The Israel Koschitzky Virtual Beit Midrash

Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat Har Etzion

by Rav David Silverberg

In Parashat Lekh-Lekha (chapter 14) we read of the battle between the four powers of Mesopotamia, led by Amrafel, the king of Shinar (Babylon), against the five cities of the Jordan River Valley, led by Bera, the king of Sedom. This war takes place shortly after Lot, Avraham's nephew, had resettled in Sedom, and Lot, along with entire city of Sedom, is captured by Amrafel's army. Upon hearing of his nephew's captivity, Avraham immediately mobilizes a modest militia and pursues the four Mesopotamian kings, ultimately defeating them, liberating his nephew and the population of Sedom.

As he returns towards his home in Chevron, Avraham passes through the city of Shalem, which Chazal identify as the city that is later called Yerushalayim. The Torah records two conversations Avraham has in Shalem: one with Malki-Tzedek, the city's king and religious leader ("kohen"), and the other with the king of Sedom, whom he had just freed from captivity. Malki-Tzedek, we are told, brings bread and wine to celebrate Avraham's victory and offers a blessing to Avraham and God. In response, Avraham gives the king of Shalem one-tenth of the booty from the recent war. The king of Sedom comes to greet Avraham and asks that Avraham return to him the people of his city whom he had just liberated. In exchange, he offers Avraham all the possessions won in the conflict. But Avraham refuses to take any of the spoils, and explains, "so that you do not say: It is I who made Avraham rich" (14:23).

What is the Torah's purpose in describing Avraham's encounter with these two kings?

Perhaps the Torah here seeks to draw a contrast between the two kings, thereby drawing a contrast between these two cities – Sedom and Jerusalem. Earlier, the Torah describes Sedom as a city of sinners (13:13) and records Lot's settlement there with the phrase, "Va-yisa Lot mi-kedem" (13:11), which Chazal interpret as an allusion to his having abandoned God through his settlement in the corrupt city. Furthermore, the king of Sedom is named "Bera" (14:2), which means "evil." The name "Malki-Tzedek," by contrast, means, "my king of justice." Indeed, whereas Malki-Tzedek greets Avraham for the sole purpose of offering thanksgiving to the Almighty for Avraham's triumph, Bera approaches Avraham with his personal interests in mind. He presents an offer intended to ensure that the population of Sedom would be returned to his authority and control, rather than come under Avraham's sphere of influence. And although he offers Avraham all the spoils, Avraham astutely detects the underlying motive behind this proposal: to allow the Sedomite king to take credit for Avraham's success. This encounter in Shalem, then, highlights the fundamental difference in values between the Shalem, the city of justice and peace, and Sedom, the city of selfishness and corruption.

The story of Lot's resettlement in Sedom, the event immediately preceding this battle, emphasizes the contrast between Avraham and Sedom, it underscores the fact that Avraham stands in direct opposition to the values and culture of Sedom. The verses stress that whereas Lot dwelled in the region of Sedom, Avraham specifically remained in the mountain region – the area of Jerusalem. The narrative in chapter 14 further develops this conflict between Avraham-Jerusalem on the one hand, and Sedom on the other. This contrast teaches the ultimate goal of the nation Avraham establishes, whose capital will be Jerusalem: to oppose the culture of Sedom, to champion the ideals of justice and ethics, as opposed to the selfishness and indulgence that characterized the population of Sedom.

Much later in history, the prophet Yeshayahu famously bemoans the moral deterioration of the Jewish people. He cries, "Hear the word of the Lord, you chieftains of Sedom; give ear to our God's instruction, you folk of Amora!" (Yeshayahu 1:10). He describes how "the faithful city that was filled with justice, where righteousness dwelt, are now murderers" (1:21). The ethical standards of Jerusalem, which was to represent the ideals of justice and kindness, have degenerated into widespread corruption and theft; its leaders have become like the leaders of Sedom. The prophet asks in the name of God, "What need have I for all your sacrifices… That you come before Me – who asked that of you?" (1:11-12). There is no need for the religious center of Jerusalem if its inhabitants do not abide by the values of Jerusalem. If the city's population has become like Sedom, then we have no need for the city, no purpose is served by having a nation with a Temple in Jerusalem.

