[Index of all Weekly Divrei Torah pages]
Last week (parshat Vayera and Lech Lecha), we discussed the verses from the Torah that promise the land of Israel to the Jewish people. Two of those verses gave the land of Israel to Abraham and his offspring as a gift, while the third presented the land as an inheritance. This had an effect on how the Jews later entered the land – either by way of conquest (Joshua - gift) or by peaceful possession (Ezra - inheritance). In this parsha (Chayei Sarah), we see how the same verses apply to public and private ownership of the land.
This week’s parsha (Chayei Sarah) starts with the negotiations between Ephron the Hittite and Abraham over Abraham’s purchase of the Cave of Machpela. Abraham sought to buy the cave in order to bury his deceased wife, Sarah. Although the Hittites held possession of the entire area, they knew that the land was promised to Abraham and his descendants and that it would revert to the ownership of the Jews in the future. Therefore, Abraham devised a strategy, “either they will accept me as a temporary sojourner (gar) in the area and I’ll buy the cave, or if they refuse to sell it, I’ll activate my status as the true owner (toshav) of the land, and take it rightfully.” As the negotiations went on, the Hittites came to Abraham with another request. “We know that in the future, G-d will give to you and to your offspring all of these lands. Take an oath with us that the Jews will not take the city of Jebus (Jerusalem) against the will of the Jebusites (who were also Hittites). Abraham made a covenant with them, and afterward bought the cave of Machepela.”
Among the questions that must be asked here are;
1) If the land, including the city of Jebus (Jerusalem) had been promised to Abraham and his descendants, how could he take an oath not to conquer it? G-d made a covenant many years earlier with Abraham to give him the land – how could Abraham take an oath that is contrary to the promise and the covenant of G-d?
2) Why did the Hittites inject the issue of Jebus at this point, as Abraham sought to buy the cave of Machpela? It would have made more sense to treat the two cities as two different issues rather than complicate the transaction.
3) In Rashi’s commentary, when Abraham says, “If not, I will take the cave rightfullyŔ he supports his position from the verse (Gen 12:7), “To your offspring I will give this land.” But in reality, it was Abraham himself who sought to buy the cave, and not his offspring. Therefore, wouldn’t it have made more sense to cite another verse (Gen. 13:15), “To you [Abraham] I will give this entire landŔ?
In order to explain, we must make a distinction between public and private ownership. When a nation takes possession of a land, the entire land is associated with every individual of the nation. This is called public ownership. Into this category falls the principle of “eminent domain,” in which a king can confiscate private land for public needs or build over and through private land for the purposes of the nation as a whole. However, this is not at all contradictory to the concept of private ownership, in which an individual, even of another nation, may come and buy a piece of property for his own use. In such a case, the land is rightfully his until or unless dictated by the needs of the public.
In the time of the Hittites, they were the public owners of the land. The area of Hebron and the cave of Machpela, as well as the city of Jebus, fell under their public jurisdiction. The fact that their land was to eventually come into the hands of Abraham and his progeny did not mean that it had already taken place; at this point in time, the Hittites were the rightful public owners. However, Abraham knew that this was the correct place to bury Sarah, because Adam and Eve were buried in the cave of Machpela. So, he therefore reasoned that if the Hittites were amenable to a private purchase, he would establish his private ownership of this piece of property within the jurisdiction of the Hittites. But if they were unwilling to sell, then Abraham realized the time had come to establish Jewish public ownership over this land, in order to bury Sarah. In that case, he was willing to take the land “rightfully,” since in any case it was to become Jewish land.
That is why Abraham backed up his plan to take the land by quoting the verse, “To your offspring I will give this landŔ This verse emphasizes the public nature of the possession of Israel, while the verse, “To you will I give the landŔ places the emphasis upon Abraham as an individual. Abraham wanted to say that he could establish public ownership of the land for the entire Jewish people (not only for himself), and that’s why he quoted the former verse (according to Rashi).
