Genesis · Chapter 23

The life of Sarah was one hundred and twenty-seven years — the years of the life of Sarah.

ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים AND THE LIFE OF SARAH WAS 127 YEARS (literally, 100 years, 20 years and 7 years) — The reason the word שנה is written at every term is to tell you that each term must be explained by itself as a complete number: at the age of one hundred she was as a woman of twenty as regards sin — for just as at the age of twenty one may regard her as having never sinned, since she had not then reached the age when she was subject to punishment, so, too, when she was one hundred years old she was sinless — and when she was twenty she was as beautiful as when she was seven (Genesis Rabbah 58:1). שני חיי שרה THE YEARS OF SARAH’S LIFE — The word years is repeated and without a number to indicate that they were all equally good.

A HUNDRED AND TWENTY YEARS Rashi comments: “The reason the word ‘years’ is written at every term is that it informs you that each term must be interpreted by itself. At the age of one hundred she was as a woman of twenty as regards sin [for at the age of twenty she had not sinned since she had not reached the age when she was subject to punishment], The verse thus indicates that at the age of a hundred, Sarah never sinned, just as at the age of twenty she had never sinned. and at the age of twenty she was as beautiful as when she was seven.” Rashi wrote similarly on the verse, the years of Abraham’s life. However, this exegesis of his However, Ramban does dispute which words in the Torah-text are the basis for their interpretation. Thus according to Ramban a similar interpretation would not follow in the verses concerning Abraham and Ishmael. is not correct. In the case of the verse, the years of the life of Ishmael, it is stated exactly as in the verse, the years of Abraham’s life, whereas these years of Ishmael were not all equally good since Ishmael was wicked in his early years, and only in the end did he repent of his evil ways. Furthermore, the repetition of the word “year” at every term would seem to indicate an intent to distinguish between them and, thus, should not be interpreted to imply equality. Rather, the use of the word shanah (year) and shanim (years) in this instance is the customary usage of the Hebrew language, while that which the Rabbis have said in Bereshith Rabbah, “At the age of one hundred she was as a woman of twenty as regards sin,” is an interpretation which they derived only from the redundant expression, the years of the life of Sarah, which includes them all and equates them. The Rabbis would not make a similar interpretation of the verse concerning Abraham [since in his case Scripture does not conclude with a similar comprehensive expression].

"The life of" — this is a plural form, and the two numbers do not separate. It is the convention of the language to place the larger number before the smaller, though one also finds the reverse, as in 'the years of Jacob.'

ויהיו חיי שרה, The life of Sarah was 127 years, etc. Why did the Torah use the term ויהיו to describe Sarah's life when everyone else's life is described by the word ויחי? Midrash Hagadol 23,2 claims that the reason Sarah died was that she was unable to make peace with the fact that Isaac was spared at the last moment. She thought he refused to be the sacrifice. The expression ויהי or ויהיו always alludes to some painful experience, whereas the expression ויחי does not. The Torah wanted to allude to the grief which caused Sarah's death. Another reason why the Torah phrases Sarah's lifetime in this unusual manner may be based on Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer 32 where Sarah's death at that time is described as due to the fact that Satan informed her of Isaac's imminent death. The word ויהיו then reflects a "new existence, הויה, "i.e. although she had been allocated a certain number of years at birth, the trauma caused by Satan's information cut short her years. The reason the Torah speaks about חיי שרה, is to remind us that whereas the righteous give life to their days (such as Sarah), the reverse is the case with the wicked. The Torah adds the word שני חיי שרה, the years of Sarah's life, to allude to the fact that she "completed" the years of the life allotted to her, but that the immediate cause of her death was the information brought her by Satan. As to my second explanation that she "lost" a number of years of the life that had been intended for her, you need to understand the kindness that G'd does with the righteous. When such a righteous person dies "prematurely," for reasons such as in Sarah's case, G'd does not deduct from the sum total of their achievements what such a person would have achieved had he not died before his allotted time. The Torah therefore tells us that Sarah received full credit for all she would have accomplished had she lived out her remaining years (Tanchuma פרשת כי תשא 3). The Torah also alludes to the almost one hundred years that Sarah suffered either the anguish of childlessness or the animosity which developed between Ishmael and the son she finally bore at the age of ninety. We know from Rachel, (Genesis 30,1) that a woman's feeling of being unfulfilled when she has no children can cause her to consider her life as not worth living. The years in which Sarah "really lived," therefore, were only the last twenty seven years of her life during which she was able to enjoy Isaac's development in undisturbed tranquillity.

ויהיו חיי שרה, “The years of Sarah’s life amounted to etc.” People fond of dabbling in the allusions found through the numerical value of words or whole sentences, will note that the numerical value of the word ויהיו equals the “life of Sarah,” in other words, Sarah’s real life commenced with the birth of Yitzchok, at which time she was 90 years old, whereas she died on the day of the binding of Yitzchok 37 years later. This is the numerical value of the word: ויהיו. As long as a person has no child he or she is considered as dead. (Talmud Nedarim, 64) מאה שנה, “one hundred years;” Rashi comments on the reason why the word: שנה, “year,” is repeated here three times, when the Torah could have simply written: מאה עשרים ושבע שנה, “one hundred and twenty seven years.” He suggests that the Torah wished us to know that Sarah was as free from sin at a hundred as she had been at twenty, and that she was as beautiful at twenty as she had been at seven. This, of course, raises the question why the Torah, in reporting the death of Yishmael at 137 years (Genesis, 25,32) used exactly the same formulation? We can answer this by pointing out that when reporting Sarah’s age, each group of years is reported separately, as an individual unit, whereas when reporting Yishmael’s age at death, the groups of years are introduced in the construct mode, i.e. מאת, not מאה, i.e. all the years had the same common factor. Not only that, but the Torah sums up her years once more with the words: שני חיי שרה, “the years of Sarah’s life,” i.e. all her years were earmarked by a common denominator. If, when Avraham’s death is reported our sages have seen fit to read something into the way his years are reported, although there too just as at the death of Yishmael we find the word מאת in the construct form, this can be accounted for by the word: ימי, “days of,” which are superfluous and therefore available for interpretation. (Genesis 25,7) Rashi also adds that Sarah was free from sin at twenty as if this was something exceptional; this sounds strange as at that time everyone was free from sin, i.e. not held accountable until the age of twenty? We must understand Rashi as if he had written: ”just as she was free from sin at 20, she remained free from sin until the end of her life. Accountability for sins at the age of 12 or 13 for females and males respectively, commenced only after the Torah had been given. [Our midrashim describe Yishmael as “innocent” when expelled by Sarah, as he was below 20 years of age. Ed.] Sarah had not required cosmetics at twenty anymore than she had required it at the age of seven. We know from Rivkah, who accepted jewelry at the age of three in order to enhance her appearance, that girls in those days felt the need to enhance their natural charms at an early age. (Compare Genesis 24,22) There is a Midrash in pessikta zutrata according to which the reference to her being one hundred as meaning that she was as beautiful at a hundred as she had been at twenty, whereas she was as free from sin at twenty as she had been at seven. שני חיי שרה, “the years of the life of Sarah.” According to Rashi, the apparently superfluous words: “the years of,” mean that she retained all her virtues in equal measure throughout her life. The wording used by the Torah when reporting Yishmael’s life does not lend itself to such an interpretation, seeing that up until his death we had never heard anything about his age, as distinct from Sarah. It is clear therefore that the words underlined earlier were meant to relay an additional message to the reader.

אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל למען סור משאול מטה, “for an intelligent man the path of life is upward, so that he may turn away from heading towards hell, downwards” (Proverbs 15,24) In this verse Solomon informed us that an intelligent human being is aware that terrestrial life, by definition, is headed for destruction, for disintegration. He is aware that the true life is to be found only in the “upper regions,” in the celestial spheres, in an environment which is eternal. As a result of such knowledge the intelligent man removes himself from the attractions of the terrestrial world, performs such tasks as are necessary only because they preserve his health and life without making them an objective in themselves. He does so in order to escape the prospect of שאול מטה, “hell and eternal damnation.” Let me explain this by means of a parable. A person lives in a certain city, aware that his dwelling is only a temporary one. He craves to move to another town where he may be able to secure for himself a permanent residence. While such a person has hope to secure a permanent residence in another city he is certainly not going to make investments in fields, buildings, and other properties which he cannot transfer to the city which he hopes to move to. He will limit his investments and efforts in the city in which he dwells presently to a minimum, conserving his strength to acquire things useful to him when he does make the move. The intelligent person is aware that the עולם הבא, the hereafter, is the only permanent residence; he will therefore prepare himself in this life for his hereafter so that when he arrives there he will find that a suitable residence has been prepared for him. Having this in mind, Solomon began his book Kohelet with the words הבל הבלים, “vanity of vanities,” whereas he concluded it (Kohelet 12,13) by exhorting his listeners to practice יראת השם, reverence for G’d. Another way of understanding the verse we have quoted from Proverbs is this: אורח חיים למעלה למשכיל, Solomon is addressing the intelligent person saying to him: ”you, intelligent person that you are, should know that there is a path of life which leads upwards. In order to secure this path of life for yourself you have to abandon the path that leads to hell, downwards.” In other words, you have to abandon your cravings for all kinds of physical pleasures and indulgences as otherwise these physical pleasures will drag you down to hell. According to this interpretation, the word סור is a command, not an infinitive. The whole verse then has to be understood as a warning and commandment to the intelligent human being that if he is really interested in something enduring, something of infinite duration, he must abandon his preoccupation with transient values. The worst danger is to be preoccupied with physical pleasures. As to the meaning of the word אורח instead of the normal דרך which we would have expected to describe a “path,” the reason for that choice of word is that it suggests something temporary, i.e. a “visitor.” Any human being who lives on earth is nothing but a visitor, a transient (compare Jeremiah 14,8 “why should you be like a stranger on earth, like a guest in need of lodging”). Just as a guest who enters a tavern knowing that he will continue his journey on the following day and that therefore he will stay only for a brief period at that tavern, all the while longs for his proper home, so the intelligent person on earth is aware that there is a life beyond this earth where he will experience proper life. The reason the נפש, “physical life-force,” is known as חיה, is that it operates (lives) only within the domain known as טבע, nature. Philosophers/researchers have said that this נפש which lives as part of nature dies due to a quirk of fate. Such “quirks” of fate are triggered through sins. The body lives only through being inhabited by such a נפש. The reason that the mortal body ever lived was only because it was connected to this disembodied life-force we call נפש. Separation of this נפש from the body is equivalent to death of the body. It is also known that the death of the body causes the “life” of the נפש, i.e. releases it from imprisonment in a body. This is why Solomon said (Kohelet 7,1) “better the day of death than the day of birth.” He praised the day of death when compared to the day of one’s birth on two counts. On the one hand, dying in this life means transferring to the hereafter. Once the נפש has arrived in that region, it can no longer accumulate merits which will help its stature in the eternal world. Therefore, seeing that death of the body implies birth of one’s afterlife, such a “birthday” spells finis to any moral/ethical achievements of the נפש. At the same time, death of the body puts an end to the trials and disappointments which are an inevitable part of life on earth; achieving freedom from such troubles is preferable to being born to them. Hence, from that angle too the day of death has much to be said for it. Only when a person dies do his achievements during his life on earth become visible, appreciated and irreversible. As long as he is alive we can never be sure that he will not undo any good he may have done previously. Our sages have illustrated this concept in connection with the blessing provided for mankind during the lifetime of Sarah (compare Rashi on 24,67). We are told there that as long as she was alive there was a light burning in her tent which burned from one Friday to the next. Her dough was always blessed and a cloud was seen to hover over her tent. When Sarah died these phenomena disappeared. Only then did her merit become public knowledge, i.e. only then did it become clear that these blessings had been due to her all the time. Moreover, she died on holy soil [the first of the patriarchs or matriarchs of whom death and burial in Eretz Yisrael is reported. Ed.] and was buried in the holy soil of Eretz Yisrael after she had lived a long life. The Torah writes: “Sarah lived for 127 years, these were the years of the lives of Sarah.” The Torah continues: “Sarah died in Kiryat Arba which is Chevron in the land of Canaan.” This whole passage should have appeared immediately after the Torah concluded its narrative about the binding of Yitzchak seeing that according to Bereshit Rabbah 58,5 the immediate cause of her death were the rumours that her son Yitzchak had been slaughtered. We know that the order in which the various passages of the Torah have been arranged are not accidental, nor are they necessarily chronological. The sequence in which the Torah relates matters to us is of crucial significance to our proper understanding of the message the Torah wishes to teach us. On occasion, the very order in which the Torah relates matters reveals such important truths as that the existence of G’d preceded the universe, or some secrets about the composition of the creatures G’d has created as in this paragraph, or, the Torah takes us into its confidence concerning laws of nature by the wording and the positioning of certain passages such as the first part of Parshat Tazria, where the secrets of who will be born male and who female appear next to the paragraph dealing with certain skin diseases caused by meta-physical rather than natural considerations. The reason why the Torah interrupted its report about the repercussions of the binding of Yitzchak also including the death of his mother Sarah was in order to bring us up to-date on Nachor’s family, seeing that Yitzchak was going to replace his mother with his future wife Rivkah who had been born now so that there would be continuity in Yitzchak’s life and he would continue to experience the blessings he had enjoyed while his mother had been alive. According to a Midrash cited by Rashi the report of Sarah’s death follows immediately upon the report of Rivkah’s birth to inform us that Sarah and Rivkah were viewed as if the younger one was merely the embodiment of the virtues of the senior one, i.e. as if Sarah and Rivkah were virtually one. Had Rivkah’s birth preceded the death of Sarah this would have been impossible; as it were, Sarah had to die first so that her soul could resurface in the body of Rivkah. The word אמו in 24,67 is unnecessary as we all know that Sarah had been Yitzchak’s mother. The reason the Torah wrote this word was to hint that her soul had been reincarnated in the body of Rivkah. When the Midrash stated that as soon as Rivkah moved into the tent of her mother-in-law, the light started burning again and the various phenomena which had been commonplace during Sarah’s lifetime began to manifest themselves anew, this is proof of the metaphysical continuity between Sarah and Rivkah. מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים, “one hundred and twenty-seven years.” Ordinarily, the Torah should have written מאה ועשרים ושבע שנים. Still, it is quite acceptable to write the word “year” or “years” after every unit of years in order to separate these 3 different parts of a person’s life by inserting the word “year,” or “years” between each group. It is appropriate to separate a century from a decade and a decade from individual years lived. We find such patterns when the Torah describes the lifetime of Avraham as well as when it describes the lifetime of Ishmael. The unusual way about describing Sarah’s lifetime is only the repetition of the words שני חיי שרה, “the years of the lives of Sarah.” From these words our sages derive the message that all her years were lived in the same state of piety, etc. A Midrashic approach (Bereshit Rabbah 58,1) to these words: “at 100 she was as free from sin as at 20; at 20 years of age she was as beautiful as at seven years of age.” The meaning of these words is that just as a girl’s looks are apt to improve after she has reached the age of seven, Sarah’s looks kept improving even after she had reached the age of twenty (which is usually the time when physical beauty is at its best). Man’s life is divided into three periods. 1) youth, i.e. the period when one grows towards maturity. 2) maturity; roughly the period between 20-30 before one’s physique begins to decline. 3) old age, a period when decline becomes visible. Another Midrashic approach: The verse may be divided into the sections ויהיו חיי שרה, that the numerical value of the life of Sarah was equivalent to the numerical value of the word ויהיו, i.e. 37. These were the 37 years during which she was able to practice motherhood, having given birth to Yitzchak when she was 90 years old. The second part of the verse which mentions the number 127 records the number of years she lived not from her point of view but from an historian’s point of view. We find something similar when the Torah reports the years of Yaakov’s life in Genesis 47,28. The numerical value of the word ויחי is 34, i.e. a combination of the 17 years Yaakov enjoyed Joseph’s company after he had been born and the last 17 years of Yaakov’s life when he again enjoyed Joseph’s company. These 34 years were the only truly happy ones he experienced. Another way of looking at the words ויהיו חיי שרה is that they refer to the hereafter. This would reflect the fact that the Torah reported her death immediately after she had heard that Yitzchak’s soul had “flown” to heaven as a result of his having been offered to G’d as a sacrifice. The form ויהיו would hint that both her soul and that of Yitzchak departed from earth at the same time to take up permanent residence in the celestial regions. The word ויהי or ויהיו basically means that something exists permanently. The word שני, “years of,” is deliberately omitted at that point as the very word “year” implies something of limited duration. The same word does, however, appear at the end of our verse, as at that point the Torah underlines another aspect of the message it tries to convey. At that point the Torah speaks about Sarah’s life on earth. Naturally, in that context the words “years of” are very relevant.

