The Academy of Jerusalem – New Genesis Exegesis: (Genesis 23:1 – 25:18)

Parashat Haye Sarah“Lives of Sarah”

The Start of the Eternal Life of Kenesset Yisrael

Introduction - Why “Haye Sarah”?

The Years of Sarah’s Life.

Sarah, the Goddess, and Kenesset Yisrael

Yisra’el-Israel – A Male or Female?

1st Conversation – the structure of Abraham’s negotiations with the sons of Het.

“The Field of the Cave of Makhpela” as the Entrance of Eden

Regarding the Architecture and Geomancy of the Makhpelah Cave

The Makhpelah Cave as a Lineage Book of the People of Israel/Yisra’el

Parallels between the Garden of Eden and “the Field in the Makhpelah

Part II: The Raising of the Ma’N – The “Feminine Waters”

Finding the Wife for Yitzhak and his Consolation over his Mother’s Death

Abraham and his Servant (Eliezer apparently)

2nd Conversation –Between Abraham and his Servant, and his Mission.

The Conduct of the Negotiations by Eli’ezer

About the Raising of the Feminine WatersMa’N

3rd Conversation – the Servant with Rivqah

4th Conversation – the Negotiating Conversation of Eli’ezer with the people of Bethuel’s House

5th Conversation – the Meeting of Yitzhak and Rivqah.

The Bovine fold - Sarah Rivqah and Rahel, the Golden Calf and Kenesset Yisrael

The Mutual Moves Among the Fathers and Mothers of the Nation of Israel

Haye Sarah and the Drawing of the Hayut Energy

Part III – The Lives of Abraham after Sarah’s Death and the Lives of Ishmael

The Earthly Abraham, Birth of Ashur, Sending away Sons of Qeturah.

The Return-Teshuvah of Yishma’el to the Makhpelah, to Mount Moriah and towards Inclusion within the Union of Israel.

The Generations of Yishma’el – About Ismailis and Sufis.

The Encounter of Yitzhak and Yishma’el as Tikkun for the conflict of Qayin and Hevel.

From the Tree of Knowledge to the Building of the Temple

 

Introduction: Why “Haye Sarah”?

The name “Haye Sarah” – “Lives (or Life) of Sarah” that was given to this parashah (Genesis 23:1 – 25:18) is, ostensibly, quite strange. For the parashah starts with the death and burial of Sarah, and not with her life, and for the most part it deals with other matters: with the negotiations over the burial estate, with the mission of Abraham’s slave to Haran to find a match for Yitzhak, with the encounter of Yitzhak with Rivkah and with the death of Abraham. But – as we shall see – it was expressly after her death, that the influence of Sarah over the charting of the fate of the nation grew and became decisive, so much so that we can see in her post-mortal influence as amounting to the planting of a Tree of Life for Yisra’el-Israel, and therefore she merited to have the parashah called after her. The inside message of the parashah is The Foundation of Kenesset Yisra’el – a collective entity with eternal life and feminine-matriarchal character, which is a part of the God of Israel.

Even though centuries of traditional-patriarchal Jewish (and Christian and also Moslem) interpretations, gave us as a convention that the Torah is “a patriarchal document”, yet with a close look things appear quite different. For those who adopt the approach of “Bible criticism” it is only a small step to proceed and claim that the author(s) of some very sections of the book of Genesis and the Pentateuch – what these Bible scholars call “version J” in which is prevalent the use of the Name of YHWH (which they call “Jehovah), was written by a woman (or women) as claims the famous literary critic Harold Bloom. (See, for example the first custom which is related in the second chapter of Genesis, right after the story of the Garden of Eden: “That is why a man leaves his father and his mother, and cleaves to his wife…” (2:24), it is not she who joins his family, but he joins her family). Also if we check the matter scientific-genetically, we shall find that the family of Terah, Abraham and Nahor, from which issue the people of Israel, is more of a matriarchal than a patriarchal family: Sarah, as was found in the land of Gerar, was the sister of Abraham from a father, not from her mother. Therefore, the marriage between them was not considered as incest, namely, a common mother determined sibling relationship. When Sarah offered her maid to Abraham, she did it “to be built from her”. That is: the child would be legally the son of Sarah, a phenomenon that would return with the case of the maids of Le’ah and Rahel (Rachel). When, in this parashah, the slave came to Haran and asked about her father’s house, she turned him in fact to her mother’s house.

For those who adopt “Bible Criticism”, it is only a small step to carry on and conclude that important sections in the Book of Genesis and the whole Pentateuch – what these Biblical scholars call “version J”, which is prominent in its use of the Name of YHWH (in their language – “Jehovah”) – was written by a woman (or women), as claimed by the noted literary critic Harold Bloom.

We have already seen in the case of the casting away of Yishma’el the command to Abraham “In all that Sarah said to thee, hearken to her voice” (Gen. 21:12) could this be plainer? But it is in this parashah that we see the dominance – Srarah – of the will of Sarah for generations to come. The pastoral Abraham, the type of Hevel-Ebal, becomes through her to the like of Kayin, to the owner of Kinyan-landed property, owner of a burial estate.

There is a major difference between wide “The Estate of Abraham”, and the narrower “Estate of Sarah” – which is the Land of Israel. Sarah was the native of a large city, that also when she came to the land of Kena’an hardly wandered. The place of her tent was at Hevron-Hebron, there she gave birth to her only child, and there she died thirty-seven years later, whereas Abraham as a wandering shepherd, as a contemporary Bedouin Sheik, who wandered to the desert of Be’er Sheva, and his progeny (children of Hagar, Sarah and Keturah) filled all the desert regions of the whole Middle East. The heritage land of all the Children of Abraham spreads much beyond the boundaries of the Land of Israel, and reaches apparently until India.

In the Biblical narrative, Sarah is the representative of the material world. She is the woman, she is the body flesh: “This is now a bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh, she shall be called Woman… That is why a man leaves his father and his mother, and cleaves to his wife…” (2:23-24). According to the Midrash of the Zohar, the word ELoHIM – God – is made of the two words MI and EleH, which are mentioned in the verse from Isaiah (40:26): “Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who created these things”, which in the Hebrew original is mi (who) bara (created) Eleh. (these things). Mi – the word of question – relates to the hidden, to the spirit world and the transcendent divinity, and is of a male nature, whereas EleH – “these things” – the overt, has to do with the earthly world, the immanent (also immanent divinity), and of feminine nature. Therefore, it is Sarah who cared for an earthly inheritance (for her son), and who brought Abraham to the acquisition of the first earthly property. This was ostensibly a burial estate, in fact – a womb that would beget all the possession of the land.

Let us go a further step in this Midrash, and after we have associated Sarah with the manifest world of the EleH – these things (and ElaH – goddess!), let us check what is derived from the combination of the two words” “Sarah” and “EleH” = YiSRaEL (Israel) as the two H’eh return and become one Y’od. From the loins of Abraham issued a whole group of nations, these are “The Children of Abraham” through them would the blessing of “and thou shalt be a father of many nations(17:4), but the Biblical narrative focuses on “Yisra’el”, the Children of Sarah. It seems therefore that the name of Yisra’el is derived from that of Sarah, two generations before the appearance of Jacob who won this name officially.

With the birth of Yitzhak, Sarah insisted on the sending away of Ishmael; “for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with my son(21:10). This, even though there were already precedents of ideal arrangements, brought in the Bible, such as the family of Nahor described at the end of the last parashah: Nahor had twelve sons, some of “the legal wife” and some the sons of the concubine, and all have inherited. But the house of Sarah-Israel had to wait to the fourth generation to realize the ideal pattern, whereas Ishmael, who was the son of Abraham but not of Sarah, gained the pattern of the twelve right away. Among his sons, presumably, there was no longer the jealousy that that was the lot of the sons of Yitzhak.

