AND IT CAME TO PASS IN THE DAYS OF AMRAPHEL KING OF SHINAR. This event happened to Abraham in order to teach us that four kingdoms will arise to rule the world. In the end, his [Abraham’s] children will prevail over them, and they will all fall into their hands. Then they will return all their captives and their wealth. The first one mentioned here is the king of Babylon¹¹⁴ for so it was to be in the future, as it is written, Thou art the head of gold.¹¹⁵ Perhaps Ellasar, mentioned here second, is the name of a city in Media or Persia,¹¹⁶ and Elam, mentioned third, is the city in which the first Greek king — Alexander — was crowned. From there his kingdom spread after he was victorious over Darius, [king of the Persians]. Our Rabbis have already mentioned this matter:¹¹⁷ “Rabbi Yosei said, ‘For six years the Greeks ruled in Elam, and after that their kingdom spread over the entire world.’” The king of Goiim,¹¹⁸ as the name of a place. Ramban explains it as meaning “nations,” and it is hence an allusion to Rome, whose kings ruled over many nations. [the last of the four kings mentioned here], who ruled over various nations that had made him their head and leader, is an allusion to the king of Rome who ruled over a city comprised of many peoples: Kittim, Edom, and the rest of the nations. Thus the Rabbis said in Bereshith Rabbah,¹¹⁹ “Rabbi Avin said, ‘Just as Abraham’s grief began with four kingdoms, so will it end for his descendants only with four kingdoms.’” And it further says there:¹²⁰ “And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel king of Shinar — this is Babylon; Arioch king of Ellasar — this is Media; Chedorlaomer king of Elam — this is Greece; And Tidal king of Goiim — this is that kingdom (Rome) which writes out a levy [and collects assessment] from all nations of the world.”

footnotes: ¹¹⁴ Shinar is Babylon. See Onkelos. ¹¹⁵ Daniel 2:38. This was said by Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, when interpreting the king’s dream of the four kingdoms that will rule the world. ¹¹⁶ Since Media and Persia ruled over Babylon. ¹¹⁷ Abodah Zarah 10a. ¹¹⁸ Rashi explains Goiim ¹¹⁹ 42:2. ¹²⁰ 42:4.

AND THE KING OF BELA. The reason [why Scripture does not mention his name as it does with the kings of Sodom, et al], is that he ruled over a small city with few men in it and he had no generally recognized reputation.

