Comentario sobre Génesis 13:24

ויעל אברם וגו' הנגבה AND ABRAM WENT UP [OUT OF EGYPT] …TOWARDS THE NEGEB — He went up to proceed to the Southern part of the land of Israel — as it is said above (Genesis 12:9) “going on more and more to the Negeb” — to the Mount Moriah. Still, when one goes from Egypt to the land of Canaan, one proceeds from South to North, because Egypt is to the South of the land of Israel, as may be proved from the account of the journeys that the Israelites made in the wilderness and from the description of the boundaries of the land of Israel (see Numbers 33 and Numbers 34).

HE, AND HIS WIFE, AND ALL THAT HE HAD. The purport thereof is to let us know that they did not rob him of any of all the great gifts they gave him on account of Sarah who was to be for the king. They did not say, “You have tricked us, and the gift was given by mistake.” This was a miraculous event.

To arrive at the south of Eretz Yisrael. Rashi is answering the question: Avraham was [already] in the south, for Egypt is south of Eretz Yisrael and in the south of the world. Accordingly, why is it not written, “Avraham went up north”? Thus Rashi explains, “To arrive at the south of Eretz Yisrael.”

(1-2) Er hatte, durch die Hungersnot gezwungen, vorübergehend seine Isolierung aufgegeben und war in das volkreiche Ägypten gezogen, was ihm ziemlich übel bekommen war. Er zog jetzt wieder zurück zu der Stätte hin, wo ihm die Bedeutung dieses Landes für seine Zukunft und die Notwendigkeit seiner Isolierung in der Gegenwart durch die sichtbare Gottesoffenbarung zuerst klar geworden, und lebte dort wieder dem alten Berufe, die Menschen im Namen Gottes aufzurufen. מקנה, im Gegensatz zu רכוש, der beweglichen, aber leblosen, darum "fahrenden" Habe: der lebendige Besitz, der schon von selbst seinem Herrn folgt, Bewusstsein von seiner Hörigkeit hat und somit wesentliches Eigentum ist, ידע קונהו.

ולוט עמו הנגבה, “and Lot with him, southward.” In the same direction as they had been journeying ever since they had left Charan.

כבד מאד VERY RICH (literally, very heavy) — heavily laden with burdens.

ואברם כבד מאד במקנה, this is why he had to travel slowly, even though he wanted to return quickly to the site of the altar where he wanted to continue his preaching as he had done before the famine.

ואברם כבד מאד, he was very wealthy both in herds and flocks, as well as in other possessions, all chattels. The attribute כבד for great wealth has been chosen since, seeing it consists of chattels, it is “weighty” in the truest sense of the words. Similar literary formulations are found in Isaiah 1,30 כאלה נובלת עליה, “as a terebinth wilted of its leaf,” the prophet uses the word עלה, leaf, as something descriptive of a small tree like the terebinth whose leaf patterns account for its character. Its leaves make it such an outstanding tree. Similarly, the expression קרועי בגדים. In Samuel II 13,31 “with their clothes rent,” or מגולחי זקן, “shorn of beard,” in Jeremiah 41,5. The adjectives used fit the noun they describe, so here too the adjective כבד “heavy,” fits such metals as silver and gold, so that wealth may be appropriately described in such terms. [The author explains why a simple term such as עשיר, “rich,” was not used instead of the adjective כבד, literally “heavy.” Ed.]

וילך למסעיו AND HE WENT ON HIS JOURNEYS — When he returned from Egypt to the land of Canaan he went and lodged in the same inns as he had stayed when he travelled to Egypt. This teaches you good manners: that one should not change his inn (Arachin 16b); (where the reason is given that one who does this constantly brings discredit on himself and on others). Another interpretation: on his return he paid the debts he had previously incurred (Genesis Rabbah 41:3). (In both these comments emphasis is placed on “his” — he went on his journeys i.e. the routes he had taken before.)

וילך למסעיו, this is why he traveled on his routes, i.e. the routes all the shepherds took when journeying in that direction.

וילך למסעיו, one journey after another; he traveled small distances each time, due to the enormous possessions he had. He continued from a southerly location. The word מנגב means that having already arrived in the south, i.e. Egypt, he now had to travel in a northerly direction to reach the place in the land of Canaan from which he had traveled to Egypt. He now resumed what we had already become familiar with as “his journeys, i.e. in a southerly direction. He continued as far as a place called Beyt El. Eventually, he came to the site of his altar where he gave thanks to G’d for his deliverance from Egypt. He had retraced his steps all the way to Beyt El.

This teaches good manners that a person not change ... This explanation raises a question: Why does it not say במסעיו? Thus Rashi offered another explanation: “On his return trip he paid the debts he incurred.” But according to that explanation it should say ויחזור למסעיו. Why does it say וילך? Thus we need the first explanation as well. (Maharshal)

Auch hier steht wieder אהלה, wohl zur Bezeichnung, dass unerachtet der Vorgänge mit Pharao Abrahams Verhältnis zu Sara unverändert das alte war.

מנגב FROM THE SOUTH — the land of Egypt lies to the South of the land of Canaan.

Egypt is south of ... Rashi is answering the question: Above it says [that he was traveling to] הנגבה. If so, why is it not written here וילך למסעיו הנגבה? Thus Rashi explains that Egypt is in the south. Accordingly, הנגבה [in our verse] refers to Egypt.

אשר עשה שם בראשונה [UNTO THE PLACE OF THE ALTAR] WHICH HE HAD MADE THERE AT THE FIRST and WHERE ABRAM HAD CALLED [UPON THE NAME OF THE LORD] (that is, ויקרא does not introduce a further action of Abram done at that time, but refers to a former one when he had called upon the Name of the Lord); but it may also be explained that it means that Abram now called there upon the Name of the Lord.

אל מקום המזבח, the Torah details further that Avram did not only return to the mountainous region of which we had been told in 12,8 but that he returned to exactly the place where he had prayed previously. We are to learn from this how important it is for a person to appoint a definitive spot from where to offer his prayers on a regular basis. It is easier to concentrate when one is in familiar surroundings. Now that he had returned to this altar, Avram preached a second time in the name of the Lord, [no doubt telling people of his miraculous escape from Egypt, laden with new riches. Ed.]

And where “Avram called...” Rashi is answering the question: Since Avraham already made an altar there and called in the Name of Hashem, why does it tell us here [again], “And there Avram called...”? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is informing us where he went: to the place from where he had already called in the Name of Hashem.

ההלך את אברם WHO WENT WITH ABRAM — What brought it about that he possessed all this? The fact that he was accompanying Abram (Genesis Rabbah 41:3; Pesikta Rabbati, שמיני).

וגם ללוט, the word וגם is meant to add that even Lot, who had only been a member of Avram’s entourage, was showered with wealth while Avram stayed in Egypt. [clearly a very short time if G’d punished Pharaoh already on the same night that he had taken Sarai. Ed.]

What brought this about? Rashi is answering the question: It is already written (v. 1), “Avram went ... together with Lot into the south,” [so why is it repeated?]

Auf אברם steht אתנה. Auch Lot hatte — es lässt uns, ehe das Objekt genannt wird, bei dem Gedanken verweilen, was man von einem Verwandten hätte erwarten sollen, der doch nicht bloß עם, sondern את אברם, in so weit innigerem Anschluss mit Abraham lebte, mit Abraham, der in seiner Isolierung doch Fremde, die nur vorübergehend mit ihm in Berührung kamen, durch gastfreundliche Menschlichkeit auf Den aufmerksam, mit Dem bekannt machte, der den Menschen menschlich macht und ihn von der selbstsüchtigen Habsucht zu dem gottähnlichen Streben erlösend erhebt, להיות ברכה, statt gesegnet zu sein, Segen zu werden. — Nun heißt es hier: auch Lot, der doch so nahe mit Abraham umging, nahm etwas von Abraham an, eignete sich etwas von ihm an — aber was? Schafe und Rinder und Zelte! Nichts von dem geistigen Beruf. Er begleitete Abraham, weil sich sein Eigennutz gut dabei stand. — "Und Zelte!" ואהָ֗לים — die volle Form, nicht אֳהָלים — er hörte auf, Hausgenosse Abrahams zu sein, hatte selbständige Kreise, in denen er Hausherr war. Während Abrahams Zelt Saras Zelt war, אהלה, ihr die Führung des Hauses überlassen war und Abraham es als seine Aufgabe betrachtete ׳לקרא בשם ד, war es bei Lot ganz anders. Er betrachtete es als seine Aufgabe, Schafe und Rinder und Zelte zu erwerben, und hatte keinen Sinn für Abrahams geistigen Beruf. Dies die Bedeutung des durch den Akzent auf "Abraham" gelegten Nachdrucks, und dies erklärt alles Folgende.

ההולך את אברם, his new found wealth was due only to the fact that he was an fellow traveler of Avram.