On the whole, Sarah represents the jealous, zealous part. Abraham did not return from the Land of the Philistines until Sarah’s death. He went for the Akedah, and also returned from it, to Be’er Sheva, whereas Sarah lived and died at Hebron. She cleaved to the mountain. She represents the people of the mountainous area, who throughout history would be more zealous, more insular, and more entrenched in their traditions compared with the Philistines, residents of the open (Mefulash) land, near the sea and busy in trade and connections with the rest of the world. If it was not for Sarah’s death, Abraham might have stayed among the Philistines (Palestinians). Sara is Israel. At the return of Jacob to Kena’an, after twenty years of absence, he encountered an angel who examined him, and found in him the quality of his grandmother “Thy name shall be called no more Ya’aqov, but Yisra’el - Ki sarita im Elohim ve’im anashim vatukhal” – “for thou hast contended with Go and with men, and hast prevailed(32:29). Only then, he received the name Yisra’el, as a proper son to the family of Sarah.

The Years of Sarah’s Life

Va’yihyu haye Sara… (127 years) shne Haye Sarah

The Koren (and other) translations do not give the repetition, but in the Hebrew, the expression “Haye Sarah” – “Lives of Sara” – is repeated twice right at the first sentence, without any grammatical need. The structure of Makhpela – “doubling” – which is the name of the burial cave to be discussed, is very appropriate for parashat Sarah, which has two chapters and two stories – the story of Sarah and the story of Rivqah. In each of the two stories, there is a hard bargaining between two crafty sides. Two – Yitzhak and Yishma’el, performs also the concluding part, the death and burial of Abraham.

The strange expression Haye Sarah – “Lives of Sarah” – appears, as noted, not once but twice in the first verse, denoting two ways by which Sarah gained immortality after her death, as we shall see in the sequel: one through the establishment of the burial estate at Qiryat Arba, and the second when she kind of resurrected in Rivqah, that only with whom Yitzhak fell in love and consoled over the death of his mother. The two stories are different, but there is much common in the way they took place, and we can claim that they themselves form a kind of Makhpelah – doubling.

And the Lives of Sarah were a hundred years and twenty years and seven years

The specific number of 127, and its unusual form of counting, which looks cumbersome or over-verbose (the Koren translation writes simply “And Sara was a hundred and twenty seven years old, these were the years of Sara’s life”, omitting both the repetition of the word “year” and of “Sara’s life”), brought the interpreters to seek various explanations for this number and to show that it was not random but symbolic. But even those interpretations (e.g. Rashi’s and in the Zohar) do not manage to connect the meaning of this number with another appearance of it in the Bible, in the Book of Esther (1:1): “This is Ahashverosh who reigned, from Hoddu (India) as far as Kush (“Black Africa”), a hundred and twenty seven provinces”. The semantic meaning of connecting the mention of Sarah’s years and Ahashverosh’s provinces may indicate a connection of the number with governance and ruling – in Hebrew Serarah – hinted by the name “Sarah”.

Recently it was shown by Meir Bar-Ilan, that it is possible to explain the number 127 as the combination of two numbers: a hundred, which is ten squared, and denotes a doubling of the full score; and of 27, which is 3 to the 3rd power (3x3x3=27), which is an amplification of the Principle of Three - that is a central principle of the Book of Genesis: three creation stories, three stories of the establishment of humankind (Adam, Noah and Abraham) and three stories of patriarchs and matriarchs of Israel. In this, Sarah stands for the essence of all the triads of these three stories.

(In our generation, when we are used to the binary arithmetics of computers, we may sense additional meaning in this number. It is quite evident that the number 127 is actually the binary version of 128, namely 2 to the 7th power, when the value of 0 too represents on of the possibilities of the counting. Changing the place of the same digits, we can express the number mathematically thus: 27-1 = 127. For theoretically, Ahashverosh might have ruled over 0 countries (then he would not be a king) or Sarah might have lived 0 years, and there is a point in comparing this initial possibility with that of who attained the 127th country or her 127th year. At the end of the Books of Chronicles (II 36:23) Koresh-Cyrus, the emperor of Persia says about the same kingdom: “The Lord God of heaven has given me all the kingdoms of the earth”. The number 127 thus represents a complete blessing, because things repeat being doubled seven times. It is as if Ahashverosh’s forefathers have doubled their kingdom seven times, and Sarah daughter of Terah (as Abraham admitted “And yet she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, not the daughter of my mother”, Gen. 20:12) was granted seven times to double her years. In other words, his number is the sum of seven consecutive binary decisions, or “yes” or “no”. Both Sarah and Ahashverosh answer consecutive “yes” to the question of rulership.)

The domain of the 127 countries or provinces of Ahashverosh is broader than all the boundaries of the promises given to Abraham, and it includes all of the Bible lands, including those to where “the Ten Tribes” were exiled. This is perhaps the domain for all the Children of Abraham. It is customary for Jews to count just four matriarchs, but in fact, the scriptures count seven mothers – Sarah, Hagar, Rivqah, Le’ah, Bilhah and Zilpah. If we regard the blessing brought about by each mother as “Makhpela-doubling”, then the doubling to the seventh power, the blessing of all seven mothers brings to a count of 127 blessings. It is worth also noting that the full number of matriarchs and patriarchs (which includes also Esav-Esau and Yishma’el-Ishmael) is a dozen, because, as we shall repeatedly observe, the Torah believes in “The Principle of the Dozen”, as determining the full blessing.

Vayihyu Haye Sarah – “And the Lives of Sarah were”

The word “Vayihyu” - “and they were” (or “and they would be”) – has the gematric value of 37, which is the age of Yitzhak-Isaac at the Akedah, according to the calculation of the sages, as Rashi claims: “the death of Sarah was joined to the Akeda of Yitzhak, because through the rumor of the Akedah, that her son was taken to slaughter and was almost slaughtered, her soul flew away and she died”. The 90 years that Sarah was barren were not considered as years of real living, but 37 years of motherhood redeemed also the 90 barren years, and made all the 127 years to count as full and fulfilled. {The ARI’zl explains that 37 also explains that 37 is the “filling” of the name of 63 – SaG (Y’od H’y W’aw, H’y) over its base of 26, the “filling” being “the backside of the name of YHWH”, or the neck, and that Sarah’s vitality came from the quality of sternness-Gevurot and stiff-neckedness}.

Sarah, the Goddess, and Kenesset Yisrael

The Biblical narrative opens with a turning point in human history. As we have shown at the introduction to the Book of Genesis, it is possible to match the scriptural events with feminist-archeologist claims, that about 6000 years ago, there came a turn from a matriarchal (or nowadays more likely to be called “participatory”) society to patriarchal society. Among the other cultural changes, there changed the religious rituals, including the passage from the cult of “The Great Goddess” of fertility to the cult of a masculine God of heaven. In the arena of the Biblical events, which is the Land of Israel (on both sides of the Jordan river), the echoes of this transition and contention can be found in the contention between native cultures of agriculturists and the nomadic-fighting shepherds.


We may sum ten important differences between these two inimical cultures:

          Attribute                  Agriculturalists                         shepherds-fighters

          Supreme value        land                                         fighting

          Model                      nature                                      chivalry

          Admired figure        woman, mother                        male

          World-view              cycles, destiny, passivity,          victory, activism

          Regime                    partnership                               rule

          Luminary                 sun, day                                   moon, night

          God figures              animal-gods                             anthropomorphic gods

          Habitation                permanent settlement                wandering

          Symbol                     ring, the ouroborous                 weapons

          Treatment of dead  burial                                       cremation of bodies

Parashat Haye Sarah is much connected with the conflict between settled-agrarians and wandering-shepherds, and points to the Biblical synthesis, which makes it a very important model for our times and for future conduct. It is no accident that our parashah begins with the tenth attribute that we brought above, with the burial of Sarah. By Abraham the Hebrew-Ivri, the passer and wanderer, accepted for himself to establish the family burial estate for the parent-figures of the Israelite nation, he accepted to a large extent the rule of his wife “In all that Sarah said to thee, hearken to her voice” (Gen. 21:12). The wandering people of the Hebrews-Ivrim (passers by) came to a process of settling in the land and confrontation with the gods of the land – and with the question of the cult of the goddess.