And Sarah’s life was one hundred years, etc. Regarding Abraham it states these are the years of Abraham’s life which he lived, adding the phrase which he lived because he was a man of vitality, accomplished many things in his knowledge of God throughout his life, as he recognized his Creator at three years old. This was unlike Ishmael who only repented in his later years. Regarding Sarah, it does not say which she lived, because a woman experiences the pain of childbirth and pregnancy, and is under her husband’s authority, so not all of her days are called “life.” Some say that Abraham did not live all his destined years, as five years were deducted from his life so that he would not see Esau turning to evil ways. Therefore it says which he lived, because these were the years he actually lived, implying there were other days that should have naturally been his but he did not live them because his days were shortened as mentioned. And regarding what was stated with the larger numbers [in the verse] using the singular form of “year” — one hundred year and twenty year — but with the smaller number using the plural “years” — and seven years — this is because the righteous, even though all their days are complete, nevertheless acquire greater perfection in their later years when they are closer to the gates of death than in their earlier days. This is both because elderly Torah scholars continue to increase in wisdom, and because at that time they are moving and drawing closer to the eternal light. Therefore, all the earlier years are considered as one year in comparison to the later years, because due to the abundance of perfection acquired in them, even [what seems like] few years appear as many. This is why this linguistic pattern is also used for Abraham and Isaac. And regarding Ishmael, this explanation works even better than for all of them, because he repented at the end of his days. Another explanation: Since the latter days are days of pain, as it is written and the years arrive of which you will say “I have no pleasure in them” (Ecclesiastes 12:1). Therefore, the latter years are referred to in plural form [shanim — years] because they are days of pain, but the earlier years are compared to individual days [yamim] due to his love for them.

ויהיו חיי שרה מאה שנה ועשרים שנה ושבע שנים, “Sarah lived for 127 years.” Rashi explains that the reason why the word is repeated twice is to draw our attention to the fact that each period so designated represented a separate part of her life. She was as free from sin at 127 as she had been at the age of 7 and as beautiful at the time of her death as she had been at the age of 20. Nachmanides writes that Rashi does not derive this information from the repetition of the word שנה, seeing that there is nothing exceptional in this, and the sum total of the lives of lesser individuals has been described in similar terms, Ishmael’s death being reported in a similar fashion to that of Sarah’s, for instance. Rather, we derive this interpretation quoted by Rashi from the superfluous sounding introduction of the words חיי שרה-followed by the words שני חיי שרה. This formulation indicates that all these years had been lived under the aegis of purity and beauty. There are some books in which the version in the Bereshit Rabbah is as follows בת ק כבת עשרים ליופי ובת עשרים כבת שבע לחטא, “at 100 she was as beautiful as she had been at 20, and at 20 she was as free from sin as at 7. This is the correct version, seeing that girls are more beautiful at 20 than at 7 having learned in the intervening years how to use cosmetics to bring out their beauty.

Sarah died in Kiryat Arba, which is Hebron, in the land of Canaan. And Abraham came to mourn for Sarah and to weep over her.

בקרית ארבע literally, the city of the Four, and it was so called because of the four giants who lived there: Ahiman, Sheshai, Talmai and their father (Numbers 13:22). Another explanation is that it was so called because of the four couples who were buried there, man and wife — Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah (Genesis Rabbah 58:4). ויבא אברהם AND ABRAHAM CAME from Beer-Sheba לספוד לשרה ולבכותה TO BEWAIL SARAH AND TO WEEP FOR HER — The narrative of the death of Sarah follows immediately on that of the Binding of Isaac, because through the announcement of the Binding — that her son had been made ready for sacrifice and had almost been sacrificed — she received a great shock (literally, her soul flew from her) and she died (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 32).

AND ABRAHAM CAME. Rashi comments: “From Beer-sheba.” Now this does not mean to imply that Abraham remained in Beer-sheba — as is indicated in the verse, And Abraham abode at Beer-sheba, for how then would Sarah have been in Hebron? Rather, the intent is to state that Abraham had gone to Beer-sheba for the day for some purpose, and while there he heard of the death of Sarah and came from there to Hebron to mourn and weep for her. However, the expression of our Rabbis is, “And Abraham came — from Mount Moriah.” This is in accord with the Midrash which the Rabbi [Rashi] previously cited which states that hearing of the Binding [in which her son had been made ready for sacrifice and had indeed almost been sacrificed] her soul flew from her and she died. It would appear that the Divine command concerning the Binding was delivered to Abraham in Beer-sheba for there he dwelt and he returned thereto after the Binding, for so it is written at the outset: And Abraham planted a tamarisk-tree in Beer-sheba and called there on the name of the Eternal, the Everlasting G-d. It further states, And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days. This refers to his dwelling in Beer-sheba, which is in the land of the Philistines, and it is there that he was commanded concerning the Binding. It is for this reason that he expended three days on the journey to Mount Moriah, for the land of the Philistines is distant from Jerusalem. On the other hand, Hebron is in the mountains of Judah, as Scripture testifies,; 21:11. and is therefore near to Jerusalem. Thus, when coming from the Binding, he returned to Beer-sheba, as it is said, So Abraham returned to his lads and they rose and went together to Beer-sheba. This teaches us that he tarried there and dwelled in Beer-sheba for a period of years. Now if this was the case, Sarah did not die during that period immediately following the Binding for it would not be that Abraham lived in Beer-sheba while Sarah dwelt in Hebron. And so it also appears since Isaac was born in Beer-sheba for it is previously written, And Abraham journeyed from there towards the land of the south and abode between Kadesh and Shur and sojourned in Gerar, and Abimelech said to him, Behold, my land is before thee; abide where it is good in thine eyes. There in that land Abraham settled in the city of Beer-sheba, for so it is written, And it came to pass at that time that Abimelech and Phicol the captain of his host spoke unto Abraham, saying. Though it is not written there that they came to him from Gerar, [as it is written in the case of Isaac], from which you might infer that Abraham lived in Gerar, this is not the case. Scripture clearly states that it was in Beer-sheba that they made the covenant. Similarly, you will see that when Hagar was sent away from the house of Abraham on the day that Isaac was weaned, she walked in the desert of Beer-sheba, for it was there that they lived. However, after many days, he [Abraham] journeyed from the land of the Philistines and came to Hebron, and there the righteous woman Sarah passed away. However, according to the Midrash [which states that Sarah died at the time of the Binding], we must say that Abraham and Sarah lived in Hebron at the time of the Binding, and there Abraham was commanded concerning it. The verse which states that On the third day Abraham lifted up his eyes, poses this difficulty: Since Hebron is near Mount Moriah, which is in Jerusalem, why did he not arrive at the mountain until the third day? The answer is as follows: The mountain which G-d had desired for His abode A reference to the fact that in the future the Temple of Jerusalem was to be built on that mountain. See Ramban, above, 22:2. was not revealed to him until the third day. Thus for two days he wandered in the environs of Jerusalem, and it was not yet the Divine Will to indicate the mountain to him. After the Binding, Abraham did not return to his place in Hebron. Rather, he went first to Beer-sheba, the place of his tamarisk-tree, to give thanks for the miracle that befell him. It was there that he heard of the death of Sarah, and he came to Hebron. The two apparently divergent opinions — namely, that Abraham came from Mount Moriah and that he came from Beer-sheba — are thus one [since, as explained, on his way from Mount Moriah he went to the tamarisk-tree which was in Beer-sheba, there to give thanks for the miracle]. Accordingly, the verse which states, And Abraham abode at Beer-sheba, is intended to indicate that upon his return from the Binding he went to Beer-sheba, and from there he went to bury Sarah. After the internment he immediately returned to Beer-sheba and settled there for years. Scripture, however, concludes the subject of Beer-sheba all at once, and following that it tells of the burial, [which explains the lack of chronology in the verse, And Abraham dwelt in Beer-sheba]. It was there in Beer-sheba that Isaac married Rebekah, as it says, For he dwelt in the land of the South, the locus of Beer-sheba. It is thus the opinion of all the commentators that Abraham was in another place, and it was from there that he came to the burial. In my opinion, Sarah had a tent for herself and her attendants. And so it is written elsewhere into Jacob’s tent, and into Leah’s tent, and into the tent of the two maid servants. Sarah thus died in her tent, and Abraham came into her tent with a group of his friends to bewail her. [This is a simple explanation of the expression, and Abraham came.] It may be that the word vayavo (and he came) indicates that Abraham was bestirred to make this eulogy, and he began to make it, for all who bestir themselves to begin doing a certain task are spoken of in Hebrew as “coming to it.” This usage is quite common in the language of Sages, as we learn in Tractate Tamid: “He came to the neck and left with it two ribs on either side…. He came to the left flank…. He came to the rump.” And also (you have) their expression, “I have not come to this principle.” In Scripture, likewise, you find, he came for his hire, meaning that he came for the purpose of this work and did it for his hire. However, it does not appear to me feasible that Abraham came from another city to Hebron. If that were the case, Scripture would have mentioned that place and would have expressly written: “and Abraham heard, and he came from such and such a place.”

