First and last name:Jesse Caron
City, State and Country: Nashville, Tennessee, USA

Inquiry: Shalom. I have several issues with the parasha, but here are two for now: B'reishit 19:1 - "וְלוֹט, יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר-סְדֹם," and later, the inhabitants saying of him, 19:9 - "הָאֶחָד בָּא-לָגוּר וַיִּשְׁפֹּט שָׁפוֹט". Was Lot an official of S'dom? If so, his judgments, however fair and equal, were readily forgotten when the inhabitants turned on him. Reminds me of another past, more European-oriented, situation.

The description implies that לוֹט was either a successful merchant, conducting business, or a shoph•eitꞋ  in סְדֹם. Both typically conducted their business in the city shaꞋ ar. In the first scenario, the public reaction is still echoed today in the canard against Jews being rich therefore unscrupulous. But it doesn't provide much explanation for the rest of the story. If the second scenario is the case then it would suggest that לוֹט was a kind of governor appointed to rule סְדֹם by some authority that was unpopular with the populous of the city. This would further suggest a plausible and natural explanation for the rest of the story (in contrast to the popular but impossible supernatural superstitions of primitive thinking). Contrary to your suggestion below, the text describes a homosexual norm for the entirety of the populous of the city. Given that לוֹט would have judged against their popular lifestyle, by authority of some neighboring power (equally unpopular in the city for the same reason), he would have been immensely unpopular. The growing rebellion against this authority would have prompted an envoy to assess what needed to be done to bring the city into line, which is exactly what we find in these two ma•lâkh•imꞋ , who were explicitly identified earlier (18.2) as human men. Further, such an envoy would have shown authority over לוֹט, ordering לוֹט around in his own house in a desperate situation, which is also what we find. Finally, the clincher would be the envoy extricating their governor (or whatever position לוֹט held for them), somehow signaling for smoke-producing missiles (so that the populous couldn't see) and then signaling for a annihilative attack on the city to quell the rebellion against their authority.

The surrounding area provided the sulfur and, in ancient times, fire that we find described in the text as falling on the city. What we're reading is an attack by an offended neighboring multi-city ruling authority, quashing a rebellion by lobbing these materials into the city, first sulfurous smoke filling the city so the residents couldn't see, then, finally, fire to burn the two cities to the ground.

Since this event occurred ca. B.C.E. 2088 and the earliest record of catapults are from B.C.E. 4^th century China, this suggests a conflict between what the modern world understands to be the history of the catapult and the implication from this account that the ability to hurl sulfur and fire dates back to ca. B.C.E. 2,088. It wouldn't be the first time that the Bible proved correct and the modern understanding of history flawed and corrected. One need look no further than the Dead Sea Scrolls discovery, or the ongoing discoveries in top universities of recent genetic research demonstrating the flawed popular "scientific history" of human evolution; discoveries that include extensive interbreeding between "man" and Neanderthals and other pre-"man"-like primates (see updates to â•dâmꞋ )—not to mention that all archeological and historical certainties (in contrast to speculations) confirm the Biblical accounts while none contradict the Bible. I'd look for pre-crossbow siege engines, probably that simulate arm movement slinging a spear rather than the more mechanically advanced crossbow. See if, one day, archeologists find evidence of such an early siege engine. Here's a theory with a testable hypothesis.

Also, is it possible that this city's namesake behavior wasn't the norm? Yekhezqel 16:49,50 makes me think that it was a matter of "perfect timing" with the malakhim. Perhaps the run-in at Lot's house was the initial "plug-eruption" that they were sent to see about, and the "זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה" was the tremors / rumbling before the "big one" - which was to be preempted. If it was abnormal for them, how much greater the judgment on the society that encourages it. If it was abnormal for them, could there have been state of riot and anarchy, targeting all leaders? I ask because I'm reminded of "Occupy"...

I don't see such suggestion in Y^әkhëz•qeilꞋ . You need to be specific about what, in those p^әsuq•imꞋ , makes you think it was a matter of timing. Pâ•suqꞋ  4 stipulates מִנַּעַר וְעַד-זָקֵן: כָּל-הָעָם, מִקָּצֶה (from [its] youth to [its] aged. All of the am from [within its] edges).

Never ask "Is it possible that…?" While thinking out of the box is essential, unbridled (undirected) speculation opens the door to misleadings and strayings. Is it possible they were from another galaxy? Well, yes. That cannot be disproven. Is it possible this was just a story and never happened? Well, yes. That cannot be disproven. Is it possible that this all happened in Nebraska and not by Yâm ha-MëlꞋ akh? Well, yes. That cannot be disproven. Instead of such unending speculations, avoid speculating entirely and look, instead, first and foremost for the original language (avoiding a huge amount of misconceptions), then what is likely, what seems suggested, what may be implied and what serves as guidance in one's daily life-practice of Tor•âhꞋ .

Lot's daughters bring up interesting questions also.

I want to commend you for your work. It's a start—which is far more that most. The only ones who don't make mistakes (and get criticism) are those who do nothing, produce nothing and achieve nothing. So keep up the good work.

Yet, you missed the basis for the Ha•lâkh•âhꞋ  requiring a min•yânꞋ  and that a city should be evacuated if there is less than a min•yânꞋ . I recommend that everyone obtain the Artscroll "Tanakh" series. In this case, their first (of 2) volume of b^ә-Reish•itꞋ  would bring these sorts of things, unnoticed by casual (i.e., non-Jewish) readers, to your attention.

You (readers collectively, not only Jesse) must develop the discernment to focus on guidance from understanding historical Judaic practice rather than the popular focus on sheer speculation for its own sake, which is unproductive… and often misleading.