Parashat Chayei Sara

“Eretz Yizra’el from love”

Rav M. Elon

The introductory section of our parasha focuses on the death of Sara and her burial arrangements.  In a manner which is very surprising, this section almost entirely records the financial negotiations and bartering over the burial plot itself.  This negotiation takes place between Avraham and the Bnei Chet (“Descendants of Chet,”) lead by Efron. 

This lengthy descriptive report, which seems completely secondary in importance, unites all the commentators in their investigation of this issue, each arriving at different conclusions.

The Ibn Ezra raises two possibilities by which we may solve our query:

“And this parasha was mentioned in order to proclaim the worth of Eretz Yisra’el above all (other) lands for the living and the dead. 

And also, to fulfill the word of God to Avraham to be an inheritance for him.”

(Ibn Ezra, Bereshit 23:19)

The Ibn Eza thus offerse two explanations.

The first – “to proclaim the worth of Eretz Yisra’el above all (other) lands for the living and the dead,” to indicate the great magnitude of this land and to what great extents Avraham was prepared to go in order to bury Sara. 

[It is interesting to note that this is the first time that burial of the dead is recorded in the Torah.  Indeed it appears that the caring for the deceased by means of burial was in fact an established custom, for the Bnei Chet understood Avraham’s intentions as he sought to acquire the land in question.  However our first explicit encounter with the burial of the dead in the Torah occurs here.  We certainly appreciate that the first record of an event in the Torah bears import.]

The second explanation the Ibn Ezra offers is – “to fulfill the word of God to Avraham,” this would indicate an “affirmation,” or “verification,” in modern terms, indicating that the Divine promise regarding the inheritance of Eretz Yisra’el by Avraham was indeed being fulfilled.  [The intention was not that this was the fulfillment of the promise, but rather that this was the beginning of the fulfillment of the promise.  The complete fulfillment of the promise was still to follow this start.]

The Ramban quotes the Ibn Ezra, raising two difficulties with his explanation:

“And I have not known the grounds for the words of Rabi Avraham (Avraham ben Ezra, i.e. the Ibn Ezra) who states that (this section comes) ‘to proclaim the worth of Eretz Yisra’el above all (other) lands for the living and the dead; and also, to fulfill the word of God to Avraham to be an inheritance for him.’  What merit in Eretz Yisra’el is indicated by the fact that he will not take her to another land in order to bury her?”

   (Ramban, ibid.)

The Ramban queries the Ibn Ezra’s explanation that Avraham’s tremendous efforts in acquiring Me’arat ha’Machpela, (“The Cave of Machpela,”) indicate the great worth of Eretz Yisra’el.  This may certainly not be the sole reason that Avraham buries her in Eretz Yisra’el, for he may simply have chosen to bury her in the country of his domicile.  What merit is there in this?  Or rather – we may not derive any value in Eretz Yisra’el from the fact that Avraham did not bury Sara in another land, for where was he to bury her if not in the country of their joint domicile?

As for the Ibn Ezra’s second answer, that this parasha illustrates the beginning of the fulfillment of God’s word to Avraham, the Ramban queries:

“God’s word to Avraham was regarding the entire land, and it would only be fulfilled in his seed.”

(ibid.)

In other words – the Divine Promise concerned the whole of Eretz Yisra’el, not simply Kiryat Arba, which is Chevron, the burial place of our forefathers.  Therefore the Divine Promise had yet to be completely realized, and thus the Ibn Ezra’s solution had been undermined.

It is for these reasons that the Ramban reaches an entirely different conclusion.

“And this section was recorded in order to inform of the Divine grace shown to Avraham, who was a ‘Prince of God’ in the land wherein he had chosen to live, and every individual and the nation (as a whole) would refer to him as ‘My master,’ (Bereshit 23,6) – and he had not revealed that he was a lord and nobleman to them.  And even during his life (the promise) ‘And I will make your name great, and you will be a blessing,’ (ibid. 12,2,) was fulfilled, and his wife died and was buried in the inheritance of God.”