"Arba" — the name of a great man among the Anakim (Joshua 14:15). The interpretation that it refers to Abraham is a homiletical reading, for he was not of the Anakim. And since Abraham was in another place when Sarah died, the text therefore says, "And Abraham came." "To weep for her" (לְבַכְּתָהּ) means to weep over her, as likewise: "and she shall weep for her father" (Deuteronomy 21:13).

Sarah died. She did not die until a fitting successor was born and Avraham was apprised of the fact. To eulogize Sarah. Literally, “to eulogize for Sarah” — a eulogy is for the honor of the deceased.

ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע. Sarah died at Kiryat Arba. We must not misunderstand that Kiryat Arba was the cause of her death. The reason the town was mentioned and was so named is to tell us that it was built on the four basic elements. Death normally implies a departure from, or disintegration of, the four basic elements that a body is composed of. When the Torah adds that "Kiryat Arba" is also known as חברון, this is an allusion to the word חבור, something that is joined together. The message is that when the righteous "die," this is not to be viewed as a process of disintegration. The righteous are still called "alive" even when they have ceased to function in regular bodies on this earth. The story in Shabbat 152 about how the grave of Rabbi Achai bar Yoshiah was disturbed by diggers on a property of Rav Nachman and how Rabbi Achai reacted illustrates this concept. What all this means is that while the righteous are alive in this world, the four basic material elements that every human being is composed of become transformed into something spiritual and attach themselves to their souls by means of the good deeds that such persons perform during their sojourn on earth. Maimonides illustrates this somewhat in the fourth chapter of Hilchot Yesodey Torah where he describes that one element is capable of becoming transformed into another element which was similar to it, i.e. earth can be transformed into water. When man cleaves to G'd all his elements become transformed into the element fire which forms the basis of the soul. Kabbalists are familiar with this. The Torah adds the (apparently superfluous words) "in the land of Canaan." This is an allusion to the fact that this present world is called ארץ כנען, a simile for the evil urge, Satan. This is so because the existence of Satan is the incentive for us to overcome him and to attain holiness and sanctity (Zohar 1,80). לספוד לשרה ולבכותה, to mourn Sarah and to weep for her. To mourn her departure from the world, and to weep for her on account of the personal loss he had sustained. One can also understand it in the reverse sense, i.e. he mourned the absence of her righteous presence, and he wept because she had tasted death and her sun had set (her benign influence on the people surrounding her).

ותמת שרה, “Sarah died;” it is most unusual for the Torah to report the fact that a woman died. (Miriam, Moses’ sister’s death are exceptions, Numbers 20,1 as are Rachel’s premature death in Genesis 35,18, and Deborah, Rivkah’s nursemaid in Genesis 35,8.) When such a death is reported it is not only a compliment to the virtuous lives these women had lived, but is always associated with a remarkable event. Sarah’s death is associated with the enormous amount of money paid by her husband for acquiring the land for burying her. Rachel’s premature death is reported so that we should know where she has been buried. Deborah’s death is reported so that we should know why the place where this occurred became known subsequently as אלון בכות, “oak of mourning.” [Also in order to draw our attention to the fact that her mistress, Rivkah’s death has not been reported. Ed.] Miriam’s death was the reason that the well that had accompanied the Israelites throughout their long march in the desert ceased flowing. בקרית ארבע, in Kiryat Arba; there is an opinion that the reason why the location where she died is mentioned, while the locations where the other matriarchs died were not mentioned is that Avraham had sent her there before taking Yitzchok with him to be offered as a sacrifice on Mount Moriah. He did not want her to have any knowledge of this. Avraham and Sarah at that time had been residents of B’er Sheva. Another commentator claims that Sarah had moved from B’er Sheva for health reasons as the climate in Chevron (mountainous instead of desert) was more likely to cure her. When she heard why Avraham had taken Yitzchok to Mount Moriah she died. This is why Avraham had to come all the way from B’er Sheva to mourn and bury her. Had she died in B’er Sheva, Avraham could have buried her there without problems as he was at home there. בקרית ארבע, this was a town that had been built already by Adam, as we know from Joshua 14,15: קרית ארבע שם חברון לפנים, האדם הגדול בענקים, “the name of Chevron in former times was Kiryat Arba, the greatest of all the giants.”A different version found in midrashim, is that the name of that town is due to it changing ownership four times one after another. First it belonged to the tribe of Yehudah; then it became the private property of Calev of that tribe; subsequently it became a city of priests, and eventually one of the cities of refuge. (Compare Bereshit Rabbah 58,4) This is why only its outskirts were given to Calev as is apparent from the wording in Joshua 21,12. Compare also in Baba Batra 122. ויבא אברהם, “Avraham arrived.” Some scholars claim that the term: ויבא, need not imply that the subject came from afar, even if he only came from the outside of the house this term is used as we know from Joseph’s entering Potiphar’s house where the Torah wrote: ויבא הביתה לעשות מלאכתו, “he entered the house in order to perform his tasks.” (Genesis 39,11) לספוד לשרה ולבכותה, “to eulogize Sarah and to weep over her loss.” He had not secured a suitable plot where to bury her.

ותמת שרה בקרית ארבע, “Sarah died there at Kiryat Arba, etc.” The main thrust of the verse is to alert us to the fact that this righteous woman died and was buried in Eretz Yisrael. The Torah emphasises that the place called קרית ארבע at that time was renamed חברון afterwards in order that no one should forget that we speak about a town inside Eretz Yisrael. At the conclusion of Sarah’s burial in verse 19, the Torah repeats once more that the cave of Machpelah where she is buried is situated היא חברון בארץ כנען, “at Chevron in the land of Canaan.” The Torah teaches that it was a great privilege to be buried in the same burial ground reserved for such outstanding individuals as Adam, Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, a place which would later on (28,17) be called “the gateway to heaven.” [The author apparently views the site where Yaakov had the dream as being Chevron rather than Mount Moriah. Ed.] The reason the town was called קרית ארבע, “the city of Four,” is because four pairs of outstanding human beings were buried in the cave of Machpelah there. They are: Adam and Chavah, Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, and Yaakov and Leah. The mystical dimension of the name חברון is that the soul of everyone buried in that cave joins (מתחבר) the celestial city of G’d, i.e. the four encampments of the שכינה. Our patriarchs would not have made great efforts to be buried there had they not been aware of a profound spiritual dimension involved. They knew that transfer to the עולם האמת from that site would be a crucial experience for them. It is the place from which the souls return to their origin, the throne of G’d’s’ glory. ויבא אברהם לספוד לשרה ולב-כ-ותה, “Avraham came to eulogise Sarah and to weep for her.” If it had been the intention of the Torah to inform us that Avraham came from elsewhere, i.e. from another town, the Torah would have written: “he came from such and such a place.” The meaning of the word ויבא is simply that Avraham roused himself (from his shock) in order to eulogise Sarah. When a person rouses himself to undertake a certain activity, this is described as בא אליה, “coming to it, i.e. coming to grips with the planned activity.” The Talmud in Tamid 4,3 when discussing the skinning and cutting up of animals which had been slaughtered in preparation for being offered on the altar, uses the expression בא לו לגרה והניח שתי צלעות, בא לו לעוקץ וגו', “when the officiating priest got ready to deposit two ribs near the neck, etc.” The expression בא לו cannot mean “that he came to a certain location,” as a single animal is discussed. All parts were in the same place. It must refer to something different. In Bechorot 20 we encounter Rabbi Akiva saying: לא באתי למדה זו, and it certainly cannot mean “I have not come to this measure,” or something similar. It is clear that the meaning of the word is: “I have not (yet) begun to work on this subject,” or something similar. In our verse too, the Torah describes that now Avraham would attend to the task of eulogising his wife. Had the meaning been that Avraham came from afar, the Torah would have written ויבא אברהם ויספוד את שרה, “Avraham came and eulogised Sarah.” The two words לספוד לשרה i.e. mentioning her name which was well known to all those present, need clarification. We would have expected simply לספדה ולבכותה, “to eulogise her and to weep for her.” The reason the Torah did not write this abbreviated version is that it is the custom of the professional eulogisers to again and again mention the name of the departed whom they eulogise. We find that when David eulogised King Shaul and his own intimate friend Yonathan, that he spoke of שאול ויהונתן הנאהבים והנעימים, “Shaul and Yonathan the beloved and the cherished ones.” Seeing that in the same chapter (Samuel II 1,18) David already had mentioned both Shaul and Yonathan by name, he could have now referred to them by the pronoun “they.” Nonetheless, during the course of that eulogy David mentions both Shaul and Yonathan by name no fewer than six times. In our verse, all the Torah had to write was that Avraham set out to “weep for her, and to bury her.” After all, burial is the principal act of true kindness one performs for one’s dead and concludes the acts of eulogising and weeping. Burying a human being is one of the great acts of kindness which G’d Himself performs on occasion. Had the Torah written the sequence of the words we mentioned, the impression this would have created amongst the readers would be that all these activities occurred one immediately after the other. The truth is that whereas eulogising and weeping occurred consecutively, there was quite an interval before Sarah was finally laid to rest. Avraham first had to secure a plot of land in which to bury Sarah. I believe further that if Avraham and Yitzchak came from out of town in order to eulogise Sarah, etc, then the Torah should have written that “Avraham and Yitzchak came to eulogise, etc.” Yitzchak most certainly should also have eulogised his mother and wept for her. In fact, his duty to do so would have been even greater than Avraham’s seeing that he was her flesh and blood. In addition, the love Sarah must have lavished on Yitzchak whom she bore after waiting for him for 90 years must certainly have evoked reciprocal feelings in Yitzchak so that he would have eulogised her. Perhaps, at this point in the story Yitzchak had not heard yet that his mother had died. Seeing that Sarah’s death had been attributed to the binding of Yitzchak, people might have tried to withhold the information from him as long as possible. This is most likely the reason why we do not hear a single word about Yitzchak in the whole paragraph, neither during the eulogy and weeping nor even during the burial ceremony. In fact, we have not heard a word about Yitzchak ever since he took part in the binding on the altar. Although Avraham had told the lads that both he and Yitzchak would return to them from the mountain, the Torah did not report that this happened. All we were told is that “Avraham returned to his lads” (22,19). We would have expected the Torah to write that “Avraham and Yitzchak returned to the lads.” Possibly, Yitzchak had decided to remain for some time on Mount Moriah until he became forty years of age when he married Rivkah. At that point the Torah does mention that Yitzchak had come from באר לחי רואי, “from the well of the Living One who Sees,” the well at which Hagar’s prayers had once been answered. According to Bereshit Rabbah 58,5 the words “Avraham came,” mean that he came from Mount Moriah, that Sarah heard about what had transpired there, as a result of which her soul departed from her. This is the reason why this paragraph follows the one of the binding of Yitzchak.

