In the last instalment, we developed the portrait of Nimrod the Lion Hunter. He adopted all the trappings of power. He was the epitome of the despotic ruler who uses idol-worship as a form of propaganda and mind control. Nimrod demanded absolute allegiance to himself and to the construction projects of his empire; he cared nothing for the individuals harmed by his empire-building. He was an early incarnation of today’s fascist and totalitarian dictators. He faked the ability to wrestle a lion to its death with his bare hands. The Torah devotes much text to Nimrod so that it can help us better understand who Abraham was.
In contrast to Nimrod, Abraham follows a Divine command. He escapes to a land not controlled by the tyrants of Egypt or Mesopotamia, to the land of Cana’an. Here he is free to shepherd his flock and move about with relative ease. However, the land of Israel is subject to a natural form of danger that is beyond his control: drought. By comparison, Nimrod could contend with natural forces because he had total control over the entire population in the valley of Shinar. He had unlimited use of free labour at his disposal.
Ultimately, the drought in Cana’an compelled Abraham to seek refuge in Egypt, where Pharaoh had the same kind of total command that Nimrod had. This was a case of, “out of the frying pan, into the fire” so to speak. In Egypt Abraham must contend with the avarice of the empire and Pharaoh’s ability to appropriate women at will. What distinguishes Pharaoh, like Nimrod, from a 21st century despot is not that he regarded women per se as property, but that he regarded people per se as property, and women by nature are the producers of people who can be relegated to the status of property.
What distinguishes Abraham from the likes of Nimrod and Pharaoh is his rejection of human trafficking for any purpose. This rejection of human trafficking and the commensurate value of human life emerges from the story in which Abraham is called עברי – Hebrew. The four kings of Mesopotamia had come westward to pillage the cities of the Jordan River valley. They captured and carted away slaves as was common both then and for almost all time until the Geneva Convention.
The victims of the Kings of Mesopotamia were an early class of human property that was trafficked on a large scale. It was considered a natural consequence of some humans having been born inferior, bound by fate to serve masters like the four kings. This is a phenomenon that would last for thousands of years. For example, over 1,000 years later, during the Greek empire, Aristotle, in his work Politics, describes natural slaves as those born to serve as property, tools for action, and the like. He argues, “those who… are in this state [are so because] their work is the use of the body, and if this is the best that can come from them – [they] are slaves by nature.”
Two thousand years after that, Karl Marx would advance a critique of capitalism and its means of production as a root cause of slavery and human trafficking. At the same time, abolitionists in Europe and the Americas framed slavery as a race issue. To grasp the enormity of human trafficking, we can turn to the work of King’s College Professor of History Francisco Bethencourt. In Racisms: from the Crusades to the Twentieth Century. He notes that in Colonial North and South American societies, there were over 12.5 million slaves from Africa.
While we tell ourselves the story that morality broke the chains of slavery, in truth economics weakened the chains of slavery more than morality broke its bonds. Bethencourt notes that by the early 1800s, significant numbers of slaves were being freed as their economic usefulness dwindled. By the time the United States ended its institution of slavery, the centuries-long phenomenon of massive human trafficking for empire-building was all but over. Today, there is still human trafficking worldwide, facilitated by easy mobility, wealth disparity, and various technologies.
Abraham anticipated all of this.
Abraham did not need to rely on an ideology, race theory, gender theory, or class theory. His perspective was clear, simple, and timeless. He stood out as a moral beacon to all who sought freedom and universal human dignity. This is why the survivors of the Kings of Mesopotamia’s empire-building regime of human trafficking – those who were not taken captive – came to Abraham for assistance in recovering their captured family members..
