The Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit MidrashThe Israel Koschitzky
Virtual Beit Midrash
Surf A Little Torah
Yeshivat
Har Etzion
PARASHAT CHAYEI SARA
By Rav David Silverberg
Parashat Chayei-Sara tells the famous story of Avraham's servant's
mission to select a wife for
A number of subtle but notable differences exist between the Torah's initial account of the servant's experiences, and his version of the story when speaking to Rivka's family. One such difference relates to the manner in which Rivka formulates her offer of water. In the initial narrative, Rivka does not mention anything about giving water to camels until after the servant himself finished drinking: "She said, 'Drink, my master,' and she quickly lowered her pitcher on her hand and gave him to drink. When she completed giving him to drink, she said, 'I shall draw for your camels, as well'" (24:18-19). In relating this incident to Rivka's family, however, the servant tells, "She quickly lowered her pitcher from upon her and said, 'Drink, and I shall give your camels to drink, as well'" (24:46). (See also the servant's formulation in his prayer to God anticipating the girl's offer to give water to the camels 24:14.)
Rav Mordechai Gifter, in his Pirkei Torah, suggests that this distinction reflects the different levels of refinement and sensitivity that Rivka and Avraham's servant possessed. Rivka, Rav Gifter explained, lived with such a keen awareness of the fundamentally distinct natures of man and animal that she could not bring herself to speak in the same sentence of a man drinking and an animal drinking. In her perception, these are two entirely different events; a man's sustaining his life, health, strength and comfort to enable him to serve his Creator in no way resembles the act of drinking by an animal. Man is not merely a higher form of animal; he is a fundamentally different kind of creature, such that his eating and drinking cannot be compared on any level to that of an animal.
Avraham's servant, though described by Chazal as a man of piety and wisdom, did not have this same sensitivity to this essential distinction between man and animal, and he was thus able to speak in the same breath of people and animal drinking water. It was only Rivka, who, with her exceptional spiritual awareness and sense of spiritual mission, made a point of speaking separately about the sustenance of the human being and that of camels.
******
We read in Parashat Chayei-Sara of the mission Avraham assigns to "his
servant, the senior member of his household, who oversaw all he had" (24:2) to
travel to
Several passages in the Talmud describe Eliezer as a pious and learned man. In Masekhet Yoma (28b), the Gemara interprets the Torah's reference to Eliezer as zekan beito ("the senior member of his [Avraham's] household") as alluding to his diligent Torah study. Furthermore, the Gemara claims, the expression "moshel be-khol asher lo" ("who oversaw all he had") means that Eliezer achieved complete mastery over Avraham's religious teachings. In addition to being a scholar, the Gemara comments, Eliezer also made an effort to teach the knowledge he absorbed to others ("doleh u-mashkeh mi-torato shel rabo la-acheirim"). And, according to the Gemara in Masekhet Sanhedrin (95a), Eliezer traveled from Be'er Sheva to Aram Naharayim with miraculous speed ("kefitzat ha-aretz"), clearly suggesting that his piety rendered him worthy of God's supernatural providence.
A much different picture, however, appears to emerge from the description
of Eliezer in the Midrashic work Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer (16). Interestingly enough, here Eliezer is
said to have initially worked as a servant for the wicked king Nimrod, who as
many Midrashim relate sought to kill Avraham for preaching monotheism. (A slightly different version appears in
Targum Yonatan Ben Uziel to Bereishit 14:14, where Eliezer is identified
as Nimrod's son.) When Avraham was
miraculously saved, the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer tells, Nimrod paid homage
to his adversary by granting him gifts, including his servant, Eliezer. While this description of Eliezer's
origins as a loyal servant of Nimrod does not necessarily reflect negatively
on his character, later in this passage he is explicitly referred to as a wicked
person. The Pirkei De-Rabbi
Eliezer tells that in gratitude to Eliezer for finding a suitable mate for
Yitzchak, Avraham freed his servant, at which point "the Almighty paid him his
reward in this world so that the wicked will not receive reward in the next
world, and He made him a king and he is Og, king of
If we indeed identify Eliezer as Og, then we seemingly cannot attribute
to him the qualities of piety and Torah scholarship described earlier. Og is commonly depicted by Chazal as a cruel, brutish and selfish tyrant
hardly the image that emerges from the aforementioned comments of the Gemara in
reference to Eliezer. Seemingly,
then, the Pirkei De-Rabbi
Eliezer represents a different
view than the position taken in the Gemara.