‘EIL PARAN.’ It is translated in the Targum as “Plain of Paran.” But I say that the word eil does not signify a plain. Rather, the lowland of Paran was called Eil, that of Mamre was named Eilonei, that of the Jordan was called Kikar, and that of Shittim was Abel. All these are translated in the Targum as meishra (plain), but each really had its own particular name. Thus the language of Rashi. But if it were so,¹²¹ and Kikar are the proper names of these places. Onkelos would have mentioned them in his Targum by their name — i.e., “Eila of Paran,” “Eilonei of Mamre,” — as is his custom with names. Besides, who told him¹²² whether these many places were all plains or high mountains [if Eil, Eilonei and Kikar were but proper names of these places]? Again, Mamre is the name of a person — as it is written, brother of Eshcol, and brother of Aner, and they were confederate with Abram¹²³ — and that place was his, just as it says, ‘Eilonei’ Mamre the Amorite,¹²⁴ Ramban’s intent is to argue that since Mamre is the name of an individual, the word Eilonei could not be a proper name since two names cannot be in the constructive state. as I have explained.¹²⁵ Rather, Eil paran means a place of terebinths, as it is said, *For they shall be ashamed ‘me’eilim’ (of the terebinths) which ye have desired;*¹²⁶ eilonei is a place of oaks, as it is said, *As a terebinth, ‘veka’alon’ (and as an oak)*¹²⁷, 6:13. Of the ‘alonim’ (oaks) of Bashan.¹²⁸ It was customary among them that these terebinths and oaks be planted in the plains before the cities which serve them as “an open land.” And so did Onkelos translate alon bachuth¹²⁹ as “the plain of Bechuta.” There the word alon is surely not a proper noun of the location¹³⁰ but only the name of the species of tree planted there, as is made explicit [in the same verse: and she was buried] *…under the ‘alon.’*¹²⁹ Onkelos’ intent, however, is to convey the sense of the expression and not to merely translate the words. Now the Targum Yerushalmi says with respect to both eil Paran and eilonei Mamre that they mean the plain of Paran and Mamre as Onkelos said, but in the case of alon bachuth,¹²⁹ he [Targum Yerushalmi] says it is the nut-tree of Bachut for he considers alon bachuth to be the name of a tree and not a place.¹³⁰ Onkelos, however, thought that alon bachuth is the name of a place, so called because there were many oak trees there, just as Eilonei Mamre [is the name of a place]. It is for that reason that Scripture there uses the word ha’alon.¹³¹. See Note 129 above. Ramban’s intent is to say that since the word alon appears there with the definite article, (namely, ha-alon), it could not be a proper noun since the definite article is never attached to a proper noun. Hence in the end of the verse, which reads, And he called its name ‘alon bachuth,’ the word alon is also not a name designating a particular tree but a descriptive noun referring to a place containing many oaks. Hence Onkelos translates alon Bachuth as “the plain of Bechuta.” According to Targum Yerushalmi, who takes alon bachuth to be the name of a particular kind of tree, the verse should have read, “And she was buried below Beth-el under alon,” not ha-alon. Thus according to Onkelos they are all¹³² and alon bachuth. Hence in all these cases Onkelos translated “the plain of Paran… Mamre… Bechuta” as meaning a plain containing oak trees. Onkelos does this in keeping with his general method of conveying the intent of the verse rather than its strict translation since eil, eilonei and alon, strictly speaking, mean particular kinds of trees. Onkelos however felt free to say “the plain of Paran… Mamre… Bachuth” for his intent is but to convey the general meaning. Ramban continues to point that out in kikar hayarden, (13:11), where Onkelos said, “the plain of the Jordan,” that is indeed the exact translation of the word kikar. descriptive nouns. But kikar hayarden¹³³ is indeed the actual word for a plain, for kikar in the Sacred Language is the name for the place where the natural streams of rivers overflow. It is for this reason that the messenger who came to rescue Lot said, Stay not in all ‘hakikar’ (the plain; escape to the mountain.¹³⁴ Of similar usage are the expressions, *Kar nirchav (wide pasture);*¹³⁵ ‘Karim’ (the meadows) are clothed with flocks; the valleys also are covered over with corn.¹³⁶ Sometimes Scripture doubles the first letter of the word kar (meadow), making it kikar, and at other times Scripture discards the double form, as in, bath ayin (the apple of the eye).¹³⁷, 17:8. The double letter form of the word would be babath ayin, with a double beth. There are many other such cases. Swift couriers are also called by this name kar, as in *‘lakari velaratzim;’*¹³⁸. According to Ramban its meaning is: of the couriers and the dispatchers. *The captains over hundreds and ‘hakari.’*¹³⁹, Verse 19. Here too the usual translation is: the Carites. According to Ramban it means: the couriers. The word bakirkaroth¹⁴⁰ is also of the same root. It is the name for speedy camels such as “the flying camel” mentioned in the Talmud.¹⁴¹ The word mecharkar,¹⁴². containing the double use of kar, is a derivative of this word. Abel Hashittim,¹⁴³ and also Abel Mecholah,¹⁴⁴ they¹⁴⁵ translated to mean the plain of Shittim and Mecholah. It is [called Abel, which in Hebrew means “mourning”], because it is a desolate place, without plantings or structures for the word abel is, to them, an expression of destruction and waste, as in the verses: *‘Vaya’avel’ (And He made to mourn) the rampart and the wall;*¹⁴⁶ The new wine ‘aval’ (faileth), the vine fadeth.¹⁴⁷

