Kommentar zu Bereschit 14:27

אמרפל AMRAPHEL — He is identical with Nimrod who said (אמר) to Abraham, “Plunge (פול) into the fiery furnace” (Eruvin 53a).

AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE DAYS OF AMRAPHEL KING OF SHINAR. This event happened to Abraham in order to teach us that four kingdoms will arise to rule the world. In the end, his [Abraham’s] children will prevail over them, and they will all fall into their hands. Then they will return all their captives and their wealth. The first one mentioned here is the king of Babylon¹¹⁴Shinar is Babylon. See Onkelos. for so it was to be in the future, as it is written, Thou art the head of gold.¹¹⁵Daniel 2:38. This was said by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, when interpreting the king’s dream of the four kingdoms that will rule the world. Perhaps Ellasar, mentioned here second, is the name of a city in Media or Persia,¹¹⁶Since Media and Persia ruled over Babylon. and Elam, mentioned third, is the city in which the first Greek king — Alexander — was crowned. From there his kingdom spread after he was victorious over Darius, [king of the Persians]. Our Rabbis have already mentioned this matter:¹¹⁷Abodah Zarah 10a. “Rabbi Yosei said, ‘For six years the Greeks ruled in Elam, and after that their kingdom spread over the entire world.’” The king of Goiim,¹¹⁸Rashi explains Goiim as the name of a place. Ramban explains it as meaning “nations,” and it is hence an allusion to Rome, whose kings ruled over many nations. [the last of the four kings mentioned here], who ruled over various nations that had made him their head and leader, is an allusion to the king of Rome who ruled over a city comprised of many peoples: Kittim, Edom, and the rest of the nations. Thus the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,¹¹⁹42:2. “Rabbi Avin said, ‘Just as Abraham’s grief began with four kingdoms, so will it end for his descendants only with four kingdoms.’” And it further says there:¹²⁰42:4. “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar — this is Babylon; Arioch king of Ellasar — this is Media; Chedorlaomer king of Elam — this is Greece; And Tidal king of Goiim — this is that kingdom (Rome) which writes out a levy [and collects assessment] from all nations of the world.”

ויהי בימי אמרפל מלך שנער, who was widely known as a powerful king in his generation and also later. During his lifetime the kings listed forthwith, i.e. Aryoch, king of Elassar, Kedorlaomer, king of Eylam, and Tidal, king of Goyim, jointly made war against Bera, etc.

ויהי בימי אמרפל, It was during the reign of Amrafel, etc. The reason the Torah introduces this chapter here is to show that these four kingdoms were the super-powers during that period. Once we have been informed of the exploits of these kings, Abraham's victory when he rescued Lot can be seen in its proper perspective.

ויהי בימי אמרפל, these wars took place during the reigns of the kings described in these verse; details of them will follow. We find a similar construction in Esther 1,1,ויהי בימי אחשורש, where the words ויהי בימי also serve as an introduction to what is to follow. The main reason why the Torah gives us details of these wars, something that does not appear to be too relevant to our times, is to demonstrate the righteousness, courage, and sense of responsibility even for a nephew who had suffered a setback, as well as captivity due to his greed in settling near the Sodomites. When Avram knew that what he was about to do was something that morality demanded, i.e. not to allow a next of kin even one such as Lot to remain in captivity, he mobilised the few men he had, and tackled the greatest contemporary war machine to liberate his nephew, being sure that G’d would assist him in such an endeavour. The word כדרלעומר is one word. The words מלך גוים mean “king of a people known as גוים. The reason may well be that in that land members of different nations had decided to live together under a single king.

ויהי בימי אמרפל, “It was in the days of Amrafel, etc.” Although Kedorleomer was the heavyweight among these Kings as we know from verses 4 and 9 in which he is always mentioned as the major figure, the other Kings being his subordinates, “the Kings who were with him,” in this instance Amrafel, is mentioned first, perhaps because he was senior in years, This war too may be viewed as מעשה אבות סימן לבנים, that events in which our forefathers were involved served as a preview of what would happen in the lives of their descendants. Four Kingdoms would emerge in human history, each one of whom would enslave Avraham’s descendants at one time or another. In the end, Avraham;s descendants would prevail over all of them and they would be forced to make full restitution of everything they had ever robbed the Jewish people of. In our chapter, the first King would correspond to the King of Babylon, Nevuchadnezzar, seeing that he was the King of Shinor, the same general area. King Aryoch would be a prototype of the Kingdom of the Medes who supplanted the Babylonians as the ruling Empire in Mesopotamia and Persia. Elassar may be the name of a city rather than the name of a King. It would describe an important city in that country. Eylom would describe what eventually would become Greece, whereas Tidal may be an early allusion to the eventual Rome. The word גויים reflects that the Roman Empire would consist of many nations all under a single Emperor.

Who told Avraham, “Jump...” Rashi is answering the question: Was not Nimrod [not Amraphel] the king of Shinar?

Wir haben hier die älteste Königs- und Kriegsaffäre, welche die Geschichte aufzuweisen hat. Betrachten wir die Zustände, die das Gotteswort uns hier für das bessere Verständnis der Aufgabe Abrahams und seines Volkes dürfte klar machen wollen. —

אריוך מלך אלסר, “Aryoch, king of Elassar.” From this verse, i.e. the wording here, our sages decided that in a dispute between two major Talmudic scholars, Rav and Sh’muel, when the subject concerns secular matters we rule in accordance with the opinion of Sh’muel, whereas when the subject concerns ritual matters, matters regulating our direct relationship to G–d.], we rule like Rav. (Compare Talmud, tractate Shabbat folio 53.) Our sages describe Aryoch’s real names as being “Sh’muel, and the reason that he is called here Aryoch, is because the word is synonymous with being a monarch on earth, the secular part of the universe, whereas the name Elassar reminds us of the Hebrew word Issur, something forbidden by religious law. In other words: Aryoch arrogated to himself the right to give both secular and religious rulings on earth, treating earth as if G–d had no say in this terrestrial part of the (His) universe.

מלך גוים KING OF GOIIM (nations) — There was a place that was called Goiim because people from many nations and localities gathered there and proclaimed as their king a man named Tidal (Genesis Rabbah 42:4).

Wir sehen hier das mit Nimrods königlicher Majestät die Weltgeschichte einleitende System schon sehr früh die üppigsten Früchte tragen. Denn das דור הפלגה fiel ja in Abrahams Jugendzeit. Damals hatte Nimrod sich zum Könige gemacht. Er wird zwar nicht selbst König genannt, wohl aber sein Treiben: Königtum, ראשית ממלכתו. Sein System bestand darin, die Gesamtkräfte der Nation für eigene Zwecke zu mißbrauchen, unter dem Vorwand des Nationalruhmes, auf Kosten des individuellen Glückes. Diese Richtung sehen wir hier rasch in üppiger Blüte. Sehen da schon keine Völkergeschichte, sondern Königsgeschichten. Und auf so kleinem Raum wie die jordanische Talebene fünf Könige! Haben hier den Anfang des Königswesens. Jede Stadt ihren König. Noch später sehen wir hier zu Josuas Zeiten in dem kleinen Ländchen einunddreißig Könige! Die anderen Herren waren schon stattlichere Könige von Ländern und Provinzen, so von Schinear-Babel, ebenso von Elam-Medien und auch von Gojim, was ja dem Namen nach auf mehrere Völker hinweist. Denken wir uns die Lage der bekannteren, Babylon und Medien, beide weit entfernt von Palästina und dennoch die palästinensischen Könige eine Zeitlang dem Kedarlaomer untertänig. Also schon König über Könige.

Wir haben bereits die Wurzel מלך in ihrer Verwandtschaft mit מלק und dem chaldäischen נמלך, als das Kopf für andere sein, und den jüdischen Begriff des Königtums betrachtet (siehe Kap.10, 10). Sehen wir hier, wie es sich in Wirklichkeit in diesem üppigen Kreis gestaltete. Jede dieser üppigen Städte mußte ihren eigenen König haben. Der Überfluss und die Üppigkeit selbst mochten dies erzeugt haben. Wenn Könige die Nation der Mühe überheben sollen, zu denken, so wird dies vorzüglich da geschehen, wo die einzelnen viel für sich zu denken haben. Je bequemer, sinnlicher, üppiger, je weniger einem Volk an den idealen Interessen des Allgemeinen liegt, um so williger wird es Opfer bringen an Recht und Geld, um nur "nichts zu denken zu haben" Ferner: über ein armes Volk wird so leicht keiner König sein wollen und können. Wer nichts zu verlieren und wenig zu gewinnen hat, den kann man weder leicht schrecken noch locken. So dürfte sichs erklären, wie hier in diesem üppigsten Lande selbst die kleinste Genossenschaft ihren König hat, um sich des Selbstdenkens an die allgemeinen Angelegenheiten zu entheben, und wie diese Könige selbst wieder sich einem auswärtigen mächtigen Könige untergeordnet — lauter עבדי עברים, wie schon der Ahn das chamitische Volk geschaut — man gibt gerne jährlich etwas Tribut, wenn man damit sich die Ruhe erkauft, in seinem Lande königlich zu schalten und zu genießen.—

Auch nach einer anderen Seite ist diese Begebenheit bedeutsam. Schon die Weisen machen aufmerksam, wie hier auf dem ersten Blatt der politischen Welthistorie ד׳ מלכיות vier siegreiche Königsmächte erscheinen, analog dem Gesamtgange der Weltgeschichte, die in ד׳ מלכיות vier Weltmonarchien ausläuft, über welche zuletzt der siegenden Gottesmacht das Zepter anheim fällt. Wenigstens zwei nicht zu verkennende Namen derselben finden wir hier: Babylon (Schinear) und Medien (Elam). Es waren also schon in der allerfrühesten Zeit von diesen beiden Eroberungszüge nach Palästina und dessen Umgebung gemacht, und wir sehen schon hier Palästina unterliegen.

Dem Stammvater des künftigen jüdischen Volkes trat hier die allgemeine Erfahrung entgegen: Üppigkeit macht Völker nach innen und außen zu Sklaven, und für jedes Volk heißt es nicht חרות, sondern חרות על הלוחות, gibts innere und äußere Freiheit nur unter Herrschaft des Sittengesetzes. Allein es lag ihm noch eine besondere, den Stammvater des jüdischen Volkes näher angehende Tatsache vor Augen. Der Boden, auf dem er sich befand, war ihm für seine Volkeszukunft verheißen, und die erste Erfahrung, die er auf ihm machte, war: Hungersnot, und die zweite war: Krieg! Weder für physische Blüte, noch für politische Selbständigkeit trug das Land die Bedingung in sich. Es war in beidem der vollendete Gegensatz zu Ägypten. Wie es seine Fruchtbarkeit nur vom Himmel zu erwarten hatte, so war auch seine politische Lage eine solche, dass es keinem Eroberer Stand halten konnte. Sich selbst überlassen. war "Israels Land" der Hungersnot und der politischen Abhängigkeit bloß- gestellt. Im "Nabelpunkt" gelegen, wo sich Europa, Asien und Afrika begegnen, ist kaum ein welterschütterndes Kriegsereignis über die Erde hingezogen, das es nicht in herbe Mitleidenschaft genommen. Und eben deshalb ward es erwählt. Wenn gleichwohl auf diesem Boden ein Volksleben aufgeblüt wäre, an welches sich kein Eroberer herangewagt hätte, und wenn auch dreimal im Jahre die Landesgrenzen von aller wehrhaften Mannschaft bloß und offen gelegen, — wenn alle die מלכיות über die Erde dahingerauscht und sich einander befehdet, in dieses blühendste und zugleich wehrloseste Land aber kein Schwert sich gewagt — וחרב לא יעבר בארצכם: — so wäre das ewige Faktum vor den Augen der Völker geworden: "dort wohnt Gott!" Gott ist da die Macht, seine Hülfe setzt Er statt Wall und Mauer, אלקים בארמנתיה נודע למשגב (Ps. 48,4) ישועה ישית חומות וחל (Je1. 26, 1), und es hätte sich schon vor Jahrtausenden erfüllt, was uns jetzt erst in Zukunft entgegenwinkt, es hätte Zion weithin als Völkerleuchte geleuchtet, und es hätten die Völker gesprochen: "wir gehen mit euch, denn wir haben es erfahren: Gott ist mit euch!

Für das die Grabstätte der Sedom- und Amorastädte umwohnende Gottesvolk hätte dieses ganze Ereignis die ewige Warnung sein sollen: wie Üppigkeit und Überfluß naturgemäß — wenn nichts dagegen wirkt — Feinde der Freiheit sind, wie sie auf diesem Boden nur so lange der Freiheit und Selbständigkeit genießen werden, so lange sie das einzige Element mit aller Hingebung pflegen, wodurch die sonst Schwächlinge erzeugende, üppige "Milch- und Honig-reiche" Fülle des Landes heilsam umwandelt wird, das Element, das eben die תורה, das Gesetz ist, das, indem es Unterwerfung fordert, Freiheit und Selbständigkeit gewährleistet. Jeder Acker im jüdischen Lande sollte den Herrschaftsstempel des Gesetzes tragen (כלאי) und darum gerade der Weinbau, die Pflege des edelsten und die Üppigkeit am meisten darstellenden Gewächses, die Herrschaft des Gesetzes am schärfsten warnend an der Stirne tragen (איסור הנאה "כלאי כרם) überall und immer die große Warnung: Israel blüht nur auf dem Boden des Gesetzes und geht physisch und sozial zu Grunde, so es sich der Herrschaft dieses Gesetzes entzieht. —

Für Abraham aber war dieses Ereignis ein großes, wohl sein größtes Erlebnis. Die üppigen Landesfürsten waren erlegen, waren Kedarlaomer dienstbar geworden, hatten sich endlich empört, — und sie mußten doch mächtig gewesen sein, da zu ihrer Bezwingung Kedarlaomer, der Länderkönig, sich Bundesgenossen verbunden, — sie wurden geschlagen und nun gelingt es ihm, dem einzigen Manne und seinen Hausgenossen, mit Gott im Bunde, diesen irdischen König von Königen zu überwinden! Abraham steht hier buchstäblich als Wiedereroberer des Landes da. Er verfolgt Kedarlaomer, er macht den Zug fast durch das ganze Land von Hebron bis Damaskus, treibt sie hinaus und macht das Land frei! Er erlebt das buchstäbliche: לך אתננה.

So schauen auch die Propheten die ד׳ מלכיות alles erobern, alle ihnen verfallen, auch Erez Israel von ihnen gedrückt, — aber Israel überwindet sie alle, und wird unter Gottes Beistand Überwinder der Welt. —

ברע BERA —Evil (רע) towards God and evil towards mankind (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8).

AND THE KING OF BELA. The reason [why Scripture does not mention his name as it does with the kings of Sodom, et al], is that he ruled over a small city with few men in it and he had no generally recognized reputation.

עשו מלחמה, now the Torah tells of the battle between them in the valley of Sidim. The fact that there had been previous wars resulting in the five kings becoming subservient to the four kings is mentioned only as a backdrop to this war that prompted Avram’s involvement.

מלך בלע, i.e. a king who ruled only over a small city, a city boasting few inhabitants.

He set his wings ... Meaning, he made himself wings to fly.

עשו, es scheint dies der frühere Krieg gewesen zu sein, in welchem Kedar laomer sich die Könige der Jordanebene dienstbar gemacht hatte. מלחמה, rad. לחם, verwandt mit דברי נרגן כמתלהמים) להם) und לאם, der Staat. להם: Streit, לֶחֶם: das im sozialen Wettkampf Errungene, d. i. das Mittel der Selbstexistenz: Brot, und מלחמה לָחֶם: der wirkliche Krieg. Beide Teile streiten um die Erhaltung oder Vermehrung der nationalen Selbstexistenz. לאום, während גוי die Volkseinheit nach außen, עם die Volksgesellschaft nach innen bedeutet, ist לאום: die, die sozialen und nationalen Gegensätze in ihrem Gegensatz, d. h. in ihrer Berechtigung und Begrenzung schützende und haltende, das Volk und die Gesellschaft vertretende Macht, אין לאום אלא מלכות: der Staat.

מלך צביים, although the word: צביים is spelled as shown, it is read as if it had been spelled: .צבוים

ברשע BIRSHA — Because he rose by means of wickedness (רָשַׁע) (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8)).

The name of the city. Rashi knows this because it says בלע היא צוער. If Bela was the name of a person, it would not say היא צוער. We need not ask how Rashi knew these kings’ names were mentioned to tell us their wickedness, and thus interprets Shinav to mean, “He hated his Father in Heaven,” etc. For the answer is: Since the king of Zoar’s name is omitted, it must be that the others’ names were mentioned to convey their wickedness. It is likely that the king of Zoar was not wicked, thus his name did not show his wickedness. For it says concerning Lot (19:20): “Let me escape there [to Zoar],” and Rashi explains there [that Zoar’s sins were few].

ומלך בלע היא, the pronoun היא (feminine), shows that the word בלע refers to the name of the city, not the name of the king, (who is masculine).

שנאב SHINAB — He hated (שנא) his Father (אב) in heaven (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8)).

שמאבר SHEMEBER — He set his wings (שם אבר) to fly, flapping them to rebel against the Holy One, blessed be He (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8)).

בלע BELA is the name of this king’s city (but the king’s own name is not mentioned here).

עמק השדים VALE OF SIDDIM — So it was named because it contained many fields (שדות)

כל אלה, all the ones just named, Amrafel and the two groups that conducted the war.

כל אלה, the four against the five.

Many fields were in it. Since it is written השדים, with a “specifying ה,” but it does not specify where the “Siddim Valley” is located, Rashi explained that “it was so called because of the many fields (שדות) ... .” (R. Shmuel El Mashonino) But it seems to me that Rashi is saying that the proper name of the valley derives from its descriptive name. I.e., the Siddim Valley is its name, and it has no other proper name. (Nachalas Yaakov)

חבר heißt nie wie etwa auch קרב ein feindliches Zusammentreffen, sondern immer ein friedliches Vereinigen. Also auch hier: die Vereinigung der beiderseitigen Bundesheere miteinander.

There are many Midrashic explanations of this name. הוא ים המלח THE SAME IS THE SALT SEA — After some time the sea flowed into it (the vale) and thus the Salt Sea came into existence. The Midrashic explanation states that the rocks that surrounded it had cracked and streams thus flowed into it (Genesis Rabbah 42:5).

חברו אל עמק השדים, gathered in that valley and arrived at a compromise concerning the dispute between them. From that time on, the five kings and their subjects served Kedorlaomer, paying him taxes for 12 years, after which they rebelled.

אל עמק, this means the same as בעמק, “in the valley of.” We have a similar construction where the word אל substitutes for the prefix ב in Exodus 25,22 ואל הארון תתן את העדות, “and in the ark you are to place the testimony (Tablets).”

Afterward, the sea flowed into it. [Rashi says this] because it cannot be a valley and a sea simultaneously.

אֶל עמק, nicht בעמק, es war dies kein zufälliger Vereinigungsort, sondern das nach vorhergegangener Überlegung und Verabredung gewählte Schlachtfeld, von dessen Terrainbeschaffenheit sich also beide Teile, oder wenn man das כל אלה nur auf die letzten Raw Hirsch on Genesis 14: 2 genannten jordanischen Bundesgenossen bezieht, wenigstens diese, die ja auch mit dem Terrain Vertrauten, Vorteile versprochen haben müssen. Sie hatten das Terrain erwählt und die fremden Könige sich ebenfalls dorthin vereinigt, weil jene sie dort erwarteten, um ihnen die Spitze zu bieten.

הוא ים המלך, the word ים, “sea,” is masculine.

השדים, as translated by Onkelos, an area comprising many fields. The dagesh in the letters ש and ד saves writing both letters twice, as the word is a composite of two roots, שדה, field, as well as שדד, ploughed. The word is also found in Hoseah 10,11 ישדד לו יעקב, “Yaakov will do the final ploughing.”

That the surrounding stones cracked... [Rashi offers this Midrashic explanation] because הוא ים connotes that it became a sea on its own — not that the sea flowed into it. Otherwise, it should say בו ים.

