When Avraham described his relationship with Lot, he did not simply state that he and Lot were “achim” (“brothers” or “relatives”), but rather emphasized that they are “anashim achim” – “men who are brothers.” “Anashim” should be able to resolve conflicts and find a workable arrangement to avoid petty arguing. Additionally, Avraham here reminds us that family relations should be a reason for greater pleasantness and amiability, and not a cause for friction and tension.
The Torah relates in Parashat Lekh-Lekha that Avraham amassed considerable wealth during his brief sojourn in Egypt, where he temporarily relocated to escape the drought that ravaged Canaan. His nephew, Lot, who traveled with him, also became wealthy in Egypt. Upon their return to Canaan, Avraham and Lot encountered difficulty living together, given their large, numerous herds of sheep and cattle. Avraham therefore proposed to his nephew that they part ways: “Let there not be a fight between me and you, or between my shepherds and your shepherds, for we are men who are brothers. Behold, the entire land is yours – please separate from me” (13:8-9).
A number of commentators noted the unusual construction, “anashim achim” (“men who are brothers”) with which Avraham described his relationship with Lot. He did not simply state that he and Lot were “achim” (“brothers” or “relatives”), but rather emphasized that they are “anashim achim” – “men who are brothers.” How might we explain this description?
Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his Ha-ketav Ve-ha-kabbala, suggests that Avraham here points to two reasons why he and Lot should not argue. The word “anashim,” though generally translated simply as “men,” is also often used in specific reference to people of stature and distinction (as in Bamidbar 13:3 – “they were allanashim; they were the heads of the Israelites”). Avraham explained to Lot that they must stop fighting for two reasons: they are “anashim,” and they are “brothers.” As wealthy, prominent and distinguished figures, it was beneath them to argue and to allow their differences to cause friction and tension. “Anashim” should be able to resolve conflicts and find a workable arrangement – such as a peaceful disengagement – to avoid petty arguing. Additionally, irrespective of their social stature, they should avoid conflict for the simple reason that they are “achim,” relatives, who should make every effort to maintain congenial and pleasant relations.
Unfortunately, these two factors, which ought to lead people away from conflict and discord, are very often the cause of fighting. Many people who rise to the status of “anashim,” who achieve wealth or prominence, become more demanding and less flexible, viewing their position as a basis for special entitlement. They have little tolerance for those who fail to grant them the respect and privileges they believe they deserve. Rather than considering themselves above petty arguing, they instead insist and fight over trivial and inconsequential matters. Likewise, the factor of “achim” oftentimes is a source of additional arguing, rather than a reason to avoid arguing. Many people act and speak pleasantly and amiably in social contexts, but are quarrelsome and unyielding at home. Avraham here reminds us that family relations should be a reason for greater pleasantness and amiability, and not a cause for friction and tension. People who succeed in getting along with their peers and associated outside the home should ensure to maintain at least this same level of affability among their family members.