English translation — חיי שרה א

Sicha 1<pg>82</pg>

A.

On the verse<sup>1</sup>

"And the field of Ephron was established" Rashi "It was an establishment for him that it went out from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king.

And the simple meaning of the verse: And the field and the cave which was in it and all the trees were established to Abraham<sup>2</sup>

as a possession etc.'

And simply, Rashi writes here two explanations on the word "Vayakom": a)

from the language of standing,

b)

from the language of "acquisition",

and it is the plain meaning of the verse,

"Like

the standing

of the house which is in the walled city in perpetuity for the buyer, as Rashi explains

it left the power of the seller and came into the power of the buyer"

And that Rashi was not satisfied with the explanation of Vayakom from the language of acquisition,

as the plain meaning of the verse,

the commentators wrote,

that it is because "the buyer is not written after the standing

(as in the verse 'the standing of the house etc. in perpetuity for the buyer')

because 'to Abraham for a possession' is not attached to the preceding verse due to the division of the cantillation marks,

[and]

therefore the explanation of Vayakom is only from the language of standing..

But according to the plain meaning of the verse that does not concern itself with the division of the cantillation marks, they explained it in its literal sense from the language of acquisition, like 'and the field stood'

and the cave, and this is what it says: 'and the plain meaning of the verse: and the field and the cave and all the trees stood to Abraham for a possession' — they attached 'to Abraham for a possession' to the word Vayakom in the preceding verse, to exclude those of homiletical interpretation who did not attach them."

And superficially, this explanation is forced,

for Rashi already established a great principle⁸

regarding his commentary: "I came only for the plain meaning of the verse and the Aggadah that settles the words of the verse,"

namely,

that only when there is a difficulty in the verse that is not resolved according to the plain meaning, then he brings words of Aggadah to settle the plain meaning.

And since according to "the plain meaning of the verse

(the)

he does not care

(Rashi)

about the division of the accents"⁹,

then according to the plain meaning of the verse, this is not a difficulty

(and as we find several times in several verses that they are in sequence with each other even though they are two verses¹⁰),

and if so, why did Rashi need to bring another explanation from the masters of the homiletical interpretation¹¹,

and moreover,

he precedes it as the first and primary explanation in the plain meaning of the verse.

2.

Some explain¹²,

that according to the explanation in the plain meaning of the verse, the words "the field of Ephron which is in Machpelah which is before Mamre" are superfluous,

for it should have said "And the field and the cave etc. were established to Abraham for a possession etc.",

for until now did I not know that it was the field of Ephron?

And therefore he explains that there was an establishment for the field of Ephron,

that the entirety of the field had an establishment,

and therefore it said "the field of Ephron,"

meaning that the field that was attributed to Ephron and that was in Machpelah and that was before Mamre had an establishment that it entered into the possession of Abraham,

but on the other hand — according to the explanation of the Midrash "it had an establishment" is difficult,

since it already said "<pg>83</pg>

"And the field of Ephron was established" — why did it mention a second time "the field and the cave etc."?

It should have said "And the field of Ephron etc. and the cave and all the trees."

And also, according to the interpretation that it had a [legal] establishment, it has no connection with the verse after it: "to Abraham for a possession" — therefore also the interpretation according to its "simple meaning" is needed, that the field and the cave and all the trees were established to Abraham for a possession.

And according to this interpretation,

Rashi's intention is,

that the verse itself compels two interpretations,

for in that it first said "the field of Ephron" and afterwards repeated "the field and the cave," it is proven

that it teaches two things,

that there was a [legal] establishment for the field of Ephron and that the field and the cave were established to Abraham for a possession.

But still it is not understood,

why does Rashi preface the interpretation according to the homiletic exposition to the plain meaning of the verse?

[Simply, one could say that the order of the interpretations in Rashi is according to their order in the explanation of the verse

("And the field of Ephron was established — a standing it had for him",

and the continuation of the verse "the field and the cave etc." its explanation is that "and was established..

to Abraham for a possession").

But at first glance, this is not a sufficient reason to preface the homiletic exposition before the interpretation according to the "plain meaning of the verse".

