TORAH: Comments on Lech Lecha

Strict liability is a legal doctrine that makes a person responsible for the damages caused by their actions regardless of culpability (fault) or mens rea. Strict liability is important in the law of product liability, corporations law, and criminal law. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_liability]

Pharaoh took the beautiful Sarai into his household, having been told that she was the sister of Abram. Abram was richly rewarded by Pharaoh for his deception: he acquired sheep, cattle, donkeys, slaves and maidservants, female donkeys and camels.

Sarai was really Abram's wife. As a result of the Sarai matter, Pharaoh and his household was afflicted with severe plagues.

Question 1: When Pharaoh is afflicted w/ plague because he has taken Sarai into his household, it is as though he and those who surround him are being punished. (although one certainly could make the argument that G-d is merely protecting Sarai from having to consort w/ Pharaoh, which is perhaps merely conjecture) However, he was unaware of Sarai's true status as a married woman. Therefore, if taking the spouse of another is a crime, where is the requisite mens rea? Is none required? Is this the first example of the legal concept of strict liability? If so, what does that mean? Is the taking of a woman, wife or mate, such an inherently dangerous activity, that one is held responsible for the consequences regardless of fault or attitude?

Question 2: Why is the whole household afflicted and not just Pharaoh, who was ultimately the one who took Sarai? Is G-d punishing the family and employees for the actions of another? Why is that? Can't the consequences be 'targeted?'

Question 3: Isn't Abram being rewarded for deception? What does that say about honesty and integrity?

Question 4: Wasn't it wrong for Abram to 'pimp out' Sarai for his own benefit? I know there is an argument that it was done to save Abram from being put to death as a way to get him out of the way, so in a way, perhaps Sarai benefits. But, I think this argument is weak, because the idea does not arise from Sarai.

*** *** ***
This parashah also discusses the ritual of circumcision. G-d appears to Abram and says to him, "Walk before me and be perfect." Rashi explains that by removing some of his foreskin, man becomes perfect. (apparently, we women are already born that way)
Question 1: If G-d is truly a perfect entity, how is it that His creation, man, was made in a manner that is ultimately less than perfect?

Radak teaches that closeness to G-d can be achieved only through man's own efforts, so,if man were born w/o a foreskin, that lack would be meaningless. So I am thinking that it is not the lack of a foreskin, but the person's volitional act of circumcision, that brings the closeness to the Source and fulfills the Covenant.
Question 2: But men do not have themselves circumcised -- it is done on the 8th day of their life and the decision is that of their parents. So, performing this covenant, how is that bringing the 'circumsizee' closer to G-d? Or is it that we must demonstrate our willingness to physically mutilate our male children to become close to G-d? Well, do I really want to become aligned with an entity that would ask this. It is all very confusing to me.
Question 3: What does the mohel do with all of those foreskins? Are they ritually buried? Should a man keep his foreskin his whole life so it can be buried with him?

The answers are out there guys? Do you have an opinion?