| A fugitive brought the news to Abram theHebrew –Ivri, who was dwelling at the terebinths of Mamre the Amorite, kinsman of Eshkol and Aner, these being Abram’s allies. | וַיָּבֹא֙ הַפָּלִ֔יט וַיַּגֵּ֖ד לְאַבְרָ֣ם הָעִבְרִ֑י וְהוּא֩ שֹׁכֵ֨ן בְּאֵֽלֹנֵ֜י מַמְרֵ֣א הָאֱמֹרִ֗י אֲחִ֤י אֶשְׁכֹּל֙ וַאֲחִ֣י עָנֵ֔ר וְהֵ֖ם בַּעֲלֵ֥י בְרִית־אַבְרָֽם׃ |
Why did they approach Abraham the Ivri? They understood that as a Hebrew he would be particularly offended by the notion of enslavement. His moniker, The Ivri – The Hebrew suggests a value system, one that they could trust not to commercialize their relatives even in the event of a successful rescue. True to form, when Abraham rescues the captives, he takes no spoils whatsoever. Not only does Abraham reject the appropriation of slaves, he is feverishly invested in making sure that he does not take any property that does not belong to him.
| He brought back all the possessions; he also brought back his kinsman Lot and his possessions, and the women and the rest of the people | וַיָּ֕שֶׁב אֵ֖ת כׇּל־הָרְכֻ֑שׁ וְגַם֩ אֶת־ל֨וֹט אָחִ֤יו וּרְכֻשׁוֹ֙ הֵשִׁ֔יב וְגַ֥ם אֶת־הַנָּשִׁ֖ים וְאֶת־הָעָֽם׃ |
Abraham works pro bono. Here we see that when Abraham is given the opportunity to take booty, he refuses.
| But Abram said to the king of Sodom, “I swear to יהוה, God Most High, Creator of heaven and earth: I will not take so much as a thread or a sandal strap of what is yours; you shall not say, ‘It is I who made Abram rich.’ | וַיֹּ֥אמֶר אַבְרָ֖ם אֶל־מֶ֣לֶךְ סְדֹ֑ם הֲרִמֹ֨תִי יָדִ֤י אֶל־יְהֹוָה֙ אֵ֣ל עֶלְי֔וֹן קֹנֵ֖ה שָׁמַ֥יִם וָאָֽרֶץ׃ אִם־מִחוּט֙ וְעַ֣ד שְׂרֽוֹךְ־נַ֔עַל וְאִם־אֶקַּ֖ח מִכׇּל־אֲשֶׁר־לָ֑ךְ וְלֹ֣א תֹאמַ֔ר אֲנִ֖י הֶעֱשַׁ֥רְתִּי אֶת־אַבְרָֽם׃ בִּלְעָדַ֗י רַ֚ק אֲשֶׁ֣ר אָֽכְל֣וּ הַנְּעָרִ֔ים וְחֵ֙לֶק֙ הָֽאֲנָשִׁ֔ים אֲשֶׁ֥ר הָלְכ֖וּ אִתִּ֑י עָנֵר֙ אֶשְׁכֹּ֣ל וּמַמְרֵ֔א הֵ֖ם יִקְח֥וּ חֶלְקָֽם׃ {ס} |
This is a clear rejection of the culture from which Abraham had escaped years earlier. His behavior is a rejection of the slave-taking and trafficking culture of his time. It is also a rejection of the unprincipled and unrestrained use of power.
We should note that Abraham and his Hebrew descendants are distinguished from all other nations and cultures in these self-imposed limits. There are limits to conquest, limits to the use of power, and limits to expansion for its own sake.
Not all those who carry Abraham’s genes will be members of the Hebrews. Ishmael and Esav, who are the wild man and the hunter respectively, do not become Hebrews. They do not carry on the legacy of Abraham. Esav’s blessing is “by your sword you shall live.” Not that Abraham and his children never used a sword, but it cannot become their identity, not their stock in trade.
The rabbis understood that Ishmael and Esav are the fathers of Christianity and Islam respectively. These religions spread by missionary and military zeal. They coerced conversion by the sword and by state policy. Historically, they expanded their faiths by expanding their territory and by expanding their human property to farm and mine it. Yet, Abraham’s children have always shunned expansion beyond the lands promised to them, shunned proselytizing those of other faiths, and shunned trafficking in those who would serve as “slaves by nature.”
It is a bitter irony that today’s liberal descendants of the Church and reactionary descendants of the Caliphate accuse the anti-imperialist Hebrews of being racist-colonialists. Who was Abraham? Abraham, father of the Jewish nation, was the original abolitionist.
Shabbat Shalom,
Rabbi Rosenblatt and Dr. Terry Neiman
