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

Understanding Midrash

10: More War

	Last shiur, we examined the meaning of the War of the Five Kings. This week, we see how Avraham enters the fray.

	Some midrashim can simply not be translated into English. Today's is completely based on a play on words, so we have to begin with the Hebrew. When Avraham sets out to rescue his brother-in-law Lot, the verse says, "Va-yarek et chanichav." For the sake of pshat, Rashi says this means, "he roused his servants." The midrash, facing the unfamiliar verb "yarak," suggests numerous possibilities to explain how Avraham "roused" his men. [In each case, the capitalized words are translations for "yarak".]

"Vayarek et chanichav" - R. Yehuda and R. Nechemia.
R. Yehuda said: They TURNED THEIR FACES against Avraham. They said: Five kings could not stand against them (the four kings), so how can we stand against them?
R. Nechemia said: Avraham ROUSED them. He said: I am going out to die for the sanctification of the name of the Omnipresent. (43,2)

A. Avraham's disciples

	The important difference here is not between the different interpretations of the verb YRK. (R. Yehuda, I think, is relating it to the noun yarok, meaning green. They made their faces green, which to R. Yehuda means that they refused. R. Nechemia is interpreting  it as Rashi does, meaning to encourage, to rouse to action.) The midrash juxtaposes these two opinions because they disagree who is speaking to whom.

	Having an expression with no obvious "pshat" allows the midrash free rein. In this case, we meet here, for the first and last time, a group of people call the "chanichim" of Avraham. The term implies that they are subservient to Avraham, but is not the usual term for servants; rather the word seems to suggest "pupils." Since we have previously seen the midrashic claim that Avraham has been preaching and "converting" throughout his career, even before he arrived in Canaan, the midrash needs not even state explicitly that we are dealing here with those erstwhile pupils of Avraham. What is Avraham's success and what is the relationship between them?

	R. Yehuda seizes the opportunity offered by the enigmatic verb "vayarek" to present a disappointing picture of Avraham's pupils. At this moment, when Avraham is about to set out on a great adventure, to fight for what he believes is right, these pupils turn away, and refuse to follow him. They do not share Avraham's vision or faith, perhaps they do not even share fully Avraham's commitment to the right. 

	The pshat basis for this assertion is simple. We do not find any mention of these pupils in later stories. If they had really been disciples and not merely servants, they would have somehow been included in Jewish history, since it is clear to the Sages that the way of Avraham is open to "converts" and is not inherently ethnic. The fact that only the grandchildren of Avraham form the nucleus of the Jewish people indicates that these early adherents of Avraham fell by the wayside. R. Yehuda provides the reason. When it came to push and shove, they simply weren't there.

	This comment is even more poignant and tragic if we adopt the interpretation of the midrash a few lines later for the word "chanichav," which I have assumed means pupils (from the word chinuch). The midrash suggests another explanation however. "`Chanichav' - they had the same appellation ("chanicha" in Aramaic) as he, for their name was Avram like his." What does the rather improbable assertion that all of Avraham's pupils had the same name mean? To the Sages it is apparent that one's name stands for one's personality, for something inherently true about one's inner essence. Avraham's disciples bore his name for they were genuinely his copies, hundreds of little Avram's, at it were - at least they were meant to be. So much more is the disappointment when they turn out to be, at the moment of trial and test, not followers at all.

	A few weeks ago (shiur 5), we saw how Avraham's greatest public success, the gathering of all the people of Canaan to "crown" him as leader immediately after the conclusion of the war, turns to spiritual dust when they attempt to deify him in the process. Our midrash should be seen in the same light. The public stage of Avraham's career, even though he seems to have had no small measure of success, does not in reality bear any fruit.

B. Sanctification of the Name of God

	R. Nechemia's rendition of Avraham's conversation with the disciples puts the conversation - the rousing - in his mouth. But what an incredible statement. Facing the same evaluation of the situation as R. Yehuda put in the mouths of the disciples - that an attack on the four kings has no chance of success - and apparently facing the same reluctance to follow him that R. Yehuda discerned, Avraham tries to spiritually vitalize his followers by calling on them to die for the sake of God. This extraordinary statement is, I believe, nearly unique in Rabbinic literature. Death as sanctification of God's name is almost always found in the context of persecution, where one chooses to die rather than betray one's principles. But in this case, the four kings are not threatening Avraham. Avraham is declaring his willingness to fight the impossible battle, to joust hopelessly with a foe whom he cannot rationally beat, only because the cause is sacred. It is worthwhile to strike a blow against the enemy, even if it will not be effective, and even if it will cost him his life. 

