To arrive at the south of Eretz Yisrael. Rashi is answering the question: Avraham was [already] in the south, for Egypt is south of Eretz Yisrael and in the south of the world. Accordingly, why is it not written, “Avraham went up north”? Thus Rashi explains, “To arrive at the south of Eretz Yisrael.”

This teaches good manners that a person not change ... This explanation raises a question: Why does it not say במסעיו? Thus Rashi offered another explanation: “On his return trip he paid the debts he incurred.” But according to that explanation it should say ויחזור למסעיו. Why does it say וילך? Thus we need the first explanation as well. (Maharshal)

**Egypt is south of ...**Rashi is answering the question: Above it says [that he was traveling to] הנגבה. If so, why is it not written here וילך למסעיו הנגבה? Thus Rashi explains that Egypt is in the south. Accordingly, הנגבה [in our verse] refers to Egypt.

**And where “Avram called...”**Rashi is answering the question: Since Avraham already made an altar there and called in the Name of Hashem, why does it tell us here [again], “And there Avram called...”? Thus Rashi explains that the verse is informing us where he went: to the place from where he had already called in the Name of Hashem.

**What brought this about?**Rashi is answering the question: It is already written (v. 1), “Avram went ... together with Lot into the south,” [so why is it repeated?]

The text, therefore, reads ולא נשא**, in the masculine form.**Rashi is answering the question: Since הארץ [which is the subject] is feminine, why does it say נשא in the masculine? And there is a further question: Why was the land unable to bear [the weight of] people? Thus Rashi explains, “It could not provide enough מרעה (pasture).” In other words, נשא refers to the [implied word] מרעה, which is masculine.

Because Lot’s shepherds were ... Rashi is answering the questions: Why did they quarrel, and why does it say here, “The Canaanites ... were then living in the land”? Rashi explains: [They quarreled] “because Lot’s shepherds were wicked and grazed their animals in others’ fields ... .” And the verse says, “The Canaanites ... were then living in the land” because this was Hashem’s response [to their claim that it is not robbery]. And we need not ask why Avraham’s shepherds did not respond that Avraham will still beget an heir, for the response they gave was a better one, in that even Lot’s shepherds, who did not know that Avraham would still beget an heir, [had to admit that] “the Canaanites ... were then living in the land.”

**So that Avram did not yet possess it.**Otherwise, Avram would give them permission to graze wherever they wish. (Gur Aryeh)

Relatives. Rashi is answering the question: They were not brothers, only relatives. [Why does it call them אחים?] And according to the Midrashic explanation, that they were called brothers because they looked similar, אחים means כאחים (like brothers).

**I will not go far from you ...**Rashi is answering the question: Avraham just said, “We are kinsmen.” Why does he now say, “If you go to the left, I will go to the right” — implying he wants to distance himself due to the hatred between them? Where did the hatred come from? There was no quarrel between them, [only between the shepherds]. Thus Rashi explains, “I will not go far from you...” [Alternatively,] Rashi explained this because the words seem superfluous, as it could have just said, “Please separate from me.” Therefore Rashi explains: “I will not go far...” And if you ask why Avraham needed to promise this to Lot, Rashi answers: [To tell him that] “I will stand by you as a shield.” (R. Yaakov Kenizal) Rashi is answering the question: If Lot goes to the left, Avraham will obviously be on his right! [Why did the verse need to state this?] Thus Rashi explains: Avraham will actually stay near him by his right. He will not distance himself. (R. Shmuel El Mashonino)

A land of water streams. Rashi is answering the question: משקה is a causative verb [meaning “to cause to be watered”]. In what way is the causative form appropriate here? Furthermore, the verse is speaking about streams, not about people watering fields. Thus Rashi explains: “A land of water streams,” and they are called משקה because people use them to water the fields.