ואהלים, an indication that he had so many chattels that it required many tents to accommodate them. The word אהלים is spelled with the vowel cholem on the letter aleph, as it is also in Samuel I 4,10 and in Deut. 33,18 ויששכר באהליך According to the regular rules of grammar, the letter א in אהל should have the vowel chataf kametz as is the case in Jeremiah 35,7 and in Judges 8,11. Perhaps when the letter א has the vowel cholem, this is an indication that the noun is in a different declination, a declination known as גוזל תולע. [I confess not to know what this is. Ed.]

ולא נשא אתם AND THE LAND WAS NOT ABLE TO BEAR THEM — It could not provide sufficient pasture for their cattle. The phrase is elliptical and a word must be supplied, for instance: the pasturage (מרעה) of the land was not able to bear them — for this reason the word נשא (masculine) is used (to agree in gender with מרעה; the suggestion is that נשא cannot have הארץ as subject since that noun is feminine).

ולא נשא אותם הארץ, the grazing land available in that region was inadequate for their combined herds.

ולא נשא אותם הארץ, in this instance the noun ארץ is treated as a masculine noun, as it is also in Isaiah 9,18 נעתם ארץ, “the earth was shaken.”

The text, therefore, reads ולא נשא, in the masculine form. Rashi is answering the question: Since הארץ [which is the subject] is feminine, why does it say נשא in the masculine? And there is a further question: Why was the land unable to bear [the weight of] people? Thus Rashi explains, “It could not provide enough מרעה (pasture).” In other words, נשא refers to the [implied word] מרעה, which is masculine.

Das Land trug sie nicht, zusammen zu bleiben, warum? Nicht weil sie etwa zu viel Herden hatten, das Land nicht ausreichende Weide bot, — so nicht. Wäre das Ganze nur eine Herde, eine Wirtschaft, ein Wesen gewesen, so hätte es ausgereicht. Es reichte aber deshalb nicht aus, weil רכושם רב, weil ihr sonstiges Vermögen, כסף וזהב usw. zu viel gewesen, dafür — wenn man nicht einig ist, dem andern nicht traut — sind אהלים nötig, Kisten und Kasten, und alles separat. "Weil ihr Vermögen zu viel war und sie nicht zusammen passten, nicht zusammen wohnen konnten", darum konnten sie auch nicht auf einem Boden zusammen bleiben. Hätten sie vermöge ihrer Persönlichkeit zusammen bleiben können, so wären auch nicht gesonderte Weideplätze nötig gewesen. Aber weil in Lots Wirtschaft man nur für den Erwerb sorgte, in Abrahams aber auch höhere Interessen galten, weil die Verwendung des Erworbenen eine verschiedene war, — und eben hierin, in der Verwendung, nicht in der Art des Erwerbes, unterscheidet sich vor allem Mensch von Mensch, darum konnten sie nicht zusammen bleiben, deshalb reichte der Boden nicht aus; für einen Lot mußten gesonderte Weideplätze da sein, dass nicht einmal ein Schäfchen von dem einen zum andern sich verlief usw.

ולא נשא אותם, “the land did not offer sufficient virgin land to support their combined flocks and herds.” The Bible using the term ארץ, as if it were masculine here, is not a unique example. It also occurs in the masculine mode in Zachariah 14,10, as well as in Isaiah 9,18, and in Isaiah 33,9.

לשבת יחדו, for there was not enough grazing land to support their herds as well as those of the other inhabitants of the land.

כי היה רכושם רב, “for their possessions were so vast.” The point the Torah is making is that, contrary to what could be expected, poverty leads to strife about sharing the little one owns, in this instance excessive wealth led to strife.

כי היה, for the possessions of Avram and Lot together was too great. As a result, a quarrel broke out among the respective shepherds. Each group of shepherds wanted to use the same meadows on which to graze their flocks.

ויהי ריב AND THERE WAS A QUARREL because Lot’s shepherds were wicked men and grazed their cattle in other people’s fields. Abram's shepherds rebuked them for this act of robbery, but they replied, “The land has been given to Abram, and since he has no son as heir, Lot will be his heir: consequently this is not robbery”. Scripture, however, states: “The Canaanite and the Perizzite abode then in the land”, so that Abram was not yet entitled to possession (Genesis Rabbah 41:5).

AND THERE WAS A QUARREL. Rashi wrote, “Because Lot’s shepherds grazed their cattle in other people’s fields, Abram’s shepherds rebuked them for this act of robbery, but they replied, ‘The land has been given to Abram, and he has no [son as an] heir, and so Lot will be his heir. Hence this is not robbery.’ Scripture however states, And the Canaanite and the Perrizite abode then in the land, so that Abram was not yet the legitimate owner.” This is a Midrash of our Rabbis.⁹⁹Bereshith Rabbah 41:6.
But I wonder: The gift of the Land declared to Abram was for his children, as it is said above, Unto thy seed will I give this land,¹⁰⁰Above, 12:7. so how can Lot inherit it? Perhaps the shepherds heard of the gift and they mistook its meaning, for Scripture states that in the meantime, the land belonged neither to Abram nor to Lot. Accordingly, the verse stating at the outset, for their possessions were great,¹⁰¹Verse 6 here. intended to say that because of their extensive possessions, the land could not support them, and Lot’s shepherds therefore found it necessary to bring their cattle into fields that had owners. This was the cause of the quarrel.
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture the quarrel concerned the pasture as the land could not support them both. When Abram’s cattle were grazing in the pasture, Lot’s shepherds would come into their territory and graze their cattle there. Now Abram and Lot were both strangers and sojourners in the land. Abram, therefore, feared that the Canaanite and the Perrizite, who inhabit the land, might hear of the abundance of their cattle, [whose great number was made apparent when Lot’s shepherds encroached on Abram’s land, thereby combining the flocks], and drive them out of the land or slay them by sword and take their cattle and wealth since the mastery of the land belonged to them, not to Abram. This is the purport of the verse, And the Canaanite and the Perrizite. Scripture thus mentioned that there were many peoples dwelling in that land, they and their cattle being innumerable, and the land could not support them and Abram and Lot.
From the word oz (then) — [And the Canaanite and the Perrizite abode ‘then’ in the land] — it appears to me that the nations dwelling in the land at that time were those who live in tents and have cattle, some of them converging on one district and grazing there for a year or two and then journeying from there to another district in which they had not previously pastured. And so they continued to do, as is customary among “the children of the east.”¹⁰²See Judges 6:3. The Canaanite and the Perrizite were thus “then” in the land of the south, and in the following years the Jebusite and the Amorite would come there.

...these two great nations, the Canaanites and Perizzites live in the land without any argument but the land is unable to support these two shepherds living together...

ויהי ריב בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט, there was an argument between who would succeed to drive out the other from the available grazing land they would find.

ויהי ריב, we already explained the meaning of the words והכנעני אז בארץ on 12,6. In this verse the tribe פריזי has been mentioned which had not been featured previously. This tribe also resided in the region of Beyt El and Ai.

ויהי ריב, “A quarrel had broken out, etc.” Rashi explains that the quarrel had its origin in Lot’s shepherds allowing their herds to graze in pastures belonging to others, whereas Avraham objected, respecting private property of the Canaanites. Nachmanides writes that they were actually not grazing in fields owned by others seeing G’d had already promised the entire country to Avraham and his descendants. Seeing that Lot was not an heir of Avraham, his sheep were not entitled to graze anywhere without express permission of the owners. The plain explanation of our verse is that the quarrel originated due to what has been written in verses 5 and 6 that due to the extensive flocks and herds of both Avraham and Lot, there was not enough grazing land (land not privately owned) so that the shepherds felt obliged to allow their flocks to eat whatever they could find. This is the reason why the Torah records that at that time the Canaanite and the Perisite were dwelling in the land, i.e. they owned it. There was no land which was hefker, ownerless.

Because Lot’s shepherds were ... Rashi is answering the questions: Why did they quarrel, and why does it say here, “The Canaanites ... were then living in the land”? Rashi explains: [They quarreled] “because Lot’s shepherds were wicked and grazed their animals in others’ fields ... .” And the verse says, “The Canaanites ... were then living in the land” because this was Hashem’s response [to their claim that it is not robbery]. And we need not ask why Avraham’s shepherds did not respond that Avraham will still beget an heir, for the response they gave was a better one, in that even Lot’s shepherds, who did not know that Avraham would still beget an heir, [had to admit that] “the Canaanites ... were then living in the land.”

