Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. It is stated in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer that when Avraham came to purchase the Cave of Machpelah from the children of Ches, “they said to him: We know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give you and your descendants all these lands. Make a covenant with us that the children of Israel will not inherit the city of Yevus except with the consent of the Yevusites (who were of the Chittite people)”—and he made a covenant with them—and afterwards he purchased the Cave of Machpelah.”
This requires explanation:
a) How could Avraham agree to make a covenant with them that the children of Israel would not inherit the city of Yevus—contrary to G‑d’s promise to him, “all the land… I will give to you and to your descendants forever”?
b) Several decades earlier, G‑d had made a covenant with Avram: “To your descendants I have given this land.”
And the question becomes even stronger based on what is stated further in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, that “when the Israelites came to the land… they could not enter (the city of the Yevusites) because of the sign of the covenant of Avraham’s oath… And when David became king and wished to enter… they did not allow him… by the power of Avraham’s covenant.” Similarly, in the Sifri, regarding Yehoshua, it says: “And the Yevusite, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Yehudah could not drive them out”—the explanation is “they could have, but they were not permitted”. Thus, Avraham’s oath imposed a prohibition on the Jewish people to conquer Jerusalem.
2. Further on in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer, it is related that when they did not allow David to enter the city, “they said to him: You cannot enter the city of the Yevusites until you remove all these idols upon which is inscribed the oath of Avraham. David said to his men: Whoever goes up first and removes these idols upon which is inscribed the sign of Avraham’s covenant shall be chief, and Yoav ben Tzeruyah went up first…”. Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer concludes: “And afterwards he purchased the city of the Yevusites for Israel with an everlasting document for an everlasting possession.”
This is not understood (as the commentators have asked):
From the beginning of the matter, that they did not allow David to enter the city “by the power of Avraham’s covenant,” it is clear that in the days of David the oath was still in effect;
But from the continuation of the story, that Yoav fought with the Yevusites and captured the city (as is explicit in the verse), it seems that Avraham’s oath was already nullified.
[Furthermore: If Avraham’s oath was not nullified—what purpose was there in removing the idols with the oath inscribed upon them? Could such an act have the power to nullify the force of the oath?! It must therefore be that Avraham’s oath had already been nullified, and it was permitted to capture the city. The reason for removing the images was (as the commentators explain) “only because it was a sort of desecration of G‑d’s Name as long as they stood, similar to the matter of the oath to the Gibeonites” (i.e., since in the view of the Yevusites the oath was still in effect, it was necessary to remove the reminder of the oath to prevent a desecration of G‑d’s Name).]
Yet from the end of the matter, that “afterwards he purchased the city of the Yevusites for Israel with an everlasting document for an everlasting possession,” it seems that he purchased the city so that its acquisition would be “with the consent of the Yevusite people”!
Another point that needs clarification: What changed, that at the time of Yehoshua’s conquest “they could not drive them out,” that they were not permitted to drive them out because of the oath (even though they were commanded “and you shall drive out all the inhabitants of the land…”), whereas for David it was permitted to capture the city?
3. This will be understood by first considering the discussion between Avraham and the children of Ches as brought in the words of our Sages:
On the verse “I am a stranger and a resident among you,” our Sages say: “If you wish, I am a stranger; but if not, I will be a resident and take it by right, for G‑d said to me, ‘To your descendants I will give this land.’”
This requires explanation:
a) Since he was able to take it “by right,” why did he make such an effort to purchase the Cave of Machpelah (and for its full price)?
b) When Avraham said to the children of Ches “I will take it by right,” he certainly intended that they should believe his words, that G‑d had promised him this land. If so, there is no benefit in their refusal and they would give it to him willingly—so why did he say “I will take it,” which implies taking it against their will?
c) If he were to take it by force and against their will, this would constitute a desecration of G‑d’s Name in the eyes of the children of Ches (for Avraham was known among them as “a prince of G‑d,” and was renowned as a man whose conduct was the epitome of kindness, uprightness, and justice).
d) From the precise wording, “If you wish, I am a stranger; but if not, I will be a resident,” it appears that whether he is a stranger or a resident depends on the will of the children of Ches. That is: if the children of Ches wish to sell the Cave of Machpelah, then “I am a stranger,” meaning that he cannot take it by right, and only when they do not wish to do so (“but if not”), then—“I will be a resident and take it by right.”
