The book of Eichah (Lamentations) will be read soon, that poetic work of tremendous despair and anguish. The tragedy that befell the Jewish people through the destruction of the Temple and its aftermath is described not in a historical review, but as a penetrating display of the sufferings encountered. Each verse carries with it an important insight into the nature of the torment during this tragic period of time. One of the verses that best characterizes the overall state can be found in a comparative statement in Chapter 4.
In Chapter 4, the plight of the Jewish people is once again on full display. After some horrific descriptions, we see an odd comparison (Eichah 4:6):
“For the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom, that was overthrown as in a moment, and no hands fell upon her”
There are various thematic techniques on display throughout Eichah. For example, many verses detail contrasts, where the situation prior to the destruction is compared to the present state. Here, we find another technique, a relativistic point. The sin of the Jews was “worse” than that of Sodom, as expressed through the nature of punishment doled out. The problem, though, is how do we understand this comparison? How do we engage in a “sin comparison” exercise? What value does this serve?
Fortunately, the Sages recognized this very problem, as seen in a discussion taking place in the Talmud. Before presenting it, we must be aware of one other verse from the same chapter that highlights the actions of the Jewish women (Eicha 4:10)
“The hands of women full of compassion have sodden their own children; they were their food in the destruction of the daughter of my people”
The Talmud (Sanhedrin 104b) then relates as follows:
“For the iniquity of the daughter of my people is greater than the sin of Sodom. Is there then favoritism (maso panim) in the matter? Rabbah answered in R. Johanan's name: There was an extra measure [of punishment] in Jerusalem, which Sodom was spared. For in the case of Sodom, it is written, ‘Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and the needy. Whereas in the case of Jerusalem it is written, ‘The hands of women full of compassion have sodden their children’.”
The above quoted statement is quite cryptic, and Rashi helps unravel the mystery with two different explanations. The premise of the Talmud’s question, according to Rashi’s first way of understanding, is that God would appear to be favoring the Jewish people over the people of Sodom. After all, both nations were engaged in heinous sins, yet the Jewish people were not completely annihilated. The answer is in fact there was no favoritism being applied. The Jewish mothers, faced with eating their own children, were willing to share the “food” with others. Due to this trait (the compassion alluded to in the verse), the Jewish people were spared complete destruction.
Rashi’s second explanation re-interprets the premise, where God was more “involved” with the destruction of Sodom than with the Jewish people. The lives of the people of Sodom were taken in a blink of an eye, a complete and thorough annihilation. However, the Jewish people were “spared”, where mothers were faced with the horror of consuming their own children. Therefore, the fate of the Jews was worse than that of Sodom.
What do we make of these two explanations?
The Midrash (Midrash Rabba 4:6) adds one more possibility, along the lines of the above stated Talmud. The suffering of the Jewish people indeed was worse than those of Sodom. In the case of Sodom, there were no enemies present to celebrate their vanquishing of the people of Sodom. However, in the case of the Jewish people, our enemies were able to rejoice in victory.
While nobody wants to witness their enemies celebrate in victory, why is this considered so unbearable that it considers our fate to be worse than that of the people of Sodom?
As mentioned above, the concept of relativistic suffering is a strange position to take. In the case of Eichah, it would appear the objective of such a comparison would be to give us a greater understanding of the suffering of the Jewish people. However, what is critical in this specific example is comprehending how the suffering taking place was so extensive that the innate human desire to exist was being challenged. The comparison to Sodom is in fact a way for us to comprehend the extent of the misery of the Jewish people.
Looking at Rashi’s first explanation, we see that the Jewish people were spared due to the fact that the mothers were willing to share their “food” –with others. On one level, the point Rashi is making is how the Jewish people still clung to some type of moral imperative while facing these appalling challenges. However, it could be there is something even deeper taking place here, in light of the comparison to Sodom. When looking at Sodom, we see that there were no survivors (Lot and his family excluded). This means that there was not one aspect of that society that merited some type of mercy from God. No redeeming feature, nothing in their humanity warranted some type of mercy from God.
The Jewish people, though, still exhibited some basic human trait that merited their being saved from complete destruction. This does not mean they were operating at some type of high level. Rather, in a time where the undermining of even the most basic innate instincts, such as the ability of a mother to consume her own child, a flicker of humanity still persisted. The willingness to share, to be concerned for other humans, during a time of complete moral upheaval, demonstrated there was a redeeming quality to the Jewish people. Therefore, rather than suffer the fate of Sodom, they were spared.
Rashi, though, offers another avenue, where the punishment given to the Jewish people was in fact worse than the fate of Sodom. As human beings, we all have a natural survival instinct. We are capable of enduring some degree of suffering, driven by the desire to live. We are willing to tolerate the punishment. Yet a point can emerge where the overall carnage is so complete that this natural drive is overcome, and existence is no longer seen as a value. In the case of the Jewish people during the destruction of the Temple, such a point was reached. The suffering was so great and so complete that they valued death over life. The people of Sodom perished in a sudden manner, avoiding this state of existence. The Jewish people, on the other hand, suffered to the point where death became a better option than life.
The Midrash offers a similar concept, albeit with a different emphasis. We see the same concept of the people of Sodom avoiding a type of suffering the Jewish people went through. Yet the celebration by one’s enemies seems trite in comparison to what was being discussed above. It could be that the idea of an enemy celebrating is not simply one of conqueror enjoying the victory. Ultimately, the ascension of the enemy meant that those they controlled lost any sense of independence whatsoever. Their future existence would be one of dependence on their captors. This outlook is one that is psychologically depleting, to the point where any sense of self-worth disappears, and the drive to exist dies with it.
To live a life where one knows his fate is to be a secondary existence is to devalue one’s own life completely. In this instance, the focus is not on the desire to die; instead, it is the view that one’s own existence lacks any purpose. The Jewish people, according to this approach, viewed themselves in such a manner, and therefore were subject to a greater degree of suffering than those who perished in Sodom.
What then do we make of this overall comparison to Sodom? When studying the tragedies that befell the Jewish people during the destruction of the Temple, we are not simply viewing as an observer events that took place thousands of years ago. There are concepts to be learned concerning the human condition as a whole and to internalize the reality of how far the breach is between us and God. As we enter into this day of tragedy, let us be moved to repent and return to God, so that our present suffering can be transformed into joy in worship of God.