footnotes: ¹²¹ That Eil, Eilonei ¹²² “Him” refers both to Rashi and Onkelos. ¹²³ Verse 13 here. ¹²⁴ Ibid. ¹²⁵ Above, 12:6. ¹²⁶ Isaiah 1:29. ¹²⁷ Ibid. ¹²⁸ Ezekiel 27:6. ¹²⁹ Genesis 35:8. And Deborah Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried below Beth-el under the ‘alon’ and he called its name ‘Alon Bachuth.’ ¹³⁰ As opposed to Rashi who says that the name of the place was Alon. ¹²⁹ Genesis 35:8. And Deborah Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried below Beth-el under the ‘alon’ and he called its name ‘Alon Bachuth.’ ¹²⁹ Genesis 35:8. And Deborah Rebekah’s nurse died, and she was buried below Beth-el under the ‘alon’ and he called its name ‘Alon Bachuth.’ ¹³⁰ As opposed to Rashi who says that the name of the place was Alon. ¹³¹ And she was buried below Beth-el under ‘ha’alon’ (the oak) ¹³² Eil Paran, Eilonei Mamre ¹³³ Above, 13:10. ¹³⁴ Further, 19:17. ¹³⁵ Isaiah 30:23. ¹³⁶ Psalms 65:14. ¹³⁷ Ibid. ¹³⁸ II Kings 11:4. It is usually translated: of the Carites and of the guard ¹³⁹ Ibid. ¹⁴⁰ Isaiah 66:20. ¹⁴¹ Makkoth 5a. ¹⁴² II Samuel 6:14. And David ‘mecharkar’ (danced) before the Eternal with all his strength ¹⁴³ Numbers 33:49. ¹⁴⁴ Judges 7:22. ¹⁴⁵ Onkelos and Jonathan ¹⁴⁶ Lamentations 2:8. ¹⁴⁷ Isaiah 24:7.

TO EIN MISHPAT, WHICH IS KADESH. It is named [Ein Mishpat, meaning, “the Well of Judgment”] on account of a future event, for Moses and Aaron will be judged because of what will occur at that fountain.¹⁴⁸ Thus the words of Rashi based upon an Agadah.¹⁴⁹, 11. So also in Targum Jonathan here. But I do not understand this for this Kadesh [mentioned here] is Kadesh-barnea which is in El-paran which is by the desert,¹⁵⁰ and it is from there that the spies were sent by Moses in the second year following the Exodus from Egypt, as it is said, Unto the wilderness of Paran, to Kadesh.¹⁵¹ And it is further written, And we came to Kadesh-barnea… and ye said, Let us send men before us,¹⁵² and there Israel abode many days.¹⁵³, Verse 46. But the Kadesh where the judgment of the righteous ones¹⁵⁴ took place is in the wilderness of Zin, which they entered in the fortieth year following the Exodus, as it is said, And the children of Israel, even the whole congregation, came into the wilderness of Zin in the first month, and the people abode in Kadesh,¹⁵⁵ and finish the chapter.¹⁵⁶ Perhaps the Midrash [mentioned above] alludes only to the name, meaning that a place bearing this name Kadesh will become “the Well of Judgment.” Now Onkelos said, “the plain of pilug dina,” but I do not know what this means. Perhaps the word pilug is derived from [the Hebrew word used in the following verses]: ‘Plagim’ (Streams) and watercourses;¹⁵⁷ Who ‘pilag’ (hath cleft) a channel for the waterflood.¹⁵⁸ Similarly, in the language of the Sages we find,¹⁵⁹ “Pilgo (The openness) of the sea.” The verse thus states that on that plain there will flow “a fountain of judgment” entering the depth of the case, as this was a fitting plain destined for kings who would sit there to judge all the peoples of these lands.

footnotes: ¹⁴⁸ See Numbers 20:7-13. ¹⁴⁹ Tanchumah Chukath ¹⁵⁰ As mentioned here in Verse 6. ¹⁵¹ Numbers 13:26. ¹⁵² Deuteronomy 1:19, 22. ¹⁵³ Ibid. ¹⁵⁴ Moses and Aaron. ¹⁵⁵ Numbers 20:1. ¹⁵⁶ A charge by the author to finish the chapter containing the account of the smiting of the rock by Moses to bring forth water and his consequent punishment. ¹⁵⁷ Isaiah 30:25. ¹⁵⁸ Job 38:25. ¹⁵⁹ Esther Rabbah, 5.