But this is puzzling: How can it be said that the “right”—whether Avraham is permitted to take the Cave of Machpelah or not—depends on the will of the children of Ches?
e) Why did Avraham bring proof (that he could take it by right) from G‑d’s promise, “To your descendants I will give this land”—which is a gift to Avraham’s descendants—and not from the promise of giving to Avraham himself—“All the land… to you I will give it”?
According to the Midrash, which derives the proof from G‑d’s statement “To your descendants I have given this land,” this is understandable—for this verse is not a promise for the future, but is in the past tense, as the Yerushalmi puts it, “To your descendants I have given—it is already given,” and as the Midrash also says on this verse, “the word of G‑d is an act.” If so, this statement of G‑d (“To your descendants I have given”) is even stronger than the statement “to you I will give it,” which is only a promise for the future.
But according to Rashi, who brings the proof from “To your descendants I will give this land,” the question remains, as above: why did he not bring the promise “to you I will give it”?
4. The explanation of all this is as follows:
In the ownership of the Jewish people over the Land of Israel, there are two aspects: general ownership—that the entire land belongs to the collective of Israel, and individual ownership—that each Jew has a particular portion in the land that belongs (only) to him.
And these two forms of ownership of the Jewish people in the Land of Israel came about in practice through two acquisitions: the general ownership came through the conquest of the land by Yehoshua and so on, by which the entirety of Eretz Yisrael was acquired for the collective of Israel; and the individual ownership of each Jew in his particular portion was effected through settlement and possession, as each one settled and took possession of his portion.
Furthermore: these two forms of ownership are not dependent on each other; it is possible to have general ownership without individual ownership, and individual ownership without general ownership.
The explanation is as follows:
General ownership does not negate individual ownership, just as the king’s ownership over his country does not preclude the private ownership of each citizen over his own property (his house, his field, etc.). Rather, because of the king’s ownership over the entire land, certain laws apply even to the private property of each individual—the law of the kingdom is law, and therefore he is obligated to pay taxes to the king on this property, and under certain conditions the king can even take the property of a private individual, as in the law that “the king may break through fences…and no one can protest,” and so on.
Conversely, individual ownership does not necessarily bring about general ownership. For example, after the destruction of the First Temple, even if we say that the general ownership of the Jewish people over the land was nullified—“since the land was taken from their hands, the conquest was nullified,” to the point that “it was exempted by Torah law from tithes and the sabbatical year, for it is no longer the Land of Israel”—nevertheless, the individual’s ownership over his land remained, as it says in Yirmiyahu, “Fields will be bought for money, and deeds written and sealed,” for individual ownership does not depend on general ownership.
5. Based on this, Avraham’s words to the children of Ches are understood—“If you wish, I am a stranger; but if not, I will be a resident and take it by right”: the difference between the situation of “I am a stranger” (when the children of Ches sell him the Cave of Machpelah) and “I will be a resident and take it by right” is in the nature of Avraham’s ownership over the Cave of Machpelah:
The Cave of Machpelah, like all the surrounding land, was at that time under the authority and general ownership of the children of Ches, and Avraham’s request to purchase it from Ephron was only to acquire the private ownership (of Ephron) of this place. However, even after that, its general ownership would remain in the hands of the children of Ches (for we do not find that Avraham conquered the kingdom of the children of Ches).
This is the meaning of “I am a stranger”—because the land remained under the previous ownership of the children of Ches, and Avraham is a “stranger” who purchases private property within the country—the kingdom—of the children of Ches.
However, all this is only if the children of Ches agree to sell him the Cave of Machpelah. But “if not—I will be a resident and take it by right,” meaning that taking the cave would be a result (and continuation) of the general ownership over the Land of Israel.
