YESHIVAT HAR ETZION
ISRAEL KOSCHITZKY VIRTUAL BEIT MIDRASH (VBM)
*********************************************************

Understanding Midrash

Shiur #09: History - War and the Jews
By Rav Ezra Bick

	There has been an unfortunate long hiatus in the appearance of this shiur, for which I apologize.  I hope you have not given up.  We will, with God's help, resume a more regular schedule herewith.  

	Today we are going to examine Avraham's experience in war, the war known as the War of the Kings (Bereishit 14).

	Four kings, from the Northeast of Canaan, invade and subjugate the five city-kingdoms of the Jordan valley, the most famous of which is Sedom, the home of Lot, Avraham's brother-in-law.

And it came to pass in the days of Amrafel king of Shinar, Arioch king of Elassar, Kedarla'omer king of Elam, and Tid'al king of Goyim;
They made war with Bera king of Sedom….  (Bereishit 14,1-2)

A.

"And it came to pass in the days of Amrafel…." R. Abun said: Just as it begins with four kingdoms, so it will conclude with four kingdoms.  Kedarla'omer, Tid'al, Amrafel, and Arioch.  So it will conclude with four kingdoms, the kingdom of Babylonia, the kingdom of Medea, the kingdom of Greece, and the kingdom of Edom (Rome).

	We meet here a common phenomenon in the midrash.  The Sages tend to give great significance to numbers, even where they are not explicitly cited in the verse.  Certain numbers especially carry great resonance for the Sages.  The number four, especially in the life of Avraham, the first patriarch, almost invariably reminds the Sages of the "four kingdoms." This concept, based on the mystic visions in the Book of Daniel, refers to the successive world powers to which Israel will be subjugated.  The four kingdoms are the four exiles, and they summarize, in short, the history of the world leading up to the redemption and the coming of the Messiah.  Why is this number and this reference significant to the life of Avraham? The midrash answers this question - the end (or, to be more exact in this case, the fulfillment of all of history) reflects the beginning.  Avraham's life, the life of the first Jew, the father of all, parallels Jewish history.  In a short simile, the Sages are stating a striking truth - the basic relationship between the Jewish people and the world is one of struggle and combat, and this relationship was established at the very beginning of proto-Jewish history, almost from the minute that Avraham set foot in the Land of Canaan.

	This history, as encapsulated in the story of Avraham, is even more compressed than usual.  What the story of Avraham says about the four kings - and by extension about the four kingdoms - is that Avraham will defeat them, even though he appears to be woefully undermanned.  The mighty kings, who sweep through a huge swatch of territory on either side of the Jordan, are defeated in one night by Avraham and his household help.  So this midrash is basically skipping to the end in the literal sense, to the very final end, to the final victory at the end of days.

	There is, of course, a distinct point about this midrash that distinguishes it from the many which view the life of Avraham as precursor signs of future Jewish history, the principle known as "maase avot siman libanim." This midrash emphasizes the parallelism of "beginning" and "end." Avraham settles in the Land of Israel, and the first incident of his career is war with the four kings.  The very last event of Jewish history is the completion of this same war, drawn larger across the cosmic scale of human and Jewish history.  The midrash emphasizes the idea of "as it begins, so it concludes." What is the meaning of this specific feature in this midrash?

	A circular view of life is basic to the worldview of the Sages, as is clearly indicated by a common wordplay.  Adam and Eve began life in the Garden of Eden, Gan Eden.  The common name of the Sages for the afterlife, the place where on the individual level it all ends, is also Gan Eden.  If God decrees to Man after the sin that "you come from dust and to dust you will return," it is equally true that from the garden of Eden he comes and to it he will return, in some sense, at least if he is worthy.  This is also true in Jewish history.  Avraham's life, the beginning of Jewish history, begins with the journey to the Land of Israel, and, after lengthy exile, the redemption of history returns to the Land of Israel.  Between the high points at the two ends lie struggle and darkness, exile and yearning.  Our midrash does not refer to the darkness of the middle, but to a sort of darkness even at the ends.  Avraham's settlement in the land is initiated with a war (and, of course, a victory - but a battle nonetheless), and so too we will find at the end - four kingdoms.  