עמק, ein tiefgelegenes Becken. Vergl . חמק: sich unsichtbar machen, sich ent- ziehen, verkriechen. — שדים, rad. שדד kommt nur als eine Tätigkeit bei Bearbeitung eines Ackerbodens vor, und zwar als die letzte Operation, die beim Ackern dem Säen vorangeht, (Jes. 29, 24). Es ist also hier jedenfalls eine Tiefebene, in welcher sich viele Äcker befanden, die also durch viele Äcker durchschnitten war. Dazu kamen, wie uns Raw Hirsch on Genesis 14: 10 lehrt, die "Lehmbrunnen" (בארות, nicht בורות, Gruben), aus welchen der Lehm und Schlamm aus bodenloser Tiefe gleichsam hervorquoll, aus welchen man den Lehm nicht grub, sondern schöpfte, — mit welchen die Gegend erfüllt war. Es war also ein vielfach koupiertes, von den Städtekönigen glücklich gewähltes Terrain, wo eine kleine des Terrains kundige Masse auch bei weitem an Zahl und Kriegsgeschicklichkeit überlegenen Heeresmassen die Spitze bieten konnte, und jedenfalls durch die Bodenkunde im Vorteil war. Wären die Könige von Sedom und ihre Völker so geschickt und tapfer als übermütig und üppig gewesen, so war das Terrain jedenfalls gut gewählt. Allein sie hielten, wie uns bald erzählt wird, den Gegnern so wenig Stand, und liefen in solcher Hast, dass sie selbst in die ihnen sonst wohlbekannten Lehmbrunnen stürzten.

השדים, הוא ים המלח, the valley in question is close to the Dead Sea. Alternatively, the Torah tells us the region which nowadays is the Dead Sea, used to be that fertile valley before those cities were overturned by G’d. At any rate, that region is part of the eastern boundary of the land of Israel as mentioned in Numbers 34, 3, and 12.

שתים עשרה שנה עבדו TWELVE YEARS DID THEY i. e. these five kings SERVE Chedorlaomer.

שתים עשרה שנה עבדו, they were enslaved to Amrafel, paying annual taxes to him.

עבדו את כדרלעמר, after the compromise they had reached 12 years ago. Afterwards, they rebelled.

ושלש עשרה שנה מרדו, “and in the thirteenth year they rebelled.” The word שלש in this instance is to be understood as a cardinal number rather than as an ordinal number. We find an example of such use of the word in Exodus 20,11, where the Torah writes כי ששת ימים עשה ה' instead of כי בששה ימים עשה ה'.

Ein Volk, das sich von äußerem Joch frei machen will, muß damit beginnen, sich selbst erst frei, d. i. sittlich zu machen. Das hatten sie in ihrem Übermut übersehen.

ושלש עשרה שנה, these words mean the same as if they had been written in the ordinal form, i.e. “during the thirteenth year.”

מרד: sich empören, עניים מרורים: elend, מרט: haarausraufen und polieren; also eigentlich Unebenheiten nicht scheuen, dem Rauhen das Rauhe oder die Gewalt entgegensetzen. Was מרט mechanisch ist, das ist מרד geistig und sittlich: einer rauhen Seite sich nicht mehr fügen, einer rauhen Seite Stacheln entgegensetzen. מרודים: die Armen, die Gerupften, bei denen man keinen Widerstand duldet, die ganze Welt zeigt ihnen rauhe, unfreundliche Seiten. Jeder will auch noch etwas an ihnen zu polieren haben. So klagt Zion: ימי עניי ומרודי.

מרדו, their rebellion consisted of their not paying the annual taxes. Contrary to the impression created that Amrafel was the leader seeing he was named first, the leading king in that group of three was Kedorleomer.

ובארבע עשרה שנה AND IN THE FOURTEENTH YEAR of their rebellion

והמלכים אשר אתו, the ones who had been signatories to the compromise deal 12 years previously, amongst whom had also been Amrafel.

ובארבעה עשר .. את רפאים בעשתרות קרנים, they defeated the giants who lived at that place. The place עשתרות קרנים was so named seeing it was situated between two mountains, so that the word קרנים, “horns,” describes the way in which these mountains protruded from the earth’s surface. Our sages in Sukkah 2 already mentioned that all the places mentioned in these verses are not far from Sodom and Gomorrah. Perhaps the inhabitants had supported the insubordination of Sodom and satellites and that is why they were attacked.

בא כדרלעומר, “Kedorleomer came, etc.” The Torah wants to describe the power of this king as well as that of the kings who joined him and who defeated the various mighty kings who dwelled in fortified cities. This is the true meaning of the words בעשתרות קרנים. The word קרנים, “horns,” symbolizes strength seeing that the strength of a bull is represented by its horns. They even defeated the wealthy amongst them [reference to the name זוזים, derived from זוז , coin. Ed.] Seeing that these four kings defeated the kings (Refaiim) who resided in fortified cities as well as the ones who dwelled in the mountains, there was no need to mention that they overran the cities in the valley. According to Bereshit Rabbah 26,16, שוה קריתים is a reference to cities in the valley. The אימים were people who had inspired fear amongst all the people around them. The חורי בההרם שעיר were tillers of the soil in mountainous territory. According to Tanchuma these people were able to “smell” the earth, i.e. their sense of smell told them about what a particular piece of earth was best suited for. According to another Midrash the name עין משפט refers to Kadesh, the place where Moses would be judged when he hit the rock instead of speaking to it The name חצצן תמר is an allusion to חציון של תמר, another name for the land of Israel which is situated in the very center of the earth. (חציון from the word חצי “half.”) The main reason the Torah provides us with all these details of the military exploits of Kedorleomer and Arafel and their allies is to provide the background to the tremendous military achievement of Avram and his 318 warriors in the latter half of this chapter. This is why the Torah underlines in verse 17 אחרי שובו מהכות את כדרלעומר ואת המלכים אשר אתו “after he (Avram) returned from defeating Kedorleomer and the kings who were with him.”

Of their rebellion ... By saying, “Of their rebellion,” Rashi is telling us that it does not mean they served Kedorlaomer for twelve years, and the next year they rebelled, and the next year Kedorlaomer came. For then it should have said ובשלש עשרה שנה, as it says afterwards, ובארבע עשרה שנה. Rather, Rashi is saying that after serving for twelve years, they rebelled for a thirteen year period. And the very next year, i.e., in the fourteenth year, “Kedorlaomer came.”

(5-7) zeigen uns zuerst in raschem Fluge die Macht und Tapferkeit der Länderkönige: sie waren zuerst den ganzen Osten von Palästina südwärts bis nach Edom hinabgezogen und hatten hier en passant alles erobert; dann zogen sie wieder zurück nach Norden zu ihrem eigentlichen Zwecke, und standen in der Nähe ihrer eigentlichen Feinde.

בא כדרלעמר CHEDORLAOMER CAME — Because the matter concerned him mostly, “he bore the heavier side of the beam" (Genesis Rabbah 42:6).

ויכו את הרפאים...ואת הזוזים...ואת האימים, all of these people had been subservient to the group of 5 kings headed by the king of Sodom, and had even fought wars on behalf of their masters. By telling us all this, the Torah wanted us to know that the five kings were not just paper tigers, pushovers. By inference, it enables us to imagine the military power of the four kings who defeated the five kings afterwards. Having once appreciated all this, we can image what a tremendous feat Avram accomplished when he defeated the four kings under the leadership of Kedorleomer. He must have possessed outstanding military skills in order to have accomplished this. It also testifies to the act of selfless love he displayed for his nephew, when he endangered himself and his men to such a degree in order to free him from captivity. Most of all, it gives us a chance to marvel at the mercy G’d showed both to Lot and to Avram in this sequence of events.

These are the Zamzumim. Rashi knows this because it is written here Rephaim and Aimim, and mentions the Zuzim with them — while in Devarim 2:11, it mentions Rephaim, Aimim and Zamzumim. Thus, Zuzim must be Zamzumim.

והמלכים AND THE KINGS [THAT WERE WITH HIM] — These are the other three kings.

הזוזים These are the Zamzumim (see Deuteronomy 2:10 and Deuteronomy 2:20).

בהררם means IN THEIR MOUNT (i. e.הרר is a form of הר — really an earlier form — with pronominal suffix ָ מ ;cf. הררי קדש etc.)

‘EIL PARAN.’ It is translated in the Targum as “Plain of Paran.” But I say that the word eil does not signify a plain. Rather, the lowland of Paran was called Eil, that of Mamre was named Eilonei, that of the Jordan was called Kikar, and that of Shittim was Abel. All these are translated in the Targum as meishra (plain), but each really had its own particular name. Thus the language of Rashi.
But if it were so,¹²¹That Eil, Eilonei and Kikar are the proper names of these places. Onkelos would have mentioned them in his Targum by their name — i.e., “Eila of Paran,” “Eilonei of Mamre,” — as is his custom with names. Besides, who told him¹²²“Him” refers both to Rashi and Onkelos. whether these many places were all plains or high mountains [if Eil, Eilonei and Kikar were but proper names of these places]? Again, Mamre is the name of a person — as it is written, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner, and they were confederate with Abram¹²³Verse 13 here. — and that place was his, just as it says, ‘Eilonei’ Mamre the Amorite,¹²⁴Ibid. Ramban’s intent is to argue that since Mamre is the name of an individual, the word Eilonei could not be a proper name since two names cannot be in the constructive state. as I have explained.¹²⁵Above, 12:6. Rather, Eil paran means a place of terebinths, as it is said, For they shall be ashamed ‘me’eilim’ (of the terebinths) which ye have desired;¹²⁶Isaiah 1:29. eilonei is a place of oaks, as it is said, As a terebinth, ‘veka’alon’ (and as an oak)¹²⁷Ibid., 6:13. Of the ‘alonim’ (oaks) of Bashan.¹²⁸Ezekiel 27:6. It was customary among them that these terebinths and oaks be planted in the plains before the cities which serve them as “an open land.” And so did Onkelos translate alon bachuth¹²⁹Genesis 35:8. And Deborah Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried below Beth-el under the ‘alon’ and he called its name ‘Alon Bachuth.’ as “the plain of Bechuta.” There the word alon is surely not a proper noun of the location¹³⁰As opposed to Rashi who says that the name of the place was Alon. but only the name of the species of tree planted there, as is made explicit [in the same verse: and she was buried] …under the ‘alon.’¹²⁹Genesis 35:8. And Deborah Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried below Beth-el under the ‘alon’ and he called its name ‘Alon Bachuth.’ Onkelos’ intent, however, is to convey the sense of the expression and not to merely translate the words.
Now the Targum Yerushalmi says with respect to both eil Paran and eilonei Mamre that they mean the plain of Paran and Mamre as Onkelos said, but in the case of alon bachuth,¹²⁹Genesis 35:8. And Deborah Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried below Beth-el under the ‘alon’ and he called its name ‘Alon Bachuth.’ he [Targum Yerushalmi] says it is the nut-tree of Bachut for he considers alon bachuth to be the name of a tree and not a place.¹³⁰As opposed to Rashi who says that the name of the place was Alon. Onkelos, however, thought that alon bachuth is the name of a place, so called because there were many oak trees there, just as Eilonei Mamre [is the name of a place]. It is for that reason that Scripture there uses the word ha’alon.¹³¹And she was buried below Beth-el under ‘ha’alon’ (the oak). See Note 129 above. Ramban’s intent is to say that since the word alon appears there with the definite article, (namely, ha-alon), it could not be a proper noun since the definite article is never attached to a proper noun. Hence in the end of the verse, which reads, And he called its name ‘alon bachuth,’ the word alon is also not a name designating a particular tree but a descriptive noun referring to a place containing many oaks. Hence Onkelos translates alon Bachuth as “the plain of Bechuta.” According to Targum Yerushalmi, who takes alon bachuth to be the name of a particular kind of tree, the verse should have read, “And she was buried below Beth-el under alon,” not ha-alon. Thus according to Onkelos they are all¹³²Eil Paran, Eilonei Mamre and alon bachuth. Hence in all these cases Onkelos translated “the plain of Paran… Mamre… Bechuta” as meaning a plain containing oak trees. Onkelos does this in keeping with his general method of conveying the intent of the verse rather than its strict translation since eil, eilonei and alon, strictly speaking, mean particular kinds of trees. Onkelos however felt free to say “the plain of Paran… Mamre… Bachuth” for his intent is but to convey the general meaning. Ramban continues to point that out in kikar hayarden, (13:11), where Onkelos said, “the plain of the Jordan,” that is indeed the exact translation of the word kikar. descriptive nouns.
But kikar hayarden¹³³Above, 13:10. is indeed the actual word for a plain, for kikar in the Sacred Language is the name for the place where the natural streams of rivers overflow. It is for this reason that the messenger who came to rescue Lot said, Stay not in all ‘hakikar’ (the plain; escape to the mountain.¹³⁴Further, 19:17. Of similar usage are the expressions, Kar nirchav (wide pasture);¹³⁵Isaiah 30:23. ‘Karim’ (the meadows) are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn.¹³⁶Psalms 65:14. Sometimes Scripture doubles the first letter of the word kar (meadow), making it kikar, and at other times Scripture discards the double form, as in, bath ayin (the apple of the eye).¹³⁷Ibid., 17:8. The double letter form of the word would be babath ayin, with a double beth. There are many other such cases.
Swift couriers are also called by this name kar, as in ‘lakari velaratzim;’¹³⁸II Kings 11:4. It is usually translated: of the Carites and of the guard. According to Ramban its meaning is: of the couriers and the dispatchers. The captains over hundreds and ‘hakari.’¹³⁹Ibid., Verse 19. Here too the usual translation is: the Carites. According to Ramban it means: the couriers. The word bakirkaroth¹⁴⁰Isaiah 66:20. is also of the same root. It is the name for speedy camels such as “the flying camel” mentioned in the Talmud.¹⁴¹Makkoth 5a. The word mecharkar,¹⁴²II Samuel 6:14. And David ‘mecharkar’ (danced) before the Eternal with all his strength. containing the double use of kar, is a derivative of this word.
Abel Hashittim,¹⁴³Numbers 33:49. and also Abel Mecholah,¹⁴⁴Judges 7:22. they¹⁴⁵Onkelos and Jonathan translated to mean the plain of Shittim and Mecholah. It is [called Abel, which in Hebrew means “mourning”], because it is a desolate place, without plantings or structures for the word abel is, to them, an expression of destruction and waste, as in the verses: ‘Vaya’avel’ (And He made to mourn) the rampart and the wall;¹⁴⁶Lamentations 2:8. The new wine ‘aval’ (faileth), the vine fadeth.¹⁴⁷Isaiah 24:7.

ואת החרי בהררם שעיר, they also defeated the Chori on the mountain on which these people lived. We know that the area was mountainous from Genesis 36,20.
בהררם, the name of the place without the pronoun-suffix is הרר, with a vowel pattern similar to ארץ and גפן. If the word הררם were a derivative from a root in the piel mode, itself a noun in its own right, as some commentators claim, (including Ibn Ezra), the letter ה would have had to have the vowel kametz and not patach, as it does. Onkelos, in rendering it as דבטוריא דשעיר “in the mountains of Se-ir” also understands it as did Ibn Ezra. איל פארן means, as the Targum renders it, “the plain of Paran.” The words על המדבר mean the same as if the Torah had written סמוך למדבר, adjoining the desert. A similar construction is found in Numbers 2,20 ועליו מטה מנשה, “next to him the tribe of Menashe.”

But that the plain of Paran was called איל. Rashi is answering the question: Onkelos translated אלוני (v. 13) as “the plain” of Mamrei. If אלוני means “plain,” how can איל also mean “plain”? Thus Rashi explains, “I maintain that this does not mean...”

בהררם, the ending is similar to Exodus 6,7 בדברם, so that the meaning of our phrase is: “when they were ascending Mount Seir.”

איל פארן EL-PARAN — As it is translated in the Targum: Plain of Paran. But I hold that איל does not signify a plain in general but that the lowland of Paran bore the name of El, and that of Mamre was named Elone; that of the Jordan was called Kikkar, whilst that of Shittim was called Abel — Abel-Shittim — and so, too, the lowland of [Baal] Gad was named Baal. All these are translated in the Targum by מישור, but each really had its own particular name.

עד איל פארן אשר על המדבר, the word על in this verse does not mean: “on, or above,” but: “beside,” as it does in Exodus 40,3, and in Genesis 24,30. The desert in question is the one the Israelites marched through for most of 40 years.

על המדבר BY THE WILDERNESS — next to the wilderness; a similar use of על is (Numbers 2:20) “and next unto him (עליו) shall be the tribe of Manasseh’’.

עין משפט היא קדש EN-MISHPAT, THE SAME IS KADESH — It is here named EN-MISHPAT (“the well of judgment’’) in reference to what would happen there in the future — where Moses and Aaron would once be judged because of what occurred at that fountain. It is identical with “the waters of Meribah” (cf. Numbers 20:1 and Numbers 20:13) (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 8). Onkelos, however, translates it according to its plain sense: the plain where the people of the district used to gather for every lawsuit.

TO EIN MISHPAT, WHICH IS KADESH. It is named [Ein Mishpat, meaning, “the Well of Judgment”] on account of a future event, for Moses and Aaron will be judged because of what will occur at that fountain.¹⁴⁸See Numbers 20:7-13. Thus the words of Rashi based upon an Agadah.¹⁴⁹Tanchumah Chukath, 11. So also in Targum Jonathan here.
But I do not understand this for this Kadesh [mentioned here] is Kadesh-barnea which is in El-paran which is by the desert,¹⁵⁰As mentioned here in Verse 6. and it is from there that the spies were sent by Moses in the second year following the Exodus from Egypt, as it is said, Unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh.¹⁵¹Numbers 13:26. And it is further written, And we came to Kadesh-barnea… and ye said, Let us send men before us,¹⁵²Deuteronomy 1:19, 22. and there Israel abode many days.¹⁵³Ibid., Verse 46. But the Kadesh where the judgment of the righteous ones¹⁵⁴Moses and Aaron. took place is in the wilderness of Zin, which they entered in the fortieth year following the Exodus, as it is said, And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people abode in Kadesh,¹⁵⁵Numbers 20:1. and finish the chapter.¹⁵⁶A charge by the author to finish the chapter containing the account of the smiting of the rock by Moses to bring forth water and his consequent punishment. Perhaps the Midrash [mentioned above] alludes only to the name, meaning that a place bearing this name Kadesh will become “the Well of Judgment.”
Now Onkelos said, “the plain of pilug dina,” but I do not know what this means. Perhaps the word pilug is derived from [the Hebrew word used in the following verses]: ‘Plagim’ (Streams) and watercourses;¹⁵⁷Isaiah 30:25. Who ‘pilag’ (hath cleft) a channel for the waterflood.¹⁵⁸Job 38:25. Similarly, in the language of the Sages we find,¹⁵⁹Esther Rabbah, 5. “Pilgo (The openness) of the sea.” The verse thus states that on that plain there will flow “a fountain of judgment” entering the depth of the case, as this was a fitting plain destined for kings who would sit there to judge all the peoples of these lands.

וישבו ויבאו, after they had first spread out as far as the edge of the desert, they changed direction and marched towards Sodom encountering in their path a place called עין משפט. They were familiar with the history of these places and knew why they bore such names. All of these place-names referred to events that had occurred there at one time or another. There is a Midrash quoted by Rashi in which these names are understood as allusions to events in the future, such as the time when Moses and Aaron would be judged there for hitting the rock instead of speaking to it. At that time the place was called מי מריבה, “waters of the strife.”

עין משפט, according to Rashi, the name mentioned here is borrowed from the name of that place in later years. At that time Moses and Aaron would be judged in that location. (מי מריבה). Nachmanides expresses his confusion about this commentary, referring to the קדש, which, he claims is identical with קדש ברנע that we know from Numbers 20,2 in the desert of Tzin, where Moses and Aaron failed to speak to the rock. [I will not bother to translate all he writes as it is clearly based on a misunderstanding of the location. Joshua 12,22 as well as 20,7 refers to locations known as Kedesh in the land of Canaan, There were numerous locations known by that name, so that there is nothing strange about Rash’s explanation, though his apparent conclusion that this was the location later on known as מי מריבה is geographically untenable.

