PARASHAT CHAYEI SARA

By Rav David Silverberg

            A famous Mishna in Pirkei Avot (5:3) comments that Avraham successfully withstood ten nisyonot, or trials, during his lifetime.  The Rishonim disagree in identifying the ten tests, though most point to akeidat Yitzchak, the command to Avraham to sacrifice his son, as the tenth and final trial.  The notable exception is Rabbenu Yona, who, in his commentary to Avot, lists the akeida as the ninth of the ten nisyonot.  Avraham’s tenth trial, Rabbenu Yona claims, was the purchase of a burial plot for his wife, Sara, as told in the beginning of Parashat Chayei-Sara.  Despite the fact that God had promised him all of Eretz Yisrael, Avraham was compelled to approach the indigenous Chittites and pay an exorbitant sum for a burial plot.  But Avraham successfully withstood this challenge, and uttered no complaint to God, neither in his mouth nor in his mind.

            Rabbenu Yona’s view, that the purchase of a burial plot constituted one of Avraham’s tests, is rooted in a Talmudic passage (Sanhedrin 111a) cited by Rashi in his commentary to Sefer Shemot (6:9):

The Almighty said to him [Moshe]: What a shame for those who are lost, but not forgotten!  I have reason to bemoan the death of the patriarchs!  On many occasions I revealed Myself to them… And when Avraham sought to bury Sara, he did not find land until he purchased with a large amount of money…

            It is perhaps worthwhile to note the contrast between this trial and the one which immediately preceded it, akeidat Yitzchak.  As Rabbenu Yona himself observed, the akeida undoubtedly marked the most difficult of the ten trials, and for this reason God announced in its aftermath, “for now I know that you are God-fearing” (22:12).  Additionally, akeidat Yitzchak is the only of the trials which the Torah introduces by stating that God put Avraham to the test (22:1), indicating that this trial in particular embodies the notion of a “nisayon.”  Both emotionally and theologically, akeidat Yitzchak posed an unimaginable challenge, as God demanded that Avraham perform an act that opposed the most powerful human emotions, the most elementary standard of ethics, everything he had embodied and preached for decades, and even God’s own repeated promises.

            The purchase of a burial plot, by contrast, bears far more resemblance to the everyday “trials” which most of us confront in one form or another, and to one extent or another, on a regular basis.  It entailed a heavy expenditure, an encounter with Efron that Avraham would likely have preferred to avoid, and a feeling of being a foreigner on the soil that was meant to be his.  The experience was unpleasant, but might not be regarded as traumatic, certainly not to the degree of akeidat Yitzchak.  It reminded Avraham that God’s promise was as yet unfulfilled, but did not signify its utter abrogation, as the sacrifice of Yitzchak would have.

            According to Rabbenu Yona, Avraham’s final two tests might demonstrate that “trials” do not always come in the form of a drastic, life-changing experience.  People are tested not only in times of painful tragedy and personal upheaval, but also in their ordinary, day-to-day affairs.  If akeidat Yitzchak represents the trials brought on by turmoil and calamity, the purchase of Me’arat Ha-makhpela corresponds with the everyday trials of frustrated hopes, unfulfilled expectations, unwanted encounters with difficult people, and unforeseen expenses.  These, too, qualify as “trials,” occasions that can test one’s commitment to the Almighty and faith in His infinite benevolence.  We are bidden to follow Avraham’s example by accepting these experiences without questioning God’s judgment, and remaining unwaveringly committed to Him regardless of the hardships that sometimes come our way.

*******

            Parashat Chayei-Sara begins by telling of Sara’s death and Avraham’s subsequent purchase of Me’arat Ha-makhpela as a burial site.  Ibn Ezra (23:19) comments that this story is recorded in the Torah in order to demonstrate “the greatness of the Land of Israel for both the living and the dead.”  Seemingly, this means that Avraham’s efforts to secure a burial plot for Sara in the Land of Israel shows the importance he afforded to the value of residing in Israel not only during one’s lifetime, but even after death.  (Ibn Ezra further comments that this incident is significant in that it marks the first stage in the fulfillment of God’s promise that Avraham and his offspring would possess Eretz Yisrael.)