	While this midrash shares with the previous one the positing of a moral gap between Avraham and the disciples, who apparently are not as eager as Avraham to die for the sanctification of God's name, it is somewhat more difficult for us to unilaterally condemn the disciples in this case. 

	I think we have to add two points to the picture in order to understand this midrash. First, this is apparently based on the idea we saw in the previous shiur that the ultimate intention of the four kings was to eradicate the spiritual legacy of Avraham. Our midrash is claiming that Avraham perceived this, and therefore defined the battle as one for the sanctification of God's name. In this sense, this incident is not merely a tale of Avraham's personal piety, but a stage in the drama of God's providence, which we began to narrate last shiur. Not only is Avraham the cause of the return of Divine providence to the world, but he is conscious of this role, and willing to fight and sacrifice himself for it. 

	There is a subtle message here. Judaism is far from preaching the virtue of suicide, of course. But if Avraham is literally the cause of Divine providence, the vehicle, as it were, of God's justice and mercy in the world, then his total dedication to this principle creates an extraordinary measure of Divine providence and protection for himself. The reason that Avraham is willing to sacrifice himself is because he is committed to bringing God into the world, but if God is IN the world, then Avraham will be saved - as indeed he is. Avraham's very commitment is the actual manifestation of God's providence, and so, paradoxically, his retreat in this case would have been not only a temporal victory for four Mesopotamian potentates, but also a victory for the banishment of God's providence from Avraham. How could then Avraham have acted any different?

	Secondly, we should notice a particular point in Avraham's short speech. Although he is "rousing" and encouraging his servants to come with him, he does not say, "Let us go out and die for the sanctification of the Name," but rather "I shall go out and die for the sanctification of the Name." Avraham is not calling for them to commit suicide, but rather to fully understand the depth of his commitment. He hopes that this will inspire them, who have studies with him and absorbed his beliefs. He is putting his own life on the line, defining for them what is the crucial battle of their apprenticeship, the day for which they have been studying. He says, "I am going," and leaves it for them to decide whether to rely on Providence, or go back to the old world without God. Perhaps we can even believe that he succeeded, for there is no indication in the words of R. Nechemia what their response was.

C. Inducements

Abba b. Zavda said: He ARMED them with weapons.
R. Shimon b. Lakish said: He ENCOURAGED them with precious stones and pearls. 
R. Levi said: He ROUSED them with the [Torah section spoken to the army before war], as is written, "Whoever is a man fearful and weak of heart, let him return to his home."

	The midrash continues with three other explanations for "vayarek." The first opinion, Abba b. Zavda, is basically a suggestion for pshat. The meaning of the word, he suggests, actually means "to arm." This is, aside from the linguistic considerations, an eminently logical suggestion, since they are setting out on a military operation. I think, though, that the point here is the contrast between the verb and the noun-object. Avraham armed his "chanichim," his disciples, not his hired attendants. The midrash is trying to emphasize the contrast between why these people had gathered about Avraham, to learn about God and justice and providence, and what they were about to do - to set out on a military adventure, interposing themselves into international politics. The purpose is to emphasize the drastic  transition in Avraham's life, which he is freely adopting, between his previous peaceful occupation in discovering God, and the armed conflict before him. The lesson is that living quietly in the "tents of Torah" is not and should not be an impediment to adopting a completely different involvement in difficult and less-than-pure activities in the real world, when the time requires such involvement.

	Ben-Lakish offers a completely different version of how Avraham influenced the chanichim. Here we do not find a rousing speech, an appeal to idealism, or even the simple distribution of the necessary arms, but rather what amounts to a bribe. Avraham roused them by offering them money, jewels, real compensation. Apparently, otherwise they were not going to join him. 