שדה העמלקי THE COUNTRY OF THE AMALEKITES — Amalek, it is true, was not yet born, but it is here named in reference to the name it would bear in the future (Genesis Rabbah 42:7).

שדה העמלקי, [this name supports Rashi’s opinion that the names referred to events in the future, seeing that Amalek, a grandson of Esau, had not been born yet for at least another hundred years. Ed.] When a plain is large enough so that cities can be built in it, it is called שדה. One such example is שדה אדום in Genesis 32,3; another is found in Ruth 1,6 שדה מואב.

What may have bothered Rashi is the reference to שדה עמלקי, considering that also Amalek had not been born yet, seeing that he was a grandson of Esau. Ed.] I believe (author speaking) that the reason the Torah speaks of שדה העמלקי is that there was an important person called Amalek in that region at the time, and that is the reason why Eliphaz, son of Esau, named his son (from the concubine Timnah after this original Amalek. (Genesis 36,12). Esau certainly ruled that region at one time after having separated from Yaakov.

THE COUNTRY OF THE AMALEKITES. Rashi comments: “Amalek, it is true, was not yet born, but it is so named here because of the name it would bear in the future.”
Now I do not know whether Rashi’s intent is to say that Moshe Rabbeinu called the place by the name it was referred to in his time, but if this be the case, there is no reference to future events involved. Or [if Rashi’s intent is that the nations of Abraham’s era called it by that name] what is being foretold by the nations’ prophetic naming of this place?
But the language of Bereshith Rabbah¹⁶⁰42:11. is as follows: “Amalek was not yet born and yet you say, ‘All the country of the Amalekites!’ However, the Torah declares the end from the beginning.”¹⁶¹Isaiah 46:10. This method of d’rash¹⁶²Homiletical interpretation of Scripture. of the Sages is found in many places. Concerning the rivers of the garden of Eden they also made a similar statement.¹⁶³“That [river] is the one which surrounds the whole land of Havilah. (Genesis 2:11). Havilah was not yet in existence, and yet the verse says, the whole land of Havilah! However, the Torah declares the end from the beginning.” (Bereshith Rabbah 16:2.) The intent of the Rabbis is to say that from the time the rivers came forth it was already declared that a particular river go towards a land which is destined to be called Assyria.¹⁶⁴Reference here is to the third river, namely, the Tigris. (Above, 2:14.)
The correct interpretation concerning “the country of the Amalekites” mentioned here is that there was in ancient times some honorable person of the sons of the Horites, the inhabitants of the land,¹⁶⁵See further, 36:20. by the name of Amalek, who ruled over this place. Eliphaz, Esau’s firstborn, named his son after this man.¹⁶⁶Ibid., Verse 12. Perhaps this Amalek mentioned here was of the family of Timna, his mother,¹⁶⁶Ibid., Verse 12. and he also ruled in that place and was chieftain over them.

בחצצון תמר IN HAZEZON-TAMAR — This is En-Gedi: so a text plainly states in Chronicles (2 Chronicles 20:2) in the history of Jehoshaphat.

ויצא מלך סדום...ויערכו אתם מלחמה. The five kings that went out from their cities and prepared plans for a battle were confident that they would win, and they may have thought that others might join them. Their rebellion had been inspired by the hope that other kingdoms that were similarly subservient to Kedorleomer would make common cause with them. They believed that they would enjoy a numerical advantage, seeing the opposing kings were only four in number. If the four kings proved victorious over greater numbers than themselves, this was due to G’d wanting that Avram acquire the reputation of being a mighty warrior, if need be. This is part of the way in which G’d fulfilled His promise to Avram “I will make your name great.” (12,2) It was also designed to demonstrate to the people at large Avram’s righteousness and his abiding trust in the Lord, without whose help such a victory by 318 men over the mightiest armies of that period had been inconceivable. Concerning Avram and men of his ilk, Solomon wrote in Proverbs 29,25: “ובוטח בה' ישגב, he who trusts in the Lord will be safeguarded.” In order to underscore the point still further, the Torah describes the victory of Kedorleomer as the “victory of four kings versus five.”

(8-10) Diese aber erwarteten sie nicht, zogen ihnen vielmehr entgegen, griffen sie an — und wurden rasch in die Flucht geschlagen. Die Könige waren die ersten, die flohen. — שאר: Übrigbleiben, Rest, Verwandtschaft, Speise, — verwandt mit שער: iTor, und שחר: iMorgen. Grundbedeutung wahrscheinlich: Ergänzung suchen: was zur Ergänzung fehlt oder zur Ergänzung führt. Daher: das zu einem Ganzen fehlende: der Rest. Das den Leib Ergänzende: die Nahrung. Die uns ergänzenden Wesen: die Blutsverwandten und die Frau. שער: das zur Stadt führende, auch wo jeder von jedem zu finden ist (ach der Bedeutung im jüdischen Lande): das Tor; überhaupt das zum Gesuchten führende: die Pforte. שחר: die Pforte des Tages: der Morgen. Und als Zeitwort: suchen, insbesondere das Heil und Rettung Bringende suchen. — Sie flohen dem Gebirge zu. Dies Gebirge war im Westen des Schlachtfeldes, somit der Gegend zu, wo Abraham wohnte.

'ארבעה מלכים וגו FOUR KINGS [AGAINST THE FIVE]— and yet the fewer were victorious; this statement is expressly made to tell you how powerful they were, and yet Abraham did not refrain from pursuing them.

Yet, the fewer ones were victorious. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it need to state, “Four kings”? We see that they were four! Thus he explains [that it comes to teach]: “Yet ... Avraham did not refrain...”

כדרלעמר, he is mentioned first at this point as he was the cause of the entire war.

בארת בארת חמר FULL OF BITUMEN PITS — There were many pits there from which they took earth as clay for building purposes. The Midrashic explanation is that the clay was closely kneaded together in them (was very sticky) so that it was only because a miracle was performed for the king of Sodom that he escaped from them. For amongst those nations there were some who did not believe that Abraham had been delivered from Ur-Kasdim — from the fiery furnace — but as soon as this one escaped from the slime they corrected their past disbelief regarding what had happened to Abraham (literally, they believed retrospectively in Abraham) (Genesis Rabbah 42:7).

‘BE’EROTH BE’EROTH CHEIMAR’ (FULL OF SLIME PITS). There were many pits there since they removed earth to be used as clay for building purposes. The Midrashic explanation is that the clay was closely kneaded together in them, [that is, it was very sticky], but a miracle happened to the king of Sodom and he escaped from there. This miracle occurred because there were some among the nations who did not believe that Abram had been delivered from the fiery furnace, but as soon as this one escaped from the slime, in retrospect they believed in Abram. Thus the language of Rashi.
There is no doubt that the meaning of be’eroth cheimar is “pits containing mud and slime,” even as it is written, And in the pit there was no water, but mire, and Jeremiah sank in the mire,¹⁶⁷Jeremiah 38:6. and it is further written, He brought me up out of the tumultuous pit, out of the miry clay.¹⁶⁸Psalms 40:3. And it is possible that the king of Sodom went out from there naturally, without a miracle.
And I wonder concerning the above Midrashic explanation, for those nations that did not believe that the Holy One, blessed be He, had performed a miracle for Abraham would not have their faith in the Holy One, blessed be He, augmented by witnessing the miracle which befell the king of Sodom. The king of Sodom was an idol worshipper, and his miracle would either strengthen the hands of the idol worshippers or it would cause them to believe that all miracles are done by witchcraft or are due to some remotely possible chance. His miracle would thus cast doubt into the hearts of those who believed in Abraham’s miracle! Perhaps [the Rabbis who authored this Midrashic explanation] will interpret the verse, And the king of Sodom went out to meet him,¹⁶⁹Verse 17 here. as implying that “he went out” from the pit when Abraham passed by for it was in honor of Abraham that a miracle was done to him so that he could go forth to meet him in order to honor and bless Abraham.
And it is possible that Abraham, upon his return, looked into that pit for he wanted to save the kings and return their wealth to them, and then the miracle happened on his account. Now if a miracle was done to the king of Sodom in honor of Abraham, the nations could now believe all the more that a miracle would be done to Abraham himself in order to rescue him from death.
We must further say that the king of Gomorrah had already died¹⁷⁰Hence he did not come out from the pit. when Abraham passed him by or that he had fallen into another pit, as the word “there”¹⁷¹And they fell ‘there.’ The word “there” does not refer to the pit, in which case it would then imply that all five kings fell into one pit. Rather it refers to ‘the vale’ of Siddim. Thus the king of Gomorrah fell into a different pit, near which Abraham did not pass. refers to “the vale.”

וינוסו מלך סדום, this made it plain that Avram could not rely on them that they would help him.

ועמק השדים בארות בארות חמר, the vowel pattern of the construct mode of the word בארות in our verse is different from the ordinary plural mode of the same word in Genesis 26,18 where it also appears in the construct mode, i.e. בארות המים, “the wells of water.”

ועמק השדים, “and the valley of Siddim, etc.” Some commentators derive the word שדים from סיד, lime, quoting ושדת אותם בשיד, as their proof, where it means to smear the stones with white lime. (Deut. 27,2) Accordingly, the region was full of depressions in which people dug for lime. The lime would be burned afterwards. Rashi quotes a Midrash, according to which, most people had refused to believe that Avraham had miraculously survived having been thrown into Nimrod’s furnace. When they witnessed the King of Sodom miraculously surviving falling into a lime pit, they changed their mind and retroactively gave credence to the miracle which had saved Avraham. Nachmanides is amazed at the very Midrash, as he cannot understand why people who failed to believe that a miracle had happened to Avraham should believe that a miracle had happened for the King of Sodom. Why would the G’d of heaven perform a miracle for an idolater such as the King of Sodom? On the contrary, if the King of Sodom could survive his fall into the lime pit, Avraham’s surviving the furnace was now far more plausible, but not in the framework of a miracle. The people who doubted the miracle of the furnace, ascribing it to magic, would most certainly also describe the King of Sodom’s escape as due to magic. It is more likely that seeing the King of Sodom’s escape made even the people who had believed that Avraham escaped by means of a miracle have second thoughts, and they now believed that Avraham had also benefited by magic. Another possibility could be that these commentators understand he words ויצא מלך סדום לקראתו in verse 17 to mean that the King of Sodom emerged from that lime pit at the time when Avraham passed by, i.e. that a miracle was performed for him at that time which resulted in his being saved so that he was able to honour Avraham and bless him, or that Avraham on his return from the successful battle wanted to restore their property to the five Kings, and when passing that neighbourhood, [seeing that his battle had been fought far to the north of there, Ed.] the miracle of the King of Sodom’s rescue then occurred by means of his intervention. When people observed that Avraham could perform such a miracle, they became convinced that a man such a Avraham had been saved miraculously from Nimrod’s furnace. It is quite possible that the King of Gomorrha had already died, so that we hear no more about him, or that he had fallen into a different pit, one that Avraham did not pass.

There were many pits ... Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say בארות twice? Another question: If the pits had mortar, why is it written, “They fell there”? It should say, “They sank there,” as is in Yirmeyahu 38:6: “And Yirmeyahu sank into the cement.” Another question: Since the pits had mortar, why did they not die when they sank into the mortar, which is cement? Thus Rashi explains that there were many pits, and they did not actually contain mortar but provided earth for making mortar.

ועמק השדים בארות, according to an aggadic commentary quoted by Rash,i the miracle that the king of Sodom escaped from this valley filled with bitumen wells which burns people, convinced the people now that Avram had indeed escaped from Nimrod’s furnace. According to a different interpretation, the word שדים is to be read with the dot on the left side of the letter ש, so that the meaning would be the same as the word שיד in Deuteronomy 27,2 the whitewash with which the stones taken out of the Jordan river were to be smeared as a base for writing on.

הרה נסו means THEY FLED TO A MOUNTAIN. The word הרה is the same as לְהַר. When a word requires a ל as a prefix one may put instead a ה as a suffix. There is a difference between הֶרָה and הָהָרָה, for the ה at the end takes the place of a לְ (with Shewa) prefixed (another version has: for the ה at the end does not take the place of a prefixed ל with Patach which would mean to “the”) so that הֶרָה is equal to לְהַר or to אֶל הַר to “a” mountain, without explaining which mountain — so that the meaning here is that each person fled to the first mountain he came across. When, however, a ה is prefixed to a word having this ה suffix so that it reads e. g., הָהרה or הַמדברה, it is the same as אל הָהר or לְהָהר (to “the” mount) signifying that mount which is well-known and has been definitely mentioned in the passage.

והנשארים הרה נסו, the remaining three kings.

The word חמר is equivalent to what we know as טיט, (11,3) where it means mortar. It is unbaked clay, binding bricks together, loam.

ויפלו שמה, “they fell there.” Some commentators understand the word ויפלו as “they fell (dead)”, similar to וישכבו שמה, “they lay down there,” in the sense of lying down to sleep. (Joshua 2,1) Others understand it in the sense of על פני כל אחיו נפל, “he dwelled in full view of his brothers.” (Genesis 25,18) (compare Onkelos) Others understood the word ויפלו in the sense of “they hid,” i.e. deliberately lowered themselves into these pits.

The Midrashic explanation is ... the King of Sedom escaped ... Rashi is answering the question: Why are the pits called בארות (lit. “wells”), if they would remove all the [earth for the] mortar from the pits? בארות implies they were always full of cement! Thus Rashi brings the Midrashic explanation. (Maharshal)

בארות בארות חמר, “pits full of sticky loam.” The letter ב has a vowel segol under it and the letter א the vowel chatoph segol, (shortened version.)

וינסו מלך סדום ועמורה, the other kings fled toward the mountains, as we are told והנשארים הרה נסו. “those remaining fled towards the mountain.” The letter ה at the end of the word הרה is equivalent to the prefix ל.

ויפלו שמה, They fell into them. They did not “fall” into them, as they were familiar with them, but they used them to hide in while trying to escape the pursuers. The construction is similar to Genesis 25,18 where Yishmael is described as על פני כל אחיו נפל. The loam was not wet, but could be used to help make bricks.

ויקחו את כל רכוש סדום ועמורה, the עמק השדים was within the boundaries of those 2 kingdoms, whereas the satellite towns Admah and Tzoyim and Bela were not situated in that part of the terrain. The word רכוש includes both chattels which are inert and animals which can walk on their own.

רכוש eigentlich die leblose bewegliche Habe. Da jedoch, wie wir weiter erfahren, auch Menschen mit fortgeschleppt waren, so müssen hier diese als willenlos und mit Gewalt fortzuführende Gefangene, bezeichnend genug unter רכוש mitbegriffen sein. — אכלם, wohl nicht blos Kriegsproviant, sondern die in den Gebäuden der üppigen Städte aufgespeicherten Speisevorräte. — "Sie nahmen und sie gingen!" Auch dies ist charakteristisch und wiederholt sich später. Kriegshorden kommen, erobern, nicht um das Land zu bewohnen, sondern schleppen alles fort, was fortzubringen ist, auch die Bewohner; so Salmanassar, so Nebukadnezar; setzen manchmal andere Bewohner hinein, lassen es auch wohl öde und leer.

ואת כל אכלם, and all the food they had stored up at home as well as all the inhabitants.

והוא ישב בסדם FOR HE DWELT IN SODOM — What made this happen to him? The fact that he was dwelling in Sodom (Genesis Rabbah 42:7).

ויקחו את לוט בן אחי אברם, they made a special effort to capture Lot because he was Avram’s nephew. They were aware of his wealth. They were expecting that Avram would pay a heavy ransom for the release of his nephew.

ויקחו את לוט, They took Lot, etc. The reason the Torah adds that Lot was Abraham's nephew and that he lived in Sodom, something we have known for a long time, is to tell us that these kings were very well aware of who Lot was. This did not deter them from taking Lot captive. The Torah stresses that these kings deliberately ignored the fact that they were provoking a man of international repute when they took his nephew into captivity. None of this would have happened to Lot had he not chosen to live in Sodom. The matter can be compared to Israel capturing a substantial part of Moab though G'd had forbidden Israel to provoke war with Moab or to attack it (Deut. 2,9). Once the Emorite king Sichon had defeated Moab in war, the lands captured by Sichon were no longer considered as Moabite territory, and Israel took possession of them. Here too, once Lot had chosen to throw in his lot with the Sodomites he was no longer considered as part of Abraham's entourage, and was not entitled to the protection Abraham could have afforded him. This also explains why Abraham did not try to secure Lot's release by peaceful means. He knew that the 4 kings knew very well whom they had taken prisoner. If Lot's relationship with Abraham had not stopped them, there was no point for Abraham to warn those kings before attacking them. Lot's capture was a hostile act against Abraham.

ויקחו ..והוא יושב בסדום. The Torah had already told us in 13,12 where Lot had settled. This was only meant to tell us that he had not moved from these since he took up residence there in the first place. Or, whereas at the beginning he had actually not resided within the city, by now he had moved into Sodom proper.

Beides sind bereits bekannte Umstände, dass er Abrahams Brudersohn gewesen und dass er in Sodom wohnte. Sie werden also hier sicherlich nicht ohne Grund hervorgehoben. Lot war ja eigentlich nicht Sodomiter, war ja bekannt als Abrahams Brudersohn, und wenn er das geblieben wäre, es hätte ihn das Geschick nicht erreicht, selbst in der Nähe des Kriegsereignisses hätte er als Fremder hoffen dürfen, von Kedarlaomers Rache verschont zu bleiben — allein er war Einwohner von Sodom, er hatte das dortige Stadtbürgerrecht, und musste mitbüßen. Es liegt hierin ein warnender Fingerzeig für die Glieder der Abrahamsfamilie, der sich in Jahrhunderten der jüdischen Geschichte bewährt hat. Bleibt man dem jüdischen Berufe und dem jüdischen Geschicke treu, entbehrt man allerdings vieles, allein man erspart sich auch vieles, man erscheint getragen von den כנפי השכינה. Die uns isolierenden Judengassen waren nicht bloß gegen die Juden, sie waren auch für sie vorhanden. Von vielen Übeln, die im Mittelalter die Menschen außerhalb trafen, blieben die innerhalb verschont. Sie wurden freilich zu gering geachtet, Schulze und Büttel zu werden, zu gering, als Reisige im Gefolge der Ritter auszuziehen, durften in Turnieren nicht erscheinen, haben nicht Teil genommen an den großen Staats- und Weltaktionen, — haben dafür aber auch keine Menschen torquiert und geschlachtet, gewürgt und verbrannt, sind wohl die Opfer, aber nie die Opferer gewesen, ihre Hände sind rein von Menschenblut geblieben und — wenn Kaiser und ihre Heere den Geschicken erlagen, waren sie in ihren Judengassen geschützt. Sie dürfen sich freuen, erst dann wieder auf die Weltbühne gerufen worden zu sein, wo wenigstens die Zeiten sich anschicken, in allem milder und menschlicher und gerechter zu werden. — Sinnliche Menschen aber lernen nichts. Lot hätte doch hieraus lernen und Sodom fortan meiden sollen, wir finden ihn gleichwohl später bei der letzten Katastrophe wieder und immer noch in Sodom. —

והוא יושב בסדום, “and he dwelled in Sodom;” note the singular mode; none of his relatives lived in Sodom. This accounted for his being taken captive alone. Alternate explanation: he entered the city now that he was afraid of being solitary against the warring nations.

Should you argue that the four kings had merely reacted against the insubordination of the five kings associated with the king of Sodom, and that Lot was their legitimate booty, as per the comparison we have drawn with Sichon and the Moabites, this is not an accurate comparison after all. That comparison was valid when there existed neither a state of peace nor a state of war between two parties. Abraham and the four kings were at peace, and the four kings should have warned Lot to leave Sodom before making war just as did King Saul with the Kenites before he attacked the Amalekites (Samuel I 15,6).