Oben heißt es im allgemeinen: והכנעני אז בארץ, hier ist פרזי hinzugefügt und es heißt בארץ. Abraham und Lot konnten als Fremde natürlich nur auf herrenlosem Boden weiden, der war aber schon ein beschränkter. Es hatte sich schon mehr als ein Volksstamm im Lande niedergelassen. Wäre nur ein Volk im Lande gewesen, es hätte nur das gegenwärtig in Gebrauch zu nehmende in Besitz genommen und abgegrenzt; konnte ja das andere nötigenfalls noch immer nehmen. Wohnen jedoch verschiedene Stämme im Lande, so sucht jeder vorweg alles zu nehmen, auch das nicht sofort Nötige, damit ihm der Nachbar nicht zuvorkomme. Darum war der Boden für Abraham und Lot beschränkt.

בין רועי מקנה אברם ובין רועי מקנה לוט, “between Avram’s shepherds and Lot’s shepherds.” Neither of them could locate additional grazing land which was not privately owned. The reason was that the Canaanites had claimed all that land as theirs.

והכנעני והפריזי אז יושב בארץ. This is why a quarrel between two brothers who lived side by side was especially embarrassing and harmful to the image of Avram among the surrounding tribes. When those tribes would see the brothers quarrel, they would assume that neither of them was a peace-loving individual and they would reason that they had even more reason to quarrel with either one of those recent immigrants.

So that Avram did not yet possess it. Otherwise, Avram would give them permission to graze wherever they wish. (Gur Aryeh)

אנשים אחים BROTHERS — i. e. kinsmen. The Midrashic explanation is: that they resembled each other in their facial features (Genesis Rabbah 41:6).

ביני ובינך, in the future. When either one of them would select for his herds a certain grazing area.

אל נא תהי מריבה, Let no quarrel develop between me and you. Abraham told Lot that what had started as an argument between their respective shepherds was bound to lead to a quarrel between the two of them even though Lot claimed that he would never allow this to happen. After all, he respected his uncle too highly as the senior member of the family. The substance of the shepherds' arguments concerned the fact that Lot allowed his shepherds to graze on privately owned land, counting on G'd's promise that the land would belong to Abraham's family in the future. Seeing that Abraham had no children and was genetically unable to father children, Lot viewed himself as Abraham's heir. Abraham alluded to this by the superfluous comment that they were brothers.

ויאמר...ביני ובינך, if our shepherds keep on quarrelling it will not be long before we start quarrelling ourselves.

Relatives. Rashi is answering the question: They were not brothers, only relatives. [Why does it call them אחים?] And according to the Midrashic explanation, that they were called brothers because they looked similar, אחים means כאחים (like brothers).

Nicht בינינו, sondern ביני ובינך. Diese Wiederholung des בין geschieht vorzüglich da, wo die Trennung oder Verbindung, die durch ein drittes vermittelt wird, beiderseitig ist. So vom ביני ובין בני ישראל :שבת, ein doppeltes Erkennungszeichen: so lange Israel den Sabbat hütet, bekennt es damit, dass es Gottes sei, und erkennt Gott es als das Seinige an. Die Entweihung des Sabbats zerreißt beiderseitig das Band. So auch hier: unser Streit ist gegenseitig: mir gefällt manches nicht an dir, und dir auch manches nicht an mir, daher kommt auch der Streit zwischen unseren Leuten. Wo aber keine Einigkeit, da bringt Trennung Frieden. — אנשים אחים, nicht schlechtweg אחים. Gehen wir auch als Männer auseinander, haben nicht eine Lebensrichtung, so sind wir doch Verwandte.

אל נא תהי מריבה, the result of competing aspirations to the same grazing land.

Another reason Abraham referred to their being brothers may be understood in light of our sages' comment on Psalms 50,20 [I have not found that commentary. Ed.]. The Psalmist describes a brother who lives with another brother as maligning him. Applied to our context this means that Abraham was afraid that if the local inhabitants would take Lot to court for stealing from them, his own reputation as the elder brother (uncle) would become tarnished. He could not allow this to happen.

ובין רועי ובין רועיך, now that we dwell here.

Abraham may also have hinted to Lot that the very fact that their principals were brothers made Lot's shepherds take that relationship for granted. Familiarity breeds contempt; had the two not been related, Lot's shepherds would have given Abraham the respect due him as an elder and as a person whom G'd had obviously favoured.

אם השמאל ואימינה IF THOU WILT TAKE THE LEFT HAND, THAN I WILL GO TO THE RIGHT —Wherever you settle down I will not go far from you and I will stand by you as a shield and as a helper. Ultimately, indeed, he (Lot) was really in need of him, as it is said, (Genesis 14:14) “And Abram heard that his brother was taken captive etc.”

הלא כל הארץ לפניך, I’ll let you choose the area which you prefer.

הלא כל הארץ לפניך, you have the same options as I have, as no one will object to the area which we will choose to graze our herds on. G’d’s assistance will be at your side on my account, and on account of the fact that you had joined me on my search for the true Creator in order to come closer to Him.

I will not go far from you ... Rashi is answering the question: Avraham just said, “We are kinsmen.” Why does he now say, “If you go to the left, I will go to the right” — implying he wants to distance himself due to the hatred between them? Where did the hatred come from? There was no quarrel between them, [only between the shepherds]. Thus Rashi explains, “I will not go far from you...” [Alternatively,] Rashi explained this because the words seem superfluous, as it could have just said, “Please separate from me.” Therefore Rashi explains: “I will not go far...” And if you ask why Avraham needed to promise this to Lot, Rashi answers: [To tell him that] “I will stand by you as a shield.” (R. Yaakov Kenizal) Rashi is answering the question: If Lot goes to the left, Avraham will obviously be on his right! [Why did the verse need to state this?] Thus Rashi explains: Avraham will actually stay near him by his right. He will not distance himself. (R. Shmuel El Mashonino)

מעלי, vom Neben-mir-sein. Ganz von einander geschieden. Das musste Abraham fordern, um die Seinigen vor dem Beispiel der Lotwirtschaft zu schützen. Siehe! Ich bin beschränkt, kann nicht überall hingehen, wo Überfluss ist, muß mich isolieren, du aber, nachdem du dich von meiner Lebensanschauung losgesagt, brauchst ja nicht so wählerisch zu sein, dir ist das ganze Land offen. Gehe du nach rechts oder links, ich werde hier in meiner Isolierung verharren. — Die Etymologie von ימין und שמאל ist dunkel. Vielleicht ist ימן verwandt mit מכמנים ,כמן verborgener Schatz, die verborgene Schatzkammer der Kräfte des Menschen, diejenige Seite, in welcher des Menschen vorzügliche Kraft ruht. Während שמאל, (verwandt mit שמלה, das Gewand, die Hülle), die Linke als die Gehülfin der Rechten bedeutet, die mehr dem von der Rechten gelieferten Kern die Hülle bietet (?).

ואימינה I WILL GO TO THE RIGHT — The word means “I will direct myself towards the right”, just as ואשמאילה means “I will direct myself towards the left.” If you say that it should be punctuated וְאַיְמִינָה (the regular Hiphil form) I answer that in another place also we find this form, (2 Samuel 14:19) אם יש לְהֵמִין “none can turn to the right hand”, where the punctuation is not לְהַיְמִין.

Therefore, הפרד נא מעלי, move away from me in the direction you prefer and I will move in the opposite direction. If you select grazing land to the left, I will select grazing land to the right.

הפרד נאת, from me; seeing that you are in this country on my account and not vice versa, it is up to you to move away. It is not my duty to move away from you and abandon this land to you. Avram considered himself as the principal and his nephew as a mere follower, so that the choice of who would go where was his. He added, that seeing he was a generous person, all the more so when the other person involved was his brother, he therefore offered the choice to Lot.

אם השמאל ואימינה ואם הימין ואשמאילה, what he meant was “if you will move north I will be south of you, whereas if you move south, I will be north of you, in the very location that I am now, which was in the south of the country as we know from 12,9 and 13,3.

ואם הימין, if you prefer to remain here, i.e. in the south, I will be forced to move north from here.

כי כלה משקה THAT IT WAS WELL WATERED — a land of water-streams.

AS THE GARDEN OF THE ETERNAL, LIKE THE LAND OF EGYPT. The verse states that the whole land of the Plain was adequately irrigated from the Jordan by working with the foot, just as was done with the garden of G-d, concerning which it is stated, And a river went out of Eden to water the garden,¹⁰³Above, 2:10. and as is the way in the land of Egypt, concerning which it is stated, And thou didst water it with thy foot.¹⁰⁴Deuteronomy 11:10. The verse mentions both places: it says that the land of the Plain was as adequately irrigated as the garden of the Eternal, which is the most perfect place on this earth, and it also mentions, like the land of Egypt, a place well known for pasture.
Our Rabbis have said,¹⁰⁵Sifre Ekev, 38. The Sifre is a Tannaitic Midrash on the book of Numbers and the book of Deuteronomy. “As the garden of the Eternal for trees; Like the land of Egypt — for herbs.” Their intent was to explain that there were large rivers in the Plain, which watered the trees of the gardens, as was the case in the garden of G-d, and that there were also ponds in it, as in the land of Egypt, from which vegetable gardens were watered. Lot chose this part, for a land which is so irrigated is unlikely to suffer from a drought and is good for pasture.