The answer of the Bible is more complex than the simplistic assumption that it is the basis of a clearly patriarchal religion. As we saw, “Sarah” herself is (in fact or as a symbol) a/the goddess of Israel. With her interment at Hevron-Hebron, there started a process of assimilation that proceeded for thousands of years. The first step was the interment of the old goddess in the ground, a burial that is in conversation with the ancient fertility cults, where the god was killed and buried in the earth as a seed in the ground, in order to resurrect with the sprouting of the corn (let us recall the possibility we raised at parashat Bereshit, that the “Tree of Knowledge” was wheat). The Biblical narrative turns around the idolatrous cult as known then: not the son-god was the dead buried in the ground, but actually the mother-goddess, and she is the one who takes care that also the father-god figure will be brought by his sons to be buried beside her.

We know today that the cult of the goddess was quite common in the ancient Israel (see, for example, Raphael Patai’s book “The Hebrew Goddess”). The Bible admits, even if with reservation, that King Shelomoh-Solomon built an altar for the Ashtoret-Ashera goddess and that the people continued to sacrifice at the altars – that altar and many others – for still hundreds of years after the building of the First Temple in Jerusalem. It seems that there was prevalent then a popular syncretistic religion of many faces/facets in the divinity, which is testified by archeological finds, including votive clay tablets for “YHWH and His Ashera[1]. The sages admit that only with the return from the exile (Shivat Tsion) “the taste for idolatry was removed from Israel”. In fact, if we check this closely, this taste was not removed from “Israel”, but only from Judah, since the state that the Shave Tsion established was the province of “Judea-Yehudah” and not the Kingdom of “Yisra’el-Israel”.

Is it possible that the story of Saray-Sarah is that of the Asherah, or of “The Hebrew Goddess” (as the language and title of Patai’s book), who was already doctrinally removed, but was still dwelling underground, influencing her children and may, perhaps, return at the Resurrection of the Dead? We shall follow this story, as we ponder over the appearance of the figure of the Shekhinah and of Kenesset Yisra’el through the continuation of the development of Jewish religion and folklore.

We have noted that at the old matriarchal culture, the gods were represented by figures of animals. The Egyptian goddess Isis was marked by a cow head, and the Roman goddess Juno was characterized by having “cow’s eyes”. It is worth noting that the names of all the Biblical matriarchs are connected with the concept of the goddess, especially in a way that stresses nature femininity. The (feminine) name “Sarah” is connected to the (masculine) word “Shor-bull”, and we know that the figure of the bull figures much as a symbol of Israelite divinity, such as with the Golden Calf (and perhaps with the mysteries of the Red Heifer), the calves that King Yorov’am placed at Dan and at Beyt El as representing the God Of Israel (I Kings 12:28-33), and with the figure with “the bull’s face” that carries the Divine throne-Merkavah in Ezekiel’s vision (1:10; 10:14). The name “Rivkah-Rebbeca” means “Cow” or “harnessed”, one of a bovine pair harnessed together (we also know the expression “Egel marbek” – “fattening calf”), whereas “Rahel-Rachel” means an ewe. The Hebrew name “Le’AH” in a different letter order gives “ElaH” – “goddess”.

The archetype of the goddess and of “The Great Mother” actually exists within any woman, but the Biblical figures are the models offered for the enactment of these archetypes. Sarah is the figure of the Hebrew goddess, and she in engaged in the labor of a new creation, of a creature called “Yisra’el-Israel”, an entity that gets gradually perfected through the subsequent generations that get gathered at the Cave of the Makhpela – Sarah with Abraham, Rivkah with Yitzhak, and Le’ah with Ya’aqov-Yisra’el.

One of the interpretations to the name “Rivkah is (according to the Arabic root) a means of harnessing and tying together. Let us then substitute her name with the mathematical symbol that is used by convention for the action of tying an adding – the plus sign “+”, and place it in its chronological order, between Sarah and Le’ah. The system of the three matriarchs is then summed in Hebrew by the expression:

          SaRaH – Rivkah – LeAH = SaRaH + Le’AH = YiSRa’EL

As will be explained mre at the end of the chapter, the expression is also exact mathematically-gematrically. If we give the gematrical value of the addition of the Hebrew letters of these two names we get:

          SaRaH (505) + Le’AH (36) = YiSRa’EL (541)

If we recall that the ensamble of memories embodied at the Makhpela Cave includes also the burial places of Eve-Havah and Adam, the ensemble of the matriarchs at “Qiryat Arba” – “The City of the Four” – would be:

          Havah-Sarah-Rivkah-Le’ah  =  Havah-Yisra’el

And in other language, the Makhpela Cave and the field and all trees at the Field of Makhpelah comprise “Havat-Yisra’el” – namely “Estate of Israel”, and a part of the Garden of Eden.

In the myths of the ancient East, the goddess (e.g. the Babylonian Innana) is the one who planted the Tree of Life. This task was also appointed for the Hebrew Goddess, in her secret enactment, in the figure of our Mother Sarah.

 

Yisra’el-Israel – A Male or Female?

The Book of Genesis is the description of the creation of the entity of “Yisra’el-Israel”, an entity that may bring blessing for the whole of humankind, namely “a Messianic Entity”. Is it possible to characterize this entity as male or female? Or is this entity both male and female?

It seems as if the male form of this entity is “Am Yisra’el” – the Nation of Israel – whereas the feminine form of this entity is “Kenesset Yisra’el” – “The Assembly of Israel”. There is a possibility, and a tendency, to perceive in these entities something divine, or much connected with the divinity. The divinization of Am Yisra’el – the People of Israel – is likely to lead to stark Fascism, but Kenesset Yisrael is a more delicate matter. The way in which this figure was developed among our Sages of blessed memory and in the Kabbalah made it into an acceptable matter, because it is based on the sayings of the prophets, namely expressed from God’s viewpoint. From the prophets of Israel and to the interpretations of the sages and the Kabbalah to the Song of Songs (Canticles), there is an image of a love relationship (which does not lack also frustrations and anger) between “the Holy One blessed be He” and Kenesset Yisra’el, and in the language of the mekubalim (Kabbalists), “between ha’QB”H ve’Nuqbato” – “The Holy One and His Female”.

This feminine and created entity of Kenesset Yisra’el is engaged in complex relationship, which continually develop and evolve, with the Holy One blessed be He, as is summed at Midrash Raba for Exodus (tract 52): “It is allegorical to a king, who had an only daughter and he was loving her exceedingly. And He use to call her “my Daughter”, and he did not desist from loving her until he called her “my Sister”, and he did not desist from loving her until he called her “my Mother”. Likewise is the Holy One Blessed be He to Yisra’el.

The masculine Yisra’el-Israel is of the figure of “The divine Son”, supported by the verse “Yisra’el is my son, my firstborn(Exodus 4:22). In her book “The Secret Doctrine of the Kabbalah”, Leonora Leat asserts that the priests of the Jerusalem Temple had secrets that allowed them to become “Sons of God”. The expression  Ben-Adam - “Son of Man” – in the Book of Ezekiel and Bar-Inash in the Book of Daniel, and even more so Ben-Adam in the apocryphal Book of Enoch-Hanokh which is the closest to the time of Jesus of Nazareth (the author of the Book of Enoch lived, apparently, at the times of the Hashmonean revolt) are buttressing the claim that the figure of the “Son” – Ben – in the Kabbalah is derived from ancient secrets of the Temple worship that were geared to the formation of “Son of God” – Ben Elohim – (something akin to the famous Christian concept, that was probably the reason that this concept was hidden and withdrawn in the Torah of the Jews).