ויבא הפליט AND THERE CAME THE ONE WHO ESCAPED — According to the real meaning this was Og who had escaped from the battle with the Rephaim (see Genesis 5:5) and it is to this that the text refers (Deuteronomy 3:11) “For only Og king of Bashan was left of the remnant of the Rephaim”, and this is what is meant by נשאר “left”, for Amraphel and his allies did not kill him when they smote the Rephaim in Ashteroth Karnaim. So is the statement in the Tanchuma 4:6:25 (Chukat). But according to the Midrash Genesis Rabbah (Genesis Rabbah 42:8) it refers to Og in allusion to him as the only one of the generation of the Flood who escaped that catastrophe, and this is what is meant (Deuteronomy 3:11) “of the remnant of the Rephaim”, for it is said. (Genesis 6:4) “The Nephilim (= Rephaim cf. Genesis Rabbah 26) were in the earth etc.” His intention in telling Abraham that his nephew was captured was that Abraham should wage war against the kings and that he should be killed so that he, himself, might marry Sarah.

ויגד לאברם העברי, this refugee had no idea that Lot was related to Avram. He only knew that Lot’s religious beliefs were similar to those of Avram.

ויבא הפליט, after that individual had escaped from captivity he came and told Avram that his nephew had been taken captive, also.

ויגד לאברם העברי, “he told the Hebrew Avraham.” Rabbi Joseph Karo explains this as meaning that the reason that Avraham is here described as the עברי, is to counter the answer what good it would do Lot that someone told Avraham of his plight, seeing there were only two Hebrews in the whole land, he and Avraham? By adding that this Hebrew had powerful allies in Oner, Eshkol and Mamre, the situation was not quite as hopeless. Mamre was a well known and powerful personage.

This refers to Og who escaped from the war. But not that he survived the Flood. For it is written (7:23), “Only Noach and those with him in the ark survived.”

הפליט, mit Hinblick auf Raw Hirsch on Genesis 14: 10, wo schon gesagt ward, dass die Entkommenen ins Gebirge, also westlich nach Abrahams Gegend flohen. Daher nicht notwendig an einen Flüchtling, sondern überhaupt die Entflohenen, zu denken. — Was hier von Abraham hervorgehoben wird, bildet den geraden Gegensatz zu dem von Lot im vorangehenden Vers Erzählten. Abraham war der Ibri geblieben, sei es nun: der von jenseits des Stromes her, oder nach R. Josuas Auffassung: der jenseits Stehende, der ganzen Welt Gegenüberstehende, der erste "Protestant", immerhin sagt es, dass er in seiner Eigentümlichkeit isoliert geblieben und als solcher erkannt und bekannt war. — והוא שכן. Von Lot heißt es ישב .והוא יושב בסדום (verwandt mit יצב) das Ruhen, das seine Unterlage im Boden findet, bezeichnet daher das völlige Aufgehen in den Ort, auf dem man sich befindet. Wie oben והכנעני והפריזי אז יושב בארץ, so hier Lot יושב בסדום. Abraham aber ׳שכן .שוכן באלני וגו ist auch ein ruhiges Verharren, bezeichnet aber nicht das Verhältnis zum Boden, sondern das soziale Verhältnis zu dem Anwohnenden, das friedliche Nebeneinanderwohnen, ohne jedoch in den Nachbar aufzugehen, weshalb es ja auch, wie bereits oben bemerkt, (Kap.9, 27) der gewöhnliche Ausdruck ist für die Gottesnähe auf Erden. Abraham scheute sich nicht, mitten in der emoritischen Bevölkerung, in seiner Eigentümlichkeit zu verharren, sei es auch nur als geduldeter Fremdling; er war der Abram von "Jenseits" und שוכן "anwohnend" mit dem Emori, beachtete ein friedliches Nebeneinandersein, einer hinderte den andern nicht; und wenn gleich Fremdling und nur geduldet, so waren doch Mamre, der Herr der Gegend und seine Verwandten בעלי ברית אברם, nicht אנשי בריתו.

ויבא הפליט, “the one who had escaped (from the armies that captured Sodom and its satellites) came,” (and reported on the battle to Avraham) It was the angel Michael who told Avraham. If so, why is he referred to as if a human being who had escaped from Sodom? [According to a comment in a book by Rabbi Reuven Margolies, called Malachey elyon, in which the names and functions of all the angels about whom we have some information are listed (131), Michael is an alternate name for Mattatron, often cited in kabalistic literature, as G–d’s “general manager” in matters relating to earth,” with especial concern for the Jewish people and their well wishers. Ed.] As to the reason why he is called by the strange name פליט, “refugee, escapee,” according to a tradition, when G–d dispatched Samael and his forces to earth from heaven, Samael being another name for the perennial Satan, the latter tried to force Michael to go down to earth with him, and G–d at the last moment took hold of his wing in order to keep him in the celestial spheres. Ever since then, the angel Michael has acquired the nickname פליט, “escapee.” Concerning this escapee, the prophet Ezekiel in Ezekiel 33,21, says: בא אלי הפליט מירושלים לאמור הכתה העיר, “the angel Michael came to me to inform me that Jerusalem had been conquered by the Babylonians.” The prophet then is assigned a task by G–d.

ויבא הפליט, “the one who had escapedKedorleomer’s army arrived;” according to Rashi’scommentary this was the man who later on became Og, King of Bashan who had made a name for himself by having survived the deluge, hence the prefix ה before the word: פליט, escapee. He lived so long that eventually Moses killed him (Numbers 21,35) He was not interested in saving Avram, but intended to marry Sarah after Avram would have been killed in war. G-d retaliated by paying him back in kind. He granted him long life for warning Avram on the one hand, but He foiled his design, Avram becoming victorious, and Sarah predeceasing Avram. He was chagrined to live long enough to see millions of Avram’s descendants, before himself being killed by one of them. [None of these midrashim account for the Torah’s failure to report his having survived the deluge. Ed.] Granted, if this was a fact, Moses had reason to fear him and that is why G-d told him not to be afraid of him. (Numbers 21,34). The Talmud Zevachim, 113, raises the question of how Og managed to escape the deluge and suggests that though the waters were boiling hot, in the immediate vicinity of the ark they were cool miraculously so,so as not to destroy the ark and its inhabitants. Og took advantage of this and survived. [This means that he went without food and water for 365 days. Ed.] The expression: הפליט occurs also in Ezekiel 33,21, where it refers to someone who had escaped and survived the battle of Jerusalem who reported the fall of the city and the Temple to the prophet. The verse which omits identifying who this escapee was is not so unusual that we need to look for far fetched explanations. Our author cites similar “abbreviated” constructions in Genesis 48,1; Genesis 48,2; he claims that there are numerous others.

העברי THE HEBREW — the one who came from the other side (עבר) of the River (Euphrates) (Genesis Rabbah 42:8).

והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא, this is why Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre participated in the war with Avram, and why he insisted in verse 24 that they receive their share of the loot.

העברי, a member of the tribe of Ever, he and all his descendants proudly regarded Ever as their ancestor. They were the only people who still spoke Hebrew, the original language of man. Subsequent descendants, other than the line which ran through Avraham and the Israelites, changed their language to Aramaic, and were called Aramim, i.e. members of the people of Aram, in recognition of their specific language. Even Lavan, a third or fourth generation descendant of Ever, was already known as לבן הארמי, Lavan who spoke Aramaic. The tribe called עברים was Yaakov and his offspring.

בעל drückt überall (.usw בעל דברים ,בעל אשה ,בעל כנפים) die Persönlichkeit in Verhältnis zu Dingen aus, die in irgend einer Beziehung ihr untergeordnet sind. ברית ist zweifach denkbar: 1) zwei werden gleiche Genossen eines Bundes, 2) jemand nimmt einen anderen in den Freundschaftsbund auf, gesellt ihn zu sich, es ist dann der eine dem andern unter- resp. übergeordnet. Dies letztere war hier der Fall. Nicht: Abraham nahm sie in seinen Freundschaftskreis auf, sondern Aner und Eschkol und Mamre nahmen ihn auf in den ihrigen, sie waren die בעלים des ברית er war der Fremde, sie die Einheimischen. Also nicht nur Mamre, in dessen Territorium Abraham wohnte, sondern seine Verwandten fanden in Abraham, obgleich einem Fremden, eine ihnen so imponierende Persönlichkeit, dass sie ihn in ihren Bund aufnahmen.

והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא, “and he lived at the time in Elon Mamre.” The tree so called stood in the town of Chevron, as we know from Genesis 13,18. An alternate exegesis: the words: “and he lived in Elon Mamre which is in Chevron,” refer to the home of the person described as הפליט, “the escapee.” This would explain why he came to tell Avram whose home was also in Elon Mamre all about what he had escaped from.

בעלי ברית אברם CONFEDERATE WITH ABRAM (literally, owners of a covenant with Abram) — They had entered into a covenant with him. Other versions of Rashi have: another explanation is, they advised him to circumcise himself (to keep the [ברית] covenant), as is explained in another place (cf. Rashi on Genesis 18:1).

והא שוכן באלוני ממרא, this escaped captive lived with the brothers who were allies of Avram and had helped him. He lived on the lands of one of the brothers i.e. that of Mamre.

והוא שוכן באלוני ממרא האמורי, “and he dwelled at Eloney Mamre of the Emorite.” It is well known that the three good friends of Avraham were Aner, Eshkol, and Mamre. All three were Emorites. We do not find however that the description “Emorite” is ever applied to either Aner or Eshkol. We do not find that even Mamre is referred to as an Emorite except here. We do not find that he is mentioned anywhere else in the Torah. [in chapter 23 Mamre is mentioned as a place name only. Ed.] The reason he is mentioned here is because the Torah refers to the ברית. The Torah is concerned that we should not think that all three of Avram’s friends urged him to circumcise himself but only Mamre. Our sages say in Bereshit Rabbah 42,8 that when the commandment to circumcise himself was issued, Avram went to consult with his friends and both Aner and Eshkol advised against, whereas Mamre advised strongly in favour, asking how he could possibly refuse seeing that G’d had saved his life so many times? He argued that seeing Avram was ready to give his life for G’d at any time if requested to do so, how could he even consider refusing to offer a single one of his organs at G’d’s command? In recognition of Mamre’s advice G’d told Avram that He would reveal Himself only in Mamre’s proximity not in the palaces of either Aner or Eshkol. The name ממרא is also viewed as an acrostic for the words מלכים, מילה, רעבון, אש that G’d had saved Avram from the kings, that he had received the advice to go through with the circumcision, that G’d had saved him from the famine in the land of Canaan, and from the fire in Nimrod’s furnace. We also find that the word אמירה is used in connection with the commandment of circumcision, i.e. שש אנכי על אמרתיך, “I rejoice with your utterances” (Psalms 119,162).

That Avram be killed so he might marry Sarah. Rashi is explaining according to the latter Midrash why Og came to tell Avraham about Lot. According to the first explanation, that Og escaped the war, it is understandable. He told Avram in order to take revenge on Amraphel and the others who had killed his family. But according to the latter Midrash, why did he tell him? Perforce, “It was his intention that Avram be killed...”

Dies ganze Verhalten Abrahams dürfte für זרע אברהם zu allen Zeiten mustergültig dastehen, so lange sie sich als זרע אברהם in einem fremden Lande befinden, בארץ לא להם. Der Jude bleibe Jude, der friedliche, die fremden Verhältnisse in keiner Weise störende, entwickele und gestalte seine eigenen jüdischen Verhältnisse also, dass die andern ihn in ihren Freundschaftskreis zu ziehen suchen, nicht umgekehrt. Jeder reine Mensch findet in dem wahren, ganzen Judentum das idealisierte, vollendete Menschtum, nicht so umgekehrt; denn der Begriff Jude ist ein weiterer Begriff als: Mensch. Er sei nur ein Jude, ein ganzer, voller Jude, so wird er, wenn auch nur ein שכן, gleichwohl, geachtet, des ברית der Völker teilhaftig werden. — Abraham erkaufte sich nicht dieses Bundesverhältnis durch Selbstentkleidung seines Berufes.

והם בעלי ברית אברם, “and they (Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre) being allies of Avram went with him [in this mission impossible, 318 against four armies! Ed.] Compare verse 24.

וירק Its meaning is as the Targum takes it: “he girded”. Similar are (Leviticus 24:33) “And I will gird myself (והריקותי) with the sword against you", and (Exodus 15:9) “I will gird on (אריק) my sword”, and (Psalms 35:3) “Gird thyself (הרק) with the spear and battle axe”.

Three hundred and eighteen. See Rashi. Yet in verse 24 Avraham refers to the “men” who went with him. Undoubtedly he took with him actual soldiers but the number 318 hinted that victory was impossible without Divine assistance. Eli-ezer means “My God helps”.

וירדוף עד רן, in his pursuit to attack them suddenly.

וישמע...אחיו, the word אחיו here is used in the sense of “his relative.” Nephews are often considered as like “brothers.” Avram himself had used this term when he spoke to his nephew in 13,8 and said כי אנשים אחים אנחנו, “we are men who are brothers.”

As the Targum translates: “And he armed.” [You might ask:] Rashi explained on Shemos 15:9 that [אריק חרבי means, “I will draw My sword,” and he writes:] “Do not make a forced interpretation that אריק חרבי means the same as in וירק את חניכיו, and conveys, “I will arm myself with a sword.” [So why does Rashi here say that it means “to arm”? The answer is:] Rashi is saying here that the term could be interpreted everywhere as “to arm” — whereas in our verse this is its only possible interpretation, since it refers to “his trained servants,” [not to a weapon]. Thus Rashi explains אריק in the other verses in a forced way, so we will not immediately object to his interpretation here, citing the other verses. But in truth, it means “to draw” everywhere except for here. Thus Rashi said there: “And do not make a forced interpretation.” (See Re’m for a different explanation)

Vor der Trennung hatte Abraham gesprochen: אנשים אחים sind wir, Männer, die Brüder sein sollen. Als er aber von Lots Unglück hörte, ist der unglück- liche Lot sofort אחיו, sein Bruder. — וירק את חניכיו. Weil הריק allerdings auch bei Waffen vorkommt als das Hervorziehen, das Zücken der Waffe, אריק הרבי, so hat man daraus hier dem Worte die Bedeutung: rüsten, mit Waffen versehen, unterstellt, und dann auch demgemäß in חניכיו seine Kriegsgeübten, Exerzierten gefunden. Allein wenn הריק in Beziehung zu Waffen vorkommt, so ist die Waffe, nicht der zu Bewaffnende das Objekt, הריק חנית ,הריק חרב, und nie kommt חנך in Verbindung mit etwas so Trübem oder Leerem wie die Soldatenübung vor. הריק heißt allerdings: entleeren, und zwar, ebenso wie מלא sich gleichmäßig auf das Gefäß wie auf den Inhalt bezieht, ebenso auch הריק שק und הריק חרב. Bezieht es sich auf den Inhalt, so heißt es: einen Inhalt ganz herausnehmen, so dass das Gefäß, welches ihn bis jetzt geborgen hatte, leer wird. Wenn demnach hier das Objekt von חניכיו :וירק ist, so kann es nichts anderes heißen, als dass er חניכיו allesamt und ganz aus ihrem bisherigen sie umschließenden Kreis, also aus ihrer bisherigen Zurückgezogenheit hinausgeführt. So heißt es bildlich von Moab, (Jeremias 48. 11). Moab war von seiner Jugend an ungestört und ruhte auf seinen Hefen ולא הורק מכלי אל כלי und wurde nicht von Gefäß zu Gefäß geleert. הנך findet sich aber nur in der Bedeutung der Einweihung und der Eingewöhnung (eines Hauses oder eines jungen Menschen) in ihre reine, menschliche, heilige Bestimmung, und, wie hier von Menschen gebraucht, kann es nichts anderes heißen, als: die von Abraham in ihre reine menschliche Bestimmung Eingeführten, also: die von ihm Gebildeten und Erzogenen, seine Zöglinge.

וירק את חניכיו, “he mobilised all those whom he had trained;” Avraham told all these men that they were about to go to war and if someone was afraid for his life due to sins he had committed, he was free to go back home. (Compare Deuteronomy 20,8) When they heard this, they all decided to return to their homes, with the exception of his loyal servant Eliezer. G–d told Avraham not to worry and to let them go home, as He would empower Eliezer to possesss as much power as all these men had possessed combined. The numerical value of the letters in the name אליעזר total 318, and that is why the Torah described his ”army” as consisting of 318 men. (Compare Talmud, tractate Nedarim, folio 31) In addition, we have two interpretations of the Talmud scholars Rav and Sh’muel, respectively, the former saying that the word וירק in our verse refers to “pouring words of Torah into these potential soldiers, whereas Sh’muel says that he overcame their fears by giving them large quantities of gold. (same folio in the Talmud) His objective was to instill in these men the will to save as many lives as possible, not to fight for the sake of the loot they might capture by killing fellow human beings. [This editor has some difficulty with the explanations offered, as in verse 24 of our chapter Avraham insists that the men who had fought with him receive their share of the loot. Ed.]

וירק את חניכיו, “the men who had been trained in warfare.”

חניכיו HIS TRAINED SERVANTS — The word is written without a י (after the כ) so it may be read חניכו “his trained one”, referring to Eliezer whom he had trained to the observance of religious duties. The word חנך signifies introducing a person or a thing, for the first time, to some particular occupation in which it is intended that he should remain (i. e. to dedicate or devote to some particular purpose). It has a similar sense in (Proverbs 22:6) “Train up (חנוך) a child”, and in (Numbers 7:84) חנוכת המזבח “the dedication of the altar”, and (Psalms 30:1) “The dedication (חנוכת) of the house” In old French enseigner; English: to teach, instruct.

וירק, he issued weapons to them, the verb is in the transitive mode. We encounter it in a similar meaning in Psalms 35,3 והרק חנית, “make ready the spear.”

And it is the gematria equivalent of his name. R. Noson asks: Since a verse never leaves its plain meaning [altogether], and it says that there were 318 [men involved, how could Rashi say it was only Eliezer]? He answers, citing Rabbeinu Bechayeh, that the men of Avraham’s household indeed numbered 318. But after Avraham prepared them for war he decreased their number by ordering all the sinners to go back home, in accordance with Torah law (Devarim 20:8): [“And the officers shall continue to speak to the people and say,] ‘What man is there who is fearful ... ’” Thus [in the end], only he and Eliezer remained. But the Gur Aryeh writes that all 318 men surely went with him, to frighten the kings so they would not stand strong against him. Avraham alone could have defeated them, as nothing can stop Hashem. But he took them so as to use natural strength and thereby conceal the miracle, as it says (Yehoshua 8:2): “Set yourself an ambush...” And he took the [number of people] that is to the gematria of Eliezer, to hint that all [the men came] on account of Eliezer, [so that Avraham would not be only with his faithful servant Eliezer].

Die Zusammenstellung mit וירק dürfte uns das Geheimnis offenbaren, weshalb Abraham bis jetzt eine jede innigere Verührung mit anderen so sehr gemieden. Abraham und Sara hatten wohl für sich nichts zu fürchten, allein er hatte 318 חניכים, dreihundert und achtzehn Menschenseelen, die er in Mitte der Entartung für die reine Menschenbestimmung herangebildet, und dafür zu erhalten hatte, sie mußten geschützt werden. Für sie zunächst suchte er Isolierung. Sie waren, wird uns erzählt, ילידי ביתו "die seinem Hause Geborenen", und nur weil sie dieses waren, konnten sie חניכיו werden; was ihm bei Lot nicht gelungen war, weil er zu ihm bereits als fertiger Mensch gekommen. Erziehung muss mit der Geburt des Menschen beginnen, um so mehr, wenn sie, wie Abrahams Erziehung, den Menschen für den Beruf eines עברי gewinnen will, der die ganze übrige Welt zu sich im Gegensatz erblicken musste. Bis jetzt hatte Abraham eben seiner חניכיו willen sein Haus von Berührung mit der Außenwelt zurückgehalten, diese waren bis jetzt von Abrahams Haus umfangen. Aber jetzt, wo es Menschenrettung galt, da dachte er nicht mehr an Gefahr, da וירק את הניכיו, "da schüttete er sie hinaus" alle hinaus — und diese, gewiss bis dahin von einem Lot und einer Sedom- und Amorabevölkerung wegen ihrer Zurückgezogenheit belächelte Abrahamsfamilie eilte jetzt hinaus und ward ihr Retter. —

עד דן, as far as Dan, the place was named such (the original “Dan” not having been born yet until at least 100 years later, Ed.] The place called “Dan” in the Book of Judges was called Leshem at the time of this battle (Compare Joshua 19,47).

