Abraham Negotiates to Buy the Cave of the Machpelah in the Promised Land

Stephen Russell has proposed that Abraham is specifically addressing a council or political body that controls administrative rights to the land associated, whose permission was needed to endorse the transfer (“Abraham’s Purchase of Ephron’s Land in Anthropological Perspective,” Biblical Interpretation 21.2 [2013]: 153–170 [at 164–168]). Raymond Westbrook had already raised the possibility, using Ugaritic and Hittite texts and Mesopotamian boundary stones, that the sons of Heth had been a party to the sale alongside Ephron in vv. 9–10, 17 and 20 (“Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah,” Israel Law Review 6, no. 1 [1971]: 29–38 [at 36–37]). Gerhard von Rad also had suggested that the consent of the entire population probably was necessary, but without offering comparative material or elaborating (Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, rev. ed., Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972], 247). While one might expect the town elders to perform such a function, they are not described specifically in this way. But following Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 2 (2009): 225–241 (at 240), I see their role as intermediaries initially and witnesses later on. Ephraim Sand, on the other hand, accepts three positions simultaneously: the Hittites were witnesses, tribal elders, and a legal party to the transaction (“Two dialogue documents in the Bible: Genesis Chapter 23:3–18 and 1 Kings Chapter 5:15–25,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte  8 [2002]: 88–130 [p. 100]).

This combination of nouns is unique in the ancestral stories in Genesis but is close to the use of the expression in reverse order, גר ותו̇שב, in singular or plural form, in Leviticus 25:23, 35, 47. If the reversed order in v. 4 is meant to signal the quotation of another passage (following Seidel’s law), then it is likely that Leviticus 25:23 is specifically cited. It states that YHWH owns the land and the Israelites are only resident non-natives, so they are not to sell (מכר) the land silently or permanently, depending on how one translates לצמתת. Blenkinsopp specifically sees Abraham’s status as a גר ותו̇שב among them to “establish his eligibility as a purchaser of the land” (“Abraham as Paradigm,” 240).

For three types of biblical polemic, see Yairah Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative, trans. J. Chipman, Biblical Interpretation Series 25 (Leiden, Brill, 2000). She discusses the category of hidden polemic in pp. 93–98, 221–223.

See, e.g. Leviticus 19:31, 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:11; 26:14; Isaiah 57:9; 65:4.

For a discussion of teraphim, see Edelman, “Adjusting Social Memory,” with its citation of relevant secondary literature. For the two stage-process of burial and bestowal of ancestral status, see Edelman, “Living with Ancestral Spirits” and “Possible Rituals Involving the Dead Reflected in Isaiah 65:3–5 and 66:17,” in Approaching the Dead: Studies on Mortuary Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme and Kirsi Valkama, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 118 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2020), 96–121, both with citations of relevant secondary literature.

Genesis 31:30; 1 Samuel 28:13; 2 Samuel 14:14 (?); Isaiah 8:19–20; Numbers 25:2 when read with Psalm 106:28.

See, e.g. Isaiah 19:3, 29:4.

Psalm 16:3.

For more on the function of ancestors in monarchic-era Judah, the wider ancient Near East, and cultures today, see, e.g., Diana Edelman, “Living with Ancestral Spirits in Judah in the Iron Age and Persian Period,” in Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres... Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19–20 mai 2014, ed. Thomas Römer et al., Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 286 (Fribourg: Academic Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 135–171 [147–158]; and “Adjusting Social Memory in the Hebrew Bible: TheTeraphim,” in Congress Volume, Stellenbosch 2016, ed. L. Jonker, G. R. Kotzé and C. Maier, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 177 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 115–142 (at 127–135).

Instead, she is to be interred so as not to become a source of ritual pollution (Num 19:11).

For both phrases, “bury my dead” and “from before my face/sight” pointing to a hidden polemic against ancestral cult and consultation, see Diana Edelman, “Hidden Ancestral Polemics in the Book of Genesis?,” in Words, Ideas, Worlds: Biblical Essays in Honour of Yairah Amit, ed. Athalya Brenner and Frank H. Polak, Hebrew Bible Monographs 40 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 32–53 (at 38–44). The latter expression has been seen to point to some sort of ancestral polemic also by Bray, “Genesis 23,” 71.

Jason S. Bray, “Genesis 23––A Priestly Paradigm for Burial,” JSOT 60 (1993): 69–73 (at 70). For ancestor worship in ancient Israel, see, e.g., Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, Harvard Semitic Monographs 39 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989).

Meir Sternberg, “The Double Cave and the Bible’s Art of Dialogue (Genesis 23),” Stuttgarter Theologische Themen 6 (2011): 83–92 (p. 90). He notes, “holiness must not be materialized; not in a temple, not in a grave” (ibid., 84).

Some would see Abraham’s high status in the eyes of the locals to derive from the events narrated in Genesis 14 concerning his successful war against the four foreign kings and his great acquired wealth; so, e.g., Jacob Rosenberg and Avi Weiss, “Property Rights and Institutions in Biblical Society: The Purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs,” European Journal of Political Economy 28 (2012): 279–285 (at 280).

Von Rad, Genesis, 248; Sternberg, “Double Cave,” 85.

John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical, Commentary on Genesis, 2^nd ed., ICC 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), 337; Rosenberg and Weiss, “Property Rights,” 281.