   (ibid.)

It was not the for honor of Eretz Yisra’el, then, that the Torah offers this lengthy record of Sara’s burial, but rather to illustrate how Avraham, the foreigner coming from afar, who at first was not readily accepted by the local inhabitants, achieves status and prestige among his peers. 

[This process had already begun after the war of the coalition of the four kings against that of the five kings, when Avraham defeats the four kings and obtains a position of prominence in the region.  Now, however, the process persists and intensifies.]

The Ramban then cites further facets of the solution to the questions we originally raised:

“And also (God) desired to inform us of the location of our forefathers’ burial for we are obligated to honor the place of our saintly forefathers’ burial.”

(ibid.)

We have before us, then, a primary historical message.  It is in this place, in Me’arat ha’Machpela, that our forefathers are interred.  It is from their strengths that we derive our might, and thus our relationship to this place is accordingly defined – an obligation of honor and respect for those contained within this site

Finally, the Ramban notes the teaching of our Sages:

“And our Sages stated that this was also (one) of the trials of Avraham who desired a plot to bury Sara, yet did not find one until he purchased it.”

(ibid.)

That is to say that this is the tenth and concluding trial that Avraham must face.  These trials form a series of ordeals that successively revealed the great spiritual stature of our forefather Avraham.

[It is impossible to leave this point with a remark.  Let us note that it is riveting that according to these words of our Sages that the Ramban quotes that Avraham’s tenth trial, which would seem to be the climax of all the trials, is the grueling negotiation between Avraham and the local inhabitants of the Chevron region.  Why is the Akeida, the binding of Yitzchak as a sacrifice on an altar, not considered the climax of all the trials Avraham is to experience?  There have been those who noted that the test of the Akeida – despite the tremendous hardship and great spiritual ascent offered to Avraham once he succeeds this test – does not compare to routine, day-to-day trial that is the negotiations over Sara’s burial place.  No further discussion of this issue is appropriate at this time.]

In summary, then, the commentaries of the Ibn Ezra and the Ramban form part of the great mosaic of the words of the Commentators based on the question of the reason for the seemingly unnecessary length and detail in recording the preparations for Sara’s burial.

We will approach this topic from a different angle, an angle which is not directly emphasized by the various commentaries, but which can be gleaned from the words of our Sages in many places.

Avraham is commanded “Go forth from your land… to the land which I will show you,” (Bereshit 12:1.)  Avraham begins his journey to Eretz Yisra’el.  We find Avraham cultivating the land, planting an “Eshel,” a “grove,” (ibid. 21:33,) and we observe how he is forced to leave Eretz Yisra’el due to famine, and then reurn to her.  However it is in this parasha, in this record of Sara’s burial that we first witness Avraham purchasing an inheritance in Eretz Yisra’el.  This is also the first time that we are told of an acquisition perpetrated in Eretz Yisra’el.  What is the nature of this acquisition?

Furthermore, the acquisition of a portion in Eretz Yisra’el may have been understood as “whoever adds – in fact detracts,” (Sanhedrin 29a,) for never had God commanded Avraham to make a monetary purchase for a portion in Eretz Yisra’el.  Moreover, in executing such a purchase Avraham is essentially indicating that he is not the master and rightful owner of the land.  Is this not an expression of a lack of faith in God?  Alternatively, does this not detract from his status and his sovereign right to Eretz Yisra’el as a result of the Divine promise given to him?

The key to understanding Avraham’s act is the appreciation that Eretz Yisra’el, the Divine inheritance, is acquired by his descendants in “two stages.”  The first stage is by war and conquest, something which we will see is not the ideal nor desired manner for acquiring Eretz Yisra’el.  As noble as this manner of taking hold of the land may be, it still lacks a certain spiritual dimension.

And the second ‘stage’ or manner of acquiring the land is via financial acquisition.