The explanation is as follows: Avraham knew that Adam and Chava were buried in the Cave of Machpelah, and if the children of Ches would not agree to sell it to him (in a manner that would grant him private ownership), and would want to force him to bury Sarah elsewhere—not next to Chava, who was formed from one of Adam’s ribs, the handiwork of the Holy One, blessed be He—then it would become clear that the time had already arrived for the fulfillment of the promise, “To your descendants I will give this land,” and he would be granted (also) the general ownership—“I will take it by right.”
6. According to this, it is also answered why Rashi brings here the verse “To your descendants I will give this land”—and not the verse “To you I will give it.” This can be explained as follows:
The two types of ownership mentioned above, regarding the Jewish people’s possession of the Land of Israel, were both promised to Avraham our father: the verses “To your descendants I will give this land,” “To your descendants I have given this land,” refer to the general ownership of the Jewish people over the land, whereas the verse “To you I will give it” speaks of the private ownership of each Jew over his portion in the land.
The explanation of this is as follows—one can say:
The promise “To your descendants I will give this land” (and likewise, “To your descendants I have given this land”) includes the entire land in a “general” sense—“this land.” This is because the subject is “the land”—the Land of Israel, which in its entirety belongs to the entire Jewish people as a whole.
In the promise of “To you I will give it,” the verse elaborates and specifies: “See from the place where you are—northward, southward, eastward, and westward… to you I will give it and to your descendants forever. And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth, so that if a man could count the dust of the earth, then your descendants, too, could be counted. Arise, walk through the land, its length and breadth…”
That is to say:
a) In these verses, the vastness of the land and also its details are emphasized, as well as the multitude of Avraham’s descendants and their number—the implication of the continuation of the verses is that the granting of such a broad land fits the promise “And I will make your descendants like the dust of the earth,” so they need a very large land, and part of your descendants will be in the north, part in the south, etc.; and this matter is connected with the private ownership of each individual Jew over his portion in the land.
b) “Arise, walk through the land, its length and breadth”—that Avraham should take possession of the land, an act of chazakah—also refers to an acquisition that pertains to private ownership, as above, that chazakah is (primarily) in private acquisition.
7. And one can say that this is also the reason for the difference between the verses: in the verses that speak about general ownership, it says only “to your descendants,” whereas in the verses about private ownership, it says “to you I will give it and to your descendants forever,” emphasizing the giving to Avraham himself:
Avraham our father was: (a) the head of the Jewish nation, which includes all the Jewish people, and therefore, anything said to him (or given to him) is a matter of “the collective of Israel”; and he is also (b) the “father” of each and every Jew individually, as his title is “Avraham Avinu,” the father of each and every Jew.
Accordingly: the promise to Avraham regarding the general ownership of the Land of Israel is to Avraham as the head of the nation (the collective of Israel), and the promise regarding private ownership is to Avraham as the “father” of each and every Jew.
Therefore, in the verses where the promise to Avraham concerns the general ownership, it states only “to your descendants I will give” (or “to your descendants I have given”), because this is not an inheritance in the private sense, from father to son, but rather it is given to the collective of Israel (and note that it is the same “collective” throughout all generations). By contrast, regarding the private ownership that was said to Avraham as a “father,” who bequeaths to each of his children, it says “to you I will give it and to your descendants,” which emphasizes the relationship of “father” and “son” between Avraham and his descendants, through which the land is inherited from the father—Avraham—to his descendants forever.
8. Based on all the above, we can also explain the matter of Avraham’s oath to the children of Ches, “that the children of Israel will not inherit the city of the Jebusites except with their consent”:
Even though the Jewish people were commanded, “You shall dispossess all the inhabitants of the land… and you shall dwell in it… and you shall inherit the land,” which includes not only the act of conquest—general ownership—but also “and you shall dwell in it,” which is the chazakah (possession) of each person in his own land, i.e., private ownership—nevertheless, there is a difference between general ownership and private ownership. The general ownership was given entirely to the Jewish people, with no room for the rule of a foreigner; whereas regarding dwelling in the land, under certain conditions, even the nations are permitted to remain in the land, including from the seven nations. For we were commanded, “When you approach a city to wage war against it, you shall call out to it for peace,” and this law applies even to the seven nations, as Yehoshua did: “Yehoshua sent three letters before entering the land—the first, whoever wishes to flee may flee; he sent again, whoever wishes to make peace may make peace,” etc.