The prophet concludes that ultimately, God will restore Jerusalem to its previous stature, that once again Jerusalem will stand in opposition to the culture of Sedom and become the symbol of morality and human dignity: "I will restore your magistrates as of old, and your counselors as of yore. After that you shall be called City of Righteousness, Faithful City" (1:26).

(Based on a devar Torah by Rav Amnon Bazak)

******

As we briefly mentioned yesterday, Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of the separation between Avraham and his nephew, Lot. Unable to manage together given the vast wealth they accumulated, they decide to part ways, with Lot choosing to relocate in the corrupt city of Sedom, while Avraham remains in the region west of Sedom, in the Judean Hills. (See 13:5-13.)

After Lot's departure, God appears to Avraham and reiterates His promise to give the Land of Canaan to Avraham's offspring: "The Lord said to Avraham after Lot had parted from him: Raise your eyes and look out from the place where you are… for I give all the land that you see to you and your offspring forever… " (13:14-15). The Torah's introduction to this promise, "The Lord said to Avraham after Lot had parted from him," suggests a connection between this promise and Lot's recent departure. Wherein lies this connection? Why did Lot's separation from Avraham warrant a repetition of God's promise to Avraham?

Rashi, based on the Midrash Tanchuma, explains that in truth, Lot's separation did not necessitate God's reiteration of His promise, but rather allowed it, it made it possible. Meaning, God wanted to remind Avraham of His promise, but the presence of Lot, whom Rashi describes here as a "rasha" (wicked person), precluded the possibility of a divine revelation to Avraham. Only once Lot left Avraham's side could God once again reveal Himself to Avraham and repeat His promise.

Radak suggests a different explanation, claiming that God here informs Avraham that he alone will inherit the land. Lot himself no longer enjoys any rights to Eretz Canaan, and no one else will take Lot's place alongside Avraham. Rather, Avraham alone with receive rights to the land and bequeath it to his offspring.

An interesting variation of this approach appears in the work "Tishbi," by Rav Shraga Pollak. He suggests that after Lot's departure, Avraham felt uneasy about his sudden solitude, he was intimidated by the prospect of having to embark on his mission alone, without anyone at his side. How can he hope to spread the teachings of ethical monotheism in a pagan world without any assistance?

God therefore reassures him, "Look out from the place where you are… " From this very situation, from the solitude and isolation Avraham currently experiences, he will inherit Canaan and build a nation that will represent his values. God here informs Avraham that throughout his descendants' history, they will be subjected to loneliness and seclusion, they must engage in a bitter struggle against the entire world, with little if any support or assistance from without. Many years later, the sorcerer Bilam describes Am Yisrael as, "a people that dwells apart, not reckoned among the nations" (Bamidbar 23:9). This is the destiny of the Jewish people – a destiny of distinction and aloneness. PLekh-Lekha describes Avraham as "Avram ha-ivri" – "Avram the Hebrew" (14:13). Chazal explain this expression to mean, "He stands on one side ['ever echad'], and the entire world stands on the other." Whereas Avraham may have thought that he will accomplish his mission together with the assistance of Lot, he is now informed that he must go about this struggle on his own – a symbol of the isolation with which his progeny will have to contend for millennia to come.

******

Among the stories of Avraham told in Parashat Lekh-Lekha in his military victory over the four powers of the east and the celebration of his triumph in the city of Shalem (chapter 14). There the king of Sedom, the city that had been taken captive by the four kings and subsequently liberated by Avraham, offers Avraham all the spoils of Sedom he had retrieved, in exchange for the captives he rescued. But Avraham refuses to take as much as "a thread or a shoe strap" (14:23) from the spoils of Sedom. He explains, "so that you shall not say, 'It is I who made Avram rich'." However, Rav Yehoshua Katz, in his classic commentary on the Tur, known as "Derisha" (in Choshen Mishpat, 249), places Avraham's refusal to take the spoils within a broader context, viewing it as a fulfillment of the famous dictum, "Sonei matanot yichyeh" ("He who spurns gifts will live long" – Mishlei 15:27). Avraham turned down the king's offer because of the general value of refusing gifts.

