Parshat Chayei Sarah
by Rabbi Avi Billet
When we read of the discussions surrounding the purchase of Me’arat HaMachpela, the theater of the absurd seems to take over in the exchange between Avraham and Efron over the purchase of the cave and the field. Each one calls on the other to “listen to me” (23:8,11,13,15) in a manner that suggests no one has, in fact, been listening. In the end, when Efron makes the generous offer to give Avraham everything for free – whether this was a sincere offer or a ruse to demonstrate his generosity to his people or to get Avraham to cave to his real asking price – Avraham’s response seems to be like the father in the following joke, as told by Irish comedian Hal Roach:
A teacher asked a little boy, “Who knocked down the walls of Jericho?”The boy said, “It wasn’t me.”Incredulous, she called up the boy’s mother and said, “When I asked your son who knocked down the walls of Jericho, he said it wasn’t him!”The mother’s response spoke volumes. “If my son says he did not knock down those walls… then he did not knock down those walls!”The teacher, mortified at what she is hearing decided to call the father. “When I asked your son who knocked down the walls of Jericho, he said it wasn’t him! When I told your wife, she told me that if my son says he did not knock down those walls… then he did not knock down those walls!”
The father, a practical man, said, “Look, I don’t want any trouble. How much did these walls cost?”
Avraham’s response to Efron’s final offer seems to be “I don’t want any trouble. What does this field really cost?” Unlike the family in the joke, Avraham is much more than not a fool. He is a man who has dealt with the likes of Pharaoh, Avimelekh, and the King of Sodom, and he has even argued with God. When the verse tells us “וישמע אברהם אל עפרון” (And Avraham listened to Efron), we get the sense that Avraham finally did hear exactly what he was waiting to hear. No more games were being played. No more faux chivalry was being presented. This wasn’t a Black Friday rock bottom steal-of-the-day. This was the price being offered, and it was up to Avraham to accept it, reject it, or choose to bargain.
He chose to accept, thereby ending the conversation. No one can say he was a cheater or a thief. No one can say Efron gave a price unwillingly. No one can say Efron didn’t really want to sell. No one can argue that Efron had his arm twisted.
Avraham wanted to buy, Efron hemmed and hawed about his own generosity, then offered a price that many argue was exorbitant (see R SR Hirsch, for example), which suggests that even Efron had a breaking point that was worth it to him. Sometimes in business, when a service provider does not want to deal with a client, but is unsure of how to refuse service outright, the business person will offer the service at a price that says, “I don’t think you’ll take my price, but if you do, it’ll be worth the headache of dealing with you.” If the customer accepts the price, presumably the customer is not interested in a better deal, and is willing to pay the price for this particular service.
In Avraham’s case, he had staked out the land and felt this cave, and perhaps the field alongside it (after Efron insisted it would be part of the deal), were the exact purchase he wanted. It is also quite possible that Avraham detected an omen when he heard the number 400 emerge from Efron’s lips. After all, he had heard that number before in the promise of how much time his descendants would suffer in exile prior to returning to the land. Perhaps he felt that this 400 shekels purchase can serve as a merit to his descendants to indeed return to this land where he is making a “kinyan karka” – an acquisition of land as an eternal burial place – after their 400 years in exile.
An important take away from this story is how Avraham’s ability to listen helps him get to where he wants to be.
In these post election days, we have seen what many of us knew to be true. The citizenry of the United States is almost evenly split ideologically over many issues. It may be true that many people have a lot more in common than they realize, but it is also true that some of the dividing points are tearing people apart.
I have seen a number of articles and listened to a number of podcasts focusing on the fact that political differences are now seen to be so insurmountable that either marriages are ending or men and women don’t even want to be introduced to a person who votes differently. Once upon a time an individual identifying with one political party might vote for the candidate from the other side after a well thought out struggle. Now, more often (though certainly not everyone), people vote along party lines, without having ever heard or researched a political candidates positions.
Have we lost the ability to listen? וישמע אברהם אל עפרון reminds us the importance of listening. It’s not so much that we listen in order to change our perspective or our own view (though if we are absolutely wrong that is an admirable trait), but that we listen to understand the other person’s point of view.
It could very well be that the other person is wrong. But if in that person’s mind the facts are clear, and if in that person’s mind it is uncanny that anyone would think differently, it takes a special amount of patience to listen, to understand, and to at least empathize with the person’s position.
Most people are good people who mean well. Hearing a different point of view, recognizing the humanity of the person who has that point of view, and agreeing to disagree – while still embracing our common humanity and especially our being Jewish brothers and sisters – only enhances our relationships and shared goals.
While some people steer clear of discussing hot topics because “it’s not worth it,” perhaps setting ground rules before such conversations can only deepen friendships as we expand our own diversity of thoughts and ideas. “You will state your opinion, and I will not interrupt you. Then I will state my opinion, uninterrupted. We will identify where we agree, and where we disagree.”
With uncommon exception, this has been the way of Torah study through the ages. What is a debate which is לשם שמים (for the sake of heaven)? The debate between Hillel and Shammai (Avot 5:17) – who loved and respected one another even through their differences. The Mishnah says this debate will endure, because the goal is for the sake of heaven, to get to truth in a respectful way. Perhaps, when the debate is not for the sake of heaven it does not endure, because the disrespect people harbor towards one another causes them to cut ties completely and never continue the conversation, or even the relationship.
Or, to put it in the words of Rabbi Sacks, Z”L, "The faith of rabbinic Judaism is that Torah lives more in the way the argument is conducted than in the conclusions reached. If it proceeds through a debate informed by text, precedent and interpretation, it becomes part of Torah. It becomes part of the commentary each generation of Jews writes to the covenant. But if it proceeds through political pressure, mutual delegitimation and violent confrontation, there is no real argument. There is a search for victory, not truth. The clash of opinions becomes secularised. Judaism, instead of providing the means for handling conflict, fuels the flames of conflict into conflagration. The great tradition of argument for the sake of heaven comes to an end." (Traditional Alternatives, pg.215)
May we be blessed with the ability to listen, to discern, to learn from one another, to empathize, and to grow from our newfound knowledge – to enhance our interactions and our relationships with a profound respect for the other person’s right to have a different point of view.
No comments:
Post a Comment