'שמנה עשר וגו THREE HUNDRED AND EIGHTEEN — Our Rabbis said, “It was Eliezer alone whom he armed and it (318) is the numerical value of his name” (Nedarim 32a).

חניכיו, an adjective, similar to שרידיו and פליטיו, his trainees, people whom he had instructed in true monotheism. The word occurs in this sense in Proverbs 22,6 חנוך לנער על פי דרכו, train the lad in an appropriate manner, in accordance with his natural talents.”

There his strength ebbed. For he saw... [Rashi offers this Midrashic explanation] because it is written later, “He pursued them until Chovah,” which is Dan. If so, why does it need to say here, “And he pursued until Dan”? (Kitzur Mizrachi)

חנך steht in auffallender Lautverwandtschaft mit חנק. Wir haben bereits eine ähnliche in מלך und מלק gefunden. Wie daher מלך, abgeschwächt, geistig und sittlich das ausdrückt, was מלק physisch und mechanisch bedeutet, so dürfen wir auch eine ähnliche Beziehung zwischen חנך und חנק vermuten. חנק heißt allerdings geradezu erdrosseln d. h. die im Halse beginnenden Atmungs- und Ernährungsorgane, also die Organe der gesamten Lebenstätigkeit, in ihrem vereinigten Anfang so zusammendrängen, dass alles Leben aufhört. Verwandt damit: אנק, der unter solchem Druck sich Luft machende Angstschrei. Allein schon in ענק gewinnt der Begriff eine mildere, ja wohltuende Bedeutung: 1) als Halsschmuck, im Halse — nach dessen angedeuteter Bedeutung — den ganzen Menschen schmückend, und 2) als העניק, Versorgung des "wieder beginnenden Atmens und Ernährens", d. i die Ausstattung des zum wieder beginnenden selbständigen Leben hinaustretenden Knechtes. Ja ענג wird geradezu das Gefühl der Behaglichkeit des gesamten Daseins. — Alle diese Nuancen laufen in den zum Geistigen und Sittlichen gemilderten und potenzierten Begriff הנך zusammen. חנך ist jene Wirksamkeit, wodurch die beginnenden geistigen und sittlichen Lebenskräfte und Tätigkeiten in die ihnen zu ihrer Bestimmung nötige Umschränkung gewöhnt und in diesen Schranken sich zu entwickeln gelehrt werden. Durch חנוך bekommt der junge Mensch — nicht einen Schnürleib — sondern ein geistiges Gewand, in welchem er sich bewegen soll. Ist die Erziehung eine richtige, so wird sie ihm zum עונג. Sie ist allerdings eine Begrenzung, die aber dadurch allen Kräften den entsprechendsten und darum befriedigendsten Spielraum gewährt. — Vergl. oben Kap.2, 18. עזר.

עד רן AS FAR AS DAN — There his strength failed him for he saw prophetically that at some future time his descendants would there erect a calf (Sanhedrin 96a).

ילידי ביתו, people born in his household, to parents who had come with him already from Charan as well as those later in the land of Canaan. They totaled שמונה עשר ושלש מאות, 318. According to a Midrash quoted by Rashi, he took only Eliezer with him, the numerical value of the letters in his name amounting to a total of 318. If so, why did the Torah have to tell us that he took with him people born in his household? The Torah must have meant that he took an undisclosed number of people of his household with him, plus Eliezer, who was equivalent to 318 trained men.

Auf ein Haus übertragen ist הנוכה ebenfalls eine verneinende, und eben dadurch eine um so intensivere Aktivität gewährende Begrenzung. Vor dem חינוך war das Gebäude für alle möglichen Bestimmungen, und darum für keine ausschließlich da. Mit dem חינוך erhält es seine ausschließliche und ausschließende Bestimmung, d.i. Weihe. Wie die Weihe unserer Jugend nicht im Predigen, Moralisieren und Konfirmieren, sondern im חינוך, in der praktischen Einführung und Eingewöhnung in die Erfüllung der Lebenspflichten besteht, so macht auch nicht das Einweihungsprogramm, sondern der einfachste erste darin gehaltene Gottesdienst unsere Gotteshäuser zu Gotteshäusern.

וירדף עד דן, the place was not called Dan until much later, when the tribe of Dan expanded its territory under Joshua in the north of the country. At that time the Danites named the place after their tribe’s founding father.

Diese חניכיו ילידי ביתו werden im nächsten Vers עבריו genannt, und dürfte dies wohl geeignet sein, uns über die Bedeutung des "Sklaventums" im Volke Abrahams eine Aufklärung zu gewähren. Es war ein Weg, Menschenseelen aus der heidnischen Entartung für die abrahamitische Klarheit und Wahrheit zu gewinnen. Der jüdische Sklave ward Jude, seine Kinder wurden dem "Hause Abrahams" zugeboren, und zuerzogen. Der jüdische Sklave ward ein בן ברית, ein Sohn des Bundes, und bildet dieses Verhältnis einen schneidenden Kontrast zu dem Sklaventum der allermodernsten Zeit, die den Sklaven geistige und sittliche Bildung bei Todesstrafe verbot. —

ויחלק עליהם AND HE DIVIDED HIMSELF AGAINST THEM — In accordance with its plain sense you must invert the order of the words of the verse: “And he divided himself, he and his servants, against them, at night”, as is the manner of those who pursue their enemies — they divide themselves up to follow after those of whom they are in pursuit when these flee in different directions.

AND HE DIVIDED HIMSELF, BY NIGHT. Rashi wrote: “In accordance with the plain sense of the verse it means [that they divided into groups] as is the manner of those who pursue their enemies when they flee in different directions. By night means that even after it became dark, they did not cease pursuing them.”
The correct interpretation is that he pursued the enemies to Dan during the daytime with his entire army. When it became dark and he was not able to see by which road they fled, he divided his people and servants into two or three groups, taking one part with him, and they pursued them on all roads, smiting them as far as Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. Then he returned from pursuing them. The order of the words [in the verse are thus interpreted as follows]: “And he divided himself, he and his servants, by night.”

ויחלק עליהם לילה, he divided his forces all around them to make them believe that they were being attacked by large forces from several fronts. We have been told about a similar situation in Kings II 7,6 when the Aramites fled headlong after hearing noises that convinced them that they were being attacked by large forces.

ויחלק עליהם לילה, “when it was midnight, they attacked them. The word עליהם refers to the armies of the four kings, not as if it was midnight only for Avram and his men. As to the unusual expression עליהם, instead of the normative expression ויהי בחצי הלילה, “it was at midnight,” this tells us that until midnight on that night the four kings had felt absolutely safe and secure. Starting at that moment, they began to flee for their lives as soon as they found themselves under surprise attack by Avram and his men. He smote them as soon as he caught up with them, and those whom he did not catch continued fleeing all the way to Chovah, close to Damascus. The defeat was especially great, seeing that the fleeing armies left behind all their belongings, aiming only to save their lives. After having chased them such a great distance, Avram turned back and restored all the loot these kings had captured to their rightful owners.

ויחלק עליהם לילה ויכם וירדפם, “at night they spilt up and smote them and gave chase, etc.” The Midrash poses the obvious question that one does not chase after the dead, [the word ויכם being understood as “he killed them. Ed.] Therefore the word ויחלק is understood by the Midrash as meaning that the subject in the phrase is G’d, Who reserved part of this night for the miracle of the Exodus, Avraham’s descendants experiencing the killing of the firstborn Egyptians on the anniversary of that night. (Bereshit Rabbah 43,3) The plain meaning of the phrase is that Avraham and his men pursued the fleeing armies by daylight as far as Dan. Seeing that after nightfall it was impossible to see in which direction the soldiers had fled, Avraham divided his men so as to continue to pursue every escape route. He kept smiting them as far north as Chovah, a place not far west from Damascus. The Torah describes this detail so that we will realize that this pursuit continued for many days, as the distance from Chevron (Eloney Mamre) is in excess of 300 km by air. Alternatively, the entire campaign was guided by a number of miracles.

According to its plain meaning the verse should be inverted... Without inverting, the division refers to the night, and the following “he and his servants” does not convey anything. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

Es heißt nicht וַיְחַלק עליהם את עבדיו, auch nicht וַיֵחָלֵק עליהם ohne weiteres, sondern ויחלק עליהם הוא ועבדיו, und wird durch diesen Beisatz der ganz gleiche Anteil bezeichnet, den seine Begleiter an dieser Begeisterung nahmen. Nicht: er teilte seine Leute, nicht: er teilte sich, sondern: er und seine Leute teilten sich.

ויכם וירדפם, “he smote them and put them to flight.” Midrash Tanchuma asks: “who ever heard of soldiers pursuing dead people? How are we to understand this sequence in the verse?” He therefore understands our verse as meaning that Avraham and his men pursued the soldiers of that army, and G–d killed them.

ויכם וירדפם, “He defeated (killed) them and pursued them;” Rabbi Tanchum poses the rhetorical question how someone can pursue corpses? [Since the Torah first reports that these people had been smitten. Ed.] He answers that Avram killed the men whom G-d had pursued. G-d put the men to flight so that Avram could easily kill them.

לילה BY NIGHT, meaning, even after it became dark they did not give up pursuing them. According to the Midrashic explanation, it was the night that was divided): during its first half a miracle was wrought for him, and the second half was kept in reserve for the miracle of the midnight in Egypt (Genesis Rabbah 43:3).

לילה, this was also part of the subterfuge, preventing the kings from realising that they were facing insignificant numbers of opponents. In Samuel II 17,1 this was the advice to Avshalom by Achitofel when he advised to pursue David at night.

The Midrashic explanation is... [Accordingly,] “He and his servants...” is read with what follows below “ ... attacked them and pursued them.”

AND HE PURSUED THEM UNTO HOBAH, WHICH IS ON THE LEFT HAND OF DAMASCUS. It is known that there is a great distance from the oaks of Mamre in Hebron in the land of Judah, to Damascus, which is outside the Land. If so, he pursued them for many days until he forced them to leave the land for they were returning to Babylon, their country. Or possibly there occurred here a great miracle, just as our Rabbis expounded from the verse, The way with his foot he treadeth not.¹⁷²Isaiah 41:3. This is interpreted in Bereshith Rabbah (43:7) as referring to Abraham and asserting that he took such long steps that he traveled a mile without setting foot on the ground.

אשר משמאל לדמשק, “which is located to the left of Damascus,” where Eliezer and his family hailed from. Onkelos translates the word דמשק as Eliezer; he meant that Eliezer’s family in that town assisted him and Avram in that task.

עד חובה UNTO HOBAH — There is no place bearing the name Hobah, but the city Dan is called Hobah (guilty city) on account of the idolatry which would once be practised there (Midrash Tanchuma, Lech Lecha 13).

ויכם, the defeat caused them to flee.

וירדפם, the beginning of all pursuits is putting people to flight.

וגם את הנשים, he liberated Lot’s wives, as well as

וגם את לוט ואת רכושו השיב, and he also restored Lot and his possessions. Although the whole exercise was designed only to rescue Lot, the Torah first reports Abraham's spectacular military accomplishments and how he restored their property to the five kings. The reason Abraham restored the women and children to the kings of Sodom was in recognition of the fact that they had treated Lot with respect and honour.

וישב...וגם את לוט...וגם את הנשים ואת העם , they first of all restored all the captives to show that they had not killed any of them.

Alles Weggeführte, siehe oben Raw Hirsch on Genesis 14: 11. Der zweite Satz ist Erklärung des ersten. Alles, sowohl Lot und das Seinige, als auch die Frauen und das Volk. Die Reihenfolge bezeichnet den Grad der Sorgen, die Abraham trug. Zuerst Lot, dann die Frauen als die Schwächeren und der Mißhandlung am meisten Ausgesetzten, dann die Männer.

העם, all the ordinary people of Sodom who had been taken captive. It was these whom the King of Sodom asked to be restored to him, when he “graciously” (verse 21) offered that Avram could keep the chattels.

עמק שוה THE VALLEY OF SHAVEH— So was its name; but the Targum translates it, “to the empty plain” — clear of trees and all impediments.

ויצא...אל עמק שוה, this was a spot reserved for horse racing as it was a flat piece of land without hills or depressions. The reason it was also called עמק המלך, valley of the king, was that the king and his riders used it as a training ground for their race horses. Onkelos translates it as למישר מפונא, meaning that this plain was free from obstacles such as stones, tree stumps, etc. He translates the words עמק המלך as בית ריסא דמלכא, describing the size of the 180 cubits, the distances over which horses raced.

(17-18) Einen schneidenden Gegensatz zeichnen diese zwei Verse. Der König von Sodom, der sich Abraham gegenüber tief erniedrigt und noch tiefer verpflichtet fühlen musste, hatte nicht nur ihn mit seinem Häuflein die Verfolgung allein unternehmen lassen, ohne sich ihm anzuschließen, er zieht ihm auch nach dem errungenen Siege lediglich als König entgegen, glaubte ihm schon genug Ehre zu erweisen, wenn er ihn als Gleichen "im Tale שוה", als König einen König begrüßte, und er kommt doch zu bitten. "Bitten", "fordern" versteht ein König von Sodom, allein den ermüdeten Siegern auch nur ein Stückchen Brot zur Erquickung, einen Trunk Wein zur Labung zu bieten, das steht nicht einmal in dem Anstands-Katechismus der Herren von Sodom! Dagegen der ganz fernstehende, ganz unbeteiligte Malkizedek, König von Salem, der hatte Brot und Wein herausbringen lassen, dafür war er aber auch Priester dem höchsten Gotte! Somit war selbst unter den polytheistischen Völkern unverloren die Ahnung von dem allerhöchsten Gotte, אלדא דאלהא, Golt der Götter, wie es die Weisen bezeichnen.

ויצא מלך סדום, the King of Sodom now emerged from the pits in which he had hidden. He is mentioned by name, as the whole war had revolved around him, he having been the one who had refused to pay taxes to Kedorleomer. (Genesis 14,15) He had been the ringleader of the five rebellious kings.

עמק המלך THE KINGS VALE Onkelos translates it by the king’s race-course: a hippodrome that was thirty “kona” (measuring rods) and was set apart for the king’s sport. The Midrashic explanation is that it was the valley where all the nations unanimously agreed (הושוו) in appointing Abraham as prince and leader over them (Genesis Rabbah 43:5).

Es scheint jedoch, dass dieser allerhöchste Gott ihnen auch nur "ein allerhöchster Gott" gewesen, dass ihm auch sein begrenztes Gebiet angewiesen, er, wie die anderen untergeordneten Götter, "auch" seine Stätte der Verehrung hatte. Es treten jedoch auch schon hier sofort zwei Anschauungen hervor: 1) wo dieser Gott gebietet, da wird die Stätte שלם, eine Stätte des Friedens und des Heiles, 2) bedingt aber durch צדק, durch Gerechtigkeit, durch das gerechte, pflichtgetreue Verhalten der Menschen. Heißt doch auch noch in Josuas Zeiten der König von Salem אדני צדק, wie dieser מלכי צדק (Josua 10). Es waren somit die Begriffe דקs und שלם konstant gepaart. Diese beiden Begriffe umfassen aber die ganze Fülle dessen, was das Judentum der Menschheit zu bringen hatte. Allein es war dies alles hier partikulär. Der Gott, den das Judentum als den einzigen zu lehren hat, war dort nur der höchste; die Bedeutung, die das Judentum der ganzen Erde vindiziert, war dort zur Eigentümlichkeit einer Stätte umschränkt, und die Lebensaufgabe, die das Judentum als die allgemein menschliche verkündet, war hier nur Priesterregel eines lokalen Priesterstandes und seines Gebieters geworden. Wie es einen Gott der Wollust gab, dem durch Wollust, einen Gott des Krieges, dem durch Schlachten, einen Gott der Rache, dem durch Rache gedient ward, so gab es auch einen Gott der Gerechtigkeit, und zwar war dies der allerhöchste Gott, dem nur durch ein gerechtes Leben Verehrung zu zollen war, und dessen Gebiet Friede bedeutet. Fast möchte man sagen, in dem unnatürlich selbstsüchtigen Auftreten des Königs von Sedom zur Seite des zuvorkommenden anerkennungsvollen Benehmens Malkizedeks zeigt sich dieser Partikularismus in höchster Prägnanz. Was Malkizedek tat, berührte den Herrn von Sodom wenig, das tat er nur als Priester des Gottes der Menschlichkeit und des Wohlwollens. Sodom zollte dem Gotte des Entgegengesetzten Verehrung und mochte ohne Erröten seine Glorie in dem Gipfel einer allen menschlichen Empfindens entkleideten Selbstsucht finden. Humanität ist göttlich, Selbstsucht ists auch. Sind eben partikulare Mächte, deren Herrschaft Menschengemüter je nach Wahl oder sonstiger Bestimmung huldigen mögen.

So hatte das Bewusstsein, das einst Gemeingut der Gesamtmenschheit werden, und "zu welchem einst die ganze menschengesellschaftliche Ordnung zurückkehren wird" — כי עד צדק ישוב משפט — um "Frieden" zu finden, sich damals in שלם geflüchtet, wie auch noch für lange Zeit hinaus רו-שלם׳ die Zufluchtsstätte, die Nachtherberge des überall auf Erden geächteten צדק bleiben sollte — צדק ילין בה —; und in diesem Namen Schalems und seines Königs Malkizedek scheint sich eine Tradition von der einstigen Erlösung der Menschheit durch צדק zum שלום im Schoße der Völker erhalten zu haben. Zu David, dem Könige von Schalem, spricht Gott (Psalm 110. 4): Du kehrst der Menschheit wieder als der alte, wahre Malkizedel, "der von der Menschheit erwartete König nach Gerechtigkeit", allein nicht nach einer erträumten, von Menschenklugheit gebildeten Aftergerechtigkeit: על דברתי מלכי צרק, als nach der vom Gotteswort geoffenbarten Gerechtigkeit waltender König!" —

כהן rad. כון wie ע רהב ,נור אפט נהרon רוב, wie בהן von בהן) בון der Daumen ist der איש הבינים und מבין der Hand; er ist der Vermittler, ohne ihn sind alle Finger lahm, können nichts greifen, nur durch seinen Hinzutritt wird jeder Finger ein Werkzeug, in ihm wohnt gleichsam der Verstand und das Gehirn der Hand, durch ihn treten die Finger in den Dienst des menschlichen Geistes, kurz, er ist der verständige, schnell wirkende Vermittler, der die Hand im Dienste des Geistes tätig sein lässt. Daher weiht der Tropfen Öl auf dem Daumen die ganze Hand, deren Repräsentant er ist). כון, davon כֵן: so, Ausdruck der entsprechenden Beschaffenheit einer Sache. הֵכין für einen bestimmten Zweck bereitstellen und bereitmachen. נָכון das entsprechend, d. h. für einen bestimmten Zweck Festgestellte. כהֵן: derjenige, der (durch Lehre, Beispiel und symbolische Handlung) auf Menschen und deren Verhältnisse einwirkt, dass sie כֵן, dass sie dem göttlichen Willen entsprechend, für das Göttliche bereit und fest seien. Der jüdische Priester, כהן, hat nicht Gott und das Göttliche dem menschlichen Bedürf- nisse adäquat zu machen, das, wie die moderne Anschauung spricht, "religiöse Bedürfnis des Menschen zu befriedigen"; sondern: die Menschen und das Menschliche Gott und dem Göttlichen adäquat zu gestalten, für die Befriedigung Gottes an dem Menschen und dem Menschlichen tätig zu sein.

ומלכי צדק AND MELCHIZEDEK — A Midrashic explanation is that he is identical with Shem, son of Noah (Nedarim 32b).

