Questions:
Abraham brought Lot all the way to Canaan with him at the beginning of this week's Torah portion. Why do they separate? What was their argument about?
Why did Lot choose to move to Sodom?
Did Lot know that the people of Sodom were wicked when he moved there?
According to Rashi, the shepherds of Lot and the shepherds directly employed by Avraham had a very different understanding of God's promise that the land of Canaan would one day belong to Avraham's children. Lot's shepherd's believed that meant they could graze their sheep anywhere! Even on land that was owned by someone else.
According to Rashi, what was the true cause of Avraham and Lot separating after being together for so many years?
ועל דרך הפשט היתה המריבה על המרעה כי לא נשא אותם הארץ וכאשר היה מקנה אברם רועה באחו היו רועי לוט באים בגבולם ורועים שם והנה אברם ולוט היו גרים ותושבים בארץ ופחד אברם פן ישמע הכנעני והפריזי יושב הארץ כובד מקניהם ויגרשום או יכו אותם לפי חרב ויקחו להם מקניהם ורכושם כי ישיבת הארץ עתה להם לא לאברם וזה טעם והכנעני והפריזי כי הזכיר שהיו עמים רבים יושבים בארץ ההיא ולהם ולמקניהם אין מספר ולא ישא אותם הארץ ואת אברם ולוט וממלת אז יראה לי כי העמים היו בארץ בימים ההם יושבי אהל ומקנה נאספים מקצתם אל עיר אחת ורועים שם שנה או שנתים ונוסעים משם אל גבול אחר אשר לא רעו אותו וכן יעשו תמיד כמנהג בני קדר והכנעני והפריזי היו אז בארץ הנגב ובשנה האחרת יבואו שם היבוסי והאמורי:
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.” 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.
According to Ramban, the cause of Avraham and Lot separating was basic scarcity. There was not enough food for them both to live together. What evidence does Ramban have to support his theory?
Who do you think is more convincing, Rashi or Ramban?
Do you have your own idea?