Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. On the verse "And the field of Ephron arose (vayakam)," Rashi explains: "It had an elevation (tekumah), for it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king. And the plain meaning of the verse is: And the field, and the cave that was in it, and all the trees, arose [i.e., were established] to Avraham as a purchase, etc."
Simply, Rashi writes two explanations here of the word "vayakam": a) in the sense of tekumah, elevation; b) in the sense of acquisition — and this is the plain meaning of the verse — "similar to 'And the house that is in the walled city shall be established (vekam) in perpetuity to the purchaser,' which Rashi explains: 'it left the power of the seller and stood in the power of the purchaser.'"
As to why Rashi was not satisfied with explaining vayakam in the sense of acquisition, as the plain meaning of the verse, the commentators write that this is because "the purchaser is not written right after the 'arising' (as in the verse 'And the house shall be established . . . in perpetuity to the purchaser'), since 'to Avraham as a purchase' is not attached to the preceding verse because of the division of the cantillation marks; [and] one is therefore compelled to say that vayakam means only elevation. . . But according to the plain meaning of the verse, which is not concerned with the division of the cantillation marks, they explained it in its literal sense, as acquisition, like 'And the field and the cave arose.' And this is what he says, 'And the plain meaning of the verse is: And the field and the cave and all the trees arose to Avraham as a purchase' — he attached 'to Avraham as a purchase' to the word vayakam in the preceding verse, unlike the expounders of derash, who did not attach them."
But seemingly this explanation is forced. For Rashi has already set a great rule regarding his commentary: "I have come only for the plain meaning of the verse, and for the aggadah that settles the words of the verse" — that is, only when there is a difficulty in the verse that is not resolved according to the plain meaning does he bring words of aggadah to settle the plain meaning. And since according to "the plain meaning of the verse, (Rashi) is not concerned with the division of the cantillation marks," then in the plain meaning of the verse there is no difficulty here (as we find many times in a number of verses which continue one into the other even though they are two verses). If so, why did Rashi need to bring another explanation from the expounders of derash — and moreover, place it first, as the first and main explanation in the plain meaning of the verse?
2. Some explain that according to the explanation by the plain meaning of the verse, the words "the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, which faced Mamre" are superfluous, for it should have said "And the field and the cave, etc., arose to Avraham as a purchase, etc." — did we not know until now that it was the field of Ephron? Therefore he explains that the field of Ephron had an elevation: the field as a whole had an elevation, and that is why it says "the field of Ephron," meaning that the field which was attributed to Ephron, and which was in Machpelah and faced Mamre, had an elevation by entering Avraham's possession. But on the other hand, according to the Midrashic explanation, "it had an elevation," there is a difficulty: since it already said "And the field of Ephron arose," why does 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 arose." Also, according to the explanation "it had an elevation," there is no connection with the following verse, "to Avraham as a purchase." Therefore the explanation according to the "plain meaning" is also needed: that the field, the cave and all the trees were established to Avraham as a purchase.
According to this explanation, Rashi's intent is that the verse itself compels two explanations: from the fact that it first says "the field of Ephron" and afterwards repeats "the field and the cave," it is proven that it teaches us two things — that the field of Ephron had an elevation, and that the field and the cave were established to Avraham as a purchase.
But it is still not understood why Rashi places the explanation by way of derash before the plain meaning of the verse.
[Simply, it may be said that the order of the explanations in Rashi's commentary follows their order in explaining the verse ("And the field of Ephron arose — it had an elevation," and the continuation of the verse, "the field and the cave, etc.," explains "arose . . . to Avraham as a purchase"). But seemingly this is not a sufficient reason to place derash before the explanation according to "the plain meaning of the verse."]
We must therefore say that Rashi holds that the explanation of "vayakam" in the sense of "elevation" is not merely derash — as is also proven from the fact that Rashi does not preface it with "our Sages said" or "our Rabbis explained" and the like.
And what he emphasizes in the second explanation, "And the plain meaning of the verse is: And the field, etc., arose to Avraham as a purchase," is to teach us that the advantage of the explanation "it had an elevation," because of which he places it before the second explanation, is [not from the standpoint of the plain meaning of this verse — for "the plain meaning" of this verse, both the explanation of the word "vayakam" and the simple continuity of the two verses, is as the second explanation, that "arose . . . to Avraham as a purchase" means it was acquired by Avraham — but] because through it a difficulty in the passage here as a whole is resolved [even though the plain meaning of this verse is as the second explanation].