AND MELCHIZEDEK KING OF SALEM. This is Jerusalem, just as it is said, In Salem is set His tabernacle.¹⁷³Psalms 76:3. In the days of Joshua, its king was also called Adoni-zedek.¹⁷⁴Joshua 10:1. Since time immemorial the nations knew that this place, which was the choicest of all places, is in the center of the inhabited region. Or perhaps they knew of its superiority by tradition, i.e., that it is exactly opposite the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Divine Glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is called Tzedek (Righteousness) abides.¹⁷⁵This explains why the early inhabitants of Jerusalem called their king Malki tzedek, literally, “My king is righteousness.”
In Bereshith Rabbah¹⁷⁶43:6. [we find that Jerusalem is called Tzedek because] “this place makes its inhabitants righteous. And Melchizedek means ‘the lord of Zedek.’¹⁷⁷The Midrash is thus teaching that his name was not “Tzedek” but that he was the lord of a place called Zedek. Jerusalem is called Tzedek, as it is said, ‘Tzedek’ (Righteousness) lodged in it.”¹⁷⁸Isaiah 1:21.

הוציא לחם ויין, to all those returning from battle who were tired.

ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, And Malki Tzedek the king of Salem, etc. Our sages (Midrash Aggadah) claim that Malki Tzedek was identical with Noach's son Shem. The reason that the Torah interrupts the report of Lot's rescue by reporting Malki Tzedek's arrival is to contrast his behaviour with that of the king of Sodom. Whereas Malki Tzedek came with gifts and a blessing though Abraham had done nothing for him, the king of Sodom came empty-handed although he owed Abraham a great debt of gratitude for having saved both his life and his kingdom. The Torah merely shows the difference between the behaviour of the wicked and that of the just.

ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, the word שלם is another word for ירושלים, and we find it referred to as such in Psalms 76,3 ויהי בשלם סכו, “Salem became His abode.” It was customary to give the title Malki Tzedek or Adoni Tzedek, to kings of Jerusalem in those days, just as the kings of Egypt were called Pharaoh. Compare Joshua 10,1 where we find אדני צדק מלך ירושלים. Jerusalem traditionally represented the center of righteousness and peace. It is a place in which iniquity is less tolerated than anywhere else. This is why the Torah warned in Leviticus 18,28 that the Israelites should take care that the land not spew them out just as it had spewed out previous inhabitants because they had defiled it. The reason the Torah in Deuteronomy 31,16 uses the somewhat enigmatic expression אלוהי נכר הארץ, is that the kind of conduct by the people in that city that were spewed out, was a conduct that was irreconcilable (alien) with the very nature, spiritual climate, prevailing in, and being part of that holy city. The sons of Korach already recognised and extolled this spiritual climate of the very city when they said in Psalms 48,3 יפה נוף משוש כל הארץ הר ציון ירכתי צפון קרית מלך רב, “fair-crested, joy of all the earth, Mount Zion, summit of Tzafon, city of the great King.” In the Midrash quoted by Rashi, Malki Tzedek is identified as Shem, the son of Noach.

ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, “and Malki Tzedek, King of Salem, etc.” he was the King of Jerusalem, as we know from Psalms 76,3 ויהי בשלם סוכו, “His hut (abode) was in Shalem.” According to tradition, the verse is a reference to G’d having His abode in Zion, Jerusalem. As soon as the gentiles had become aware that this was a chosen site, they realized that the Temple would one day be erected there.

ומלכי צדק מלך שלם, “and Malki Tzedek the King of Salem, etc.” This King was none other than Shem, the son of Noach. He was a Priest of the Supreme G’d. According to the plain meaning of the text the word כהן means “servant.” Seeing that all nations have their “priests” who serve angels who are called אלוהים, such as Exodus 15,11 מי כמוך באלים ה' “who is like You amongst the divine forces O Hashem?,” The Lord G’d is here referred to as אל עליון, Supreme G’d. According to Nedarim 32 he was a real Priest and this is the reason Avram gave him a tithe of ten percent of the spoils of war.

The Midrash Aggadah explains that he is Sheim. For the abbreviation of מלך שלם, when reversed, spells שם.

ומלכי צדק מלך שלם הוציא לחם ויין, “and Malki Tzedek, King of Shalem, produced bread and wine, etc.” This was the custom in which soldiers returning from battle would be welcomed. They were naturally tired and worn out, and needed to replace spent energy by imbibing drink and consuming food. An alternate explanation: the reference to bread and wine, specifically, is a hint that just as that King was a priest, so priests of the Jewish people would perform temple service offering libations of wine and the showbreads to the Almighty on a regular basis. In this instance Malki Tzedek, up to now a priest of the supreme G–d, forfeited that honour when he blessed Avraham before first blessing the Almighty, Who had enabled Avraham to become the victor. When David, in Psalms 110,4 said: נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “the Lord has sworn and will not relent, ’you are a priest forever, a rightful priest by My decree,’” he referred to the incident in our verse which cost Malki Tzedek his priesthood. [All the people killed in that battle were actually killed by G–d, as a priest who has killed a human being is forthwith denied the right to perform service in the Temple. Abraham certainly had represented the priesthood in his age. He was “officially” appointed as such after this incident. Ed.] According to the Talmud in Nedarim 32, quoted earlier, this is all derived from the word כהן, “a priest,” which our sages understand to mean that his offspring were not priests.

הוציא לחם ויין, “he produced (from his satchel) bread and wine;” the rules of syntax would have demanded that the verses 1718 should have been written in the following sequence: “The king of Sodom came out of hiding to meet Avram after he had defeated the 4 most powerful kings, and he said to Avram: “hand me over the human beings and keep the chattels for yourself.” (verse 22). Instead, the Torah interrupted with the arrival of Malki Tzedek and his blessing Avram. The reason that the Torah interrupted with verses 1821 was that it wanted to put Avraham’s refusing any offer from the King of Sodom into proper context. If the Torah had inserted the words of Avram, saying that he would not even accept a shoelace so that the King of Sodom could not say that he had personally contributed to Avram’s material wealth, the world would have wondered how Avram could have paid the wages of his soldiers. After reading that Avram had first given ten per cent of all the loot to Malki Tzedek who represented the only G-d, they would not ask such questions. They had also learned that Avram did not mind accepting bread and wine from Malki Tzedek who had acquired all which he possessed by morally acceptable means. They realised that Avram shied away not from material possessions as such, but only from material possessions not acquired by morally and ethically acceptable means. An alternate exegesis: Malki Tzedek produced bread and wine which had not been tithed in order to give Avram an opportunity to perform that commandment, as we will explain on verse 20.

לחם ויין BREAD AND WINE — Thus is done for those wearied through battle. He showed him (Abraham) that he bore him no malice for killing his descendants. The Midrashic explanation is that he (Melchizedek) thereby gave an intimation to him (Abraham) of the meal-offerings and libations which his descendants would offer there (in Salem which is Jeru-salem) (Genesis Rabbah 43:6).

והוא כהן, it was appropriate therefore that he should intone blessings.

הוציא לחם ויין, seeing that these people came back from battle tired, he brought them bread and wine to strengthen and refresh them.

והוא כהן לאל עליון, “and he was a priest of the Supreme G’d.” This unusual sounding attribute, which almost could make one believe that we have more than one G’d, was selected by the Torah because most nations had priests who were subservient to their kings, who, in turn were addressed as אלוהים, just as the Torah refers to a judge as אלהים. In order to prevent us from thinking that Malki Tzedek was subservient to anyone but the Lord, the Creator of heaven and earth, the Torah chose to describe Him in these terms. Also, we learn from here that Avraham would not consider giving tithes to anyone who was not a servant of the Creator. Moreover, the place where Avraham gave the tithe to Malki Tzedek reputedly was the area where the Temple would be built in the future. Avraham’s descendants’ offspring would remove these tithes from the precincts of the Temple. Rashi derives from this verse that the land of Israel had originally been part of Shem’s heritage, but that the Canaanite had gradually deprived him of much of his heritage by force. He identifies Malki Tzedek as Noach’s son Shem. Nachmanides claims that this is not correct, and that the legal boundaries of the heritage of Canaan extended from Sidon in the north, comprising practically all of the land of Israel as we know it, whereas the heritage of Shem was located further to the east. If Noach had indeed allocated the surface of the globe to his several sons, then the return of the land of Israel to the descendants of Avraham, a descendant of Shem, the son of Noach, did not really represent a reallocation of lands which had once legally belonged to the descendants of Cham, the Canaanites. The Canaanites merely acted as safe-keepers of these lands until Avraham had sufficient descendants to populate them. According to our sages who say that Malki Tzedek was identical with Shem, the latter had been on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem in order to serve the Lord there, and the local population had accepted him as their priest.

He bore him no resentment for his having killed his descendants. For it says, “After his return from defeating Kedorlaomer” — and Kedorlaomer was the king of Ailam, one of Sheim’s descendants. Assumedly, his people also were from Sheim. Rashi explains, “This is done for those who are battle-weary,” because if he meant to feed them as [honored] guests, why did he not bring out cattle and sheep to slaughter for them? But Re’m explains that if [he meant to feed them as guests], why does it say he brought out bread and wine? Scripture always mentions bread alone, such as (18:5): “I will get bread,” and (Shemos 18:12): “Aharon and all the elders of Yisrael came to eat bread.” Here, why does it mention wine too? Perforce, because they were battle-weary.

Another way of looking at this episode is based on our sages who credited Abraham with not only observing the commandments which would later on be legislated in the Torah ( Yuma 28), but even observing Rabbinic ordinances such as עירובי תבשילין. In view of Abraham's personal piety the king of Sodom was well aware that he would not eat food or drink wine presented to him by an idolator. In order to save himself such an embarassment the king chose Malki Tzedek to be the messenger who would present this gift to Abraham. [You will note that it does not say that Abraham partook of either bread or wine contrary to his custom when he prepared a meal for Avimelech, for instance. Ed.] According to all this the Torah teaches us here that Abraham would not even eat foods which are forbidden only by Rabbinic injunction.

AND HE WAS PRIEST OF G-D THE MOST HIGH. This is stated in order to inform us that Abraham would not give a tithe to the priest of other gods, but since he knew that he was a priest of G-d the Most High, he gave him the tithe as an honor to G-d. He alluded to Abraham through this episode that the House of G-d will be there, and there his descendants will bring the tithe and the Heave-offering,¹⁷⁹Malachi 3:8. and there they will bless the Eternal.
Now according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁸⁰Nedarim 32b. who say that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah, we must say that he left his country in the east¹⁸¹See above, 10:30. and came to Jerusalem to worship the Eternal. He became the people’s priest of G-d the Most High since he was the honored one among their father’s brothers,¹⁸²That is, of the three sons of Noah — Shem, Ham and Japheth — Shem was the most honored. Now since according to the Rabbis, Melchizedek is none other than Shem, the Canaanites who were then in possession of Jerusalem recognized in Shem their father Ham’s most honored brother and therefore appointed him “priest of G-d the Most High.” as Jerusalem was ever in the boundary of the Canaanites.
Now Rashi wrote above, “And the Canaanite was then in the land.¹⁸³Above, 12:6. They were gradually conquering the land of Israel from the descendants of Shem, the ancestor of Abraham, for it had fallen to the share of Shem when Noah apportioned the earth among his sons, as it is said, And Melchizedek king of Salem.”
This is not correct because the boundary of the Canaanite was from Sidon,¹⁸⁴Ibid., 10:19. which includes all of the land of Israel. The boundary of the children of Shem, on the other hand, was to the east of Mesha,¹⁸⁵Ibid., Verse 30. far from the land of Israel. But if Noah apportioned the countries among his sons and gave Shem the land of Israel, it would be similar to the case of a person who apportions his goods by word of mouth.¹⁸⁶Baba Bathra 156a. That the land of Israel should belong to the descendants of Shem would thus be a special oral provision by Noah since all their other lands were to the east of Mesha, far from the land of Israel. Meanwhile, the children of Canaan, [who were the descendants of Ham], settled there until the time came when G-d caused the seed of His friend Abraham¹⁸⁷Isaiah 41:8. The seed of Abraham My friend. to inherit it, as I have already mentioned.¹⁸⁸Above, 12:6.

והוא כהן לאל עליון, he did not worship the stars or other celestial phenomena but only the supreme and invisible G’d. In this respect he was like Avram and those who had joined him.

The Torah also wants to teach us how it was that the king of Sodom offered the loot of the war (property previously owned by the four kings) to Abraham instead of demanding both the prisoners and the property. The king of Sodom had observed that Abraham tithed the loot to Malki Tzedek in the latter's capacity as G'd's priest. He understood that one does not tithe matters which do not belong to one. Inasmuch as Abraham apparently considered the loot as his own, the king of Sodom did not give away anything when he made the apparently generous offer for Abraham to keep the loot.

AND HE WAS PRIEST OF G-D THE MOST HIGH. Since there were, among all nations, priests serving the angels called eilim (the mighty ones) — even as it is said, Who is like unto Thee ‘ba’eilim’ (among the mighty)¹⁸⁹Exodus 15:11. — the Holy One, blessed be He, is called G-d the Most High, the purport thereof being “the Mighty One, Who is Supreme over all,” as in the verse, It is ‘ba’eil’ (the power of) my hand.¹⁹⁰Genesis 31:29. Now Melchizedek did not mention the Eternal, whereas Abraham said, the Eternal, G-d of the Most High.¹⁹¹Verse 22 here.

והוא כהן לאל עליון, and he was a priest of the Supreme G'd. The emphasis on the word הוא indicates that only he was a priest, not his descendants. The priesthood was conferred upon Abraham as we know from Psalms 110,4: אתה בהן לעולם, "You are a priest forever." The Psalmist refers to the blessing conferred upon Abraham by Malki Tzedek. I will still explain that Malki Tzedek conferred the priesthood upon Abraham willingly.

The words "of the Supreme G'd," are necessary as there were many priests of many deities. Our sages (Nedarim 32) claim that Malki Tzedek lost his priesthood because he blessed Abraham before he blessed G'd. Accordingly we would have to understand the words: "and he was a priest" to mean that his priesthood was something of the past. He forfeited it by slighting G'd. The fact that the Torah did not report the unfortunate wording of Malki Tzedek's blessing until after hinting that he had already forfeited the priesthood is irrelevant because the Torah was not written till after the event.

קנה שמים וארץ MAKER, or POSSESSOR OF HEAVEN AND EARTH — similar to (Psalms 134:3) עשה שמים וארץ “Maker of heaven and earth”: through His having made them He acquired them as His possession.

KONEI (POSSESSOR) OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. Rashi wrote: “Konei is similar to osei (maker);¹⁹²In our text of Rashi, ‘Osei’ (Maker) of heaven and earth. Psalms 134:3. through His having made them He acquired them as His possession.”
But these are really two different interpretations.¹⁹³From Rashi it would appear that osei and kinyan — making and acquiring — constitute but one interpretation when in fact they are two: konei is similar to osei, and konei is like kinyan (acquisition). Perhaps it is indeed the case that the word kinyan (acquisition) is also used in the case of asiyah (making). Thus you find, For Thou ‘kanita’ (hast made) my reins,¹⁹⁴Pslams 139:13. repeating the thought [expressed in the second half of the verse], Thou hast knit me together in my mother’s womb.¹⁹⁵Ramban’s point is that since the second half of the verse clearly speaks of the making of man, the first half of the verse which uses the word kanita must also refer to “making,” rather than “acquiring.” A similar case is the verse, Is He not ‘konecha’ thy father? Hath He not made thee, and established thee?¹⁹⁶Deuteronomy 32:6. Here too the word konecha is used together with asiyah, indicating that they have a similar connotation. Thus the Sacred Language uses kinyan in the case of “making.” Conversely, And the souls which ‘asu’ [literally, they made] in Haran,¹⁹⁷Above, 12:5. means “they acquired.” And of that which was our father’s ‘asah’ (hath he made)¹⁹⁸Further, 31:1. — [here too it means “hath he acquired.”]
That which Rashi says further — “He acquired them as His possession,” is correct, for whatever belongs to a person is called kinyano (his acquisition). Sheep are called mikneh because they constitute the main wealth of a person. In the language of the Sages: “He who picks up a find for his friend, his friend kanah [has taken title to it];”¹⁹⁹Baba Metziah 10a. Here the word konah does not mean that he acquired it from the other since he never picked it up for himself. Instead, it means taking title to it. “watching gives ‘keniya’ (the right of possession) in ownerless property;”²⁰⁰Ibid., 118a. Here too konah does not mean that he acquired it from another person but that he took title to it. “a man’s yard koneh (obtains title) for him without his knowledge.”²⁰¹Ibid., 11a. This too is a similar case. Similarly, the Sages, in all places, use the expression of kinyan for taking possession, meaning that it is his. This was the intention of Onkelos when he translated konei (of heaven and earth) as d’kinyanei, [meaning “Whose possessions are heaven and earth”], and he did not say kanah (who acquired).

Possessor of heaven and earth. Malki Zedek uses this title here in honor of Avraham, who was the first to make known God’s involvement with the lower world. Alternatively, he mentions it in his blessing to indicate that all bounty derives from the “dew of heaven and the fatness of earth” (27:28). Alternatively, it was through the victory over the four kings that God’s sovereignty over the earth became known.

ויברכהו ויאמר ברוך אברם לאל עליון, first he blessed on his own behalf. Then he added that Avram was also blessed by the Supreme G’d. He said basically the same as G’d Himself had said to Avram in 12,2.

ויברכהו ויאמר. He blessed him and said, etc. We need to understand whether the blessing which the Torah mentions here, i.e. ברוך אבדם, is the gist of the blessing. If that were so, why did the Torah have to introduce it with the words ויברכהו, "he blessed him?" I believe that the words ברוך אברם allude to an additional blessing. Were this not so, the expression ויברכהו should have been followed by the word לאמר.

ויברכהו...קונה שמים וארץ, the word קונה here must not be understood in the customary sense of acquiring something from a third party. Malki Tzedek most certainly did not think that “the G’d of heaven and earth” had “bought” his position from some other force. The word is used in the sense of “having created, or having invented.” It was used in this sense by Chavah when she gave birth to Kayin and said קניתי איש את ה', “I have produced, brought forth a man, with G’d,” when she meant that she was now a partner to G’d.” Genesis 4,1)

קונה שמים וארץ, “owner of heaven and earth.” Rashi understands the word קונה here in the sense of עושה, i.e. “Maker of.” He (G’d) had acquired it by dint of having made it. Nachmanides further affirms Rashi’s understanding of the word קונה here, citing Deuteronomy 32,6 הלא הוא אביך קנך הוא עשך ויכוננך, “does He not own you being your father, having made you and established you firmly?” The roots קנה and עשהare used interchangeably in the Torah. Another prominent example of this usage of the word עשה in the sense off an acquisition is found in Genesis 12,5 where Avraham and Sarah are described as taking along ואת הנפש אשר עשו בחרן, where clearly the meaning of the word עשו is not “made,” but they acquired, in the sense that they had convinced the people in question to acknowledge the G’d in heaven, the Creator. Anything that belongs to a person is described as קנינו, “his property,” that which he has made his own. Our sages, when discussing the point at which a found object is acquired, declared that at the moment the finder picks it up it has become his, is his קנין.

Nicht ברוך מֵ־ sondern ברוך לְ־, nicht von dem höchsten, sondern für den höchsten Gott gesegnet. Diesem Ausdruck ׳ברוך לד begegnen wir immer in תנ׳ך, wo jemandem die Anerkennung für eine geübte Wohl- oder Großtat gezollt wird. So spricht Saul zu den Einwohnern von Siph, die ihm die Auslieferung Davids zugesagt: ברוכיס אתם לדי So David zu den Männern von Jabesch Gilead .(Samuel 1, 23,21), die Saul zu Grabe gebracht (Samuel 2, 2, 5). So Naami von Boas, der Ruth so gütig behandelt hatte (Ruth 2, 20), so wiederum Boas zu Ruth, dass sie ihn, den Bejahrten, zum Gatten gewünscht (daselbst 3, 10). Es liegt darin der Gedanke, dass der Segen, den Gott dem Guten spendet, Ihm, der Förderung seines heiligen Willens selbst wieder zu gute komme, indem der Gute alles von Gott Empfangene zum Segen Gottes, d. h. zur Verwirklichung Seines Willens auf Erden verwendet. Dieser Gedanke einem Menschen zugewandt, sagt ihm das Höchste. Du bist ein solcher Mensch, dessen Segnung Gott selbst zum Segen gereicht. Und so auch hier.