It is probably for a reason that the divine “son” is derived in the Kabbalah not only from the Holy name of BeN (which is derived from the combination of the letters in the “filling” of the Name of YHWH as Y’od H’h W’aw H’h, which has the gemtric value of 52 – which is, we recall, the value of the word BeHeMaH-animal), but also from the Holy Name of MaH (the “filling” of the Name of YHWH as Y’od H’e W’aw H’e, whose gematria value is 45 – which is also the value of the word “AdaM”. This way, the name of “Ben Adam” can be interpreted as relating to the combination of the two Names of Being-HaWaYaH – the Name of BeN (Son) and the Name of MaH (Adam-Man).

The prophets thus relate to Yisra’el both as to a male and to a female, though the feminine regard is always accompanied by an additional name, which is inherently feminine: Betulat isra’el (the virgin Israel), She’erit Yisra’el (the remnant of Israel) etc. The sages added the expression Kenesset Yisra’el (the assembly of Israel), which became a major concept of the Kabbalah, until it became regarded as the most essential and manifest part of the very divinity. The feminine part of “Yisra’el” as we saw, derives from Sarah.

Already in parashat Lekh-Lekha we learn that “Saray your wife… Sarah shall her name be. And I will bless her, and give thee a son also of her; and I will bless her, and she will be a mother of nations; kings of people shall issue from her(Gen. 17:15-16). This is in contrast to Hagar and the wandering Yishma’el, who thus resenbles Abraham and not Sarah. From Ishmael would issue twelve princes – Nesi’im – but not kings. The kingship is for Yisra’el, and Yisra’el issues from Sarah.

And Sarah died in Qiryat-Arba; that is Hevron, in the land of Kena’an

Rashi gives two explanations to the name Qiryat Arba – “the City of Four”: “because of four giants that lived there… another thing, because of the four couples that were buried there, husband and wife: Adam and Havah, Abraham and Sarah, Yitzhak and Rivkah, Ya’aqov and Le’ah”. There are three insights her that are relevant to our study: a) if also Adam and Eve-Havah were buried at the Makhpelah cave – then it figures that the cave is situated by a gate of the garden of Eden; b) if “Qiryat-Arba” is named for the four couples that were buried there, then it is the very burial estate, the Makhpela Cave itself, is the real “Qiryat Arba”, and it is the facility that has the future objective of “Hevron” – of Hibur (connection and socialization) together; c) if Qiryat Arba was called so because of the four couples that would be buried there in the future – then this is a kind of a prophetic name, that hints at prophetic qualities. Since Sarah is the cause of tying the family of the patriarchs with Qiryat Arba – we shall undertake in the sequel to check whether she can be attributed with prophetic qualities. Or according to the verse “from my flesh.. I would see God” (Job 19:26), it needs to be examined whether Sarah, who is the flesh, the material, was blessed with a capacity to behold God.

“And Avraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her”

If one examines the scriptual text, if becomes evident that Abraham and Sarah lived separately. Abraham lived at Be’er Shevah, at the place from where was sent out his beloved son Ishmael, far from the authority – Serarah – of Sarah, who resided at her tent in Hebron-Hevron (some 30 miles away, over a day’s journey). During her life, Sarah did not succeed to keep her husband by her side, but at last, with her death, she managed to ground Abraham and to bring him to invest in real-estate, in the field of the Cave of the Makhpelah, from where there would sprout the genealogical tree of her children. We shall hence see why was the burial site so dear in the eyes of Abraham, who aquired it for Sarah as the one compensation gift that was appropriate for his cruelty towards here. For according tot he Midrash, Abraham killed Sarah, in his haste to enact the Akedah.

Sarah was the one who saw to it that Abraham would have the capital to acquire the filed at Hevron. Only because his wife Sarah was bartered to the king of Egypt and to the king of the land of the Philistines Abraham became so rich; and now, after Sarah’s death, the humiliation was at last going to pay: Sarah would obtain the most magnificent burial estate in the future “Land of Sarah – the Land of Yisra’el. With all of Abraham’s wealth, Abraham did not have the technological means that would eventually be available for Joseph, to embalm the body of his father (and later of himself), so it is preserved and able to be brought for burial with the foreparents. He was forced to bury Sarah at the place that she planned, at Hevron-Hebron, and through this there was determined the place where he, and his progeny after him, would be buried.

The death of Sarah forced Abraham – the “Hevel-Abel” side of the couple – the man of spirit-wind (same word in Hebrew), the wandering shepherd who does not cling to the soil, to take the part of his mate, the “side of Kayin-Cain. Abraham made the first practical step of settling in the land. He conducted negotiations with the native people of the land. The terms that he used – would then become the inalienable properties of residents of the land, and we shall return to discuss them. In the sequel, we shall see also a parallel between the “structure” of the negotiation of Abraham with the sons of Het to that of the negotiation of Eli’ezer with the family of Nahor.

In fact, there are related in the parashah not just two, but four procedures of negotiations, in themselves a Makhpelah-doubling. We shall hence bring them chronologically, as they took place. The first negotiations proceed at this stage between Abraham and Efron.

 

1st Conversation – the structure of Abraham’s negotiations with the sons of Het to buy his Burial Estate

The course of Abraham’s negotiations with the sons of Het over the field of the Cave of the Makhpela delineates the future course of David, in purchasing the threshing ground of Arawnah the Yevusite as the site for the building of the temple.

Abraham, who rose from mourning his dead, has now become a new person. He is rid of that compromising attitude of the one who twice gave his wife for the rulers of the land, who did not take any from the property of those he saved, and who yielded to Lot and to Abimelekh over the land promised him by God. Now he was negotiating with determination, in order to acquire for himself and for his progeny a piece of the land, an estate that would not be contested for generations.

In the negotiations with the greedy `Efron, Abraham was driving the transaction to become a public auction, where he was buying the property for a price that could have no competitors, and our of conviction that the investment would pay.

The conduct of the negotiations, the building of the family burial estate and the organization of the burial were the last trial that Abraham had to stand to.

And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spoke to the sons of Het, saying, I am a stranger and sojourner with you; give me a possession of a burying place with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight

Abraham knew the exact place that he desired, and that he needed to get the agreement of `Efron. But at first, he had to receive the right of possession in principle. It appears that the sons of Het were not ready to allow strangers to acquire burying place among them, evidently because it is specifically a burying place that gives title and possession. That is why Abraham presented himself as Ger ve’Toshav - “stranger and sojourner”. If he had not the rights as stranger, he merited the right of sojourner. In this started a process, dance-like, of seven steps, in the course of which Abraham stooped again and again to the ground, and kept raising the obligations, both his and of the sons of Het.

And the children of Het answered Avraham, saying to him, Hear us, my lord; thou art a prince of God among us; in the choice of our sepulchers bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his tomb, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.

This was a most polite and hospitable answer, but also the way in which the sons of Het refused in effect to give to Abraham an exclusive burying place for his family for generations. Instead, they offered him any one of their own tombs. The meaning of this was that the tomb of Sarah would become one of their own tombs, and probably also the tomb of Abraham would become a local “Sheikh’s Tomb”, a remembrance of “a prince of God” – Nesi Elohim - who dwelled among them, and in effect the assimilation of his memory in their own history. The facts demonstrate that this is what actually happened in effect: the Arabs of the contemporary Hebron regard the tomb of Sarah as the tomb of one of their own sacred mothers, without recalling the sending away of Yishma’el against her.

Abraham’s next step was made upon the respect that the sons of Het gave him as a “prince of God”: “And Abraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land, to the children of Het” (a behavior which we shall see later with Jacob-Ya’aqov who was trying to appease Esau). When a prince of God bowed down, how could they refuse his plea: “If it be your mind that I should bury my dead out of my sight; hear me, and entreat for me to ‘Efron the son of Tsohar, that he may give me the cave of Makhpelah, which he has, which is in the end of his field; for the full price he shall give it me for a possession of a burying place among you”, he asked. Abraham knew well that ‘Efron was present among the audience, but by addressing, “the people of the land” – Am ha’Aretz – he has put ‘Efron in a situation where it would be difficult to refuse, and it will also become impossible to decline his request because of the local custom, because as conducted, the transaction would be made with the agreement of all the notables. He asked for only a small thing, only the cave at the end of the field; and on the other hand he insisted on paying for it in full cash, so that it would become his estate for eternity.