And therefore we must say that Rashi holds,

that the interpretation of "vayakom" from the term "tekumah" is not merely a derash,

and as is also proven from the fact that Rashi does not preface "Our Sages said" or "Our Rabbis interpreted" and the like.

And this is what he emphasizes in the second interpretation "and the plain meaning of the verse: and the field was established etc. to Avraham as a possession" is to teach us,

that the advantage of the interpretation "it had a standing",

because of which he precedes it to the second interpretation,

is

[not from the aspect of the plain meaning of this verse — for the "plain meaning of the verse" this,

both the interpretation of the word "vayakom" and the plain sense of the continuation of the two verses,

is like the second interpretation&lt;sup&gt;13&lt;/sup&gt;,

that "vayakom etc. to Avraham as a possession" means that it was acquired to Avraham — but rather]

because through it a difficulty in the entirety of the section here is resolved

[even though the plain meaning of this verse is like the second interpretation].

3.

And the explanation of this: at first,

when Abraham spoke with the children of Heth,

he asked of them "Give¹⁴

me a possession of a burial place with you, and I will bury my dead from before me",

and likewise afterwards¹⁵

when he asked "If it is your wish that I bury my dead from before me, hear me and entreat for me to Ephron the son of Zohar" he asked "and let him give me the cave of Machpelah..

which is at the end of his field..

for a possession of a burial place",

that is,

all the give-and-take was only about the cave; however after Ephron said to Abraham¹⁶

"No, my lord, hear me: the field I give to you, and the cave that is in it, to you I give it'",

Abraham answered¹⁷

"I have given the money for the field, take it from me, and I will bury my dead there",

that he accepted Ephron's offer concerning the field,

and he did not even mention the cave.

And it requires explanation: this that Ephron offered "No, my lord, hear me: the field I give to you" can also be explained according to the simple meaning of Scripture,

that Ephron's intention was only to show his uprightness and good-heartedness,

as the content of his speech in general "No¹⁸

my lord, you shall not purchase it with money",

"I give to you",

but in truth he wanted to extract more money from Abraham

(and as Rashi brings in the portion¹⁹

that he said much and even a little he did not do)²⁰,

but why did Abraham accept this offer from Ephron<pg>84</pg>

[In the commentators on the Torah&lt;sup&gt;21&lt;/sup&gt;

they explained the matter,

but superficially this is also a question in the plain sense of Scripture,

and Rashi should have answered it,

and superficially we do not find an explanation of this in Rashi's commentary].

Also tz"lh"b

(as the precision of the commentators&lt;sup&gt;22&lt;/sup&gt;)

in the verses here "And the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah etc. the field and the cave..

to Abraham for a possession etc. and after that Abraham buried Sarah his wife etc. and the field and the cave which was in it were established for Abraham as a burial possession from the children of Heth",

why was it necessary to say twice "and it was established"?

[Or HaChaim elaborates on this²³,

and explains,

that this is to inform that "the acquisition was here according to all the laws of acquisition",

that "after Avraham weighed to Ephron the money of the cave, with this Ephron removed his right from the land, as the Rambam writes²⁴..

that the gentile, once he took the money, removed his right, and Israel did not acquire until the deed reached his hand,

and these properties were found to be like ownerless properties",

and the completion of the acquisition was afterwards "through the chazakah that he performed in that he buried Sarah in it"²⁵.

And this is the second "vayakam" that only then, after he buried Sarah, was it acquired for Avraham.

But this explanation is according to halachah,

for in the plain sense of Scripture there is no hint of all this,

and simply, the field was acquired for Avraham through the money itself,

according to the plain meaning of the verse].

And to resolve all this, Rashi introduces on the verse "Vayakam sdeh Efron — a standing was for him, that it went out from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king",

as follows.

4.

And this will be understood based on the explanation of the precise wording of Rashi "from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king",

for seemingly²⁶

Ephron was made a minister²⁷

before the sale,

as Rashi brought earlier²⁸

"that very day they appointed him an officer²⁹

over them because of the importance of Abraham",

and it should have said the language of wicked and righteous and the like, and not "commoner" and "king"

(and in the Midrash³⁰

indeed it is stated "that she was a small person and became a great person").