וישא לוט את עיניו, from the mountain where they were staying, as we know from 12,8. Seeing that this was a high point in the country, it afforded Lot an opportunity to survey much of the rest of the country all around him. As a result, he observed כי כלה משקה, that the Jordan valley was very well irrigated. When the Torah uses the word כלה after having already said כל when describing the valley, this is a way of emphasising the word כל still further. We find a similar construction in Isaiah 14,18 כל מלכי גוים כולם, “all the kings of the nations, all of them.”

A land of water streams. Rashi is answering the question: משקה is a causative verb [meaning “to cause to be watered”]. In what way is the causative form appropriate here? Furthermore, the verse is speaking about streams, not about people watering fields. Thus Rashi explains: “A land of water streams,” and they are called משקה because people use them to water the fields.

(10-11) Lot fand das ganz vernünftig, scheint schon lange auf eine solche Gelegenheit gewartet zu haben. Das Wandern in unwirtsamen Gegenden konnte einem Manne wie ihm nicht behagen. Er sucht vor allem eine reiche üppige Gegend, die gegen Hungersnot und Misswachs schützt, und fand sie. וישא לוט את עיניו er ließ sich, unbeirrt von allen für einen Abraham maßgebenden Rücksichten, bei der Wahl nur von seinem sinnlichen Auge leiten.

כי כלה משקה, “for all of it was well irrigated.” Some commentators understand the verse: וירא את כל ככר הירדן, to mean that the river Jordan irrigated the entire region bountifully.

לפני שחת ה' את סדום ואת עמורה BEFORE THE LORD DESTROYED SODOM AND GOMORRAHH that land was

ככר, a valley; the word occurs in a similar sense in Kings I 7,46 בככר הירדן יצקם, “he had them cast in the valley of the Jordan.” This particular valley was very close to the city of Sodom and prior to that city’s destruction it was known as being “like a garden of G’d.” (19,25) The “garden” people used as the metaphor to describe is was the “garden of Eden.” We know that that garden had been irrigated by four rivers. Alternately, the comparison made here is to Egypt which is thoroughly irrigated by the river Nile.

That plain was... Rashi is explaining that “Before Adonoy destroyed Sedom and Amorah is read with, “It was like Adonoy’s garden....” It is not read with the preceding phrase, “It was abundantly watered.” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what would it be telling us? The verse had already written, “Lot raised his eyes and saw...” and this was before Hashem destroyed Sedom. Perforce, it is read with, “It was like Adonoy’s garden...” (Re’m)

ככר, wohl nicht Kreis, sondern wie ת"א: Ebene. Wurzel wahrscheinlich: כרה, graben (vergl. יין von בבל ,ינה von בלל), verwandt mit כרע: knieen, sich niedrig machen, ירה: werfen, גרה wovon גרון Kehle, Schlund: allmälig in die Tiefe ziehen. ככר: iTalebene, das Flussgebiet, die durch Flüsse gegrabene Niederung. Für die Be- deutung Kaufen, Aneignen, bietet נהל eine sprechende Analogie, das auch Flusstal und Erbe bedeutet. Die Talebene des Jordans war ganz "Getränk", oder vielmehr, wenn partic. Hiphll, ganz d. h. überall tränkend, führte überall das gehörige Nass den Feldern und Pflanzungen zu. — כלָה femin. משקֶה mascul. Insofern der Boden das Nass empfängt, ist er femin,; insofern er es aber weiterspendet, mascul.

'כגן ה, “as if it were a garden planted by Hashem Himself, not unlike Egypt which was also irrigated by the river Nile. (Compare Genesis 2,10)

'כגן ה LIKE THE GARDEN OF GOD in respect of trees,

באכה צוער, all the way to the town of Tzoar. The letter ה at the end of the word באכה, is used in the same way as the same letter in Samuel I 1,26 הנצבת עמכה, “who was standing next to you.” There are other examples of this type in the Holy Scriptures. The letter כ at the beginning of the word ככר is not something that has been added, as many commentators believe, but is similar to that same letter in Leviticus 27,2 בערכך, describing proximity to the priest in that instance, and proximity to the river in this instance. (compare Ibn Ezra on that verse) The Jordan valley was thoroughly irrigated all the way south to Tzoar.

For trees. Rashi inferred this from (2:9): “Adonoy Elohim made grow out of the soil every tree ... in the middle of the garden,” which shows that “garden” refers to trees. And Rashi explained like the land of Egypt “for זרעים” because it is written in Devarim 11:10: “For the land to which you are coming ... is not like the land of Egypt ... where you sowed your זרעים.” This shows that Egypt is a land of זרעים. (Re’m) [Without Rashi’s explanation that “garden” refers to trees, while “Egypt” refers to זרעים,] the verse’s comparisons [to two different places] seem both to relate to the same point. If so, only the better of the two need be mentioned — and if Scripture wishes to mention both, the better one should be mentioned last. It should say, “It was like the land of Egypt, [and was even] like God’s garden.” [Thus the verse’s is difficult to understand,] for if it was as good as Hashem’s garden, surely it was as good as the land of Egypt! Therefore, Rashi explains that the comparisons relate to two different points. (R. Yaakov Kenizal)

כגן ד׳ (כ״ר) כגן ד׳ לאילנות ,כארץ מצרים לזרעים hinsichtlich der Baumkultur, כארץ מצרים hinsichtlich der Bodenfrucht. Es ist nicht ganz unwahrscheinlich, dass sich die Gartenpracht auf Sodom, und der Getreidereichtum auf Amora bezieht. Die Namen der untergegangenen Städte vergegenwärtigen eigentlich alle Reiche der Natur, die dem Menschen ihre Schätze bieten.

כארץ מצרים LIKE THE LAND OF EGYPT in respect of seed (vegetables) (Genesis Rabbah 41:7).

סדום erinnert an שדה, das מ findet sich auch in שדמות ,שדמה, wieder. עמורה bezeichnet עומר, die Garbe: Korn. אדמה den Mineralreichtum. צבוים, Plural von צבי, die lebendige Welt. Die Herren von Sedom und Amora konnten auch auf die Jagd gehen. Es war also ein Reichtum an allem.

באכה צער means AS THOU GOEST עד צוער to Zoar. The Midrashic explanation (Horayot 10b; Genesis Rabbah 41:7) explains it to Lot’s discredit — just because they (the people of Sodom and Gomorrah) were addicted to lewdness did Lot choose their locality.

ככר The word means “a plain” as the Targum translates it.

ויבחר לו לוט, he selected as much area as he himself with his shepherds would manage to control as their grazing land. In this section of the earth Avram and his shepherds would not be allowed to graze.

ויבחר לו לוט את כל ככר הירדן, the reference is to one area within the Jordan valley, the use of the word כל here meaning that all the areas within that region were equally good as grazing land for his flocks.

He departed from Avram. Rashi is answering the question: We see that Beis-Eil, [where they were located,] is in the north. For it is written (12:9): “Avram journeyed [from Beis-Eil], traveling steadily southward.” If so, why does it not say here, “Lot journeyed from the north”? Thus Rashi explains that he “departed from Avram ... traveling from east to west.” The Re’m writes: This is puzzling, as the boundaries of the Land indicate that the Jordan Plain is to the east of Eretz Yisrael, while Beis-Eil is within. Thus, traveling from Beis-Eil, where Avraham lived, to the Jordan Plain entails going to the east! Re’m left this unresolved. It seems to me that the answer is: The Jordan Plain was very large and extended within Eretz Yisrael. It reached close to Jerusalem, which is distant from Beis-Eil and within Eretz Yisrael. [This is possible] because the Jordan Plain was close to Sedom, which is not so far from Jerusalem.

ויפרדו איש מעל אחיו, “they separated totally from one another.” This separation lasted historically throughout the generations so that descendants (male) of Lot were never allowed to convert to Judaism. (Deuteronomy 23,4)

מקדם FROM THE EAST — He removed from Abram and went westward of Abram — consequently he travelled from the East to the West. A Midrashic explanation is: He wandered away from the Originator (מקדמונו) of the Universe, saying, “I want neither Abram nor his God” (Genesis Rabbah 41:7).

ויסע לוט מקדם, he did not turn right or left which were north and south, but he moved from the east to the west to distance himself from Avram [the author translated מקדם as meaning “from the east,” though this is difficult to reconcile with the fact that the Jordan valley is east from the region of Bet El and Ai where Avram and Lot had been reported last in verse 3. The area of the Jordan valley was the area from which the Israelites under the leadership of Joshua would enter the land of Canaan (Joshua chapter 4)

ויסע לוט מקדם, in an easterly direction from the location where he had been with Avram. The river Jordan is east of the land of Canaan, being its eastern boundary. We already explained the letter מ in the word מנגב in 13,3 as meaning “in a southerly direction,” here too the letter מ in the word מקדם means “in an easterly direction.” [the author does not want us to think that the letter מ in either word means “away from,” as if it did the verse would not make sense. Ed.]