3. The explanation of this: At first, when Avraham spoke with the children of Ches, he asked them, "Give me a holding of a grave with you, that I may bury my dead from before me." Likewise afterwards, when he asked, "If it is your will that I bury my dead from before me, hear me and entreat Ephron the son of Tzochar for me," he requested "that he give me the cave of Machpelah . . . which is at the end of his field . . . as a holding of a grave." That is, the whole negotiation was about the cave alone. However, after Ephron said to Avraham, "No, my lord, hear me: I have given you the field, and the cave that is in it I have given you," Avraham answered, "I have given the money for the field; take it from me, and I will bury my dead there" — he accepted Ephron's offer regarding the field, and did not even mention the cave.
This needs explanation. Ephron's offer, "No, my lord, hear me: I have given you the field," can be explained even according to the plain meaning of the verse: Ephron's intent was only to display his honesty and good-heartedness, in keeping with the content of his words in general, "No, my lord, you shall not buy it for money," "I have given it to you," but in truth he wanted to extract more money from Avraham (as Rashi brings in the parsha, that he said much and did not do even a little). But why did Avraham accept this offer from Ephron?
[The commentators on the Torah explained the matter; but seemingly this is a question also in the plain meaning of the verse, and Rashi should have resolved it — and seemingly we do not find an explanation of this in Rashi's commentary.]
It also requires explanation (as the commentators point out) why, in the verses here — "And the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, etc., the field and the cave . . . arose to Avraham as a purchase, etc. And afterwards Avraham buried Sarah his wife, etc. And the field and the cave that was in it arose to Avraham as a holding of a grave from the children of Ches" — it was necessary to say "vayakam" twice.
[The Ohr HaChaim discusses this at length and explains that it comes to inform us that "the acquisition here was in accordance with all the laws of acquisition": "after Avraham weighed out to Ephron the price of the cave, Ephron thereby removed himself and his power from the land, as the Rambam writes . . . that once the gentile has taken the money he has removed his right, and the Jew does not acquire until the deed reaches his hand, and so these properties are like ownerless property," and the acquisition was completed afterwards "through the act of taking possession (chazakah), in that he took possession of it by burying Sarah in it." This is the second "vayakam": only then, after he buried Sarah, was it acquired by Avraham. But this explanation is according to halachah; in the plain meaning of the verse there is no hint of any of this, and simply the field was acquired by Avraham through the money itself, as in the plain meaning of the verse.]
To resolve all this, Rashi first explains on the verse "And the field of Ephron arose — it had an elevation, for it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king," as will be explained.
4. This will be understood by explaining the precise wording of Rashi, "from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king." For seemingly Ephron had been made an officer before the sale, as Rashi brings earlier: "That very day they appointed him an officer over them because of Avraham's importance." Rashi should then have used an expression such as "wicked" and "righteous" and the like, and not "commoner" and "king." (And in the Midrash it indeed says, "for it had been [the property of] a small man and became [the property of] a great man.")
The explanation of this: There is a difference in the nature of the acquisition between a commoner who buys from a commoner — even when one is more important than the other — and the acquisition of a king. The acquisition of a commoner from a commoner is in essence a change of domain; that is, the definition of the acquisition is passing out of the ownership of one into the ownership of another. And so, although there are differences in the methods of acquisition — money, deed and taking possession — in all the methods the definition of the acquisition is passing out of the domain of one into that of the other.
But when a king buys from a commoner, it is a complete removal of the domain, and it is no longer attributed to the private name of the man who sold the field to the king.
To put it another way: When one person buys from another, since the nature 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 reliance of mind, the seller's act of transfer — then just as the seller's name is present in the act of acquisition, the name also remains on the body of the field itself: this field So-and-so bought from So-and-so.
Whereas when a king buys, the essential nature of the acquisition is not from the side of the giver and seller but from the side of the king (for it is in the king's power to take everything from the people of the country in practice), and therefore no name of the previous ownership remains on the field.
And this is what Rashi is precise in saying: "It had an elevation, for it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king." It is not merely an ordinary acquisition from a seller to a buyer, in which the field of Ephron was acquired by Avraham; rather "it had an elevation" — a departure from the name of a commoner to the name of a king. Consequently there is no connection here with a private name, and in this there is no difference between an actual commoner and an officer — for in this respect they are equal.
5. It may be said that this matter accords with the general content of Avraham's conduct. He did not want to receive the cave as a gift, but bought it; and even in this he emphasized that his purchase should be "for the full price," "I will pay its entire value." Avraham's intent in this was to remove Ephron (and his name) from the field entirely: not only that Ephron should have no ownership, right (or even connection) of a monetary kind in the field [so that there would be no trace of "a tzaddik buried in a grave that is not his"], but moreover, that Ephron's name should also be removed from the field, even as the "giver" or "seller" of a burial place for the burial of Sarah.
