Parshas Chayei Sarah
1. On the verse[1] "That he may give me the Cave of Machpelah… for full money let him give it to me," Rashi explains: "'For full money' — I will pay all its value[2]; and so too[3] David said to Aravnah, 'for full money.'"
This needs to be understood:
a) What is Rashi emphasizing in explaining "for full money" as "all its value"? Seemingly this is its simple meaning in the verse.
b) What is the proof from "full money" in Divrei HaYamim[4], since it is the very same expression that is said in the verse before us[5]?
2. Now, seemingly one could explain that Rashi's intent is to bring a proof and a "companion" (a parallel)[6]: He has difficulty with the expression "full" in connection with "money" — for seemingly the expression "full" fits only something in which its opposite, "empty," can be imagined, as with a vessel: "and she filled her pitcher"[7]; "the pit was empty"[8]. With money, however, the fitting expression is "lacking — whole"[9], or "much — little" and the like, not the expression "full"[10]. To this Rashi says that he found a "companion" for it: "and so too David said to Aravnah, 'for full money'" — that is, to prove that it is the way of Scripture to use the expression "full" also with "money," in place of the expression "whole" (which is more fitting), and the like.
But according to this it is not understood: a) He should have said "and so too with David," as in "and so too with Yonah"[11] and in many places. b) Since Rashi's whole intent, according to this explanation, is to make known that there is a "companion" to the expression "full money," and Rashi does not intend to make known the meaning of "full money," since it is understood — he should then have brought only[12] the proof, "and so too David said to Aravnah, 'for full money,'" and left out the explanation "I will pay all its value"?
3. One can further ask regarding Rashi's explanation before us:
c) Since Rashi quotes and explains the words "for full money," he should have said "all its value." What is the addition "I will pay (all its value)"?
d) Why the lengthy wording of his proof, "and so too David said to Aravnah"? He should have said (as in many places) "and so too with David, 'for full money.'"
4. The explanation of all this:
At first glance, "for full money" implies that "full" refers to the money — that is, that Avraham is making known by this that the silver coins will be full (without deficiency) in their weight[13] (or, along the lines of the explanation of the Yerushalmi[14], "for full money" — kintrin, large coins; and as Rashi explains[15], that Ephron took large shekels from Avraham).
This interpretation Rashi comes to negate with his words, "I will pay all its value": the word "full" is not a description relating to the money itself (its quantity, its weight), but relates to the field and its "full" price. Avraham said "for full money," meaning "I will pay all its value"[16] of the field[17] (the money will be in such an amount that it will fill the field's price — he will pay "all its value" — of the field).
What compels him to explain it so:
From the sequence of the verses it is understood that with this request of Avraham to the children of Ches — "That he may give me the Cave of Machpelah… for full money let him give it to me" — he comes to reject what the children of Ches had said to him before this: "You are a prince of G‑d in our midst; in the choicest of our graves bury… none of us will withhold…"[18], meaning that he should take the Cave of Machpelah from them without paying its price, but rather for free. And to this comes Avraham's answer that he does not agree to this, but "for full money" he will pay "all its value."
But if you were to say that the meaning of "full money" is "large shekels" and the like, then Avraham's reply (about the form of the shekels) would not correspond to the argument of the children of Ches (about the manner of giving the field). For only after Avraham would have answered regarding the manner of giving (that it should not be as a gift) would his words about the money itself be fitting.
And this is Rashi's reason for not being content with the words "all its value," but adding the word "I will pay"[19] — the opposite of a free gift — for this makes clear what compels his interpretation.
5. Nevertheless, one could still force the explanation that "full" refers to the "money." And although according to this Avraham's words would not be directed to the words of the children of Ches — for there is no explicit rejection in his words of the free gift that the children of Ches proposed — still there is room to force it and say that by saying "for full money," that he will give whole coins (or) large shekels, his refusal to take the field for free is included as a matter of course, but rather that he will pay for it.
Therefore, in order to negate the above supposition entirely, Rashi adds and says: "and so too David said to Aravnah, 'for full money.'" Rashi's intent is not to bring another place where the expression "for full money" is said, but to strengthen his above explanation of the words "for full money"[20] (that it is to reject a free gift) from what is said in Divrei HaYamim[21]:
The reason David wanted to pay Aravnah (for the threshing floor) "for full money" is stated explicitly in the verses there: "For I will not take what is yours for the L‑rd, nor offer a burnt-offering for free." It is thus clearly demonstrated that what he said, "for full money," meant that he would pay "all its value."
And therefore Rashi lengthened his wording, "and so too David said to Aravnah"[22], to point to the matter being discussed there (that is, the reason in David's words to Aravnah), for from this comes his proof, as explained above.
