When did the Sodomites turn evil?

Summary: Major repercussions, depending on whether it was before or after Lot arrived.

Post: Right after Lot moves to Sodom, we learn:

12. Abram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain, and he pitched his tents until Sodom.		יב. אַבְרָם יָשַׁב בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְלוֹט יָשַׁב בְּעָרֵי הַכִּכָּר וַיֶּאֱהַל עַד סְדֹם:
13. And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful against the Lord.		יג. וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים לַי־הֹוָ־ה מְאֹד:

Were they evil and sinful against the Lord even when Lot chose to move there? It is possible, given this juxtaposition. In fact, it seems like the straightforward reading! But then, Lot's moving there means that he chose material wealth over the spiritual. And when earlier we read:

10. And Lot raised his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered; before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar.

י. וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת כָּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת סְדֹם וְאֶת עֲמֹרָה כְּגַן יְ־הֹוָ־ה כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר:

This is where he makes this choice. Indeed, I believe that this sets to mood for interpreting many pesukim in this chapter, to gnai rather than to shvach, or at least to a neutral reading. For example, looking to Rashi, what is the cause for the split? On pasuk 7:

And there was a quarrel: Since Lot’s herdsmen were wicked, and they pastured their animals in fields belonging to others, Abram’s herdsmen rebuked them for committing robbery, but they responded, “The land was given to Abram, who has no heir; so Lot will inherit him, and therefore this is not robbery.” But Scripture states: “And the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then dwelling in the land,” and Abram had not yet been awarded its possession. [from Gen. Rabbah 41:5]

ויהי ריב: לפי שהיו רועים של לוט רשעים ומרעים בהמתם בשדות אחרים, ורועי אברם מוכיחים אותם על הגזל, והם אומרים נתנה הארץ לאברם, ולו אין יורש, ולוט יורשו, ואין זה גזל, והכתוב אומר והכנעני והפרזי אז יושב בארץ ולא זכה בה אברם עדיין:

And what does it mean "as you come to Tzoar", in pasuk 10?

as you come to Zoar: Until Zoar. And the Midrash Aggadah interprets it unfavorably: it was because they were lascivious that Lot chose their region for himself (Tractate Horioth 10b).

באכה צער: עד צער. ומדרש אגדה דורשה לגנאי, על שהיו שטופי זמה בחר לו לוט בשכונתם במסכת הוריות (י ב):

And what does it mean in pasuk 11 that in leaving Avraham, Lot traveled "from the east (kedem)"?

from the east: He traveled from beside Abram and went away to the west of Abram; hence, he travelled from east to west (Targum Jonathan). According to the Midrash Aggadah (Gen. Rabbah 41:7), he distanced himself from the Ancient One (מִקַדְמוֹנוֹ) of the world. He said, “I care neither for Abram nor for his God.”

מקדם: נסע מאצל אברם והלך לו למערבו של אברם, נמצא נוסע ממזרח למערב. ומדרש אגדה הסיע עצמו מקדמונו של עולם אמר אי אפשי לא באברם ולא באלהיו:

And in pasuk 13, what should we derive from the juxtaposition I mentioned at the top, that (12) Lot dwelt in Sodom, and (13) the people of Sodom were very wicked?

And the people of Sodom were…evil: Nevertheless, Lot did not hesitate to sojourn with them. And our Rabbis (Yoma 38b) learned from here that (Prov. 10:7): “the name of the wicked shall rot.” [though they were evil, Lot did not hesitate to live with them.]

ואנשי סדום רעים: ואף על פי כן לא נמנע לוט מלשכון עמהם. ורבותינו למדו מכאן (משלי י ז) שם רשעים ירקב:

Finally, in pasuk 14:

14. And the Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, "Please raise your eyes and see, from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward.		יד. וַי־הֹוָ־ה אָמַר אֶל אַבְרָם אַחֲרֵי הִפָּרֶד לוֹט מֵעִמּוֹ שָׂא נָא עֵינֶיךָ וּרְאֵה מִן הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה שָׁם צָפֹנָה וָנֶגְבָּה וָקֵדְמָה וָיָמָּה:
after Lot had parted: As long as the wicked man was with him, the Divine speech withdrew from him (and above, when Lot was with him, and it is written (12: 7):“And the Lord appeared to Abram,” [we must assume that] at that time, he was righteous, and this is easy to understand). [from Tan. Vayeze 10]		אחרי הפרד לוט: כל זמן שהרשע עמו היה הדבור פורש ממנו:

Thus, the message is that Lot is something of a bad guy, pursuing material wealth and his lust. Yet in Lech Lecha, Avraham saves not only Lot but the king, and people of Sodom as well. And later, Lot was righteous enough to me saved.

There seems to be another possibility, of ain mukdam ume'uchar baTorah. That is, perhaps the references here to their being evil is a foreshadowing. The purpose of establishing Lot's residence in Sodom is two-fold. First, for him to be saved by Avraham in the major war. Second, for him to be saved by the two angels in God's destruction of the city.

Thus, once again in pasuk 10, we read:

10. And Lot raised his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered; before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar.

י. וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת כָּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת סְדֹם וְאֶת עֲמֹרָה כְּגַן יְ־הֹוָ־ה כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר:

Even as we are told of his choice, and of how good it was, it is contrasted with its eventual state, when Hashem destroyed it. If so, we can take the pasuk, appearing after the statement that Lot dwelt in Sodom, of

13. And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful against the Lord.

יג. וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים לַי־הֹוָ־ה מְאֹד:

as establishing something that is true at some point. Lot is now in Sodom, and the people were, at some point in the past (from us), wicked. A vav hachibbur, that is with a sheva under it, represents a parenthetical insertion of fact. This is not the same as the vav hahupich, with a patach under it, which serves to advance the narrative. And so we can regard this as establishing a state of affairs for later advancement. In other words, foreshadowing.