	Regularly, Jewish prayer returns to the verse, "Bring us back, HaShem, and we will return, renew our days as of old." In some sense, the future of history is embedded in a return to the "days of old." Is Jewish destiny, then, regressive? I think not.  The return to the starting point is not by going backwards, but forward, through the darkness, the exile, the struggle, through the pain and the growth, even with falls and failures on the way.  The point of return cannot be the exact point of origin, even when it is parallel to it, precisely because all that has transpired on the long road.  In fact, that "idyllic" starting point itself was marked by war, and so will the end.  One has to earn one's way back, fight one's way back, and in that victory and struggle is found all the difference between the two "identical" points.

B.  

R. Pinchas in the name of R. Eibo began: "But they did not know the thoughts of God, not understand His plan, when He gathered them as a bushel in the threshing-floor" (Micah 4).  Why did all these (kings) get together in the Valley of Sidim? So that they should come and fall into the hands of Avraham.  (Bereishit Rabba 42,2)

	These types of midrashim are often greeted with amazement by "objective" observers.  This seems to be a typical example of Judeo-centrism, a perceived chauvinistic trait of the Jews that the world revolves around them.  The Torah describes at length how the four kings engage in a lengthy campaign of conquest along the length of the Jordan River, and how only after a ten-year interval do they eventually come into conflict with Avraham, and this only because of the unexpected insistence of Avraham on rescuing his estranged brother-in-law.  Surely it is clear that in the normal view of international relations, this military campaign has nothing to do with Avraham.  Yet the midrash claims that the true correct view of the historical process discerns that the inner plan behind of all these events was to deliver these mighty kings into Avraham's hands.  The significance of world events turns out to be - is it good for the Jews?!!

	The apparent irrationality of this historical world-view is in fact precisely the point of the midrash.  Man does "not know the thoughts of God, nor understand His plan." The midrash presents an esoteric meta-history - indeed, behind the apparent political motives of kings lies a hand that is moving Divine history forward.  The Sages understand the very essence of the Biblical narrative to be describing not human politics, not even the politics of the national entity that will later be called Israel, and not only the inspiring narrative of the lives of the pious individuals who are the patriarchs and matriarchs, but primarily the redemption of the world through the election of Israel.  This does not contradict "rational" history, which is not only interesting but perhaps edifying as well, with lessons to be learned and understanding to impart.  But behind the workings of Man's plans and designs lies a greater history of redemption, of Providence, and of the knowledge of God "which shall fill the earth, as the waters cover the sea" (Is. 11,9).  And yes, at the center of that kind of history is Jewish history, both internal and in its relation with the rest of the world.  As we saw in the very beginning of this series, the life of Avraham is not only about him, but about the return of Divine Providence to the world (Avraham is called "achot" [sister] because he mended ["icha"]  the division of the world from God - 39,3).  The drama of God in the world is the story of Israel.

	This does not mean that Jewish "rational" history is more central or important than world history.  This is only true to the extent that one sees it as the outer cover of Divine history.  But just as the four kings thought that they were pursuing mundane political goals when they invaded the Land of Canaan, without understanding their role in Divine history, the same can be, and very likely will be, true of Jewish historical actors as well.  The midrash states this quite clearly in a striking comment on the story of Yosef.

"For I know the thoughts" (Jer. 29).  The tribes were busy selling Yosef, Yosef was busy with his sackcloth and fasting, Reuven was busy with his sackcloth and fasting, Yaacov was busy with his sackcloth and fasting, Yehuda was busy taking a wife, and God was busy creating the light of the Messiah.  (85,1)

	Jews are no wiser than non-Jews, nor could they be.  The whole point is that the Divine history is hidden, with God directing it beneath the covers of human desires.  Each of the actors in this story has his own agenda, and only at the end do we see how it all was directed to a particular goal of redemption.  What is true is that in the history of divine redemption, the Jewish people are playing a central role, even when they are not immediately aware of it.

C.

	What is, in fact, the significance in the history of Divine redemption of the story of the four kings and Avraham?

