From Promise to Possession, The Birth of Jewish Title to Eretz Yisrael

 

Let him grant me the Cave of Machpelah, which belongs to him and is located at the edge of his field. Let him sell it to me for its full price, in your presence, so I can make it into a family burial ground.” - Bresheet 23:9

At the onset of this week’s Parashah, “Chayei Sarah,” (the life of Sarah), we are told about the death of Sarah, Avraham’s wife, in Hevron. Pursuent to her passing, Avraham purchases the Cave of Machpelah and the surrounding field in Hevron, from its owner, Ephron, the Hittite and buries her there.

One of the questions that is begging to be asked, upon reading these verses, is, if G-d has already promised the Land of Yisrael to Avraham and his descendents (“To your offspring I will give this land,” Bresheet 12:7), why must Avraham purchase a burial site, at Machpelah, for Sarah?

G-d’s promise to Avraham and his posterity gives the land spiritual legitimacy. Avraham’s purchase gives it political legitimacy. In order to establish sovereignty. Both are needed. The Divine Covenant establishes eternal rights. Avraham’s actions and deeds establish worldly recognition. Divine promises do not replace human action.

Furthermore, Avraham insists upon paying “full price” for the land, as the verse above points out, despite the offer to accept it as a gift. He wants an indisputable legal claim to ensure that no one could later challenge Jewish presence as illegitimate or dependent on any foreign entities. He knows that a Divine promise carries spiritual authority, but not necessarily a recognition in the human legal system. He understands that sovereignty is established through moral and lawful means. By paying “full price,” Avraham secures a deed that no one can contest. The negotiations with Ephron become the first legal translation of Jewish lawful ownership setting a precedent for the Jewish People’s historic and moral claim in the Promised Land.

Avraham’s insistence on  paying full price, refusing a gift, parallels other, later, key biblical passages. In 2 Samuel 24:24, king David explicitly purchases land with money, land that is connected to the legitimate ownership and future sanctity of the site he was about to procure. There, he says to Araunah, the Jebosite who offers it to him for free, " 'No, I will buy it from you for a price;I will not offer burnt offerings to the Lord my G-d that cost me nothing. So David bought the threshing floor and the Oxen for fifty shekels of silver.”  This site, as we later find out, becomes the future Temple Mount in Yerushalayim, “Then David said,’Here shall be the house of the Lord G-d and here the altar of burnt offering for Yisrael.’” 1Chronicles 22:1. Both these pieces of land, Sarah's burial sites and the Temple Mount were legally purchased for eternal possession, thus fulfilling the Divine promise to Avraham and his descendents. 

One of the most striking and meaningful features of Parashat Chayei Sarah, (the Life of Sarah), is its paradoxical title which opens with Sarah’s death yet gives us no further details about her life. What, on the surface, seems like a contradiction preoccupied our sages. Many of them, however, view it not as a contradiction but rather as a deep truth about life's legacy and continuity.

Midrash Rabbah expands on this idea. “Why is it written, ‘After the life of Sarah?’ To teach us that the righteous are called alive even after death.” (Bresheet Rabbah 58:1). Sarah’s legacy and her spiritual influence continue beyond her physical existence. 

Rabbi Samson Raphael Hirsch reads the name Chayei Sarah as a theological statement. The life of Sarah, he believes, is the life that Sarah set in motion. Her death sets off Avraham’s first act of acquiring land in Canaan. Until that point Avraham is a resident alien, a ger vetoshav toshav, promised the land by G-d but not yet owning even a small piece of it. Sarah’s death gives birth to the first foothold of the Jewish nation in its promised land. Her burial place becomes a national symbol and a spiritual anchor linking future generations to the patriarchs and matriarchs buried there.

Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks builds on the same concept. In his essay Chayei Sarah (Covenant and Conversation) Sacks offers a beautiful and deeply philosophical insight into the paradoxical title of Parashat Chayei Sarah. His assertion is that in order to understand a death, one has to understand a life.  In the Torah, believes Sacks, life and death are not opposites. Those who live a life of faith, whose values and influence last beyond their days, never die. Sarah’s life, as Sacks sees it, continues through the continuity of the Covenant. Her legacy gives life to the Jewish People.

To praphrase the interpretations of our sage, Sarah’s death forces the promise of DivineInheritance, the guiding principle that dictated the journey of her life, to translate into human and legal reality.

Her death, in this sense, becomes the womb of Jewish rootedness, out of which arises Jewish life and permanence.

The Concept of G-d

 

“There is..... no place without a fragment of G-d's light waiting to be discovered and redeemed.” -  Rabbi Sacks ZT”L

Let me preface this article by saying that this is not a theological paper. It is not aimed at debating religious items or beliefs. Neither does it seek to convince anyone of the validity of one religion over another.  Rather, it seeks to discuss the evolution of the titular concept and how it affects us in our daily lives not just as individuals but also as members of humanity.

The idea or the hypothesis, as some may suggest, of god is a constitutive pillar in every religion and culture. It has been the subject of debates among many scholars, philosophers and psychologists throughout history. Naturally, it bears a different meaning to many.

I guess that the term can be perceived as a spiritual power, above man, that enters his consciousness and outlines his world. It is plausible, therefore, to presume that the stories of creation, for instance, were designed to provide each culture with a conceivable, clear and logical explanation for the existence of the universe and the presence of a superpower that has also created man.

Since most humans need something concrete to grasp, something upon which to focus their thoughts and direct them to the divine, ancient cultures created gods that took different shapes and forms. These, generally, did not adopt our likeness or resemble humans. Rather, their creators maneuvered between humans and animals drawing a different bodily part from each and combining the good and bad traits of each in their personality. The underlying assertion for that was that god cannot be identified with only part of his devotees.

However, the Greek philosopher, Xenophanes (570-478 BCE), who should have known that, noted  that “if horses or cattle had hands, or were able to draw with their hands and do the works that men can do, horses would draw the forms of the gods like horses, and cattle like cattle, and they would make their bodies such as they had themselves with his own voice and body.” That is exactly what the ancient Greeks did. They copied images of beautiful people, physically attractive figures with well sculptured bodies. They attributed to them eternal life, the ability to change forms and the privilege to do whatever they wished.

And then, of course, there is the Jewish concept of the divine. The G-d of Abraham, the Jewish G-d, who, according to tradition, has thirteen attributes. He is an abstract entity, shapeless, omnipotent and omnipresent. He is what Alfred Adler, the acclaimed psychologist, defines as “the most brilliant manifestation of the goal of perfection.” That notion of the divine was later welcomed and willingly accepted by Christians and Muslims alike.

With time, the invisible G-d has become an idea that not only cannot be disproved but continues to spur many of us to debate His existence. We go through life trying to prove it. In the words of Rabbi Sacks ZT”L, we keep searching for “a fragment of G-d’s light waiting to be discovered and redeemed.”

 The quest for the invisible G-d, has advanced humanity immensely. On our journey to find G-d, that abstract deity, naturally, many questions have been raised. “What is His essence? How do we know if He even exists? What evidence do we have for His existence?” are but a few of them.

Asking questions, as I have mentioned in some of my writings, in the past, questions about the universe that surrounds us, about nature and the various phenomena that we witness, and the search for answers have advanced humanity and contributed to the progress of our civilization.

Let me provide one example, that might help explain my assertion above, one to which  the majority of people can relate. I am referring to space exploration.

To many, the idea of space had been an enigma, a notion somewhat verging on the realm of the abstract. Man’s curiosity and desire to unlock the secrets of our cosmos pushed him to ask questions and seek answers. Space exploration was one way towards that end and has been a crane for a variety of discoveries, developments, inventions and great human achievements in more than one area. It has assisted in enhancing our lives through the advancement of medical devices such as ultrasound and other means to boost our healthcare system. It has aided economic growth, contributed to Global Positioning Systems which has impacted shipping and trade and assisted in facilitating monitoring arms conflicts.

