Parashas Chayei Sara 5773

“And Efrone was sitting amongst the Hittites” (B’raishis 23:10). Rashi explains that Efrone had  been one of the Hittite commoners, but after Avraham expressed interest in acquiring property from him to bury his wife, due to Avraham’s status they immediately appointed Efrone to be a government official. It is curious that the Hittites felt they had to elevate Efrone’s status before he could do business with Avraham. Was Avraham so popular that his wanting Efrone’s property made the latter a celebrity, leading to his being given an important position? Was Avraham considered such nobility (“G-d’s prince,” see 23:6) that it was inappropriate for him to do business with a commoner, so they elevated Efrone to the status of nobility (see B’raishis Rabbah 58:7)? More specifically, the position they appointed Efrone to was “sho-ter,” a policeman, one who enforces the law set by the judges. Why, if they felt they should (or had to) elevate Efrone’s status, did they choose this particular position?

There are other issues that deserve a closer look as well. Why did Avraham introduce himself as a “ger v’soshav,” a stranger and a resident? Don’t these terms connote opposite messages, that he doesn‘t belong (because he’s a stranger) yet does (because he’s a resident)? Although Avraham wasn’t born in Canaan, so it is true that he was a foreigner, and he did move to Canaan, so it is also true that he was residing there, why was it important/necessary for Avraham to mention this when addressing the Hittites? They responded by calling him a “prince of G-d,” so they obviously knew him, and that he currently lived there even though he wasn’t born there. Why did Avraham relate information that they undoubtedly already knew? Additionally, although it is clear that Avraham wanted to purchase the land from Efrone, and to do so for the “full amount of money” (23:9, see also 23:12), in order that the gravesite (and the area around it) belonged to him and those who would inherit him (an “achuzas kever,” 23:4 and 23:9), the word used to transfer ownership is not “sale,” but “gift,” with Avraham asking that the land be given to him, rather than sold to him (23:4, 23:9). Still, when Efrone offers to “give” the land to Avraham (23:11), Avraham insists on paying for it. Why did Avraham ask that the land be “given” to him rather than sold to him, if he woldn‘t accept it without payment?

Rabbi Yitzchak Etshalom (http://www.torah.org/advanced/mikra/5772/chayeisarah.html ), based on archeological evidence, discusses some of the laws that governed the ancient Near East, including Canaan and the Hittites. Quoting Rabbi Etshalom, “in many near eastern societies, foreigners (anyone outside of the tribal family) were not allowed to purchase land.” In other words, Avraham’s request was against the law. The Hittites were willing to let him bury Sara on their land, because of the respect they had for him, but it would remain their land. “You can bury your dead in the choicest of our graves” (23:6), but it would remain “ours.” Avraham expressed his appreciation for this hospitality (23:7), but politely asked that he be able to negotiate with Efrone regarding purchasing his property (23:8-9). How could Avraham insist that he be able to purchase the property if the local laws didn’t allow it? Rabbi Etshalom suggests that Avraham knew of a loophole to a similar law that existed in Mesopotamia, where he came from (Ur Kasdim), that allowed for (what Rabbi Etshalom calls) a “sale-adoption,” a means of buying into a family whereby that family officially adopts the outsider, making him a part of the family. Once considered part of the family, the “ex-outsider” now has the legal right to own/purchase property. Avraham gathered the Hittites together rather than going straight to Efrone because he knew that they would have to approve of this loophole before it could be implemented in Canaan as well. The purchase of Efrone’s land would really be a “buy-in” to Efrone’s family, thereby allowing Avraham to actually own the land, and use it as the family burial plot, rather than just burying his wife on someone else’s property.

This would explain why Avraham asked that the land be “given” to him, while insisting that there be a transfer of money. He would pay Efrone to become part of his family so that he could own land and have it become an inheritance, but once part of the family, he wouldn’t need to buy the land, just have it designated “his” within the “family.” The 400-Shekel purchase price was for the “adoption” (with Efrone setting a high value for the field in order to be able to charge that much for the adoption), after which the property would be “given” to Avraham. Avraham used the terms “stranger” and “resident” in order to highlight his situation; he was a “stranger” so couldn’t buy land, but also a “resident,” one of them, so should be allowed to be adopted.

Although it is possible that the Hittites elevated Efrone’s status so that the family Avraham would become part of would be a noble one, I would suggest that Efrone was specifically appointed to be an enforcer of the law so that he could set the precedent (locally) whether or not it was acceptable to allow a foreigner to be adopted by a native family and thereby permitted to purchase land. Rashi (23:10) is very clear that the Hittites respected Avraham and wanted to help him out. Everyone took off from work to pay their respects to Sara (according to our editions of B’raishis Rabbah, it was out of respect for Avraham that they closed everything down). If so, they very likely wanted to fulfill his wishes and sell him land, and were eager to find a way around the law that was preventing it. By appointing Efrone to be the one responsible for enforcing the law, his agreeing to “sell” his property to Avraham (by designating it to be his after adopting him) would automatically mean that the “sale” was within the parameters of the law, with the Mesopotamian loophole becoming a Hittite loophole as well.