But still, why did the Hittites interject with the subject of the city of Jebus? For that we’ll have to look more closely at what took place. In the Pirkei d’Rebi Eliezer (where the story of Jebus is narrated), we find, “When the Jews entered the land of Israel [with Joshua]…they couldn’t enter the city of Jebus because of the covenant of AbrahamŔ Here, it appears that it was forbidden for the Jews to conquer Jebus because of the deal that Abraham cut with the Hittites. But later, when King David later wanted to conquer Jebus, he was advised that it was not permissible unless “you remove all the idols that have written upon them the oath of Abraham.” Here, it would appear that it was permissible to conquer Jebus, at least under certain circumstances. And that was exactly what he did; “David announced to his soldiers that whoever would ascend first and remove the idols would become a leader. The first to go up was Yoav ben TzruruiyaŔ whereupon David proceeded to take the city. And then, “David bought the Jebusite city for the Jewish, committed in writing forever.”
If, in the time of King David the oath was still in effect, what benefit was there in removing the idols – how could that alone cancel the oath that Abraham took?. And what changed between the time of Joshua and the time of King David that permitted David to conquer the city? Finally, when David purchased the city from the Jebusites, doesn’t that indicate that the city was in their hands and that it was necessary to appease them?
The explanation is as follows: When the Jews entered the land of Israel with Joshua and conquered it, they established Jewish public ownership over all sections of the land that they conquered. However, the public ownership did not negate the possibility of non-Jewish private ownership in Israel. When Joshua entered Israel, he gave the inhabitants the option of escaping or surrendering before conquering their cities. Since they could stay, it is clear that under some circumstances (fulfillment of the seven Noahide laws), non-Jews were permitted to live in Israel and establish private ownership. In our case, the establishment of Jewish public ownership did not prevent the Jebusites from maintaining their private ownership of the city of Jebus (this was the subject of Abraham’s oath). However, Abraham’s covenant, applied only to their private ownership. He could not make such a commitment regarding future Jewish public ownership. G-d had already promised all of the land, including Jebus, to the Jews as a people, and it was not possible for Abraham to abrogate that. The Jebusites themselves admitted as much, saying, “We know that in the future the land is promised to you and your descendants. Make a covenant with us that you won’t conquer Jebus against their willŔ If the land were promised to the Jews, how could Abraham promise not to take it from the Jebusites? Clearly, his covenant was in regard to their private ownership of the city. That could remain in place even as the Jews took over the public ownership. But the promise by G-d to Abraham that the land would belong to his descendants took precedence over all, and no covenant could abrogate that commitment.
Now, we can understand why the Hittites made this stipulation regarding Jebus exactly as Abraham was buying the cave of Machpela. This was a case of “one good deed deserves another.” The Hittites were saying, “Just as we are willing to sell you private ownership in our land (Hebron), do the same for us in your land. When you take public possession of Israel, leave us with the private possession of Jebus (Jerusalem).” Such a promise was good as long as the Jews did not need Jerusalem for their public, national needs. Therefore, when Joshua conquered the land and the Jews settled it, he was unable to conquer Jebus. The time had not yet come when the Jews needed to build the Temple. The tabernacle rested in various places in the Shomron and Hebron, and it was there that the Jews would bring their sacrifices and pray.
However, things changed in the time of King David. When it came time to build the Temple in Jerusalem, it was necessary to apply the principle of “eminent domain.” That meant, take the city of Jebus, and establish it as a Jewish city (Jerusalem). According to the oath of Abraham, it would have been forbidden for a private Jew to take private ownership of Jebus from the Jebusites without their will. However, when it came time for King David to build the Temple, it was necessary to establish the Jewish public claim over Jerusalem, and that’s something the Jebusites could not object to.
However, the Jebusites did object. They claimed that Abraham’s oath also applied to public ownership, and therefore it was forbidden for the Jews to take the city at all, and that’s what they wrote on their idols. That was the reason that David commanded his soldiers to first remove the idols. He did not want it to even appear as if he were taking the city improperly, against the oath of Abraham, and therefore he had the idols and the writing removed before conquering the city. Furthermore, even though he was justified in exercising the right of “eminent domain” in conquering the city and confiscating the land, he did not want this act to be “against the will” of the inhabitants, as stipulated in the oath. Therefore, he paid the inhabitants, in effect buying their city as if it were private property (similar to a government that reimburses its citizens for land appropriated while building public infrastructure, such as a highway or dam).
Jerusalem has been public Jewish property ever since, and so G-d willing it will remain!
From Likutei Sichot of the Lubavitcher Rebbe, ztz’l, vol. 30, pp. 82-89 Rabbi David Sterne, Jerusalem Connection in the Old City of Jerusalem