In our parasha, Avram returns from Egypt to find that the Canaanites have largely consolidated their hold on the Holy Land (only one city of the bënei Shém, Shalém, continued to hold out against them; cf. Rashi to XII, 5 and XIV, 18). In addition, a coalition of four powerful foreign potentates has launched an invasion of the country.
The proximate cause of the war is alleged to have been the revolt of five cities, Sëdom, ‘Amora, Adma, Tzëvoyim, and Tzo‘ar, against one of the kings, Këdorla‘omer of ‘Eilam. However, the Torah places Amrafel (whom the Talmud [עירובין נ"ג.] identifies with Nimrod) at the head of the list, revealing the expedition’s real purpose, to hunt down Avram, who had been at the center of the resistance to Nimrod’s bid to dominate mankind after the Mabbul (עיי' העמק דבר על י"ד א').
The midrash (בראשית רבה פמ"ב סי' ב') takes this concept a bit farther, and tells us that this war and Avram’s involuntary involvement in it presages subsequent Jewish history, in that each of the four kings represents one of the four exiles which the Jewish people were destined to endure.
Ramban explains the correspondences as follows:
Amrafel, king of Shin‘ar, he tells us, represents Nëvuchadnetzar and the Babylonian Empire, not only because the city of Bavel was located in the alluvial plain of Shin‘ar, but also because of a prophetic statement of Daniel, who told Nëvuchadnetzar אנת הוא רישא די דהבא, “you are the head of gold” (Daniel II, 38), i.e., the first to despoil Israel.
Aryoch, king of Ellasar he identifies with the Medio-Persian Empire, asserting that Ellasar was a city either in Media or Persia (אבל עיי' בראשית רבה שם סי' ז' שפירשו ז"ל שם אחרת).
Këdorla‘omer king of ‘Eilam he identifies with Alexander and the Hellenistic Greeks, asserting that Alexander’s decisive victory over the Persians was in Elamite territory, ומשם נתפשט מלכותו כשנצח דריוש (“and from there, his kingdom spread when he defeated Daryavesh [the last Persian king]; ועיי' עבודה זרה י. שתחלת מלכותם היתה בעילם)”.
Finally, Tid‘al, king of Goyim he identifies with the Roman exile, both because the Romans ruled over many other nations, and because their culture (“western civilization”) has spread throughout the world, and largely informs most of the countries in which Israel has been and continues to be exiled.
Ramban sees in Avraham’s victory over the four kings a sign that ובסוף יתגברו בניו עליהם ויפלו כולם בידם וישיבו כל שבותם ורכושם (“in the end [Avraham’s] sons will overcome them and they will all fall into [Israel’s] hand and return their captives and property”).
B.
The issue of Jewish wealth and the nations of the world brings into sharp relief another incident at the end of the campaign.
Whilst the kings were fleeing with Avram’s forces in hot pursuit, Avram and the king of Sëdom contemplated the freed captives and the pile of booty abandoned by the invaders. ויאמר מלך סדום אל אברם תן לי את הנפש והרכש קח לך (“And the king of Sëdom said to Avram, 'Give me the people [i.e., the captives from the five cities] and the property take for yourself”; XIV, 21), in this way intending to settle up with Avram for the successful rescue effort.
Avram responded: הרימתי ידי אל ד' א-ל עליון קנה שמים וארץ: אם מחוט ועד שרוך נעל ואם אקח מכל אשר לך ולא תאמר אני השרתי את אברם (“I raised my hand to Ha-Shem the most high G-d, owner of heavens and earth. If from a thread to a shoe-strap, and if I would take [anything] from what is yours, that you not say, 'I enriched Avram'”; ibid., 22-23).
As Rashi notes, Avram’s reason for turning down the king’s offer was שהקב"ה הבטיחני לעשרני שנא' "ואברכך" וגו' (“because the Holy One. Blessed is He, promised me that He would enrich me, as it is said, ‘and I shall bless you’ [XII, 2]”). Assured of G-d’s promise, Avram felt no need of the king’s generosity.
But how did he know that the king of Sëdom would not be the agency through which he would receive G-d’s blessing?
C.
The Maharal considers this question in two different venues, and offer two different answers.