The Da'at Zekeinim
Mi-ba'alei Ha-Tosefot (24:39),
however, attempts reconciling these sources by speculating that the term "Og"
was actually a title, not a name, similar to the title "Pharaoh" by which
Egyptian kings were known. All
kings of
Clearly, however, this theory is highly speculative and does not appear
to accommodate the straightforward reading of the Pirkei De-Rabbi Eliezer.
(Sources taken from Rav Mordechai Frankel's
Mayim Rabim, Parashat
Chayei-Sara)
******
The opening section of Parashat Chayei-Sara tells of Avraham's purchase
of the Makhpela field from Efron as a site for the burial of his wife,
Sara. It appears from a simple
reading of the verses (23:3-16) that Efron and his fellow Chitim held Avraham in
the highest esteem and wished to give him the desired piece of land without
pay. In response to Avraham's
initial request for a burial plot, the Chitim declare, "You are a prince of God
in our midst; bury your dead in the choicest of our graves. Nobody among us will stop you from
burying your dead" (23:6). Then,
after Avraham submits the specific request for the Makhpela field and expresses
his desire to pay its full value, Efron, the field's owner, replies, "No my
master, please hear me: I have given you the field, and I have [likewise] given
you the cave within it. I have
given it to you in view of my countrymen bury your dead" (23:11). But Avraham insists upon paying in full
for the land "I have given the money for the field take it from me, and
[only then] shall I bury my dead there" (23:13) and ultimately gives Efron
four hundred silver coins (23:15).
Chazal, however, in several contexts, interpret
this exchange as reflecting an element of greed on Efron's part. The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Metzia (87a)
says of Efron that "the wicked say a lot but do not even do little." Although he initially speaks in very
generous terms and offers Avraham the field, he ultimately demands an exorbitant
price. The Midrash Tanchuma (Re'ei,
10) similarly comments about Efron, "hikhnis ayin tzara be-mamono" he looked greedily upon Avraham's
money. Knowing full well of
Avraham's extraordinary wealth, Efron allowed himself to ask for a
disproportionately high price for the Makhpela field.
The Sages' reading of this episode likely results from a textual difficulty that presents itself towards the end of the exchange between Avraham and Efron. Efron says to Avraham, "After all, what is a four hundred-shekel property between us? Go bury your dead" (23:14), seemingly persisting in his offer to give Avraham the land for free. The very next verse, however, tells, "Avraham listened to Efron, and Avraham paid Efron the money that he mentioned " The obvious question arises, if Avraham "listened to Efron" and accepted his offer, then why did he pay for the field? This difficulty, perhaps, led Chazal to reinterpret the first verse. In their view, when Efron remarks, " what is a four hundred-shekel property between us," he is stating an asking price, and not offering the field for free. Even though he appears to make a generous offer out of respect for Avraham, his true intent is to name a steep price which he knew full well that Avraham would agree to pay.
On the level of the peshat (the straightforward reading of the text), the Shadal suggests a different interpretation. He understands Efron's comment as though he had said, "This issue is really not worth a whole discussion, especially while your wife's body awaits burial. If you want to pay, then pay, but first bury your wife." According to the Shadal, Efron here neither insists on giving the field for free nor demands payment. He rather tells Avraham that this matter is not significant enough to warrant a whole negotiation process. Efron bids Avraham to just take the field with or without paying, whichever he prefers, as the issue of payment is simply not worth debating while his wife's remains await burial.
******
We read in Parashat Chayei-Sara of the "test" conducted by Avraham's
servant as he sets out to find the girl destined to marry Yitzchak. When he arrives at the well outside the
city of
When the servant relates this incident to Rivka's family, he recalls as well his feelings of gratitude to the Almighty for answering his prayers: "I kneeled and bowed to the Lord, and I blessed the Lord, the God my master Avraham, who led me along a true path to bring the daughter of my master's kinsman for his son" (24:48).
What precisely did the servant mean when he speaks of God leading him "along a true path" ("be-derekh emet")?
