meaning of the angel’s response to Lot was: “however, I will even save the entire city on your account”.  Taken at face value, this seems to imply that in merit of Lot’s righteousness, the angel agreed to spare the city of Tsoar, and this in turn would contradict “You behaved immorally with them...”.  Nachalas Yaakov resolves this possible contradiction by explaining that saving the city was only a means of saving Lot, and not a recognition of any merit of Lot’s.

Another way of understanding the negotiation between Lot and the angel is presented in the  commentary of the Ohr HaChaim.  This comment offers us another way to look at Rashi, and also the problems raised by Nachalas Yaakov:

אור החיים:‏

הנה נא העיר הזאת: קשה מ”מל אם נתחייבה העיר, מה יועיל בקשתו מהם, ועוד, רואני כי שמעו לקולו ואמרו “נשאתי פניך” וגו’ ואם לא נתחייבה העיר,  מבלי בקשתו של לוט אין להם רשות להשחיתה. אכן יתבאר הענין ע”ד אומרם במס” שבת: ישיבתה של צוער נ”א שנה ושל סדום, נ”ב, וכו” ע”כ, וכפי זה,  דן לוט לפניהם כי עדיין לא נשלמה סאתם והן אמת, כי ישתנה הדין  בין קודם שניתן רשות למחבל לאחר שניתן וכו’ שהגם  שעדיין לא נשלמה סאתם, אעפ”כ כיון שניתן רשית  למשחית, אין לה  זכות להמלט מהדין.  וכפי זה הדבר תלוי ביד המשחית.  לזה נתהכם לוט, ושאל הדבר ממנו, וקבל דבריו ואמר “נשאתי פניך” וגו’ ותמצא שתכף הלך לו לוט מצוער כי ירא שחגיע זמן תשלום פורענותא.‏

Ohr HaChaim:
Behold, please, this city: It is difficult to understand what is written here.  If the city was deserving (of destruction), what benefit could Lot’s request of them have? And furthermore, I see that they heeded his voice, and said “I have accepted your plea” (etc.).  And if the city was not yet deserving of destruction, even without Lot’s request, they would not have been permitted to destroy it.  The subject can be explained according to what our sages said in Tractate Shabbos (10b): “The settlement of Tsoar was 51 years (after the scattering at Babel), and of Sodom, 52 (years) (etc)”.   According to this logic, Lot judged before them (the angels) that the “their measure was not yet filled” (i.e. the people of Tsoar had not yet sinned as much as Sodom), and this was the case, because the decree was changed from before the time that permission was given to the “destroyer” to after permission was given (etc).  Because, although their measure was not yet filled, even so, since permission was given to the destroying angel at the outset (to destroy the entire area), no merit (of the people of Tsoar) could save it from the decree.  And if we look at it this way, then the outcome was dependent (on the will of) the destroyer.  And Lot was wise to this, and asked this thing from him (the destroying angel), and he accepted his (Lot’s) words, and said “I have accepted your plea” (etc).  And it turns out, that Lot immediately left Tsoar (shortly after taking refuge there), because he feared that the time of their punishment was about to arrive.

Ohr HaChaim brings out an important principle regarding decrees of destruction and the fate of the righteous:  “since permission was given to the destroying angel at the outset (to destroy the entire area), no merit (of the people of Tsoar) could save it from the decree”.  We see this same principle mentioned later in the Torah, in Moshe’s instructions to the children of Israel during the night of the slaying of the first born:

...ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח-ביתו עד בקר

שמות י”ב:כ”ב

...And you -- no person shall go out the door of his house until morning...
Exodus 12:22

רש”י:‏

ואתם לא תצאו: מגיד שמאחר שניתנה רשות למשחית לחבל, אינו מבחין בין צדיק לרשע...‏

Rashi:
And you -- no person shall go out: This tells us that once permission has been given to the destroyer to harm, he does not distinguish between righteous and wicked.

We see from the above that once Hashem has unleashed the powers of destruction, they can destroy whatever is in their path.  When this occurs, even the merits of the righteous do not protect them from harm.   

The Ohr HaChaim however, brings a sharper focus on term רשות (permission) which is used both in his comment on the story of Lot and in Rashi’s comment on the Exodus.  It seems from his words, that G-d is actually granting free will (as it were), to the force (or angel) of destruction (within the limits of his decree).  According to the Ohr HaChaim, Lot understood this principle as well, which is why he pleaded with the angel to allow him take refuge in the city of Tsoar, rather than fleeing to the mountain as the angel originally instructed.  Lot was able to convince the angel that the city of Tsoar should be spared, because “their measure was not yet filled”. And apparently the angel accepted Lot’s argument saying, “I have accepted your plea”.  

Seen from the point of view offered by the Ohr HaChaim, we can now revisit Rashi’s comment from above, “however, I will save the even entire city on your account (בגללך)”.  This can now be understood as meaning “because you argued on behalf of the city”.  Using the Ohr HaChaim’s approach avoids the seeming contradiction which concerned Nachalas Yaakov, since we can now understand the term “your account (בגללך)” as not referring to Lot’s merit or righteousness, but instead referring to the argument he made to the angel.