From the One Who precedes the world. Otherwise it should say, “Lot journeyed from Avram,” as they were dwelling together, and Lot departed from him. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

ויפרדו איש מעל אחיו, Lot’s traveling towards the Jordan valley resulted in these two brothers separating from one another. Seeing that it was Lot who severed the relationship, it seems strange that the Torah describes it as איש מעל אחיו, “one from another,” as if they were both separating from one another. The Torah describes not the parting, but the result of the parting; after Lot had moved they were in effect apart from one another. Now Avram was a resident of the land of Canaan, whereas Lot had become a resident of the cities in that valley, i.e. he no longer shared Avram’s destiny in the land of Canaan. Even though both were essentially nomads, moving with their herds and flocks, their home bases were different from one another. Lot, although aware of the evil reputation of the people in the cities of that valley, had decided to ignore this, preferring to concentrate on the advantages offered by the land itself.

ויאהל means he pitched tents for his shepherds and cattle עד סדום throughout the whole district extending AS FAR AS SODOM.

ABRAM DWELT IN THE LAND OF CANAAN. The meaning thereof is that he dwelt in the remainder of the entire land of Canaan; he did not stay in one place but abode in the entire land of Canaan while Lot settled in one place thereof, namely, the cities of the Plain, for the cities of the Plain are part of the land of Canaan. The meaning of [the plural “cities” in the expression, and Lot dwelt in] the cities of the Plain, is that he dwelt for a time in this city and a time in the other on account of his many cattle. This is the reason that the verse says, So Lot chose him all the plain of the Jordan;¹⁰⁶Verse 11 here. he made a condition with Abram that he [Abram] should not come into the entire Plain.

אברם ישב בארץ כנען, even though the city of Sodom and its satellite towns are on the border of the land of Canaan, the people living in those cities at that time, were not Canaanites. It was therefore in order for the Torah to write that Avram- as opposed to Lot- settled in the land of Canaan. He settled in the part of the land inhabited by Canaanites. They were not as evil as the Sodomites. Avram did not move close to the boundary of Sodom at all.

ויאהל עד סדום, he moved his tent from place to place, almost as far as the city of Sodom.

אברם ישב בארץ כנען, “Avram dwelled in the land of Canaan.” This means that he lived all over the land of Canaan as opposed to Lot who lived only in the Jordan valley. Avram continued the life of a nomad whereas Lot had a firm abode. The words בערי הככר do not mean that Lot lived in several towns of the valley simultaneously but that he lived “in one of the towns of the valley at a time.” This too was due to the extent of his herds. All of those towns were part of the land of Canaan. This is why the Torah wrote that Lot “chose for himself the entire valley of the Jordan river;” he concluded a treaty with Avram that the latter would not move to any part of that valley.

He pitched tents for his shepherds. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “Setting up his tents as far as Sedom,” [if Lot lived in the Plain]? Thus Rashi explains: “He pitched tents for his shepherds.” I.e., he had many tents and pitched them from the Plain until Sedom.

(12-18) Nicht ויאהל ,ויאמר ד׳ ,וישב אברם; sondern ,לוט ישב ,אברם ישב ויאהל אברם ויבא ,וד׳ אמר. Überall wo in dieser Weise nicht durch den עתיד מהופך die Erzählung weitergeführt, sondern durch den עבר unterbrochen und dann erst wieder in das historische Tempus eingeleitet wird, da ist dieser עבר nicht Perfektum, sondern Plusquamperfektum. Es dürfte hier gerade der Gegensatz zu Lot gezeichnet sein. Während Lot rasch und freudig sich von Abrahams isoliertem und isolierendem Wandel lossagte und sich in den Kreis gerade der üppigsten Städte — er wohnte in den Städten und hatte seinen Viehstand bis an Sedom — niedergelassen hatte, obgleich die Städte in einem Grade sittenverderbt waren, dass dies auch dem blödesten Auge auf den ersten Blick erkennbar sein mußte, hatte Abraham nur noch umsomehr in der Isolierung verharrt, in welcher er sich und die Seinigen vor der Berührung mit den kanaanitischen Städten wahrte, und nur sich in solcher Nähe der Menschengesellschaft hielt, ׳קורא בשם ד sein zu können. Hatte er doch eben die schmerzliche Erfahrung gemacht, dass es ihm nicht einmal gelungen war, seinen nächsten Verwandten für sich und seinen Beruf zu gewinnen und zu fesseln! Und erst nachdem Gott ihn ermuntert und gleichsam gebeten hatte, doch über seinen isolierten Standpunkt hinaus zu blicken, und sich furchtlos für sich und sein Prinzip in das Getriebe des ganzen Landes hineinzubewegen, erst da ging Abraham hinein in das eigentliche Land und ließ sich in Hebron nieder.

ויאהל עד סדום, “he erected his tents as far as Sodom.” He did not take up residence inside the city of Sodom, because he knew that those people were evil and wicked. This is also why later on the Torah described Lot as sitting in the gateway to Sodom. (19,1) His house, though part of the wall of Sodom, had its entrance outside that wall.

ויאהל עד סדום “his tent extended as far as the town of Sodom.” Here the Torah taught us something detrimental about Lot. He chose the proximity of evil people and pitched his tent among them. This is why the Torah immediately continues with telling us what kind of people lived in Sodom.

ואנשי סדום רעים BUT THE MEN OF SODOM WERE WICKED, and yet Lot did not refrain from living with them. Our Rabbis learned from here how the text (Proverbs 10:11) “and the name of the wicked shall rot” should be applied (Yoma 38b).

NOW THE MEN OF SODOM WERE WICKED AND SINNERS. The purport thereof, as Rashi wrote, is that Scripture accuses Lot for not restraining himself from dwelling with them and also speaks of the merit of the righteous one [Abraham] whose lot did not fall in a place of wickedness for the rod of wickedness shall not rest upon the lot of the righteous.¹⁰⁷Psalms 125:3. And all the cities of the Plain were wicked and sinners against the Eternal exceedingly. This was why they alone were overthrown even though all the Canaanites were people of great abominations, for so it is written.¹⁰⁸Leviticus 18:3.

ואנשי סדום רעים וחטאים, the inhabitants of Sodom were evil and wicked. The word רעים describes their attitude to G’d, whereas the word חטאים describes their attitude to fellow human beings (non-residents.) They ignored all the seven Noachide laws, including idolatry, the other 6 laws dealing with inter-personal relations. The Torah, underlining the severity of these people’s wickedness, adds: מאד, “very much so.” They did not bother to conceal their evil deeds but carried them out in the open, brazenly.

Our Sages learned from here, “The names of the wicked shall rot.” There was no need at all for Scripture to write, “The people of Sedom were wicked and sinful.” Scripture wrote this because the people of Sedom needed to be mentioned in the previous verse: “Setting up his tents as far as Sedom.” That is why Scripture writes here that they were “wicked and sinful.” From this Shlomo HaMelech learned, “The names of the wicked shall rot.” I.e., when they are mentioned they should be disparaged.

Die אנשי סדום waren im sozialen Leben, Mensch gegen Mensch, רעים וחטאים, bös und prinzipiell leichtsinnig. חוטֵא ist wohl jeder einmal, allein אחַטָא wie גַנָב ist derjenige, dem der Leichtsinn zum ständigen Charakter gehört. Sie waren also im sozialen Leben רעים: nur den "Bruch", das Unheil schaffend, boshaft bös, und חטאים: es fehlte ihren Handlungen jedes sittliche Prinzip; לדי aber, Gott gegenüber, in ihren Beziehungen zu Gott, wo nicht unmittelbar das soziale Wohl beteiligt erscheint, מאור: ,,in dem ganzen Ausmaß des Möglichen", überstieg ihre Schlechtigkeit alle Grenzen. In sozialer Beziehung wird die Schlechtigkeit schon durch die Furcht des einen vor dem andern, also schon durch das schlechte Selbstinteresse selbst in Schranken gehalten. Selbst unter Räubern stellt sich eine gewisse Rechtlichkeit her. Wo aber dem unerleuchteten Auge die bürgerliche Gesellschaft nicht sofort beteiligt erscheint, wo jeder, wie er sich sagt, nur sein Wohl, sein Heil, seine Gesundheit usw. untergräbt, wofür er nur Gott verantwortlich wäre, wenn Gott ihm etwas gälte, in den מצות בין אדם למקום, kennt in solchen Kreisen die Zügellosigkeit und Ausschweifung keine Grenzen.

ואנשי סדום רעים, “the people of Sodom behaved wickedly toward fellow human beings.” This is spelled out in greater detail in Ezekiel, 17,49,) ויד עני ואביון לא החזיקה; “It did not support the poor or the destitute.”