And Sarah died in Kiryat Arba, which is Hebron. The Yalkut concludes that this place had four names, and they are: Eshkol, Mamre, Kiryat Arba, and Hebron. I will propose a good reason and understanding for these four names, since this place was designated for burial, therefore it was called by four names that indicate four ways in which death occurs. For there is a death where a person dies for his own sin, as it is written for in his own sin he died (Numbers 27:3). And there is death due to the sins of others, such as children who are taken for the sins of their fathers, and the righteous who are taken for the sins of the generation. And there are those who run from the world without sin, due to natural death and the separation of the four elements, as it is natural that everything that is composed must eventually separate. And there is the death by divine kiss, which is the death of the righteous who die by kiss, and this is an expression of connection, and its meaning is when their thought and soul ascends and cleaves above to the Active Intellect — once it ascends it does not descend again, for his soul remains connected there. And corresponding to them came these four names, which relate to these types of death: Mamre corresponds to one who dies due to his own sin, derived from the phrase you were rebellious with God and from the term “rebellious elder.” Eshkol corresponds to one who dies due to the sins of others who are bereaved because of him, for one who buries his children is called bereaved, as it is said Why should I be bereaved of both of you in one day (Genesis 27:45). For this sinner and greatly rebellious one remains bereaved and alone from the one who died because of his sin. Therefore, they called that place Eshkol, because of the bereavement that was cut off from the world due to his sin. Kiryat Arba refers to natural death, the separation of the four elements, for a person is a small city and a “city of four.” Hebron refers to connection and death by divine kiss. And the death of the righteous Sarah was not due to the first two types which involve an aspect of sin, but rather due to the two types which run without sin. Therefore it says And Sarah died in Kiryat Arba which is Hebron — mentioning only these two names, because her death was of their type, namely through the separation of the four elements and through the divine kiss and connection as mentioned. And Abraham came to eulogize Sarah and to weep for her. The word for Sarah [leSarah] is inserted between connected words, as it should have said “to eulogize and to weep for Sarah.” Additionally, the entire phrasing seems superfluous as it could have simply said “to eulogize her and weep for her.” Furthermore, in every other instance, weeping precedes eulogizing, but here the order is reversed, as typically there are three days for weeping and seven for eulogizing (Moed Katan 27b). It appears that with every other death, mourning gradually decreases as everything is forgotten with time. However, with this righteous woman, each passing day they felt her absence more acutely, due to the loss of her Torah teachings and good deeds that were lost to her generation. Therefore, the eulogy preceded the weeping. Additionally, our Sages taught (Sanhedrin 22a) that when a man’s first wife dies, it is as if the Temple was destroyed in his days. Therefore, initially he came to eulogize Sarah for her own sake, but did not weep for her because he knew she had ascended to an exalted place in heaven, far more precious and honorable than her existence in this dark land (Jeremiah 2:31). Afterward, he wept for the Temple that was as if destroyed in his days, for even the angels of peace weep bitterly over its destruction, and thus they interpreted about him the verse my eye shall weep and shed tears (Jeremiah 13:17). This explains why the word for Sarah [leSarah] interrupts the flow: Because the weeping was over what appeared to him as the destruction of the Temple in his days, which was 100 cubits high. This is why there is an allusion in the small letter kaf [in the word velivkotah], as the letter kaf has a numerical value of 100, suggesting that these 100 cubits were diminished and made small. This is a precious allusion. In the Gemara, Sanhedrin (46b), they raised a question: Is a eulogy for the honor of the living or for the honor of the dead? The conclusion was that a eulogy is for the honor of the dead. Therefore, it states “to eulogize Sarah,” indicating that the eulogy was for her honor. Another explanation for why it mentions “Sarah” [specifically] is to tell you that he [Abraham] did not eulogize her essential being, because he knew that only her temporal sun had set in this world, while she continues to eat from the fruits of her good deeds in the World to Come. Rather, he eulogized her name, for she was a “Sarah” [meaning princess/leader] over the entire world through her wisdom. And woe to her generation who lost such leadership due to her wisdom and deeds. But regarding weeping for her, he wept only a small cry, because she was righteous and was content with a small measure of satisfaction. Therefore, such righteous people enjoyed the measure of a small spoon [kaf] in this world and inherit the World to Come, and consequently are not subject to the punishment of the “sling [kaf]” [being cast about after death], as it is written: The soul of my master will be bound in the bundle of life… but the souls of your enemies He will sling out as from the hollow of a sling (1 Samuel 25:29) — referring to Gehenna. Another explanation for why the letter kaf [in the word וְלִבְכֹּתָה] is written small is that it alludes to the fact that Sarah died due to the serpent’s actions, which had caused death to Adam who was originally created [so tall that he reached] from one end of the heavens to the other. Through the sin involving the serpent, Adam was diminished and reduced to [a height of] 100 cubits, as it is said And You placed Your kaf [palm] upon me (Psalms 139:5) — where kaf represents the number 100. And because man was diminished and set at the numerical value of kaf [=100], from then on his strength was weakened and he became susceptible to death.

ויבא אברהם, “Avraham came, etc.” According to Rashi he came from Beer Sheva. Nachmanides adds that Rashi did not mean to imply that at that time Avraham resided in Beer Sheva on a permanent basis, whereas Sarah had resided in Kiryat Arba, (Chevron) as it is quite inconceivable that Avraham and Sarah lived in different locations from each. Avraham heard the news of Sarah’s death while he was in Beer Sheva on “business.” Some commentators think that Avraham at the time was in the process of establishing residence in Beer Sheva, and had wanted to prepare everything before bringing Sarah there also. According to the Bereshit Rabbah, Avraham arrived on his returned from Mount Moriah to find that Sarah had died from the distress that Yitzchok had been sacrificed. Nachmanides writes that according to the report in the Torah the commandment to offer up Yitzchok as a burnt offering was issued when Avraham was in Beer Sheva, where he resided at the time. This was the meaning of 22,34-35 “he planted an orchard in Beer Sheva and he resided there for many years.” This is why it took him three days to get to Chevron, seeing that the land of the Philistines was not that close to Chevron. If Avraham would have had to return from Mount Moriah to Chevron it would not have taken more than a single day at most, whereas the Toah reports that it took him three days to reach Mount Moriah on his way to binding Yitzchok on the altar there. If the Midrash were correct in saying that Sarah died [precisely during the time Avraham performed the binding of Yitzchok, we must assume that at the time of the Akeydah, Avraham and Sarah had both lived in Chevron, so that the meaning of 22,4 “it was on the third day (of Avraham and Yitzchok’s journey to Mount Moriah) must be that G’d for reasons best known to Him, did not want Avraham to locate the mountain until the third day of his journey. He had been walking in the neighbourhood until G’d indicated to him which of the mountains He had had in mind. The reason that he went to Beer Sheva after the binding of Yitzchok was to give thanks for the miracle he had been allowed to experience, and while there the news of Sarah’s death reached him. It is the consensus of all the commentators that Avraham was not at home at the time that Sarah died. My personal opinion is that Sarah had a tent which served as her home as well as the home for her maidservants. She died within her own tent, and the words ויבא אברהם simply mean that he came to her tent upon hearing what had happened It is also possible that the term described Avraham’s preparation to eulogize Sarah appropriately. Whenever a person prepares himself to carry out a certain assignment, the term used to describe the preparation for such an undertaking is ויבא, He came, i.e., “he became ready.” In my opinion, it is most unlikely that the word ויבא means that Avraham came from another city, as the Torah would have mentioned from which city Avraham had to come in order to make burial arrangements for Sarah. לספוד לשרה ולבכותה, “to eulogize Sarah and to weep for her.” At this point the Torah does not add the words: “and to bury her,” as he had not yet secured a suitable site where to bury her.

Abraham rose from before his dead and spoke with the sons of Heth, saying:

"Before his dead" — an allusion to the body. A further explanation is to be found in what follows.

מעל פני מתו, וידבר אל בני חת. As long as he had not buried Sarah he was not yet a mourner in the technical meaning of the word. He was therefore able to leave his house and assemble the people of the town.

מעל פני מתו, From before his dead one. It is assumed that the "dead one" was aware of what went on around her as long as the lid had not been put on the casket or equivalent (compare Shabbat 152). This also teaches that the dead is to lie on his back (Baba Batra 74). וידבר אל בני חת לאמור. He spoke to the Hittites, to say. The word לאמור is to counteract the impression that Abraham asked for something gratis when he said: תנו לי, "give me permanent possession, etc!" Abraham would not be satisfied with just any gift the Hittites were willing to give him, but this was only an introduction to negotiations leading to the acquisition of the cave of Machpelah. Furthermore, the Torah wanted to explain why Abraham needed to speak to the Hittites, when the land in question belonged to one man only, and the whole transaction should have been simple and uncomplicated. A cave, unlike a field, could not be worked like a field, was not useful to its owner to build on, etc.; therefore normal proof of ownership might be difficult to establish by his heirs in the future. This is why Abraham wanted everybody present as witnesses. The purchase would be fully valid and would not ever be contested after all these preconditions had been met. Abraham also wanted to refute any suggestion that he wanted something for nothing. By saying לאמור, he indicated that he would negotiate (establish a price) for this acquisiton.

ויקם אברהם מעל פני מתו... וידבר אל בני חת, “Avraham rose up from the presence of his dead and he spoke to the Hittites, etc.” The local inhabitants were members of the tribe of the Hittites. The Torah had reported in Genesis 10,15 that Chet (Heth) was one of the sons of Canaan. All of the tribes residing in the land described as the “land of Canaan,” were sons of Canaan, the grandson of Noach. The Torah taught us something concerning good manners, namely, that if one addresses an assembly of people one needs to be standing upright rather than sitting down. The Torah repeats the formula ויקם אברהם, “Avraham rose, etc.” again in verses 7-8. It appears to have been an established custom that when an individual addressed a community that the individual first rose in order to do so. When he concluded whatever he had to say, he would resume his seat. When Avraham referred to himself as a resident stranger (verse four), he did so while standing up. In verse five he apparently already resumed his seat. Had he not done so, why would verse 7 again mention that Avraham rose, etc.? Whenever Avraham wanted to say something in front of the people assembled at “the gate of the city,” he rose from his seat first. As to the unusual masculine construction in the words מעל פני מתו instead of מתה seeing that Sarah had been a female, the reason for this is that the word גוף, body, is masculine. Now that Sarah had died, she was only a body. The soul of a person does not die. Hence, the word מתו is absolutely appropriate here.

"I am a sojourner and a resident among you. Grant me a burial holding among you, so that I may bury my dead from before me."

גר ותושב אנכי עמכם I AM A STRANGER AND A SETTLER WITH YOU — A stranger having come from another land, but I have settled down amongst you. A Midrashic explanation is: if you agree to sell me the land then I will regard myself as a stranger and will pay for it, but if not, I shall claim it as a settler and will take it as my legal right, because the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me, (12:7) “Unto thy seed I give this land" (Genesis Rabbah 58:6). אחזת קבר A POSSESSION OF A BURYING PLACE — means possession of land to serve as a burying place.

I AM A STRANGER AND SOJOURNER WITH YOU. It was customary for them to have separate burial grounds for each family and one burial ground for the internment of all strangers. Now Abraham said to the children of Heth: “I am a stranger from another land and have not inherited a burial ground in this land from my ancestors. Now I am a sojourner with you since I have desired to dwell in this land. Therefore give me a burying-place for an everlasting possession just as one of you.” However, since Abraham used the word “t’nu (give), [which has the same root as matanah,” (gift)], they suspected that he desired it from them as a gift. They therefore answered him: “You are not regarded by us as a stranger or sojourner. Rather, you are a king. G-d has made you king over us, and we and our land are subservient to you. Take any burial ground you desire, and bury your dead there. It shall be unto you a possession of a burial-place forever since no one of us shall withhold it from you.”

"Ger alone" — he is the one who lodges temporarily, while "toshav" is the resident alien who dwells in the land. He said: Behold, I am a toshav among you, and death is decreed upon all of us, yet I have no place that is mine as an estate — like an inheritance — or a place I can acquire with money to serve as a burial site for my dead.

גר ותושב, because I used to be a stranger here, I do not possess an ancestral burial ground. The word is used in this sense by Isaiah 22,16 ומי לך פה כי חצבת לך פה קבר, “whom have you here that you have hewn out a tomb for yourself here?” תנו לי אחוזת קבר, “be agreeable to that I should possess a burial plot among you.”

גר ותושב אנכי. "I am a stranger and resident. Abraham's description of his legal status is based on Maimonides Hilchot Zechiyah U-matanah 3,11: Whereas one must not give a gift to an idolator, one may either give a gift or sell to a resident stranger (גר תושב) because the Torah writes: "the resident stranger let live by your side" (Leviticus 25,35). We need to appreciate that our holy Torah applies reason, and especially so in our conduct on this earth. Just as we Jews are commanded to deal with resident strangers in a humane manner, so reason dictates that people all over the earth should conduct themselves with one another in a like manner. It is a universal obligation to enable resident strangers to live undisturbed and to be able to receive gifts. It is this principle Abraham alluded to when he said: גר ותושב אנכי תנו לי, "since I am a resident stranger, give me, etc." He made a point of using the word גר, alien, not just תושב, resident, in order to emphasise that though he was an alien, the fact that he resided amongst them entitled him to what he requested. There is a spiritual dimension to Abraham describing himself as an alien. He did not consider it seemly for a human being to describe himself as a "resident" on this earth, seeing that he looked forward to a permanent status in another, higher life. ואקברה מתי מלפני, "so I may bury my dead one from before me." Abraham meant that he wanted to bury Sarah without delay. Furthermore, Abraham knew already that he would have to pay Efron a substantial price for a field not worth a fraction of the asking price, because it contained something he wanted. At the same time, he realised that once the local people would hear of the price he was prepared to pay they would conclude there must be a hidden treasure beneath that field that they did not know about. In order to forestall such speculations by the local population he emphasised already at this stage that he was only concerned with burying Sarah forthwith i.e. מלפני, and that because of the urgency of the matter he could not afford to haggle over the price. Under such circumstances, it did not matter how much he would have to pay, the locals would not mind and would not suspect him of ulterior motives.

גר ותושב אנכי עמכם, “I am a stranger as well as a resident amongst you.” A stranger because I came from a foreign land – and a resident because I intend to settle amongst you. Rashi suggests that Avraham also implied that if he were to be denied his request he would insist on his legal rights in the matter (by simply becoming a permanent resident). If you were to point out that according to what Rashi had explained on Genesis 13,7 where the Canaanites are described as the then residents of that land, that had been before he had become a father of children. (Such people cannot claim permanent resident status.) After all, G-d had not promised Avraham that he would inherit this land. He had only promised it to Avraham’s descendants. Now that Yitzchok had been born, he was entitled to inherit part of the Land. תנו לי אחוזת קבר, “give me a burial plot that will have the status of ancestral ownership.” Avraham meant that it would not be satisfactory to bury Sarah in a piece of land that was privately owned at that time, as the present owner or his heir could demand at any time in the future to plough over her remains and scatter her bones. However, if he would let me acquire a plot of land for a burial site I would not worry that he would plough it.