The elaboration of this is as follows:

In Bereshit Raba our Sages discuss the acquisition Ya’akov makes of a field – which one day becomes the burial plot for Yosef - in Shechem, and in so doing they discuss a number of purchase that were affected on Eretz Yisra’el.  The words of our Sages gain further pertinence today as we stand in the midst of a battle against those who wish to expel us from our land.

Our Sages base themselves on the following verses:

“And on that day Esav returned on his way to Se’ir.  And Ya’akov journeyed to Sukot, and he built himself a house, and he made booths for his cattle; therefore the name of the place is called ‘Sukot,’ (‘Booths’).”

(Bereshit 33:16,17)

After his encounter with Esav, Ya’akov travels to Sukot, and then continues onward:

“And Ya’akov came to Shalem, a city of Shechem, which is in the land of Canaan, when he came from Padan-Aram; and he set up camp in view of the city.  And he bought the piece of open land upon which he set up his tent for one-hundred k’sitahs from the sons of Chamor, chief of Shechem. And he erected an altar there, and called it ‘El-Elohei-Yisrael,’ (God is Israel’s Lord.)”

(ibid v. 18-20)

Ya’akov purchases “the piece of open land upon which he set up his tent.”

In similar fashion to the first purchase his grandfather made, so too his purchase is recorded in full detail – who the buyer was, who the seller was, and what the exact value of the transaction was.

Let us recall that Ya’akov, as Avraham before him was, is at the pinnacle of his might in the land, as the verses testify:

“And they journeyed; and the terror of God was upon the cities in their surrounds, and they did not pursue the sons of Ya’akov.”

(ibid 35:5)

This is reminiscent of Avraham’s status in the land, when he made the purchase of Me’arat ha’Machpela, as the Bnei Chet testify:

“Your are a Prince of God amongst us.”

(ibid. 6:23)

This is a point of extreme import, for it will illuminate the nature of this financial transaction.  In any event, our Sages then discuss the additional purchases that were transacted in Eretz Yisra’el.

“‘And he bought the piece of open land upon which he set up his tent for one-hundred k’sitahs…’ (ibid. 33:19.)  Rabbi Yudan Bar Simon said: ‘This is one of three sites that the nations of the world are unable to deceive Yisra’el by claiming: ‘You are holding stolen plots of land.’’”

(Bereshit Rabba 79:7)

With regard all of Eretz Yisra’el the world may dispute Yisra’el that it does not belong to them; yet with regard those three locations they “are unable to deceive Yisra’el” into thinking that they are in fact stolen.  [We must closely examine the term “deceive Yisra’el” that the Midrash employs, a concept which we will soon explain.]

“And these are they: Me’arat ha’Machpela, the Temple, and the burial (place) of Yosef.

Me’arat ha’Machpela as it states: ‘And Avraham heeded Efron’s word, and Avraham weighed out for Efron,’ (Bereshit 23:16.)

The Temple as it states: ‘And David gave to Ornan, at that place,’ (Divrei ha’Yamim I, 21:25.)

And the burial (place) of Yosef, ‘He bought the piece of open land,’ (Bereshit 33:19,) Ya’akov bought Shechem.”

(ibid.)

Now let us expand on these issues.

David, too, makes an acquisition in the Land of Israel.  The background to David’s acquisition of a portion of land, the portion of the Temple, appears in Shemu’el II, and then again in Divrei ha’Yamim.  It is described how David desires to hold a national census in order to obtain a precise count of the people, something which is completely forbidden, for Bnei Yisra’el are counted via the medium of the Half-Shekel, and may never be directly counted.  [We will not discuss the exact nature of this prohibition in the scope of this shi’ur.]

In any event, David holds the census, yet thereafter his conscious bothers him, and he approaches the prophet, Gad, for counsel.  Gad informs him that he has perpetrated a grave sin, and heavy punishment would soon befall the nation.  And indeed, a plague of pestilence attacks Yisra’el, a plague whose origin is clear to all – this is surely a Divine act and by no means one of human proportions.