Instinctively, perhaps, we would interpret the word emet in this context to mean "proper" or "correct," rather than "true." The servant expresses his gratitude to God for leading him along the proper route, the route that led to the successful fulfillment of Avraham's command.
The Rashbam explains differently: "'Along a true path' for the Almighty's promise to perform kindness to Avraham and his son was confirmed." The servant speaks of his route as a derekh emet because his success confirmed the fulfillment of God's promise to deal kindly with Avraham and Yitzchak.
An insightful homiletic interpretation of this expression was suggested
by Rav Yitzchak Kunstadt of Pressburg, in his work Luach Erez (published
in
******
The first section of Parashat Chayei-Sara (23:1-20) tells of Avraham's purchase of the Makhpela field, which contains the Makhpela cave in which Avraham buried his wife Sara. Later in the parasha, we read that Avraham, too, was buried in the Makhpela cave (25:9), and this site would also serve as the burial place for Yitzchak, Rivka, Yaakov and Leah (see Bereishit 49:31). According to a famous Midrashic tradition (cited by Rashi to 23:2), Adam and Chava are likewise buried in Makhpela.
The Gemara in Masekhet Eruvin (53a) cites a debate between Rav and Shemuel as to how the cave was structured. The word "makhpela," which relates to the Hebrew word for "double" (keifel), suggests that this cave was somehow "doubled," it consisted of two chambers or two tiers. According to one view, the Makhpela cave consisted of two caves zeh lifnim mi-zeh one in front of the other; there was an interior area and an exterior area. The other view, by contrast, maintains that Makhpela was arranged as a bayit ve-aliya "a house and an attic," meaning, one cave on top of another.
Rav Yaakov Reischer, in his Iyun Yaakov, suggests that this debate between Rav and Shemuel touches upon a far more fundamental issue than simply the physical arrangement of the Makhpela cave. If the two burial sites were situated one behind the other, then it stands to reason that Adam and Chava, who of course died before the cave's other occupants, were buried in the interior area, and the patriarchs and matriarchs were later interred in the exterior cave. Accordingly, it is Adam and Chava who occupy the more prominent area in Makhpela, the innermost chamber. If, however, Makhpela consisted of a lower and upper level, then presumably Adam and Chava were interred in the lower area, and the patriarchs and matriarchs in the upper tier. According to this view, it is Avraham, Sara, Yitzchak, Rivka, Yaakov and Leah who were given the more honorable position in the cave.
Thus, Rav Reischer suggests, Rav and Shemuel perhaps debate the question of to whom we are to afford greater honor and distinction: Adam and Chava, or the patriarchs and matriarchs. On the one hand, Adam and Chava were created directly by the Almighty Himself, without the involvement of a mother and father. What more, they were introduced into a pure, pristine world, one which had not been tainted by centuries of egotism, violence and corruption. From this perspective, Adam and Chava are far greater than even the likes of Avraham and Sara, and therefore deserved the more dignified chamber. The other view, however, held that to the contrary, the compromised state into which the patriarchs and matriarchs were born in comparison with Adam and Chava renders them far more deserving of honor and distinction. The fact that they came into the world centuries after the creation of man, and encountered a humanity beset by greed and Godlessness, makes them all the greater and their achievements all the more remarkable. It is thus specifically they, rather than Adam and Chava the very first human beings, molded directly by "God's hands" who were given the more distinguished chamber in the Makhpela cave.
******
The Mishna in Masekhet Avot (5:3) famously comments, "Our patriarch
Avraham was tested with ten trials, and he withstood them all." While it is commonly understood that the
incident of the akeida where Avraham was prepared to kill his own son
in compliance with the divine command marked the tenth and final of his
trials, Rabbenu Yona, in his commentary to Avot, held a different view. According to Rabbenu Yona, the story of
Avraham's purchase of Makhpela as a burial site for his wife was the tenth of
the patriarch's trials. God had
already promised Avraham that all of
Rav Eliyahu Dessler, in his Mikhtav Mei-Eliyahu (vol. 4, p. 245), points to a different factor that made the purchase of Makhpela a particularly difficult trial for Avraham. Namely, he remained calm, polite and respectful despite the emotional strain he undoubtedly experienced at this moment. Not only had his beloved wife to whom he had been married for over a century just passed away, he was now compelled to negotiate with the local inhabitants and pay an exorbitant price for a suitable burial site. This was a time of great anguish and frustration for Avraham, and yet, as even a cursory reading of this narrative reveals, he fully retained his composure all throughout the negotiations, and spoke to the Chittites with the utmost dignity and respect. This was indeed a difficult test for Avraham.
