Who told Avraham, “Jump...” Rashi is answering the question: Was not Nimrod [not Amraphel] the king of Shinar?

He set his wings ... Meaning, he made himself wings to fly.

The name of the city. Rashi knows this because it says בלע היא צוער. If Bela was the name of a person, it would not say היא צוער. We need not ask how Rashi knew these kings’ names were mentioned to tell us their wickedness, and thus interprets Shinav to mean, “He hated his Father in Heaven,” etc. For the answer is: Since the king of Zoar’s name is omitted, it must be that the others’ names were mentioned to convey their wickedness. It is likely that the king of Zoar was not wicked, thus his name did not show his wickedness. For it says concerning Lot (19:20): “Let me escape there [to Zoar],” and Rashi explains there [that Zoar’s sins were few].

**Many fields were in it.**Since it is written השדים, with a “specifying ה,” but it does not specify where the “Siddim Valley” is located, Rashi explained that “it was so called because of the many fields (שדות) ... .” (R. Shmuel El Mashonino) But it seems to me that Rashi is saying that the proper name of the valley derives from its descriptive name. I.e., the Siddim Valley is its name, and it has no other proper name. (Nachalas Yaakov)

Afterward, the sea flowed into it. [Rashi says this] because it cannot be a valley and a sea simultaneously.

That the surrounding stones cracked...[Rashi offers this Midrashic explanation] because הוא ים connotes that it became a sea on its own — not that the sea flowed into it. Otherwise, it should say בו ים.

Of their rebellion ... By saying, “Of their rebellion,” Rashi is telling us that it does notmean they served Kedorlaomer for twelve years, and the next year they rebelled, and the next year Kedorlaomer came. For then it should have said ובשלש עשרה שנה, as it says afterwards, ובארבע עשרה שנה. Rather, Rashi is saying that after serving for twelve years, they rebelled for a thirteen year period. And the very next year, i.e., in the fourteenth year, “Kedorlaomer came.”

**These are the Zamzumim.**Rashi knows this because it is written here Rephaim and Aimim, and mentions the Zuzim with them — while in Devarim 2:11, it mentions Rephaim, Aimim and Zamzumim. Thus, Zuzim must be Zamzumim.

But that the plain of Paran was calledאיל. Rashi is answering the question: Onkelos translated אלוני (v. 13) as “the plain” of Mamrei. If אלוני means “plain,” how can איל also mean “plain”? Thus Rashi explains, “I maintain that this does not mean...”

Yet, the fewer ones were victorious. Rashi is answering the question: Why does it need to state, “Four kings”? We see that they were four! Thus he explains [that it comes to teach]: “Yet ... Avraham did not refrain...”

**There were many pits ...**Rashi is answering the question: Why does it say בארות twice? Another question: If the pits had mortar, why is it written, “They fell there”? It should say, “They sank there,” as is in Yirmeyahu 38:6: “And Yirmeyahu sank into the cement.” Another question: Since the pits had mortar, why did they not die when they sank into the mortar, which is cement? Thus Rashi explains that there were many pits, and they did not actually contain mortar but provided earth for making mortar.

**The Midrashic explanation is ... the King of Sedom escaped ...**Rashi is answering the question: Why are the pits called בארות (lit. “wells”), if they would remove all the [earth for the] mortar from the pits? בארות implies they were always full of cement! Thus Rashi brings the Midrashic explanation. (Maharshal)

This refers to Og who escaped from the war. But not that he survived the Flood. For it is written (7:23), “Only Noach and those with him in the ark survived.”

**As is written, “The נפילים were upon the land.”**Rashi is saying that רפאים means giants, and the נפילים also were giants who lived in the generation of the Flood. Og was a remnant of the giants who lived in the generation of the Flood. [According to this explanation,] אך נח [previously translated as “only Noach”] means as Rashi explained on 7:23: “He was coughing and spitting blood...” And ואשר אתו (those with him) means: “ ... from the toil and burden of the animals that were with him in the ark.”

That Avram be killed so he might marry Sarah. Rashi is explaining according to the latter Midrash why Og came to tell Avraham about Lot. According to the first explanation, that Og escaped the war, it is understandable. He told Avram in order to take revenge on Amraphel and the others who had killed his family. But according to the latter Midrash, why did he tell him? Perforce, “It was his intention that Avram be killed...”