David desires to halt the plague, and thus he turns to Gad the Prophet.  David raises his eyes, and the following story unravels:

“And David lifted up his eyes, and he saw the angel of God standing between the earth and the heaven, and his sword was drawn in his hand - stretched out over Jerusalem. Then David and the elders of Israel, who were clothed in sackcloth, fell upon their faces.”

(Divrei ha’Yamim I, 21:16)

David, who all his life endeavors to connect between the heavens and the earth, sees God’s angel with a sword drawn – separating between the heavens and the earth.

Then David says:

“And David said to God, ‘Was it not I who commanded the people to be counted? It is I who have sinned and perpetrated evil; but as for these sheep, what have they done? God, my Lord, I pray, let Your hand be against me, and against my father's house; but let there be no plague upon your people.’”

(ibid. v. 17)

David claims, then, that he is to blame, and therefore if anyone is to be punished it is he and his household, yet as for God’s nation – “let there be no plague.”

And then the Tanach offers the manner in which the plague may be ceased from among the nation:

 “Then the angel of God commanded Gad to tell David that David should go up to establish an altar to God on the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite.”

(ibid. v. 18)

Ornan’s threshing floor was on Mount Moriya.  This city, Jerusalem, which used to be under Jebusite sovereignty, was conquered by Yisra’el, yet the mountain and that which stood at its peak remained under ‘private ownership’ – that of Ornan and his sons.

Let us note that God does not command David to buy the threshing floor, rather He instructs him to erect an altar then, and in this manner the plague will cease.

David thus sets about fulfilling the word of God:

“And David went up at the saying of Gad, which he spoke in the name of God.”

(ibid. v. 19)

The angel of God also revealed himself to Ornan and his sons:

“And Ornan turned back, and he saw the angel; and his four sons with him were hiding. And Ornan was threshing wheat.”

(ibid. v. 20)

And then we witness the meeting between David and Ornan:

 “And as David came to Ornan, Ornan looked and saw David, and he went out from the threshing floor, and bowed himself to David with his face to the ground.  Then David said to Ornan, ‘Grant me the place of this threshing floor, that I may build an altar to God on it, grant it to me for the full price, that the plague may be stayed from the people.”

(ibid. v. 21,22)

David desires to acquire Ornan’s threshing floor “for the full price.”

Ornan responds to his offer as follows:

“And Ornan said to David: ‘Take it, and let my lord the king do that which is good in his eyes; behold, I give you also the oxen for burnt offerings, and the threshing instruments for wood, and the wheat for the meal offering; I have given it all.’”

(ibid. v. 23)

Ornan, recognizing David’s sovereignty and royal authority, offers to give his entire property, including all the cattle and wheat to David, for free.  Yet David refuses this offer,

“And king David said to Ornan, ‘No; I will buy it for the full price; for I will not take that which is yours for God, nor offer burnt offerings without making payment.’”

(ibid. v. 24)

[King David’s insistence on paying Ornan reminds us of Avraham’s insistence “to make full payment” for Me’arat ha’Machpela, in Avraham’s words: “… you shall give it to me at full price for a burial plot,” (Bereshit 23:9.)]

Then, indeed:

“And David gave Ornan six hundred shekels weight of gold at the place.”

(ibid. v. 25)

Those six hundred gold shekels, which make up an unreal quantity of gold for the acquisition of Ornan’s threshing floor, relate to the six hundred-thousand members of Yisra’el that David desires to redeem.

And then David begins building the altar, as God had spoken to the angel.

“And David built an altar to God there, and he offered burnt offerings and peace offerings, and he called to God; and He answered him by fire from the heavens upon the altar of the burnt offering.”

(ibid. v. 26)

King David’s acts then immediately bring about the desired result:

“And the Lord commanded the angel; and he put his sword back into its sheath.”

(ibid. v. 27)

And it is here that the Temple which is yet to be built by Shelomo begins to attain stature and significance:

“At that time when David saw that God had answered him at the threshing floor of Ornan the Jebusite, and he sacrificed there.  And the tabernacle of God, which Moshe had made in the desert, and the altar of the burnt offering, were at that time in the high place at Giv’on.  And David could not go before it to inquire of God; for he was afraid because of the sword of the angel of God.  Then David said, ‘This is the house of the Lord God, and this is the altar of the burnt offering for Yisra’el.’”

