The Cave of Potential – Parshat Chayei Sarah

Maarat-Hamachpela.jpg

Printable PDF available here.

Rav Kook (Shemuot Re’iah, 5690)

The idea of kiddushin is central to the Torah’s concept of family life. One of the primary sources of kiddushin is derived from Avraham’s acquisition of ma’arat ha’Machpelah, based on a linkage between key words in each context (lit. gezeirah shavah). Our Sages (Gemara Kiddushin, 2a) teach that just as Avraham was able to acquire ma’arat ha’Machpelah by giving Ephron something of monetary value, so too one can take a woman to be his wife by giving her something of monetary value.

This linkage is intriguing, if not outright bizarre. What does Avraham’s acquisition of a burial plot in Eretz Yisrael have to do with kiddushin? What could possibly be the common thread that unites these two contexts?

The first step to resolving this puzzle is the fact that kiddushin does not generate a full marital relationship.[1]The woman becomes prohibited to all other men, but until the later stage of nisuin,[2]they are not allowed to live with each other, the man is not yet fully responsible to financially support the woman, and the two are not considered fully married for a variety of other halachic categories. Broadly speaking, kiddushin represents the idea of potential sanctity, of designation and preparation for the future fullness of married life.

The same dynamic, the same division between potential and actualization, is not limited to marriage. It governs another profound relationship – namely, the connection between the Jewish People and Eretz Yisrael. Several generations after Avraham, his descendants would enter the land under Yehoshua’s leadership and embark on a military conquest to wrest possession from the Canaanite nations. This was the conquest ‘in actuality,’ but it could not have succeeded without the spiritual groundwork laid by the Avotand Imahot. They were the first conquerors of the land – ‘in potential.’

All of Eretz Yisrael had to be imbued with the capacity for kedushah, but this type of sanctity was rooted primarily in Chevron.[3]In contrast, the manifestation of kedushah was focused in Yerushalayim. For this reason, we find that when G-d commanded Avraham, “Arise, walk through the land, its length and breadth” (Bereishit 13:17), he immediately settled in Chevron. Similarly, King David began his rulership in Chevron, and only later moved to Yerushalayim. And, as our Sages teach (Gemara Yoma, 28b), when the sacrificial service began on Yom Kippur morning, the Kohanim did not ask “Has daylight broken?” but rather “Has the sun arrived at Chevron?”

All of this highlights that Chevron is where Am Yisrael, the descendants of the Avot and Imahot, grounds itself and nurtures its potential for kedushah and its connection to the Holy Land. It cannot be any other way. Israel cannot simply march into Yerushalayim, build a Temple and ‘flip a switch’ to bring the Shechinah’s revelation.[4]That process must be grounded in our spiritual potential and historical destiny, all of which were established by those great souls whose bodies are buried in the ma’arat ha’Machpelah.

Based on this analysis, we can also explain why Sarah was the first to be buried in ma’arat ha’Machpelah. Avraham’s burial of Sarah was not just a personal tragedy, but also the foundation of Israel’s future inheritance and the first step in the sanctification of the land. Sarah’s unique sensitivity to kedushah spurred her demand that Avraham expel Yishmael, so that the “nation which dwells alone” could develop from Yitzchak. Without Yitzchak being separated from Yishmael, Eretz Yisrael could not have been separated from the rest of the world. Thus, it is Sarah who we have to thank for guaranteeing to Am Yisrael our special heritage of Eretz Yisrael.

[1]In modern times, kiddushin and nisuin are performed on the same day, at the wedding ceremony, but in Talmudic times, they were separated by a significant period of time, up to twelve months (Gemara Ketubot 48b).

[2]There are a number of different opinions on what constitutes nisuin. For example, the Ran cites a view that describes nisu’in as the bride entering the husband’s ‘domain’ for the purposes of marriage (which is the source of the contemporary ‘yichud room’ after the chupah ceremony). Other Rishonim maintain that the bride going out with her special head covering marks the beginning of nisu’in. And others claim that nisuin is when the chuppah covering is spread over the bride.

[3]Rav Kook uses this to explain the deeper meaning of why Chevon is described (Bamidbar 13:22) as being built “seven years before Zoan of Egypt.” Due to the esoteric nature of his comments and limited space for translating them to English, they are reproduced below in the Hebrew original:

ואמרו בזוהר ״צען״ לשון רברבתא (מקום שרים). אם כי המלוכה היתה במצרים, אבל מקום רברבתא היה בצען.(צוען דמרבי ביה מלכי, כלומר מחנכים ומאמנים בני המלכים, דכתיב ׳כי היו בצוען שריה.) גם דרגת חברון הוא מול צען… ולכן נקראת מצרים ״מרכבת המשנה״, כי שני המקומות ״צען ומצרים״ הם היפך הקדושה של חברון וירושלים. והיו צריכים לטהר את מצרים ע״י גלותו של יוסף, הנקרא צדיק יסוד עולם. ואמר אח״כ ״שמני אלהים לאדון לכל מצרים״ כדי להכניע אותה הטומאה.