And the explanation in this: the difference in the nature of the acquisition when a commoner buys from a commoner,

even when one is more important than the other,

to the acquisition of a king it is,

for the acquisition of a commoner from a commoner its content is a change of ownership,

and that is that the name of the acquisition is,

a departure from one ownership to a second ownership,

and consequently even though there are in this variations in the modes of acquisition of money, document, and chazakah³¹,

in all the modes the name of the acquisition is a departure from one ownership to another.

<pg>85</pg>

But when a king buys from a commoner,

this is in the manner of complete removal of authority,

and one cannot attribute it here to the personal name of the man who sold the field to the king.

In a different style: When one buys from another,

since the definition of acquisition is a joint act of the seller

(the giver)

and the buyer

(the receiver),

whether in the act of acquisition or in the mental concentration — the transfer of the seller,

then just as in the act of acquisition there is the name of the seller³²,

the name remains also on the field itself,

that this field was taken by so-and-so from so-and-so.

But not so in the acquisition of a king,

the essential definition of acquisition is not from the side of the giver and seller,

but from the side of the king

(and it is in the power of the king to take everything from the people of the country in practice&lt;sup&gt;33&lt;/sup&gt;),

therefore no prior ownership remains on the field&lt;sup&gt;34&lt;/sup&gt;.

And this is what Rashi precisely states: "It had a standing that it went out from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king",

that this is not merely a definition of acquisition plain from seller to buyer,

for the field of Ephron was acquired by Abraham,

but "it had a standing",

a departure from the name of commoner to the name of king,

and consequently there is here no relevance to the name of private individual and there is no difference in this between an actual commoner and a minister — for in this they are equal.

5.

And it can be said,

that this matter is in accordance with the general content in the conduct of Abraham,

who did not want to receive the cave as a gift but rather bought it,

and in this itself he emphasized that his purchase should be "with full silver",

"I will pay the full value"³⁵

— that Abraham's intention in this was to remove

(ibid.)

Ephron completely from the field,

namely not only that Ephron should have no ownership and right

(or even connection)

monetary in the field

[so that there is no trace of "a righteous man³⁶

buried in a grave that is not his"³⁷],

but furthermore,

that also Ephron's name was removed from the field³⁸,

even as a "giver" or "seller" of a burial place for the burial of Sarah.

And for this reason he emphasized "with full silver",

namely that the silver he gives is not in the category of acquisition by silver,

but rather he gives the entire value of the field³⁹,

for in acquisition by silver there is participation of the giving and the consent of the transferor

(as above),

but when he pays in silver the value of the thing,

in a manner that nothing is lacking for the seller,

then the essence of the acquisition is from the side of

(the giving of the value of the thing of)

the buyer and not the transfer of the transferor

(the seller).

And based on this it is even more understood the emphasis of the verse after the story that "And Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver etc."¹⁹

— "And the field of Ephron stood."

For at first glance,

according to the simple meaning of Scripture that <pg>86</pg>

the intention is that it was acquired to Abraham,

what does it teach us here,

and at first glance the entire verse is superfluous?

And this is what Rashi explains that the content of the verse here — "It had a standing,

that it went out from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king",

that the verse comes to say,

that in addition to the removal of the name of Ephron from the field by means of the very purchase of the field "with full silver",

behold this further,

that "And stood etc. — it had a standing that it went out from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king",

that the name of Ephron was entirely voided from the field,

since "it went out from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king",

as above.

And this is also the precision of the language in the verse that follows — "And afterwards Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah"

(For at first glance it is obvious that he buried Sarah only after he bought the field)

— because only after "he had standing",

that the name of commoner was completely nullified from it,

meaning that not only did no ownership remain for Ephron⁴⁰,

but furthermore,

that there is here no matter of commoner

(even though he sold the field to Abraham),

for it is a field of a "king" without any connection even in name

(that was retroactively)

to the name of Ephron — then Abraham buried Sarah his wife.