As the Derisha himself notes, however, earlier in the parasha we indeed find that Avraham not only accepted gifts, but intentionally put himself in a situation where he would become wealthy by receiving gifts. As he and Sara left to Egypt to flee the famine in Canaan, Avraham feared that he might be killed so that his attractive wife would be available for marriage. He therefore asked Sara to pose as his sister, "that it may go well with me because of you" (12:13). Rashi explains this phrase to mean, "They will give me gifts." Avraham correctly anticipated that Sara would be abducted to the king's palace, and Avraham, as her brother, would be treated to royalty as a result. But how could Avraham, the one who "spurns gifts," look forward to receiving royal wealth at Sara's expense? How does Avraham's conduct here correspond to his refusal to accept any spoils from Sedom?

This difficulty led the Derisha and others to offer creative, alternative explanations of this verse. According to the Derisha, Avraham refers not to gifts he received from the royal treasury, but gifts he was given from other Egyptians who desired his wife. Suspecting that many Egyptians would compete for Sara, Avraham anticipated that the wealthier inhabitants would try to win his favor in an effort to convince him to give them his alleged sister. Avraham will therefore receive many bribes and become very wealthy. His wealth and stature will then help ensure Sara's protection from those who might seek to forcibly seize her. Avraham thus meant that by posing as his sister, Sara will bring about a situation where Avraham would become exceedingly wealthy and thus have the power to protect her. (In the end, of course, Pharaoh himself took Sara, and she was saved only by God's intervention.)

The Chid"a (Rav Chayim Yosef David Azulai, 18^th century), in his "Penei David," offers a different explanation of this verse. He claims that Avraham refers here not to the gifts he receives when Sara is initially taken, but rather to the gifts given to him after God intervenes and forces Pharaoh to return her to her husband. Later, in Parashat Vayera, we read that in a similar situation, Avimelekh, the king of Gerar, gives Avraham and Sara generous financial compensation, which he described as "kesut einayim" – proof to the fact that he had not defiled Sara (see 20:16). The Chid"a suggests that the same occurred in Egypt, as well; after God's punishment of Pharaoh and his palace, the king went to great pains to guarantee Sara's protection from rumors. Anticipating all this as he makes his way towards Egypt, Avraham seeks to assuage Sara's fears by guaranteeing her that she would not be defiled. To the contrary, they will receive enormous gifts as part of an effort to protect her reputation.

The Moshav Zekeinim addresses this question, as well, and suggest a much simpler explanation, claiming that accepting the gifts was part of Avraham's disguise as Sara's brother. As brother of the woman desired by the Pharaoh, he would be expected to accept gifts and royal treasures. Had Avraham refused, he would have aroused suspicion, thus undermining his entire scheme. It turns out, then, that in Egypt, too, Avraham would have preferred to refuse the gifts, but he simply had no choice but to accept them.

******

Yesterday, we contrasted two instances in Parashat Lekh-Lekha when Avraham Avinu is offered wealth. In the first, the king of Sedom asks Avraham to keep the spoils of Sedom, which Avraham had just rescued from the four eastern powers that had captured the city. Avraham refuses, a decision some writers attribute to the principle established in Sefer Mishlei (15:27), "Sonei matanot yichyeh" ("He who spurns gifts will live long"), discouraging a person from accepting free gifts. But earlier in the parasha, when Avraham and Sara travel to Egypt, Sara poses as Avraham's sister and is abducted by the Pharaoh, who gives Avraham, her alleged brother, wealth and riches in exchange. Here Avraham does not refuse, accepts the gifts, and becomes extraordinarily wealthy. Why does he act differently in Egypt than he does when hearing the Sedomite king's offer?

The Moshav Zekeinim, a work consisting of commentaries from the Ba'alei Ha-tosefot, answers (in addition to the answer cited yesterday from this work) that Avraham's different responses to these offers stem from the difference in values between Sedom and Egypt. The city of Sedom, as depicted by Chazal, consisted of a greedy, selfish population who would never share their wealth with anybody. From such a people, Avraham refused to take anything. Egypt, however, as corrupt a society as it was, as evidenced by their preparedness to kill Avraham to marry his wife, was not plagued by this particular blemish of greed. Therefore, Avraham did not hesitate to receive the gifts offered to him by the Pharaoh.

