אַבְרָם יָשַׁב בְּאֶרֶץ כְּנָעַן וְלוֹט יָשַׁב בְּעָרֵי הַכִּכָּר וַיֶּאֱהַל עַד סְדֹם. וְאַנְשֵׁי סְדֹם רָעִים וְחַטָּאִים לַיהֹוָה מְאֹד

Avram dwelled in the Land of Canaan, and Lot dwelled in the cities of the plain, and he pitched his tent until Sodom. And the people of Sodom were very wicked and sinful toward Hashem. (Bereishis 13:12-13)

What exactly is the relationship between these two pesukim, the first describing Lot's location of residence and the second describing the evil nature of the people of Sodom?

Some mefarshim, beginning with Rashi, explain that the flow of the pesukim comes to explain that Lot chose to settle in Sodom even though its inhabitants were wicked and sinful.

Rav Mintzberg takes a different approach, explaining that the wickedness of Sodom mentioned in the second pasuk is the reason Lot chose to live where he did. He begins by drawing our attention to the phrase "And he pitched his tent until Sodom." What does this come to say? If it simply means that he travelled to Sodom, it should have said simply that! Rather, the pasuk indicates that Lot pitched his tent in the direction of Sodom, but he did not enter the city. Although he had had a falling out with Avram and no longer subscribed to his uncle's ideals and way of life, nevertheless, their time together made it impossible for him to enter the city. He approached it, but remained outside of it.

In this light, the flow of the pesukim is understood as saying that he pitched his tent until Sodom – but did not enter – because the people of the city were wicked and sinful.

Now, there is a verse in the next perek which seems to contradict this idea, for when Lot and his family are captured by the four kings, it states that he was dwelling "in Sodom"![1]

Rav Minzberg responds by adducing the concept that when two pesukim appear to conflict, sometimes a third pasuk sheds light on them and reconciles them. In next week's parsha, we are informed that Lot dwelled "by the gate of the city."[2] This specific location harmonizes the pesukim, while at the same time expresses the conflicted state of Lot:

1. On the one hand, he was drawn to Sodom and wanted to be part of the city.
2. On the other hand, he could not bring himself to enter the city itself.

The result was that he dwelled by the gate of the city – thereby existing in an in-between state of being connected to it while never being fully part of it. This was the miserable situation of Lot in terms of what he wanted versus what he knew was right: Ostensibly he was partaking of both locations, but ultimately, he was not fully in either one of them.[3]

[1] 14:12

[2] 19:1.

[3] Perhaps we may also suggest, based on Rav Mintzberg's general approach, that each of the three pesukim are meant precisely, and they reflect three stages: Initially, Lot could not bring himself to enter Sodom, and hence he pitched his tent outside the city. After a while, however, his resistance faded and he came to live in the city itself, and it was there that he was captured by the four kings. As a result of that experience, he was disabused of any notion of living inside the city, and at that stage chose the middle path of living by the city's gate.