This latter reading seems to be the way Josephus took it. In Chapter Eight of Antiquities of the Jews:

3. As soon as Abram was come back into Canaan, he parted the land between him and Lot, upon account of the tumultuous behavior of their shepherds, concerning the pastures wherein they should feed their flocks. However, he gave Lot his option, or leave, to choose which lands he would take; and he took himself what the other left, which were the lower grounds at the foot of the mountains; and he himself dwelt in Hebron, which is a city seven years more ancient than Tunis of Egypt. But Lot possessed the land of the plain, and the river Jordan, not far from the city of Sodom, which was then a fine city, but is now destroyed, by the will and wrath of God, the cause of which I shall show in its proper place hereafter.

Thus, at this point, it was a 'fine city'. I am taking this as inclusive of moral conduct. On the other hand, maybe it just means materially, and this is entirely a restatement of

10. And Lot raised his eyes, and he saw the entire plain of the Jordan, that it was entirely watered; before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt, as you come to Zoar.

י. וַיִּשָּׂא לוֹט אֶת עֵינָיו וַיַּרְא אֶת כָּל כִּכַּר הַיַּרְדֵּן כִּי כֻלָּהּ מַשְׁקֶה לִפְנֵי שַׁחֵת יְ־הֹוָ־ה אֶת סְדֹם וְאֶת עֲמֹרָה כְּגַן יְ־הֹוָ־ה כְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרַיִם בֹּאֲכָה צֹעַר:

However, later on, we see that they only became wicked subsequently, at the time of the Divine destruction, but not at the time of the war or the time that Lot moved there. To cite Chapter 11 from Josephus:

1. ABOUT this time the Sodomites grew proud, on account of their riches and great wealth; they became unjust towards men, and impious towards God, insomuch that they did not call to mind the advantages they received from him: they hated strangers, and abused themselves with Sodomitical practices. God was therefore much displeased at them, and determined to punish them for their pride, and to overthrow their city, and to lay waste their country, until there should neither plant nor fruit grow out of it.

2. When God had thus resolved concerning the Sodomites, Abraham, as he sat by the oak of Mambre, at the door of his tent, saw three angels;

This appears to be a new development, rather than an old one. I would point out that it is likely that this idea of their riches and wealth as a cause for them to become wicked is a derasha on a pasuk in Vayera. I haven't seen it explicitly in any midrash, though I admittedly haven't looked very far. But I will provide the midrashic basis for this statement. The pasuk states:

20. And the Lord said, "Since the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and since their sin has become very grave,

כ. וַיֹּאמֶר יְ־הֹוָ־ה זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה כִּי רָבָּה וְחַטָּאתָם כִּי כָבְדָה מְאֹד:

That is, זַעֲקַת סְדֹם וַעֲמֹרָה. Why?  כִּי רָבָּה. And וְחַטָּאתָם. Why? כִּי כָבְדָה מְאֹד. Because they have become weighty and great with wealth.

We actually do find midrashic basis for this in Sanhedrin 109a:

Our Rabbis taught: The men of Sodom waxed haughty only on account of the good which the Holy One, blessed be He, had lavished upon them. What is written concerning them? — As for the earth, out of it cometh bread: and under it it is burned up as it were with fire. The stones of it are the place of sapphires: and it hath dust of gold. There is a path which no fowl knoweth, and which the vulture's eye hath not seen: The lion's whelps have not trodden it, nor the fierce lions passed by it.¹⁸  They said: Since there cometh forth bread out of [our] earth, and it hath the dust of gold, why should we suffer wayfarers, who come to us only to deplete our wealth. Come, let us abolish¹⁹  the practice of travelling²⁰  in our land, as it is written, The flood breaketh out from the inhabitants,' they are forgotten of the foot; they are dried up, they are gone away from men.²¹

Now, the explicit basis in the gemara is foreign pesukim, distant from parashat Vayera. But as I have discovered in my readings of midrash, often there is a hidden local derasha which accompanies an overt foreign derasha. And this would be yet another instance of this phenomenon.

Aside from this, there is in Josephus the idea that this is a new development. Whether it is a continuous development, new development, or past development may well be dependent upon the stress on the word rabba. To cite Rashi on pasuk 20:

since [it] has become great: Wherever רָבָּה appears in Scripture, the accent is on the last syllable, on the “beth,” because they are translated: “great” , or “becoming great.” But this one has its accent on the first syllable, on the “resh,” because it is to be translated: “has already become great,” as I have explained regarding (above 15:17):“Now it came to pass that the sun had set (בָּאָה)” ; (Ruth 1:15):“Lo, your sister-in-law has returned (שָׁבָה) .”

כי רבה: כל רבה שבמקרא הטעם למטה בבי"ת, לפי שהן מתורגמין גדולה, או גדלה והולכת, אבל זה טעמו למעלה ברי"ש, לפי שמתורגם גדלה כבר, כמו שפירשתי לעיל (טו יז) ויהי השמש באה, (רות א טו) הנה שבה יבמתך:

Rashi is actually arguing here, on the basis of dikduk, against an explicit Midrash Rabba:
ויאמר ה' זעקת סדום ועמורה כי רבה ר' חנינא אמר:רבה והולכת. 

But maybe Josephus (or, rather, the midrashist he is basing himself upon) did not read it like Rashi as something that occurred in the past, but rather some new development. And then, Rabbi Chanina perhaps agrees. And perhaps even the gemara in Sanhedrin would accord with this view. (But quite possibly not, as it was wealthy even back when Lot looked to it.)