ברוך אברם, “blessed be Avram;” he blessed Avram before blessing the Lord because Avram had gone to such length to imperil his life in order to rescue his nephew, Lot. Subsequently he blessed the Lord, Who had assisted Avram in his rescue mission and delivered his enemies into his hands.

קונה שמים וארץ, heaven and earth are His, to do with as He pleases. They do not have a will of their own as some scientists believe. G’d alone works His will on them, using them according to His will.

We must understand the matter as follows. First Malki Tzedek bestowed a blessing on Abraham which pertained to his personal wellbeing such as that his enemies should not be able to harm him, etc. Next he blessed him wishing him spiritual development a blessing directed to G'd who should allow Abraham to be His true servant. By being successful as a servant of the Lord, G'd Himself would be perceived by man as the owner of not only the heavens but also of the earth. He wished him that through him his descendants would acquire eternal life so that heaven and earth would endure forever. Our sages (compare Zohar 1,89) have expressed all this when they said that but for Abraham, G'd would not really have a true possession in either heaven or earth.

Malkizedek trug das Bewusstsein in sich, sein א׳ עליון sei nicht ein עליון, nicht ein über das Getriebe der Welt auf höchster Höhe in seliger Ruhe thronender Gott, der etwa als der einzig Unwandelbare, den Knotenpunkt der Naturkräfte und die Zügel der Geschichtsmächte in Händen trägt und dann doch alles gehen lässt wie es geht, nicht ein אלדא דאלהא, de "über dem Himmelskreis sich ergeht", der Welt — vielleicht — einmal das Dasein gegeben, aber seitdem sie den Tummelplatz seiner großen und kleinen Untergötter sein lässt, — so nicht; sein א׳ עליון ist קנה .קונה שמים וארץ begreift das Eigentum von seiner sittlichen Seite, קנה ist der Rechtsbegriff des Eigentums, nicht der Begriff der Macht, aus dem der Besitz resultiert, sondern der des Rechts, der den Boden des Eigentums bildet. קונה eines Gegenstandes ist der Eigentümer, selbst wenn sich der Gegenstand augenblicklich nicht in seinem Besitz befindet. Wo sich auch der Gegenstand befindet, ist er !ל, steht er nur ihm zu, wartet seiner. Daher ja auch vorzüglich dasjenige Eigentum מקנה heißt, in welchem das Eigentumsverhältnis, die Hörigkeit, so lebendig ist, dass es dem Eigner von selbst folgt. Es gibt daher keinen reineren Begriff für das Verhältnis der שמים und ארץ zum א׳ אליון als: קונה. Der Eigentümer ist nicht sichtbar, aber da gibt es kein Staubkörnchen, das nicht zu dem einen einzigen Herrn hinstrebe. Er hat es nicht bloß in seiner Gewalt, sondern alles folgt ihm, strebt zu ihm, jeglichem ist der Zug dieser Hörigkeit bewußt und unbewußt eingeprägt, so dass es sich mit allem Ihm bereitstellt, Ihm mit der ganzen Energie seines Daseins folgt.

קונה שמים וארץ, “(the Lord) Who owns heaven as well a earth.” Malki Tzedek (Shem,son of Noach) used this formulation as he had witnessed in his own lifetime how a world which had been a going concern had been destroyed and rebuilt.

Even the closing words of Malki Tzedeks' blessing, i.e. אשר מגן צריך בידך which ostensibly seems to be a blessing conferred by G'd on Abraham, are a blessing conferred upon G'd. G'd considers Himself blessed through the existence of a human being such as Abraham.

Das Attribut קונה שמים וארץ spricht also vom א׳ עליון eine Wahrheit und ein Postulat aus. Die Wahrheit: dass alles Willenlose, Unfreie in Himmel und Erde Ihm folge, von Ihm gelenkt und regiert werde. Das Postulat: dass die Huldigung, die das ganze übrige Universum ihm willenlos bringt, das Freie im Menschen ihm frei zu bringen, d. h. frei nur Seinem Dienste zu leben habe. Somit lebte in Malkizedek das Bewusstsein, dass das Reich seines א׳ עליון nicht auf das Stadtgebiet Salems beschränkt sein, sondern die ganze Menschheit zwischen Himmel und Erde sein Reich werden und durch Verwirklichung des von Ihm geforderten צדק auf Erden שלֵם werden und שלום finden solle.

Bis Abraham erschien, ist Malkizedek gewiß wie Abraham mit einem solchen Ansinnen von der zeitgenössischen Welt verlacht worden, und sah sich mit seinem "Kultus des höchsten Gottes" in Salems Winkel gebannt. Da erscheint Abraham und wird durch sein praktisches Leben ein Verkünder des א׳ עליון קונה שמים וארץ, stellt nicht nur lehrend Himmel und Erde in den alleinigen Dienst dieses als קונה שמים וארץ" nicht blos höchsten, vielmehr einzigen Gottes, sondern gibt auch praktisch seinen "Himmel und Erde", seinen himmlisch irdischen Anteil, d. h. sich mit allen geistigen und leiblichen Krästen ausschließlich dem Dienste dieses Einzigen hin, zeigt praktisch das צדק, das in dem Tempel zu Salem als Forderung dieses א׳ עליון gelehrt wird, — צדק יקראהו hat von diesem Gott den Ruf vernommen, nicht gesegnet, sondern Segen zu — לרגלו werden — היה ברכה — und in dem jüngsten Erlebnis, in dem Mut, den dieser höchste, Abrahams einziger, Gott ihm und den diesem einzigen Gotte gewonnenen Angehörigen seines Hauses gewährt, und in dem Siege, den Er diesem von Ihm begeisterten Häuflein über die siegestrunkenen Könige verliehen, trat zum erstenmale ein so eklatanter, auch dem Blinden sichtbarer Fingerzeig hervor, dass dieser צדק von dem Menschen fordernde ׳א ןוילע, nrednos ,enorht melaS uz run thcin ץראו םימש הנוק ies — םיוג וינפל ןתי ומלכים ירד — und dem in Seinem Dienste wirkenden Menschen Himmel und Erde zu Füßen lege: da trat er hinaus, brachte diesem Abraham Brot und Wein und sprach: ein für den Gott des Himmels und der Erde gesegneter Mensch bist du und seiest du, Abraham! Aus dem dir gewordenen und werdenden Segen erwächst das Reich des אל עליון קונה שמים וארץ, in ihm und durch dich wird Sein Reich den Menschen sichtbar und eben dadurch sein Reich in dir und durch dich gefördert und gesegnet: ׳ברוך אברם לא׳ עליון ק׳ ש׳ ו. Das folgende ׳וברוך א׳ עליון וגו ist begründende Ausführung des ׳ברוך אברם לא. Dadurch, dass der höchste Gott sich in dem dir verliehenen Siege dem ihm dienenden Menschen so allmächtig nahe gezeigt, wird sein Reich gesegnet, werden Menschen für seinen Dienst geweckt und gewonnen.

אשר מגן WHO HATH DELIVERED [THY ENEMIES INTO THY HANDS] — מגן means who has handed over or surrendered, as (Hosea 11:8) “How shall I give thee over, (אמגנך) Israel”

AND HE GAVE HIM A TENTH OF ALL. Abraham did not wish to take for himself from a thread even to a sandal tie.²⁰²Verse 23 here. But the part of the Most High he set aside in order to give it to the priest. Now the king of Sodom went out to meet Abraham at the vale of Shaveh²⁰³Above, Verse 17. in his honor, and he accompanied him to the city of Salem where Melchizedek brought out bread and wine for the people that followed him. The king of Sodom did not ask anything of Abraham, but when he saw his generosity and righteousness in giving the tithe to the priest, then he also asked for the souls²⁰⁴The prisoners. Verse 21 here. by way of charity. Abraham, trusting that his G-d will give him riches, possessions and honor, did not wish to take anything from him, and so he returned all the wealth of Sodom which belonged to him, and all the wealth of Gomorrah for it to be returned to its owners. The king of Sodom had asked above all for the souls,²⁰⁴The prisoners. Verse 21 here. but Abraham’s consideration above all was that they should not say that they made Abram rich.²⁰²Verse 23 here. Now the other places mentioned²⁰⁵Admah, Zeboim and Bela. Verse 2. had been destroyed by the enemy in battle; only the wealth of Sodom and Gomorrah, among the cities of the five kings, fell into the hands of the enemy because since their kings were lost in the slime pits, their cities remained defenseless.²⁰⁶Hence the four kings were able to plunder Sodom and Gomorrah, and when Abraham recaptured it from them he restored it to its original owners. The other three cities (see preceding note) defended themselves and were completely destroyed in battle.
It is possible²⁰⁷Ramban is now suggesting that the four kings had taken plunder from the other three cities as well and that is alluded to in the verse, as will be explained. that [the plunder from the other three cities is alluded to] in the words of Abraham: “If from a thread even to a sandal tie²⁰²Verse 23 here. will remain with me of all the wealth that has come to me from all of you;²⁰⁸“From all of you,” i.e., from all the five cities. and if I take anything that is thine²⁰²Verse 23 here. of your wealth which you, the king of Sodom, gave me.”

וברוך אל עליון, this power G’d gave to Avram to enable him to overcome his enemies, is a blessing for the Lord. He is able to rejoice in the deeds of His creatures when the wicked perish, and when He makes the righteous rejoice in their success. David expressed it in these words in Psalms 117,1-2 שבחוהו כל האומים גי גבר עלינו חסדו, “Praise the Lord all you nations. Extol Him, all you peoples; for great is His steadfast love toward us;”

וברוך אל עליון, "And blessed the Supreme G'd, etc." As already mentioned our sages say that Malki Tzedek was punished for putting G'd second in his list of blessings. He lost his priesthood because of this error. We must try and understand what prompted Malki Tzedek to commit such an error. Perhaps he thought that inasmuch as Abraham had come to recognise G'd without parental or anyone else's guidance, he deserved to receive a blessing first and foremost. Afterwards he blessed the Lord who had found pleasure in a human being such as Abraham. Malki Tzedek may have wanted to teach us that G'd only truly enjoys human beings who have first made it their business to please Him. He expressed this thought by saying: "Blessed Abraham to the Supreme G'd because he made himself be fit to be a servant of the Lord. As a result he is blessed by the Supreme G'd who has committed your enemies into your hands." [according to this Malki Tzedek's error consisted in using chronology as a guideline for the order in which he formulated his blessing. Ed.] Despite the good intention of Malki Tzedek, this was an improper way of blessing. The servant never takes precedence over his Master.

וברוך אל עליון, he described G’d in terms of a different attribute, i.e. “the supreme G’d.” In due course, Avraham also used this attribute to describe G’d in order to make plain to any listener that any other so-called deities are all subservient to this G’d, so that they are totally unfree and cannot be considered deities.

ויתן לו מעשר מכל, “He gave him a tithe from all of it.” According to Ibn Ezra Avraham gave these items to Malki Tzedek as tithe because the latter was a priest of Almighty G’d, and he did not want to hold on to anything which he felt was belonging to a higher power. Once he had given the tithe, the balance belonged to him rightfully, so that all the property which had once been that of the five Kings, was now returned to them by Avraham as a gift from him, not as something that was theirs legally. According to local law, spoils of war belonged to the victor, so that from that point of view Avraham did not need to return anything to the King of Sodom and his companions. This is also why the Torah reports this tithing before it reports what Avraham said to the King of Sodom concerning the oath he had sworn to the supreme Lord of heaven and earth (verse 23) that he would never allow the King of Sodom to take credit for having enriched himself (at his expense) If it had not been legal to do so, such an oath would be completely irrelevant! As soon as the King of Sodom became aware of the generosity and righteousness of Avraham, he also demanded return of his נפש, his human slaves. The entire sequence illustrates that Avraham and the King of Sodom walked all the way to the Jordan valley back together, during which time the King of Sodom had become better acquainted with Avraham. He had not even dared to ask to have the נפש restored to him until he had learned how generous a man Avraham really was. From a halachic point of you, i.e. that one does not give something to someone else unless it was halachically completely above board, Avraham had to tithe the loot so that when he would give the remainder (back) to the King of Sodom, he gave him something which was beyond question his own. Some commentators feel that if the conversation about who the loot belonged to had occurred only now, what did Avraham’s soldiers eat in the meantime? To forestall such an embarrassing question, the Torah made certain that we know that prior to Avraham tithing everything to Malki Tzedek the latter had provided bread and wine for Avraham’s soldiers so that they did not have to partake of something that their master did not yet consider his to give. Still other commentators see in the words ויתן לו מעשר מכל, a veiled rebuke to Malki Tzedek who, instead of receiving a tithe, gave a tithe to Avraham as penance for having first blessed Avraham instead of first blessing the Lord. These commentators quote as their source the verse in Psalms 110,4 נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “the Lord has sworn and will not relent, “You are a priest forever, a rightful king by My decree.” [also an oblique reference that G’d had killed the people slain in that war, not Avraham, who otherwise would have been disqualified as a priest. Alshich.] Rabbi Joseph Karo claims that Avraham did not give any tithe to Malki Tzedek, as it is conceptually impossible to give a tithe of something one had never owned, and Avraham had rejected the entire booty so that the King of Sodom could not boast of having made Avraham wealthy. He had already sworn an oath rejecting the entire loot. How could he have violated such an oath? Rabbi Karo also rejects the notion that Malki Tzedek gave a tithe to Avraham. What possible reason could Malki Tzedek have had to give a tithe to Avraham when he had come forth to welcome him with bread and wine? If he gave him a tithe, he would have sold this to him. According to Rabbi Karo this is what happened. The King of Sodom came forth to greet Avraham. When Malki Tzedek arrived he found them dividing the spoils, the King of Sodom asking for the living human beings, and offering Avraham the inert property (and the livestock, presumably). At that point, Avraham swore an oath that he would not accept anything by grace of the King of Sodom, the exception being the expenses he had incurred in feeding his men. Seeing that these men had fought a war in order to save the King of Sodom among others, they were entitled to at least that. Not only that, these men had also saved Sodom’s property, and as such were entitled to a reward. He, Avraham, was not entitled to waive the reward due to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre. Malki Tzedek then gave Avraham a tithe of what he had received, something that Avraham accepted as being completely legal, as he first and foremost was entitled to that.

He gave him. Avram. Rashi is answering the question: Who gave to whom? Thus Rashi explains that Avram gave to Sheim. And why did Avram do so? Because Sheim was a Kohein.

מִגֵן, ebenso אמגנך ישראל (Hosea 11, 8) völliges Preisgeben. Findet sich noch in dem chaldäischen מַגָן für das hebräische חנם, das, wofür man nichts fordert, was man als wertlos dahingibt. Demgemäß kann auch das ProRaw Hirsch on Genesis 14: 4, 9 von der Wahrheit gesprochene: עטרת תפארת תמגנך nicht wohl heißen: sie schenkt dir eine prächtige Krone. Vielmehr: חחן לראשך לוית חן usw., "sie verleiht deinem Haupte selbst die, stete Begleitung des Liebreizes und macht dir die prächtigste Krone wertlos, überflüssig". Das Haupt der Weisen strahlt von selbst in herzgewinnendem Zauber, es braucht zu seiner Herrlichkeit und Macht keiner äußeren Krone.

ייתן לו, “he gave him;” Malki Tzedek gave Avram a tithe of everything. Our sages in Nedarim 32, interpret this verse as an allusion by the Torah to Malki Tzedek having forfeited his status of being G-d’s priest, and it being transferred to Avram, as he had committed the error of blessing a mortal human being, Avram, before blessing the immortal Lord. Avram himself had criticised Malki Tzedek for having mentioned him first in blessing both G-d and him. The latter accepted the reproof and treated Avram as the priest by tithing to him all that belonged to him. The Talmud cites a verse from Psalms: 110,4, as its source; there we read: נשבע ה' ולא ינחם אתה כהן לעולם על דברתי מלכי צדק, “The Lord has sworn and will not relent, You are a priest forever a rightful king by My decree.” [Rabbi Moshe Alshich explains there that G-d actually killed all the people Avram fought, as a priest who has killed does no longer qualify for priestly duties. Ed.]

ויתן לו AND HE — Abraham — GAVE HIM מעשר מכל A TITHE OF EVERYTHING that he had, because he was a priest.

מגן צריך, “He delivered them into your hands.” We find this verb used in a similar sense in Hoseah 11,8 אמגנך ישראל, “How can I surrender you, Israel? The choice of the word צריך”your oppressors,” is strange, seeing that no one had mistreated Avram or oppressed him. Since the 4 kings had singled out one of Avram’s relatives their action was interpreted as a potential attack on Avram, to lure him to come to the defense of his nephew.

מעשר geben, dem wir hier zuerst begegnen, ist eine Handlung, wodurch derjenige als Spender des Verzehnten anerkannt wird, in dessen Namen der Empfänger des Zehnten dasteht. Mit der Zehntabgabe an Malkizedek erkennt Abraham den "höchsten Gott׳, in dessen Namen Malkizedek dastand, als denjenigen an, der ihm den Sieg verliehen hatte.

ויתן לו מעשר מכל, according to most commentators, Avram was the subject in this verse and Malki Tzedek was the recipient. Avraham supposedly gave Malki Tzedek 10% of the cattle captured, in his capacity of being a priest of G’d. My late revered father, Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, explained that actually Malki Tzedek “gave” Avram the tithe as a legal claim. He pronounced it as Avram’s by right, seeing that the King of Sodom had had the effrontery to claim that which Avram had captured as his. In the conversation between Avram and the King, Avram had insisted that he would not accept anything for himself from the King of Sodom, not even a shoelace. What he meant was that the King was in no position to even make an offer of something that was not his. (verse 21) At that point, Malki Tzedek intervened, telling Avram (and the King) that at least 10% of the loot was Avram’s by right, as it is the right of anyone who frees property stolen or forcefully taken from its rightful owner to retain this as a kind of fee for services rendered. This interpretation is correct; if we accept the interpretation of the commentators, by what legal right Avram could give away to Malki Tzedek property that legally belonged to the King of Sodom an d had been illegally taken from him? If he did not think it was right for him to accept same, why would it be in order to give it instead to Malki Tzedek?

Die Form מְַעַשֵר kommt nur in dieser weihenden Beziehung vor. Sonst heißt 1/10-alle diese Wurzeln be ;עזר ,אזר ,עצר ,אצר ,אסר verwandt mit 6 עשר .עשירית deuten ein Zusammenbinden, Zusammenhalten. עשר: zehn, weil mit zehn eine Summe abgeschlossen, ein abgeschlossenes Ganzes wird. 10 ist die erste Gruppe, die ein Ganzes bildet. Die ganze Körperwelt zählen wir nach Zehnen. Haben wir zehn, so haben wir ein Ganzes. Auch unsere Nationalrepräsentation, die kleinste Vertretung unseres Ganzen, besteht aus zehn. Hieße es nun עשירית הכל, so hätte das 10/1 keine besondere Bedeutung. Es hätte ebensogut ein anderer Bruchteil sein können. Allein da die Form מעשר ausschließlich in dem Gott weihenden Sinne vorkommt, so dürfte die Eigentümlichkeit dieser Bedeutung in der Form zu suchen sein. Die Form מִעשֵר ist wie מִשעֵן ,מַפְתֵחַ usw. eine aktive und bezeichnet somit nicht den Teil sondern das Abschließende, das eine Summe zu einem Zehn, zu einem Ganzen macht. Dass es nicht bloß ein Zehntel sei, sehen wir an מעשר בהמה, wo uns das sich von selbst als "das zehnte" darbietende Schaf מעשר ,קדש wird, also das, womit man ein Ganzes hat. Dies ist allerdings nur bei lebendigen Wesen möglich. Aus dem Satze, dass המרבה במעשדות מעשרותיו מקולקלים scheint jedoch hervorzugehen, dass man auch bei leblosen Dingen nicht erst das ganze Quantum gemessen und dann 1/10 davon zu מעשר bestimmt habe, sondern auch da das je zehnte Maß zu heiligen pflegte, obgleich dies nicht unumgänglich war. מעשר heißt also nicht sowohl ein Zehntel als: das je Zehnte. Um Gott als den eigentlichen Spender und Herrn unserer Güter, auch nachdem sie uns geworden, uns gegenwärtig zu halten, haben wir demnach nach zwei Seiten hin eine Weihe: das erste: ראשית, wie תרומה ,ביכורים ,בכור, und das letzte, Abschließende: מעשר. Der erste Gulden, der uns wird, findet uns noch mit weichem Gemüt, noch mit der frischen Erinnerung an die vorangegangene Leere, noch mit dem lebendigen Bewusstsein: den hat Gott gespendet. Das erste kommt von Gott; allein das 10te, 100ste, 1000ste usw. erscheint schon als ganz natürliches Produkt der vorangegangenen 9, 99 usw. Dass das Zehnte, Hundertste, Tausendste noch ebenso unmittelbare Spende der השגחה פרטית sei wie das erste, das ist die Wahrheit, die wir uns mit מעשר vergegenwärtigen.

