Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. The first place in Eretz Yisrael[1] whose ownership actually passed to Avraham Avinu was in Chevron: “the field of Machpelah, facing Mamre, which is Chevron”[2].
Although earlier, at the Covenant between the Parts, the whole of Eretz Yisrael had already been given to Avraham Avinu and to his descendants after him, as it says[3], “To your descendants I have given this land” (and even before that[4] the A-lmighty had told him[5], “Arise, walk through the land, its length and its breadth, for I will give it to you”), nonetheless[6] actual ownership (through an act of acquisition) — and publicly, “in the presence of the children of Ches, of all who came in at the gate of his city”[7] — came about only with (the Cave of Machpelah in) Chevron.
From then on the Cave of Machpelah in Chevron belongs to Avraham, Yitzchak and Yaakov and to their descendants after them — to the people of the Children of Israel [as the Midrash[8] says regarding the Cave of Machpelah: “This is one of three places about which the nations of the world cannot taunt Israel, saying, ‘They are stolen in your hands’; and these are they: the Cave of Machpelah, the Beis HaMikdash, and the burial place of Yosef”].
That is, the actual ownership of the Jewish people over Eretz Yisrael began with Avraham Avinu’s purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (for the burial of Sarah)[9].
And as the Ibn Ezra writes[10], this is one of the reasons “this passage was mentioned”: “to fulfill the word of G‑d to Avraham, that it would be an inheritance for him.”
All matters connected with Torah are utterly precise. It is understood, then, that the first inheritance of the Jewish people in Eretz Yisrael being in Chevron is connected with a special quality that Chevron possesses.
It may be said: since the ownership of the Jewish people over Eretz Yisrael began with Chevron, therefore this ownership over it is public — before the eyes of the nations of the world — and revealed at other times as well.
On this basis one can explain the statement of the Midrash on our parshah[11], that one of the reasons Chevron is called “Kiryas Arba” (the city of four) is “that it came up in the lots (allotments, gifts) of four: first to Yehudah and afterward to Kalev[12], and afterward to the Kohanim and afterward to the Levi’im[13].” For seemingly, what difference does it make (and what quality is there) in Chevron having had four owners[14]? It may be said, however, that this brings out a special matter regarding the ownership of the Jewish people over Chevron, as will be explained.
2. At first glance one could say that one of the qualities[15] (in the ownership of the Jewish people over) Chevron is that Chevron is one of the cities of refuge[16]
[as is also alluded to in our parshah, according to the Rogatchover’s[17] explanation of the discussion between Avraham and the children of Ches: Avraham wanted to buy the cave specifically at the edge of his field, because “the cemetery of the cities of refuge must be outside the city” (he was concerned that the graves would later be cleared away), but the children of Ches answered, “You are a prince[18] of G‑d among us,” and “the grave of a king or a prince is not cleared away”],
and the cities of refuge were given to the Levi’im[19]. And in the ownership of the Levi’im over their cities we find a superiority over the ownership of the Jewish people over their inheritances.
As the law states[20]: if the Levi’im “sold a field of the open land of their cities, or a house of their walled cities, they do not redeem in this order (as the rest of Israel, who cannot redeem a field until two years have passed, and a house in a walled city, if not redeemed within the year, becomes permanently the buyer’s at the Yovel); rather, they may sell the fields even close to the Yovel and redeem them immediately; and if they consecrated a field, they redeem it from the Temple treasury even after the Yovel; and they redeem houses of walled cities whenever they wish, even after several years, as it says[21], ‘The Levi’im shall have a perpetual right of redemption.’”
This seemingly shows that their ownership is a permanent one: even when in practice the house or the field is in the domain of the Temple treasury or of another person, they retain a kind of ownership over it; it is not (entirely) taken from them.
It turns out, then, that the ownership of Chevron (as one of the cities of refuge belonging to the Levi’im) belongs to the Levi’im in the manner of a “perpetual right of redemption”[22].
3. But by this very token — Chevron being a city of refuge given to the Levi’im — it would seem to be the reverse. For we find that the ownership of the Levi’im over their cities is weaker than the ownership of the other tribes over their inheritance:
The law[23] is that “the entire tribe of Levi is warned not to take an inheritance in the land of Canaan” — they have no inheritance in Eretz Yisrael. And the forty-eight cities given to them (“the six cities of refuge,” and “in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities”[24]) are only (as the precise wording of the verse[25] says) “cities to dwell in.” This implies that the Levi’im do not have full ownership of their cities.
