Elsewhere they are called men. Rashi is answering the question: By calling them angels, the verse implies that they [appeared as angels and] wore angels’ garments. But this cannot be; why then would Lot bake matzos [for them]? Perforce, they appeared to him as men. Thus Rashi explains, “Elsewhere they are called men...” I.e., they are merely called so, not that they [now] divested themselves of physicality. Regarding Avraham they were called men, out of respect for the Divine Presence. But with Lot, the Divine Presence was not there — so they are called angels.

When the Divine Presence was with them they are called men... There is a difficulty with this explanation: It is obvious that angels have no importance relative to the Divine Presence. [Why does the verse switch terms to teach this?] Thus Rashi offers “another explanation.” And there is a difficulty with that as well: Why not call them men everywhere? And if you object that we would not know they were angels, so call them angels [everywhere]! And if [the term is switched] to teach that angels were common [to Avraham but not to Lot], do we not already know that Avraham was a greater tzaddik than Lot? Therefore, we need the first explanation too. (Maharshal)

They appointed him to be their judge. You might ask: How does Rashi know that he was a judge? The answer is: It is written he was “sitting at the gate,” and “the gate” is usually the place of judgment, as we find with Boaz (Ruth 4:1). Furthermore, it is written later וישפט שפוט (v. 9), implying he was a judge.

He had learned from the house of Avraham to seek out travelers. It cannot be because he was [generally] careful about mitzvah performance, as he was not careful about idolatry: he had them lodge before they washed (see Rashi 18:4).

Behold, you are now my masters since you have passed by me. According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Now” that you have passed by me, you are my masters.

Turn off the main road... According to this explanation, [נא means]: “Please” turn in. Otherwise, why did he say to them סורו נא? He should have simply said, “Come to the home of your servant.”

It was Pesachhy, concerning Avraham, does it say (18:6), “Knead it and make rolls,” rather than matzos? It was Pesach, so it should have said “matzah rolls”! The answer is: Avraham ordered rich matzos to be made, [e.g. kneaded with oil and honey,] in honor of the guests.

The people of the city, who were evil people, surrounded the house... Rashi is saying that “Sedomites” is used as a term for evil people, as the people of Sedom were [exceptionally] evil.

There was not one who protested... Rashi is saying: Surely it is impossible that the small area around Lot’s house held all the people of the city! Perforce it means none of the people of the city objected, and thus it is considered as if they themselves did it.

For the purpose of homosexuality... You might ask: How does Rashi know this? The answer is: It says afterward, “Behold! I have two daughters...” This implies that from the beginning they sought something similar, i.e., homosexual relations.

Since they have come. Otherwise, the verse would mean they came to Lot so no one would harm them. But this cannot be, as the Sedomites were not previously harassing them. (Gur Aryeh)

Back away... גש means to draw close to them, while הלאה means to move away from them. Thus Rashi explains it as קרב להלאה, meaning: go away from us and thereby draw close to where you are going.

You are the only stranger among us. “The only,” as it is written האחד. “Stranger,” as it is written בא לגור, which denotes a stranger.

And you have become our chastiser. As it is written, וישפוט שפוט. It cannot mean actual judgment, because there is no prosecution and defense here.

If you have a son-in-law or sons and daughters... “Who else do you have here” implies they did not know. Whereas “a son-inlaw, your sons, your daughters” implies they did know. Thus Rashi explains, “If you have...”

Your married daughter’s sons. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? Perhaps they were his sons and not his grandsons! The answer is: Since it is written “son-in-law” first, followed by “your sons, your daughters,” it implies that “your sons, your daughters” refers back to “son-inlaw,” i.e., the married daughter’s sons.

He was justifying them. Although Rashi explained (v. 4) that Lot said the majority of them are wicked, at first he told the angels so, but when he saw they wished to destroy the city, he justified the people. (Maharshal)

Those to whom the ones at home were betrothed. But we cannot say that חתניו and לוקחי בנותיו are one and the same, for if they were his sons-in-law, it is obvious that they married his daughters. Why would it need to write this?

To salvage his possessions. This is as Rashi explains on the next verse, regarding “Escape for your life.”

