(link to original page)

Abraham, Lot, the Canaanite, and the Promise of the Land

Pinhas Leiser

Abraham and Lot began their journey together, as it is written;
"And Lot went with him" (Genesis 12:4). We can understand from their walking
together that at the beginning of his way Lot joined Abraham and connected his fate and
goals to the fate of his uncle, who walked following G-d's command from his country and
homeland to an unknown country.

The Torah tells us very little about Lot and his acceptance of the
vision in which Abraham was willing to leave the known and build a new culture, a
culture of faith and lovingkindness.

Lot accompanied Abraham on his journey from Haran to the Land of Canaan,
apparently joined Abraham when he traveled to Egypt following the famine
in Canaan and returned with Abraham to Canaan, when both had accumulated
great wealth (Bereishit 13:2-5).

Abraham apparently had an additional Individual accompanying him on his journey. At
each stop along the way, a connection was established between Abraham and G-d.
Within this connection G-d sometimes revealed Himself to Abraham, and other times
Abraham built an altar for "the G-d who appears to Him". G-d punished Pharaoh, who
took Sarai, Abraham's wife-sister and indirectly caused Abraham's return to Canaan.
Lot did not share in Abraham's connection with G-d.

Upon their return to Canaan, there is a radical change in the
relationship between Abraham and Lot (Genesis 13:6-12). This change is consummated
when they separate and each goes his own way. Upon a first reading, it simply appears
that overcrowded conditions prevented Abraham and Lot from dwelling near each other.

Rashi, following the Sages in Bereishit Rabbah, examines the tension between the
herdsmen of Abraham and those of Lot in a different light: "'And there was a quarrel'
because Lot's shepherds were wicked men and grazed their cattle in other people's
fields. Abraham'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 dwelt then in the land', so that Abram
was not yet entitled to possession" (Rashi on Bereishit, Ch. 13:7). The disagreement
between Abram's herdsmen, who likely accepted Abram's values and followed his
instructions, and Lot's herdsmen takes place, as described by Rashi, within the context
of a value system. Two different perspectives on G-d's promise emerge here.
Abraham's perspective is influenced by his constant, direct communication with G-d. Lot
and then his herdsmen understand G-d's promise as an absolute declaration in which
profit and power can be gained and this promise may be carried out immediately. All this
also results in the rejection of any other considerations. According to this perspective,
neither the present reality nor moral considerations which might prevent the promise
from being carried out should be taken into account, since G-d's promise is above all
else.

In contrast to Lot, Abraham and his herdsmen comprehend the importance of
distinguishing between G-d's promise and the existing reality. They also understand
that moral considerations involving G-d's promise must be taken into account since
Abraham's G-d, being "the Judge of the Land" would not "allow injustice to reign".

Because Abraham felt gratitude to G-d for the promise granted to him, he
was profoundly anxious about the realization of this promise. When Abraham reached
Alon Moreh, G-d revealed Himself to Abraham and promised him that He would give his
descendents the land of Canaan. Abraham responded by building an altar "to G-d who
appeared to him". Rashi, following the Midrash, provides this commentary: "for the good
tidings that he would have children, and for the good tidings that they would possess
the land of Israel" (Rashi Bereishit 12:7). Abraham's act of building an altar is then a
religious response in an expression of gratitude.

The next verse (12:8) mentions that Abraham builds another altar. Here
Rashi again writes following the Midrash: "And he built there an altar –
He perceived through the gift of prophecy that his descendents would once
stumble there through Achan's transgression: therefore he prayed there for them" (Rashi
Bereishit, 12:8).

