וְלֹא־נָשָׂ֥א אֹתָ֛ם הָאָ֖רֶץ לָשֶׁ֣בֶת יַחְדָּ֑ו כִּֽי־הָיָ֤ה רְכוּשָׁם֙ רָ֔ב וְלֹ֥א יָֽכְל֖וּ לָשֶׁ֥בֶת יַחְדָּֽו׃
Y la tierra no podía darles para que habitasen juntos: porque su hacienda era mucha, y no podían morar en un mismo lugar.
Midrash BeChiddush
Firstly, one should note that Abraham was greater in the eyes of God than any human being from the time the world was created. Because of God’s great love of Abraham, God placed His name on him. He was the first person to say that Hashem was his God, and that he was “My (God’s) friend.” (Is. 41:8) In an hour of such great joy God said to Abraham, ““That one shall not be your heir but your very own issue shall be your heir,”5See continuing passages (Gen. 15:4) and, ‘I shall make your offspring like the stars in the heavens.’6See Genesis 13:6 and 32:13 - This statement is not a biblical quote; the authFor conflates these two statements with Genesis 15:5 Why did God also decree such suffering on Israel, subjugation and affliction for four hundred years without giving a reason? (Gen. 15:13-14)
Ramban
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.
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.
Chizkuni
כל אשר יתן ממנו, “all that he gives of it, etc.” the Torah employs the masculine mode here although the word בהמה, the subject here, is a beast in the feminine mode. This is not a unique occurrence, as other such examples are to be found in Leviticus 6,8, where the pronoun ממנו, which is masculine, is used in reference to the noun מנחה, which is feminine; two more such anomalies occur in Numbers 32,5 and Genesis 13,6.