After Lot and Avraham part ways, Hashem tells Avraham that he will inherit the land of Israel. (Beresheit 13:14-17). He gives a further message to Avraham that he will have a child and his children will be as numerous as the stars (15:1-5). But between these two messages, we find a detailed description of a war between the alliances of four kings and five kings.

בראשית יד

(א) וַיְהִ֗י בִּימֵי֙ אַמְרָפֶ֣ל מֶֽלֶךְ־שִׁנְעָ֔ר אַרְי֖וֹךְ מֶ֣לֶךְ אֶלָּסָ֑ר כְּדׇרְלָעֹ֙מֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ עֵילָ֔ם וְתִדְעָ֖ל מֶ֥לֶךְ גּוֹיִֽם׃ (ב) עָשׂ֣וּ מִלְחָמָ֗ה אֶת־בֶּ֙רַע֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ סְדֹ֔ם וְאֶת־בִּרְשַׁ֖ע מֶ֣לֶךְ עֲמֹרָ֑ה שִׁנְאָ֣ב׀ מֶ֣לֶךְ אַדְמָ֗ה וְשֶׁמְאֵ֙בֶר֙ מֶ֣לֶךְ צְבֹיִ֔ים וּמֶ֥לֶךְ בֶּ֖לַע הִיא־צֹֽעַר׃

Beresheit 14

1 Now it came to pass in the days of Amraphel the king of Shinar, Arioch the king of Ellasar, Chedorlaomer the king of Elam, and Tidal the king of Goyim. 2 That they waged war with Bera the king of Sodom and with Birsha the king of Gomorrah, Shineab the king of Admah, and Shemeber the king of Zeboiim, and the king of Bela, which is Zoar.

Lot gets tangled up in the war, Avraham rescues him, and Lot returns to Sodom where we find him in next week’s Parsha. At first glance, the level of detail describing the conflict and its overall significance is elusive. The Rav offers a fascinating interpretation of the war between the kings:

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik - “The War Between in the Kings”

In Abraham’s time, one bloc consisted of Amraphel king of Shinar, who, according to Hazal (Eruvin 53a), was Nimrod. "Kush fathered Nimrod, he was the first on earth to be a mighty one" (Gen. 10:8). He was a victorious warrior, "a mighty hunter before the Lord" (Gen. 10:9). He expanded his territory: “The beginning of his kingdom was Babel...in the land of Shinar; out of that land went forth Assyria, and built Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah" (Gen. 10:11). Like every great emperor and conqueror, he built new cities and thereby helped advance material civilization and technology.

Nimrod "himrid et kol ha-olam kullo, led the entire world to rebel against [God's] kingship" (Ervin 53a). According to Hazal, the generation of the dispersion was intoxicated with its own material success and technology. "Let us build us a city and a tower with its top in the heavens" (Gen. 11:4). Let us dethrone the Creator. Man reigns supreme and, by applying his mind, can conquer the universe. The generation of the dispersion sought power. Hazal say that if a worker fell to his death, they didn't care; but if they lost a brick, they would mourn for it (Pirkei de-Rabbi Eliezer 24). They were power-loving, power-crazed, power-intoxicated. Abraham rejected the generation of the dispersion (Avodah Zarah 19a). He saw a generation that had gone berserk and was mad for power.

Opposing this bloc, there was another, represented by Sodom, which had "dust of gold" (Job 28:6). Its inhabitants were very rich and lived in luxury. This bloc represented the human quest for unlimited pleasure. Thus there was a clash of two powers, two military alliances, two armies. But more than that, there was a clash of two outlooks on the world, of two “ethical" systems, so to speak. (Abraham’s Journey, p.126-127)

Albert Einstein provides a remarkably similar description in an essay titled “Why do they hate the Jews?” Published in Collier’s Magazine in 1938:

Albert Einstein - Ideas and Opinions

In political life I see two opposed tendencies at work, locked in constant struggle with each other. The first, optimistic trend proceeds from the belief that the free unfolding of the productive forces of individuals and groups essentially leads to a satisfactory state of society. It recognizes the need for a central power, placed above groups and individuals, but concedes to such power only organizational and regulatory functions. The second, pessimistic trend assumes that free interplay of individuals and groups leads to the destruction of society; it thus seeks to base society exclusively upon authority, blind obedience, and coercion. Actually this trend is pessimistic only to a limited extent: for it is optimistic in regard to those who are, and desire to be, the bearers of power and authority. The adherents of this second trend are the enemies of the free groups and of education for independent thought. They are, moreover, the carriers of political anti-Semitism. (p.198)

Earlier in the essay, Einstein articulates his central thesis:

Hence the hatred of the Jews by those who have reason to shun popular enlightenment. More than anything else in the world, they fear the influence of men of intellectual independence. I see in this the essential cause for the savage hatred of Jews raging in present-day Germany. To the Nazi group the Jews are not merely a means for turning the resentment of the people away from themselves, the oppressors; they see the Jews as a nonassimilable element that cannot be driven into uncritical acceptance of dogma, and that, therefore-as long as it exists at all—threatens their authority because of its insistence on popular enlightenment of the masses. (p.197)

The Rav notes that Avraham did not want to get involved in the conflict between the kings. He would have preferred to stay out of it. But because of his loyalty to Lot, he got involved.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik - “The War Between in the Kings”

Of course, both blocs were opposed by Abraham. He would have wanted to remain neutral, outside the entire drama of the clash between these two mutually exclusive ideologies and political systems. Suddenly, Abraham was pulled in, for Lot was taken captive. At this point, Abraham had to side with one bloc against another; he had no choice. We cannot imagine Abraham as an ally of Sodom and Gomorrah, of people who were "exceedingly wicked and sinners before the Lord" (Gen. 13:13). But he couldn't help it, as Lot was a prisoner. (p.128)

My students once asked me why the Jews have so many different enemies. Perhaps the answer lies in this description of the war between the kings. The war between the kings reflects the history of the Jew in the world. There are two opposing ideologies, constantly in battle with one another. The Jewish people find themselves stuck in the middle. We are neither committed to the endless pursuit of power nor the endless pursuit of pleasure. We are neither fully capitalist, nor fully communist. We are not wholly democrat or republican, capitalist or socialist, collectivist or individualist. We live lives of nuance and complexity, balancing the needs of the individual with society, pursuing prosperity while prioritizing charity, promoting freedom while managing competing commitments. We are not really a culture, not merely a religion, not just a political entity. Often we find ourselves outsiders as a result.

Rabbi Joseph B. Soloveitchik - “The War Between in the Kings”

Abraham is called here Avram ha-Ivri (Gen. 14:13). He stands "on one side," me-ever ehad, and the entire rest of the world on the other (Gen. Rabbah 42:8). "Abram the Ivri" means Abram the singular one, the lonely one, Abram from the other side of the river. (p.130)

When my great-grandparents emigrated to the United States during the turn of the 20th century, even though they came from specific countries in Europe, under nationality their documents say “Hebrew”. This is what it means to be a Hebrew, an Ivri, often simply the other.

References

Einstein A. Seelig C. & Bargmann S. (1988/1954). Ideas and opinions. Wings Books ; Distributed by Random House Value Publishing.

Rosenberg, A. (1980). A new English translation of the Hebrew Bible text and Rashi, with a commentary digest. New York: Judaica Press. Retrieved from: https://www.chabad.org/library/bible_cdo/

Soloveitchik J. D. Shatz D. Wolowelsky J. B. & Ziegler R. (2008). Abraham's journey : reflections on the life of the founding patriarch. Published for Toras HoRav Foundation by KTAV Pub. House.

This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit bentorah.substack.com