6.

In this way one can resolve another precision in the continuation of the give-and-take of Abraham and the children of Heth⁴¹

:

Avraham first requested "Give&lt;sup&gt;14&lt;/sup&gt;

me a burial possession with you",

and Rashi explains "a burial possession for the cemetery",

that is,

that Avraham requested not only a place for the burial of Sarah alone

(or even for a few graves),

but "a land possession for the cemetery",

and the children of Chet answered&lt;sup&gt;42&lt;/sup&gt;

"In the choicest of our graves

(our grave)

bury your dead,

no man among us will withhold his grave from you from burying your dead",

from which it is understood that they did not want to give Avraham "a land possession for the cemetery";

And similarly we find later,

when he requested from Efron the Cave of Machpelah "which is at the edge of his field",

Avraham said "for full silver let him give it to me etc. for a burial possession"&lt;sup&gt;43&lt;/sup&gt;,

however after Efron offered him the entire field with "the cave which is in it, to you I have given it..

bury your dead"&lt;sup&gt;16&lt;/sup&gt;,

Avraham agreed and said "and I will bury my dead there"&lt;sup&gt;17&lt;/sup&gt;

(and again he did not emphasize the matter of "a burial possession")

;

And on the other hand,

at the conclusion of the matter,

after the actual account of Sarah's burial,

it is said again⁷

: "And the field and the cave etc. were established as a burial possession"!

And according to the above, one can explain the explanation in this:

Avraham's intention in this that he requested "a burial plot — a plot of land for the cemetery",

was that he would make the plot of land into the cemetery,

meaning that first of all he would acquire a plot of land,

and only after it is in Avraham's possession would he make it "the cemetery",

because by this it is emphasized more that Efron's name is not on this "cemetery".

But after Efron offered to give him the entire field

(not only the cave designated for burial),

there was no longer a need to emphasize that he is buying a "burial plot",

since the entire field

(not only the cave)

is in the possession of Avraham,

in a manner that his action and deed in the field is not at all related to the giver and seller of the field,

and then "and I will bury my dead there",

for there is no connection of Efron in the content of Sarah's burial in the field,

rather a person does within his own and does not need that they sell to him.

And based on this, the reason is also understood that at the conclusion of the matter, the verse adds once more "And the field and the cave which is in it were established to Abraham

(and he is precise)

l-&lt;pg&gt;87&lt;/pg&gt;

as a possession of a grave",

to emphasize,

that in the end, Abraham's request was fulfilled that he be given "a possession of a grave",

and this is "and it was established"

("establishment")

the second,

for in that the field became "a possession of a grave" of Abraham,

his ownership of the field was strengthened,

and consequently it is understood that this addition in the connection of the field to Abraham also added in the quality of the field

("it had establishment")

; but this establishment had to be only after "And the field of Ephron was established — it had establishment that it went out from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king",

and the name of Ephron was already completely removed from the field

[And what is also said in the second "and it was established" "from the children of Heth",

this is only because initially the field was in the collective ownership of them&lt;sup&gt;44&lt;/sup&gt;].

7.

And behold, it is known that Hebron⁴⁵

And especially the place of the Cave of Machpelah is the first place in the Land of Israel that was acquired for the people of Israel in actuality in perpetuity,

As it is brought in the Midrash⁴⁶

that it is "one of three places that the nations of the world cannot deceive Israel to say they are stolen in your hands, and these are: the Cave of Machpelah⁴⁷

and the Holy Temple and the burial place of Joseph."

And it can be said that from this it is understood,

that there is a lesson in the spiritual service of each and every Jew of "make here the Land of Israel"⁴⁸

("make here the Land of Israel"),

that in every place where he finds himself, a Jew must make the Land of Israel — that the making of the Land of Israel is in a manner that "it had a standing,

that it went out from the hand of the commoner to the hand of the king."