You participated in their evil ways. You might ask: It said in v. 15, “Lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city.” Does this not imply that he did not participate in their evil ways [and was in danger only due to their sins]? This is not a question, as v. 15 means: If you remain in the city you might be swept away with them [regardless of your virtue or lack of It]. Avraham’s merit will not help you then — for a tzaddik’s merit would not save even his own life! As Rashi says on 18:32, Avraham did not pray to save the city if there were less than ten tzaddikim; consequently the few would be swept away with the city if they remain. But Rashi’s comment here, “Only for the sake of Avraham are you saved,” means: [Although you participated in their evil ways,] you will be treated as if you did not do evil and are not deserving of punishment. Thus, if you leave the city you will be saved. But if you stay, you might be swept away with their iniquity — and Avraham’s merit will not help! Furthermore, Rashi’s comment of “You are not worthy to see their punishment” answers the question: Lot might be swept away with the city if he remains because he is not worthy to see their punishment, as indeed happened to his wife. (R. Meir Stern)

And only for the sake of Avraham are you saved. People ask: It says, “Elohim remembered Avraham and He sent Lot out of the upheaval” (v. 29). On this, Rashi comments that Elohim remembered what Lot did for Avraham. Although Lot knew Sarah was Avraham’s wife, Lot did not betray Avraham in Egypt [by telling Pharaoh about Avraham]. Accordingly, why does Rashi not say here that Lot was saved because of his own merit? Furthermore, [if he had such a merit,] why did the angel warn him not to look back? The answer is: Lot indeed saved Avraham from death by not revealing who Sarah was, and, measure for measure, he was saved from death. But this act was meritorious enough to save Lot only because Avraham’s merit was so great. Lot would not have been saved had he done this kindness for someone less righteous than Avraham. Thus, the merit of Lot’s act actually depended on Avraham’s merit. This is why it says, “Elohim remembered Avraham” (v. 29), when it should say, “Elohim remembered Lot,” according to [the initial understanding of] Rashi’s above-mentioned comment on that verse. Perforce, it is as we explained. (R. Meir Stern)

Our Sages said that this Name is holy. In light of this we must understand Rashi’s next comments: אַל נָא אל תאמרו אלי וכו', נָא לשון בקשה. Rashi is saying that this verse is split delicately into two parts. Lot says to the angels [only one word]: אַל. By this, Lot conveys: “Do not tell me to flee to the mountain.” Then begins his prayer to Hashem: נָא ה', הנה מצא עבדך. And this is what Rashi means by, “נָא. It has the meaning of making a request.” In other words, Lot’s request to Hashem begins with the word נָא, as Rashi said before: “The Targum also translates it בבעו כען ה'.” I.e., בבעו is the translation of נָא, and expresses a request. This is why Rashi first explains that this Name is holy, and only then explains אַל נָא, contrary to the verse’s order. Rashi is telling us that since our Sages said this Name is holy, we must separate אַל from נָא. And אַל means: “[O angels,] do not tell me to flee to the mountain,” while נָא begins Lot’s prayer to Hashem. (R. Meir Stern)

And I appeared as a righteous person and worthy of rescue. [You might ask: Does this not contradict what] Rashi explained before, that Lot too participated in the evil ways of Sedom and was saved only in Avraham’s merit? The answer is: [What Rashi said before] is the truth. But Lot mistakenly thought he was saved in his own merit. Accordingly, when Rashi explains on v. 21: “I will spare the entire city for your sake,” it does not mean, “In your merit.” Rather it means, “In order that you will be saved.” Nonetheless, everything that is happening is in Avraham’s merit. (Nachalas Yaakov) But this is difficult: How could Lot make such a mistake after hearing the angel say, “Do not look back,” implying, “You did evil and are saved only in Avraham’s merit”? The answer is: Lot was not saying [that he appeared as a righteous person] to explain why he was being saved from Sedom’s upheaval. He was speaking generally about his residence in Sedom, during which time he was saved from punishment for his deeds because he was considered to be righteous when compared to them. (R. Meir Stern)

Thus, from the generation of the Dispersion till this point, there are 52 years. You might ask: How does Rashi know that the other places [besides Zoar] were settled 52 years earlier? Perhaps people did not [start to] build for many years subsequent to the Dispersion. (Minchas Yehudah) This is not a question, as Rashi already said: “How recent is its settlement? From the generation of the Dispersion, when humanity dispersed and began to settle, each in his place... From then till now were 52 years.” Here, Rashi is explaining his proof: As soon as the people dispersed they began to build and settle in the various places. The reasoning is as follows. Originally, they sought to build a city and tower where they could settle. When they were dispersed over the face of the earth and stopped building the tower, each built in his own place and settled there. However, נא having the numerical value of 51 is no proof, as it is not the verse’s primary meaning. It is a mere allusion that supports the point as indicated from Rashi’s text here, and from the comments of Rashi and Tosafos in Shabbos 10b. And the Ein Yaakov writes there: “So explains Rashi on the Torah.” This refutes the Minchas Yehudah. (R. Meir Stern)