How should we understand this distinction drawn by the Moshav Zekeinim? If the verse in Mishlei discourages accepting free gifts, why would the different cultures of Sedom and Egypt impact upon Avraham's decision to accept or refuse their gifts?

The Moshav Zekeinim presumably maintained that the concept of "sonei matanot yichyeh" depends on the particular circumstances. When the gift is given unwillingly, under duress of some sort, then the intended recipient should decline. Therefore, when Avraham was offered the property of Sedom, and he realized that the king of Sedom was a greedy, selfish despot, he refused. He correctly assumed that the king did not make the offer wholeheartedly, and rather felt compelled to do so by his current situation – having just fallen captive and been rescued by Avraham. Pharaoh, however, willingly offered Avraham wealth in exchange for his "sister," and Avraham therefore accepted.

This distinction regarding the application of the rule, "sonei matanot yichyeh" is stated almost explicitly by Rav Manoach Hendil, author of the commentary, "Chokhmat Manoach" on the Talmud (printed in the back of most standard editions of the Talmud). The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Metzia (22a) tells that Mar Zutra would not eat fruit brought to him by his host's employee without the host's knowledge. Even after the host arrived and remarked to his servant that he should have fed the guests higher quality fruits, which would indicate that he consented to the offer of food to the guests, Mar Zutra still refrained. He explained that in this situation, we must assume that (or at least be concerned lest) the host made this remark only out of embarrassment, and that in reality he did not want to share his fruits with his guests. Mar Zutra therefore refused to partake of the fr, as doing so would constitute theft.

Commenting on this account in the Gemara, the Chokhmat Manoach writes that Mar Zutra's conduct proves that when someone gives a gift out of embarrassment, shame or the like, the person should not accept the gift, as this would be considered stealing. The Chokhmat Manoach adds, "And regarding this it says, 'Sonei matanot yichyeh'." Apparently, as Rav Elyakim Dvorkes writes in his work, "Bi-shvilei Ha-parasha," the Chokhmat Manoach felt that only in such a situation do we apply the concept of "sonei matanot yichyeh." Only when a gift is given unwillingly or halfheartedly does the verse instruct the intended recipient to decline. When, however, the giver gives wholeheartedly, out of a genuine desire to do a favor for the recipient, then the recipient should not refuse.

The Moshav Zekeinim, perhaps, followed this position, as well, and on this basis distinguishes between Pharaoh's gifts and the offer of the king of Sedom. Since Pharaoh gave the gifts sincerely and wholeheartedly, Avraham did not hesitate to accept them. The king of Sedom, by contrast, made his offer begrudgingly, and Avraham therefore refused.

******

Over the last two days, we have discussed Avraham Avinu's different responses to two situations recorded in Parashat Lekh-Lekha in which he is offered vast amounts of wealth. The first instance, when Pharaoh abducts Sara, who posed as Avraham's sister, Avraham accepts the gifts showered upon him by the Egyptian monarchy. Later in the parasha, however, the king of Sedom offers Avraham the spoils of Sedom, and he refuses. Yesterday we saw that Avraham's conduct could be attributed to the position of the Chokhmat Manoach concerning the principle of "Sonei matanot yichyeh" ("He who spurns gifts will live long" – Mishlei 15:27), that one should refrain from accepting free gifts. According to the Chokhmat Manoach, this applies only when the giver gives due to some external pressure compelling him to do so, and he would prefer not to have to bestow this gift. Therefore, Avraham refused the spoils of Sedom, which the city's king offered only due to dire circumstances. Pharaoh, by contrast, offered the gifts willingly, and so Avraham accepted them.

This distinction of the Chokhmat Manoach will likely depend on the underlying reason behind the concept of "sonei matanot yichyeh." Why should one turn down an offer of a free gift? If the other party makes the offer, why should the recipient decline? Rav Yaakov Kaminetzky zt"l is cited as explaining that this principle seeks to prevent us from growing accustomed to receiving effortless profit. When one regularly receives gifts without investing any effort, he begins to expect to receive that which does not belong to him. Such an expectation can often be the first step in the direction towards theft. If we view "sonei matanot yichyeh" from this perspective, then we would find it very difficult to accept the qualification imposed by the Chokhmat Manoach on this rule. If this principle is intended to avoid the habituation of effortless gain, then it would make no difference whether that effortless gain comes from an enthusiastic or reluctant giver. Either way, the recipient becomes the owner of something without investing any effort.

