English translation — חיי שרה א

A.

The first place in the Land of Israel¹

whose ownership actually passed to Abraham our father,

was in Hebron,

the "field of Machpelah facing Mamre, that is Hebron"².

Although already earlier,

in the Covenant Between the Parts,

the entire Land of Israel was given to Abraham our father and to his seed after him, as it is said³

"To your seed I have given this land"

(and even earlier⁴

the Almighty had told him⁵

"Arise, walk through the land in its length and in its breadth, for to you I will give it"),

nevertheless⁶

the ownership

(and through a kinyan)

<b>actually</b> — and publicly,

"before the eyes of the children of Heth, among all that go in at the gate of his city"⁷

— was only at

(the cave of Machpelah which is in)

Hebron.

And from then on the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron belonged to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and to their seed after them — to the people of Israel

regarding the Cave of Machpelah: This is one of three places that the nations of the world cannot deceive Israel by saying they are stolen in your hands, and these are: the Cave of Machpelah, the Temple, and the burial of Joseph].

That is,

that the actual ownership of the Jews over the Land of Israel began with what our father Abraham bought the Cave of Machpelah

(for the burial of Sarah)⁹.

And as it stands in Ibn Ezra¹⁰

that this is one of the reasons that "this portion is mentioned" — "to fulfill the word of the Lord to Abraham to be an inheritance for him."

All matters which are connected with Torah are in utmost precision.

It is understood,

that that which the first inheritance of Jews in the Land of Israel is in Hebron,

is this connected with the special matter that Hebron possesses.

And it can be said: Since with Hebron began the ownership of Jews over Eretz Yisrael,

therefore this ownership comes upon it publicly — before the eyes of the nations of the world,

revealed also in other times.

And based on this, we can explain the statement of the Midrash in our parshah¹¹,

that one of the reasons that Hebron is called "Kiryat Arba" is "because it came up in the lots

(lots,

from the Torah)

of God first to Yehudah and then to Calev¹²,

and then to the Kohanim and then to the Levites"¹³.

At first glance: What is the difference

(and the advantage)

in that Hebron had four owners¹⁴?

Rather, it can be said,

that thereby is brought out a special matter regarding the ownership of Jews over Hebron.

As follows.

2.

Seemingly, one could say that one of the virtues¹⁵

(in the ownership of Jews over)

Hebron is,

that Hebron is one of the cities of refuge¹⁶,

according to how the Rogatchover¹⁷

explains the give-and-take between Abraham and the children of Heth,

that Abraham wanted to buy the cave specifically at the edge of his field,

because,

the cemetery of the cities of refuge is specifically outside the city"

(he was concerned that they would later relocate the graves),

but the children of Heth answered "<b>Nasi</b>¹⁸

Elohim you are in our midst etc.",

and "the grave of a king and a nasi is not relocated"],

That the cities of refuge were given to the Levites¹⁹.

And in the ownership of the Levites over their cities, one finds an advantage regarding the ownership of Jews over their inheritances.

As the law²⁰,

That if the Levites "sold a field from the fields of their cities or a house from the walled cities of theirs, its redemption is not according to this order

(Like the rest of the children of Israel,

That a field cannot be redeemed until two years, and walled houses, if he did not redeem it within the year, then it is <b>permanently alienated</b> at the Jubilee)

But they sell the fields even close to the Jubilee and redeem them <b>immediately</b>.

And if they consecrated a field, they redeem it immediately from the consecration after the Jubilee, and they redeem walled houses at any time they wish, even after several years, as it is said²¹

<b>An eternal redemption</b> shall be for the Levites."

What this shows prima facie,

that their ownership is a <b>permanent</b> — also when in practice the house or the field is in the possession of hekdesh or in the possession of another — they have a kind of ownership in them,

it is not taken away from them

(definitely).

It follows,

that the ownership of Hebron

(as one of the cities of refuge that belong to the Levites),

belongs to the Levites in a manner of "eternal redemption"²².

3.

But if [it is] because of this — that Hebron is a city of refuge that was given to the Levites — then prima facie,

the opposite.

For we find that the ownership of the Levites over their cities is <b>weaker</b> than the ownership of the other tribes over their inheritance:

The law²³

is that "every tribe of Levi is warned that they shall not inherit in the land of Canaan" — they have no inheritance in the Land of Israel,

and that which they were given forty-eight cities

("six cities of refuge" and "upon them you shall give forty-two cities"²⁴)

is only

(as the precise wording of the verse²⁵)

"cities <b>to dwell</b>".

From which it is implied that the Levites do not have complete ownership over their cities.

— stands in the Yerushalmi²⁶

that this is the dispute of Tannaim²⁷

: R' Meir says that Kohanim and Levi'im do not confess

(confession of tithes)

because "they did not take a portion in the Land",

and Rabbi Yosi says "they have the cities of open space" — that R' Meir holds "they were given for dwelling"

("and not that it should be their inheritance and their possession"²⁸),

and R' Yosi holds "they were given for division"

(that the cities "were given to the Levi'im for their portion and their possession"²⁸).

It turns out,

that according to Rabbi Yosi the cities of open space belong to the Levi'im as their portion in the Land.