At this stage it becomes evident that ‘Efron has indeed been sitting all along among the children of Het, and he rose and answered Abraham in front of all the people by the gate of his city, and offered him both the cave and the whole field in which the cave was situated, ostensibly as a gift. Abraham suspected that he would be permitted to bury his dead there, but the place would remain the property of the family of ‘Efron the Hittite, and the tomb of Sarah and Abraham would remain there as a guest.

So when ‘Efron came, Abraham again bowed down, to him and to all the people of the land – the same Abraham who would not be ready to marry his son to one of the daughters of the land – and his answer after this further bowing down to “the people of the land” was: “But if thou wilt give it, I pray thee, hear me: I will give thee the price of the field; take it of me, and I will bury my dead there”. He understood that he had to buy the whole field, for the full the price, in front of all the people, and only then, he would have the full rights over it, whether for sowing and reaping, or for a burying place, and that way he would no longer be “a stranger and a sojourner”.

‘Efron’s answer (the sixth step of the process) took full advantage of all the tokens of respect that were shown there so far. “My lord, hearken to me: a piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver; what is that between me and thee? Bury therefore thy dead”. What was raised was actually a huge, almost imaginary, sum – eight hundred years later, when David came to acquire the threshing floor of Arawnah, he would pay only 30 shekels of silver, one thirteenth of the sum. But in the manner that the declaration was made, ‘Efron left Abraham no room for bargaining over the sum.

And then, during the concluding seventh step, the transaction was realized: Abraham did not hesitate, in spite of the huge sum: “And Avraham hearkened to ‘Efron; and Avraham weighed to ‘Efrn (here the name is written without the W’aw, the “O” vowel, in the form of Afar or Efer, namely dust of the earth) the silver, which he had named in the hearing of the sons of Het, four hundred shekels of silver, currency money with the merchant”. After the payment of such an imaginary sum in sight of al the sons of Het, it would have become inconceivable to evict him or his sons from there, and Abraham was left with this piece of land and dust, to fulfil what was said “for dust thou art, and to dust shalt thou return” (Gen. 3:19).

We may add, for this matter, that the number 400 is certainly meaningful: at the beyn ha’Betarim covenant, Abraham was notified that his children would have to be exiled for 400 years, and Esau came to face his brother who returned from his exile, along with 400 men with him. According to the Kabbalah, 400 represents the four lower Sefirot of Olan ha’Beri’ah: Malkhut, Yesod, Netsah, Hod. The numerical value n each Sefirot of Olam ha’Beri’ah is one hundred. The Malkhut represents the earth itself, the Yesod 0 the connection with it; the Netsah and Hod represent the earthly places of dstinction, as the saying of Rabbi Akivah (Bab. Talmud, Berakhot 58 page1): “The Netsah is Jerusalem, and the Hod is the Temple (Beit ha’Mikdash)”. With 400 shekels did Abraham then connected with the land, and acquired therein a permanent earthlly possession: And the field of ‘Efronwhich was in Makhpela, which was before Mamre, the field, and the cave which was in it, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about, were made over to Avrahamfr a possession in the presence of the children of Het, before all that went in at the gate of his city. But only then, and after he rose and buried his dead as one who sows the seed into the soil, only then really “And the field, and the cave that is in it, were made over to Avraham for a possession of a burying place by the sons of Het”.

The entire negotiations were characterized by a idrection of descent to the earth:
1) “and Abraham stood up from before his dead…
(23:3); 2) “And Avraham stood up, and bowed himself to the people of the land(23:7); 3) “And Avraham bowed hinself down before the people f the land(23:12). And the process was not complete (Shalem) untill all the money was paid (Shalem). Only then came the descent under the ground, the burial of the wife and her interment in the cave, to which Avraham would also come when his time came. The consequence is a return upwards – “And the field and the cave that is in it, were made over (Hebrew va’Yakom – “and it stood up”) to Avraham for a possession of a burying place by the sons of Het(23:20).

“The Field of the Cave of Makhpela” as the Entrance of Eden

In Midrash Bereshit Raba 58 are brought four assertions for the source of the name “Qiryat Arba”. Among them is brought the assertion (which we quoted above from Rashi), that eventually was also accepted in Moslem traditions: about Adam and Eve-Havvah being among the four couples buried at the cave, on whose name is Qiryat Arba called, and by association about the closeness of the cave to the opening of the Garden of Eden.

Corresponding with “And a river went out of ‘Eden to water the garden: and from thence it was parted, and branched into four streams(Gen. 2:10), there is “Qiryat Arba” and the four tombs of the ancestors in it (tomb of Adam and Eve, tomb of Abraham and Sarah, tomb of Yitzhak and Rivqah, and tomb of Ya’aqov and Le’ah). But those that are important, we assert, for the great creation for which the cave of Makhpela was chosen – the creation envisioned by Sarah – were not the four couples as much as the four mothers. Just as for the birth of the Children of Israel Jacob-Ya’aqov needed four mothers, for the birth of the entire people there was a need for four mothers. (or we may return to the Mandelbrot formulae, and see in the four mothers of the children of Ya’aqov a fractal part from the larger picture of the four mothers of the nation). The Makhpelah cave (namely “duplication cave”) was the tribal womb, the hollow in the ground to which are returned the seeds, in order to sprout the pedigree tree of the Tribes of Israel, in order to grow the Tree of their Common Life, as a covenant of brothers with common fathers and mothers.

The tribal memories echo between the four-paired tombs that are arrayed, it becomes evident, in the pattern of the Tree of Life. The Makhpelah-multiplication that the cave represents is the multiplication of the qualities of each one of the three parent couples in the others. Abraham and Sarah, multiplied by Yitzhak and Rivkah, multiplied by Ya’aqov and Le’ah equal the cubical womb in which the natoion is due to be born. The seed that is sowed within the earth are the bones (Atsamot) of the parents, their unique self (Atsmiyut) attributes. From this seed they are destind to become the parents of the nation, the roots of its Tree of Life. The image is erotic: the cave penetrates to the opening of the Garden of Eden. But it is worth recalling that “God made the one opposte the other(Ecclesiastes 7:14) – “between the Garden of Eden and hell there is only a handbreadth” (Psikta 2). The Cave of Makhpela could lead to either.

The system of tombs of the four couples at the Cave of Makhpelah is a system for routing the relationship of longing between heaven and earth, a well for raising “The Feminine Waters” (or Ma’N, in the language of the Kabbalah).

The raising of that Ma’N is attributed for the Mothers, as we shall presently see below, in the discussion about Rivkah-Rebbeca. The Alter Rebbe (the Old Rabbi) of Habad (chabad), Rabbi Shene’ur Zalman of Liadi, conceived of the Mothers as being generally on a higher level than the Fathers, because they are the Mashpi’ot (influencers, givers of divine plenitude-Shefa, raisers of the Ma’N). The Fathers do draw from above to below (deal with spiritual affairs), but the women influence from below to above (as we have already explained about Sarah. A woman’s being material, earthly, is of the quality of derekh eretz qadmah la’Torah – “The Way of the Earth is prior to the Torah”).