THE COUNTRY OF THE AMALEKITES. Rashi comments: “Amalek, it is true, was not yet born, but it is so named here because of the name it would bear in the future.” Now I do not know whether Rashi’s intent is to say that Moshe Rabbeinu called the place by the name it was referred to in his time, but if this be the case, there is no reference to future events involved. Or [if Rashi’s intent is that the nations of Abraham’s era called it by that name] what is being foretold by the nations’ prophetic naming of this place? But the language of Bereshith Rabbah¹⁶⁰ is as follows: “Amalek was not yet born and yet you say, ‘All the country of the Amalekites!’ However, the Torah declares the end from the beginning.”¹⁶¹ This method of d’rash¹⁶² of the Sages is found in many places. Concerning the rivers of the garden of Eden they also made a similar statement.¹⁶³ [river] is the one which surrounds the whole land of Havilah. (Genesis 2:11). Havilah was not yet in existence, and yet the verse says, the whole land of Havilah! However, the Torah declares the end from the beginning.” (Bereshith Rabbah 16:2.) The intent of the Rabbis is to say that from the time the rivers came forth it was already declared that a particular river go towards a land which is destined to be called Assyria.¹⁶⁴ The correct interpretation concerning “the country of the Amalekites” mentioned here is that there was in ancient times some honorable person of the sons of the Horites, the inhabitants of the land,¹⁶⁵ by the name of Amalek, who ruled over this place. Eliphaz, Esau’s firstborn, named his son after this man.¹⁶⁶, Verse 12. Perhaps this Amalek mentioned here was of the family of Timna, his mother,¹⁶⁶, Verse 12. and he also ruled in that place and was chieftain over them.

footnotes: ¹⁶⁰ 42:11. ¹⁶¹ Isaiah 46:10. ¹⁶² Homiletical interpretation of Scripture. ¹⁶³ “That ¹⁶⁴ Reference here is to the third river, namely, the Tigris. (Above, 2:14.) ¹⁶⁵ See further, 36:20. ¹⁶⁶ Ibid. ¹⁶⁶ Ibid.

‘BE’EROTH BE’EROTH CHEIMAR’ (FULL OF SLIME PITS). There were many pits there since they removed earth to be used as clay for building purposes. The Midrashic explanation is that the clay was closely kneaded together in them, [that is, it was very sticky], but a miracle happened to the king of Sodom and he escaped from there. This miracle occurred because there were some among the nations who did not believe that Abram had been delivered from the fiery furnace, but as soon as this one escaped from the slime, in retrospect they believed in Abram. Thus the language of Rashi. There is no doubt that the meaning of be’eroth cheimar is “pits containing mud and slime,” even as it is written, And in the pit there was no water, but mire, and Jeremiah sank in the mire,¹⁶⁷ and it is further written, He brought me up out of the tumultuous pit, out of the miry clay.¹⁶⁸ And it is possible that the king of Sodom went out from there naturally, without a miracle. And I wonder concerning the above Midrashic explanation, for those nations that did not believe that the Holy One, blessed be He, had performed a miracle for Abraham would not have their faith in the Holy One, blessed be He, augmented by witnessing the miracle which befell the king of Sodom. The king of Sodom was an idol worshipper, and his miracle would either strengthen the hands of the idol worshippers or it would cause them to believe that all miracles are done by witchcraft or are due to some remotely possible chance. His miracle would thus cast doubt into the hearts of those who believed in Abraham’s miracle! Perhaps [the Rabbis who authored this Midrashic explanation] will interpret the verse, And the king of Sodom went out to meet him,¹⁶⁹ as implying that “he went out” from the pit when Abraham passed by for it was in honor of Abraham that a miracle was done to him so that he could go forth to meet him in order to honor and bless Abraham. And it is possible that Abraham, upon his return, looked into that pit for he wanted to save the kings and return their wealth to them, and then the miracle happened on his account. Now if a miracle was done to the king of Sodom in honor of Abraham, the nations could now believe all the more that a miracle would be done to Abraham himself in order to rescue him from death. We must further say that the king of Gomorrah had already died¹⁷⁰ when Abraham passed him by or that he had fallen into another pit, as the word “there”¹⁷¹ The word “there” does not refer to the pit, in which case it would then imply that all five kings fell into one pit. Rather it refers to ‘the vale’ of Siddim. Thus the king of Gomorrah fell into a different pit, near which Abraham did not pass. refers to “the vale.”

footnotes: ¹⁶⁷ Jeremiah 38:6. ¹⁶⁸ Psalms 40:3. ¹⁶⁹ Verse 17 here. ¹⁷⁰ Hence he did not come out from the pit. ¹⁷¹ And they fell ‘there.’

AND HE DIVIDED HIMSELF, BY NIGHT. Rashi wrote: “In accordance with the plain sense of the verse it means [that they divided into groups] as is the manner of those who pursue their enemies when they flee in different directions. By night means that even after it became dark, they did not cease pursuing them.” The correct interpretation is that he pursued the enemies to Dan during the daytime with his entire army. When it became dark and he was not able to see by which road they fled, he divided his people and servants into two or three groups, taking one part with him, and they pursued them on all roads, smiting them as far as Hobah, which is on the left hand of Damascus. Then he returned from pursuing them. The order of the words [in the verse are thus interpreted as follows]: “And he divided himself, he and his servants, by night.”

