English translation — חיי שרה א

Sicha 1<pg>82</pg>

A.

It is stated in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer<sup>1</sup>,

that when Avraham came to buy the Cave of Machpelah from the children of Chet "they said to him we know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give to you and to your seed all these lands; make with us a covenant<sup>2</sup>

that the children of Israel will inherit the city of Yevus only with the consent of the children of Yevus

(that "they were Chitites"<sup>3</sup>)

— and he made a covenant with them<sup>4</sup>

— and afterwards he bought the Cave of Machpelah."

And it requires explanation:

a)

How did Abraham agree to make a covenant with them that the children of Israel would not inherit the city of the Jebusite — contrary to the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, to him "all the land etc. to you I will give it and to your seed forever"⁵.

b)

behold, tens of years before this, G-d made a covenant with Avram: "To your seed I have given this land"⁶.

And even more so is there room for wonder based on what is explained in the continuation of the words of Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer: "When Israel came to the land..

they were unable to enter

(the city of the Jebusite)

because of the sign of the covenant of Avraham's oath..

And when King David came and wanted to enter..

they did not allow him..

by force of the covenant of Avraham's oath."

And so it is in Sifri⁷

that what is stated regarding Joshua⁸

"And the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out,"

its explanation is "they were able but they were not permitted"

(and as explained in Rashi⁹

that the prohibition is "because Avraham made a covenant with them when he purchased from them the Cave of Machpelah"),

behold, Avraham's oath imposed a prohibition¹⁰

upon the children of Israel to conquer Jerusalem¹¹.

2.

Below there in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer it is told,

that when they did not allow David to enter the city and "they said to him, 'You cannot enter the Jebusite city until you remove all these idols upon which is written that oath of Abraham,

David said to his men, 'Whoever will go up first and remove these idols upon which is written the sign of the covenant of the oath of Abraham will be chief,' and Joab son of Zeruiah went up first<pg>83</pg>

etc.'"

(And as is explicit in the verse<sup>12</sup>

that David captured the city).

And it concludes there

(in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer)

: "And afterwards<sup>13</sup>

he bought the Jebusite city for Israel as a written deed for an eternal possession."

And it is not understood

(And as the commentators questioned¹⁴)

:

From the beginning of the matter,

that they did not allow David to enter the city "because of the covenant of Abraham's oath",

it is proven that in the days of David the oath still existed;

But from the continuation of the story,

that Yoav fought with the sons of Jebus and captured the city

(as explained in the verse),

it implies that Avraham's oath was already nullified.

[And furthermore: If Avraham's oath was not nullified — what is the benefit of removing the idols with the oath written upon them?

And can this removal have the power to nullify the force of the oath¹⁵?

! And it must therefore be said that Avraham's oath was already nullified¹⁶,

and it was permitted to capture the city,

and the reason he commanded to remove the idols is

(as stated in the commentaries¹⁷)

"only because this was a kind of desecration of God's name as long as they stood,

like the matter of the oath to the Gibeonites"¹⁸

(7.

1.

since according to the opinion of the Jebusites the oath was still in effect, they needed to nullify the memory of the oath to prevent desecration of God's name)].

And from the conclusion of the matter,

that "afterwards he bought the city of the Jebusite for Israel with a permanent deed as an eternal possession",

it implies that he bought the city so that the acquisition of the city would be "with the consent of the sons of Jebus"¹⁹

!

Further explanation is needed: by what was it different,

that at the time of Joshua's conquest "they were not able to dispossess them",

that they were not permitted to dispossess them because of the oath

(even though they were commanded "and you shall dispossess all the inhabitants of the land, etc."²⁰),

and for David it was permitted to capture the city²¹?

3.

And this will be understood with an introduction to the discussion between Abraham and the children of Heth that is brought in our sages, may their memory be blessed:

On the verse²²

"A stranger and a resident I am with you," our sages, may their memory be blessed, said²³

: "If you wish, I am a stranger, and if<pg>84</pg>

I will not be a resident and I will take it from the law²⁴

that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to me²⁵

"To your seed I will give this land."

And it requires explanation:

a)

Since it was in his ability to take it "by law" — why did he strive so much to buy the Cave of Machpelah

(and with full silver²⁶)?

b)

When Avraham said to the children of Chet "I will take it by law" he certainly intended that they should believe his words²⁷

that the Holy One, blessed be He, promised him this land,

and if so, there is no benefit in their refusal and they would give it to him of their own free will — and why did he say "I will take it" which implies by force?

3)

If she were taken by force and against his will²⁸

— there is in this a desecration of God's name among the children of Heth

(since Abraham was known among them as "a prince of God"²⁹,

and famous as a man whose conduct is in the utmost kindness,

uprightness and justice³⁰).