תן לי הנפש GIVE ME THE PERSONS — Of that which was captured of mine and which you have rescued give me back the people only.

תן לי הנפש והרכוש קח לך. "Give me the persons and take the loot for yourself." We need to understand what was the point of the king of Sodom's offer for Abraham to "take" the loot, seeing that Abraham had possession of it. He himself had captured it, including all the people who had been kept prisoner. How could the king say on the one hand: "give me the persons," and "take yourself the loot," when Abraham possessed both at the time? What did the king offer? Was he not in fact merely asking for something instead of offering something? Why did he make it seem like a trade off?

Give me the people. Initially the King of Sedom thought that Avraham would return everything to him, since his only intention was to save Lot. But when Avram gave a tithe to Malki Zedek he realized that he considered it all the spoils of the four kings.

Perhaps we can best understand all this in light of what the Talmud teaches in Baba Kama 116. A caravan of travellers is attacked by robbers. One of the travellers succeeds in saving the belongings of all the travellers; he is considered as having done so on behalf of all the travellers; each one picks up his original belongings. If the person who undertook the risk of saving all these belongings had declared that he risked his life only in order that the spoils should be his in the event that he would succeed, then he may keep all the chattels he has saved. Rav Ashi elaborates that this is so when the other travellers could have saved their chattels had they only tried hard enough. Rashi explains there that if none of the other travellers offered any comment when the one who set out to recover the goods announced that he would do so but on his own account, they are all considered as having renounced their hope of recovering their belongings. As a result they cannot reclaim their belongings. The king of Sodom did not consider himself as having abandoned hope of escaping his situation. He argued that had it not been for Abraham's intervention, he could have recovered his belongings himself.

As a result, the fact that Abraham had not intervened with the intention of sharing the spoils with the prisoners had no legal basis. After all, the king of Sodom had not overheard Abraham's declaration that he acted on his own behalf. How could he therefore be accused of having remained silent at the crucial moment? This is why he claimed that the spoils should be shared between Abraham and himself. Evidently, the king thought very highly of himself and his abilities. This is why the Torah describes him as: ויצא מלך סדום, "the king of Sodom came forth," he gave himself airs. According to the Midrash he compared his own experience when he fell into the clay pits (14,10) and was saved, with Abraham's having been saved from the furnace of Nimrod. The fact was, of course, that the situation of the king of Sodom who had already fought and lost, was entirely diferent from the situation described in the Talmud by Rav Ashi. When Rav Ashi said that the person rescuing the caravan's property has to declare beforehand that he does so on the understanding that if successful the property will be his, this is only in a situation where the other travellers are able to assist. Since the king of Sodom had certainly not been in a position to assist Abraham, his claim was totally spurious. Rambam and Rosh both rule like this.

When Abraham gave the balance of the loot to the king of Sodom after first having tithed it, this was a generous gesture; it did not imply that Abraham accepted any part of the king's argument.

הרמתי ידי I HAVE LIFTED UP MY HAND — An expression signifying an oath: I lift up my hand to the Most High God (not, I have lifted up). Similarly, (Genesis 22:16) בי נשבעתי which means “By myself do I swear” and similarly, (Genesis 23:13) נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני which means “I give the price of the field, take it from me”.)

I HAVE LIFTED UP MINE HAND TO THE ETERNAL. This is an expression signifying an oath: “I lift up my hand to G-d Most High.”²⁰⁹Besides explaining that this is an expression signifying an oath, Rashi also states that even though the verse uses a past tense harimothi, the sense is that of the present tense: “I lift up my hand.” Similarly, the verse, By myself have I sworn,²¹⁰Further, 22:16. Here too the verse uses a past tense, but its meaning is that of the present tense. means “By Myself do I swear.” Thus the language of Rashi.
I have found a similar text in the Sifre:²¹¹Vaethchanan 33. “We find in the case of all the righteous that they bring their inclination under oath in order not to do evil. In the case of Abraham, he says, I have lifted up mine hand to the Eternal.” It is thus similar to the verse, And he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that liveth forever.²¹²Daniel 12:7.
But Onkelos said, “I have lifted my hand in prayer before the Eternal.” The intent of Abraham’s words according to Onkelos is: “I have prayed to G-d, with my hands spread forth toward heaven,²¹³See I Kings 8:22. if I take anything that is thine.” That is to say, “G-d do so to me, and more also,²¹⁴Ibid., 2:23. if I take, etc.”
The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Abraham said, “I have lifted my hand to G-d to make those things Sacred and Devoted²¹⁵See Leviticus 27:28. to Him, were I to take from that which is thine.” Declaring things to be sacred to Him is called in Hebrew “lifting of a hand,” just as in the verses: Every one that did lift up a heave offering of silver and copper;²¹⁶Exodus 35:24. and every man that offered a wave offering of gold unto the Eternal.²¹⁷Ibid., Verse 22. This Abraham said because having given a tenth of it to the priest, he declared that whatever he takes from the king of Sodom would be a heave offering to G-d, from which he would derive no benefit.
In Bereshith Rabbah²¹⁸43:12. it is similarly said, “Abraham made it a heave offering, even as it is said, And ye shall heave a heave offering of it for the Eternal.”²¹⁹Numbers 18:26.

ויאמר אברם אל מלך סדום. Abram said to the king of Sodom. The only reason Abraham raised his hand during his declaration was to make it plain to the king of Sodom that he would not bargain further about any of this.

הרימותי את ידי, “I have raised my right hand in an oath;” this is a standard formula used to describe an oath directed at G’d. In this case, Malki Tzedek was the representative of the Lord.

This is an expression of an oath. There is no actual mention of an oath here — unlike with, “For I raise up My hand (אשא ידי) to heaven...” (Devarim 32:40), where it is written right afterwards, “ ... and I say, ‘As I live forever.’” Nevertheless, Scripture was brief here and relied on our understanding. (Re’m) Furthermore, we can say that אשא ידי [on its own] is considered an expression of mentioning an oath. And it is actually another way of saying הרימותי ידי. Therefore, הרימותי ידי is also an expression of an oath, although it is not expressly stated.

(22-24) Abraham fügt zu dem א׳ עליון, dem Malkizedek diente, den charakteristischen Namen ׳ה hinzu, der eben den א׳ ע׳ קונה שמים וארץ in besondere Beziehung zum Menschen stellt. Malkizedek war in dem Erfolge Abrahams nur klar geworden, dass der "höchste Gott" auch mitunter in eine Beziehung zum Menschenstreben und Menschenwirken trete. Abraham spricht aber sein Gottesbewusstsein in einer noch weit höheren Stufe aus. Der ׳א׳ ע Malkizedeks war nur quantitativ von den anderen Göttern verschieden, eine höchste Macht im Kreise der Mächte. Außerhalb der jüdischen Gotteslehre war und ist, bis auf das, was bereits aus dem Judentum Gemeingut geworden, das von Gott gedachte Höchste nur die Vorstellung einer höchsten Macht, einer Gottheit, die zu dem Kosmos, zu dem physischen Weltall in einer Beziehung, jedoch in keiner näheren, anderen Beziehung zum Menschen als zu den anderen Wesen steht. Der höchste Gott des Heidentums war ein Gott der Natur, die Geschichte war vorzugsweise ein Produkt der Menschen. Abrahams Gott war nicht nur der Gott der Natur, sondern auch und vorzugsweise der Gott der Geschichte. Nachdem die Schöpfung der Natur vollendet, begann die Schöpfung in der Geschichte, seitdem ist Gott מעלה ומוריך, lenkt und leitet, — sein größtes Werk liegt in der Zukunft, nicht in der Vergangenheit, er ist ׳ה, der Zukunft Schöpfer! Diesen Namen stellt Abraham voran: "der Gott, den eben dein Priester genannt, ist ein Gott, in dessen Dienst, bewusst oder unbewusst, du und ich, wir alle stehen, und der ist der Gott, der mich sendet —".

The reason the Torah writes the word אם twice, when it would have sufficed to write simply אם אקח מחוט ועד שרוך נעל is, that Abraham referred both to what was in the past and to anything that might occur in the future. Although he was entitled to a תרומה, some gift, in his capacity of being a priest, he waived his rights in this respect unconditionally

הרימתי. Es ist sehr zweifelhaft, was dies eigentlich heiße. נשא יד kommt allerdings als schwören vor, aber nur im Munde Gottes. הרים יד aber nie als schwören. als vielleicht hier. נשא und הרים sind verschieden. In נשא tritt blos die Beziehung zur Höhe hervor, zu der ein Gegenstand erhoben werden soll, ohne Beziehung zu einem unteren Raum, von dem der Gehobene entfernt werden soll. Diese Beziehung tritt aber gerade in הרים hervor. Es ist nicht bloß ein Erheben, sondern ein Hinausheben. Daher תרומה. Es könnte daher sehr wohl heißen: "Als ich ausgezogen bin, habe ich meine Hand Gott geweiht, hat mich so wenig ein selbstsüchtiges Interesse geleitet, dass ich biel— mehr meine Hand allen anderen Zwecken, die niederer sind als Gott, entzogen, und nur Gott geweiht, ich darf also von allem Erstrittenen nichts für andere Zwecke, also auch nichts für mich nehmen". Dieser Auffassung steht jedoch das אֶל׳ entgegen, im -תרומה Sinne würde es לדי heißen. Es könnte vielleicht dieses "hinan zu Gott", welches ׳אל ד ausdrückt, durch den Gegensatz hervorgerufen sein, indem es sich nicht nur um eine Weihe an Gott, sondern eben dadurch zunächst um Verneinung jeder anderen selbstsüchtigen Ver— wendung handelt, somit die Hingebung der Hand an Gott mit großer Entschiedenheit auszudrücken war.

הרימותי ידי, “I have raised my hand (in a solemn oath)” Avram states in reply to the King of Sodom’s offer [of what was not even his to offer Ed.] that he has already set aside his share for the Lord, as is stated when the Torah wrote: “he gave him a tithe from all of it.” He meant that beyond this he did not mean to keep anything. (as per Rashi).

He also wanted to make it plain that the tithe he had removed from the loot was not a percentage he had taken for himself. Although he was in a position to waive his own claims, he had no right to waive what belonged to G'd or to His representative. This is why he had removed the tithe from the loot before waiving his own claim to the remainder.

Wahrscheinlicher jedoch ist es auch hier Ausdruck des Schwörens, das ja auch durch das folgende אם vorausgesetzt ist. נשא יד kommt immer nur bei einem promissorischen Eide vor. Indem man im gelobenden Eide die Hand zu Gott erhob, setzte man seine ganze Macht ein zur Erfüllung des Versprochenen. Von Gott gebraucht, macht es die Verheißung unabhängig von allem andern, macht Himmel und Erde der Erfüllung des Versprochenen dienstbar. Wie hätte nun Abraham dem Heiden gegenüber sich anders als durch einen Ausdruck aussprechen sollen, der den Gott, zu dem er schwört, über alles andere erhebt, wie anders als durch הרימותי? Er hebt mit diesem Worte seine Hand an allen Göttern vorüber hinan zu dem Höchsten, der ihm der einzige war. Hätte er bei einem ihrer Götter geschworen, es hätte נשאתי genügt.

מחוט עד שרוך נעל. Wenn die jüdische Anschauungsweise ein numerisch All— umfassendes bezeichnen will, nennt sie nicht ein Kleines und ein Großes, ein Nahes und ein Fernes und spricht: von diesem Kleinsten bis zu jenem Größten, von diesem Nahen bis zu jenem Fernen, sondern sie schaut die Dinge im Kreise an, nennt zwei einander nächststehende Gegenstände, nächstliegende Punkte und spricht: von diesem (den ganzen Kreis herum bis wieder) zum nächsten. So die Volksgesamtheit, die keine Pyramide, sondern einen Kreis bildet, (der Bettler geht ebenso dem König voran wie er ihm folgt): vom Holzhauer bis zum Wasserschöpfer. So auch hier: vom Faden bis zum Schuh— riemen. So auch nach Auffassung der Weisen שמלך בכיפה ,מהודו ועד כוש, den ganzen Erdkreis ausdrückend, von הודו ausgehend und in כוש wieder anlangend.

אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל NOT ANYTHING FROM A THREAD EVEN TO A SANDAL TIE shall I retain for myself from the spoil.

אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל, every time the word אם occurs in Scripture and is not followed by a verb making it a conditional statement, it is used instead of the word שלא, “so that not.” Avram’s statement here means: “I have sworn an oath not to give you even a shoelace or a length of thread as I do not own any of these things. Conversely, I will also not take (accept) anything that is (was) yours.” G’d said something similar to the Jewish people after the debacle of the spies in Numbers 14,23) when He said אם יראו את הארץ, which is a way of saying that they will most certainly not get to see the land (of Israel). In verse 30 in the same chapter the words אם אתם תבאו also mean “you will certainly not come.” Similarly, Samuel I 15,6 חי ה' אם יומת, means “an oath to G’d that he will not be executed, etc.” Also, in Kings II 5,16 חי ה' אשר עמדתי לפניו אם אקח וגו', means: “As the Lord lives whom I serve, I will not accept anything.” There are many similar examples.

ולא תאמר אני העשרתי את אברם, "so that you will not be able to claim credit for enriching me." Why would it have occurred to anyone to give credit to the king of Sodom for enriching Abraham? Was it not obvious that the Lord Himself had protected Abraham all the way?

אם מחוט, “if as little as some string;” he referred to the least valuable decorative string (used as jewelry) worn by girls in their hair.

And if you offer to compensate me... Rashi knew this because it says, “And I will not take, implying that “Neither a thread nor a shoelace” is a separate point which means: I will not retain the spoils. [Then comes a new point:] “And I will not take” from your treasure house. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: [The spoils] were already in Avraham’s hands. Why did he say, “I will not take”? Perforce it means, “I will not take compensation from your treasure house.”

אם מחוט, “if as much as a thread;” the “thread” mentioned here is a thread used as jewelry on one’s head, as stated by our sages in Shabbat 65, the “threads worn by the young girls on their heads were made of silk, and are used to tie their hair with them.”

ואם אקח מכל אשר לך NOR ANYTHING THAT IS THINE WILL I TAKE — And if you say that you will reward me from your own treasures I will still not accept anything

ועד שרוך נעל, ”or even as insignificant an item as a shoelace;” in those days these were also decorative, used as a form of jewelry worn around the ankles. The meaning of the apparent repetition אם אקח is: “may G’d punish me if I do this.” Nachmanides views the entire sentence in the following light. Avraham considered the entire loot, now that he had tithed it, as if a gift given to G’d, something now out of bounds to him as anything which acquired terumah status is out of bounds to a commoner.

Abraham wanted it clearly understood that the whole loot was legally his, the king had in no way given up one iota of something that was legally his, even if Abraham had consented to share the loot. Abraham chose his words carefully when he said: "you shall not say 'I have made Abraham rich.'" If there had been even a semblance of truth to what the king of Sodom had suggested, Abraham would have had to say: "I do not want to become enriched by you." The very most the king would have been able to do was to claim that he had given up something of his own; such a claim would not have been legal anyways.

שרוך נעל, similar threads or laces to act as decoration when closing one’s shoes. Avram meant, I will not accept expensive or even inexpensive items.

'ולא תאמר וגו SO THAT THOU SHOULDST NOT SAY etc. — For the Holy One, blessed be He, has promised to give me riches, as it is said, (Genesis 12:2) “And I will bless thee” (see Rashi on this passage, where the blessing is explained to consist in ממון “wealth”).

ואם אקח מכל אשר לך, “neither will I keep anything which (once) belonged to you.” Avram, in order not to offend,explained to the King of Sodom that when he left his father’s home G-d had assured him that He would make him wealthy. It is therefore no more than good manners for me to decline anything which would appear as if G-d’s promise had not been sufficient for me. When he would become wealthy, he wished to give the credit for this to G-d.

הנערים THE LADS — My servants who went with me. Then, again, the others ANER, ESHCOL AND MAMRE [THEY MAY TAKE THEIR PORTION ] — Although my servants took part in the battle as it is said (Genesis 14:15) “he and his servants and smote them” — whilst Aner and his friends remained with the baggage to guard it yet they may take their share. From him (Abraham) David took a lesson when he said, (1 Samuel 30:24) “But as his part is that goeth down to the battle, so shall his part be that tarrieth by the stuff: they shall share alike”; therefore it goes on to say (1 Samuel 30:25), “And this had been so from that day — ומעלה — and had been so from former times: therefore he (David) made it a statute and an ordinance” — it does not state והלאה “and henceforward”, for the statute had already been ordained) in the days of Abram (Genesis Rabbah 43:9).

I am excluding myself. Literally, “Without me” — i.e. “You can take it without asking me because I claim no part of it.”

הם יקחו חלקם. "They shall take their share." Again Abraham wanted to make it clear that the share of his allies did not depend on the generosity of the king. They would take their share by right. Abraham did not want that the king of Sodom should make even a spurious statement as it would diminish Abraham's reputation even if untrue.

בלעדי רק אשר אכלו הנערים, “Exclude me; except for what the servants have eaten;” but he did not allocate to these servants a share of the loot as he had done for Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre. Some commentators hold that these people helped themselves to their share, not waiting for Avraham to give them anything. It makes more sense to accept that Avraham gave to Oner, Eshkol, and Mamre, who were not present, and on whose behalf Avraham had no right to waive their claim, whereas the people with him had helped themselves to what they considered rightfully as theirs.

My servants who went with me. The verse should be divided into three parts: (1)“I am excluding myself, only what the lads have eaten” — referring to Avraham’s servants who accompanied him, for it is written before in v. 15: “He and his servants.” The phrase “who went with me” is Rashi’s own words [explaining who the “lads” are. It is not a quote from the verse]. (2)“And the portion of the men who went with me” — referring to his trained servants (חניכיו) mentioned in v. 14 above. (3) “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” — about them it says, “They may take their portion.” The fact that “portion” is mentioned again shows that “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” must be different from “The men who went with me,” regarding whom it already is written, “And the portion of...” Therefore, “They may take their portion” refers only to “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” [Thus there are three parts].

בלעדי, the letter י in this word is unnecessary, just as the letter י in the word: זולתי in Deuteronomy 1,36 is unnecessary. The verse means that Avram will take only as much of the loot as belongs to the troops whom he had hired to fight.

Only what the lads have eaten. Avraham claimed only the cost of provisioning his men, but Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei could take their share for themselves.

Aneir and his friends stayed with the supplies to guard it ... Rashi knows this because it is written in v. 13, “He [Avram] was living in the Plains of Mamrei the brother of Eshkol and Aneir.” And then it is written (v. 14), “When Avram heard ... he pursued them...” but it does not say Aneir and his friends [joined the pursuit]. Perforce, they remained behind to guard the supplies.

אבל ענר אשכול וממרא הם יקחו חלקם, I will neither give them a share, nor will I accept a share on their behalf, but they will themselves take the share they are entitled to.