תנו לי אחוזת קבר עמכם, “let me have possession of a burial ground amongst you, etc.” It was the custom for every family to have its own field as a burial ground for its members, whereas they had set aside a special plot of land on which to bury aliens. This is what prompted Avraham to use the preamble: גר ותושב אנכי עמכם, “on the one hand I am an alien, seeing that I have come here from a distant land, and this is why I do not own a burial plot of my own. On the other hand, I have been very willing to become a resident amongst you, etc.” They answered him: “Listen to us, my lord etc.” On the one hand they addressed him as a group, saying: “listen to us.” On the other hand, they continued with the singular “my lord.” The reason for this was that a single individual was conducting this conversation though he spoke in the name of a multitude. When this individual, i.e. the spokesman, continued by saying: “you are a prince in our midst, choose from the choicest of our burial grounds, etc.,” adding the compliment: “you are a prince of G’d,” he spoke in the name of the people who had made him their spokesman. The term גר, “stranger, alien,” is demeaning, whereas the expression נשיא אלוהים אתה בתוכנו, “you are a prince of G’d amongst us,” is a compliment, contrasting Avraham’s stature amongst them with that of a stranger. They suggested that they themselves as well as their land was at Avraham’s disposal. (compare Genesis 47,19 where loss of land is equated with the status of subservience). As a result of their considering Avraham as royalty, he had the right to choose whatever piece of land he desired as his burial ground. Nobody would deny him even land he had previously reserved for his own eventual interment. When Avraham heard this, he immediately responded with the words: “if indeed you wish me to bury my dead, etc.” He meant that he had no intention of burying his dead in any unknown field; rather, he had a particular spot in mind for which they needed to speak to Efron son of Tzochar, the owner of that particular piece of property. This is Nachmanides’ version of what transpired here.

גר ותושב אנכי עמכם, “I am both a stranger and a resident amongst you.” What he meant was that as far as not having been born in the land of Canaan he was a “stranger,” so that he did not have a piece of earth that would serve as his burial ground by right. If he were to bury Sarah on a piece of land belonging to someone else, that someone could raise valid objections and even dig up the soil forcing him to rebury Sarah elsewhere. Nachmanides understands the prevailing custom as each family owning burial plots for members of their respective families, whereas for strangers (not born locally) there was a mass grave where all such people would be interred. Avraham pointed out that as far as local custom was concerned he was indeed a stranger, though he had lived in this land for over 60 years. Still, he had not inherited a burial site from his father as he had not lived in the land of Canaan. He now requested that he be given the benefits of the status of a resident. He did not want to deprive anyone of part of their ancestral holdings, but he required to own in perpetuity, in a manner that could not be challenged, a piece of ground wherein to bury his wife. The local inhabitants were under the mistaken impression that he requested to be given such a piece of land for free, seeing Avraham had used the expression תנו לי, “give me.” This is why they responded that his standing was such that no one would refuse to give him even a site he had earmarked for his own burial in the future. Such a piece of burial ground would indeed be deeded to him in perpetuity. Other commentators hold that just as Avraham had used the term תנו לי, “give to me,” as a figure of speech, never intending to receive such as a present, so when the locals used the same expression they also did not mean literally to give him such a burial place. When they used the expression במבחר קברנו, they did not refer to the “choicest,” but to a random grave site belonging to some family without adding anything about the final status of such a piece of land. Avraham paid strict attention to the nuances in the Hittites’ offer and proceeded to offer generous payment.

The sons of Heth answered Abraham, saying to him:

ויענו בני חת…לאמור לו. The Hittites answered, …to say to him. This means they appointed a single spokesman to speak on their behalf. It also means that they were not unanimous in their approach to the matter of the sale. As a result they delegated someone to "speak to him" i.e. without making an immediate and final commitment. The eventual outcome already indicates that it was their original intention to exact a very substantial price.

ויענו בני חת, “the members of the tribe of the Hittites, replied;” on these words Rabbi Elazar commented that untold numbers of pens have been broken and untold amounts of ink have been used up for the Torah to repeat the expression בני חת, “the members of the tribe of the Hittites, in this paragraph no fewer than ten times. Our sages say that we learn from here that anyone who assists a righteous person to receive his due share is viewed as if he had observed the commandments in all the Five Books of Moses. We find in Kings II 4,42, as similar –apparently unnecessary repetition- when told: ואיש בא מבעל שלשה ויבא לאיש האלוקים לחם, בכורים, עשרים לחם שעורים וכרמל בצקלו ויאמר: תן לעם ויאכלו. “A man came from Baal-shalisha and he brought the man of G–d some bread from the first reaping- twenty loaves of barley bread and some fresh grain, in his sack; and Elisha said: give it to the people to eat.” (The prophet in this paragraph was Elisha) Anyone reading this paragraph must wonder was Elisha then a priest that the bikkurim would be brought to him? The answer given is that when someone brings a Torah scholar a gift it is considered by our sages as if that person had personally erected the Temple and had offered the first fruit, bikkurim, therein (Talmud tractate Ketuvot folio 105). We find a third occasion when unnecessary repetition seems to occur in the Bible in the Book of Joshua (Joshua 7,10) in connection with Achan who had stolen from the loot of Jericho; in that report the word גם is repeated five times, though it could easily been avoided. On that occasion our sages interpret the constant repetition of the word גם by saying that it teaches that if someone steals property belonging to the Temple treasure it is considered as if he had transgressed all the commandments of the Five Books of Moses. Another way of looking at this particular example: If you take the respective first and last letters in the last letter of each of the five Books of Moses, i.e. the letters ב-ם from the last word in the Book of Genesis במצרים, plus the letters מ-ם in the word מסעיהם at the end of the Book of Exodus, plus the letters ס-י from the word סיני at the end of the Book of Leviticus, plus the two letters י-ר of the word יריחו at the end of the Book of Numbers, i.e. ס-י from the word סיני at the end of the Book of Numbers, plus the letters י-ל from the word ישראל at the end of the Book of Deuteronomy you will have the numerical value of the word חרם=248. The sin of Achan was stealing from חרם, from what belongs to G–d. (Attributed to Sefer Chassidim page 106, (in the edition with Rabbi Price’s commentary)

"Accept from us, our lord — you are a great one before Hashem among us. In the choicest of our burial places bury your dead. None of us will withhold his burial place from you to prevent you from burying your dead."

לא יכלה means will not withhold, just as (Psalms 40:12) “Thou wilt not withhold (תכלא) Thy mercies”, and (Genesis 8:2) “And the rain was restrained (ויכלא).

"My lord" — not "our lord," this being the speech of a single speaker. It is not the way of courtesy to make others partners with him. "A prince of God" — an expression of greatness, because you are a prophet. "Withhold" (יִכְלֶה) means to prevent; it can be found spelled with a final heh or a final alef.

במבחר קברנו קבור, “do not wait until the formalities of the purchase have been completed, but go ahead and bury Sarah.” This corresponds to a statement by our sages in Moed Katan 22 על כל המתים כולן מדחה מטתו, “it behooves us to bury all the dead with dispatch, without undue delay.”

שמענו אדוני, "listen to us my lord;" they meant: "please listen to our suggestion to select the best of our burial grounds and go ahead and bury your dead one. You do not have to ask permission from any individual to give you his plot without a fair equivalent." The reason for all this is that "not one of us would refuse you even the plot he had selected for his own burial." They said so in order to expedite Sarah's burial. The expression אדני simply means "my lord," and does not represent a name of G'd.

נשיא אלוהים, “a prince of G-d;” they answered his first statement first when he had described his status as either that of a stranger or resident, by saying that he was much more than that. They considered him as if G-d Himself had sent him. As far as his second request was concerned that he needed to acquire ancestral rights to any burial plot so as to safeguard it to being ploughed over in the future by its previous owner, every one of them would be willing to deed to him the plot that he had already chosen for himself his own future burial plot. He should meanwhile proceed to bury his dead and they would it consider an honour to have Sarah buried in a plot that had once belonged to one of them. איש את קברו, even if Avraham, by chance would select a plot that one of them had already earmarked as his own future burial ground.

Abraham rose and bowed down to the people of the land, to the sons of Heth.

The grammatical analysis of "and he bowed" (וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ) is in the book Ha-Yesod. Those who say that his prostration was toward Hashem have said nothing, for the text explicitly states that he bowed before the sons of Heth. Bowing means that he bowed his head, and this is the manner of one who gives honor to another. Indeed, Moses too bowed before his father-in-law.

וישתחו לעם הארץ לבני חת. He bowed to the notables present, seeing they represented the whole population.

ויקם…וישתחו… He arose and bowed down. Abraham explained to them that the reality was the exact opposite of what the Hittites thought. He did not consider himself as a prince amongst them; on the contrary, he considered them as deserving more honour than himself.

“Avraham stood up and prostrated himself;” Avraham was dependent on the goodwill of everyone in that town; even if Efron had been willing to sell his field or plot Avraham would have needed all the townspeople’s permission to convert it into a burial site. Avraham had to first arise in order to prostrate himself in the appropriate manner to all of them, even to the one sitting behind him. But for a single individual such as Efron he was not required to rise, he just prostrated himself before him.

He spoke with them, saying: "If it is your will to allow me to bury my dead from before me, accept from me and intercede for me with Ephron son of Zohar,

נפשכם means YOUR WILL. ופגעו לי — This phrase signifies entreaty, as (Ruth 1:16) “Do not entreat (תפגעי) me”.

IF IT BE YOUR MIND TO BURY MY DEAD FROM BEFORE ME. The intent thereof is: “I will not bury my dead in another burial ground. However if it be your desire that I bury my dead, entreat for me to Ephron who has a cave at the end of his field, which is not used as his family burial-place but as a field.” The meaning of the word milphanai, (from before me), is that if you will not do so I will entomb her in a casket. It may be that it means “my dead wife who is before me, and as an obligation I must hurry to bury her.” The reason Abraham requested, and entreat for me, is that Ephron was a rich and distinguished person, as is indicated by his saying, What is that between me and thee?: Land worth four hundred shekels of silver — what is that between me and thee? It would therefore not be to his honor to sell his ancestral inheritance, as was the case with Naboth of Jezreel. It was for this reason that Abraham did not go to Ephron to offer him an inflated price for the field, but instead he asked of the people of the city to entreat to him [Ephron] on his behalf in an honorable way.

אם יש את נפשכם לקבור, if you want that I shall bury the dead without delay, as you have indicated when you said: במבחר קברנו קבור!" (verse 6) i.e. that I would not need to wait. שמעוני, agree with me that I shall receive an inalienable burial plot. ופגעו לי בעפרון, that he will sell me this cave even though it is not an agreeable thing for a highly placed person to sell any portion of his land-holdings. We know this from Navot (Kings I 21,3) who had been aghast at the suggestion of selling his vineyard to the king. His precise words were: חלילה לי מתתי את נחלת אבותי לך, “far be it from me to give you any part of my ancestral heritage.”

וידבר… אם יש את נפשכם. He said: "If it be your desire, etc." This may be understood similarly to what we are taught in Baba Batra 36: Members of the exilarch's household were not permitted to keep land merely as a result of having occupied it although no protest had been registered as the true owners were afraid to do so. The latter were advised to retain their documents proving their title to those lands. On the other hand, landowners were not in the habit of immediately protesting when rich people squatted on their land as they hoped the improvements made by the illegal squatters would eventually benefit them when they reclaimed their property. When the Hittites addressed Abraham as "a prince of G'd," claiming that not one of them would deny Abraham his own burial plot, they could have alluded to either of two scenarios. 1) They described him as a great and powerful individual who was able to impose his will on the local population. They indicated that Abraham was aware that no one would dare protest what he set out to do. Just because he was a man of such calibre the usual practice of acquiring land by occupying it and no one protesting did not apply to him. As soon as they would feel powerful enough they would feel free to remove the body Abraham had buried on that land. What they conveyed was that their approval was only due to Abraham representing superior force. 2) A second way of interpreting the Hittites' response is as follows: Inasmuch as you are "a prince of G'd," you need not fear that we look upon you as a person who throws his weight around such as in the example quoted from the Talmud. Whereas the people in the household of the exilarch were suspected of robbery, no such motive would ever be attributed to Abraham. Abraham's righteousness was beyond question. Perhaps they used the word שמענו, "listen to us," in order to underline that they considered Abraham beyond reproof. Hearing this, Abraham responded: "if you truly wish me to bury my dead, etc." please act as brokers between me and Efron. Had it not been for the latter words of Abraham we would have been forced to conclude that the Hittites' offer was something based on duress.

ופגעו לי בעפרון, “and entreat Efron on my behalf;” if you were to ask why all this was necessary after he had been offered the choice of many grave sites by the assembled people, the reason could be that Efron was himself not a member of the Hittites, as were the townspeople, so that they could not have spoken in his name also. He had come from afar and settled in Kiryat Arba and after having dwelled there they elected him as their president.

that he give me the cave of Machpelah, which belongs to him, which is at the edge of his field. For the full price in silver let him give it to me in your midst as a burial holding."