AND HE PURSUED THEM UNTO HOBAH, WHICH IS ON THE LEFT HAND OF DAMASCUS. It is known that there is a great distance from the oaks of Mamre in Hebron in the land of Judah, to Damascus, which is outside the Land. If so, he pursued them for many days until he forced them to leave the land for they were returning to Babylon, their country. Or possibly there occurred here a great miracle, just as our Rabbis expounded from the verse, The way with his foot he treadeth not.¹⁷²

footnotes: ¹⁷² Isaiah 41:3. This is interpreted in Bereshith Rabbah (43:7) as referring to Abraham and asserting that he took such long steps that he traveled a mile without setting foot on the ground.

AND MELCHIZEDEK KING OF SALEM. This is Jerusalem, just as it is said, In Salem is set His tabernacle.¹⁷³ In the days of Joshua, its king was also called Adoni-zedek.¹⁷⁴ Since time immemorial the nations knew that this place, which was the choicest of all places, is in the center of the inhabited region. Or perhaps they knew of its superiority by tradition, i.e., that it is exactly opposite the Heavenly Sanctuary, where the Divine Glory of the Holy One, blessed be He, who is called Tzedek (Righteousness) abides.¹⁷⁵, literally, “My king is righteousness.” In Bereshith Rabbah¹⁷⁶ [we find that Jerusalem is called Tzedek because] “this place makes its inhabitants righteous. And Melchizedek means ‘the lord of Zedek.’¹⁷⁷ Jerusalem is called Tzedek, as it is said, ‘Tzedek’ (Righteousness) lodged in it.”¹⁷⁸

footnotes: ¹⁷³ Psalms 76:3. ¹⁷⁴ Joshua 10:1. ¹⁷⁵ This explains why the early inhabitants of Jerusalem called their king Malki tzedek ¹⁷⁶ 43:6. ¹⁷⁷ The Midrash is thus teaching that his name was not “Tzedek” but that he was the lord of a place called Zedek. ¹⁷⁸ Isaiah 1:21.

AND HE WAS PRIEST OF G-D THE MOST HIGH. This is stated in order to inform us that Abraham would not give a tithe to the priest of other gods, but since he knew that he was a priest of G-d the Most High, he gave him the tithe as an honor to G-d. He alluded to Abraham through this episode that the House of G-d will be there, and there his descendants will bring the tithe and the Heave-offering,¹⁷⁹ and there they will bless the Eternal. Now according to the opinion of our Rabbis¹⁸⁰ who say that Melchizedek was Shem, the son of Noah, we must say that he left his country in the east¹⁸¹ and came to Jerusalem to worship the Eternal. He became the people’s priest of G-d the Most High since he was the honored one among their father’s brothers,¹⁸² as Jerusalem was ever in the boundary of the Canaanites. Now Rashi wrote above, “And the Canaanite was then in the land.¹⁸³ They were gradually conquering the land of Israel from the descendants of Shem, the ancestor of Abraham, for it had fallen to the share of Shem when Noah apportioned the earth among his sons, as it is said, And Melchizedek king of Salem.” This is not correct because the boundary of the Canaanite was from Sidon,¹⁸⁴, 10:19. which includes all of the land of Israel. The boundary of the children of Shem, on the other hand, was to the east of Mesha,¹⁸⁵, Verse 30. far from the land of Israel. But if Noah apportioned the countries among his sons and gave Shem the land of Israel, it would be similar to the case of a person who apportions his goods by word of mouth.¹⁸⁶ Meanwhile, the children of Canaan, [who were the descendants of Ham], settled there until the time came when G-d caused the seed of His friend Abraham¹⁸⁷. to inherit it, as I have already mentioned.¹⁸⁸

footnotes: ¹⁷⁹ Malachi 3:8. ¹⁸⁰ Nedarim 32b. ¹⁸¹ See above, 10:30. ¹⁸² That is, of the three sons of Noah — Shem, Ham and Japheth — Shem was the most honored. Now since according to the Rabbis, Melchizedek is none other than Shem, the Canaanites who were then in possession of Jerusalem recognized in Shem their father Ham’s most honored brother and therefore appointed him “priest of G-d the Most High.” ¹⁸³ Above, 12:6. ¹⁸⁴ Ibid. ¹⁸⁵ Ibid. ¹⁸⁶ Baba Bathra 156a. That the land of Israel should belong to the descendants of Shem would thus be a special oral provision by Noah since all their other lands were to the east of Mesha, far from the land of Israel. ¹⁸⁷ Isaiah 41:8. The seed of Abraham My friend ¹⁸⁸ Above, 12:6.

