Genesis 13 — The Separation from Lot and «Walk through the Land»

Meaning

Genesis 13 occupies a precise theological place within the arc of the patriarchs: it is not a mere relocation of flocks, but the account of a separation that generates promise. Avràm goes up from Egypt toward the Nèghev — the arid southern region, from the root nagav, «to be dry» — and the text describes him as «very heavy» (kaved me'od) with livestock, silver, and gold: the root k-v-d, «to weigh», is the same one that generates kavod, «glory». Avràm's wealth is literally a weight, and it will be precisely this heaviness that renders the land unable to «carry» the two clans: lo nasà' otam ha-aretz, «the land could not support them» (v. 6).

The return takes place by «stages of encampment» (le-massà'av) as far as Bet-El, «to the place of the altar that he had built there at the beginning» (ba-rishonah). The detail is not topographical but cultic: Avràm returns to the point of the first consecration, and there he «called upon the Name of the Tetragrammaton» (va-yiqra be-shem YHWH) — a public act of proclamation of the Name, not interior prayer: the preposition be- makes the Name the very medium of the act. The whole chapter thus remains framed under the sign of the covenant.

The rîv among the herdsmen — a technical term of Hebrew juridical language (Ex 17:7; Deut 33:8) — introduces the crisis. Avràm defuses it with a formula at once ethical and diplomatic: «we are men, brothers» (anashîm achîm anàchnu), a predicative structure without a copula in which achîm covers the bond of blood, of clan, and of covenant. And he reverses the logic of the stronger party: he, the uncle, the holder of the promise, offers his nephew the first choice: hippared, «separate yourself» (Nifal of p-r-d).

Lot «lifts up his eyes» (vayyissa' et-einav) and sees the kikkàr ha-Yardèn, the «disc» of the Jordan, all irrigated «like the garden of the Tetragrammaton and like the land of Egypt». His is an entirely optical and egocentric choice — the text stresses that «he chose for himself» — and the narrator immediately notes its trajectory: «he pitched his tents as far as Sedòm» (vayyèhel ʿad-Sedom), while the men of Sedòm were «wicked and great sinners before the Tetragrammaton» (v. 13). After the separation the Tetragrammaton speaks to Avràm with the very same gesture — «lift up your eyes» (v. 14) — but in reversed direction: not the visible and immediate plain, but the four cardinal points and the land received by promise, with a descendance (zèraʿ, collective seed) «like the dust of the earth», innumerable. The final command — Qum hithallèkh ba-àretz, «arise, walk through the land» (v. 17) — transforms the physical journey into a juridical and theological act of taking possession. The chapter closes at the oaks of Mamrè, near Chevròn, with a new mizbèach to the Tetragrammaton: every stage of the covenant is sealed by an altar.

Why it differs from current translations

The comparison between the MT and the LXX — and the Italian renderings that depend on it — reveals divergences that are not cosmetic.

1. «He called upon the Name of the Tetragrammaton» (v. 4). The MT has va-yiqra be-shem YHWH. The LXX (ἐπεκαλέσατο τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου) preserves the nominal structure, with κύριος in place of the Tetragrammaton; the common renderings simplify into «he called upon the Lord», losing the specificity of the act: qara be-shem is the public cultic proclamation of the revealed Name, not generic devotion.

2. «Like the garden of the Tetragrammaton» (v. 10). The MT says ke-gan YHWH. The LXX operates a double substitution: gan becomes παράδεισος (an Iranian loanword, «walled park») and the Tetragrammaton becomes the generic θεός (ὡς ὁ παράδεισος τοῦ θεοῦ). The current renderings («like the paradise of the Lord») inherit from this choice an eschatology that the MT does not carry: gan YHWH is here a real agrarian-irrigational comparison — fertile land like that planted by God (cf. Ezek 31:9; Deut 11:10) — not the «lost paradise» of later theology.

3. Rîv is not a brawl (vv. 7-8). The MT uses rîv and the nominal form merivah, the lexicon of juridical dispute; the LXX twice renders μάχη, «combat», shifting the register from legal litigation to physical violence. The MT carefully distinguishes the root r-y-v from a brawl: the quarrel among the herdsmen is a dispute over pastures and resources, and Avràm handles it as a jurist and as a brother, not as a belligerent.

4. Itineraries and destinations. At v. 1 the LXX reads εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, «into the wilderness», where the MT has the toponym Nèghev; at v. 3 it adds ὅθεν ἦλθεν («from where he had come»), a clause of return absent in the MT; at v. 12 it writes that Lot «pitched his tents in Sodom» (ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν Σοδομοις), where the MT has vayyèhel ʿad-Sedom, «as far as Sedòm»: the MT preserves the graduality of the moral approach, which the LXX burns through by anticipating the outcome.