המכפלה MACHPELAH (the root, כפל, means double) — it had a lower and an upper cavern. Another explanation of why it was so called is, because it has the characteristic of being doubled on account of the couples who are buried there (see Rashi in verse 2) (Eruvin 53a). בכסף מלא FOR ITS FULL VALUE IN SILVER — מלא means שלם so that the phrase means all that it is worth. Thus, too, did David say to Ornan, (1 Chronicles 21:22) “for full money”.

THAT HE MAY GIVE ME. The intent of this is “that he may give it to me in such a way that I will consider it as a gift (even) if I will buy it from him for its full value.” It is for this reason that Abraham did not mention the word “selling.” A similar usage is found in the verse, Thou shalt sell me food for money, that I may eat; and give me water for money, that I may drink, meaning “for the water which is usually given as a gift I will give money.” It may be that such is the ordinary usage of the language to mention “giving” when describing sales transactions. THE CAVE OF MACHPELAH. Rashi comments: “It had a lower and an upper cave. Another explanation [of why it was called Machpelah — the root of which is keiphel (double)] — is that it was ‘doubled’ on account of the four couples who were buried there: Adam and Eve, Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, Jacob and Leah”. But this is incorrect since Scripture states, the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah. here. Thus we see that it is the name of the place in which the field was located, and there is no need to search for a reason for the names of places. In Bereshith Rabbah, the Sages have said:10. “The Holy One, blessed be He, bent double the stature of the first man and He buried him there.” In their opinion, this entire place was always called Machpelah though the people did not know the reason for it for Ephron sold him everything for the price of the field unaware that there was a grave in it. Abraham, on the other hand, desired only that he should sell him the cave which was in the end of the field, and the field might be retained by Ephron. But Ephron by way of good conduct or trickery, [possibly hoping to receive a higher price for the larger transaction], said that he would give him the field and the cave which was in it since it would be unbecoming for such an honorable person to own the cave as a possession for a burial-place while the field belonged to another. Abraham rejoiced at this suggestion, and he purchased it in its entirety for the price that Ephron mentioned.

"The cave of Machpelah" — a cave within a cave. "At the full price" (בְּכֶסֶף מָלֵא) — the opposite is "lacking" (חָסֵר).

מערת המכפלה, a place known as machpela. Compare verse 17 ויקם שדה עפרון אשר במכפלה אשר בקצה שדהו, “Efron’s field which is situated in machpela at the edge of his field, stood, etc.” The details provided by the Torah are intended to prove to us, the reader, that by selling the cave to Avraham Efron did not suffer any loss of face, he had no reason to feel embarrassed about what he had done. בכסף מלא, I do not want that he grant me a reduction from its real worth as a gesture to you. בתוככם, in the presence of all of you. I do not ask for time to come up with the payment but am willing to pay cash at once. Compare verse 16 where Avraham does in fact pay cash immediately. לאחוזת קבר, Avraham wanted complete freedom to do what he wanted to in the property once he had acquired it. This is the privilege granted to anyone owning an ancestral heritage. Avraham wanted it understood that as a result of the sale Efron would not be able to dictate to him how close to his own property Sarah or other members of his family could be buried.

ויתן לי את מערת המכפלה, So that he may give me the cave of Machpelah. Abraham made a point of describing the transaction as a gift though perfectly aware that money would be changing hands, as indicated by the words "for full monetary value." Abraham was astute enough to purchase the cave in such a way that any future complaint was out of the question. He was also careful to add the words: "in your midst." The Zohar 1,128 points out that Efron never saw anything in that cave except darkness and calamity. This being so, Efron could have claimed later that in view of his having been unaware of the true value of the cave, his consent to sell it was based on a false premise, and he could have reversed the sale. This in spite of the rule that there is no validity to a claim of land having been over or underpriced at the time of sale. Abraham still worried about an idea expressed in the Jerusalem Talmud (compare Tossaphot Kidushin 42) that if the undercharge was 50% or more the sale is reversible although it is not reversible when the amount of the undercharge was between 15% and 50%. There was also the concern that landowners of the adjoining property could claim that the land should have been sold to them in preference to an outsider, something known in Jewish law as דין המצר. Another consideration of Abraham was that after the transfer of the cave someone might present a lien dated prior to the transaction which would require him to give up his claim. For all these reasons Abraham used both the expression of "gift" and "sale" when referring to the way he wanted to acquire the cave. This would protect his claim also under the heading of what is known in Jewish law as דין חליפין, i.e. acquisition by means of a symbolic transfer. Under this heading there is no such law as אונאה, reversal of the sale due to unfair pricing. This דין חליפין applies to transactions involving either real estate or chattels whereas such acquisition by a symbol representing the ultimate object does not apply to money, i.e. coins. Hence Abraham's reference to receiving the land as a gift. Our sages in Bechorot 50 phrased it thus: Rabbi Chaninah stated that every time the word "כסף" i.e. silver or money appears in the Torah, the meaning is "סלעים", 25 silver coins of a standard denomination; the exception is the use of the word "shekel" in connection with the transaction involving Abraham and Efron. In that instance the meaning is קנטרין, a coin weighing four times the usual weight of the "shekel." This is the meaning of the Torah (Genesis 23,15) defining the "shekel" as being "four hundred shekel acceptable at any merchant." The fact that Efron arbitrarily changed the usual definition of the value of the "shekel," made the transaction unassailable in the future seeing he himself had set the terms of the sale. Concerning Abraham's fear that the דין מצר might be invoked by a neighbour in the future, Abraham ensured the presence and consent of all the local populace who would jointly act as his broker in the transaction. This would preclude any claim at a later date. It also demonstrated that there was no outstanding lien against the property as any such lienholder should have spoken up at that time, seeing he was present. Abraham used the term אחוזת קבר, "a burial plot held in perpetuity," leaving Efron the option to use the remainder of the field if he so chose. Had Abraham not used the term אחוזה, Efron could have denied him access to Sarah's grave once he had buried her there.

ויתן לי, “so that he will give me, etc.” Avraham never suggested that he wanted the cave of Machpelah as a gift; on the contrary, he considered that even after having paid a substantial amount of money for it, he would still view this as a gift bestowed upon him by Efron. בקצה שדהו, “at the edge of his field;” in other words, using of that corner as a burial ground will not interfere with his having continued full use of his field for agricultural purposes.

ויתן לי את מערת המכפלה, “so that he may give me the cave Machpelah which adjoins his field.” The reason it was called מכפלה is related to the expression כפל, “double.” Apparently G’d had “doubled” the height of the cave in order to bury Adam’s remains inside it. The local residents had been unaware of this. Efron himself was also unaware of any special significance of the cave in spite of its name. He had had no reason to suspect who, if anybody, had previously been buried inside that cave. [Seeing that this had occurred before the deluge, how could anybody have been aware, unless Noach had found the land of Israel intact after the deluge. Ed.] When Avraham repeatedly spoke about Efron “giving” him the cave, he did not mean that he was unwilling to pay for it. He meant that he would consider transfer of the title to that cave to him as a gift, regardless of any commercial transaction they would conclude concerning it. In order not to be misunderstood, Avraham added the words (verse nine) בכסף מלא יתננה לי, “in return for full monetary compensation he shall give it to me.” Avraham neither asked for a gift, nor even for the field (which would have meant a loss to Efron, [seeing he could no longer till it. Ed.] All he asked for was the cave at the edge of Efron’s field. Efron’s answer was couched in ethical/moral terms. “I have donated the field to you as well as the cave which is situated on it; it would not be fitting for someone of your stature to own merely the cave and not the field of which it is part.” He continued: “this is why I have given you the whole package as a gift, field as well as cave.” When Efron used the expression “I have given,” he meant “it is equivalent to a gift.” Avraham took him up on this expression and that is why he said: “I have given the money for the field, take it from me,” although Efron had not even named his price yet (verse thirteen). The entire transaction was intended to create the impression that Avraham had received a tremendous bargain by being allowed to pay an outrageous price.

את מערת המכפלה,”the cave Machpelah;” Rashi explains the word מכפלה as related to כפול, double, and that it was named so because couples were buried side by side, starting with Adam and his wife Chavah. Nachmanides disagrees seeing that the Torah described it as שדה עפרון אשר במכפלה, “the field of Efron situated at Machpelah.” The phrasing makes it clear that “Machpelah” is the name of a location that contained the cave. There is no need to investigate why certain locations had been named in a certain manner by the locals of the time In Bereshit Rabbah, 23,8 we are told that G’d miraculously reduced the size of Adam’s body when he died so, that the cave could accommodate his earthly remains. If so, the name Machpelah dates back to the time of Adam’s burial in that cave. Clearly, this had not been known to Efron as he would have multiplied the amount he asked for that cave from Avraham had he known that the first human being had been buried in that cave. אשר בקצה שדהו, “which is at the edge of his field.” Avraham mentioned this, implying that his burying Sarah there would not in the least interfere with Efron’s activities on the field itself. Avraham would not even need to walk across the field as it was situated at the edge, allowing access from another direction. Avraham requested to purchase only the cave from Efron, leaving him in possession of the adjoining field. Efron, ingeniously, implying that it would be unseemly for a distinguished personage such as Avraham to bury his dead in a cave without having title to the adjoining land, suggested that he would deed to him both cave and field. Avraham replied that he had already set aside the money required to purchase the entire field. [He had realised that the price was likely to be sky high. Ed.]

Now Ephron was sitting among the sons of Heth. And Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham before the sons of Heth, before all who entered the gate of his city, saying:

ועפרון ישב The verb is written without a ו so that it may be read ישב he sat, thus indicating that on that very day they had appointed him (Ephron) to be an officer over them. Because of the high standing of Abraham who needed to negotiate with him, he was elevated to a dignified position (so that Abraham whom they esteemed as a great prince might have to negotiate with an equal and not with an inferior person (Genesis Rabbah 58:7). לכל באי שער עירו OF ALL THAT CAME IN AT THE GATE OF HIS CITY — for they all left their work and came to pay their last respect to Sarah (Genesis Rabbah 58:7).

ועפרון יושב בתוך בני חת, “Efron was sitting among the Hittites (as if he were also a Hittite), like the Shunammite in II Kings 4.13.”

לכל באי שער עירו, “in the presence of all the assembled citizens of the his town.´ In connection with the dealings of Chamor and Shechem with their subjects, the Torah uses the expression לכל יוצאי שער עירו, “in the presence of all the inhabitants of his town who had come out (to the square)”. Avraham wanted to publicise his request for a burial ground even to people who were not residents of the region. The relatives of Efron, or anyone who would witness the transaction were disqualified as witnesses, whereas total strangers were fit to testify to the transaction legally.

"No, my lord — accept from me: the field I give to you, and the cave that is in it I give to you. In the sight of the sons of my people I give it to you. Bury your dead."

לא אדני NAY, MY LORD — You are not to buy it with money. נתתי לך I HAVE GIVEN IT TO THEE (a perfect tense) — See, it is as though I have already given it to you.

IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SONS OF MY PEOPLE. The intent thereof is to state: “Behold, all the people are present, and they are knowledgeable witnesses to the sale. Therefore do not fear denial or retraction, and so bury thy dead from now on, for it is yours and I cannot retract.” But Abraham did not do so for even after he paid its full value in silver he first took symbolic legal possession of the field and the cave. He established them as his possession in the presence of the people of the city, and all those who came in at the gate of the city, here. the merchants and the residents who happened to be there, and after that he buried her.

"No, my lord, hear me" — the meaning is: not so, my lord; rather, hear me.

No, my master, hear me. There is no need for the leaders of the community to intercede with me. Listen to me; I have given you the field. In my mind I gave it to you the moment you spoke. והמערה אשר בו, “and the cave which is in it, since it is not proper that you should have to cross someone else’s property in order to get to the grave of your wife. Therefore, לעיני בני עמי נתתיה לך קבור מתך, I am telling you in the presence of all my people that I have given it to you in order that you may bury your dead there, just as you asked when you referred to אחוזת קבר.”

לא אדוני, "No my lord." The word "no" means that Abraham could not merely acquire the cave but had to buy the field it was situated on. Efron indicated that the reason he had decided to give the whole field to Abraham was that once it served as a cemetry it could not longer serve its original purpose. He implied all this by using the word שמעני, "listen to me carefully." והמערה אשר בו, "as well as the cave situated on it." He meant that already at the very beginning of the discussions when the local people had indicated their willingness to relinquish their own burial plots in favour of Abraham, he, Efron had decided that the cave and the field were a single unit. The reason he repeated the fact that the transaction took place in full view of all the people was to make plain that no דין מצר could be invoked by anyone in the future.

השדה נתתי לך, “I have given you the field;” Efron pointed out that unless he gave Avraham not only the cave of Machpelah but also his adjoining field, Avraham would have no access to the cave. (without asking permission to visit there each time).