Now, if the exploration of space, which, as we have witnessed, is anything but abstract, has added immensely to bettering our daily lives, imagine how the unending quest for G-d, an eternally invisible, abstract entity, could improve our lives even further.

Throughout human history, the higher powers of Western civilization have transformed from many gods to one G-d. The gods that bore the shapes of humans, celestial bodies, animals or plants morphed into an abstract, shapeless G-d who is invisible. This is very much the result of our increasing knowledge and understanding of the universe that surrounds us which makes it harder to accept the notion of gods in the images of the Greek or Roman gods. Following the development of the discipline of philosophy, humans have become more sophisticated and skeptical and were thus ripe to accept the concept of the abstract G-d of Judaism.

On the path leading to the progress of humanity, G-d, so it seems, has become an entity which gets harder and harder to disprove. We are, therefore, left with no choice but to keep searching for and aspire to find that “fragment of G-d’s light waiting to be discovered and redeemed.”

The Ten Commandments – The Divine Component in Interpersonal Ethics

 

 

                           “Can we see the trace of G-d in the face of a stranger?” -   Rabbi Jonathan Sacks

The Ten Commandments have engaged Jewish and non-Jewish scholars over the centuries. 

Many believe that they can be divided into two columns. The first five, on the right, address the Mitzvot governing the interactions between Man and G-d. The left column, many claim, addresses the interpersonal and social intercourse with our fellow Man. I doubt that anyone can disagree with that claim, except, perhaps, question the fifth Commandment, the Mitzvah of honouring our parents, which is placed in the right column and may be perceived as one relating more to human interaction rather than to Man and G-d. 

This might, indeed, be the case, unless we fail to notice that it is the only Commandment which is rewarded, “so that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your G-d gives you.” The Divine incentive for following the fifth Commandment explicitly keeps G-d in the equation of human interaction.

Chaza”l teach us, on several occasions, that though the Mitzvot, in both columns, are equally important, the last five bear significant weight with regards to conducting our daily affairs as members the human race.

In this article, I will try to show that the practice of morality between Man and his fellow Man reflects the character of G-d and serves Him no less than it serves us, humans. In other words, breaching any of the last five Commandments is not only a transgression against our fellow Man but against G-d as well.

“You shall not murder,” is the sixth Commandment, the first in the left column. This prohibition stems from the concept that Man was created in G-d’s image. This hints at the unique and high status of Man that somewhat resembles G-d.  Hence “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for G-d made man in his own image” (Bresheet 9:6). An act of murder disrupts the order of the universe. Therefore, the blood of the murdered cries out from the ground (Bresheet 4:10). It is a crime against G-d and is irremediable. The following law in Shemot 21:28 sheds light on the severity of this violation: “If a bull gores a man or woman to death, the bull is to be stones to death, and its meat must not be eaten.” Why is the bull punished? Does it have criminal responsibility? The only way to make sense of this law is through the underlying principle of the Biblical law. The animal ravaged an image of G-d. For such a heinous deed, it must pay the price. It must be stoned, and its meat prohibited for consumption. Furthermore, the Biblical view of the uniqueness and superiority of human life leads to another conclusion. The value of the life of a human being is above and beyond all values. It cannot be measured by money nor by another human’s life. Neither can it be compensated. The Torah is very clear about that: “Do not accept a ransom for the life of a murderer, who deserves to die.” (Bamidbar 35:31).

The seventh Commandment is “Lo Tin’af.” In English it translates into, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” The Hebrew root of “Na’af” means, betrayal or disloyalty. Here, is used to describe infidelity in a matrimonial relationship when one of the parties engages in an extramarital affair. Since the marriage contract is of Divine origin and Divinely sanctioned, it is clear why any violation of it will offend G-d. It is well evident in the case of Yoseph when his master’s wife asks him “to come to bed” with her. Yoseph’s response is “My master has withheld nothing from me except you because you are his wife. How then could I do such a wicked thing and sin against G-d?” (Bresheet 39:9).