Is it not a small city... The Re’m asks: I do not know what Rashi will do with the question raised by Chazal in Shabbos 10b: “[Why did Lot need to state that it was close and small?] They could see that!” And this question is what moved Chazal to depart from the plain explanation of our verse, as explained there. This is not a question, as Rashi brings the simple explanation [only] for the end of the verse, הלא מצער הוא, not for the beginning, הנה וגו' קרובה וגו' והיא מצער. The beginning surely follows [Chazal’s] Midrashic explanation: the city was recently settled and its sins are few. Although Rashi at first explains also the end of the verse Midrashically, he then brings the simple explanation, “A small city... and you should not mind...” This is because the end of the verse can bear this meaning, too. And Rashi needed to bring the simple explanation for the verse’s end, although the verse’s beginning must be understood [only] Midrashically, because he is answering the question: According to the Midrashic explanation, why is מצער repeated, stating twice that its sins are few? Thus Rashi brings the simple explanation: It is a small city. (R. Meir Stern)

I overturn... I.e., we should not mistakenly explain it as, “It overturns me,” since that too is a possible meaning when one speaks about another. But that meaning is not appropriate here. (R. Meir Stern)

From this you can learn that one destroys and the other rescues... But v. 17 does not prove this. Although it is written there, “He [the one angel] said, ‘Escape for your life,’” and it is not written, “They said,” it could be that only one angel rescued, but they both overturned.

Based on: “It is insignificant.” Rashi is saying that this verse must refer back to והיא מצער, [as only that explains the name צוער]. This verse does not refer to what immediately precedes it.

Whenever וה' appears in Scripture, it represents Him and His Heavenly Court. I.e., Hashem and His Heavenly Court agreed upon the matter. You might ask: Why does the Heavenly Court [represented by the ו] come before Hashem? (Minchas Yehudah) This is not a question, because “the Heavenly Court” is not expressly written. It is merely hinted to, by the ו of וה'. Therefore, it would be impossible to write Hashem before the Heavenly Court, all in one word. (Maharshal) Although we might ask why did Rashi not make this comment on (18:17) וה' אמר המכסה אני מאברהם and on (21:1) וה' פקד את שרה, Re’m explained each case. See there for more detail. (Minchas Yehudah) But this is not a question, because the rule of “Whenever וה' appears in Scripture, it represents Him and His Heavenly Court” applies only when וה' has no direct connection to what preceded. [Thus it does not apply to those verses, as will be explained later]. This is because when “Hashem” is at the beginning of a phrase or matter, the verb should precede it. Here it should say וימטר ה' rather than וה' המטיר. Whereas the order [of וה' המטיר] implies it is in the middle of the matter, when it is not. Perforce, it comes to allude to Him and His Heavenly Court. But with וה' אמר המכסה אני, the ו simply means “and.” It connects to the previous point. “They [the angels] got up from there” to go destroy Sedom, and consequently, ה' אמר המכסה אני, as Rashi explained there: “I gave him this Land... Can I, then, destroy the children without informing the father?” Similarly is the case with וה' פקד את שרה. As Rashi explains there, “This is... to teach that whoever prays for another... will be answered first. For it said before, ‘He [Avraham] prayed,’ and right afterwards, ‘And Hashem remembered Sarah.’” But here it is not a continuation of anything previously mentioned. On the contrary, it is written, “The sun had risen, etc.” and afterwards, “[Hashem] caused it to rain, etc.” Actually, He caused it to rain before the sun came out as it states, “At the break of dawn, etc.” and Rashi explains that this is a time when both the sun and the moon rule.” (Maharmash)

At the advent of the morning... Rashi is saying that “Hashem caused to rain” does not relate to the preceding verse, “The sun had risen upon the earth, when Lot came to Zoar,” [to say] that only after Lot came to Zoar did it begin to rain. Rather, it means that “Hashem caused to rain” already before Lot came to Zoar, at the very advent of the morning, before the sun had even risen.

God said: If I punish them by day... Question: They will all be destroyed. How then will they be able to say this? The answer is: Hashem wanted to demonstrate that they did not repent [when they saw the punishment begin], although they had no excuse not to. (Maharshal) However, this is not a question. Rashi means that the sun and moon worshipers in other places would say this, not those in Sedom who were destined for destruction. [You might object to this answer:] Rashi says, “We would not have been destroyed,” implying that those in Sedom are saying this about themselves. The answer is: People in other places could speak in this manner too, [identifying with them] as if they were speaking about themselves. This is similar to (Shemos 18:9) ויחד יתרו, [on which Rashi explains:] “Yisro’s flesh felt sharp stinging [as he was grieved by the destruction of Egypt].”