For this reason he emphasized "for the full price": the money he gives is not in the category of an acquisition by money, but he gives the full value of the field. For in an acquisition by money there is the participation of the giving and the reliance of mind of the transferor (as above), whereas when one pays in money the value of the thing, in such a way that the seller lacks nothing, the essence of the acquisition is from the side (of the giving of the value of the thing by) the buyer, and not the transfer by the transferor (the seller).
According to this, the emphasis of the verse, after the account that "Avraham weighed out to Ephron the silver, etc.," that "the field of Ephron arose," is understood even better. For seemingly, according to the plain meaning of the verse, that the intent is that it was acquired by Avraham, what does this teach us here? Seemingly the whole verse is superfluous! And this is what Rashi explains, that the content of the verse here is "it had an elevation, for it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king." The verse comes to say that in addition to the removal of Ephron's name from the field through the purchase of the field itself "for the full price," moreover, "arose, etc. — it had an elevation, for it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king": Ephron's name was removed from the field entirely, since "it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king," as above.
This is also the precise wording of the following verse, "And afterwards Avraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah" (for seemingly it is obvious that he buried Sarah only after he bought the field) — for only after "it had an elevation," when the name of the commoner had been entirely removed from it — that is, not only did Ephron retain no ownership, but moreover, there is no matter of a commoner here at all (not even in that he sold the field to Avraham), for it is the field of a "king," without any connection even in name (that it had been formerly) to Ephron's name — then did Avraham bury Sarah his wife.
6. Along these lines another precise point in the course of the negotiation between Avraham and the children of Ches may be settled:
Avraham first asked, "Give me a holding of a grave with you," which Rashi explains, "a holding of land for a cemetery." That is, Avraham asked not only for a place for the burial of Sarah alone (or even for a few graves), but for "a holding of land for a cemetery." The children of Ches answered, "In the choicest of our graves (a grave of ours) bury your dead; none of 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 holding of land for a cemetery."
Similarly we find afterwards: when he asked Ephron for the cave of Machpelah "which is at the end of his field," Avraham said, "For the full price let him give it to me . . . as a holding of a grave." However, after Ephron offered him the whole field with "the cave that is in it I have given you . . . bury your dead," Avraham agreed and said, "and I will bury my dead there" (and no longer emphasized the matter of "a holding of a grave").
On the other hand, at the conclusion of the matter, after the account of Sarah's actual burial, it says again: "And the field and the cave, etc., arose . . . as a holding of a grave"!
According to the above, the explanation of this may be said:
Avraham's intent in asking for "a holding of a grave — a holding of land for a cemetery" was that he himself would make the holding of land into a cemetery. That is, first he would buy a holding of land, and only after it was in Avraham's ownership would he make it a "cemetery." For through this it is emphasized all the more that Ephron's name is not on this "cemetery."
But after Ephron offered to give him the whole field (not only the cave designated for burial), there was no longer any need to emphasize that he was buying "a holding of a grave," since the whole field (not only the cave) is in Avraham's ownership, in such a way that his action and deed in the field has no connection at all to the giver and seller of the field. And then, "and I will bury my dead there," for in the burial of Sarah in the field there is no connection whatsoever to Ephron; rather, a person acts within his own, and there is no need for others to sell it to him.
According to this, the reason is also understood why at the conclusion of the matter the verse adds once more, "And the field and the cave that was in it arose to Avraham (and is precise in saying) as a holding of a grave": to emphasize that ultimately Avraham's request that he be given "a holding of a grave" was fulfilled. And this is the second "vayakam" ("elevation"), for through the field becoming Avraham's "holding of a grave," his ownership of the field was strengthened; and consequently it is understood that this addition in the field's connection to Avraham also added to the field's distinction ("it had an elevation"). But this elevation had to come only after "the field of Ephron arose — it had an elevation, for it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king," and Ephron's name had already been entirely removed from the field. [And the fact that the second "vayakam" also says "from the children of Ches" is only because the field was at first in their general ownership.]
7. Now it is known that Chevron, and especially the place of the cave of Machpelah, is the first place in the Land of Israel that was actually acquired for the Jewish people in perpetuity, as stated in the Midrash that it is "one of three places regarding which the nations of the world cannot taunt Israel and say, 'They are stolen in your hands' — and these are the cave of Machpelah, the Beis HaMikdash, and the burial place of Yosef."