            The Ramban notes the obvious difficulty with Ibn Ezra’s comment, namely, that Avraham’s purchase of a burial plot for Sara does not necessarily demonstrate the immense value of the Land of Israel.  Avraham lived in Eretz Yisrael and, as the Torah emphasizes in the second verse of this parasha, it was there where Sara died.  The fact that Avraham scrambled to purchase a burial plot in the Land of Israel could just as easily be attributed to immediate practical necessity, rather than to the unique quality of Eretz Yisrael.  The Ramban thus argues that this episode must have been recorded for a different purpose.  In his view, the Torah wrote this incident “to show God’s kindness to Avraham, who was ‘the prince of God’ in the land in which he had come to reside…and all the people called him ‘my master’.”  Throughout Avraham’s exchange with the Chittites, they speak to him with great respect and reverence, despite his humility and unassuming nature.  According to the Ramban, the Torah recorded this event to demonstrate that God’s blessing, “va-agadela shemekha” (“I shall exalt your name” – 12:2) was fulfilled already during his lifetime, as he earned the honor and esteem of the land’s residents.  Additionally, the Ramban writes, the Torah wished to inform us of the burial site of our sacred patriarchs and matriarchs, so that we can afford proper respect to that site.

            In defense of Ibn Ezra, Rav Yechiel Michel Feinstein (in the posthumously published volume, Chiddushei Ha-Grim) suggested that the greatness of Eretz Yisrael is demonstrated not through the episode itself, but rather through the fact that it was deemed worthy of mention.  True, as the Ramban noted, Avraham’s purchase of Me’arat Ha-makhpela arose, first and foremost, out of practical necessity.  But what impressed Ibn Ezra was that the Torah devoted a section to narrate this event, recording the entire exchange between Avraham and the Chittites.  Ibn Ezra felt that this can be explained only in light of the unique quality of Eretz Yisrael, which made the details of this otherwise ordinary transaction worthy of eternal commemoration.

            Interestingly, as Rav Feinstein noted, Ibn Ezra makes a similar remark later in his commentary (33:19), concerning Yaakov’s purchase of land outside the city of Shekhem upon his return to Canaan.  Once again, Ibn Ezra comments that this event was recorded to demonstrate the greatness of Eretz Yisrael.  In this context, however, the Ramban does not express any objection to Ibn Ezra’s theory.  The likely reason for the Ramban’s silence, Rav Feinstein explains, is that Yaakov was not compelled to purchase land near Shekhem.  In fact, he stayed in the region only temporarily, as he made his way toward Chevron.  Hence, the fact that he chose to purchase property may indeed indicate the importance of owning land in Eretz Yisrael.  In truth, however, Ibn Ezra refers not to the events themselves, but rather to the Torah’s decision to record these events.  Thus, regarding both Avraham’s purchase of Makhpela and Yaakov’s purchase of property near Shekhem, the fact that the Torah found these events noteworthy demonstrates the special quality of the land and hence the importance of acquiring property therein.

*******

            Parashat Chayei Sara tells the story of Avraham’s servant who traveled to Aram Naharayim in search of a suitable mate for Yitzchak.  The Torah relates that the servant arrived at the well outside the city and saw Rivka, the daughter of Yitzchak’s cousin, Betuel.  Upon seeing Rivka, we read, “The servant ran to greet her” (24:17).  Rashi comments, “Because he saw the water rise to greet her.”  What impressed the servant was the fact that the waters in the well rose to the surface when Rivka approached, indicating that this was no ordinary young woman.

            The Ramban cites the Midrashic source of Rashi’s comments and explains that the Sages arrived at this reading based on the Torah’s description of Rivka’s drawing water from the well.  When Rivka first arrived at the well to take water, the Torah writes, “she filled her pitcher and came up [from the well]” (24:16).  Later, however, after Rivka offered to give water to the servant’s camels, the Torah writes that she had to “draw” water from the well (24:20).  The Ramban suggests that unlike in the second instance, when Rivka had to draw water from the well, in the first she needed only to “fill her pitcher,” without lowering the jug to draw.  The Sages thus deduced that when Rivka first approached the well, the waters rose to the surface in her honor, such that did not have to exert any effort to fill her pitcher.