"And it came about ("Vayehi") in the days of Amrafel….  They made war." 
R. Tanchuma in the name of R. Chiya the Great and R. Berechya in the name of R. Eliezer: This rule has been passed down to us from the exile - wherever it is written "vayehi," it means there was adversity.  "Vayehi in the days of Amrafel" - what was the adversity? "They made war." 
This is like the case of the king's favorite who was living in a certain province, and consequently the king favored that province.  When the Barbarians decided to attack the favorite, they [the people of the province] said: Woe to us, for now the king will not favor the province as before if his favorite is killed.
This is what is written (in the campaign of the four kings), "And they returned to Ein Mishpat (literally, the "eye of justice"), which is Kadesh" (14,7).  R. Acha said: They only wanted to attack the pupil of the eye of the world; they wished to blind the eye that established justice in the world.
"Which is Kadesh." R. Acha said: He who sanctified (kidesh) the name of God in the fiery furnace.
And so, when the Barbarians attacked him, all began to cry "Vai." This is what is written "Vai-yehi in the days of Amrafel." (42,3)

	Reading the Biblical narrative, it is clear that Avraham, a private individual, pushes himself into a conflict of which he has no part.  The original war is fought between the four kings of the North and the five of the Jordan valley.  It is a war of kings and princes, movers of history, fought for political gain and conquest.  Avraham interjects himself into this conflict for personal reasons, to rescue his nephew Lot, who happens to have been captured by the invading army.  The midrash turns this picture on its head.  The entire and sole purpose of the entire campaign was to attack and destroy Avraham, the "eye of justice." Perhaps the midrash means that this was a subconscious motivation, but the exact historical facts are unimportant here.  The midrash is not contradicting the external meaning of the text, which describes "rational" history, but is giving the hidden, inner, underlying meaning of the story as seen in the prism of Divine history.  

	Avraham has brought the eye of justice, the Divine providence, back to the world.  This is a revolution of cosmic import, greater by several degrees than any political realignment in the military forces of the Middle East.  To us, it may appear that this is an obvious good that can only bring joy to all the inhabitants of the earth.  But to the powerful, the ambitious and greedy, the warmongers, this is a disaster.  Better for them to be under the powers of blind force, of accident and Divine disregard, for they rely on their own powers and believe that in such an anarchic world, they can flourish.  Driven by instinct, they invade Canaan, searching for the source, the eye, of the new order, hoping to kill him.  The War of the Four Kings and Five Kings is really a war of the powers of evil and anarchy against the Divine Providence.  If Avraham can be eliminated, God will abandon the world and leave it to the strong.  Survival of the fittest will return to rule, and this is what Amrafel (the name is taken to mean "darkness") and his cohorts desire above all else.

	[Nobody thinking rationally would conclude that WW2 was about the Jews.  World politics affects the Jews, in this case drastically, but the war was not, surely, ABOUT them.  On the other hand, it should be clear how the eyes of the midrash, reading Divine history, wold view that war.]

	This war, then, the war of the kings, is for the midrash the archetype of a war of spiritual struggle - in short, a metaphor for the spiritual history of the world, a struggle of light and darkness.  In this light, the significance of the following midrashim should be more or less obvious, I think, and I leave it to you to think about them.  Any comments, of course, will be more than welcome.

Amrafel - He had three names, Kush, Nimrod, and Amrafel.  Kush, for he was actually a Kushite.  Nimrod, for he instigated rebellion ("mered") in the world (the reference is to idolatry).  
Amrafel, for his word ("amira") was darkness ("arafel").  He said ("amar") that Avraham should be cast ("pul") into the fiery furnace.
Tidal king of Goyim (nations).  R. Levi said: There is a place in Rome called "goyim" and there they chose a person and made him king.  

Another interpretation: Amrafel the king of Shinar - this is Babylon.
Arioch king of Elassar - this is Antiochus (Greece).
Kedarla'omer king of Elam - this is Medea.
Tidal king of Goyim - this is Rome, for she imposes tyranny on all peoples.

R. Elazar b. Avina said: If you see the kingdoms warring on each other, look for the footsteps of the Messiah.  Such was the case in the days of Avraham; because the kingdoms warred on each other, redemption came to Avraham.
(42,4)

Next shiur: Avraham's response to the captivity of Lot.
	43,2