לעיני בני עמי, “in full view of all my people.” He called upon everyone present to be a witness to the transaction. He implied that everyone knew that he, Avraham, would not renege on an offer made by himself. In fact, as soon as he had handed over the money he took possession of both the field and the cave adjoining it. This act of taking possession was performed in full view of the people assembled be they rich, poor, tourists passing through, or local residents.

Abraham bowed down before the people of the land.

"Before the people of the land" — this prostration was before the people of the land toward Ephron, to give him honor.

Avraham bowed. He bowed to them to acknowledge that it was in their honor that Ephron consented.

He spoke to Ephron before the people of the land, saying: "But if you would do me a kindness — accept from me: I will give the silver price of the field; take it from me, and I will bury my dead there."

אך אם אתה לו שמעני BUT IF THOU WOULDST ONLY HEAR ME — You tell me to listen to you (verse 11) and to accept it without payment. I do not desire this: BUT IF THOU WOULDST ONLY HEAR ME!—i.e. I only wish that you would listen to me and do as I ask. נתתי I GIVE (perfect with present sense) old French donne; English I give. I have the money ready and I only wish that I had already given it to you.

‘LU’ (IF) THOU WILT HEAR ME. This is equivalent to saying, “If you, if you will hear me,” and the purport thereof is like, “if you, if you would hear me,” the redundancy being for the purpose of emphasizing the matter. Similar cases are found in these verses: Turn in, my lord, turn in to me; Art thou any better, better than Balak? And to speak against him, saying; And as for me, whither shall I go?; And I turned myself; And I saw myself; Seeing all the congregation are all holy. All these are examples of expressions of synonimity. In my opinion, this is also the case in the verse, If from a thread even to a sandal tie, if I take (anything that is thine), Here too, there is a redundant “if.” which is equivalent to saying, “If, from a thread even to a sandal tie, I take anything that is yours.” It may be that [in the verse here before us the meaning is], “If you are as you have said.” that is, if you are speaking what is in your heart concerning the matter, and if you will listen to me and consummate the sale. A similar usage of a missing word is found in the verse, And their brethren said unto them, What are ye? [which means, “What are you saying?”] In my opinion, a similar case of such usage is the verse, Wherefore am I? See also Ramban there. [meaning, “Wherefore am I in the world?”] Perhaps this is the opinion of Onkelos who translated here, “if you will do me a favor,” meaning, “if you will do my will as you have said.”

"If only you would hear me" — if you will do this, hear me regarding him [i.e., Ephron]. Or the meaning is: if you will do this, it is to him that I give the price of the field.

אך אם... נתתי בסף השדה, I will comply with what you said, namely to bury my dead there only if I can hand over the money for the field. I will not bury Sarah there as a result of any other kind of arrangement. אך אם אתה לו שמעני, “if only you would be good enough to listen to me! Please accept the money from me so that I can proceed with the burial.”

וידבר אל עפרון, "He said to Efron, etc." The use of the word אך indicated Abraham's desire to proceed with a minimum of further discussion. נתתי כסף השדה, "I have given the money for the field." Even if Efron had decided to give him the field as a gift, Abraham begged Efron to accept the money from him. If so, Abraham would accept the field as a gift.

נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, The word נתתי on earlier it stands, that Ephron said "השדה נתתי לך" And Abhraham answered him "שמעני נתתי?" with wonder. [i.e.,] You said "נתתי לך" but you the money of the field take from me because as a gift I will not accept it. And the cantillation that is with נתתי proves because there is in it a geresh to separate it from מכסף השדה.

נתתי כסף השדה קח ממני, “I have as good as given the money for the field, all that is needed is that you accept it from me.” He meant, not as Efron had indicated that “you” have given me the field, I have already given the money for this purpose; you only have to accept it, pick it up.

Ephron answered Abraham, saying to him:

"My lord, accept from me: land worth four hundred silver shekels — what is that between you and me? And bury your dead."

ביני ובינך BETWEEN ME AND THEE — Between two such friends as we are, of what importance is that? Nothing at all! Leave business alone and bury your dead!

LAND OF FOUR HUNDRED SHEKELS OF SILVER. According to Onkelos’ opinion, the intent of this is that the land was so worth, [since he translated, “land worth four hundred shekels of silver.”]Perhaps it was Ephron’s intent to say that the price of the land was so fixed in that place for it was customary in most lands that the price of a field be fixed in accordance with its dimensions. In the words of our Rabbis, however, Ephron set an exorbitant arbitrary price, and Abraham, out of the willingness of his heart, listened and did according to his will, and magnified himself. A reference to the Midrash (ibid.) which says that Abraham gave Ephron shekels of large size. If we follow the simple interpretation of Scripture, land of four hundred shekels of silver means that either Ephron bought it for that price, or it was so purchased by his forefathers.

?מה היא, “after all it is a very minor transaction! It is so insignificant a matter that the acquisition can be made by a mere declaration without being recorded in a document. As soon as you have handed over the money you may consider yourself as burying Sarah in your property.”

ארץ ארבע מאות שקל כסף, “a piece of land worth four hundred silver shekel,” etc. This is the meaning of the words according to Onkelos. Another meaning of these words could be that Efron suggested that either he or his ancestors had paid this sum of money for this piece of land. Our sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,7 took the view that the piece of land in question was not worth anywhere near the price Efron was charging Avraham. This is why his name is suddenly (verse sixteen) spelled without the letter ו, to show that instead of becoming rich by overcharging Avraham, Efron became impoverished as a result of his greed. On the words ביני ובינך מה היא, “what is such a paltry sum between me and you,” the Midrash (Baba Metzia 86) says that the righteous promise little and perform in excess of what they promise. An example is Avraham who promised to serve his guests only a piece of bread, whereas he prepared a sumptuous feast (Genesis 18,8), instructing Sarah to bake cakes from the finest flour, while he himself ran to the stables to prepare the best calves for the meal. The wicked, on the other hand, promise a lot and do not keep any of it, such as Efron who kept speaking about what he was going “to give” to Avraham whereas when it came to the conclusion of the transaction he overcharged him. The Torah testified that Avraham paid him in hard cash, the price being exorbitant. As proof of the miserly and avaricious attitude of Efron the sages in the Talmud draw our attention to the numerical value of the name עפרון which the Torah abbreviated to עפרן when it became clear that he did not give Avraham anything. The remaining letters in his name amount to 400, the same as the numerical value of the letters in the expression רע עין, grudging, envious. Avraham did not want to accept any gifts from him but to pay full value, בכסף מלא, as is the custom of righteous people. We find that King David (Samuel II chapter 24) also did not want to accept any gifts and paid handsomely for the threshing ground of Aravnah the Jebusite, although offered the site plus animals to serve as sacrifices as well the animals’ yokes to serve as fire-wood. David paid 50 shekels for the threshing ground plus the animals and their yokes as he did not want to appear cheap in the eyes of G’d (Samuel II 24,24).

ארבע מאות שקל כסף, “400 silver shekel.” According to Onkelos this was the objective value of the field. Our sages understood Efron as having greatly overcharged Avraham, and they describe Efron as an individual who says a lot, but falls far short in his performance of what he promised. According to Rabbi Meir, (Maha’ram from Rotenburg) Efron had never meant to give Avraham more than the cave for free, a promise he kept. He only charged Avraham for the field, seeing that it did not appear as proper to acquire only the cave. Nachmanides, following the plain text, writes that the words ארבע מאות שקל כסף,” 400 silver shekel,” refer to the price either Efron himself or his forebears had paid when they had bought the field originally.”

Abraham accepted Ephron's terms, and Abraham weighed out to Ephron the silver that he had spoken of before the sons of Heth — four hundred silver shekels of acceptable currency in all the province.

וישקל אברהם לעפרן AND ABRAHAM WEIGHED TO EPHRON [THE SILVER] — The name Ephron is written defectively (without the ו) to indicate that there was something missing in Ephron viz, sincerity — because he promised much but did not do even the very least (Bava Metzia 87a): He took from him big Shekels, viz., centenaria (worth a full 100 smaller units) as it is said, “money current with the merchant” which means, such coins as were everywhere accepted as worth a full Shekel — for there are places where their Shekels are of large size, centenaria; old French Centenars (cf. Ruth R. 7).

"Current with the merchant" — meaning he would accept only choice silver.

(1) AVRAHAM HEARKENED TO EFRON. He accepted his view of the value of the field. (2) AND HE WEIGHED OUT [JPS: PAID]. He paid off, as (I Kings 20:39), "or you will have to pay a talent of silver."

וישמע אברהם אל עפרון, “Avraham listened to Efron (accepted his conditions), i.e. he accepted Efron’s evaluation of the value of the field, i.e. that to him it was worth 400 shekel of pure silver; וישקול אברהם לעפרן, “Avraham weighed the amount of silver;” you will note that in this verse the name “Efron” is spelled without the letter ו. The reason the sages spelled it thus is so that the numerical value of the letters in his name should add up to 400, i.e. the amount of silver pieces he had charged Avraham for burying Sarah in that cave.(Compare Baal Haturim) כסף עובר לסוחר, “silver,” i.e. pure silver acceptable by any merchant. The word: עובר means “passable;”

And Abraham weighed out [the money] to Ephron. The letter vav is missing [in Ephron’s name]. The Ba’al HaTurim writes that this is because he was evil-eyed [stingy], and “Ephron” without the vav has the numerical value equal to “ra ayin” [evil eye]. The reason for this is based on what our Sages said (Bava Batra 9b) that whoever gives a small coin to a poor person is blessed with six blessings, etc. And anyone who looks with an evil eye upon his needy brother and gives him nothing does not receive these six blessings. Therefore, the vav is missing from “Ephron” because due to his evil eye, these six blessings were withheld from him. Our Sages also said (Sotah 38b) that we only give the cup of blessing to someone with a good eye, as it is written One with a good eye will be blessed (Proverbs 22:9) — don’t read it as yevorach [will be blessed] but as “yevarech” [will bless]. Nevertheless, both readings are true — that is to say, both the written and spoken forms — because one who has a good eye blesses others generously, therefore he too will be blessed with six blessings, as indicated by the vav in “yevorach,” which is written in its full form. Know further: That “evil eye” [ra ayin] has the numerical value of 400. Therefore, we find the number 400 in four places associated with those who possessed an evil eye: 1. With Ephron, who had an evil eye, and therefore took 400 shekels of silver. 2. With Joseph’s brothers, who had an evil eye towards their brother, the righteous Joseph, and were jealous of him because of his striped coat. Because of this, events unfolded such that they went down to Egypt and were in exile, affliction, and slavery for 400 years. 3. With Esau, whose eye was evil towards his brother Jacob and was jealous of him because of the blessings his father gave him. This is why Jacob said Put space between each herd in order to satisfy the eyes of that wicked one [Esau]. Therefore, Esau came with 400 men. 4. Nabal the Carmelite was a stingy man with an evil eye, as is known. Therefore, David came against him with 400 men to repay him according to his own measure.

The field of Ephron that was in Machpelah, which faces Mamre — the field and the cave that was in it, and all the trees that were in the field, throughout all its surrounding border —

ויקם שדה עפרון AND THE FIELD OF EPHRON WAS MADE SURE (literally, it rose) — It received a rise in importance because it passed from the possession of a commoner (הדיוט an ordinary person) into the possession of a king (Genesis Rabbah 58:8). But the real meaning of the verse is: The field and the cave that was therein and all the trees … became secured to Abraham as a possession etc. (i. e. verse 17 is an incomplete sentence and must be read together with verse 18, thus: ויקם השדה וגו… לאברהם למקנה —The field etc. became secured to Abraham as a possession).

"And it was established" (וַיָּקָם) — the field arose and stood confirmed as a purchase. This verse is connected to the verse above it, as likewise: "a stranger and a sojourner am I" (Genesis 23:4). The ten items mentioned by the Gaon are not in fact connected.

ויקם השדה לאברהם למקנה, the word ויקם teaches that the purchase was confirmed by a sealed document.

ויקם, literally: “it stood up;” the subject is the field, and the Torah means that by becoming the property of Avraham this field now had “risen” in spiritual value. שדה עפרון, one side of that field extended along the whole length of that town. Here it is described in precise detail, i.e. ממרא היא חברון, whereas previously it had been described as קרית ארבע, “the city of the four;” later on during the lifetime of Yaakov it has been described as ממרא קרית הארבע היא חברון, (Genesis 35,27) a location where both Avraham and Yitzchok had been residents at one time or another. Earlier. in connection with Avraham, (12,18) he had been described as having settled in Kiryat Arba which is described there as “part of Chevron.” This was meant to tell us that Mamre was the original founder who had built himself a town adjacent to Chevron which had previously been inhabited by Hittites. He called that new town “Mamre,” thus memorializing himself. The “groves” of Mamre, i.e. אלוני ממרא, were situated at the entrance to that town. The cave of Machpelah, in another direction, at that time had belonged to the Hittites. After Mamre’s death, a giant by the name of Arba became very powerful and claimed the entire area, naming it Arba after himself. Several centuries later, when the Israelites had defeated most of Canaanite tribes they called that town Chevron.