That plain was... Rashi is explaining that “Before Adonoy destroyed Sedom and Amorah is read with, “It was like Adonoy’s garden....” It is not read with the preceding phrase, “It was abundantly watered.” [Rashi knows this] because otherwise, what would it be telling us? The verse had already written, “Lot raised his eyes and saw...” and this was before Hashem destroyed Sedom. Perforce, it is read with, “It was like Adonoy’s garden...” (Re’m)

For trees. Rashi inferred this from (2:9): “Adonoy Elohim made grow out of the soil every tree ... in the middle of the garden,” which shows that “garden” refers to trees. And Rashi explained like the land of Egypt “for זרעים” because it is written in Devarim 11:10: “For the land to which you are coming ... is not like the land of Egypt ... where you sowed your זרעים.” This shows that Egypt is a land of זרעים. (Re’m) [Without Rashi’s explanation that “garden” refers to trees, while “Egypt” refers to זרעים,] the verse’s comparisons [to two different places] seem both to relate to the same point. If so, only the better of the two need be mentioned — and if Scripture wishes to mention both, the better one should be mentioned last. It should say, “It was like the land of Egypt, [and was even] like God’s garden.” [Thus the verse’s is difficult to understand,] for if it was as good as Hashem’s garden, surely it was as good as the land of Egypt! Therefore, Rashi explains that the comparisons relate to two different points. (R. Yaakov Kenizal)

He departed from Avram. Rashi is answering the question: We see that Beis-Eil, [where they were located,] is in the north. For it is written (12:9): “Avram journeyed [from Beis-Eil], traveling steadily southward.” If so, why does it not say here, “Lot journeyed from the north”? Thus Rashi explains that he “departed from Avram ... traveling from east to west.” The Re’m writes: This is puzzling, as the boundaries of the Land indicate that the Jordan Plain is to the east of Eretz Yisrael, while Beis-Eil is within. Thus, traveling from Beis-Eil, where Avraham lived, to the Jordan Plain entails going to the east! Re’mleft this unresolved. It seems to me that the answer is: The Jordan Plain was very large and extended within Eretz Yisrael. It reached close to Jerusalem, which is distant from Beis-Eil and within Eretz Yisrael. [This is possible] because the Jordan Plain was close to Sedom, which is not so far from Jerusalem.

From the One Who precedes the world. Otherwise it should say, “Lot journeyed from Avram,” as they were dwelling together, and Lot departed from him. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

He pitched tents for his shepherds. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say, “Setting up his tents as far as Sedom,” [if Lot lived in the Plain]? Thus Rashi explains: “He pitched tents for his shepherds.” I.e., he had many tents and pitched them from the Plain until Sedom.

Our Sages learned from here, “The names of the wicked shall rot.” There was no need at all for Scripture to write, “The people of Sedom were wicked and sinful.” Scripture wrote this because the people of Sedom needed to be mentioned in the previous verse: “Setting up his tents as far as Sedom.” That is why Scripture writes here that they were “wicked and sinful.” From this Shlomo HaMelech learned, “The names of the wicked shall rot.” I.e., when they are mentioned they should be disparaged.

רעים with their persons. וחטאים with their wealth. Rashi’s explanation is the opposite of Onkelos, who translated: “רעים with their money. וחטאים with their persons.” You might ask: How did Rashi know [that it means as he explained]? The answer is: Yosef said (39:9), “How can I do such a great רעה,” speaking of sinning with his person. Here too, רעים means sinning with their persons. And it is written in Devarim 24:15 about a hired worker: “You shall give him his wage on his day ... lest there be חטא upon you.” And this involves money.

**At that time he was righteous.**This can be seen also from Rashi’s comment on v. 10: “It was because they were permeated with immorality that Lot chose their locality.” [We may assume that] Lot became this way due to having been in Egypt, where they also were permeated with immorality, and he learned from them. Furthermore, Rashi explained on v. 11, “Lot removed himself from the One Who precedes the world” — implying that previously he was righteous.

**The name of a person.**I.e., not the name of a place. For it is written (v. 24): “The men who went with me Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei.”