Woman is, has to do with, the living earth-Adamah. In the Beginning-Bereshit – “in the day that the Lord-YHWH made the earth and the heavens(2:4) – Adam knew to give names to all the animals, but did not know – or did not find necessary – to give a name to his wife, and just called her “woman, because she was taken out of man” (2:23), until after they were both expelled from the Garden of Eden and became cursed. Only then “And the man called his wife’s name Havah; because she was the mother of all living (Hay)” (3:20), but “the mother of all living” was the earth, or in today’s language “Havvah”, Hebrew for “homestead”: a piece of land that is owned exclusively by a particular person. (In Hebrew, “ownership” is ba’alut and “to own” is liv’ol which is the same as “to take sexual possession”). After they were expelled from the original Havvah-Estate of Eden, Adam found some consolation in his wife Havah, a token of the taste of the Garden of Eden. Eventually, Sarah would turn into a Havah, and so her daughter in law, and her daughter in law. Each woman, in turn, would become the opening of paradise for her man, and thus also their tomb would be an entrance to paradise.

The Father of humankind, Adam, and the parents of the Israelite nation have never died, in a certain sense. They are still alive to this very day, and influence our beliefs and our self-identities as their progeny. Their mythical union and multiplication is a single memorial-site, make their different memories, as well as their opposite characters, into an integral part of our values and cultural heritage. No less so – also of the values and cultural heritage of the Moslem inhabitants of this land. With all the religious fanaticism between Moslems and

Jews in Hebron, which is centered on the present burial place, it is worth noting that the Moslems regard Sarah – the one who, according to the Bible, expelled their father Ishmael to the desert – their own righteous mother that merits their prayers at her tomb. Sarah may still – four thousand years after her death – bring to a measure of reconciliation among the children of her husband, of whom she is considered mythically as the cause of their distance. This includes the sons who usually prefer to identify themselves actually with the Philistines.

The identification of the Cave of Makhpelah at the heart of the city of Hebron is accepted since the Middle Ages. But it is possible – and perhaps necessary – to doubt the reliability if the identification of the present site, which has become a place of contention and strife. According to the research of the architect Tuviah Sagiv, the place that the tradition regards as the Cave of Makhpelah, is an ancient Edomite idol shrine, whereas the locus of the original cave in less known and is now – as in the time of the Patriarchs – still a field. Perhaps we may still be able to walk in that original field, “the cave of the field of Makhpelah before Mamre”, which would serve as a integration- and reconciliation-ground for the memories of the people of this land.

 

Regarding the Architecture and Geomancy of the Makhpelah Cave

The sacred tombs within the cave create between them a system of relationships that define the domain of “The Tree of Life” of the Kabbalah. Also beyond Hebron – towards Jerusalem – there was added the tomb of Rahel-Rachel, in Betlehem, on the Efrat Road. This feature has much meaning, where eventually Bethlehem would become the birthplace of David, who would establish his kingdom at Hebron, but would return and turn northward – to his birthplace and further north, to establish his new capital at Jerusalem.

This system of tombs create the seed and the root stem for the growth of Yisra’el-Israel, an entity that is regarded in the Kabbalah as “Ze’er Anpin” (Microscopus), the “Small Face” of the Godhead that appears in our world. The Makhpelah Cave integrates the Sefirot Ze’er Anpin, which are the the Sefirot of the Midot (emotions) – there is the known triangle of Abraham at the side of the Hesed-Mercy, Yitzhak-Isaac at the side of Gevurah-rigor and Ya’aqov-Jacob at Tif’eret-Beauty; and in correspondence with them the triangle of the Mothers: Sarah – to whose authority Abraham yielded – at Netsah-victoy/eternity; Rivkah-Rebbeca – who stooped to watered the camels – at Hod-Yielding; and Le’ah – the “Mother of the Sons” (Em haBanim) the Tribes of Israel – at Yesod-Foundation. This triangle of the Mothers serves to ground the conceptual triangle of the Fathers in the social matrix of the People of Israel and their collective memories. In addition, the hidden to these six Sefirot Binayn (the “Sefirot of Construction”, which also parallel the Six Days of Creation) come the hidden tombs of Adam and Eve-Havvah – paralleling the Sefirot of Hokhmah-Wisdom and Binah-Understanding; whereas the tomb of Rahel-Rachel – that stands prominently outside – points at the direction of the development of the Kingdom of Israel – onward from Hebron in the direction of Jerusalem – paralleling the Sefirah of Malkhut-Kingdom.

By her choosing Hebron, contrary to Abraham’s choice, Sarah showed her grasp of Geomancy – the wisdom of the Earth. The business of Geomancy is the planning of the estate and the building upon it, in agreement with the covert forces within the earth, forces that affect the human subconscious, as well as the behavior of animals and the fertility of the soil. Those who deal with this science in our times (usually relating to the ancient Chinese Feng-Shui theory of earth energies) speak about straight “Ley Lines” that fix associated flow lines of earth energies, which tend to move in curves. Places of worship and sacred tombs were always fixed – by all ancient cultures – at peaks, which were aligned by straight lines for the whole length and breadth of the country of dwelling. In this way it became possible to fix the lines of energy, and with them the unconscious, collective drives of the dwellers of the land and their archaic fidelity to it/her; namely, the directions that orientate the collective spirit, in our case – that of Israel.

Hebron, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem indeed delineate the main axis of the land. The Land of Israel, both to the West and East of the Jordan river, is characterized geologically by the Syrian-African Fault rift – the Jordan valley – and with mountain ranges going in a north-south direction with a little turn to the North-East. The Hebron Mountain is the most southerly peak in that range within the settled land. It marks a clear dwelling domain for a tribe or a small kingdom. At the northward continuation of this range, the natural consolidation points are at Beth-El – the dwelling place of the Tribe of Benjamin (and nowadays Ramallah) – and at the Shomron (Nablus-Shekhem, Tirtsah, Shomron) – the traditional dwelling place of the Tribe of Ephraim and the center of the old Kingdom of Israel. In these distinct areas there may develop fairly different character of the local people. The residents of the Mount Hebron are tough hardy people. The hardness (the side of rigor-Gevurah) connects at Hebron with religion for fanaticism. Here live people who would not forget the traditions hallowed by their forefathers.

Sarah, whose prophetic ability we’ve already mentioned, could foresee that when the tribes of Israel would settle in the land, they may go after the charms of “the daughters of the land” and cling to their idolatrous worship, and that the Kingdom of Israel would be likely to disintegrate. Therefore, the seniority should go to the dwellers of the (eventual) Land of Judea, who would be more likely to enforce the monotheistic tradition upon all of Israel. Those put in charge of the inheritance of Jerusalem are therefore not the children of Ephraim at Shomron, but the children of Judah at Hebron, and they should have in their domain the tombs of the patriarchs – with their mythical influence – for all generations till our days.

Even in our time Hebron designates the direction in the contemporary struggle over the division of the land, a struggle whose symbolic-emotional pinnacle is at the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. The axis that the ancient Mothers have drawn still orients and directs the collective emotions, and the religious fanaticism is likely to direct the historical moves. But there is also an alternative. It is possible that, by renewed contact with the roots, those entombed at the Cave of Makhpelah, we may reform (in the language of Kabbalah “sweeten”) the roots that issue from them. Through renewed descent to the roots, it is possible to renounce the harness, the severity, the xenophobia, and to reach the Tree of Life anew. For this is the gate for the Garden of Eden, not just bones and burial caskets, but also the river that issues forth from Eden and the seed of the Tree of Life that is within the Garden.

 

The Makhpelah Cave as a Lineage Book of the People of Israel/Yisra’el

Our forefathers were shepherds, people with no fixed property, without books and without burial estate, and thus both free to roam and lacking in historical memory. There might have been storytellers who knew to recount the generations and the lineage of the tribe, but this must have been a weak memory that could easily be severed.

Through Sarah’s insistence to cling to the land, which brought to the acquisition of the Makhpelah Cave as the burial estate for Abraham, there got formed the historical connection that could serve also a nation destined to become agricultural and become able to inherit the land. It was the existence of the estate of the tombs of the patriarchs of the nation that would give their offspring the justification to inherit the land and see it as theirs, even if they endured a long exile. As the system of the three couples of the ancestors’ caves got established, a whole assembly of national memory was formed, which gave identity definition and multi-faceted national mythos, which we may regard as the lineage record of the nation, of the People of Israel.