The Yerushalmi[26] states that this is a dispute of the Tanna’im[27]. Rabbi Meir says that Kohanim and Levi’im do not make the declaration (the confession over tithes), “since they did not take a portion in the Land,” and Rabbi Yosei says, “they have the cities of open land.” That is, Rabbi Meir holds “they were given as a place to dwell” (and not “to be their inheritance and holding”[28]), and Rabbi Yosei holds “they were given as a portion” (the cities were given to the Levi’im “as their portion and holding”[28]). It turns out that according to Rabbi Yosei the cities of open land belong to the Levi’im as their portion in the Land. And so the Rambam rules[29]: although in the declaration one says “and the land that You have given us”[30], nonetheless the Levi’im make the declaration, “for although they did not take a portion in the Land, they have the cities of open land.” We see that the cities of open land are called the portion of the Levi’im in Eretz Yisrael.
The Rambam does rule[31]: “A killer who dwells in the cities of refuge does not pay rent for his house, but one who dwells in the other cities of the Levi’im pays rent to the owner of the house”[32] — and according to the Yerushalmi[33], the dispute whether [killers] “would pay rent to the Levi’im” depends on the dispute mentioned above, whether “they were given as a portion” or “they were given as a place to dwell.” This implies that the cities of open land that belong to the Levi’im are (according to the Rambam) only the forty-two cities, but not[34] the six cities of refuge[35] (which “were set apart for refuge”[36], and therefore they give refuge “whether knowingly or unknowingly,” whereas “the other cities of the Levi’im give refuge only knowingly”[37])
— but according to the Bavli this is not implied. For from the Bavli it follows that a killer’s not having to pay rent to the Levi in the six cities of refuge is (not because something is lacking in the Levi’im’s ownership of the cities[38], but) a special law[*38], as the Gemara says[39] that one learns it from the verse “And the cities shall be to you for refuge”[40] — “‘to you’ — for all your needs”[41].
And so too it is implied by the unqualified wording of the Rambam[42] (that the ownership of the Levi’im over the cities of refuge and over the other cities of the Levi’im has the same definition): “Israel has already been commanded to give them cities to dwell in, and their open land; and the cities are the six cities of refuge and in addition to them forty-two cities. And when cities of refuge are added in the days of Moshiach, all belong to the Levi’im.” This implies that in their relation to the Levi’im they have one[43] definition[44].
4. Moreover, we find:
In the Gemara[45] it is derived from “I will appoint for you a place…”[46]: “‘I will appoint for you’ — in your lifetime — ‘a place’ from your place, ‘to which he shall flee’: this teaches that Israel would go into exile in the desert. To where would they go into exile? To the camp of the Levi’im.” Rashi explains[47] “a place from your place”: “that the camp of the Levi’im should give refuge, and the cities of refuge too shall be cities of the Levi’im.” From Rashi it seemingly follows that the cities of refuge give refuge because they are cities of the Levi’im.
[It is very forced to say that Rashi speaks only of the other cities of the Levi’im, the forty-two cities, which were not set apart for refuge and give refuge only because they were given to the Levi’im. For if so, Rashi should have said “and the cities of the Levi’im too shall give refuge,” or the like. The plain sense of his words, “and the cities of refuge too shall be cities of the Levi’im,” implies that he speaks mainly of the six cities of refuge.]
That is, giving the six cities of refuge to the Levi’im is not a side law concerning 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 Levi’im — but a law in the very definition of the refuge of the cities: their being (becoming) cities of the Levi’im (also) brings about a law of refuge.
[That is, in the six cities there are two definitions: (a) they give refuge as cities of refuge (which “were set apart for refuge”), and on this account they give refuge “whether knowingly or unknowingly”; and before this[48], (b) they give refuge as cities of the Levi’im.
And although “two hundred includes one hundred,” it may be said that there is a practical difference: when one of the conditions of the six cities of refuge is lacking, for example, that “all six give refuge together”[49] — they still give refuge as cities of the Levi’im (knowingly)[50].]
This is also implied[51] by the sequence of passages in Parshas Masei. First the Torah gives the passage[52] “They shall give to the Levi’im, from the inheritance of their holding, cities to dwell in… And the cities that you shall give to the Levi’im: the six cities of refuge that you shall give for the killer to flee there, and in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities”; and afterward comes the passage[53] “You shall designate for yourselves cities, cities of refuge… that a killer may flee there…” That is, before the law of refuge actually applies to the six cities, they must be cities of the Levi’im.
And so it states explicitly in the Chinuch[54], which explains the reason the cities of the Levi’im give refuge (“Of these cities of the Levi’im, some were cities designated to be a refuge for the killer, but in all of them he had refuge”): “Because of the greatness of their stature (of the Levi’im), the worthiness of their deeds and the grace of their standing, their land was chosen to receive every one who killed unintentionally, more than the lands of the other tribes; perhaps their land, sanctified by their holiness (of the Levi’im), will atone for him.”