And so the Rambam rules²⁹,

that although in the confession "he says 'and the land which You gave to us'"³⁰,

nevertheless "Levi'im confess that even though they did not take a portion in the Land, they have the cities of open space".

One sees,

that the cities of open space are called <b>the portion</b> of the Levi'im in the Land of Israel.

And even though the Rambam rules³¹

"a murderer who dwells in the cities of refuge does not pay rent for his house,

and he who dwells in the other cities of the Levi'im pays rent to the homeowner"³²

— that according to the Yerushalmi³³

the dispute whether "they would collect rent for the Levi'im" depends on the aforementioned dispute "they were given for division" or "they were given for dwelling",

from which it is implied,

that the cities of open space which belong to the Levi'im are

(according to the Rambam)

only the forty-two cities,

but not³⁴

the six cities of refuge³⁵

(which "<b>were set apart for refuge</b>"³⁶,

and therefore they provide refuge "whether knowingly or unknowingly",

in contrast "the other cities of the Levi'im do not provide refuge except knowingly"³⁷)

— but according to the Bavli it is not implied so,

because from the Bavli it emerges that that which a murderer does not need to bring up the fee to the Levi in the six cities of refuge is

(not because there is lacking in the ownership of the Levites over the cities³⁸,

but it is)

a special law*³⁸,

as the Gemara says³⁹,

that one learns from the verse "And they shall be &lt;b&gt;for you&lt;/b&gt; the cities for refuge"⁴⁰

— "for you for all your needs"⁴¹.

And so it is also implied from the unqualified language of the Rambam⁴²

(that the ownership of the Levites over the cities of refuge and the rest of the cities of the Levites has the same definition)

: already were commanded Israel to give to them cities to dwell and their open spaces, and the cities are six cities of refuge and upon them forty-two cities,

and when they add cities of refuge in the days of the Messiah &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; are for the Levites,

from which it is implied that in their relationship to the Levites they have one⁴³

definition⁴⁴.

4.

Furthermore, one finds:

In the Gemara⁴⁵

one learns from "and I will set for you a place etc.⁴⁶

and I will set <b>for you</b> in your lifetime a place from your place where he shall flee there, it teaches that the Israelites were exiled in the wilderness; where did they go into exile? To the camp of Levi."

Rashi explains⁴⁷

"a place from your place" — "that the camp of Levi should provide refuge, <b>and even the cities of refuge shall be cities of Levi</b>."

From Rashi it is apparently implied,

that the fact that the cities of refuge provide refuge is because they are <b>cities of Levi</b>

the forty-two cities,

which were not set apart as refuge and are only a refuge because they were given to the Levites — because if so, Rashi should have said "and also the cities of the Levites will be refuges" and the like.

From the plain sense of his language "and also &lt;b&gt;the cities of refuge&lt;/b&gt; will be cities of the Levites" it implies,

that he speaks primarily about the six cities of refuge].

that the fact that the six cities of refuge were given to the Levites is not a separate law related to the giving of the cities,

that in addition to their being cities of refuge,

there is a law that they must be given to the Levites,

but rather this is a law in the category of the refuge of the cities: that their being

(become)

cities of the Levites does

(also)

a law of refuge.

That is,

that in the six cities there are two aspects: a)

they are valid as cities of &lt;b&gt;refuge&lt;/b&gt;

(that "they were designated as a refuge"),

and from this aspect they are valid "whether intentionally or unintentionally".

And before this&lt;sup&gt;48&lt;/sup&gt;

b)

they are valid as cities of &lt;b&gt;the Levites&lt;/b&gt;.

And although there is in the general rule two hundred maneh — one can say a practical difference: at the time that one of the conditions of the six cities of refuge is lacking,

such as: that all six of them should provide refuge simultaneously&lt;sup&gt;49&lt;/sup&gt;

— they are, however, valid as cities of &lt;b&gt;the Levites&lt;/b&gt;

(according to the opinion)&lt;sup&gt;50&lt;/sup&gt;].

And so it is also implied⁵¹

from the continuation of <b>the portions</b> in parshas Massei: earlier in the Torah comes the portion⁵²

of "and you shall give to the Levites from the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell, etc., and the cities which you shall give to the Levites, the six cities of refuge which you shall give for the murderer to flee there, and upon them you shall give forty-two cities",

and <b>later</b> comes the portion of "and you shall designate⁵³

for yourselves cities, cities of refuge ..

and the murderer shall flee there, etc.".

d.

e.

Before there is the law of absorption in actuality, the six cities come,

they must be cities of the Levites.

And so it is stated explicitly in the Chinuch⁵⁴,

that he explains the reason why the cities of the Levites absorb

("from these cities of the Levites there were from them cities designated to be a refuge for the murderer, but in all of them he had refuge")

— that "because of the greatness of their virtue

(of the Levites)

and the fitness of their deed and the grace of their worth, their land was chosen to absorb every unintentional killer more than the lands of the other tribes, perhaps their land, sanctified by their holiness, will atone for him

(of the Levites)

It turns out,

that also the six cities of refuge have the category of "cities of the Levites"⁵⁵

(like the other forty-two cities).

