An Offer You Can’t Refuse

By Rabbi Joshua (essentially known as The Hoffer) Hoffman

In memory of Reb Yisroel (Kenny) Blackstein, who passed away recently in Lakewood New Jersey. May his memory be a blessing.

After his victory in the battle of the four kings against the five, Avrohom is approached by the defeated king of Sodom, who tells him, “Give me the people and the possessions take for yourself.” Avrohom responds that he will take nothing from the king, except for the provisions coming to his men, so that the king would not say that he made Avrohom wealthy (Bereishis, 14:21-24). Avrohom’s response needs explanation, both in regard to his failure to take the people, and his refusal to take any possessions. In fact, the Talmud (Nedarim 32a) brings an opinion that Avrohom was punished for not taking the offered people, because he could have influenced them to recognize God and accept His sovereignty over the world. Why, then, didn’t he do so? After all, he was constantly teaching people about God and bringing them under the wings of the divine presence. What made this instance different?

Rav Henoch Leibowitz, in his Chiddushei HaLev, explains that Avrohom felt that by refusing to take anything from the king he would sanctify God’s name in public, and that this consideration took precedence over converting the captives. However, he was wrong, and should have taken the people and converted them. Rav Leibowitz does not really spell out why Avrohom was wrong, but I believe that the answer is implicit in the question. As Rav Leibowitz pointed out, Avrohom was constantly involved in influencing people to recognize God. It was, then this very activity, of teaching people to recognize God, that constituted Avrohom’s essence, the contribution that he made to the world, and therefore, he should have taken every opportunity available to continue this work. We find something similar to this idea in Megillas Esther, as well; in regard to Mordechai. The Megillah tells us that when Haman would appear in public, all the servants of the king and people around the seat of power would bow and prostate theselves to him, but that Mordechai would not bow and prostrate himself (Esther 3:21). The form of the verb to bow and prostrate, with regard to Mordechai, are written in the future, rather than in the present, indicating that Mordechai made a point of appearing before Haman and not prostrating to him, despite the danger that it would generate. Rav Yochanan Zweig explained that this was because Mordechai came from Binyomin who was the only tribe that did not bow down to Eisav when he visited Ya’akov, and thus, it was part of his essence not to bow down to him. This being so, he took every opportunity possible to bring out this point, even when it involved danger. Similarly, Avrohom, should have availed himself of the opportunity offered by the king of Sodom, and was punished for not doing so.

We also need to understand why Avrohom refused to take any possessions from the king of Sodom. After all, when Avrohom was in Egypt and Pharaoh gave him gifts, he accepted them. What was the difference between the two cases? Rav Eliyohu Meir Bloch, in his Pninei Da’as, offers several answers. First, he says that when Avrohom was in Egypt, he had the status of a poor person, and, therefore, had to accept whatever he needed to stay alive. In addition, Pharaoh was the king of the land that Avrohom had chosen to live in at that time, and, therefore, out of honor for the king, he could not refuse him. The king of Sodom, on the other hand, having just been defeated in battle, was in a much weaker position, and Avrohom could therefore refuse him. Most significantly, Rav Bloch says that Avrohom did not want to negate whatever thoughts of repentance that the king of Sodom may have had. By giving the spoils of war to Avrohom, even though they were his by right, anyway, the king may have assuaged any feelings of guilt he may have had over his past actions and refrained from a possible repentance. A somewhat similar idea is offered by Rav Elimelech bar Shaul in his Ma’archei Lev, in discouraging the practice of vegetarianism. People, he said, have a certain amount of sympathetic feelings, and these should, first and foremost, be used in helping human beings. If they are expended on animals, humans may be neglected. This argument echoes that of the French philosopher, Jean Jacques Rosseau, who observed that attendance to the theater may, rather than arousing one’s emotions and making one sensitive to the plight of others, have the opposite effect, and waste whatever humanitarian feelings a person may have on fictional characters depicted on stage, leaving nothing left for real people. Avrohom, then, by refusing to take the spoils of war from the king of Sodom, was trying to facilitate his repentance, and, thus, in this aspect of his response, was following the essence of his personality, by trying to bring people closer to God.