The first, in his Gur Aryeh on our verse, focuses on Rashi’s quotation of G-d’s promised blessing. A Divine blessing, he tells us, is never conferred upon the blessed through pain and suffering. The king of Sëdom was not really any better or more generous than his justly infamous subjects; the only reason that he felt compelled to offer Avram a reward was that he had been captured by the invaders, and probably anticipated an unpleasant fate as a rebel against Këdorla‘o-mer. Thus, the offer was grudging, not due to any generous impulse on his part, and Avram understood that G-d’s blessing would not come to him by way of such path. Even so, Avram did not prevent his men and their allies from profiting from the offer, since they had risked their lives and were entitled to compensation: בלעדי רק אשר אכלו הנערים וחלק האנשים אשר הלכו אתי ענר אשכל וממרא הם יקחו את חלקם (“Aside from me, only what the young men consumed and the portion of the men who went along with me, ‘Aner Eshkol and Mamré’, they will take their part”; v. 24).
This, then, leads into the Maharal’s second point. Avram, he tells us, was justly renowned for his histappëquth, his self-sufficiency, שלא הי' רוצה שיקבל דבר אף כי הי' ראוי לו לקבל כאשר הציל המלכים כו' לא רצה בממון אחר כלל והי' די לו בשלו (“for he did not wish to receive anything, even if he deserved to receive it, as when he rescued the kings... He did not wish another’s money at all, and what he had was enough for him”; נתיבות עולם ח" ב, נתיב העושר פ"א). Histappëquth, in other words, is an exemplary middath chasiduth, a quality associated with great tzaddiqim, certainly to be striven for, but not necessarily to be expected of others.
Indeed, the Talmud remarks that in the merit of his unexampled personal histappëquth in this matter, the Torah rewards us, his descendants, with the mitzvoth of tzitzith (the “threads” which he mentions) and tëfillin (the leather “shoe-strap”; חולין פ"ט.).
The metaphor’s symbolism is clear, but it may be asked why Avram used this specific metaphor (rather than, say, “from a button to a thimble”)? What do these two mitzvoth truly signify?
D.
The Ha‘améq Davar takes note of Avram’s sterling quality, and calls our attention to two midrashim in order to address the question.
The first is: "אחות לנו קטנה ושדים אין לה" וגו' זה אברהם שאיחה את כל באי עולם (“’We have a little sister [achoth]who has no breasts....’; [Song of Songs VIII, 8], this [refers to] Avraham, who connected / stitched together [icha] all mortals”; בראשית רבה פל"ט סי' א', מתנת כהונה שם). The pun between achoth, sister, and the infinitive form of icha (also achoth) underlies the dërasha.
The second midrash is: עיקר שכינה בתחתונים היתה. כיון שחטא אדה"ר נסתלקה שכינה לרקיע כו' עמד אברהם והורידה וגו' (“The main location of the Divine Presence [Shëchina] was in the lower worlds. When the first man sinned, the Shëchina departed for the heavens... Avraham stood and brought it back down....”; שם פי"ט סי' י"ג ועיין כל הדרשה היטב עד הסוף).
The Ha‘améq Davar explains: נמצא תכלית שלימות הבריאה הי' שיהיו התחתונים מחוברים שו"א בהשגחתם ע"פ המעשים אלא שנקרע ע"פ החטא ובא א"א ותפר את הקרע וממילא איחה בזה את כל העולם כדאיתא ביבמות דס"ג אפי' כל משפחות אין מתברכות אלא בשביל ישראל כו' והנה מה שהגיע מפלת המלכים ע"י א"א הי' ע"י שני דברים האחד ע"י רובי צדקותיו שזכה להיות מאחה את הקרע ושנית ע"י שהעיר צדק ורדף אחריהם כו' ועל שני דברים הללו אמר שאונו מבקש שכר מבעל הגמול ית' לא על החוט שתפר את הקרע ולא על שרוך נעל שרדף אחריהם וגו' (“The goal of the perfection of Creation seems to have been that the lower realms be connected, heaven and earth, under [human] supervision according to overt actions, but it was torn asunder by the sin. Avraham came and sewed up the tear, and so connected the entire world, as is found in Yëvamoth 63: 'Even all the families [of man] are blessed only because of Israel....' That the downfall of the [invading] kings occurred through Avraham was due to two things, the first because of his righteous deeds, that he merited to be the one who repaired the tear, and the second because he called attention to justice and pursued them... and concerning these two things, he said that he did not seek a reward from the Author of grace, neither for the 'thread' with which he repaired the tear, nor for the 'shoe-strap,' in that he pursued them....”).
So the first part of Avram’s statement to the king of Sëdom recapitulates his oath to G-d. The ruling passion of Avram’s life, born of his love for G-d, was the re-establishment of the sundered connection. In his merit, his heirs, Israel, have the mitzva of tzitzith, reminding them of the “overt actions,” the mitzvoth, necessary to maintain it, and of tëfillin, through which each Jewish man dedicates his heart, mind, and hand to its maintenance.
No comments:
Post a Comment