It began as rain and turned into sulfur and fire. Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written, “Caused to rain”? It should say, “Hurled down.” Furthermore, “Caused to rain” contradicts [what follows], as sulfur is not rain. Thus Rashi explains: “It began as rain, and turned into...” (R. Meir Stern)

Behind him [meaning: in back] of Lot. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it not say, “Behind herself”? Perforce, it means that when she was behind Lot, she looked. The Maharshal explains that it says “behind him” because she reasoned: since she is being saved due to Lot, she may look behind him — just not behind herself.

How does the remembering of Avraham affect Lot? He remembered... [Rashi is answering the question:] Whenever it says, “Hashem remembered,” the one who needs the deliverance is remembered. For example (30:22): “Elokim remembered Rochel,” and (Shmuel I, 1:9): “Hashem remembered her [Channah].” But here, why is Avraham remembered, while Lot is delivered? Therefore Rashi explains that Hashem indeed remembered Lot, who needed the deliverance. And when it says את אברהם, it means that Hashem remembered for Lot the kindness he did “with Avraham.” Thus, את אברהם is to be understood as עם אברהם (with Avraham). (R. Meir Stern)

And he did not betray him because he was sympathetic towards him. Re’m asks: Why is the [greater] kindness of Lot leaving his country and birthplace to follow [i.e., accompany] Avraham wherever he went, not mentioned [instead]? It seems to me that this is no question on Chazal’s statement [that Hashem remembered only Lot’s kindness to Avraham in Egypt], because the answer is: When Lot went with Avraham, he did not go for Avraham’s good but for his own good. For if Avraham would die, Lot would inherit his property! As Rashi explains [that Lot’s herdsmen thought] as much, on (13:7), “There was a quarrel between the herdsmen of Avram’s flocks...” But when Lot did not reveal who Sarah was, this was indeed considered to be for Avraham’s good. The whole reason he went with Avraham was to inherit him, so he should have told them that Sarah was Avraham’s wife, so they would kill Avraham, and he would inherit him. After all, he had set his eyes on Avraham’s money. Therefore, [because Lot did not reveal this to Pharaoh,] it was considered a [true] kindness.

Wine presented itself to them in the cave... The Re’m asks: Why does Rashi disregard the opinion in Bereishis Rabbah (51:8) that says Lot’s daughters had wine in the cave because the people of Sedom had a lot of it, and would store it in caves? Instead, Rashi follows R. [Yehudah] bar Simon, who says that something resembling [the World to Come] was done for them, [as it says (Yoel 4:18): “And it shall come to pass on that day that the mountains shall drip with wine,”] showing that the intention of Lot’s daughters was for the sake of Heaven. But Rashi later comments that the older daughter initiated zenus—implying that their intention was for zenus, not for the sake of Heaven! Re’m answers: Rashi’s opinion is that even according to the one who says their intention was for zenus would agree that Hashem presented them with wine so that two nations might come forth from them, as Rashi explains on ותשקין.

To tell us that once she arose he was aware... You might ask: Is it not written, “He was not aware that she lay down or got up”? The answer is: At first he was not aware of her lying down or getting up, but when he began drinking the second night he remembered what he had done, yet he drank anyway. (Maharshal) [Alternatively:] You might ask: Why is it written, “He was not aware that... she got up,” if he was aware? The answer is: Lot surely was aware she got up from his bed. But he was not aware he had relations with her. (Gur Aryeh) But this answer is difficult, for if he was aware that she got up from his bed, the original question stands: Is it not written, “He was not aware that she... got up”? Rather, it means that at the moment she got up from his bed he was not aware [immediately of her having lied down]. And the dot tells us that later he became aware of both her lying down and getting up. And so we must say, simply speaking, that when she got up he was aware of this, and consequently he became aware of her lying down as well, for one cannot get up without having lied down. And when Rashi writes that “once she arose he was aware,” this is as opposed to between the lying down and the getting up, he was not aware. (R. Meir Stern)

These did it with themselves... שלטו means “had relations,” since לרבעה is translated by Onkelos as למשלט. In other words, they “had relations with themselves” and removed their virginity [beforehand. This enabled them to conceive]. This is the meaning of והוציאו ערותן לחוץ. Some versions of Rashi say והוציאו עדותן (“they removed their evidence”), which means the same. It refers to their virginity, which are the evidence they are virgins, as it is written (Devarim 22:17) אלה בתולי בתי, which Targum Yonasan explains as אלה עדות בתי.