As the Targum translates: “And he armed.”[You might ask:] Rashi explained on Shemos 15:9 that [אריק חרבי means, “I will draw My sword,” and he writes:] “Do not make a forced interpretation that אריק חרבי means the same as in וירק את חניכיו, and conveys, “I will arm myself with a sword.” [So why does Rashi here say that it means “to arm”? The answer is:] Rashi is saying here that the term could be interpreted everywhere as “to arm” — whereas in our verse this is its only possible interpretation, since it refers to “his trained servants,” [not to a weapon]. Thus Rashi explains אריק in the other verses in a forced way, so we will not immediately object to his interpretation here, citing the other verses. But in truth, it means “to draw” everywhere except for here. Thus Rashi said there: “And do not make a forced interpretation.” (See Re’m for a different explanation)

And it is the gematria equivalent of his name. R. Noson asks: Since a verse never leaves its plain meaning [altogether], and it says that there were 318 [men involved, how could Rashi say it was only Eliezer]? He answers, citing Rabbeinu Bechayeh, that the men of Avraham’s household indeed numbered 318. But after Avraham prepared them for war he decreased their number by ordering all the sinners to go back home, in accordance with Torah law (Devarim 20:8): [“And the officers shall continue to speak to the people and say,] ‘What man is there who is fearful ... ’” Thus [in the end], only he and Eliezer remained. But the Gur Aryehwrites that all 318 men surely went with him, to frighten the kings so they would not stand strong against him. Avraham alone could have defeated them, as nothing can stop Hashem. But he took them so as to use natural strength and thereby conceal the miracle, as it says (Yehoshua 8:2): “Set yourself an ambush...” And he took the [number of people] that is to the gematria of Eliezer, to hint that all [the men came] on account of Eliezer, [so that Avraham would not be only with his faithful servant Eliezer].

There his strength ebbed. For he saw...[Rashi offers this Midrashic explanation] because it is written later, “He pursued them until Chovah,” which is Dan. If so, why does it need to say here, “And he pursued until Dan”? (Kitzur Mizrachi)

According to its plain meaning the verse should be inverted... Without inverting, the division refers to the night, and the following “he and his servants” does not convey anything. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

The Midrashic explanation is...[Accordingly,] “He and his servants...” is read with what follows below “ ... attacked them and pursued them.”

The Midrash Aggadah explains that he is Sheim. For the abbreviation of מלך שלם, when reversed, spells שם.

He bore him no resentment for his having killed his descendants. For it says, “After his return from defeating Kedorlaomer” — and Kedorlaomer was the king of Ailam, one of Sheim’s descendants. Assumedly, his people also were from Sheim. Rashi explains, “This is done for those who are battle-weary,” because if he meant to feed them as [honored] guests, why did he not bring out cattle and sheep to slaughter for them? But Re’m explains that if [he meant to feed them as guests], why does it say he brought out bread and wine? Scripture always mentions bread alone, such as (18:5): “I will get bread,” and (Shemos 18:12): “Aharon and all the elders of Yisrael came to eat bread.” Here, why does it mention wine too? Perforce, because they were battle-weary.

**He gave him. Avram.**Rashi is answering the question: Who gave to whom? Thus Rashi explains that Avram gave to Sheim. And why did Avram do so? Because Sheim was a Kohein.

This is an expression of an oath. There is no actual mention of an oath here — unlike with, “For I raise up My hand (אשא ידי) to heaven...” (Devarim 32:40), where it is written right afterwards, “ ... and I say, ‘As I live forever.’” Nevertheless, Scripture was brief here and relied on our understanding. (Re’m) Furthermore, we can say that אשא ידי [on its own] is considered an expression of mentioning an oath. And it is actually another way of saying הרימותי ידי. Therefore, הרימותי ידי is also an expression of an oath, although it is not expressly stated.

And if you offer to compensate me... Rashi knew this because it says, “And I will not take, implying that “Neither a thread nor a shoelace” is a separate point which means: I will not retain the spoils. [Then comes a new point:] “And I will not take” from your treasure house. Alternatively, Rashi is answering the question: [The spoils] were already in Avraham’s hands. Why did he say, “I will not take”? Perforce it means, “I will not take compensation from your treasure house.”

My servants who went with me. The verse should be divided into three parts: (1)“I am excluding myself, only what the lads have eaten” — referring to Avraham’s servants who accompanied him, for it is written before in v. 15: “He and his servants.” The phrase “who went with me” is Rashi’s own words [explaining who the “lads” are. It is not a quote from the verse]. (2)“And the portion of the men who went with me” — referring to his trained servants (חניכיו) mentioned in v. 14 above. (3) “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” — about them it says, “They may take their portion.” The fact that “portion” is mentioned again shows that “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” must be different from “The men who went with me,” regarding whom it already is written, “And the portion of...” Therefore, “They may take their portion” refers only to “Aneir, Eshkol and Mamrei” [Thus there are three parts].

**Aneir and his friends stayed with the supplies to guard it ...**Rashi knows this because it is written in v. 13, “He [Avram] was living in the Plains of Mamrei the brother of Eshkol and Aneir.” And then it is written (v. 14), “When Avram heard ... he pursued them...” but it does not say Aneir and his friends [joined the pursuit]. Perforce, they remained behind to guard the supplies.