רעים WICKED in their persons

רעים with their persons. וחטאים with their wealth. Rashi’s explanation is the opposite of Onkelos, who translated: “רעים with their money. וחטאים with their persons.” You might ask: How did Rashi know [that it means as he explained]? The answer is: Yosef said (39:9), “How can I do such a great רעה,” speaking of sinning with his person. Here too, רעים means sinning with their persons. And it is written in Devarim 24:15 about a hired worker: “You shall give him his wage on his day ... lest there be חטא upon you.” And this involves money.

חטא verwandt mit עטה .עטה sich verhüllen und auch: ויעט העם אל השלל (Sam. 1, 14, 32) auf etwas gierig hinstürzen, ohne Überlegung, ob es auch recht oder unrecht ist. So auch עטף eigentümlich: verhüllen und zugleich: schwach sein. Es liegt nahe zu sagen: wie עטף verhüllen heißt und auch physisch schwach sein, so heißt auch vielleicht עטה: verhüllen und zugleich: sittlich schwach werden. Die Vermittlung dieser Begriffe dürfte in dem nicht seltenen Ausdrucke: ותתעטף רוחי liegen: mein Geist hat sich verhüllt, d. h. er ist zurückgetreten, dass in der Hülle, dem Leibe, der Geist nicht mehr sichtbar durchleuchtet, der Leib nicht mehr, wie im lebendigen, gesunden Menschen vom Geiste beherrscht und getragen wird. In solchem Zustande folgt dann der Leib der Schwerkraft der Materie, er sinkt, wird ohnmächtig, schwach, und das ist עטף, wo der Leib bloß eine Hülle wird, in welcher der Geist nicht sichtbar ist. Es scheint, dass ebenso durch עטה die moralische Schwäche als ein solcher Zustand bezeichnet wird, wo der Geist hinter die Hülle zurücktritt, die Hülle, d. i. der Leib, mit ihrer Sinnlichkeit den Geist also überwältigt, dass der Geist nur dem sinnlich Leiblichen und den Eindrücken und Regungen desselben folgt — (so folgt das Volk der Schwerkraft des sinnlichen Gegenstandes, der Anziehungskraft, die die Beute für seine Sinnlichkeit hatte, ויעט אל השלל, fiel "sittlich schwach" über die Beute her). Wenn das wahr ist, dann wäre auch חטא eine solche Handlung, in welcher die sittliche Willenskraft zurückgetreten war, die ohne Überlegung und ohne jene, alle Lebensäußerungen zu beherrschen bestimmte geistig sittliche Potenz, nur unter Herrschaft der Sinnlichkeit erzeugt ward. Bestätigt dürfte diese Auffassung darin werden, dass durch "Nacktheit" ערמה eine solche Tätigkeit bezeichnet wird, in welcher der Geist die vollen Zügel in Händen hält: Klugheit und Besonnenheit. Zu derselben Auffassung führt auch eine andere Verwandtschaft des חטא mit חתה, welches konkret: dem Brande, dem Feuer entziehen heißt, לחתות אש מיקוד (Jesaias 30. 14) und מחתה, das Gefäß dazu. Demgemäß bezeichnete חטא das Entzogensein dem geistig sittlichen Feuer, und הטאת, das Sündopfer, das חלב וכליות dem göttlichen Feuer (wieder) übergibt, wäre dann im buchstäblichen Sinne der symbolische Ausdruck der Restitution des durch חטא Gefehlten.

וחטאים AND SINNERS with their wealth (Sanhedrin 109a)

לה' מאד BEFORE THE LORD, EXCEEDINGLY — They knew their Master and yet intentionally rebelled against Him (Sifra, Bechukotai, Section 2 2).

אחרי הפרד לוט AFTER LOT WAS SEPARATED FROM HIM — So long as the wicked (Lot) was with him the word of God kept away from him (i. e. God had no communion with Abraham) (Midrash Tanchuma, Vayetzei 10).

אחרי הפרד לוט, G’d did not say what follows while Lot was still in Avram’s company, so that the latter would not boast and his shepherds would engage in stealing grazing land from the local inhabitants claiming G’d’s promise to Avram of future possession as their justification.

וה׳ אמר אל אברם. G'd said to Abram. The form of address is unusual. We would have expected ויאמר השם "now G'd said to Abraham, etc." The reason for the form of address chosen by the Torah maybe that the Torah wanted to give us a hint that G'd had already waited a long time to tell Abraham what He now told him, but that as long as the wicked Lot was part of his entourage He could not do so. G'd now fulfilled the second part of what He had said to Abraham in 12,1 i.e. אל הארץ אשר אראך.

וה' אמר אל אברם, this occurred while Lot was still with him. [otherwise the Torah would have used the mode of the immediate past, i.e. ויאמר. Ed.] If not, you might have thought that Lot and his descendants could also have staked a claim to part of the land of Canaan, seeing he was a blood relative of Avram. Now G’d wanted to correct Avram who had said to Lot in verse 9 “the whole land is in front of you, i.e. at your disposal.” Now that Lot had separated from Avram, away from the land of Canaan, G’d wanted to make certain that His promise to Avraham of the land of Canaan applied exclusively to direct offspring of Avram, not to relatives who were descendants of his father Terach. G’d‘s. words contained an implied criticism of Avram having offered Lot a choice which would have made him owner of part of the land of Canaan, when he had said to him: “if to the left, I will go to the right, and if to the right, I will go to the left.” Both the left and the right, i.e. north and south from where he stood, will be his and his descendants. Also east and west would be his. The reason why G’d mentioned north and south first, was because those were the areas which Avram had spoken to Lot about. In Deuteronomy 20,19 Moses quotes the lands which will be the inheritance of Lot’s descendants.

וה' אמר אל אברם אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו, “and G’d had spoken (again) to Avram after Lot had separated from him.” According to Rashi G’d had stopped communicating with Avraham while the latter kept company with the wicked Lot. The difficulty with this commentary is that we read in verse 7 that G’d appeared to Avraham and spoke to him (while he was in the company of Lot, [whom he had taken along without having been instructed to. Ed.])

אחרי הפרד לוט, “after Lot had separated, etc.” The verse teaches that G’d had not communicated with Avram until he had separated himself from a wicked companion.

At that time he was righteous. This can be seen also from Rashi’s comment on v. 10: “It was because they were permeated with immorality that Lot chose their locality.” [We may assume that] Lot became this way due to having been in Egypt, where they also were permeated with immorality, and he learned from them. Furthermore, Rashi explained on v. 11, “Lot removed himself from the One Who precedes the world” — implying that previously he was righteous.

(14-15) ‎הפרד מעמו, nicht bloß מעליו: eine geistig persönliche, nicht bloß räumliche Trennung.

וה' אמר אחרי הפרד לוט מעמו, “and Hashem had said after Lot had separated from him, etc.” G-d had told Avram that he made a mistake when he thought that Lot having moved to Sodom, or the valley near it was enough, as that was also part of the territories that He had in mind to give to Avram’s descendants as their ancestral territory.

וראה מן המקום, "and look from the place, etc." G'd had to emphasise the word מן המקום to alert us to the miracle that He expanded Abraham's sense of vision so that he could see the entire land of Israel from the place he stood on. He did not even have to turn around to look in the different directions.

Nachdem Abraham die bittere Erfahrung gemacht, seinen Brudersohn, also das ihn überlebende zweite Geschlecht, auf den er, der Kinderlose, seine nächste Hoffnung auf Fortdauer seiner geistigen Sendung hätte setzen können, sich von ihm lossagen und um der äußeren materiellen Verlockungen willen lieber in Gemeinschaft mit Sedom und Amora treten zu sehen, sprach Gott zu ihm: nicht einem Manne wie Lot, sondern gerade dir, der du nicht in erster Linie auf materielle Blüte zustrebst, fällt dieses Land mit all seiner Fülle zu Teil, Ich gebe es dir und den von dir stammenden Nachkommen. Nicht sollst du ausziehen und als Missionär andere Menschen für deine Sendung gewinnen. Was dir angehören soll, muß von dir gesäet, von deinem reinen Geiste ge- zeugt und erzogen sein. Juden wollen geboren, nicht nur erzogen sein. — לך אתננה ולזרעך עד עולם. Es ist damit nicht verkündet, dass sie es immer in Besitz haben werden. Gehören wird es ihnen immer, die Bestimmung werden sie und es immer für einander haben, so wie es ja hier auch dem Abraham gegeben wurde, ohne dass er es je persönlich in Besitz erhielt. —

אחרי הפרט לוט מעמו, “the need for this separation was to forestall Lot from ever claiming that his descendants were entitled to part of the land of Israel.” The relevant words concerning this interpretation are: כי את כל הארץ אשר אתה רואה, “for the whole land that you can see;” [Lot had also decided on the basis of what he could see. (13,10) Ed.] G-d emphasised that Lot should never have any claim to any part of the Holy Land.