As some commentators note, the term became a metaphor for Idolatry. Jewish tradition uses marriage as a metaphor to the relationship between Am Yisrael and G-d. Therefore, Am Yisrael needs to give G-d the same absolute fidelity that a wife exercises for her husband. The use of term intimating adultery to describe the worship of other gods is already made in Shemot 34:16: “and you take of their daughters for your sons, and their daughters whore after their gods and make your sons whore after their gods.”

Later, Ezekiel and Jeremiah, explicitly use the term when allegorizing Am Yisrael to a prostitute and adulteress: “How sick is your heart, declares the Lord G-d, because you did all these things, the deeds of a brazen prostitute……Adulterous wife, who receives strangers instead of her husband!” (Ezekiel 16:30-32). “For the land is full of adulterers,” (Jeremiah 23:10).

“You shall not steal,” is the eight Commandment. Everyone knows that theft in any shape of form is an immoral act.

Aside from theft in its common meaning, I wish to draw the readers’ attention to another, more serious kind of robbery, where it becomes an act against G-d. In his interpretation of the Ten Commandments, the great Jewish philosopher Philo of Alexandria (200 CE) perceives that it is not merely an act committed against individuals when their assets are stolen. He believes that it is also aimed at acts committed by bigger and more powerful robbers. He refers to those in power, the law givers who use their power to enrich themselves, rob whole cities without worries since, allegedly, they are above the law, while in the name of ruling and leadership commit what is, in fact, theft. That is precisely what Samuel warned Am Yisrael against in his harsh and famous sermon when they demanded to appoint a king (Shmuel 1, Chapter 1:10-18).

The ninth Commandment, likewise, states that which is, clearly, obvious, “Thou shall not bear false witness,” which is translated into the prohibition to lie. Again, as in the previous Commandments, it is not merely a transgression against our fellow Man but also against G-d. The Midrash wishes to stress the necessity to adhere to the truth, to reality. If a person testifies falsely, it means that what happened did not happen. It implies that there is no significance to existential concepts such as, honesty, truth reality and existence which are so important to Man and thus turns reality into something meaningless. If anyone can describe the world as they wish, then there is no Creator, no creation, there is nothing and everything is relative. In the words of the prophet Isiah (43:10), “’You are my witnesses,” Declares the Lord.’” Man’s vocation is to be a witness to the existence of G-d.

Finally, the tenth Commandment, warns us not covet our neighbour’s house, his wife his male or female servant, his ox, donkey or anything that belongs to them. On the surface, it seems that this Commandment strictly relates to interpersonal relations. Here, again, Jewish scholars debate its Divine rationale.

Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra (Spain 1164-1092), for instance, clams that this prohibition is not meant to protect our neighbour from the act of coveting. He, asserts, rather, that one is prohibited from coveting that which G-d forbids or refuses to give us. Man, he believes, should be content with that which G-d has bestowed upon him.

Ramba”m sees the divine prohibition in this Commandment from another angle. According to him, it serves as a safeguard from other, worse offences. Lust, he believes, leads to covet which in turn leads to theft quoting Micah 2:2 “The covet lusts after the fields and seize them.” That eventually may induce bloodshed as the example of Ahab and Navot shows.

The Ahab and Navot sorrowful matter recounted in Melachim I (Kings I) chapter 21, is indeed a typical example where coveting the property of one’s neighbour’s leads to murder. And, as was established earlier, murder is not only a crime against our fellow Man but an offence against G-d as well.

Whichever way we interpret or understand the Ten Commandments, one fact remains clear. They are meant to improve Mankind and keep the order of the universe intact. What then is a better way to achieve it than, as Rabbi Sacks, ZT”L suggests, seeking to “see the trace of G-d in the face of a stranger?”

Shavua tov, Am Yisrael and a wonderful weekend to all