AND HE WAS PRIEST OF G-D THE MOST HIGH. Since there were, among all nations, priests serving the angels called eilim (the mighty ones) — even as it is said, *Who is like unto Thee ‘ba’eilim’ (among the mighty)*¹⁸⁹ — the Holy One, blessed be He, is called G-d the Most High, the purport thereof being “the Mighty One, Who is Supreme over all,” as in the verse, It is ‘le’eil’ (the power of) my hand.¹⁹⁰ Now Melchizedek did not mention the Eternal, whereas Abraham said, the Eternal, G-d of the Most High.¹⁹¹

footnotes: ¹⁸⁹ Exodus 15:11. ¹⁹⁰ Genesis 31:29. ¹⁹¹ Verse 22 here.

KONEI (POSSESSOR) OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. Rashi wrote: “Konei is similar to osei (maker);¹⁹². Psalms 134:3. through His having made them He acquired them as His possession.” But these are really two different interpretations.¹⁹³ and kinyan — making and acquiring — constitute but one interpretation when in fact they are two: konei is similar to osei, and konei is like kinyan (acquisition). Perhaps it is indeed the case that the word kinyan (acquisition) is also used in the case of asiyah (making). Thus you find, For Thou ‘kanita’ (hast made) my reins,¹⁹⁴ repeating the thought [expressed in the second half of the verse], Thou hast knit me together in my mother’s womb.¹⁹⁵ must also refer to “making,” rather than “acquiring.” A similar case is the verse, *Is He not ‘konecha’ thy father? Hath He not made thee, and established thee?*¹⁹⁶ is used together with asiyah, indicating that they have a similar connotation. Thus the Sacred Language uses kinyan in the case of “making.” Conversely, And the souls which ‘asu’ [literally, they made] in Haran,¹⁹⁷ means “they acquired.” *And of that which was our father’s ‘asah’ (hath he made)*¹⁹⁸ — [here too it means “hath he acquired.”] That which Rashi says further — “He acquired them as His possession,” is correct, for whatever belongs to a person is called kinyano (his acquisition). Sheep are called mikneh because they constitute the main wealth of a person. In the language of the Sages: “He who picks up a find for his friend, his friend kanah [has taken title to it];”¹⁹⁹ does not mean that he acquired it from the other since he never picked it up for himself. Instead, it means taking title to it. “watching gives ‘keniya’ (the right of possession) in ownerless property;”²⁰⁰, 118a. Here too konah does not mean that he acquired it from another person but that he took title to it. “a man’s yard koneh (obtains title) for him without his knowledge.”²⁰¹, 11a. This too is a similar case. Similarly, the Sages, in all places, use the expression of kinyan for taking possession, meaning that it is his. This was the intention of Onkelos when he translated konei (of heaven and earth) as d’kinyanei, [meaning “Whose possessions are heaven and earth”], and he did not say kanah (who acquired).

footnotes: ¹⁹² In our text of Rashi, ‘Osei’ (Maker) of heaven and earth ¹⁹³ From Rashi it would appear that osei ¹⁹⁴ Pslams 139:13. ¹⁹⁵ Ramban’s point is that since the second half of the verse clearly speaks of the making of man, the first half of the verse which uses the word kanita ¹⁹⁶ Deuteronomy 32:6. Here too the word konecha ¹⁹⁷ Above, 12:5. ¹⁹⁸ Further, 31:1. ¹⁹⁹ Baba Metziah 10a. Here the word konah ²⁰⁰ Ibid. ²⁰¹ Ibid.