Apparently, then, the Chokhmat Manoach would understand the reason behind "sonei matanot yichyeh" differently. In his view, perhaps, this rule is meant to discourage one from taking unfair advantage of the unfortunate circumstances of others. When a person faces an uncomfortable situation in which he finds it necessary to give something, the intended recipient is advised to decline out of sensitivity to the giver's condition. If the giver would much prefer not to give the gift in question, then it is proper to decline so that he does not have to give it.

In halakhic literature we find yet another issue which may depend on the underlying reason behind the rule of "sonei matanot yichyeh." In Masekhet Bava Batra (13a), the tanna'im address a situation of a jointly owned piece of property that is too small for division. Normally, when a piece of property has two owners, Halakha grants either partner the right to force the other one to divide the property. When, however, dividing would leave each owner with a territory smaller than four square-cubits, one cannot force division upon the other. Therefore, a partner interested in separation might offer to take less than fifty-percent of the territory so that the second party would be left with an area of four square-cubits. Does Halakha grant him the power to force his partner to accept this offer? The majority view cited in the Gemara indeed grants him this power. Since he offers a sizeable area, he may force this offer upon the partner – just as he could normally, if the territory was eight cubits or more in size. Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel, however, disagrees, based on the principle of "sonei matanot yichyeh." Since this verse discourages people from accepting free gifts, the second partner has the right to refuse division in this case, since doing so would necessitate his acceptance of a gift. It is unclear as to which of these positions is accepted by Halakha; the Shulchan Arukh (C.M. 171:10) cites both opinions.

How does the majority view respond to Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel's claim? If, indeed, "He who spurns gifts will live long," then why can't the second party refuse to accept the additional territory?

The Sema ("Sefer Meirat Einayim"), the classic commentator on the Choshen Mishpat section of the Shulchan Arukh, explains that according to the majority position, "sonei matanot yichyeh" does not apply to a gift intended for the benefit of the giver. If the giver wishes to give the gift because doing so directly serves his own interests, then the verse in Mishlei would not, in such a case, advise the recipient to refuse the gift. In this case, then, when the first partner wishes to divide the property, and he offers the gift not out of any affection for his partner, but rather to advance his own interests, the second partner cannot refuse on the grounds of "sonei matanot yichyeh." Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel, by contrast, applies the principle of "sonei matanot yichyeh" even to situations where the gift is given to serve the best interests of the giver.

This debate, too, likely hinges on the fundamental question as to the nature of the concept of "sonei matanot yichyeh." If we accept Rav Yaakov's explanation, that it is meant to avoid a routine of effortless gain, then we might argue that the giver's motives have no impact upon the rule's application. One must try to avoid any situation of gain without any investment of time or effort, regardless of the circumstances prompting the bestowal of the gift. If, however, we view "sonei matanot yichyeh" as an expression of sensitivity to the giver, who may not truly wish to give this gift, then clearly it would not apply when the acceptance of the gift in fact serves the giver's best interests.

******

Parashat Lekh-Lekha tells of, among other things, the separation between Avraham and his nephew, Lot. Lot had accompanied Avraham and Sara in their journey to Canaan (12:4), but eventually their shepherds could no longer work together, prompting Avraham to suggest that he and Lot separate. Avraham says to his nephew, "Let there be no strife between you and me, between my herdsmen and yours, for we are kinsmen" (13:8). Given their familial relationship, Avraham says, it is inappropriate for them to remain in a situation which gives rise to friction and contention. It is therefore preferable that they separate.

One word in this verse, however, requires explanation. Avraham explains that there should be no strife between them, "ki anashim achim anachnu" – literally, "for we are men who are kinsmen." He could just as easily have said, "ki achim anachnu" – "for we are kinsmen." What did Avraham mean by adding the word, "anashim"?

