|ו וְלֹא-נָשָׂא אֹתָם הָאָרֶץ, לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו: כִּי-הָיָה רְכוּשָׁם רָב, וְלֹא יָכְלוּ לָשֶׁבֶת יַחְדָּו.||6 And the land was not able to bear them, that they might dwell together; for their substance was great, so that they could not dwell together.|
The reason this verse struck me was because it personifies the land. It suggests the land is unable to bear both Lot and Avraham. Why should this be so? The implication that immediately came to mind is that Lot might have already shown signs of problematic (or sinful) behavior. The reason I thought this might be plausible is because we later find out that the land of Israel has special properties and cannot bear sin. See Leviticus 18:24-28.
We know that Esau is seen to be a sinner, or at least to allow sin in his household, even according to the peshat, because he marries women outside of the family construct and religion (see Genesis 26:34-35 and 27:46). This supports my thesis that the land could not bear Abraham and Lot together, not simply because there wasn't enough grass to support both their flocks, but because they were fundamentally different- one was given to sin and one was not.
So then I perused some commentaries and found that the Netziv says exactly what I intuited.
ולא יכלו לשבת יחדו. הוא כפל לשון. ובא ללמדנו דלא משום שלא הספיקה מרעה הארץ לצאנם כמו דכתיב להלן ל״ו ז׳ ולא יכלה ארץ מגוריהם לשאת אותם מפני מקניהם. אלא משום שהיו הטבעים רחוקים ולא היה לוט לצוותא לאברם כי אם מרחוק. אבל יחדיו לא יכלו לשבת. ובאשר היה רכושם רב היו מוכרחים לפגוע זב״ז. והיתה פגישתם למשא על אברם ומ״מ לא מצא אברם עדיין לב להגיד לו להפרד עד.
So now the question is- at this point, what exactly is Lot's flaw? In what way is his nature different from Abraham's? And how can we determine it from this point in the narrative (prior to his having done anything that could be seen as problematic, such as the episode with his daughters?)
My suggestion is that the fundamental difference between Abraham and Lot has to do with how much appearance matters to them. Lot is led astray by his eyes while Abraham is not. Here's what I mean by this.
In Shakespeare's "The Merchant of Venice" there is a scene where Portia's suitors must choose between three caskets- one made of gold, one made of silver and one made of lead- in order to win her. Her portrait is within one of the caskets. Each casket bears a legend. The gold one reads "Who chooseth me shall gain what many men desire." The silver one reads "Who chooseth me shall get as much as he deserves." The lead one states "Who chooseth me must give and hazard all he hath." The point, of course, is to make sure the suitor is worthy.
Those who choose by appearance alone are caught in a trap. Morocco does so, choosing the gold, and here is what happens:
O hell! what have we here?We know that Lot chooses his future dwelling place by appearance alone (Genesis 13:10-11).
A carrion Death, within whose empty eye
There is a written scroll! I'll read the writing.
ReadsAll that glitters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:Many a man his life hath soldBut my outside to behold:Gilded tombs do worms enfold.Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgment old,
Your answer had not been inscroll'd:
Fare you well; your suit is cold.
Cold, indeed; and labour lost:
Then, farewell, heat, and welcome, frost!
Portia, adieu. I have too grieved a heart
To take a tedious leave: thus losers part.
Lot is not at fault for selecting a place that would be good for pasturing his flock, but one can argue he is at fault for not a) seeking to learn more about the inhabitants of the town prior to moving there and b) not leaving the place once he is able to determine what they are like. Additionally, the very methodology behind his choice (focusing on appearance) is problematic because it is a repeat of the exact sin that Eve commits earlier in Genesis 3:6.
|ו וַתֵּרֶא הָאִשָּׁה כִּי טוֹב הָעֵץ לְמַאֲכָל וְכִי תַאֲוָה-הוּא לָעֵינַיִם, וְנֶחְמָד הָעֵץ לְהַשְׂכִּיל, וַתִּקַּח מִפִּרְיוֹ, וַתֹּאכַל; וַתִּתֵּן גַּם-לְאִישָׁהּ עִמָּהּ, וַיֹּאכַל.||6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat; and she gave also unto her husband with her, and he did eat.|
In contrast to Lot, Abraham is someone who specifically does not look at appearances. Note that when Sarai, his wife, is first referenced in the text, her looks are not mentioned at all (see Genesis 11:29).
|כט וַיִּקַּח אַבְרָם וְנָחוֹר לָהֶם, נָשִׁים: שֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-אַבְרָם, שָׂרָי, וְשֵׁם אֵשֶׁת-נָחוֹר מִלְכָּה, בַּת-הָרָן אֲבִי-מִלְכָּה וַאֲבִי יִסְכָּה.||29 And Abram and Nahor took them wives: the name of Abram's wife was Sarai; and the name of Nahor's wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran, the father of Milcah, and the father of Iscah.|
What this suggests is a fundamental difference between Lot and Abraham that is portrayed in the Torah from the get-go. Lot is the kind of person who looks at the outside and judges by appearances. Abraham is the kind of person who looks at the inside, judges a person by their worth, and only references the outside appearance when he must.
A person who cares about image and status is someone who looks to appearances and does not do further research. A person who cares about depth and is driven by mission as opposed to image or status is not concerned with appearances.
Abraham continues to demonstrate his focus on meaning and mission as opposed to image and status when, in the next chapter, he categorically refuses to benefit from the profits reaped in saving his kinsman Lot (Genesis 14:22-23) during a battle:
Indeed, he specifically mentions God (referencing his monotheistic beliefs as opposed to the common idolatrous ones) and credits God with the victory.
If we identify Lot's flaw as his being overly concerned with appearance, and thus image and status, we can come to understand his disturbing thought process when he privileges unknown strangers over his own virgin daughters (Genesis 19:8).
|ח הִנֵּה-נָא לִי שְׁתֵּי בָנוֹת, אֲשֶׁר לֹא-יָדְעוּ אִישׁ--אוֹצִיאָה-נָּא אֶתְהֶן אֲלֵיכֶם, וַעֲשׂוּ לָהֶן כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֵיכֶם; רַק לָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵל, אַל-תַּעֲשׂוּ דָבָר, כִּי-עַל-כֵּן בָּאוּ, בְּצֵל קֹרָתִי.||8 Behold now, I have two daughters that have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes; only unto these men do nothing; forasmuch as they are come under the shadow of my roof.'|
To Lot, maintaining the appearance of being a welcoming, hospitable host who upholds guest-right is more important than his daughters' welfare.
Unfortunately, even today there are far too many people who are concerned with maintaining appearances while their own brethren suffer:
Let us hope that we allow for more Abrahams and fewer Lots going forward.