6. One can further say regarding Rashi's choice of "and so too David said to Aravnah" (and according to this it is all the more fitting that precisely with these words he alludes that his intent is to the matter discussed there, and did not allude to it in another manner):
There is room to ask: What was Avraham's reason for wanting to buy the field and the cave specifically "for full money," when he could have taken them (without payment) "by right, since the Holy One, blessed be He, had said to him, 'To your offspring I will give this land'"[23]? And to this Rashi "answers" by saying that so too we find with David, who "said to Aravnah, 'for full money'" — and from there it will be explained here:
King David conquered Jerusalem from King Aravnah, and thus acquired all of it by right of conquest[24]. Nevertheless, when he came to build an altar there, he was not content with acquiring it through conquest, nor even with Aravnah giving it to him, but wanted it to be his through buying it "for full money." And the reason for this David stated: "For I will not take what is yours[25] for the L‑rd, nor offer a burnt-offering for free."
That is to say: had David taken the threshing floor and so on only because it was his by right of conquest, this would not entirely[26] negate Aravnah's connection to the threshing floor. And even more: even if Aravnah gave it to him as a gift[27] (giving him also this small connection of his), the threshing floor would still remain in the category of "what is yours," that Aravnah still has some hold and right in it — "For I will not take what is yours."
Therefore David paid for it "for full money," the full value, in order to remove every right of Aravnah entirely, so that he should have no hold or connection whatsoever to the altar, the offerings and so on.
And similarly with Avraham: he did not want the cave in which he would bury Sarah (and in which he himself and the other Avos and Imahos would also be buried[28]) to retain any connection whatsoever to Ephron (in that his name would be upon it, and the like). Therefore he refused to take it "by right," nor even as a free gift[29], but paid all its value.
7. In Rashi's commentary there are wondrous matters[30] that relate also to other parts of the Torah. Through Rashi's explanation here, a difficulty in the halachic part of the Torah is resolved:
The law that land is acquired through money is learned (in the Gemara[31]) from the verse[32] "Fields shall be bought with money." Tosafos explains[33]: "The reason it does not bring the verse written regarding Ephron (that is, that Avraham bought the field from Ephron with money) is because perhaps that applies only to a gentile, whose entire acquisition is through money."
But according to the above, in explaining Rashi's words "I will pay all its value…," it is simply understood why we do not learn this law from the verses before us (regarding Ephron):
Besides the fact that from this derivation[34] we would not know the main point of the law of acquiring land with money — namely, that it is acquired with the value of a perutah even when the land is worth more[35] — since Avraham bought the field "for full money," all its value[36];
there is more: Avraham's giving the money for the field to Ephron was not in order to acquire it thereby[37] (for he could have taken it "by right," and it would have been acquired by him even without this[38]), but in order that Ephron should not have any connection (even though it is not his at all) to the field. Therefore it is understood that one cannot learn from here acquisition of land through money.
8. Of the matters of the "wine of Torah"[39] in Rashi's commentary before us:
The Zohar states[40] that mitzvos must not be "empty and for nothing" (for then no "spirit of holiness" is drawn down through the mitzvah) — this is the order of the side opposite holiness, in "Egypt," as it is written[41], "which we ate in Egypt for free" — but rather one must "exert oneself in it properly, according to one's strength," and "for full payment."
And this is what Rashi explains, that Avraham said "I will pay all its value," and so too David said to Aravnah "for full money," "for I will not take… nor offer a burnt-offering for free"[42]. And so did Avraham conduct himself in the mitzvah of acts of kindness[43], fulfilling it in the manner of "exerting oneself in it… for full payment."
And the lesson from this in the spiritual service of every Jew, man and woman, whose task is to refine and purify, through his service in Torah and mitzvos, the place in which he finds himself, so that he alone should be the master of the house there[44]: the intent is that it should be "acquired" by him through precision in payment, service and effort, and not "empty and for nothing."
He should not say in his heart: Since my talents are good by nature, and the Torah was given to me as a gift; and it is also easy for me to fulfill the mitzvos, for the animal soul and the evil inclination do not conceal so much[45] — therefore the whole matter of toil and service is far from me! To this comes the lesson from Avraham (and David), who did not want to acquire for free even the portion that was due them and that they could easily have taken, but gave all its value for it.
That is, even one who is able to learn Torah and fulfill the mitzvos without toil and service — nevertheless[46], in order to refine his portion in the world, so that it should go out entirely from under the dominion of the kelipah and become a dwelling place for G‑d, this is precisely through effort, service and toil.
And through this one reaches the level of "four hundred shekels of silver, current with the merchant" — four hundred worlds (of longing), "the dwellings of the righteous in the World to Come"[47] — the revelation of the level of sovev kol almin, the light that transcends all worlds[48], to "and your people are all righteous"[49].
(From talks of Shabbos Parshas Chayei Sarah, 5729 and 5709)
Key Lesson
Avraham insisted on paying the full price for the Cave of Machpelah, and David for the site of the altar, so that no one else would retain any hold on what was to be holy. A mitzvah done "for free," without effort, draws down no spirit of holiness. Even one blessed with natural talents, for whom Torah and mitzvos come easily, must still invest real toil and effort; only thus is his portion of the world fully freed from the kelipah and made into a dwelling place for G‑d.