ויקם שדה עפרון, “Efron’s field ‘arose.” The Torah means that the handover of the money was not yet the conclusion of this transaction. The site had not become a recognized cemetery by Avraham handing over the purchase price, but the Torah means that after it had become his property Avraham designated the site as a burial site and then proceeded to bury his wife there. It was not admissible in those days to convert a piece of earth into a cemetery until such a change had been approved by the local community.

passed to Abraham as his purchase, in the sight of the sons of Heth, before all who entered the gate of his city.

בכל באי שער עירו BEFORE ALL THAT CAME IN AT THE GATE OF HIS CITY — In the midst of all them, and with all of them standing by he gave him legal possession of it.

The meaning of "before the eyes of the sons of Heth" — the people of the place. The meaning of "before all who entered the gate of his city" — every passer-by.

לאברהם למקנה, “it arose” after Avraham had paid the money, a normal procedure which we are familiar with from the (misquote) in Erchin 33 ונתן הבסף וקם לו. The purchase was concluded in verse 18, i.e. the field became a מקנה for Avraham. It became an ancestral piece of property only after Sarah had actually been buried there, i.e. after the purpose of the transaction had been carried out (verse 20)

Unto Abraham, for a purchased possession, in the presence of the sons of Hittah, (even) of all who entered in at the gate of the city.

After this, Abraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave of the field of Machpelah, facing Mamre — which is Hebron — in the land of Canaan.

AND AFTER THIS, ABRAHAM BURIED SARAH HIS WIFE IN THE CAVE OF THE FIELD OF MACHPELAH BEFORE MAMRE — THE SAME IS HEBRON — IN THE LAND OF CANAAN. The reason why Scripture reverts to clarify the field, the place and the land is that the whole section mentioned the sons of Heth and Ephron the Hittite. Therefore Scripture mentions at the conclusion that the field was in the land of Canaan which is the land of Israel. And so it said at the beginning of the section: in Kiryath arba — the same is Hebron — in the land of Canaan. All this is to explain that the righteous woman died in the land of Israel, and there she was interred, as the Hittites were of the families of Canaan. In my opinion, the reason for the verses is only to mention that this was the land of Canaan, not the land of the Philistines. Having said, And Abraham sojourned in the land of the Philistines many days, and since all his habitats were in that land — in Gerar, and the valley of Gerar, and Beer-sheba, and from there to Hebron and back — Scripture therefore mentioned that Hebron is in the land of the Canaanite who dwelt in that hill country, not in the land of the Philistines, which is mentioned in connection with Abraham. And in the end Scripture added a phrase to inform us that the cave was in the field of Machpelah before Mamre, for this was the name by which it was known. This section was written to inform us of G-d’s kindnesses to Abraham, i.e., that in the land in which he came to live he was regarded as a prince of G-d, and each individual as well as all the people called him “my lord” although he did not tell them that he was a prince and a great man. Also, in his lifetime G-d fulfilled His promise to him: And I will make thy name great, and thou shalt be a blessing. Moreover, his wife died and was buried in the inheritance of the Eternal. A reference to the land of Israel. Further, Scripture wanted to inform us of the place of the burial of the patriarchs since we are obligated to honor the burial place of our holy ancestors. Our Rabbis said that this also was one of the trials of Abraham: he desired a place to bury Sarah but did not find it until he purchased it, [despite G-d’s promise that the entire land would be given to him].I do not know a reason for the words of Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra, who says that the purpose of this section is to let us know the superiority of the land of Israel as regards the living and the dead, and also to fulfill the word of G-d which promised him that the land would be an inheritance of his. But what superiority of the land was thus demonstrated? Abraham would not have carried her to another land to bury her, and the word of G-d to Abraham applied to the whole land, and that was fulfilled only with his seed.

"And afterwards Abraham buried Sarah" — and from then the field was established as a burial holding for him and his descendants. This passage is recorded to make known the pre-eminence of the Land of Israel over all other lands, both for the living and for the dead. Moreover, it comes to confirm the word of Hashem to Abraham that he would have an inheritance.

ואחרי כן…ויקם השדה. Afterwards the field stood as burial plot, etc. We need to understand why the Torah had to write the words: "afterwards," something that is obvious. What could be more natural than Abraham burying Sarah at the end of these negotiations? Besides, why did the Torah repeat the words: ויקם השדה, something we read already in verse 17? The Torah wanted to confirm that the transaction complied with all and every legal form of acquisition. The words "afterwards" mean that once Abraham had weighed the money for Efron the latter had foregone all claim to that property in perpetuity. Maimonides explains it thus in chapter one of Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah: "A Gentile loses his right to formerly owned property the moment he accepts the money as compensation for it. A Jew, on the other hand, does not acquire title to his new property until he has a written document. Once this has occurred the property in question is like land in the desert which anyone can stake a claim to." In other words, once the Gentile has accepted the money he loses all former claims. Had Abraham buried Sarah before giving the money to Efron, the fact that he gave the money to Efron afterwards would not have made a full acquisition, seeing that the act of possession expressed by his burying Sarah would not have been performed on land owned by him at the time. We need to examine if the act of חזקה, i.e. using the land for one's own purpose, is actually legally valid when the act of such חזקה is performed on land previously owned by a Gentile. In chapter two of the above-mentioned tractate of Maimonides, he writes as follows: "In the case of formerly ownerless property, or property formerly owned by a proselyte, the fact that the squatter (Jewish) has eaten the proceeds of such land for a number of years does not constitute an act of acquisition of either tree or the land itself until such time as the squatter has performed an act on the body of the land itself. What kind of activity would qualify in such an event? In the case of a Jew having taken over the house of a proselyte or an abandoned house, if he whitewashed it or added a moulding about 60 centimeters high this would constitute a valid act of acquisition. If he took earth from high ground and transferred it to fill lower ground in the same piece of land this would be considered as an improvement of the earth and would qualify as an act of acquisition." It is clear therefore that if the squatter merely shifted some earth without specific intent to effect an improvement on that soil- even though he thereby levelled the ground,- this would not be enough to qualify under the heading of קנין, acquisition. Maggid Mishneh (a commentator on Maimonides) writes that if the squatter spread mats on the ground in order to be able to sit on it in comfort and to enjoy this, this would count as a valid act of קנין, acquisition. An alternative cited by the above commentator suggests that even spreading the mats merely in order to improve the appearance of the ground in question suffices. Rabbi lbn Migosh concurs with the latter example. Thus far the quotation from Hilchot Zechiyah Umatanah. Granted that according to the first example cited by the Maggid Mishneh anyone who benefits from an act performed on the land he squats on performs a valid act of חזקה, Abraham benefited by having buried Sarah on that land and thereby performed an act of acquisition; however, according to the opinion of Rabbi lbn Migosh that an actual improvement of the land has to take place, Sarah's burial would not have constituted such an improvement. How then did Abraham acquire that land (even though Efron had forfeited it)? Perhaps the superstructure erected around the grave, and especially the sepulchral chambers dug within the earth which was customary at the time, constituted such an improvement in the field under discussion. These sepulchral chambers were probably white-washed with lime to prevent the earth around them from crumbling. Now we can understand the reason the Torah repeated the words ויקם השדה. It means that after Abraham had buried Sarah the acquisition of that field by Abraham became complete.

אל מערת המכפלה, “literally: “to” the cave of Machpelah; actually the word: אל here appears in lieu of the prefix ב. We find similar instances of the word אל being used in lieu of the prefix ב, in Exodus 25,16, and Numbers 19,6, as well as in Numbers 19,17.

ואחרי כן קבר, “after (all) this he proceeded to bury, etc.” Rabbi Meir points out that throughout the entire chapter thus far, Avraham had always spoken of burying מתי, “my (singular) dead,” whereas Efron and his townspeople had spoken about Avraham being allowed to bury מתיך, “your dead (plural).” According to this Rabbi the words ואת מתך קבור (verse 15) of Efron, (after the price had been agreed upon), also have to be understood as including other dead family members in the future. ואחרי כן קבר אברהם את שרה אשתו אל מערת המכפלה... היא חברון בארץ כנען. “After this, Avraham buried his wife Sarah in the cave of Machpelah. which is in Chevron in the land of Canaan.” The Torah goes to great lengths to describe the location of this field and its adjacent cave in great detail. The reason is that throughout the inhabitants of that land had been described as members of the tribe known as Hittites, a major tribe of the Canaanite nation, Whenever “the land of Canaan” is mentioned, the Torah, by implication, reminds us of the loving Providence of G’d Who gave this ancestral land to the Jewish nation. Although Avraham had only come to that land as a stranger with no claim on any part of that land, he had risen to be a highly respected member of that society, so much so that the people ceded a little of their ancestral land to have him use it as his in perpetuity. An additional reason for describing this location in such detail was so that we should be aware of where our patriarchs have been buried, in order to honour their memory on the occasions when we are obligated to honour the dead of our people who had led sainted lives.by visiting their graves.

The field and the cave that was in it passed to Abraham as a burial holding from the sons of Heth.

מאת בני חת ויקם השדה, these people all agreed to the transaction.

ויקם השדה, “this formulation uses the verb קום in the sense of being stable, remaining firmly established. Examples are Numbers 30,10 where it refers to the validity until honoured, of a vow made by a woman of age and not married. In this instance, the Torah records that the transfer of the cave and field adjoining Machpelah from Efron to Avraham remains valid forever. Avraham himself, of course, also acquired the legal right to be buried alongside his beloved wife Sarah. מאת בני חת “from the Hittites.” Avraham had taken the town seal and attached it to the document registering this sale. He did so in order to prevent the townspeople claiming in the future that Efron had not had the legal right to sell the property to be used as a burial site. [It occurs to this editor that if Yaakov, Avraham’s grandson, had not relied on Lavan’s word when he agreed to work seven years for the hand of Rachel in marriage, but had insisted on a written document, he might have saved himself an untold amount of grief.]

ויקם השדה והמערה אשר בו, “and the field and the cave which is in it ‘rose.’” The Torah appears to repeat itself as we had been told already in verses 17-18 that the field and the cave passed from the possession of Efron to that of Avraham and the Torah specified its precise location. However, verses 17-18 speak about what happened to the field and the cave before Sarah was buried in there. At that time the property passed to the hands of Avraham only as a מקנה, a “purchase.” Now that Sarah had been buried in the cave of Machpelah the Torah speaks of it becoming an אחוזה, an inalienable piece of property. By burying Sarah in that cave Avraham had performed an act of permanent acquisition. The reason the Torah again stresses מאת בני חת, as if the sellers had been a whole group of people instead of merely Efron is of crucial importance. The Torah wants to forestall anyone ever raising any objection against this sale. This is why the Torah repeats the story of the acquisition of this piece of property again at the end of the Book of Genesis (49,32) prior to Yaakov being buried there. The Torah speaks about this transaction no fewer than eight times in this portion, and twice more at a later date, making a total of ten references to what should be viewed as a simple transaction. [Anyone living in our own times realizes that all this was not enough to safeguard our claim to make it universally recognized. Ed.] Our prescient sages in Bereshit Rabbah 58,8 have already foreseen such spurious counterclaims when they wrote: “how much ink has been spilled, how many styluses have been broken merely in order to write the words בני חת, ‘the Hittites.’” Ten times did the Torah repeat its reference to the Hittites. The Torah did so in order that anyone who acknowledges our title to the cave of Machpelah be considered as if he had observed the Ten Commandments.” We find similarly excessive sounding verbiage in Chronicles I chapter 21 where David’s purchase of the threshing ground of Arnon the Jebusite is described by Ezra Hasofer. The word Arnon appears no fewer than ten times in that report! One of the moral lessons to be derived from our chapter is that even if man may conquer the whole of the inhabited part of the earth during his lifetime, in the end, when it is time to be buried, all he will own are the four cubits where he has been laid to rest. Avraham had been given the entire earth as a gift from G’d and what he had acquired by paying for it was only the cave of Machpelah in the “city of four, i.e. in Chevron.” Even though the Israelites conquered the whole of the land of Canaan by the sword, we find that three locations in that country are distinguished especially. This was so because they had not been acquired by force of arms but by legal tender, the previous owners having willingly forfeited their claim to these properties. They are Chevron, Mount Gerizim and Mout Eyval, and Mount Moriah. The Torah has documented our claim to Chevron in this portion. Mount Gerizim and Mount Eyval were the mountains where G’d concluded a covenant with the Jewish people (the generation which had not been of age or had not been born at the time of the Exodus). This area had already been bought by Yaakov when the Torah reported in Genesis 33,19: “Yaakov bought the piece of land, etc.” Mount Moriah’s purchase has been documented in Chronicles I chapter 21.