Over time, when the people became “The People of the Book”, there were already genealogy books that could maintain the historical identity, even through centuries of exile. But “the material scripture” of the burial estate in “Qiryat Arba, which is Hebron” served also as an ownership deed over the land.

 

Parallels between the Garden of Eden and “the Field in the Makhpelah”

The story of the Garden of Eden in parashat Bereshit came to describe the turning point in the relationship of Adam-humanking and Adamah-Living Earth. “Adam” is an individual, but also the whole of humankind, and in order to have “help to match him – ezer ke’Negdo – there was formed for him a human mate – Eve-Havah. But Havah or Havvah is also a homestead, a piece of land owned by that person “to cultivate it and to keep it(Gen. 2:15). Through Havvah-homestead a man becomes a “husbandman” of the land, to the extent that he can cultivate and keep it (and/or through the work of his wife). The essential choice between wandering and settling, which is exemplified by the two sons of Qayin-Cain and Hevel-Ebal, is decided by the Havvah, the homestead, the grasping of the land through the toil of the woman.

Parashat Haye Sarah repeats the same story: “Abraham” is an individual, but he is also the whole People of Israel, and “Sarah” is the feminine principle at the foundation of the nation. Sarah’s assiduousness brings Abraham to invest a great portion of his capital in acquiring a piece of land, “the field, and the cave which was in it, and all the trees that were in the field, that were in all the borders round about(23:17). And in this cave, which according to the Midrash is at the entrance of the Garden of Eden, there starts the gathering of the investments for the formation of the nation – the very bones of the ancestors that are guarded in one place.

We saw three creation stories, which lead to an explanation for the disintegration of humankind. From this pattern, there are extended three discrete stories about the commencement of the divine experiment to create the appropriate human culture, starting with Adam, with Noah and with Abraham. But in contrast to Havah-Eve who came and separated, Sarah came to gather and to unify. The three stories of the fore fathers, of Abraham, of Isaac-Yitzhak and of Jacob-Yisra’el, get gathered together through the estate-Havah of the family burial site, and become components of one story. Three cords interlace, forming an “Estate Rope” –Hevel Nahalah – (a Hebrew word for domain) and even “Rope of the Messiah” – Hevel Mashiah – (Hebrew for messianic preparation and thus a Hebrew word pun), joining into a coherent redemptive story.

 

Part II: The Raising of the Ma’N – The “Feminine Waters”

Finding the Wife for Yitzhak and his Consolation over his Mother’s Death

In spite of his joining with the land – in the presence of the native people and their testimony – Abraham did not seek to join with the native people of the land. On the contrary: he sought to keep the estate promised him by God only to himself and his family. Had Yitzhak married with the daughters of the land – then all the issue of the inheritance of the land would have been so much simpler. He would have inherited as other heirs do. But Abraham stayed loyal to his own people, and therefore his confident servant had to return to Haran, to the family of Terah. There was only one stipulation that Abraham made for his servant: whatever may transpire – “only bring not my son back there(24:8).

“And Avraham was old, advanced in age”

After having mourned for his wife, “And Avraham stood up from before his dead(23:3) as a new and determined man. “Advanced in age”, but also young. Only 137 years old – exactly the whole life span of Yishma’el – Abraham rose up for a new life, without the yoke of Sarah. He had “baKol mi’Kol – in all and everything – and with another 38 years to enjoy a new wife, and to beget six additional children. In addition, Abraham was relieved of Sarah’s fanaticism against Ishma’el. The Qur’an tells that Abraham met Ishmael at Mecca, and there they together built the temple of the Ka’aba for God-Allah. It is reasonable to assume that such a visit (which is veridical for any Moslem) took place only after the death of Sarah. With Sarah’s death, there was fixed the lineage for her children, but there was also opened a door for the return of the children of Ishmael to play with the children of Yitzhak.

But from the perspective of the Biblical narrative, Abraham seems to have lost his significance after the Akedah, and he had only three things to complete, which were all dictated by his dead wife: 1) To acquire the family burial estate; 2) To bring to her son Yitzhak a wife from her parents house (namely, not to allow the native daughters and sons of the land a part in the future inheritance); 3) To assure that Yitzhak would receive the whole inheritance – “And Avraham gave all that he had to Yitzhak. But to the sons of the concubines, which Avraham had, Avraham gave gifts, and sent them away from his son, while he lived, eastward, to the east country(25:5-6).

The aging Abraham, advanced in years, started to get worried about his son. Even though he himself was ordered to go away from his country, and his kindred, and his father’s house, still Abraham insisted, as noted, that the inheritance would become the estate only of his kindred, for those who came out with him a part of the way. When things come to a head, he did not want to severe the connection with them, but to strengthen it: “but thou shalt go to my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife to my son Yitzhak” (24:4), with one provision: “beware lest thou bring my son back there”, because “The Lord God of heaven, who took me from my father’s house, and from the land of my kindred, and who… swore to me, saying, To thy seed will I give this land; … Only bring not my son back there”. It seems that also behind this desire – to find for Yitzhak a wife from the house of Abram and Saray at Haran – there stand the dead Sarah, so concerned about the inheritance. “As mothers s daughters”: Rivqah would eventually behave as if she were Sarah’s daughter, when she would bring Yitzhak to command her younger son Jacob to go to Haran, to find him a wife from there.

For no less than this is the story of the Life of Sarah, this is also the story of the Life of Rivqah, and the way in which she replaced Sarah. The narrative discloses how Rivqah became a “Sarah clone” in the way that Yitzhak became consoled over his mother: “And Yitzhak brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent”, and only then “took Rivqah, and she became his wife”, an only then “and he loved her; and Yitzhak was consoled after his mother’s death(24:67).

With the completion of the act of buying the estate and the swearing of the servant for his mission, both Sarah and Abraham disappear from the stage, and the story is entrusted to the hand of the messenger, Abraham’s servant, and to the legs of the ten camels, carrying the treasures which he took, who had the role of convincing Lavan in the way he best understood.

 

Abraham and his Servant (Eliezer apparently)

The narrative expounds and recounts about the mission of Eli’ezer, out of any proportion to the scarcity of information about the great and hidden acts of the patriarchs. Three days of journeying for the awesome act at Mount Moriah contibuted to us no details at all, but the chattering of the servant about the miraculous journey he had (according to Rashi, his saying “and I came this day to the well(24:42) – “I have left today and arrived today, which means that he had the miracle of Kefitsat ha’Derekh”) he repeats and doubles and compounds details.

It seems that the Mothers were barren and the Fathers taciturn. Abraham probably knew that Yitzhak, had he been sent to Haran alone and would have arrived at the well (as would eventually arrive his sun Jacob) might not have known what to say and how to chat with Rivkah, as closed as he probably had been within himself. But the tongue of the sevant was not tied. So there was only the question of trust left: “put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh; and I will make thee swear by the Lord…”. Thus Abraham swore in his servant in the manner of those days, to fulfil the mission in full loyalty, without any personal interests.

We have already shown that the Midrash regards the two “young men” of Abraham who accompanied the journey to Mount Moriah (22:3) as if they were Ishmael and Eli’ezer. We have also noted that tradition associates Ishmael with Islam, and hinted that it is possible to interpret Eli’ezer as an early representative of (future) Christianity, the religion of the apostles, and that Jesus is regarded as similar to Isaac-Yitzhak, as the only son of the High Father in heaven, as the bound and sacrificed son.

Also Jesus, who must have regarded himself as the Messiah, appointed twelve apostles to propagate his message about the kingdom of heaven upon earth. Their role was to talk as much as possible and to tell stories about their master (the Messiah, according to their creed). It may be easy for a learned Jew nurtured on much study to slight those messengers, but the scriptures come to tell us, as the sages noted that “The chat of the servants of the Fathers’ houses is more enchanting than the teachings of the sons” (Bereshit Raba 60). As the Rabbi of Gur adds, these chats are of the status of derekh Eretz qadma la’Torah – “gentility preceded the Torah”.