It may be said that from this it is understood that there is a lesson in the spiritual service of every Jew, "Mach do Eretz Yisrael" ("Make here the Land of Israel"): wherever he finds himself, a Jew must make the Land of Israel — and the making of the Land of Israel is in a manner of "it had an elevation, for it passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king."
The explanation of the matter:
Just as the elevation of the field came even before the burial of Sarah, simply through its entering Avraham's possession, so too in spiritual service: when a Jew comes to some place, or has a connection to some matter in the world — which, obviously, is because "the steps of a man are established by G‑d, and He desires his way," in order to carry out his mission of making it into the Land of Israel — he must recognize and know that through his very presence in that place, "it had an elevation." Even before he approaches to fulfill a mitzvah with it, etc., there has already come about in the place an ascent and elevation, a departure from the hand of a commoner, through the very fact that it is in the domain of a Jew.
And from this another point is understood: it is impossible that anything should prevent his service or hold him back from making "here the Land of Israel." For since "it had an elevation," having already passed from the hand of a commoner into the hand of a king — even to the King of the world — by entering the domain of a Jew, for "all Israel are children of kings," and moreover, "they are kings" — that is, even when the thing in the world is not just an ordinary physical thing but a matter and thing of importance in the world (like Ephron, who was not a commoner, for he had risen to greatness, having been appointed an officer over them), nevertheless, in relation to a Jew it is a commoner: it carries no weight in relation to a Jew, and in relation to his power and his service of making here the Land of Israel.
And the manner of his doing is like a "king": "the king says, 'Uproot the mountain'" — even when a "mountain" appears here, the evil inclination that seems like a mountain, he uproots it from its place and brings it into the domain of holiness.
And afterwards he goes on to fulfill his mission of drawing holiness into the matters of the world, to make the Land of Israel in practice.
8. From all this there is also a clear lesson regarding the Land of Israel in the literal sense. For the advantage of the place of the field and the cave of Machpelah in Chevron is that it is one of three places regarding which the nations of the world cannot taunt Israel (as above):
Although regarding the whole Land of Israel too there is no room for a claim of theft — as Rashi explains at length at the beginning of his commentary on the Torah, "The whole earth belongs to the Holy One, blessed be He; He created it and gave it to whomever was proper 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"; but in these three places there is not even a thought of a claim that would need to be answered, since these three places came into their hands through the payment of money.
The reason for this is understood according to what is written in the commentators: the uniqueness of these three places is that these places are distinguished in their holiness always, even in the time of exile. The place of the Beis HaMikdash always remains in its holiness, as our Sages said, and as the Rambam rules as halachah, that the holiness of the Mikdash is because of the Shechinah, and the Shechinah is never nullified: "The Shechinah has not moved from the Sanctuary . . . the Shechinah does not move from the Western Wall." Likewise the cave of Machpelah, the burial place of the Patriarchs, through which the prayer of all Israel passes; and similarly regarding the burial place of Yosef.
According to this it may be said that of these three places themselves, the place of the cave of Machpelah is unique in this: in addition to its having been acquired by Avraham before the conquest of the Land, it was the first place in the Land of Israel acquired by Avraham, who bought it for the burial of Sarah, the mother of Yitzchak, without any connection to Yishmael, for Sarah's connection is only to the Jewish people. And from then on it was the burial place of the Patriarchs of the Children of Israel: Avraham and Sarah, Yitzchak and Rivkah, Yaakov and Leah.
And through Chevron and the cave of Machpelah, strength and reinforcement is given — the strength of a king — that the Land of Israel will remain for the Children of Israel also in the last moments of exile. And very soon indeed we will merit the coming of our righteous Moshiach, when the whole Land of Israel will be in its completeness — "When the L‑rd your G‑d will expand your border" — including the land of the Keini, the Kenizi and the Kadmoni, which were given at the Covenant Between the Parts to Avraham Avinu, in the manner of "To your offspring I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the river Euphrates: the Keini and the Kenizi and the Kadmoni," together with the land of the seven nations, speedily in our days, literally.
(From the talks of 20 MarCheshvan and Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah 5746)
Key Lesson
Rashi teaches that when Avraham bought Ephron's field it "had an elevation," passing from a commoner into the hand of a king, so that no trace of Ephron's name remained on it. So too, wherever a Jew finds himself, the place is already elevated simply by entering his domain, and nothing in the world can stand in the way of his mission to "make here the Land of Israel"; with a king's strength he uproots every obstacle. Chevron, bought for full payment, gives this strength to the whole Land of Israel until the complete Redemption.