Lech Lecha 5774

By Rabbi Gustavo Kraselnik

Kol Shearith Israel - Panamá

The war of the four kings against the other five that appears in our parashah (Gen. 14:1-24) has a peculiar ending.  Our patriarch Abraham (whose name then was Abram, since the change does not occur until verse 17:5) sees himself obliged to enter the battle, when he discovers that his nephew Lot has been taken prisoner.  However, after his successful intervention, he rejects the offering of the king of Sodom of retaining the booty: “I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal strap of what is yours” (14:23).

Abraham’s answer in this case is quite surprising, since both in the past – after the incident with Egypt’s Pharaoh (12:16) – and in the future – with Abimelech, king of Grar (20:14) – he accepted and will accept economic gifts.

How should we understand Abraham’s attitude in this case?  Perhaps the answer relates to showing his character in contrast with that of his nephew Lot, son of his deceased brother Aran.  (By the way, Flavius Josephus affirms, on his work “Antiquities of the Jews” 1154, that Abraham had adopted him as his son.)

The breakup starts earlier.  The fight among Abraham’s and Lot’s herdsmen (the “price” of economic growth), described in the previous chapter (13:1-13), ends with Lot’s decision to choose the low fertile lands of the Jordan.  He imagines them as the garden of Eden (vs. 10), even knowing that they were close to the city of Sodom, famous for the wickedness of its inhabitants (vs. 13).

This “materialistic” attitude of Lot seems to be the opposite of Abraham’s altruist act throughout the incident of the struggle between the Canaanite kings.

Abraham is the main character in that story.  He gets involved in order to rescue Lot and having triumphed, he does not accept any reward whatsoever. Thus, he proves his family loyalty, heroism, and leadership, qualities that exalt his selflessness.

Lot, in contrast, is simply a passive object: kidnapped first, liberated later.  His captivity constitutes the trigger for Abraham’s intervention, but does not play any role in the entire story.  He remains passive and inactive throughout the account. The Torah does not record any dialogue between them after the rescue, not even a mention of his having said thank-you.  Abraham’s generosity is enhanced in view of Lot’s stingy apathy.

But there is something else.  The king of Sodom’s offering, "Give me the persons, and take the possessions for yourself" (14:21), implies the actual perception that citizens were seen as possessions.  He does not ask for their redemption but for their delivery, transforming people into objects, treating them as objects.  And it is this idea that Abraham seems to reject in a radical way.

Lot does not receive the message.  It is possible that the materialistic vision he showed at the time of choosing the fertile lands, has strengthened by his closeness to the sinful Sodom, city which he will refuse to abandon despite its impending destruction (19:16).

By rejecting the spoils of the king of Sodom, Abraham makes a statement of principles.  His relinquishment shows his wish to disengage himself totally from Sodom and its king, as well as from the idea that dehumanizes people.  His vision becomes prophetic: a society that transforms its people into objects is destined to disappear.

Shabbat Shalom,

Gustavo