Several interesting contrasting parallels exist between the story of the Spearation of Lot and Avraham and one which occurred many centuries later – the story of Rut and Naomi, told in Megilat Rut. These two accounts, when examined together, present Lot and his descendant, Rut, as two opposite figures: Lot could have been expected to insist on remaining with his uncle, yet chose to leave, while Rut had every reason to leave Naomi, but insisted on remaining with her.
The Torah in Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of Avraham’s decision to separate from his nephew, Lot. The decision came in the wake of tensions that arose between the two men’s shepherds, following their sudden acquisition of large herds during their brief sojourn in Egypt. We read that their large quantities of property made it difficult for them to reside together, thus prompting Avraham to suggest to Lot that they split (13:13:5-12).
Several interesting contrasting parallels exist between this story and one which occurred many centuries later – the story of Rut and Naomi, told in Megilat Rut (1). Just as Avraham proposed to his family member who had accompanied him that they should separate, Naomi suggested that Rut return home rather than remain with her. Both incidents occurred after the parties involved had relocated to escape harsh drought conditions in Eretz Yisrael. Of course, these parallels serve to underscore the stark differences between the two accounts. Most obviously, Lot immediately agreed to Avraham’s proposal, whereas Rut insisted on remaining with Naomi, despite her entreaties that Rut return. Avraham’s proposal resulted from the two parties’ abundance of wealth, which made it difficult for them to remain together, whereas Naomi found herself in a state of destitution, and therefore urged Rut to return to the comforts of her family’s home rather than remain with an impoverished widow. Additionally, Avraham urged Lot to separate because they were relatives and therefore should avoid quarreling (“ki anashim achim anachnu” – 13:8), while Naomi told Rut to leave specifically because there was no chance of Rut joining her family, as she was too old to bear a son (Rut 1:12-13).
What might be the significance of these parallels and points of contrast?
These two accounts, when examined together, present Lot and his descendant, Rut, as two opposite figures: Lot could have been expected to insist on remaining with his uncle, yet chose to leave, while Rut had every reason to leave Naomi, but insisted on remaining with her. Lot and Avraham lived comfortably, and God had promised Avraham a bright and glorious future. We might assume that if Lot had wanted to remain with his saintly uncle, he could have found a way to resolve the conflicts, such as by ordering his shepherds to yield to Avraham’s wishes, yet he immediately accepted Avraham’s suggestion. Chazal, as Rashi (13:11) cites, were critical of Lot’s decision, which they understood as a rejection of Avraham’s values in favor of the luxurious, hedonistic lifestyle of Sedom. Rut, of course, did just the opposite. According to the Gemara (Sanhedrin 105b), Rut belonged to the royal family of Moav. Rut faced the option of living in luxury or living in deprivation, and she chose the latter out of a sense of fealty to her beloved mother-in-law and to God. While Lot sacrificed the spiritual benefits of living with Avraham in favor of the material benefits of Sedom, Rut sacrificed the material benefits of Moav in favor of the spiritual benefits of remaining with Naomi.
Indeed, Kabbalistic tradition associates these two figures on a mystical level. Rav Chaim Vital (in Sha’ar Ha-gilgulim) identifies Rut as the reincarnation of Lot’s older daughter, whose son, Moav, was Rut’s ancestor and the founder of the nation of Moav. In Kabbalistic terms, Rut achieved the tikkun – “rectification” – of Lot’s soul. Lot made the mistake of sacrificing spiritual gain for material indulgence, and his mistake was reversed by Rut’s sacrificing financial stability to join Am Yisrael.
These two stories, then, teach us the importance of maintaining proper priorities, that we must be prepared to compromise our level of material comfort for the sake of spiritual achievement. While we are not expected to subject ourselves to the level of destitution endured by Rut when she joined Naomi, her inspiring example should motivate us to make avodat Hashem our highest priority and, when necessary, make sacrifices for the sake of spiritual excellence. Certainly, we must avoid the mistake made by Lot, of prioritizing material luxury over the benefits of living with and learning from the example of Avraham Avinu.