Rav Dessler comments that one of the fundamental rules of derekh eretz (etiquette) is that in his words "the fact that I am in distress does not mean that you should suffer." Personal troubles do not exempt a person from his obligation to treat other people with respect and patience; it is wrong to allow one's frustrations to interfere with his relationships with those around him. If the first nine of Avraham's tests related to his commitment to and faith in God, and His unwavering devotion to the divine command, then the tenth according to Rav Dessler involves basic derekh eretz, and teaches the importance of polite, dignified speech even during times of personal crisis and distress.
***********
Parashat Chayei-Sara tells of Avraham's servant's experiences in Aram Naharayim, where he had gone in search of a suitable bride for Yitzchak. We read that the servant prays to God at the city's well that the girl who offers to draw water for both him and his camels should be the one selected for Yitzchak. When Rivka, Yitzchak's second cousin, arrives and makes such an offer, Avraham's servant goes with her to her home and tells her family of his prayer and God's immediate response.
Rashi, commenting on this narrative (24:42), cites a famous comment of the Midrash (Bereishit Rabba 60:8):
The conversation of the servants of the patriarchs is greater before the Almighty than the Torah of their descendants, for the story of Eliezer appears twice in the Torah, while many fundamental [halakhic] principles of the Torah are conveyed only through subtle allusion.
The Midrash addresses the ironic and counterintuitive "bias" that the Torah displays to the experiences of Avraham's servant (whom the Midrash presumes to be Eliezer). Many fundamental halakhot earn no explicit mention in the Torah, and are rather extracted from the text through various exegetical devices. The story of Eliezer, by contrast, is not only told in considerable detail, but is repeated, as the Torah records the servant's word-for-word account of his experiences even though those experiences had already been narrated previously. The Midrash thus establishes that "the conversation of the servants of the patriarchs is greater before the Almighty than the Torah of their descendants."
Much has been written about this Midrashic passage in an attempt to determine wherein precisely lay the particular importance of these "conversations" that warrants such emphasis in the Torah. It is commonly explained that as Eliezer had imbibed the values and teachings of his master, his day-to-day conduct and mode of speech reflect those ideals and are thus worthy of careful study and review. The question, however, remains, where in this "conversation" do we find these ideals? From which aspect of the servant's conduct are we to draw ethical guidance and instruction?
Rav Mordechai Gifter, in his Pirkei Torah, suggests that we focus our attention on Eliezer's impeccable honesty and integrity as he seeks to fulfill his mission. (Indeed, earlier this week we saw that the servant was particularly grateful to God for allowing him to achieve success in this endeavor without having to resort to devious schemes.) In speaking to Rivka's family, the servant begins by emphasizing Avraham's insistence that Yitzchak marry only a girl from his family (24:37-41). Generally, when trying to win another party's consent to a certain arrangement, a person will seek to downplay the benefit he stands to gain, and will instead emphasize the potential gain for the other party. We might have therefore expected Eliezer to focus his presentation exclusively on the greatness of Avraham and Yitzchak's credentials, and make no mention of Avraham's vested interest in the match. Eliezer, however, spoke with complete openness and honesty about why he pursues Rivka's hand for Yitzchak, and did not hesitate to mention Avraham's insistence that his son marry as girl from his family in Aram.
This, perhaps, reflects the greatness of "the conversation of the servants of the patriarchs," and the values that this narrative seeks to convey. As the Netziv famously writes in his introduction to Sefer Bereishit, Chazal spoke of the patriarchs as yesharim, honest and upright men, because this was the virtue that constitutes or that ought to constitute the spiritual foundation and hallmark of Am Yisrael. Appropriately, then, the Torah elaborates on the honesty and integrity of Avraham's servant, whose speech and mode of conduct exemplified the ideal of yashrut which we, Avraham's descendants, are bidden to embody and live by.