(ibid v. 28 – 22:1)

Again we must emphasize that God did not command David to acquire Ornan’s threshing floor, and in fact, as king, David could simply have annexed the property from Ornan, simply canceling his ownership rights and then seizing the property for himself.  In fact Ornan was only too happy to have David take the piece of land without any formal act of purchase, (of his own accord he offered it to David as a free gift,) yet David insists on acquiring the property, almost negotiating with Ornan, while the plague ravages the nation.  It would seem that every moment was critical, and David could very easily have taken the threshing floor from Ornan, and then after the cessation of the plague he could have returned to Ornan in order to discuss the formal acquisition procedures.  Yet David does not do this.

The quintessential quality that underlies these issues is the common denominator of these three acquisitions.  All three were perpetrated when our forefathers and David were in considerably stronger positions than their opponents, there was no opposition on the land-owner’s part, to the contrary, with Avraham and David the owner proffered the land as a gift, for no cost.  And despite all this we see a reluctance on the part of the individuals involved, and an insistence on paying the full price without any concessions.

All this requires further understanding.

Unfortunately, it is specifically in these three locations where the inhabitants of the land fight us in the fiercest manner, and it is specifically these locations that they claim are under their complete ownership.  We long for these locations, Yosef the Saint’s burial site is scorched and looted, and whoever wishes to visit there – even once he has the relevant permits – can only do so under the guise of darkness, with heavy security measures, stealing into the location as a thief at night.  And the burial place of our forefathers is out of our reach during the majority of the year. And above all these – our Temple, the House of God, the beating heart of the Holy Land, has our enemies encamped upon it.

Now, as then, these locations were the places where the harshest battles were held.  Already in the days of Yehoshu’a the great battle against the king of Jerusalem, Adoni-Bezek, who forms a coalition with other kings, the king of Chevron among them, battles Yehoshu’a, while it is clear that the battle is over Jerusalem.  And even prior to then, a great battle endures between the sons of Ya’akov and the inhabitants of the land over the city of Shechem; and so too Chevron, is not the ‘friendliest’ of cities.  We need just recall that Chevron was the source of fear for the spies whom Moshe sent to the land, when they reported:

“And also the children of the giants we saw there,”

(Bamidbar 13:28)

All this intensifies the need to delve deeper into the words of our Sages.

The basis for understanding this issue will become clear through proper reflection on our contemporary reality, and all the tremendous upheavals which are taking place.

Those concepts that are fundamental to life are acquired in two levels, one built on the other - the first manner is through coercion, and the second is through love.  On Har Sinai our Sages taught us that “God turned the mountain over them as a barrel,” (Avoda Zara 2b.)  The significance of this is that at that great, most elevated moment, when the Divine was to be revealed in all its glory, when the spiritual eyes of the nation were to be opened, and the truth was to reverberate from one extreme of the earth to the other, at that moment, there is a dimension of coercion.  This does not connote the negative connotations of the word ‘coercion,’ but rather ‘coercion’ in the realm of personal commitment.  In other words – one is simply unable to deny or even ignore a powerful truth that manifest before his eyes.  Yet this is precisely the point, for since the supernal process envelops the soul without the soul being able to internalize it – the soul may reach a point of disintegration afterwards, as indeed occurred to a segment of the nation, who forty days after this tremendous Divine revelation fell from the lofty heights of Divine manifestation to the deep pit of the abhorrent idolatry of the Golden Calf.

It is imperative that a process of such exposure to the great truth that bridges great abysses undergoes an educational process that comes to expression in internalizing into one’s soul.  This is the concept of day and night in the broad sense, the day being an expression of progress, while the night is the period of internalizing.

