We read in Parashat Lekh-Lekha (chapter 15) of the berit bein ha-betarim (literally, “covenant between the pieces”), the covenantal ceremony during which God promises Avraham that he will father a large nation that will live in Canaan. At one point during this ceremony, we are told, “The sun was about to set, and a deep sleep came upon Avraham; behold, great dark descended upon him” (15:12). As Avraham slept in the darkness, God warned him of the bondage to which his descendants would be subjected, and promised that they will ultimately emerge as a free nation and return to Canaan. As Rashi explains, the setting of the sun and the darkness that descended upon Avraham symbolized the darkness and suffering of the Egyptian exile, of which God informs Avraham in this prophecy. The Netziv, in his Ha’amek Davar, adds that the word shemesh (sun) is sometimes used to signify the overt manifestation of divine providence in the world. He cites as an example a verse in Sefer Tehillim (84:12) – “Ki shemesh u-magen Hashem Elokim” (“For the Lord God is a sun and shield”). The setting of the sun in this prophecy to Avraham thus represents the concealment of divine providence during Benei Yisrael’s periods of exile and oppression, when it appears as though God has forsaken them, Heaven forbid, and no longer takes interest in their well-being.
Rav Meir Simcha Ha-kohen, in his Meshekh Chokhma, makes a fascinating observation in his comments to this verse, namely, that it is here that the Torah uses the word shemesh for the first time. In Parashat Bereishit, in describing the creation of the sun, the Torah (1:16) refers to it as ha-ma’or ha-gadol – “the large luminary.” The word shemesh, however, the primary Hebrew word for “sun,” appears for the first time only here, in God’s prophecy to Avraham.
The Meshekh Chokhma explains that the word shemesh evolves from the Aramaic verb (which is also used in modern Hebrew) sh.m.sh., which means “serve.” (The only instance of this verb in Tanakh is in Sefer Daniel 7:10.) Avraham succeeded in turning the sun back into a shemesh – a servant, or attendant, of the Almighty, rather than an independent supernatural force. The Rambam famously describes in the beginning of Hilkhot Avoda Zara how idolatry evolved to the point where its followers did not acknowledge the existence of a single, divine entity governing the natural world. They instead ascribed divine power and authority to the various forces of nature. Avraham’s struggle against paganism entailed proving that the sun is but a shemesh – a subordinate force, in the “service,” so-to-speak, of the Almighty. For this reason, the Meshekh Chokhma suggests, it is only when Avraham emerges on the scene and launches his campaign against polytheism that the sun became called shemesh, which emphasizes its dependence upon and subservience to God, contrary to the pagan attribution of intrinsic divine powers to the celestial bodies.
The Torah tells in Parashat Lekh-Lekha that after Avraham’s return to Canaan from his sojourn in Egypt, a quarrel erupted between his shepherds and those of his nephew, Lot. The verse reads, “There was an argument between the shepherds of Avram’s cattle and the shepherds of Lot’s cattle; and the Canaanites and Perizites were then dwelling in the land” (13:7).
The commentators offer different explanations for the relevance of the final phrase – “and the Canaanites and Perizites were then dwelling in the land” – to this quarrel. The most obvious explanation, it would seem, is that of Chizkuni, who writes that the presence of other peoples in Canaan resulted in very limited availability of pasture for Avraham and Lot, and the shepherds therefore fought over the few areas to which they did have access. Seforno and Abarbanel suggest that the controversy between the shepherds gave Avraham and Lot a bad reputation among the other peoples, who looked upon them as a difficult and quarrelsome clan. This phrase thus highlights the urgent need Avraham sensed to end the infighting immediately. Rashi explains that the dispute erupted when Lot’s shepherds allowed their cattle to graze in private property, and thus drew the condemnation of Avraham’s shepherds, who were trained to bring the cattle specifically to ownerless territories. Lot’s shepherds responded that once God promised all of Canaan to Avraham, the land legally belonged to him. The Torah therefore adds, “and the Canaanites and Perizites were then in the land,” to indicate that their presence meant that Avraham had not yet taken legal possession over Canaan.
A particularly novel interpretation of this verse appears in the work Lu’ach Erez, written by Rav Yitzchak Kunstadt of Pressburg (published in Vienna, 1915). Referring to his reading as a remez (allusion), rather than the primary, straightforward meaning, the Lu’ach Erez speculates that the quarrel between the two groups of shepherds involved a conflict between the Canaanites and the Perizites. On many occasions throughout Jewish history, different camps among the Jews supported different sides of international conflicts, on the assumption that their support would yield dividends in the form of the given party’s favorable disposition towards the Jews. The fighting among the shepherds perhaps represents the first example of this kind of bitter dispute. “And the Canaanites and Perizites were then dwelling in the land” means that they were engaged in conflict, and Avraham’s and Lot’s shepherds were divided on the question of which nation to support.
On this basis, the Lu’ach Erez suggests a novel interpretation also of Avraham’s response to the conflict. He says to Lot, “Please, let there not be a fight between me and you, and between my shepherds and your shepherds, because we are brothers” (13:8). Avraham perhaps warns Lot against involvement in external conflicts, because neither party is genuinely concerned about the welfare of outside supporters. They solicit support by forming temporary alliances, the mutuality of which dissolves the moment the support is no longer necessary. Avraham therefore emphasizes, “for we are brothers” – only he and Lot have genuine fealty and unconditional devotion to one another. The Canaanites and Perizites, by contrast, seek to promote only their own respective agendas, and Lot and Avraham thus have nothing to gain by supporting one party over the other.