	Obviously, this opinion shares with that of R. Yehuda above a generally negative view of the disciples, on whom Avraham cannot really count when the chips are down. But the interesting point, I think, is what this version says about Avraham. Avraham's appeal to the pecuniary interest of his disciples should be seen against the light of what Avraham himself does with the spoils of this war he is about to fight (the presumed source of the jewels and pearls he is giving them). When the king of Sodom tells Avraham to keep all the property rescued from the four kings, Avraham refuses to take even a thread or shoelace (14,23). Not only is Avraham not going to war in order to loot or enrich himself, he refuses even the smallest contact with material compensation. Yet, he is quite capable of recognizing that his companions are not of this mold, and in fact may be manipulated precisely by the hope for enrichment that he refuses. By including them in his immediate mission in this manner, Avraham essentially separates them from himself  in the longer run. In a sense, Avraham is corrupting his own disciples (though obviously the need to entice them to join him is itself the clearest indication that they are not true disciples of his). Will these men, adorned in the looted jewels of Sodom, be able to continue as disciples in his tent? Avraham here is, with his own hands, conceded his failure while ensuring the necessary assistance he requires for the immediate military goal. How ironic that, in order to receive the help he needs from people who are not quite on the level he had thought, Avraham had to destroy the "yeshiva" he had created.

	The last opinion, that of R. Levi, takes us to a different area of the relationship of Avraham and his disciples. Here, Avraham is encouraging them by reading the section in the Torah that is recited to soldiers before they go out to battle.

	There are two ways to understand this. The first is that the midrash is first of all claiming that Avraham fulfilled his Torah obligations. The Torah commands that soldiers before battle be told that various categories may go home, and Avraham, who is considered by the midrash to be a Torah-observant Jew even before Sinai, fulfilled the commandment. Now, you will still ask, why is this called "vayarek et chanichav"? Perhaps the correct translation of "vayarek" according to this opinion is "prepared" rather than "roused." Or, and I think this is a better interpretation, Avraham is rousing and inspiring his disciples by the very act of reciting Torah to them. The spiritual experience, irrespective of the content, is inspiring for those who are facing a battle for the spiritual truth.

	However, I prefer another explanation. "Vayarek" means to encourage, as it has in the previous midrashic opinions. Avraham's problem is how to get them to join him despite their reluctance. This midrash imputes to Avraham a psychological subtlety. Notice that the midrash quoted only one of the sections of the speech to soldiers going to battle. The parasha in Ki Tavo has four sections - one who has built a house, one who has planted a vineyard, one who has taken a wife, and one is fearful and weak-hearted. The midrash quotes only the last. I suspect that the midrash is saying that Avraham, instead of berating them for their hesitation and trying to rouse them with noble words of encouragement, took a seemingly opposite tack. He graciously volunteered that of course cowards need not join him. Anyone weak-hearted should go home immediately. The result is, of course, that no one raised his hand. Who wants to secede under the coward clause? By pushing them in one direction, Avraham draws from them more bravery than they knew they had.

	Both of these interpretations of the last opinion are more charitable towards the disciples than the previous ones. The first treats them as halakhically normative Jews. But I think the second is even more significant, for it treats them as less-than-perfect, yet possessing the basic traits that Avraham represented. Of course they hesitated, for they weren't themselves on Avraham's level, but in the end they responded because the basic courage and commitment were there. 

D. Eliezer

	The midrash concludes with a famous interpretation of the 318 servants.

"Chanichav" - they had the same appellation ("chanicha" in Aramaic) as he, for their name was Avram like his. 
"Three hundred and eighteen" - Resh Lakish in the name of Bar Kapra said: Only Eliezer came. The numerical value of Eliezer is 318.

	If the question that the midrash is addressing is what becomes of these loyal disciples of Avraham, who are never mentioned again, Resh Lakish has the ultimate answer. They do not even exist in this parsha. Only Damesek Eliezer, who plays a major role - and an admirable one - in Parashat Chayei Sara is the true loyal disciple of Avraham. In the end, Avraham has only one disciple on whom he can rely.

	And - and this is undoubtedly part of the point - that is sufficient. The two of them, Avraham and Eliezer, defeat the powerful four kings of the North and return Lot and the other captives and property to Sodom.

------------------

Next shiur: Brit

44;10,12