Accordingly, we can explain in our case: Avraham’s oath was not that the Jewish people would not inherit the general ownership of the city (or land) of the Jebusites—for it is impossible to swear against the promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, “to your descendants I will give (I have given) this land”; rather, the matter concerns private ownership. Even though the Jewish people would rule over the land of the Jebusites, for it is part of their land, nevertheless, they requested to make a covenant that the Jewish people would not take private ownership of it “except with their (the Jebusites’) consent.” That is, the children of Ches also agreed to remain under the rule and government of the Jewish people; their entire intention was only that their private ownership of the city of the Jebusites would not be taken from them—in such a case, there is no prohibition (as in the declaration “whoever wishes to make peace may make peace”).
[This point is also emphasized in the language of the request of the children of Ches—“We know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give you and your descendants all these lands; make a covenant with us…”—that is, they too know that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give the land (including the city of the Jebusites) to Israel, so what place is there to make a covenant to do the opposite—“that the children of Israel will not inherit…”? Rather, even according to the children of Ches, the oath “that the children of Israel will not inherit the city of the Jebusites” is not in contradiction to “that the Holy One, blessed be He, is destined to give you and your descendants all these lands.”]
With this, the connection between this oath and the purchase of the Cave of Machpelah is also sweetened: after they agreed to give (sell) to Avraham his private ownership of the place of the Cave of Machpelah—they requested from Avraham, measure for measure, that he swear to them that even when the general ownership of the land would pass to the possession of Israel, their private ownership of the city of the Jebusites would not be taken from them “except with their consent.”
9. According to this, we can also understand the continuation of the story in Pirkei D’Rabbi Eliezer regarding King David:
The reason David “wished to enter the city of the Jebusites” was simply because the time had come to prepare the place of the Beis HaMikdash, which is in the city of the Jebusites (Jerusalem). And according to the above, that Avraham’s oath to the children of Ches was only regarding the private ownership of the city, it is straightforward that taking this place in order to prepare for the building of the Beis HaMikdash was never included in this oath. For this taking is for the sake of the collective of Israel, and pertains to the general ownership of the land (similar to the taking of private property needed for the governance of the kingdom by the king).
That is: the non-fulfillment of the oath would only be if he were to expel them from the city in order that a private individual would settle in their place—that is, taking the private ownership of the Jebusite through the private ownership of a Jew (and this is the intent of the verse in Yehoshua, “they could not dispossess them”). However, taking the place for the sake of the collective of Israel is not relevant to the oath. [And just as Avraham knew that the Holy One, blessed be He, would eventually give him all these lands, so too he knew that at the place of the Akeidah, on the mountain where G‑d is seen, the Beis HaMikdash would eventually be built in the city of the Jebusite, and he would not swear to them “that the Jewish people will not inherit the city of the Jebusite except with their consent” in a way that the building of the Beis HaMikdash would depend on the will of the children of the Jebusite!]
According to this, it is understood that the fact that the children of the Jebusite did not allow David to enter by virtue of Avraham’s oath was not in accordance with the law, for in this they opposed the general ownership of the Jewish people over the land (in their mistaken belief that Avraham’s oath also included that the general ownership of the city of the Jebusite remained in their hands), and therefore David was permitted to wage war against them and capture the city.
And for this reason David commanded to remove the idols upon which the oath was written—since the children of the Jebusite were using this oath in a manner that was not in accordance with the law.
However, from this itself it is understood that even after David captured the city of the Jebusite, the oath was still not nullified, because his capture of the city was only by right of the king’s conquest, in order to rule over them (the general ownership), and this does not affect the oath that their private ownership would not be taken from them “except with their consent.”
Therefore, even though he could have dispossessed them by virtue of the general ownership (as a king who “breaks through fences,” etc.), and especially regarding the place of the Mikdash, which is needed for all of Israel—nevertheless, in order to fulfill the oath, “he purchased the city of the Jebusite for Israel with a permanent document as an everlasting possession.”
(From a talk of Shabbos Parshas Re’eh 5746)