This is also the nature of a process such as the process of marriage.  It begins out of a certain degree of coercion, either from man’s instinct to build a home and start a family, or from his emotional desire to find a spouse and partner in the greater sense of the word.  Yet after the marriage, the process of construction and internalizing begins, whereby the couple becomes more and more centered, emotional, and intense.

[Of course this process does not occur automatically, but requires work from both parties.]

Therefore, there are two stages in the construction of the soul: the first is forced, coercive by nature, and the second is elective-introspective.  These two stages represent the transformation from the primary knowledge and the relationship while at a level of a certain compulsion, onward to a deeper understanding and inevitably a deeper soul-connection.

[We must emphasize that this compulsion may also originate from an inability to refuse, as with the Giving of the Torah.]

This is the nature of the acquisition.  The acquisition illustrates strong inner bonds and a powerful connection to the object of the acquisition.

[This is also the significance of the Mishna in Avot (6:10,) “Five possessions did the Holy One, Blessed is He, acquire for Himself in His world, and they are: Torah, one possession, heaven and earth, one possession, Avraham, one possession, Israel, one possession, the Temple, one possession.”  Each of these possessions is a number of realities that God raised to the highest dimension, or to a supernal level of expression.   Further discussion of this issue falls outside the scope of this shi’ur.]

Let us now move on to the Divine-historical process that our nation is experiencing this very day, during this period of our national rejuvenation and our return to Zion.

The majority of us came to Eretz Yisra’el out of compulsion.  The European valley of death that captured one-third of our nation, and that hatred of Yisra’el that permeates every locale, pushed our beaten and bleeding nation to search for a “safe haven,” to quote one of the declared ideals of the Zionist Movement’s leaders.

And then, in an almost fantastic manner, upon the ashes of the great furnace and upon the ruins of the European valley of death – the Jewish State in Eretz Yisra’el arises.  The nation of Israel returns to its state, to sovereignty and self-determination in its tiny land.  The Declaration of Independence brought a difficult war against a number of Arab states in it wake, and an incredulous feat transpires!  The refugees, few in number, prevail over those murderers who rise in an attempt to murder and destroy the entire state.

However the river of redemption did not halt its flow, and a few years passed, nineteen in total, and suddenly the object of all of Yisra’el’s dreams is liberated.  Those words which days previously had just been an unattainable dream, words like “Jerusalem,” “Western Wall,” and “Chevron,” became a reality.  Despite the attempts of the leaders of the state at that time to minimize the victory, which flowed in great tidal waves, they were unsuccessful.  Despite the fact that the State of Israel was never interested in any confrontation with the Jordanian Monarchy, the Reader of Generations, who set the wheels of the redemption in motion, compelled the war to liberate the holiest place and the Temple, as well as the resting place of those buried in Chevron, onto His children.

The nations of the world, who had just instantaneously (both in historic and real terms) expelled us from their midst – opened their mouths wide in a shout of “You are thieves!”  They shout: “You have no right to this land, they are conquered territories, they are not yours!”  And what do we respond to them?

We respond with the answer that Rashi taught us at the very beginning of the Torah, the famous answer of Rabi Yitzchak:

“Rabi Yitzchak said: ‘It was only necessary to begin the Torah from (the verse) ‘This month will be for you,’ (Shemot 12:2) which is the first commandment commanded to Yisra’el, for what reason did (the Torah) begin with ‘Bereshit’ – ‘In the beginning?’  For the reason of ‘He has declared the power of His works to His nation, that He may give them the inheritance of the nations,’ (Tehillim 111:6.)’”

For then we hear that claim that is heard again and again, and is repeated over and over in our very age:

“For should the nations of the world say to Yisra’el: ‘You are thieves, for you conquered the lands of the seven nations;’ they may reply to them: ‘the entire earth is God’s, He created it, and He gave (portions of) it to whomever He sees fit – when He desired, He gave it to them; and when He desired, He took it from them and gave it to us.’”

What is this retort?  How does this answer the claim?