4)

From the precision of his language "if you wish, I am a sojourner, and if not, I will be a resident"³¹

it implies,

that his being a sojourner or a resident depends on the will of the children of Heth.

That is: if the children of Heth will want to sell the Cave of Machpelah,

then "I am a sojourner" that it is impossible for him to take it by law,

and only when they do not want this

("and if not"),

then — "I will be a resident and take it by law".

And it is puzzling: how can it be said that the "judgment",

whether Abraham is permitted to take the Cave of Machpelah or not,

will depend on the will³²

of the children of Heth?

e)

Why did Abraham bring the proof

(that he could take it by law)

from the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, "to your seed I will give this land" — that the giving is to Abraham's seed — and not from the promise of the giving to Abraham himself — "all the land etc. to you I will give it"³³?

According to the midrash³⁴,

that the proof is from this that the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him "To your seed I have given this land"³⁵,

it works out well — because this verse is not a promise for the future,

but rather in the past tense,

in the language of the Jerusalem Talmud³⁶

"To your seed I have given — I have already given",

and as it is also brought in the midrash³⁷

on this verse,

that "the statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, is an act".

And thus this statement of the Holy One, blessed be He, is superior

("To your seed I have given")

also relative to the statement "To you I will give it" which is only a promise for the future;

But according to Rashi's commentary,

that the proof is from "To your seed I will give this land" — it is difficult,

as above: why did he not bring the promise "To you I will give it"³⁸?

<pg>85</pg>

4.

And one can say the explanation in all this:

In the ownership of Bnei Yisrael over the Land of Israel there are two details: general ownership — that the entire land belongs to all of Israel,

and private ownership — that each one of Israel has a private portion in the land that belongs

(only)

to him.

And these two types of ownership of Bnei Yisrael in Eretz Yisrael came into actuality³⁹

through two acquisitions: the general ownership came through the conquest of the land by Yehoshua etc.,

by which the entirety of Eretz Yisrael is acquired for all of Yisrael,

and the private ownership of each individual from Yisrael in his individual portion is done through settlement and chazakah,

that each one settled and took possession of his portion⁴⁰.

Moreover: these two modes of ownership are not dependent on each other; it is possible to have general ownership without private ownership and private ownership without general ownership.

Explanation of the matter:

General ownership does not negate private ownership,

and like the ownership of the king over his country,

the fact that the entire land is in the king's domain⁴¹,

nevertheless this does not negate the private ownership of each individual among the country's inhabitants over his private property

(his house,

his field, etc.),

rather, from the aspect of the king's ownership over the entire land, several laws apply also to the private property of each individual — for the law of the kingdom is law⁴²,

and therefore he is obligated to pay taxes to the king on this property,

and even that under certain conditions the king may also take the property of the private individual⁴³,

and like the law: "The king breaks through a fence..

and no one protests against him"⁴⁴,

etc.

And on the other hand,

private ownership does not bring

(necessarily)

general ownership⁴⁵.

And as we find after the first destruction,

that even if you say that their general ownership of the land by the children of Israel was nullified⁴⁶

— for "since the land was taken from their hands, the conquest is nullified" and until "it is exempt from the Torah from tithes and from the Sabbatical year, for it is not from the Land of Israel"⁴⁷

— nevertheless, the individual's ownership of his land remained,

and as it is written in Jeremiah⁴⁸

"Fields shall be bought for money, and written in a book, and sealed",

for private ownership is not dependent on general ownership.

5.

And based on this, the words of Abraham to the children of Heth are understood — "If you wish, I am a sojourner, and if not, I will be<pg>86</pg>

"I will be a resident and a tenant from the law": the difference between the manner of "Behold I am a resident"

(by which the children of Chet would sell him the Cave of Machpelah)

to the manner of "I will be a resident and a tenant from the law" — is in the category of ownership of Avraham over the Cave of Machpelah:

The Cave of Machpelah,

like all the land around it,

was then in the jurisdiction and general ownership of the children of Chet,

and Avraham's request to purchase it from Efron was only to acquire the private ownership

(of Efron)

of this place,

but even afterwards its general ownership would remain in the hands of the children of Chet

(we do not find that Avraham conquered the kingdom of the children of Chet).

And this is "Behold I am a sojourner" — because the land remained in the previous ownership of the children of Heth,

and Abraham is a "sojourner" who purchases private property in the state — in the kingdom of the children of Heth.

However, all this is if the children of Heth agree to sell him the Cave of Machpelah,

but "if not — I will be a resident and I will take it by law",

that the taking of the cave will be a result

(and continuation)

of the general ownership of the Land of Israel.

