Avraham and Lot: Moving Beyond "Who Started It"

     The Torah in Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of the strife that erupted between Avraham’s shepherds and Lot’s shepherds after their return from their brief sojourn in Egypt.  Rashi (13:7) cites the Midrash as filling in the details of this argument, relating that Lot’s shepherds allowed their flocks to graze on other people’s property, drawing the criticism of Avraham’s ethically-attuned shepherds.  To defend what would certainly constitute outright theft, Lot’s shepherds contended that God promised the land of Canaan to Avraham’s offspring, and since Avraham had no children, Lot was his de facto inheritor.  As such, the land effectively belonged to Lot, and thus his animals, according to the shepherds, were entitled to graze freely anywhere throughout Canaan. 

Quite obviously, this argument was fundamentally flawed on two counts: God’s promise to Avraham had not yet been fulfilled, and thus the land did not yet belong to him or his offspring; and, secondly, Avraham would eventually produce offspring, and thus Lot was not the inheritor.  Chazal portray the shepherds as concocting nonsensical arguments to defend an indefensible position, demonstrating the dangers of subjective reasoning and how personal interests can skew our perspective and prevent us from rational, objective assessments of right and wrong.

Significantly, Avraham, in responding to the situation, makes no mention at all of theft or of the shepherds’ outrageous claim.  He approaches the situation from a strictly pragmatic standpoint: “Let there not be a fight between me and you, or between my shepherds and yours, for we are brothers.  Look, you have the entire land before you; separate, if you will, from me…” (13:8-9).  Avraham speaks not a word of criticism to Lot, and makes no attempt to present himself as the morally correct party in this affair, which he certainly was.  Instead, he recognized the problem and sought a reasonable, peaceful solution.  Avraham’s aim was not to prove himself right and his nephew wrong, but rather to resolve the unfortunate crisis that suddenly arose.

Very often, the questions of “who started” and of who’s right and who’s wrong are the least important questions to be answered in situations of conflict.  The more important question is, what is the wisest, most beneficial way to handle the situation?  Criticizing the other and defending oneself will seldom lead to a workable solution, and often causes both parties more aggravation.  The wiser approach is that of Avraham Avinu, who ignored the issue of who was right, and focused instead on finding a sound, sensible and pragmatic resolution to the conflict.