A meeting of minds and hearts: What lessons righteous figures learn from each other

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 long-standing tensions in the Jordan Valley during ancient times. A turning point in hostilities occurred when four Mesopotamian armies took hostages, who included Abraham’s nephew, Lot.

Abram – 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 Abram achieved his military objective, as he secured the release of Lot and the other captives. This was not the only accomplishment of Abram’s campaign; he also managed to recapture property that had been plundered.

When Abram returned home after selflessly leaving to rescue his family member 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 Abram of God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth. And blessed be God Most High, who has delivered your foes into your hand.’ And [Abram] gave him a tenth of everything” (Genesis 14:18-20).

A meeting of the righteous

THE HASSIDIC master Rabbi Meir’l of Przemyslany (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 raised this question when he met Rabbi Shlomo Kluger (1785-1869), one of the great rabbis of Galicia, who was a renowned preacher and recognized halachic authority. The meeting was recounted in a collection of hassidic tales, Ma‘asiyot Vesihot Tzadikkim (Tales and Conversations of Righteous People), which was printed in Lemberg in 1894 by 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 hassidic 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 Abram and Melchizedek.

Abram and Melchizedek were both righteous people, though they had dissimilar spiritual focuses. Abram 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 his altruistic disposition. Abram 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 Abram he was a cloistered priest who was oblivious to the needs of others. While this encounter with Abram is the only biblical account of Melchizedek, the sages identified the king of Salem as Shem, son of Noah (Nedarim 32a). Noah himself was famously criticized 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 Beersheba (Maharsha, Megillah 17a), and he dedicated all his time to study. Day and night, Shem-Melchizedek would study. Alas, his dedication to study meant that he would not even give a scrap of bread to the needy.

Returning to the historic meeting between Abram and Melchizedek, Rabbi Meir’l explained the significance of the king-priest offering bread and wine upon Abram’s return from the front. Melchizedek left his secluded yeshiva abode and set aside his sheltered lifestyle, as he internalized the value of Abram’s sacrifice for others.

It was not just Melchizedek who took a lesson from that meeting; Abram also inculcated a new value – the value of study. From the biblical verse, it is patent how Melchizedek put his new understanding into practice. Alas, the text does not offer evidence of Abram’s change of heart. Rabbi Meir’l (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 twin brother, Esau, the sages recount, he sojourned for 14 years in yeshiva (Genesis Rabbah 63:10; Megillah 17a). The actions of Abraham’s family seem to suggest that the Melchizedek value of study was adopted.

Rabbi Meir’l suggested that a true meeting is one where each person at the meeting learns, appreciates, and even internalizes the value of the other. Moreover, a well-rounded person values interpersonal relationships, as well as personal, spiritual pursuits.

We might add that at the end of the Abram-Melchizedek summit, the two people did not change who they were. Melchizedek remained a cloistered priest, and Abram 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, senior lecturer at Bar-Ilan University’s Faculty of Law, and rabbi in Tzur Hadassah.