AND HE GAVE HIM A TENTH OF ALL. Abraham did not wish to take for himself from a thread even to a sandal tie.²⁰² But the part of the Most High he set aside in order to give it to the priest. Now the king of Sodom went out to meet Abraham at the vale of Shaveh²⁰³ in his honor, and he accompanied him to the city of Salem where Melchizedek brought out bread and wine for the people that followed him. The king of Sodom did not ask anything of Abraham, but when he saw his generosity and righteousness in giving the tithe to the priest, then he also asked for the souls²⁰⁴ by way of charity. Abraham, trusting that his G-d will give him riches, possessions and honor, did not wish to take anything from him, and so he returned all the wealth of Sodom which belonged to him, and all the wealth of Gomorrah for it to be returned to its owners. The king of Sodom had asked above all for the souls,²⁰⁴ but Abraham’s consideration above all was that they should not say that they made Abram rich.²⁰² Now the other places mentioned²⁰⁵ had been destroyed by the enemy in battle; only the wealth of Sodom and Gomorrah, among the cities of the five kings, fell into the hands of the enemy because since their kings were lost in the slime pits, their cities remained defenseless.²⁰⁶ It is possible²⁰⁷ that [the plunder from the other three cities is alluded to] in the words of Abraham: “If from a thread even to a sandal tie²⁰² will remain with me of all the wealth that has come to me from all of you;²⁰⁸ and if I take anything that is thine²⁰² of your wealth which you, the king of Sodom, gave me.”

footnotes: ²⁰² Verse 23 here. ²⁰³ Above, Verse 17. ²⁰⁴ The prisoners. Verse 21 here. ²⁰⁴ The prisoners. Verse 21 here. ²⁰² Verse 23 here. ²⁰⁵ Admah, Zeboim and Bela. Verse 2. ²⁰⁶ Hence the four kings were able to plunder Sodom and Gomorrah, and when Abraham recaptured it from them he restored it to its original owners. The other three cities (see preceding note) defended themselves and were completely destroyed in battle. ²⁰⁷ Ramban is now suggesting that the four kings had taken plunder from the other three cities as well and that is alluded to in the verse, as will be explained. ²⁰² Verse 23 here. ²⁰⁸ “From all of you,” i.e., from all the five cities. ²⁰² Verse 23 here.

I HAVE LIFTED UP MINE HAND TO THE ETERNAL. This is an expression signifying an oath: “I lift up my hand to G-d Most High.”²⁰⁹, the sense is that of the present tense: “I lift up my hand.” Similarly, the verse, By myself have I sworn,²¹⁰ means “By Myself do I swear.” Thus the language of Rashi. I have found a similar text in the Sifre:²¹¹ 33. “We find in the case of all the righteous that they bring their inclination under oath in order not to do evil. In the case of Abraham, he says, I have lifted up mine hand to the Eternal.” It is thus similar to the verse, And he lifted up his right hand and his left hand unto heaven, and swore by Him that liveth forever.²¹² But Onkelos said, “I have lifted my hand in prayer before the Eternal.” The intent of Abraham’s words according to Onkelos is: “I have prayed to G-d, with my hands spread forth toward heaven,²¹³ if I take anything that is thine.” That is to say, “G-d do so to me, and more also,²¹⁴, 2:23. if I take, etc.” The correct interpretation appears to me to be that Abraham said, “I have lifted my hand to G-d to make those things Sacred and Devoted²¹⁵ to Him, were I to take from that which is thine.” Declaring things to be sacred to Him is called in Hebrew “lifting of a hand,” just as in the verses: *Every one that did lift up a heave offering of silver and copper;*²¹⁶ and every man that offered a wave offering of gold unto the Eternal.²¹⁷, Verse 22. This Abraham said because having given a tenth of it to the priest, he declared that whatever he takes from the king of Sodom would be a heave offering to G-d, from which he would derive no benefit. In Bereshith Rabbah²¹⁸ it is similarly said, “Abraham made it a heave offering, even as it is said, And ye shall heave a heave offering of it for the Eternal.”²¹⁹

footnotes: ²⁰⁹ Besides explaining that this is an expression signifying an oath, Rashi also states that even though the verse uses a past tense harimothi ²¹⁰ Further, 22:16. Here too the verse uses a past tense, but its meaning is that of the present tense. ²¹¹ Vaethchanan ²¹² Daniel 12:7. ²¹³ See I Kings 8:22. ²¹⁴ Ibid. ²¹⁵ See Leviticus 27:28. ²¹⁶ Exodus 35:24. ²¹⁷ Ibid. ²¹⁸ 43:12. ²¹⁹ Numbers 18:26.