            The question arises, if the waters rose for Rivka when she initially approached, to draw water for herself, then why did they not rise for her again the second time, when she approached to take water for the servant’s camels?

            Rav Levi Yitzchak of Berditchev suggested an insightful explanation.  The Midrash here teaches that when the time comes for performing a mitzva, the waters are lowered once again, meaning, one must exert effort.  The waters rose in Rivka’s honor when she came to fetch water for her own needs, but when she returned to the well to perform the mitzva of providing water for a weary traveler’s camels, the waters receded.  Simply put, there are no shortcuts when it comes to avodat Hashem; once cannot expect circumstances to always work out in his favor to make his mitzva observance simple and straightforward.  Even while we enjoy certain comforts and conveniences, proper commitment to Torah and mitzvot is not always comfortable or convenient.  Sometimes the “water rises,” but we can rest assured that at some point it will go back down, and we will have to exert the effort to draw it from the well.

*******

            The Torah, in Parashat Chayei Sara, introduces the narrative of Yitzchak’s marriage by stating, “Avraham was old…and the Lord blessed Avraham with everything.”  The Gemara in Masekhet Bava Batra (16b) cites a view that interprets this verse to mean that Avraham had a daughter named “Bakol.”  According to this reading, it seems, when the Torah says that God blessed Avraham “ba-kol” (“with everything”), it refers to the name of Avraham’s daughter.

            The Ramban cites this reading in his commentary and describes it as an “inyan nifla” (“wondrous concept”), which conveys an “inyan amok me’od” (“very profound idea”).  He proceeds to explain that the Sages refer here to a divine attribute which they term kol (“everything”), and is called by this word because it constitutes, in the Ramban’s words, “yesod ha-kol” – “the foundation of everything.”  The notion of Avraham begetting a daughter named “Kol,” according to the Ramban, means that Avraham, as the embodiment of kindness, conducted himself in a manner signified by this attribute (“ve-ha-mida ha-zot hayeta le-Avraham ke-vat ki hu ish ha-chesed ve-yitnaheig be-zo”).

            Undoubtedly, the Rambam refers here to concepts in the realm of mystical thought, but, nevertheless, they likely lend themselves to at least some level of interpretation even in the realm of nigleh (“revealed” knowledge, as opposed to mysticism).  Rav Aharon Kotler (in Mishnat Rabbi Aharon) suggested that the notion of a divine attribute of kol as applied to Avraham refers to the quality of histapkut, contentment.  The Almighty, who possesses everything, obviously does not feel any sense of lacking or deficiency.  The blessing of ba-kol as applied to Avraham thus means that he felt a similar sense of absolute contentment, and saw himself as lacking nothing.

            In this context Rav Aharon delineated three different levels of histapkut.  First, the term itself refers to a person who senses his deficiency, who is aware of – and perhaps even distressed by – what he does not have, but nevertheless overcomes the natural tendency to endlessly pursue wealth.  At a higher level is the one described by the famous Mishna (Avot 4:1) as “ha-samei’ach be-chelko” – “he who rejoices in his lot.”  Such a person does not have to overcome the instinct of obsessive greed and acquisitiveness, because he genuinely feels content and happy with what he has.  Even the samei’ach be-chelko acknowledges the fact that there is much he lacks, but this knowledge does not cause him any distress or anxiety.  At the highest level, Rav Aharon asserted, is the attribute described by Chazal as kol, whereby one feels as though he has “everything.”  With this mindset, a person truly believes that whatever the Almighty has given him is all that he needs, and thus feels absolutely no sense of lacking whatsoever.  Just as God cannot possibly sense any feeling of deficiency, similarly, a person who achieves this quality of kol genuinely feels as though he has “everything” and lacks nothing.

            This, perhaps, is, at least at one level, what the Ramban had in mind when he spoke of the Gemara’s comment as an “inyan nifla” – the concept of complete contentment of the purest form, whereby one feels, as Avraham did, that God has indeed blessed him with “everything.”