5. Qum hithallèkh ba-àretz (v. 17). The imperative qum («arise») is often flattened into «come now»; hithallèkh is Hitpael — a reflexive-iterative form — of halakh: a walking that is done to oneself, repeated, capillary. It is not a stroll but a juridical gesture of possession, as the Tannaitic tradition recognized. The Italian versions do not render the weight of the Hitpael.

Layered receptions

Jewish reception — Tannaitic halakhah. Verse 17 generated a precise halakhic debate. In the baraita of b. Bava Batra 100a, Rabbi Eliʿèzer ben Hyrcanus (1st-2nd c. CE) deduces from Qum hithallèkh ba-àretz the rule of halikhàh qonàh: one who walks through a field lengthwise and breadthwise acquires possession of it, because the walking itself is an act of acquisition (qinyan). The Sages dissent — for them a chazaqàh is required, a material act upon the ground — and they read Avràm's walking as an affectionate anticipation: the Tetragrammaton has him traverse the land «so that it might be easy for his children to conquer». In both readings the walking of v. 17 is juridically dense. On the ethical plane, the Mishnah offers the coordinates of the chapter: m. Avot 1:7 («keep far from an evil neighbor») has been consistently applied to the parable of Lot, who pitches his tents «as far as Sedòm»; and the distinction in m. Avot 5:17 between the dispute «for the sake of Heaven» and the one that is not frames the merivah of the herdsmen, which Avràm extinguishes by renouncing his own right. The Targum Onkelos renders v. 4 with «and he prayed in the Name of the Lord», interpreting the invocation as institutional prayer.

Christian reception. Hebrews 11:9 reads Avràm's dwelling «in tents» as a figure of the itinerant faith that awaits the promised city; 2 Peter 2:7-8 rereads Lot as a «righteous» man tormented by the conduct of Sedòm — a benevolent reception that presupposes precisely the graduality of the MT (ʿad-Sedom). Galatians 3:16 christologically concentrates the zèraʿ of the promise; the Jewish reading of the seed remains collective («like the dust of the earth»), and the Christian reading is to be understood as fulfillment, not substitution: the promise of the land and of the descendance to Avràm is not abrogated but assumed (Mt 5:17), and the two readings — collective and concentrated — coexist without the second erasing the first.

Historical reconstruction (aggadah)

The background is the transhumant pastoral economy of the ancient Near East: semi-nomadic clans that move by «stages of encampment» (massaʿot) between seasonal pastures, where access to wells and grass is the classic cause of conflicts between kindred groups. The redactional note of v. 7 — «the Kenaʿanì and the Perizzì were then dwelling in the land» — situates the account in an era prior to the Israelite settlement and explains the scarcity: the patriarchs are guests on another's land, and a quarrel between relatives in front of the natives is also a political risk. Avràm's language, «we are men, brothers», reflects the ancient Near Eastern juridical-diplomatic usage in which «brother» designates the covenant partner among equals. The geographical contrast is equally real: the kikkàr ha-Yardèn, irrigated by gravity «like the land of Egypt», against the highland of Canaan that depends on rain (cf. Deut 11:10) — Lot chooses secure hydraulic agriculture, Avràm remains in the land that lives by heaven.

Rabbinic aggadah brought the moral details into focus. Bereshit Rabbah 41 explains the rîv of v. 7: Lot's herdsmen let the beasts graze in others' fields, while Avràm's led the livestock with a muzzle; the dispute is therefore about integrity, not only about grass — and the mention of the Kenaʿanì serves as a rebuke: the land had not yet been handed over. On v. 11 the midrash, taken up by Rashi ad loc., plays on the double sense of mi-qedem: Lot «departed from the east», but also «removed himself from the Ancient One (Qadmon) of the world» — the geographical separation is read as a theological separation. Ramban (on Gen 12:6) applies to the patriarchal journeys the principle maʿaseh avot siman le-vanim: Avràm's routes prefigure the routes of the sons, and the walking of v. 17 anticipates the future inheritance of the land.