עלם ,חלם ,הלם ,אלם ,עולם: Grundbedeutung binden. Der Gebundene: Stumme, die Garbe, das Zusammendrängen, d.i. Härten der Metalle. עלם, das Verborgene und die noch unentwickelte Jugend. Geheimnisvoll wie das Wesen erscheint auch die Bezeichnung des Begriffs "Traum" durch חלם. Es bedeutet: Traum, Eierdotter und gesunden. In dem Dotter liegen die Keime des künftigen lebendigen Wesens noch alle ununterschieden und unentwickelt, in einander und untereinander gebunden. Der Traum verhält sich zu dem wachen, intelligenten Bewusstsein wie der Dotter zum Vogel. In ihm webt der ganze Keimvorrat an Vorstellungen und Gedanken, die das wache Bewusstsein zum selbständigen Gedankenorganismus gliedert, ungesondert und ungeordnet, in einander und durcheinander. Genesen ist vielleicht: eine Wiederherstellung des gestörten Zusammenhangs der organischen Kräfte und Säfte; die Wiederherstellung der stofflichen und dynamischen Harmonie des Leibes. Bezeichnet חלם als genesen vielleicht zunächst den Heilungsprozeß von Wunden, und beginnt vielleicht dieser Prozess zuerst mit Schaffen eines flüssigen Bildungsstoffes (Eiter, Blastem), der bei der Reproduktion ganz dieselbe Stelle einnimmt wie der Dotter bei der Produktion? Ist Eiter der Dotter der Reproduktion? Heißt doch auch אולם: stark, gedrungen, gesund. עולם ist die noch unentwickelte Zeit, sowohl jene, in welcher die Gegenwart noch unentwickelt war, als diejenige, die noch gegenwärtig unentwickelt ist. Vergangenheit und Zukunft. Daher: מן העולם עד העולם.

כי את כל הארץ, For the entire land, etc. We are all familiar with the limitations of our eyesight. We can see for a certain distance, no more. We are also familiar with the so-called קפיצת הדרך, telescoping a distance of earth under one into a very small distance such as was experienced by Eliezer on his way to Charan, and Jacob on his way to Charan. In this instance G'd brought the various borders of the land of Israel closer to Abraham so that he could see them all with his normal eyesight. Abraham took possession of the land symbolically because all of it was within his view. Normally speaking, there is no more absolute sign of possession than to move a rock from its location. Here G'd moved the entire land from its location to bring it within the sight of Abraham's eyes.

כי את כל הארץ, even though Avram could not see the whole of the land of Canaan from where he stood, G’d told him to look in all the four directions of the globe to tell him that just as the land extended beyond his range of physical vision in every direction, so G’d would give to his descendants all of this as an inheritance, after at this time already having given it to Avram as a gift. The fact that at the moment this land was under the sovereignty of the Canaanites was legally irrelevant. He, Avram, would transfer title to his descendants as his heirs. [an inheritance cannot be revoked, whereas a gift can be revoked by the donor. Ed.]

כי את כל הארץ אשר אתה רואה, “for the whole land that you can see;” [Lot had also decided on the basis of what he could see. (13,10) Ed.] G-d emphasised that Lot should never have any claim to any part of the Holy Land.

עד עולם, they would expel the nations living here from this land. Even though, eventually, the Israelites themselves would be exiled from their land, in the end they would return there on a permanent enduring basis.

אשר אם יוכל איש SO THAT IF A MAN IS ABLE [TO COUNT] —just as it is impossible for the dust to be counted, so, too, your seed shall not be counted.

ושמתי את זרעך כעפר הארץ, a figure of speech, poetic license, exaggeration. We find more such metaphors, such as in Genesis 22,17 ככוכבי השמים, “as numerous as the stars in heaven.” According to the Midrash Aggadah, Vayetze 25,13 the reason why on occasion the Jewish people and their numbers are compared to dust and on other occasions to the stars, is that when they deserve it they are comparable to the stars in heaven, whereas at times when they do not deserve it, they are compared to the dust of the earth which everyone steps on.

כעפר הארץ. Man darf zweifeln, ob hier geradezu eine buchstäblich "zahllose", "unzählbare" Menge verheißen worden. Israel ist doch in der Tat wiederholt gezählt worden und ist ja auch durchaus nicht an Volksmenge hervorragend, לא מרובבם כי אתם המעט. Es müßte denn nicht an die Zahl zugleich Lebender, sondern an die in unbegrenzter Geschlechtsreihe fortlebenden Nachkommen des hierin in der Tat einzigen unsterblichen Volkes gedacht sein. Es wäre dann jedoch der Vergleich nicht passend. Der Staub ist ja etwas Gleichzeitiges. Möglich aber, dass Abrahams Volk darin ausgezeichnet ist, dass andere Völker wohl kaum einer einzigen Abstammung sind, während hier von einem Manne ein verhältnismäßig so zahlreiches Volk stammt, die zusammen tatsächlich eine einzige Familie bilden. Die Juden sind vielleicht die größte "Familie" auf Erden.

גם זרעך ימנה, if one part of the metaphor comes true so does the other. Just as it is inconceivable to have a world without stars or dust, so it is inconceivable to have a world without Jews. (compare Jeremiah 13,23)

Vergleichen wir jedoch die sonstigen Bedeutungen der rad. ומניתי אתכם לחרב :מנה (Jef. 65.12), לילות עמל מנו לי (Job 7, 3) und die Verwandtschaft mit מנע, das, mit מ־ konstruiert, entziehen, versagen bedeutet, so dürfte wohl מנה nicht ganz identisch mit ספר sein. ספר: zählen, d. i. die Summe der Dinge suchen, die, einem gemeinsamen Begriff angehörig, vorhanden sind. מנה: zuzählen, d. i: die Summe der für einen gemeinsamen Begriff vorhanden sein sollenden Dinge bestimmen. Daher dürfte auch Chron. 1. 21 bei der durch David angeordneten Zählung Raw Hirsch on Genesis 13:2 dieser Auftrag ספרו את ישראל gelautet haben, während Raw Hirsch on Genesis 13: 1 und Raw Hirsch on Genesis 13: 17, wo dieses Zählen in seinem sündhaften und darum verderblichen Charakter aufgefasst wird, dasselbe mit מנה, mit dem Nebenbegriff des Begrenzens, Beschränkens ausgedrückt ist. Demgemäß könnte auch hier vielleicht es also zu verstehen sein: So wenig ein Mensch den Staub der Erde zu zählen, d. h. bestimmen kann, wie viel von diesem Grundstoff aller irdischen Gebilde die Erde überhaupt oder ein Gebilde im besonderen haben soll, wie darüber die Verfügung nur Gott, dem Schöpfer und Meister zusteht, so wird auch keine Menschengewalt über die quantitätive Existenz deiner Nachkommen beschränkend gebieten können. עפר ist das bildungsfähigste Wesen, Grundstoff aller irdischen Wesen, er geht in alle Bildungen ein und alle kehren in ihn zurück — הכל היה מן העפר והכל שב אל עפר — und in allen Umwandlungen geht kein Körnlein von seiner Kraft und kein Körnlein von seiner Masse verloren — also auch Abrahams Samen! Auch die Weisen sehen in diesem Vergleich nicht nur eine numerische Ähnlichkeit, sondern die Analogie des Bildungsprozesses und der Bedeutsamkeit Israels mit denen des irdischen Staubes.

ARISE, WALK THROUGH THE LAND IN THE LENGTH AND IN THE BREADTH OF IT. It is possible that this is a matter of option, depending on his will.¹⁰⁹It is not a command that he go through the entire land, rather it is a promise that he need not fear whenever and wherever he will go. The Eternal thus told Abraham, “Go wherever you wish to go in the land for I will be with you and guard you from the evil of the nations, for unto thee will I give it, that is to say, the land will be yours.” And if it be a command that Abraham should traverse the length and breadth of the land in order to take possession of his gift, as I have explained,¹¹⁰Above, 12:6. he was not commanded to do this immediately. He did so ultimately for he was now in the east, and afterwards he went to the land of the Philistines which is in the west, and thus he fulfilled the command during his lifetime.
The meaning of the expression, to thee… and to thy children,¹¹¹Verse 15 here. is that you are to take possession of the gift now, in order to transmit it to your children, even as our Rabbis have said:¹¹²Baba Bathra 119b. “The land of Israel is an inheritance to the people of Israel from their patriarchs.”
By way of the plain meaning of Scripture, it is possible that the meaning of the verse is that Abraham was to be a ruler over the land and a prince of G-d in its midst,¹¹³See Genesis 23:6. wherever he will go in this land.