[4]Rav Kook notes, based on the Gemara in Bava Batra (117a), that the concept of future sanctity found expression in the unusual system that Yehoshua used to divide up Eretz Yisrael. According to one opinion in the gemara, the land was deemed apportioned to the Israelites who left Egypt — even though they had died in the midbar and never made it to Eretz Yisrael. Usually, it is the living who inherit the dead — i.e., the number of living descendants determines how an inheritance is divided. But here, it was the other way around: the dead determined how the living would inherit land. In other words, we take Eretz Yisrael not by virtue of our own personhood or entitlement, but by being connected to those who came before us.

Food for Thought

Rav Samson Raphael Hirsch (Commentary on the Torah, Bereishit 23:19): The first possession which the Jewish race received of their land was a row of pairs of graves which the first Jew bought to be used for his wife and then for himself and for his son and his grandson and their respective wives. The thought of the value of the family tie which attaches the heart of husband to wife, and children to parents was henceforth inseparably connected with the Jewish land, formed henceforth the fundamental trait of the character of the Jews, and enabled them to become what they became. Perhaps the name Chevron which henceforth was added to the place also came from this. For Chevronmeans: the intimate union, the most appropriate name for the close intimacy which makes Jewish men and women grow together in unison as husband and wife, as father and mother. Centuries later, when their descendants had flourished into a great nation, no daily offering was allowed to rise from the height of Moriah in Jerusalem before the priestly herald at the turret of the Temple could see the rays of morning shining on the graves of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs at Chevron – kibud av v’em is for Jews the preliminary condition for, and the root of kavod ha’Makom.

Ramban (Bereishit 23:19):Avraham’s purchase of ma’arat ha’Machpelah teaches us the many acts of kindness that G-d did for Avraham. For ha became “a prince of G-d: in the land, even though he had come only to sojourn and he was a lone individual. Also, everyone called him “my lord,” even though he never referred to himself this way or told them that he was a prince or important person. This was a fulfilment of G-d’s promise “I will make your name great and you shall be a blessing…” Also, the Torah wanted to tell us of the place of our saintly ancestors’ burial, inasmuch as we are obliged to honor that place. However, our Rabbis say that this episode [was not a Divine kindness but rather] was one of Avraham’s tests, that he sought a place in which to bury Sarah, and [even though G-d had promised him the Land] he couldn’t find one until he purchased it. I don’t understand the explanation of Ibn Ezra, who says that this section tells us of the eminence of Israel for the living and dead, and also shows the fulfilment of G-d’s promise that Avraham would inherit the land. For what eminence do we see here? Where else was Avraham supposed to bury Sarah if not in Eretz Yisrael? He wasn’t going to take her body to another country to bury her! And G-d’s promise was about the whole of Eretz Yisrael, not just a single burial cave and its field. It is clear that the promise of the Land was only fulfilled in the future, for Avraham’s offspring.

Rav Soloveitchik (Out of the Whirlwind, pg. 32): However, Sarah was not only Abrahams mate, but his comrade as well. collaborator and co-participant in all the great plans, hopes and visions. Together they discovered G-d; together they discovered a new morality; together they joined the covenant. In a word, Sarah and Abraham started the mesorah, the tradition. Not only Abraham taught the people, but Sarah as well: Abraham would convert the men and Sarah the women (Bereishis Rabbah 39:14). Now the mother is dead and the mesorah has a father but no mother. The mesorah is incomplete… Abraham’s historical mission could not have been implemented without Sarah’s participation. Both appeared together in Jewish history. Upon Sarah’s death, Abraham lost this mission. Just as Sarah’s tent was passed to Rebecca, the House of Abraham was given to Isaac. Abraham mourned over Sarah, but also over the fact that he had to withdraw from the pesach ha’ohel, the front of the tent, into the shadows.

Questions for Discussion

  1. Are there any areas of your life where you have untapped potential? What is one small step you can take to actualize that potential?
  2. What are other possible connections between the establishment of a Jewish home (i.e. kiddushin) and the purchase of ma’arat ha’Machpelah? Are there other properties that the two have in common? Or perhaps one is meant to bring out a deeper understanding of the other?
  3. Read Rav Hirsch’s comments above in “Food for Thought.” How does his explanation differ from Rav Kook’s and how is it similar?
  4. What happens when a person tries to accomplish something ‘in actuality’ without laying the groundwork ‘in potential’?
  5. Rav Kook states that our connection to Israel has to be rooted in spiritual foundations laid by our Avot and Imahot. What do you think that says about the feasibility of secular Zionism?
  6. Kiddushin is related to the work kodesh/kedushah. How does the Torah’s idea of marriage create kedushah?

Leave a Reply