And the explanation: Avraham knew that Adam and Chava were buried in the Cave of Machpelah⁴⁹,

And if the children of Chet would not agree to sell it to him

(in a way that the private ownership would come to him),

and they would want to force him to bury Sarah elsewhere, not near Chava, a rib from his ribs of the work of the hands of the Holy One, blessed be He,

behold it would be revealed that the time had already come for the fulfillment of the promise "to your seed I will give this land",

and it would be given to him

(also)

the general ownership — "I will take it from the law"⁵⁰.

6.

According to this it is also resolved why about this Rashi brought the verse "to your seed I will give this land"

(or in the Midrash "to your seed I have given this land")

— and not the verse "to you I will give it",

and with an introduction:

The two types of ownership mentioned above of Israel in the Land of Israel were promised to Abraham our father: the verses "To your seed I will give this land,"

"To your seed I have given the land,"

Their meaning is the general ownership of the people of Israel over the land,

Whereas in the verse "To you I will give it" it speaks of the private ownership of Israel over his portion in the land.

And the explanation of this — one must say:

The promise "to your seed I will give this land"

(and likewise the verse "to your seed I have given this land")

includes the entire land in a "general" language,

"this land".

And this is because the subject is "the land" — the land of Israel which belongs in its entirety to the entirety of the people of Israel;

In the promise of "to you I will give it" the verse elaborates on it and specifies and says⁵¹

"Look from the place where you are, northward and southward and eastward and westward etc. To you I will give it and to your seed forever, and I will make your seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can count the dust of the earth, then your seed also shall be counted.

Arise, walk through the land, its length and its breadth etc."

That is to say:

a)

In these verses, the vastness of the land and also its details are emphasized

("And see etc. northward and southward and eastward and westward etc.")

And the multitude of Abraham's seed and its number — for the meaning of the continuation of the verses is,

that the giving of such a wide land corresponds to the promise of "And I will make your seed as the dust of the earth,"

therefore they need a very large land, and part of your seed will be in its north,

part of it in its south, etc.; and this matter is connected with the private ownership of each and every one of Israel over his portion in the land.

&lt;pg&gt;87&lt;/pg&gt;

2)

"Arise, walk through the land, its length and its breadth" — that Avraham should take possession of the land,

acquisition by chazakah

(as explained in the Gemara⁵²)

— also refers to acquisition that pertains to private ownership,

as above that chazakah is

(primarily)

in private acquisition.

7.

And it can be said,

that this is also the reason for the distinction between the verses — that in the verses that speak about the general ownership it is stated only "to your seed",

whereas in the verses concerning private ownership it is stated "to you I give it and to your seed forever",

with emphasis on the giving to Avraham specifically:

Abraham our father, may he rest in peace:

(a)

head of the Israelite nation,

which includes all of the Children of Israel,

and from this aspect, behold every matter that was said to him

(or given to him)

behold this is a matter of "the collective of Israel"⁵³

; and he is also

(b)

the "father" of each and every one of Israel in a particular manner,

as his title "Abraham our father",

their father of each and every one of Israel.

And according to this: the promise to Abraham concerning the general ownership of the Land of Israel is to Abraham as the head of the nation

(the collective of Israel),

and the promise regarding the private ownership — it is to Abraham as the "father" of each and every one of Israel⁵⁴.

And therefore in the verses in which came the promise to Abraham concerning the general ownership,

it is said in them only "to your seed I will give"

(to your seed I gave),

for this is not in the category of inheritance in a private manner from father to son,

but rather it is given to the entirety of Israel

(and it is to be noted that it is that same "entirety" throughout all generations&lt;sup&gt;55&lt;/sup&gt;)

; but regarding the private ownership that was said to Abraham as "father",

who bequeaths to each one of his sons,

it is said "to you I will give it&lt;sup&gt;56&lt;/sup&gt;

and to your seed",

in which is emphasized the relationship of "father" and "son" between Abraham and his seed,

by which the land comes by inheritance from the father — Abraham — to his seed forever&lt;sup&gt;57&lt;/sup&gt;.

&lt;pg&gt;88&lt;/pg&gt;

8.

According to all the above it is also to be explained the matter of Abraham's oath to the children of Heth "that the children of Israel do not inherit the city of Jebus except by their will":

Even though Bnei Yisrael were commanded²⁰

"And you shall dispossess all the inhabitants of the land etc. and you shall dwell in it etc. and you shall inherit the land",

that this includes not only the act of conquest of the general ownership,

but also "and you shall dwell in it",

which is the chazakah of each one in his land,

the private ownership — nevertheless, the general ownership is different from the private ownership,

for the general ownership was given entirely to the people of Israel,

without any place given for the rule of a stranger; but regarding dwelling in the land,

behold under certain conditions even the nations are permitted to remain in the land,

and even from the seven nations.