Abraham understands that in spite of G-d's promise, his children might
misinterpret the moral significance of the promise and be dragged down. They might
commit undesirable acts as a result of impulses stimulated by the act of conquering the
land (Achan). The second altar that Abraham builds expresses this anxiety and
represents both the hope and prayer that in the end his descendents will be worthy of
the promise (Achan's transgression occurred during the conquest of the land between
Beth-El and Ai). When the land was promised once more to Abraham in a pact of the
halves, Abraham asks, "How can I really know that it will be mine?" (Genesis 15:8). The
commentators Rabbi Ovadiah from Solfranu, the Sforno, and the Ramban provide us
with their interpretations. The Sforno writes:

"Whereby shall I know? Perhaps my children will sin and not bear to
inherit it." (Sforno, Bereishit 15:8)

The Ramban writes:

"When Abraham asked, 'How can I really know that it
will be mine?' he did not expect to receive a sign. G-d did not show him, as in other signs
or miracles, a wondrous act, but asked Abraham to know that the land would be his.
Neither he nor his descendents should commit a sin preventing this from happening and
the Canaanites would not repent , so that the following prophecy would occur:. 'At one
instant I may speak about plucking up, breaking down, or destroying a nation. If,
however, that nation turns from its evil ways because of my words against it, I repent of
the evil I thought of inflicting upon it.' (Jeremiah 18:7-8). G-d, who made a covenant with
Abraham, will fulfill His promise in any case." (Ramban Bereishit 15:7).

Abraham is afraid then that the realization of the promise will depend
on the actions of his children and is therefore very concerned. The promise is
strengthened by the establishment of the covenant. The reality of the covenant creates
an additional meaning, that of reciprocity, according to Rashi: "And I will establish My
covenant – And what is this Covenant? To be a G-d unto thee. For an everlasting
possession – and there I will be your G-d. (Rashi, Bereishit, 17:7-8) That is, the promise
made because of the covenant is not a guarantor or deed of registry. The existence of
the covenant between G-d and Abraham's descendents is conditional on "being a G-d
unto thee." However, there is a lasting imprint of the covenant passed down from
generation to generation through the ritual of circumcision, that is the covenant of our
father, Abraham. The possession is everlasting in the spiritual realm. It is not, however,
a prize, but an anchor in reality enabling the fulfillment of the spiritual and moral vision
where "there I will be your G-d."

Lot is not a partner in this vision, as Rashi writes following the
Midrash (Rashi on Bereishit 13:11): "And Lot journeyed from the East (mikedem): He
roved away from the First Essence of the World (mikadmono shel olam) He wandered
away from the Creator of the Universe, saying, 'I want neither Abram nor his
G-d' (Gen. R. 41).
The absence of Abraham's G-d in Lot's journey, the judge of all the land and the G-d of
lovingkindness, is an essential element in Lot's concrete and absolute understanding of
G-d promise.

Abraham is able to distinguish between the promise he believes in, the promise given
as part of a covenant, and the practical and moral prospects in the realization of that
promise. Abraham is very anxious about the potential dangers involved in transforming
the promise into reality.

In the Biblical story, the only way for Abraham to deal with this
struggle is "to separate from me". Abraham probably understood that the
land "could not support them to dwell together". The deep ideological
conflict between the two views would not enable the continuation of their
journey together. These differences could even deteriorate into a state
of civil war resulting in bloodshed. Therefore, the separation enabled each of
them to choose the path they believed in. This separation enables us to
examine the potential results of the different ways Lot and Abraham
chose.
At the end of the story Lot reached Sodom, a city full of evil and sinful
inhabitants and he needs Abraham's help to save him. The entire land,
including that of Lot, was promised to Abram, who upheld the conditions of the
covenant. This story, as a "sign passed down to the coming generations", enables us to
examine the relationship between G-d's promise and the concrete reality. We must take
into account moral values, which constitute an important aspect of this promise.
Peaceful coexistence is apparently impossible between "Abram's herdsmen" and "Lot's
herdsmen". In order to avoid a bloody conflict (as between Cain and Abel, in which the
Midrash assigns their disagreement a moral character), the two sides should peacefully
separate or find an alternate way to peacefully settle the conflict.

We are in pain upon realizing that what happened three years ago on the Saturday
night following Lech Lecha proves this all too clearly.

Pinhas Leiser, editor of "Shabbat Shalom", is a psychologist.

Translated by Evelyn Ophir