Parashat VaYera includes the story of the destruction of the city of Sodom, whose population is described as being “wicked and sinners” (Bereishit 13:13). This is the source of the Hebrew expression “Midat Sodom,” which is a derogatory epithet for stingy and selfish behavior. The Mishnah (Pikei Avot 5:10) teaches: “There are four types of character in human beings. The one that says: ‘mine is mine, and yours is yours’ is a commonplace type, and some say this is a Sodom-type of character (Midat Sodom)”. In the Mishnah, the people of Sodom are characterized as being overly protective of their ownership rights, even if they do not actually steal from others. In fact, Jewish law compels people to refrain from conduct characteristic of Sodom, so that in a situation where the owner will not suffer any loss, i.e., in a case where “this one derives benefit and that one suffers no loss,” we require him to allow others to use his property. From the perspective of the rabbinic sages, Midat Sodom is portrayed as the opposite of generosity.
The Gemara (Sanhedrin 109b), however, presents the problem with Sodom less from a practical/communal angle and more from a spiritual/moral perspective:
“There were four judges in Sodom and they were named for their actions: Shakrai, Shakrurai, Zayfai, and Matzlei Dina.”
At first glance, the Gemara appears to be presenting a positive element of life in Sodom. There is an organized system of justice! A closer reading makes us realize that these courts will not offer honest judgement, for the names of the judges mean different things: Shakrai, means liar; Shakrurai, means habitual liar; Zayfai, means forger; Matzlei Dina, means perverter of justice.
The values of these judges were the antithesis of what the Torah requires in a judge: “capable men who fear God, trustworthy men who spurn ill-gotten gain” (Shemot 18:21).
The Gemara continues:
“These were the judgments that they rendered: In a case of one who strikes the wife of another and causes her to miscarry, they would say to the woman’s husband: Give the woman to the one who struck her, so that she will be impregnated for you again. In a case of one who severed the ear of another’s donkey, they would say to the owner of the donkey: Give the donkey to the one who caused the damage, until the ear grows back.”
These decisions show that the justice system in Sodom favors the strong over the weak, encouraging violence and punishing the powerless.
The next example in the Gemara indicates another level of depravity:
“In a case of one who wounds another, they would say to the injured party: Give the one who wounded you a fee, as he let your blood.”
This ruling makes us understand that it is not merely a matter of siding with the strong and the violent, but that the Sodomite justice system tries to reverse logic, to skew logical thought so that only the illogical makes sense.
The Gemara continues:
“The people of Sodom would say: Anyone who has one ox shall herd the city’s oxen for one day. Anyone who does not have any oxen shall herd the city’s oxen for two days.
They gave oxen to a certain orphan, son of a widow, to herd. He went and took them and killed them.
The orphan said to the people of Sodom: Let anyone who has one ox take one hide and let anyone who does not have an ox take two hides.
The people of Sodom said to the orphan: What is the reason for this?
The orphan said to them: The ultimate rule is parallel to the initial rule; just as the initial rule is that anyone who has one ox shall herd the city’s animals for one day and anyone who does not have any oxen shall herd the city’s animals for two days, so too, the ultimate rule is: Let anyone who has one ox take one hide and let anyone who does not have an ox take two hides.”
People living in Sodom had no choice but to fall in line with the prevailing attitudes.
According to the Gemara, once Avraham’s servant, Eliezer, found himself in Sodom, where he was attacked and injured. The ruling handed down by the court followed the local custom, and he was instructed to pay his attacker for providing him a medical service by letting his blood. In response, Eliezer wounded the judge and told his to pay the original attacker what he owed him. In order to survive in Sodom, a person must accept and follow the skewed logic of the place. Sodom does not allow people to be honest and cannot accept in its midst people whose moral compass is accurate and true.
One final example offered by the Gemara relates to collection of fees:
“And they instituted an ordinance: One who crossed the river on a ferry gives four dinars, and one who crossed the river in the water gives eight dinars.”
This particular ordinance does not appear to favor those who are wealthy or prone to violence. In truth, even in civilized countries we often find tax laws that collect differently based on sources of income, and it is difficult to give a logical explanation for the different tax rates. The challenge in Sodom becomes clear when the rule is applied, as we find in the Gemara:
“One time a certain launderer came and arrived there. The people of Sodom said to him: Give four dinars as payment for the ferry. He said to them: I crossed in the water. They said to him: If so, give eight dinars, as you crossed in the water.”
This example is helpful because it emphasizes who the Sodomite laws really target: visitors, those who enter by chance, the innocent, those who think in a straight and honest fashion. The inability to intuit the law and follow the rules of the logic of Sodom, creates a reality where every stranger becomes a law-breaker or, minimally, will end up in debt. Universal conventions do not work, and the rules of Sodom are at best arbitrary and at worst evil and discriminatory.
At the same time, it is clear that the lack of hospitality and generosity in Sodom are only one possible outgrowth of the skewed logic that reigned in the city. As the orphan without a flock illustrated, it is possible to make use of skewed logic on behalf of the poor and indigent members of society (even as the logic would remain skewed). It appears that the very foundation of that society was evil and that the laws and attitudes were developed based on that. The “justice” of a given society does not shape that society, rather it reflects the values of that society.
Perhaps that is the meaning of the verse: “But the men of Sodom were wicked and sinners before the LORD exceedingly.” First they were wicked, and then, in consequence, they were sinners.