A Thought on Parshas Lech Lecha

"...v'haKanani v'haPrizi az ba'aretz..." (13:7) ...and the Kananites and the Perizites were in the land then..." Avraham sees that his nephew Lot and his followers are not conducting themselves with proper ethics. He asks them to disaffiliate with his own camp of devoted disciples. The two part ways, and Avraham continues with his Divinely inspired teachings as Lot continues his own decline. The Torah observes meanwhile that the Kanani and Perizi nations were in that area. The placing of the verse, and the verse itself, seems puzzling. Firstly, we know who dwelt in the land of Kanan; obviously it was the people of Kanan! Secondly, we have a prior verse (12:6) which already relates this same fact: the Kanani lived in Kanan (v'haKanani az ba'aretz). Thirdly, what is the contiguity between the verse which highlights the friction between Avraham and Lot and the verse which identifies (again) the local geography and populace? I have found a number of approaches over the years among the writings of the Rishonim. Some have emphasized that the verse intends to relate that those two nations would not allow Avraham into their midst, reasoning that "if he cannot get along with his own nephew, how will he get along with us?" Some interpret the verse as meaning "we don't need people immigrating here who are argumentative." Others learn that the verse means "until the locals had exhausted any residual moral rights they may have had to stay in the land, HaShem would not give it away to Avraham." These are all impressive ways of explaining the verse's message that 'the local nations were still in the land'. However, ibn Shu'aib offers a different spin. He bases it on an ancient midrashic saying, which in Yerushalmi Aramaic goes "tigra bin achya m'siyas bin nuchraia" - when brothers fight, strangers rejoice. Avraham sees that prolonged strife between Lot and himself would signal to the locals that all is not well among us. This leads them to view us as a scourge and as undesirable. They ultimately perceive us as a common enemy, which we know (from l'havdil, sociological theory) will lead to stronger bonds between erstwhile rivals, and even enemies set aside their hatred when they can unite and despise a shared "out group." So, Avraham needed to distance himself from Lot as a means of distancing himself from machlokes. Machlokes among Jews weakens Jews, and fortifies the union formed by our foes. According to ibn Shu'aib, then, the verse not only means something different, but it actually says something different. The word "az", which other Rishonim interpret as a past-tense adverb (the Kanani were, back then, in the land), is used, according to ibn Shu'aib, as a conjunctive adverb: the verse reads "Avraham and Lot were not getting along; the Kanani and Perizi were, then (az), able to reside together in the land." The word "then" in this verse would mean, then, exactly what the word then just meant when I used it just now! When Jews do not get along, our enemies set aside their own differences and bond, even band, against us. Let's stop this, then. Let's stop this now. Good Shabbos. D Fox