 

2nd Conversation –Between Abraham and his Servant, and his Mission.

In this short conversation there are only four moves: 1) Abraham seeks to swear the servant for his mission; 2) the servant raises an important question; 3) Abraham clarifies his position; 4) the servant swears to fulfill the mission, and from here the initiative passes to him.

As we shall later see, the servant was better than his master in the conduct of practical negotiations. He did take with him ten camels with all the goods of his master, but instead of spending all this treasure, he returned with a doubled treasure: the gifts, which were predominantly given to Rivqah-Rebbeca, returned with her, and the treasure got multiplied by bringing Rivqah to grow the new nation.

 

The Conduct of the Negotiations by Eli’ezer

The simple text indicates that the conduct of negotiations and what happened to the servant by the well form a clear sign for coming generations about what is worth repeating twice and thrice. Rivqah was placed – without her awareness – in a divine test in which her inner quality was assessed. The watering of the servant and of the animals was the examination, it we must understand its meaning:

“And he made his camels kneel down outside the city by a well of water at the time of evening, at the time that the women go out to draw water”

The servant, who was well familiar with the habits of the region, knew also the meeting by the well. At that stage, he did not expect specifically a woman from the family of Abraham, and Abraham did not even make such a stipulation. Eli’ezer expected, by all probability, for a girl from a poor family, who would draw water by herself and that the goods upon the camels would impress her and her family, and he might have been content with that. The arrival of Rivqah, of all women, was already like a sign from heaven.

And he said, O Lord-YHWH God of my master Avraham, I pray thee, send the good speed this day, and show kindness (Hesed) to my master Avraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water(24:12-13).

There are three points that the servant makes in his speaking before God, and on account of which he expects divine grace – Hesed: 1) the Hesed is “to my master, Abraham”; 2) “I stand here by the well of water”, this is the most appropriate place for the appearance of Hesed is the place of water coming out of the earth; 3) “the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water” – even though the natural inclination is to reserve the precious water for the use of the local people, the very drawing of water out of the well, by lifting the water up for the use of humans and animals, a built-in act of Hesed.

And let it come to pass, that the girl to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also; let her be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Yitzhak; and thereby shall I know that thou hast shown kindness to my master”. The activities that serve as indications and signs from God are the drawing of the water from the womb of the earth and the watering of the wanderers who thirsted in the desert.

About the Raising of the Feminine Waters – Ma’N

With the revelation of Rivqah, the narrative starts to elucidate the secret of the operation of the feminine side of every human, the operation that the Mekubalim call “the Raising of the Feminine Waters” – ha’ala’at haMa’N. A basic principle of the Kabbalah is learned from the verse “from my flesh I shall behold God(Job 19:26) – for “in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them(Gen. 1:27) – and the phenomena of the human body are a examples and allegories to what also takes place in the higher worlds, within the divinity. The natural human inclination for sexual union is evidenced by the raising of “the feminine waters”, the vaginal fluids, as the natural preparation for union and for satisfaction. The action of drawing up water from the well characterizes “the theurgical action” of humans – how a man returns and influences his Maker through “the Raising of Ma’N”. For the kabbalistic theurgical act of “the raising of Ma’N” there is demanded much effort, in controlling the natural inclination as well as its complete release, in order to enable the experience of the supreme joy.

All of Israel, the collective entity of “Kenesset Yisra’el”, the carrier of messiahship, the craving for the perfection of the world, are aggregated and joined into one collective entity of a feminine nature: a woman craving for her man, who is the image of the Lord of heaven and of earth and the Maker of the world.

The appearance of Rivqah by the well and her drawing up of the reviving waters, to bring them up to water both man and animal, is the Biblical revelation of the cosmic feminine principle. What we have not found with Sarah, who may appear as dry and calculating, we find in the juicy Rivqah. The attitude of this girl to the camels is – in the eyes of the servant – the sign and testimony of her becoming to be the wife of the son of his master. From the perspective of the Mekubalim, this is extended to the whole of Israel: every performance of a divine commandment by an Israelite has to do with “the raising of the Ma’N”, and this is precisely what Rivqah was doing, in the most natural manner. She raises water from the well to revive the thirsty soul of man and beast.

Sarah had set the stage, and Rivqah, when her time came, raised the waters in reality, and her son Ya’aqov-Jacob – saw Rahel-Rachel, fell in love with her, and id for her and for her animals just the same act that his mother did, and more. He drew immense strength and opened the cover of the well, in order to draw from t water for all the flocks. In this, the raising of the Ma’N took root in Israel, and the seal of the Mothers was embossed over the Israelite Tree of Life.

 

3rd Conversation – the Servant with Rivqah

This conversation proceeded in several steps. It started as a short exchange, fast and direct as if without any sophistications: “And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I beg you, drink a little water from your water jar”. He asked only a little water for himself. The answer came in two stages of “saying and doing”. First came a very short direct response, only for the expressed request: “And she said, Drink, my lord;” and then “she hurried, and let down her water jar upon her hand, and gave him drink” without wasting any words. Rivqah was not talkative. Only “when she had finished giving him drink”, when the immediate request was well fulfilled, without any verbal attempt to make an impression, “she said, I will draw water for your camels also, until they have finished drinking”. She performed her offer without waiting for a reply or for thanks. “And she hurried, and emptied her water jar into the trough, and ran back to the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels”. Also Eli’ezer did not say a thing “And the man wondering at her held his peace, to see whether the Lord had made his journey successful or not.

Now that the servant received the sign which he was expecting, he made an impressive step and took “a golden ear ring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold”, and only then he started talking to the girl and asked two questions together – 1) “Whose daughter are you? Tell me, I beg you.” And 2) “Is there room in your father's house for us to lodge in?”. The answer of Rivqah was again short, matter-of-fact and generous: 1) “I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milkah, whom she bore to Nahor”. Here she innocently revealed to the man that not only did the good Lord bring him a good and proper girl for a wife for his master’s son, but that she was precisely the ideal woman as far as lineage was concerned, as close to Abraham and Sarah as possible. 2) “And she said to him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in.

The next utterance was not directed only to her directly, but also to the Lord of the universe: “And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the Lord. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of my master Abraham, who has not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth; As for me, the Lord has guided me in the way to the house of my master's brothers”. In spite of the amazing discovery and the opportunity to chat over all the family stories, Rivqah did not utter any additional word, but did most promptly what she saw as her task: “And the girl ran, and told those of her mother's house these things”. It is interesting that even though the servant asked her about her father, she answered about her father and mother together, and when she went to arrange the practicalities, “told those of her mother's house” specifically, and not “her father’s house”.

 

4th Conversation – the Negotiating Conversation of Eli’ezer with the people of Bethuel’s House

Unlike with the other conversations, the one who opened the negotiations was not Eli’ezer but Laban son of Bethuel. “And Rivqah had a brother, and his name was Laban; and Laban ran out to the man, to the well. One might think that he was as prompt in doing a favor as his sister, he ran, indeed, but the scripture hints about his motivation: “And it came to pass, when he saw the ear ring and bracelets upon his sister's hands,” this was the first reason, the ear ring and bracelets, of ten and a half shekels weight, and only second came his interest if the family reasons of what the man told his sister. It is evident that Laban was expecting the precious gifts that the camels were carrying, and insisted to bring the treasure-carrying camels into his house, “And he said, Come in, you blessed of the Lord; why do you stand outside? for I have prepared the house, and room for the camels. The servant thus met with good hospitality, but now came his opportunity to speak: “but he said, I will not eat, until I have told my errand”. And the hosts had to agree to this. Here Eli’ezer meandered, expanded and related and compounded his words and repeated all that the readers already know, through fourteen long sentences. If we examine those sentences, we find that he changed a few details and the order of other things. Thus, he told that Abraham commanded him to come specifically to the house of Bethu’el “But you shall go to my father's house, and to my family, and take a wife for my son.