The basis of this answer is first and foremost for us – indeed the seven nations dwelled in Eretz Yisra’el, and we came to the land, conquering it by Divine command, since it is our inheritance, our national heritage and our national homeland for eternity.  If we tarried – or if we tarry – God’s Providence brings processes of compulsion upon us, that compel us to actively settle the land.

However, this is only the very first, primary dimension, the dimension of compulsion and coercion.  In order to properly internalize that this is our land, not simply because it offers us “safe haven” from our enemies – thus Zionism being nothing more than a security solution for a persecuted nation – but rather that it is a Divine process whereby “the lion cub of Judah arises resurrected,” (as Rav A.I. Kook writes in one of his letters,) we must undergo a process of internalization, a process of internal bonding and connecting from our world to the elevated spirituality.  Now we require the three locations that were acquired in Eretz Yisra’el, out of our free will, by our own initiative, even when we were in superior positions, when we could have received them for free, without having to enact any financial transaction.

Indeed it is around these places that the fiercest battles are – and always were – fought.  For this is precisely the issue, it is specifically in these places that our deepest connection to Eretz Yisra’el is apparent, like the bond between man and wife, and between man and earth.  It is regarding these three places that the nations of the world are incapable of taunting us, verbally taunting us by saying that this area, where we currently rule, is not truly ours.  A true claim as such has the ability to dissolve our connection to the Eretz Yisra’el.  This is where the importance of those three locations which were acquired “for the full price” becomes paramount, for they create the national confidence and surety of faith that we are truly connected to this land.

Then, as now, in the Six Day War, when “God turned the mountain” – the mountain of Eretz Yisra’el – “over them as a barrel,” there were two central figures in Israeli society who both dealt with the question, “Now what?”

The first, a great general, had already planned during the war itself how to “get rid” of the “conquered territories,” for he felt that we were incapable of dealing with the new reality.

Yet the second individual, Yisra’el Eldad of blessed memory, wrote as follows:

“The Six Day War was a historical short-cut, and for short-cuts – one is to pay in the future…”

Professor Eldad understood the magnitude of the moment, and he understood that the nation had received a gift far greater than all its dreams, and there was a very real concern that he would be incapable of containing all the great individual and national forces that resulted from such a victory.

Fifteen years after the Six Day Way, a public figure, the son of one of the great generals penned an essay under the shocking title: “May I forget my right hand!”  In this essay he attempted to illustrate the emotional and spiritual crisis that had resulted in the wake of that war.

He wrote that during the war he had been a student at the Hebrew University.  Until that war, Jerusalem had been a distant aspiration, the Temple Mount too had been a dream, both paradoxically had symbolized the Diaspora within the Jewish State.  And then, suddenly, in one great flash, the dream materialized, simultaneously upsetting all of life’s configuration.  In his conclusion, the author requests that whoever is able to integrate the materialization of this dream into his person to come and speak with him, for he is unable to grasp the dream that has become reality, and his conclusion, therefore, is that we must let go of that dream.

We have elaborated on the events of our nation in the contemporary age in order to appreciate the concept that the period that we live in is that of the deep acquisition of Eretz Yisra’el.  Not by human compulsion, nor by Divine coercion, but rather through love, through bonding and through deep internalization.

The phase has now come to demonstrate our independent love for the land and the soil of Eretz Yisra’el.  Who knows whether this is the reason that we continue to hear the word “Disengagement” reverberating with greater volume each day.

This is the moment when it will become apparent that we choose to connect, not because we are obligated to do so, but rather because we love.  Now is the hour to make an “acquisition” in Eretz Yisra’el, an acquisition of love and connection, an acquisition between man and his land.  This is the core of issue, our ability to come face to face with our beloved brothers, even those who hold different points of view, and to connect with them anew, with love and with faith.  We must move ourselves from the experience of the Divine, supernal coercion of the great Divine process of our nation’s rejuvenation and our own redemption, to the opening of the internalization of the “acquisition” in the greater sense of the word.

Translated by Sholem Hurwitz

Copyright Keren Yishai/Rav M. Elon