It turns out, then, that the six cities of refuge too have the definition of “cities of the Levi’im”[55] (like the other forty-two cities). From this it is understood that the six cities of refuge too were given into their ownership; and on account of this (also) the cities receive a law of refuge[56].
5. According to all the above, the difficulty returns: since the cities were given to the Levi’im as their portion in the Land, why does the verse say that the cities are only “to dwell in”?
It may be said that the explanation is this. The cities belong to the Levi’im (a) in that the Jewish people (all the tribes) gave them from the holdings of the tribes[*56]; therefore we find a fundamental difference: the forty-eight cities were scattered in the inheritance of many tribes — more than that, of all the tribes[57]. (b) It is a general ownership of the tribe as a whole[58] — the forty-eight cities were given to the tribe of Levi. But each individual Levi has no individual ownership of his own house; it is his only “to dwell in”[59].
This is one of the explanations of the order in which the cities came to the Levi’im: “And they (the Children of Israel) shall give to the Levi’im, from the inheritance of their holding, cities to dwell in” — it became “the inheritance of their holding” of the Children of Israel, and the Children of Israel gave the cities to the Levi’im.
6. According to all the above we will also understand the novelty of the Midrash regarding Chevron, that “it came up in the lots of four: first to Yehudah, and afterward to Kalev, and afterward etc. to the Levi’im”:
With Chevron there was not only a general giving, from the Children of Israel to the tribe of Levi; Chevron came to the tribe of Levi from Kalev — that is, after it had passed from general ownership (of the tribe of Yehudah) to the individual ownership of Kalev.
And this is what the Midrash says, “it came up in the lots of four”: just as the ownership was at first to (Yehudah and to) Kalev, an individual ownership, so it was given to the Levi’im. That is, in Chevron the Levi’im also have individual ownership[60].
And since the relation of the cities of the Levi’im to the Levi’im is in the manner of a “perpetual right of redemption” (as above, section 2), it follows that the “eternity”[61] of the ownership of the Levi’im[62] over Chevron is greater than in all other parts of Eretz Yisrael: (a) relative to the inheritance of the Children of Israel, who do not have the quality of a “perpetual right of redemption”; (b) relative to the other cities of the Levi’im, in which there is no individual ownership[*62].
7. The explanation of this in the inner dimension of the matters:
The inner reason why the cities of refuge must belong to the Levi’im[**62] is (along the lines of the reason given by the Chinuch — above, section 4) that it is connected with the protection and atonement of one who killed unintentionally.
The sin of a killer is twofold: (the sin and separation[63]) between man and G‑d, and between man and his fellow.
Therefore his atonement comes about through the cities of refuge, which are cities of the Levi’im. The name Levi is derived from “yilaveh”[64] (“will be attached”) — the matter of bonding (“this time [my husband] will be attached”) and joining, the opposite of separation. And this is the role of the Levi’im:
(a) The tribe of Levi “was set apart to serve G‑d, to minister to Him,” and their role is “to teach His upright ways and His righteous judgments to the many.” Because of their bond with the A-lmighty — they are “His portion and His inheritance”[65] — this brings about atonement and rectification for the killer’s sin and separation between man and G‑d, so that he becomes bound to the A-lmighty once again[66].
(b) In their service, “that they may be joined to you and minister to you”[67], the unity of Israel is expressed; in addition, also in “teaching His upright ways and His righteous judgments to the many” the love of (the many —) Israel is expressed.
On account of this their cities are a rectification for the sin and separation between man and his fellow, which is killing[68].
This applies to all the cities of refuge. In Chevron the matter of unity is still more emphasized, for there the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of all the Jewish people are buried, and therefore the prayers ascend by way of Chevron[69]. And prayer is called “Chevron” on account of the joining together of the attributes of Chessed, Gevurah and Tiferes[70] — the bonding and joining of the Jewish people with the A-lmighty, which is the atonement for the aspect of the killing that is between man and G‑d.
And since they are the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the entire Jewish people, through the joining together of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the entire Jewish people there comes about a true joining also among the sons and daughters who descend from them — the atonement for the sin between man and his fellow.
And the matter of joining is so great that it is openly expressed in “its name by which it is called in the Holy Tongue”[71], in the name of the city — Chevron, from the word chibur, “joining”[72].
(From talks of Simchas Torah and Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, 5737)
Key Lesson
Chevron was the first part of Eretz Yisrael that a Jew actually owned, bought openly before the nations, and its ownership is more eternal than any other part of the Land. As a city of refuge belonging to the Levi’im, it atones for one who has separated himself from G‑d and from his fellow, for the Levi’im embody connection: to G‑d through His service, and to the people through teaching them. In Chevron, where the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of all Jews are buried and prayers ascend, this joining is so strong that it is the very name of the city. When Jews are bound to G‑d and to one another, their hold on the Land is secure.