Parshas Chayei Sara

A NATIONAL LOSS

“...and Avraham came to eulogize Sarah and to bewail her” (23:2)

The Parsha begins with the passing of our Matriarch Sarah. The Torah relates that Avraham came to Chevron “lispod leSarah velivkosah” - “to eulogize Sarah and to weep for her”. The word “livkosa” which means “to weep for her” is written with a small “kaf”. The commentaries understand this to signify the fact that Avraham curtailed his grieving for Sarah. ¹ What possible reason could there be for Avraham’s actions?

Additionally, the construct of the verse requires further analysis. Why is eulogizing separated from crying? Should the verse not have stated “to eulogize and cry for Sarah” rather than “to eulogize Sarah and to cry for her”? Furthermore, as the Rabbeinu Bechaya points out, the verse begins with the words “and Sarah died”, identifying Sarah; therefore, why is it necessary to mention her name altogether at the end of the verse?² Finally, the Riva questions the order of events in the verse; does not crying occur before eulogizing?³

Sarah fulfilled two roles during her lifetime. She portrayed a public persona, through which, together with Avraham, she spread the message of monotheism, impacting upon the lives of tens of thousands of people. She also fulfilled the private role of wife and mother.

The Torah is teaching us that the function of a eulogy is to emphasize to the listeners the public and communal loss which has occurred. “Sarah” was not her original name. The Talmud teaches us that Sarah’s name was changed to reflect her status as “princess of all the nations”, her public persona. Avraham came to eulogize “Sarah”; his own personal loss and the tears that he shed for her were kept private. Accentuating his own loss would diminish the public loss of this great woman. Avraham’s primary concern was to maximize the public tragedy so that the world would realize what they had lost. His personal grief was secondary and therefore intentionally not highlighted.

¹ See Ba’al Haturim 23:2
² See Kli Yakar 23:2
³ See Tosafos Hashaleim Bereishis p. 231

A SOVEREIGN PURCHASE

“And the field with its cave was confirmed as Avraham’s property...” (23:20)

The Ibn Ezra is troubled by the fact that the Torah finds it necessary to record Avraham’s purchase of a burial plot for Sarah. He therefore concludes that the Torah is teaching us the distinction of being buried in Eretz Yisroel. Furthermore, he says the Torah emphasizes this purchase, for it marks the beginning of the fulfillment of Hashem’s promise to Avraham, that Eretz Yisroel would be his.¹ The Ramban disagrees with both premises. While it may be true that burial in Eretz Yisroel carries distinction, this cannot be derived from our parsha. If Sarah would have died outside of Eretz Yisroel, and we would have seen Avraham’s great efforts to bury her in Eretz Yisroel, then perhaps we could have drawn the conclusion suggested by the Ibn Ezra. However, Sarah died in Eretz Yisroel. Where else would Avraham have buried her? In regard to the second conclusion drawn by the Ibn Ezra, the Ramban argues, stating that the fulfillment of Hashem’s promise only began with Avraham’s descendants.²

Why does Avraham need the children of Cheis, the Hittites to intercede with Efron on his behalf? Why did Avraham not ask Efron to sell him his field directly? Additionally, we know from earlier parshios that Avraham was extremely wealthy. It is inconceivable that a man of his stature would not own land, especially since a person’s wealth was measured by the amount of sheep and cattle he owned, which required land for grazing. Why would he not bury Sarah in one of his own lands?

Avraham pays Efron with money that is described as being “over lasocheir” - negotiable currency. Rashi defines this as international currency.³ Why the need to pay in this manner? At the conclusion of the sale, the verse states, Vayakam sdeh Efron” - “the field of Efron was confirmed” (as Avraham’s property). Rashi cites the Midrashic interpretation, which defines “ Vayakam” as “and it was elevated”; the field was elevated from the hands of a commoner to that of a king.⁴ Why is the change in status described specifically as going from a commoner to a king? Should not the change in status be reflected by the transfer of the land to the hands of a tsadik - a righteous person? Furthermore, would this not be true regarding every acquisition Avraham made? Why does the Torah find it necessary to emphasize the change in status by this particular transaction?

In verse seventeen the Torah states “Vayakam sdeh Efron”- “the field of Efron was confirmed” . This statement is again repeated in verse twenty. Why is this repetition necessary?

When a person acquires land, although he becomes the landowner, he is still subject to the rules and regulations of the municipality wherein his property lies. There is, however, a mode of purchase, whereby one acquires not only the land, but the governing rights as well. An example of this is the United States’ acquisition of Alaska from the Soviet Union. This is referred to as a sovereign purchase.It is this form of acquisition that Avraham Avinu is attempting to make. During Avraham’s lifetime the land was Canaan; it was under the sovereignty of the nations who lived there, and therefore, it lacked the sanctity of Eretz Yisroel. Avraham wanted to bury Sarah in Eretz Yisroel, not Eretz Canaan. He therefore could not bury Sarah in one of his own properties, for his properties were in Eretz Canaan, under the jurisdiction of the Hittites. The only manner in which he could accomplish a sovereign acquisition was if the Hittites would agree to relinquish sovereignty to Avraham. This explains why the children of Cheis were a necessary party for the transaction. When making a sovereign acquisition, a person uses international currency, not the currency of the sovereignty from which he is attempting to withdraw.

The distinction of being buried in Eretz Yisroel is now apparent. Sarah died in Eretz Canaan, but Avraham buried her in Eretz Yisroel. This purchase signified the beginning of the fulfillment of Hashem’s promise that Eretz Yisroel will belong to Avraham and his descendants. It is this sovereign acquisition that the Midrash refers to when interpreting the words, “Vayakam sdeh Efron”. Efron’s field was elevated from the hands of a commoner to those of its new sovereign ruler, Avraham.

In actuality two purchases were necessary. The first from the Children of Cheis; the sovereign acquisition, and the second from Efron, who was the private owner. The Torah indicates both purchases by stating twice that the field was confirmed. In verse seventeen the verse states “the field of Efron was confirmed”, the focus being the acquisition from Efron. In verse twenty the verse does not mention Efron, instead the verse records that the land was confirmed as a purchase from the Children of Cheis.

¹ 23:19
² ibid. See Chavel for the correct reading of the Ramban, Footnote 53
³ 23:16
⁴ 23:17