Practical observance

The pericope is narrative, but the Jewish tradition has derived from it a precise praxis. First: from v. 17 the baraita of b. Bava Batra 100a draws the discussion on halikhàh qonàh — in Jewish property law, possession is acquired by a concrete act (qinyan chazaqàh), and for Rabbi Eliʿèzer walking the ground on foot is already acquisition: whoever observes learns that the relationship with the land is not contemplative but ambulatory, made of reiterated physical presence. Along this line Ramban counts dwelling in the land of Israel among the commandments, and Jewish piety has preserved walking the land as a gesture of adherence to the promise. Second: the management of the merivah. Avràm forestalls the quarrel by yielding his own right of choice: the halakhah of domestic and communal peace makes of this vatranut (voluntary renunciation) the model — before a patrimonial conflict between «brothers», one offers the other the first choice and separates with blessing, not with rupture. Here the praxis finds documented continuity in the New Testament commandment: the categories of the Prohibitions of Anger and Conflict and of Unity and Peace are carried out exactly thus — interrupting the quarrel at its first sign («let there be no strife between me and you»), naming the brotherhood before the reasons, accepting a material disadvantage rather than breaking communion. Third: the discernment against Lot's «optical» choice. M. Avot 1:7 («keep far from an evil neighbor») is practiced in the concrete choice of where to dwell, weighing the moral environment before the economic yield; and the antidote to the greed of the gaze is the discipline of sufficiency — which meets the New Testament Prohibitions of Greed and Contentment and Gratitude: not to decide on the basis of what the eyes promise, but on what has been promised (the logic of Seek the Kingdom: the rest is added, not seized). Fourth: v. 4 — to invoke publicly in the Name — founds the praxis of communal prayer and of declared praise, which the Targum Onkelos makes explicit by rendering «and he prayed in the Name of the Lord»: the category Pray is carried out here as a public and named act, not only interior, and every stage of life — like every encampment of Avràm — is marked by a place and a time dedicated to worship.

Textual notes

• v. 1 — Nèghev: from the root nagav, «to be dry»: toponym of the southern steppe of Canaan. The LXX reads εἰς τὴν ἔρημον, «into the wilderness», generalizing the toponym.
• v. 2 — kaved me'od: «very heavy» with livestock, silver, and gold. The root k-v-d (to weigh) also generates kavod, «glory»: the heaviness is abundance, but it prepares v. 6, where the land does not «support» so much weight.
• v. 3 — le-massà'av: «by his stages of encampment», progressive marches retracing his steps. The LXX adds ὅθεν ἦλθεν, a clause absent in the MT.
• v. 4 — ba-rishonah... va-yiqra be-shem YHWH: «at the beginning» (LXX τὴν ἀρχήν) and «he called upon the Name of the Tetragrammaton»: the instrumental be- makes the Name the medium of the public cultic act.
• v. 5 — ha-holekh et-Avram: substantivized participle, «the one walking with Avràm»: Lot is defined by his accompanying, not by a project of his own.
• v. 6 — lo nasà' otam ha-aretz: «the land did not carry them»; the LXX οὐκ ἐχώρει αὐτοὺς ἡ γῆ preserves the image of capacity.
• vv. 7-8 — rîv / merivah: root r-y-v, juridical contention (Ex 17:7; Deut 33:8); the nominal form at v. 8 takes up v. 7. Anashîm achîm anàchnu: nominal sentence without a copula, «men-brothers we».
• v. 9 — hippared: Nifal imperative of p-r-d, «to separate oneself»; LXX διαχωρίσθητι, the same reflexive-passive value.
• vv. 10.14 — vayyissa' et-einav: «he lifted up his eyes», an identical formula for Lot and for Avràm: the same gesture, opposite direction — autonomous sight against commanded sight.
• v. 10 — kikkàr ha-Yardèn... ke-gan YHWH: kikkàr = «disc», the circular shape of the plain; the comparison with the «garden of the Tetragrammaton» is agrarian (Ezek 31:9; Deut 11:10), not eschatological.
• v. 11 — vayyissa' Lot mi-qedem: «he departed from/toward the east», a directional ambiguity exploited by the midrash (removal from the Qadmon); the «for himself» of v. 11a marks the egocentric choice.
• v. 12 — vayyèhel ʿad-Sedom: «he tended as far as Sedòm»: progressive motion; the LXX «in Sodom» anticipates the outcome.
• v. 16 — zèraʿ... ka-afar ha-aretz: collective «seed» «like the dust of the earth»: a hyperbole of innumerability tied to the land just promised.
• v. 17 — Qum hithallèkh ba-àretz: iterative-reflexive Hitpael of halakh: to traverse lengthwise and breadthwise as an act of possession.
• v. 18 — Elonè Mamre... mizbèach: the oaks of Mamrè near Chevròn; the new altar to the Tetragrammaton closes the chapter as v. 4 had opened it.