And the explanation of the matter:

Just as the elevation of the field was even before the burial of Sarah,

but rather through this that it entered into the possession of Avraham,

behold, in the same way in spiritual service,

that when a Jew comes to some place or has a connection to a matter in the world that is simple that "from Hashem the steps of a man are established and His way He desires"⁴⁹,

to fulfill his mission to make from it Eretz Yisrael,

he must recognize and know,

that through the very fact of his being in that place, behold "an elevation came to him",

that even before his approach to fulfill in it a commandment etc.,

already there was made in the place a matter of ascent and elevation⁵⁰,

a departure from the hand of the profane,

through the very matter that it is in the possession of Israel.

And from this is further understood a matter,

that it is impossible that there should be any preventer of his service and hinderer to make "here Eretz Yisrael",

for since "he had a rising",

for he already went out from the hand of a commoner to the hand of a king,

and even to the King of the world,

by means of entering into the domain of Israel,

that all of Israel are children of kings⁵¹,

and beyond this,

they are kings⁵²,

and this is that even when the thing in the world is not a simple material thing but a matter and important thing in the world

(like Ephron who was not a commoner,

for he rose to greatness,

they appointed him as officer over them),

nevertheless, in relation to<pg>88</pg>

a man of Israel, this one is a commoner,

that he does not occupy a place in relation to a man of Israel,

and in relation to his power and his service to make here Eretz Yisrael.

And the manner of its doing is like a "king,"

said the king, uproot the mountain⁵³,

that even when a mountain appears here,

the evil inclination that appears as a mountain⁵⁴,

behold he uproots it from its place and brings it into the domain of holiness⁵⁵.

And afterwards he goes to fulfill his commandment to draw holiness into the matters of the world to make Eretz Yisrael in actuality.

8.

And from all this a clear directive also regarding the Land of Israel literally,

for the advantage of the place of the field and the Cave of Machpelah in Hebron is that it is one of three places that the nations of the world cannot deceive Israel

(as above)

:

Even though also regarding all the Land of Israel there is no place for a claim of robbery,

as Rashi elaborated at the beginning of his commentary on the Torah,

"All the land is of the Holy One, blessed be He,

He created it and gave it to whomever was upright in His eyes,

by His will He gave it to them and by His will He took it from them and gave it to us",

nevertheless this is an answer to the nations of the world who claim to Israel "You are robbers",

but⁵⁶

in these three places there is not even a possibility of a claim that they would need to answer them,

since these three places came into their possession through payment of money.

And the reason for the matter is understood based on what is said in the commentaries⁵⁷

that the uniqueness in these three places is that these places are unique in their holiness always,

also during the time of exile: the place of the Temple,

that it always stands in its holiness as our Sages said and the Rambam ruled⁵⁸

as law that the holiness of the Temple is because of the Shechinah and the Shechinah is never nullified,

"The Shechinah never departed from the Sanctuary..

The Shechinah never departs from the Western Wall"⁵⁹.

And likewise the Cave of Machpelah, the burial place of the Patriarchs, through which the prayer of all Israel passes⁶⁰,

and similar to this regarding the burial place of Joseph⁶¹.

And based on this, one can say,

that of these three places themselves,

the place of the Cave of Machpelah is unique in this,

that in addition to this that it was acquired by Abraham before the conquest of the land,

this was the first place in the Land of Israel that was acquired by Abraham, who acquired it for the burial of Sarah,

the mother of Isaac without any connection to Ishmael,

for the connection of Sarah is only to the people of Israel⁶²,

and from then it was the burial place of the Patriarchs of the Children of Israel: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob and Leah.

And through Hebron and the Cave of Machpelah, strength and reinforcement are given,

the strength of a king,

that the Land of Israel will remain for the Children of Israel even in the last moments of exile,

and very soon we will merit the coming of Mashiach our righteous one,

that then all the Land of Israel will be in its completeness,

the Lord your God will expand your border,

also the land of the Kenite, Kenizzite, and Kadmonite⁶³,

which were given in the Covenant Between the Parts to Abraham our father,

in the manner of "To your seed⁶⁴

I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: the Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite",

together with the land of the seven nations,

speedily in our days, literally.

(From the talks of 20 Menachem Av and Shabbat Parshat Chayei Sarah 5746)