Rav Yaakov Mecklenberg, in his "Ha-ketav Ve-ha'kabbala," suggests that Avraham in fact gives two reasons why he and Lot must avoid contention. First, becthey are "anashim" ("men"); secondly, because they are "achim" ("kinsmen"). "Anashim," Rav Mecklenberg notes, often denotes not "people" in general, but specifically people of stature. Avraham tells Lot that they should avoid fighting not merely because of their family relationship, but also because they are "anashim," men of stature, men of distinction, and tolerating bickering among their shepherds is well beneath their dignity.

Rav Yehuda Leib Ginsburg, in his "Yalkut Yehuda," notes that this comment of Avraham, as understood by the "Ha-ketav Ve-ha'kabbala," provides us with an important insight into Avraham's character. In Parashat Vayera, as he pleads with the Almighty to spare the corrupt city of Sedom, Avraham acknowledges the temerity of his petition, given that he is, in his eyes, "dust and ashes" (18:27). Chazal see in this remark of Avraham an indication of his remarkable humility. And yet, as humble as Avraham was, to the point where he considered himself nothing more than "dust and ashes," he ensured to always conduct himself in a manner befitting a man of noble stature. Modesty does not mean a denial of one's elevated status. Even a humble man can and should have a sense of pride, pride in his commitment and devotion to God, pride in his spiritual achievements. But as we see in Avraham's comments to his nephew, this pride is to express itself not in the pursuit of honor and fame, but rather in the maintenance of higher standards of ethical and noble conduct.

******

Parashat Lekh-Lekha contains the famous "berit bein ha-betarim," the covenant God establishes with Avraham Avinu, promising a large nation that will emerge from his offspring and inherit the Land of Canaan. As part of this prophecy, God also informs the patriarch of his offspring's bondage in exile, and their ultimate deliverance and return to their land: "Know well that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years… And they shall return here in the fourth generation" (15:13,16).

A particularly enigmatic mishna in Masekhet Eduyot (2:9) cites Rabbi Akiva as invoking these verses as part of his description of the parent-child relationship. Rabbi Akiva remarks:

What does the mishna mean by "the number of generations before him," and how is this "the key to redemption"? Furthermore, how do the verses from Parashat Lekh-Lekha help substantiate Rabbi Akiva's claim?

In what has become a famous lecture (and appears in print in the second volume of "Reflections of the Rav"), Rav Soloveitchik zt"l explained this mishna as "setting forth the premise of Jewish survival." Rabbi Akiva lived and taught in the years following the destruction of the Second Temple, and during the tumultuous period of the failed Bar-Kokhba revolt and its devastating aftermath. As part of his campaign of consolation and encouragement, Rabbi Akiva in this passage presents to Am Yisrael the secret of Jewish eternity. That secret is "the number of generations before him," which Rav Soloveitchik explains to mean, "the ability of parents to transmit to their children the secret of uniting with past generations, of whatever number, dating back to antiquity." Jewish parents bequeath to their children not only a physical, genetic code, but also the past, the millennia-old chain of tradition, such that children can associate with and identify with their ancestors of hundreds and thousands years earlier. Our nation is endowed with "the ability to associate with distant historical figures, intellectually and emotionally, as if they were contemporary companions."

Rabbi Akiva claims that "ve-hu ha-ketz" – herein lies the secret of redemption, the key to Jewish survival. The "number of generations before him" that each parent gives to his children ensures that the tribulations of exile will never uproot us from our past, that we will continue to identify with past generations. True, "they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years," an experience that normally would crush a people's aspirations of returning to their homeland and fulfilling their forefathers' dreams. But God assured Avraham, "they shall return here in the fourth generation." The intergenerational bond that unites children with grandparents, great-grandparents, and so on ensures the return of the enslaved, oppressed people to their origin and roots, even after hundreds and thousands years of exile and suffering.

This shiur is provided courtesy of the Virtual Beit Midrash, the premier source of online courses on Torah and Judaism - 14 different courses on all levels, for all backgrounds.

Make Jewish learning part of your week on a regular basis - enroll in the
Virtual Beit Midrash

Yeshivat Har Etzion
Alon Shvut, Israel, 90433
office@etzion.org.il