The Battle of the Vale of Siddim – or as it is known in Jewish tradition: The War of the Four Kings against the Five (Genesis 14:1-17) – was a result of longstanding tensions in the Jordan River plain during ancient times. A turning point in hostilities occurred when four Mesopotamian armies took hostages, including Abraham’s kinsman Lot.
Avram – as he was known at the time – was initially unaligned, but with the capture of his relative, he could no longer ignore the warmongers. He quickly jumped into the fray and with his small military force, he raced to the north where he smote the Mesopotamian armies. The result of the campaign was that Avram achieved his military objective as he secured the release of Lot and the other captives. This was not the only accomplishment of Avram’s campaign; he also managed to recapture property that had been plundered.
When Avram returned home after selflessly leaving his home to rescue his family and others, he was warmly greeted:
And King Melchizedek of Salem brought out bread and wine; he was a priest of God Most High. He blessed him, saying, ‘Blessed be Avram of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your foes into your hand.’ And [Avram] gave him a tenth of everything (Genesis 14:18-20).
The hasidic master Rabbi Meir’l of Przemyślany (d. 1850) pondered the first verse in this passage, suggesting that the verse should have been written in a different order. The verse begins with the fact that Melchizedek was a ruler, then describes what he did, and then mentions his priestly office. According to Rabbi Meir’l, all of Melchizedek’s lofty credentials should have been presented first before describing his actions. Demonstrating a sensitivity to Hebrew language, Rabbi Meir’l explained that if the words “brought out bread and wine” were mentioned earlier in the verse, it must be because the Bible wanted to draw attention to this act.
Rabbi Meir’l of Przemyślany raised this question when he met Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (1785-1869) – one of the great rabbis of Galicia, who was a renowned preacher and recognised halakhic authority. The meeting was recounted in a collection of hasidic tales: Ma‘asiyot Ve-Sihot Tzadikkim (Tales and Conversations of Righteous People), which was printed in Lemberg in 1894 by the publisher Yisroel Dovid Siss (ca. 1840 – ca. 1910).
According to Rabbi Meir’l, a meeting of two people with dissimilar spiritual orientations should ideally inspire new understandings, different perspectives, or fresh approaches. A real meeting of righteous people should not leave either side unaffected. It is likely that Rabbi Meir’l was alluding to his encounter as a hasidic master with the foremost legal authority in the region, but he – or the narrator of the tale – left that unsaid. Rather, he focused on the meeting between Avram and Melchizedek.
Avram and Melchizedek were both righteous people, though they had dissimilar spiritual foci. Avram was always busy helping others, welcoming visitors and industriously looking after them. His campaign to save hostages was just one example of his care for others and altruistic disposition. Avram did not have time to study because he was generously dedicating his time and efforts for the benefit of others.
Melchizedek was also a righteous person, but in contrast to Avram he was a cloistered priest who was oblivious to the needs of others. While this encounter with Avram is the only biblical account of Melchizedek, the sages identified the king of Salem as Shem the son of Noah (Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim 32a). Noah himself was famously criticised by the sages for building the ark but not making any effort to encourage his generation to improve their ways (Zohar 1:67b; 3:15a). It seems that Melchizedek-Shem followed his father’s example in this respect.
So in what way was Shem-Melchizedek a righteous person? According to Jewish tradition, Shem was the head of a yeshiva in Beer Sheva (Maharsha, megilla 17a), and he dedicated all his time to study. Day and night, Shem-Melchizedek would study. Alas, his dedication to learning meant that he would not even give a scrap of bread to the needy.
Returning to the historic meeting between Avram and Melchizedek, Rabbi Meir’l of Przemyślany explained the significance of the king-priest offering bread and wine upon Avram’s return from the front. Melchizedek left his secluded yeshiva abode and set aside his sheltered lifestyle as he internalised the value of Avram’s sacrifice for others.
It was not just Melchizedek who took a lesson from that meeting; Avram also inculcated a new value – the value of learning. From the biblical verse, it is patent how Melchizedek put his new understanding into practice. Alas, the text does not offer evidence of Avram’s change of heart. Rabbi Meir’l of Przemyślany (as presented by the narrator of the tale) also did not expand on this point, merely stating, “And Abraham learned from Shem the son of Noah to delve into Torah.”
Indeed, later when Abraham’s daughter-in-law, Rebecca, was pregnant with twins and she did not understand why they seemed to be struggling in her womb, the biblical verse states that she went to inquire of God (Genesis 25:22). Where did Rebecca go? According to the sages, Rebecca went to the yeshiva of Shem (Genesis Rabbah 63:6). Moreover, when Abraham’s grandson, Jacob, fled from the wrath of his brother Esau, the sages recount that he sojourned for fourteen years in yeshiva (Genesis Rabbah 63:10; Babylonian Talmud, megilla 17a). The actions of Abraham’s family seem to suggest that the Melchizedek-value of study was adopted.
Rabbi Meir’l of Przemyślany suggested that a true meeting is one where each person at the meeting learns, appreciates, and even internalises the value of the other. Moreover, a well-rounded person values both interpersonal relationships as well as personal, spiritual pursuits. We might add that at the end of the Avram-Melchizedek summit, the two people did not change who they were. Melchizedek remained a cloistered priest, and Avram a kind person who would beget a nation. Nonetheless, they were changed people; the meeting of their minds and hearts precipitated a change. Each person saw the value in the other person’s path, and adopted elements of the other’s ethos.
The writer is a senior faculty member at the Pardes Institute of Jewish Studies and is a rabbi in Zur Hadassa.