*******

            Parashat Chayei Sara tells the story of Yitzchak’s marriage to Rivka, the daughter of his first cousin.  Avraham assigned his servant the task of finding a suitable mate for Yitzchak, and upon the servant’s return with Rivka, they encountered Yitzchak, who had gone out into the field “la-su’ach” (24:63).  The Gemara in Masekhet Berakhot (26b; see also Bereishit Rabba 60:14) interprets this term as a reference to prayer, and thus infers from this verse that Yitzchak instituted the afternoon mincha service.  A verse in Tehillim (102:1), as the Gemara cites, speaks of an impoverished man praying, and describes his prayer with the phrase, “yishpokh sicho,” thus suggesting that the term si’ach denotes prayer.  Accordingly, the Torah here speaks of Yitzchak as going into the fields to pray.  Many commentaries follow the Gemara’s reading, including Rashi, Rabbenu Saadia Gaon, Rabbenu Chananel and Seforno.

            The Rashbam and Chizkuni, however, explain this word differently, associating it with the term si’ach used earlier in Sefer Bereishit (2:5, 21:15) in reference to shrubbery.  They interpret this verse to mean that Yitzchak had gone into his fields for the purpose of planting and supervising his employees.  This excursion was not for prayer, but rather for agricultural work.

            Rav Menachem Bentzion Zaks, in his Menachem Tziyon, suggests that we might accept both interpretations, and say that Yitzchak that afternoon both prayed and tended to his fields.  In fact, Rav Zaks comments, it is perhaps this precise combination between work and prayer, the responsible concern for both his material and spiritual needs, that impressed Rivka when she set her eyes upon her future husband.  The sight of Yitzchak praying alongside his fields reflected the successful fusion of the mundane with the sacred, of one’s material needs with sincere spiritual devotion.

            We might add that this image is well-suited for the particular context of the afternoon mincha prayer.  What sets mincha apart from the morning and evening prayers is that it takes place in the middle of workday, thus requiring a disruption of one’s professional routine.  Whereas shacharit is generally recited before one begins his workday and arvit after the end of the workday, mincha is recited during the afternoon hours, generally when people are still busy at work.  Appropriately, this prayer originated with Yitzchak who went out la-su’ach in the field, to both pray and tend to his crops, teaching us the importance of injecting even our mundane pursuits with a spiritual quality.

*******

            Earlier this week, we noted the Ramban’s discussion concerning the first section of Parashat Chayei Sara, which tells of Avraham’s purchase of Me’arat Ha-makhpela as a burial plot after his wife’s passing.  The Ramban asserted that the Torah related this incident in order to “show God’s kindness to Avraham, who was ‘the prince of God’ in the land in which he had come to reside…and all the people called him ‘my master’.”  Avraham’s exchange with the Chittite tribe, from whom he purchased the plot, reveals the respect and admiration he commanded among the natives of Canaan, in fulfillment of God’s promise to Avraham, “va-agadela shemekha” (“I shall make your name great” – 12:2).  The Torah thus recorded this exchange to show that God fulfilled the promises He made to Avraham when He ordered him to relocate in the land of Canaan.

            Later, the Ramban makes reference to the Gemara’s comment in Masekhet Sanhedrin (111a) from which it appears that this incident served to test Avraham’s faith.  Although God had promised him all of Canaan, when the time came to bury his wife he had to negotiate with the native residents and pay an exorbitant sum for a simple burial site.  Yet, nowhere do we find Avraham questioning God’s promise or uttering a complaint about the trouble he had to endure in finding a burial site.  According to the Gemara, then, the Torah related this incident in order to demonstrate Avraham’s firm and unwavering faith in the Almighty even when events seemed not to progress in accordance with His stated plan.

            It appears that the Ramban cited the Gemara as an additional approach, separate and apart from the one he presented earlier.  He simply wished to point out that his theory as to the purpose underlying this narrative differs from the explanation implied by the Gemara.