And from this it is understood,

that also the six cities of refuge were given over to their ownership.

And from <b>this</b>

(also)

the cities receive a law of refuge⁵⁶.

H.

According to all the above it becomes difficult again: Since they gave the cities to the Levites as their portion in the land — why does the verse say that the cities are only "to dwell"?

And it can be explained in this: That which the cities belong to the Levites is a)

Bnei Yisrael

(all the tribes)

gave them from their inheritance &lt;b&gt;of the tribes*&lt;/b&gt;&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;,

and therefore one finds a fundamental difference,

that the 48 cities were &lt;b&gt;scattered&lt;/b&gt; in the inheritance of &lt;b&gt;several&lt;/b&gt; more — &lt;b&gt;all&lt;/b&gt; the tribes&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;.

b)

It is a collective ownership of the entire tribe&lt;sup&gt;58&lt;/sup&gt;

— they gave the 48 cities to the tribe of Levi.

But each individual Levite does not have individual ownership over his individual house,

it is his only for "to dwell"&lt;sup&gt;59&lt;/sup&gt;.

That this is one of the explanations in that which the order of how the cities came to the Levites was: And they gave

(&lt;b&gt;Bnei Yisrael&lt;/b&gt;)

to the Levites from the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell — this became the "inheritance of their possession" of Bnei Yisrael,

and Bnei Yisrael gave the cities to the Levites.

6.

Based on all the above, one will also understand the statement of the Midrash regarding Hebron,

that "it would go up in the lots of four initially to Judah and afterwards <b>to Caleb</b> and afterwards etc. to the Levites":

By Hebron there was not only a general giving,

from the Children of Israel to the tribe of Levi,

but Hebron came to the tribe of Levi from <b>Caleb</b>.

After it passed from general ownership

(from the tribe of Judah)

to the <b>specific</b> ownership of Caleb.

And this the Midrash says that "he was &lt;b&gt;ascending&lt;/b&gt; in the ram's horns of &lt;b&gt;G&lt;/b&gt;d",

4.

d.

5.

h.

that in the same manner as there was the ownership initially to

(Yehudah and)

Caleb,

a private ownership,

so was this given over to the Levites.

d.

h.

that in Hebron the Levites have a &lt;b&gt;private&lt;/b&gt; ownership&lt;sup&gt;60&lt;/sup&gt;.

And since the connection of the cities of the Levites to the Levites is in a manner of "eternal redemption"

(as above section b)

— it follows,

that the "eternality"&lt;sup&gt;61&lt;/sup&gt;

of the ownership of the Levites&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;

over Hebron is more than in all other parts of the Land of Israel: a)

Regarding the inheritance of the children of Israel,

which among them there is not the virtue of "eternal redemption"; b)

Regarding other cities of the Levites,

which among them there is not private ownership*&lt;sup&gt;62&lt;/sup&gt;.

7.

The explanation of this in the inwardness of the matters:

The inner reason why cities of refuge must be of the Levites**⁶²,

is

(in the manner of the reason of the Chinuch — above p. 4)

because this is connected with the protection and atonement of the one who kills a person unintentionally.

The sin of murder is a double:

(The sin and separation⁶³)

Between man and God,

Between man and his fellow.

And therefore his atonement is achieved through the cities of refuge which are the cities of the Levites.

That the name Levi is from the term "will join"⁶⁴

— the matter of connection

(New — <b>this time</b> will join)

And attachment,

The opposite of the matter of separation.

That this is the matter of the Levites:

a)

"he was set apart to serve G‑d, to minister to Him",

and their purpose is "to teach His upright ways and His righteous judgments to the many",

by virtue of their connection with the Supreme One,

they are "His portion and His inheritance"⁶⁵,

this effects the atonement and rectification for the sin and separation between man and G‑d of the one who kills a person,

so that he is reconnected with the Supreme One⁶⁶.

b)

In their service "they shall be joined to you and minister to you"⁶⁷,

the concept of the unity of Israel is expressed,

in addition to that which also in this "to teach His upright ways and His righteous judgments to the many",

the concept of love is expressed

(the many—)

of Israel,

And from this aspect, their cities are a rectification for the sin and division between man and his fellow,

which is in murder⁶⁸.

This is a matter concerning all cities of refuge.

In Hebron, the matter of unity is with even more emphasis,

because there are buried the Patriarchs and Matriarchs <b>of all of Israel</b>,

and therefore the prayers ascend through Hebron⁶⁹,

and prayer is called Hebron from the aspect of the connection of the attributes ChaGaT⁷⁰,

the bond and connection of Jews with the Most High,

which is the atonement for the matter of between man and God in murder,

And since they are the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the entire Jewish people,

so through this connection of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the entire Jewish people together,

there also becomes the true connection in the sons and daughters who come from them.

— the atonement for the sin between a person and his fellow.

And the concept of the connection is to such an extent that this comes revealed "in his name⁷¹

which they call him in the Holy Language" in the name of the city — Hebron,

which is from the word connection⁷².

(From sichos of Simchas Torah and Shabbos Parshas Bereishis 5737)