And as we were commanded⁵⁸

"When you draw near to a city to wage war against it, you shall call out to it for peace",

that this law applies also regarding the seven nations⁵⁹,

and as Yehoshua did, as "three⁶⁰

letters Yehoshua sent before he entered the land: the first he sent to them: whoever wants to flee, let him flee; and he again sent: whoever wants to make peace, let him make peace, etc.'"⁶¹.

And based on this, we may explain in our subject: Avraham's oath was not that Bnei Yisrael would not inherit the general ownership of the city

(land)

of the Yevusi — because it is impossible to swear against the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, "To your seed I will give

(I have given)

this land"; rather, the discussion is about the connection to the private ownership,

for even though Bnei Yisrael will rule over the land of Yevus because it is part of their land,

nevertheless they sought to cut a covenant that Israel would not hold it in private ownership "except with their consent"

(of the sons of Yevus).

That is,

that also the children of Ches agreed to remain under the rule and government of Bnei Yisrael,

and all their intention was only that their private ownership of the city of Yevus not be taken from them — in this manner there is no prohibition

(and as the announcement: "whoever wants to make peace, let him make peace")⁶².

[And this matter is emphasized also in the language of the request of the children of Chet — "We know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give to you and to your seed all these lands,

cut a covenant with us etc.'",

meaning that even they know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give the land

(including the city of the Jebusite)

to Israel,

and seemingly what place is there to cut a covenant to do the opposite — "that the children of Israel will not inherit etc."?

Rather, even according to the opinion of the children of Chet,

the oath "that the children of Israel will not inherit the city of Jebus" is not contradictory to this "that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give to you and to your seed all these lands"].

And with this the connection between this oath and the purchase of the Cave of Machpelah will be sweetened: after they agreed to give over

(to sell)

to Abraham his private ownership of the place of the Cave of Machpelah — they requested from Abraham,

measure for measure,

that he swear to them also when the general ownership&lt;pg&gt;89&lt;/pg&gt;

of the land will pass to the possession of Israel,

the private ownership of the city of the Jebusite will not be taken from them "except with their consent."

9.

Based on this, the continuation of the story in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer regarding King David is also understood:

The reason of David who "wanted to enter the city of the Jebusite" simply was that the time had come to prepare the place of the Temple,

which is in the city of the Jebusite

(Jerusalem)⁶³.

And according to the above,

that the oath of Abraham to the children of Heth was only in connection to the private ownership of the city,

it is understood simply,

that taking this place in order to prepare the building of the Temple from the outset is not included in this oath.

For this taking is for the sake of all Israel,

and belongs to the general ownership of the land

(and in the manner of taking private property necessary for the conduct of the monarchy by the king).

That is: a violation of the oath would have been only if he had driven them out of the city so that a private individual would settle in their place,

taking the private ownership of the Jebusite by private ownership of the children of Israel

(and this is the intent of the verse in Joshua "they could not..

dispossess them"),

but taking the place for the sake of all Israel is not related to the oath

[And just as Abraham knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, would in the future give him all these lands,

so he knew that at the place of the Binding on the mountain God will see⁶⁴

— that in the future they would build the Holy Temple in the city of the Jebusite,

and He would not swear to them "that the children of Israel will not inherit the city of Jebus except by their will" in a manner that the building of the Holy Temple would be dependent on the will of the children of Jebus!].

Yud.

Based on this, it is understood,

that this that the Jebusites did not allow David to enter, by force of the covenant of the oath of Abraham, was improper,

for in this they opposed the general ownership of the Children of Israel over the land

(in their error that in the oath of Abraham is also included that the general ownership of the city of the Jebusites is in their hands),

and it was permitted for David to fight against them and to capture the city.

And for this reason David commanded to remove the idols upon which the oath was written — since the Jebusites used this oath improperly.

However,

from this itself it is understood,

that even after David captured the city of the Jebusite, the oath was not yet nullified by this,

for his capture of the city was only according to the law of conquest of a king,

in order to rule over them

(the general ownership),

and this does not pertain to the oath that the private ownership should not be taken from them "except with their consent";

And therefore,

even though he could have dispossessed them by virtue of the general ownership

(in the manner of a king who breaks a fence, etc.),

and especially the place of the Temple which was needed for all of Israel — nevertheless,

in order to fulfill the oath,

"he bought the city of the Jebusite for Israel⁶⁵

with a permanent writ as an eternal inheritance."

(From the talk of Shabbos Parshas Re'eh 5746)