            However, Rav Simcha Mordechai Ziskind Broyde, in his Sam Derekh, suggests that these two approaches may, in fact, reflect the same general notion.  According to the Ramban’s first explanation, too, the ordeal of Me’arat Ha-makhpela served as a test, which determined whether Avraham would succeed in seeing “God’s kindness to Avraham” even during challenging times.  Avraham had just endured the death of his wife, and now finds himself embroiled in negotiations with the Chittites over a parcel of land for burial – despite the fact that he had been promised all of Canaan.  The test was not merely whether he would accept his situation without complaint, but rather whether he would be able to see God’s kindness even amidst his sorrow and aggravation.  As difficult as his current situation was, he still recognized the fulfillment of God’s promise that was manifest through his exchange with the Chittites.  Although the promise of territorial sovereignty over Canaan had yet to be realized, the promise of “va-agadela shemekha” had been achieved in full.

            Thus, if we combine the two approaches mentioned by the Ramban, this section demonstrates Avraham’s ability to acknowledge and appreciate God’s blessings even in situations of crisis and turmoil, to recognize the wishes that have been fulfilled even while he still awaits the fulfillment of others.

*******

            We read in Parashat Chayei-Sara that before Rivka left her home to marry Yitzchak, her family extended to her a blessing: “They blessed Rivka and said to her: Our daughter, you shall become thousands of ten thousands…” (24:60).

            Tosefot, in Masekhet Ketubot (7b), cite Masekhet Kalla as inferring from here the halakha requiring the presence of ten men for the recitation of birkat eirusin, the berakha recited at the time of betrothal.  (This is in contrast to the Talmud Bavli, which, there in Ketubot, derives this halakha from a different source.)  Apparently, Masekhet Kalla understood that this blessing extended to Rivka not only expressed the family’s personal wish to her before her marriage, but also served the function of (or perhaps included) the birkat eirusin.

            Tosefot later contend that this inference made by Masekhet Kalla should be taken as an asmakhta – an allusion in the Biblical text to a Rabbinic obligation, rather than an outright Scriptural source.  After all, Tosefot note, there is no indication in the narrative that ten men were present when Rivka’s family members recited this blessing.  Thus, even assuming that this berakha somehow functioned as a birkat eirusin, it cannot possibly serve as the actual source of this requirement.  Necessarily, then, this inference was intended only as an asmakhta, and not as establishing the true origin of this halakha.

            Maharil Diskin, interestingly enough, disagreed, suggesting that the Gemara may, in fact, have had a valid reason to assume that Rivka’s family recited this berakha in the presence of ten men.  Earlier in this narrative (24:10), the Torah relates that when Avraham’s servant traveled to Aram Naharayim to find a wife for Yitzchak, he took ten of Avraham’s camels with him.  Perhaps, Maharil Diskin suggested, the Gemara assumed that the riders of these ten camels served as the “minyan” for the recitation of the birkat eirusin, and on this basis established the requirement that ten men be present for the recitation of this berakha.

            In any event, before Tosefot advanced their theory viewing this inference is but an asmakhta, they noted a certain assumption underlying the comments of Masekhet Kalla.  If, indeed, the blessing conferred upon Rivka served as birkat eirusin, then we must conclude that this berakha is recited even in a case of kiddushin al yedei shali’ach – when somebody betroths a woman through an agent.  One might have thought that this berakha is warranted only when a man betroths a woman personally, but not if he dispatches somebody else to perform the betrothal on his behalf.  Once, however, Masekhet Kalla sees the berakha conferred upon Rivka as a precedent of birkat eirusin, we must conclude that this berakha is recited even in cases resembling Rivka’s betrothal to Yitzchak, which was performed by a third party.

            Tosefot then dismiss this theory, noting that in any event this inference was intended only as an asmakhta, as discussed.

            As for the issue itself of birkat eirusin in situations of kiddushin al yedei shali’ach, the Rambam writes explicitly (Hilkhot Ishut 3:23) that the berakha is required even in such a case.  Maharach Or Zaru’a disagrees (responsa, 128), arguing that this berakha requires the groom’s presence.  If an agent betroths a woman on his behalf in his absence, then, according to the Or Zaru’a, the birkat eirusin is not recited.