קום התהלך בארץ. "Arise, and walk through the land." The Talmud Baba Batra 100 discusses how one acquires title to land. [The context of the discussion is whether the fact that people used someone's private property as a shortcut entitles them to continue to do so even if the property in question changed hands. Ed.] Rabbi Eliezer, basing himself on our verse, claims that merely traversing the land assures one of one's rights to the area one has traversed; the other rabbis hold that one has to go through the regular legal procedure for acquiring title. The rabbis say that our verse is not to be taken as a general rule, but that an exception was made in the case of Abraham who was especially beloved of G'd. G'd intended to facilitate Abraham's descendants taking possession of the land when the time came. According to these rabbis, Abraham's title to the land stems from verse 15 where G'd had promised it to Abraham. The reason G'd rolled the land up so as to bring it close to Abraham was in order that the act of moving it would demonstrate ownership by the person on whose behalf it was moved.

לארכה, according to its length, from east to west; ולרחבה, and to its width from north to south.

לך אתננה, for even in your own lifetime you will be regarded as a prince of G’d, and deserving of great honour (compare Genesis 23,6)

קום התהלך בארץ, “arise and walk freely throughout the land, etc.” This is not a command; G’d merely told Avraham to feel free to travel anywhere in the land as He would protect him against any danger. Alternatively, it is possible to see in these words an instruction to traverse the entire land in order to establish a claim to ownership of that country. In any event, this advice or instruction did not have to be carried out immediately. Nonetheless, Avraham immediately began to carry out this advice/instruction for while we find him in the easterly part of the country at this stage, the Torah reports that he moved south to the region of Hebron (verse 18). Somewhat later, after the destruction of Sodom, he moved to the region controlled by the Philistines (20,1). According to the plain meaning of the text, wherever Avraham pitched his tent, (virgin land) he established property rights and was recognized as its owner.

קום התהלך בארץ, “arise and walk throughout the land, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the words, G’d wanted Avram to stake a claim to different parts of the land already now by setting foot on it and by pointing out its boundaries and his having set foot on it.
From a rational/investigative aspect, the word התהלך is one that occurs in connection with the emanation חכמה such as in Proverbs 6,22 בהתהלכך תנחה אותך, “when you walk it will guide you (the wisdom of Torah).” A similar thought is reflected in Psalms 39, 7 אך בצלם יתהלך איש, “man can walk (successfully) only if he enjoys the ‘image’ of G’d.” This is a reference to the format of the spiritual soul. Only selected righteous people have been mentioned as possessing such distinction. Examples of people who strove for the acquisition of such wisdom are Noach, Chanoch, and Avraham, and others like them. Seeing that Avraham acquired such wisdom in stages and that his soul kept traveling הלוך ונסוע הנגבה, “constantly approaching further to the ‘south,’ the symbol of חכמה, G’d said to Him: ‘arise and walk throughout the land.” This was in response to his unspoken request to attain ever greater insights. (Torat Chayim points out that the numerical value of the word הנגבה=65 equals that of א-דני the attribute of G’d which communicated with him). The relevance of this interpretation of our verse is based on the fact that the Torah nowhere reports that Avram actually traversed the land physically in accordance with G’d’s instructions. All the Torah reports is that Avram pitched his tent in Chevron. In other words, the Torah seems to emphasize that instead of walking Avram ישב “sat” in Chevron. We have already pointed out earlier that even the word ויאהל does not mean to pitch a physical tent as much as it refers to “pitching the tent of Torah”, i.e. establishing a spiritual abode. When G’d added כי לך אתננה, “for to you I will give it,” He also referred to the חכמה Avram had been searching for. G’d was going to grant Avram progressively greater insights into the workings of the universe, and He would help him acquire greater spiritual eminence. This is similar to Kings I 5,29 where the prophet reports וה' נתן חכמה לשלמה, ‘and the Lord had granted חכמה,’the emanation wisdom’ to Solomon.”

Dir gebe ich es, du wirst — wie kein דבר חשוב und דבר המעמיד, wie nichts Charaktervolles und Gestaltendes בטל wird — nicht in sie aufgehen, vielmehr umgekehrt als der einstige Sieger und Herr unter ihnen wandeln. So lange Lot als ערב רב mit ihm wanderte, war das Eingehen in die Völkermitte gefährlich; allein jetzt das reine Abrahams Haus, wie einst sein Volk, kann und soll mitten unter Menschen leben und "Juden" bleiben. — Überall, wo Abraham seine Bestimmung klarer geworden, baute er einen Altar, und so auch hier.

קום התהלך בארץ, “arise and walk throughout the land;” in order to establish claim to it.

It seems to me from all this that one can say, that the Holy One gave the land to Avraham in order that he acquire there two types of benefit. The first is spiritual, and is acquired simply through seeing. The other is physical and is acquired through marking out its boundaries (see Baba Metzia 14b). The spiritual benefit is, that there is the place of the Sanctuary below aligned with the Holy Temple above. There the Lord made a place for His dwelling, and there “was His strengthen hidden.” (Habakuk 3:4) Anyone who gazes upon that holy place is immediately clothed in a spirit of purity and holiness and will see the supernal King with his eyes. Sight alone is enough in order for one to acquire that perfection in the place which Avraham called “The Lord will see” (Bereshit 22:14), which can be read as will see (yireh) or will be seen (yeira’eh). Just as one comes there to see so to they come to be seen, because immediately upon arrival the Divine Presence sees him and he sees the face of the Divine Presence. In that moment, one becomes influenced and ennobled and cleaves to the radiance of the Divine Presence. This is almost like the world to come, because there too the righteous sit and take pleasure in the radiance of His Presence. It is not every place in the land where one can merit to this perfection, but rather in the place which is called ‘The Lord sees,’ which is Mount Moriah and Bet El because above it is written “…until Beth El…To the place of the altar that he had made at first…” (Bereshit 13:3-4) and below (28:17) Rashi states that the Holy Temple came out to Bet El to meet him (Yaakov). The commentators explain that from that moment on those two places were connected, the place of the Holy Temple and Bet El, and became one. Therefore it was said here to Avram “Please raise your eyes and see, from the place where you are…” (Genesis 13:14) God indicated directly that this spiritual perfection which is acquired through sight will only be acquired by him from the place which he stood, which was Bet El. This is what is implied by the plain meaning of the verses “And he went on his journeys, from the south and until Beth el.” This is also what is meant by “to the land that I will show you,” (Bereshit 12:1) that I will show you there, for this reason you will see the King in His beauty with your own eyes.

כי לך, “for to you, etc.” You are to establish your claim to this land already now, in your lifetime, whereas your descendants will claim it as in inalienable inheritance. Some commentators see in the words קום התהלך בארץ which G’d said to Avraham a criticism for Avraham voluntarily having agreed to share the land with Lot when he offered him the choice of selecting areas to his right or to his left, as if he were saying that he did not need such a vast inheritance for himself alone, seeing that he did not even have a son to bequeath it to. G’d told him that he would indeed spread out to the north, south, east and west, as his descendants would be so numerous. If Avraham were to ask why he needed all this, G’d added that his descendants would be so numerous that they would defy attempts to count them all. Still another explanation of the words כעפר הארץ, “as the dust of the earth” is that just as ordinary people use dust to step on, to thresh around in, so kingdoms will (at times) use your descendants as something to be threshed (to extract their full value from?).

ממרא MAMRE — the name of a man.

ויאהל אברם, an expression denoting the encamping, erecting one’s many tents.

ויאהל אברם, he moved his tent from there and pitched it from one place to another until he arrived at Eloney Mamre. This is not the same אלון מורה mentioned in 12,6. The previous place was located in the plain, and the owner of that site was called Moreh. Here we speak of at least two plains belonging to a person called Mamre, the brother of Eshkol and the brother of Aner.

The name of a person. I.e., not the name of a place. For it is written (v. 24): “The men who went with me Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei.”

ויאהל אברם ויבא וישב, “Avram pitched his tent and arrived and settled;” actually, we would have expected the Torah to write the following sequence: ויבא אברם ויאהל וישב, “Avram arrived, pitched his tent, and settled;” we learn from the inverted sequence that the meaning of the word: ויאהל, here cannot be the usual meaning, i.e. “he pitched his tent;” here it means that “he folded his tent.” There are many words in the holy Tongue that have two different meanings depending the context in which they appear. The second meaning may be the opposite of the usual one. The best known example of this is the word דשן, which in Leviticus 6,3 means ash, residue, whereas in Exodus 27,3 is used as something being collected in special containers instead of something to be scattered removed. At any rate, Avram moved his tent from noman’s land in the land of Canaan to inhabited regions, i.e. elon moreh.

אשר בחברון, within the general area of Chevron.

ויבן שם מזבח, in order to call people to worship the Lord G’d at the altar he had built there. Wherever Avram made a permanent halt, stayed for a period, he used to build an altar and preach in the name of the Lord.