Rosenberg and Weiss erroneously argue that all five uses of the verb שׁמע in vv. 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 reject an offer just proposed by the other party (ibid, 281). This is not necessarily the case, however; they introduce a call for the other side to hear what the party speaking is proposing. There can be points of agreement included as well as points of difference yet to be negotiated. Both Herbert Petschow (“Die neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde und Genesis 23,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 19, no. 4 [1965]: 103–120 [at 108, 112]) and Sand (“Two Dialogue Documents,” 90) apply the definition I just gave for what was transpiring in ch. 23 to dialogue contracts as well.

Many go even further, suggesting that the Hittites would not have wanted Abraham to be able to change his status from a resident gēr to that of a landowner. So, for example, Westbrook, “Cave of Machpelah,”33–34; Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm,” 239; Sand, “Two Dialogue Documents,” 95; Rosenberg and Weiss, “Property Rights,” 281 and more generally in the first and second exchange, Sternberg, “Double Cave,” 85–87. Yet, this potential granting of a one-time use of his cave for burial would not have required his giving Abraham temporary use of the land as well; the tomb was to be inside the cave. Also, it is not clearly established that a gēr could not acquire property rights in his country of residence.

Many nouns, verbs, and adjectives have meanings that go well beyond the original meaning of the root from which they developed. Sometimes it can be hard to trace the logic of the path of the development even. Thus, the basic meaning of the root כפל is not necessarily a reliable indicator of what the term machpelah meant.

If it were coterminous with one, the writer would have equated the two, using hammachpelah in apposition: the field (or: the cave), the machpelah. Contra, e.g., Nahum Sarna, who equates the machpelah with the field that contains the cave (The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis Be-reshit [Lincoln, NE: Jewish Publication Society, 2001], 158). The proposed understanding was voiced long ago by Selah Merrill, “The Cave of Machpelah,” The Old and New Testament Student 11, no. 6 (1890): 327–335 (at 327–328).

In Sternberg’s reading (“Double Cave,” 87–88), Abraham mentions the cave’s location in order to signal he will not need to impinge on the field to access the gravesite and that Ephron then sees this as an opportunity to take advantage of Abraham by forcing him to buy the field as well as the cave, even though Abraham does not want the field.

If this is the case, then Abraham has strategically reserved mention of the field to the end of his request, almost as an off-handed remark, just as David did in talking with Ahimelech the priest of Nob when seeking to secure the sword of Goliath kept in that sanctuary in 1 Samuel 21:8–9, before his intended flight to Goliath’s hometown of Gath.

Gene Tucker (“The Legal Background of Genesis 23,” Journal of Biblical Literature 85.1 [1966]: 77–84) notes that such procedures were customary in Palestine in the late nineteenth century, citing Elihu Grant, The Peasantry of Palestine: The Life, Manners, and Customs of the Village: Illustrated with Original Photographs (Boston: Pilgrim, 1907), 147.

Other examples of the use of the subjunctive particle lû or its variant form lûʾ with final aleph, followed by a perfect verb to express a volitional circumstance, are found e.g., in Numbers 14:2; 20:3; Deuteronomy 32:29: Joshua 7:7; Judges 8:19; 1 Samuel 14:30; Isaiah 48:18, and Isaiah 63:19.

Skinner’s proposal that the formula, “O, that you would hear us/me,” always introduces a suggestion preferable to the one just advanced is not accurate; in vv. 14–15, for example, Abraham has already agreed to purchase rights to the land for its full price in v. 13, so Ephron’s naming of the price is not a preferable suggestion (Genesis, 337).

Nathan MacDonald, “Driving a Hard Bargain? Genesis 23 and Models of Economic Exchange,” in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, ed. Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 79–96 (at 83, 93).

Meir Sternberg reaches a similar understanding based on different reasoning. He notes how in the next chapter (24), Abraham sends back to Haran (Gen 11:31) for a wife for Isaac, signaling his resolve not to intermarry with the Canaanites. His insistence on burying Sarah on his own land, not among the Hittites on their land, reflects the same sentiment. In Sternberg’s view, Abraham is eschewing the establishment of formal ties with the natives that involve obligations or kinship. Sternberg, “Double Cave,” 87. He goes on to note, however, that the larger message of the story is “the distance and sometimes a tension between what God promises and what happens” (p. 92), particularly concerning the promise of land, making it worth telling in spite of the ideological fight elsewhere in the Bible against the worship of the dead.

Mark G. Brett, “The Priestly Dissemination of Abraham,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel  3, no. 1 (2014): 87–107 [96–98]. He specifically thinks the target audience for this message was living in the province of Yehud under Achaemenid rule (538–332 B.C.E.) and needed to adapt to an imperial situation where there were different types of land-holdings and mixed populations within the province of Yehud, the successor to the former kingdom of Judah (98). The tomb was located in what became the province of Edom at some point in the Persian period, which then was taken over as an administrative unit under the Greeks when they controlled the area and became Idumea in Greek, just as Yehud became Judea. The earliest textual reference to the province of Edom is found in Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica 19.95.2 and 98.1) in his account of military events undertaken by Antigonus against the Nabateans in 312 BCE. In 19.98.1, he reports that the Dead Sea lay along the middle of the satrapy of Idumea (τὴν σατραπείαν τῆς Ἰδουμαίας). Since “satrapy” is a Persian administrative term, its use here indicates that Edom had already become an administrative unit under Persian rule, separate from Yehud. Otherwise, a Greek term like hyparchy would have been used to designate this administrative district. Even though the patriarchal tomb lay outside the province of Yehud, its acquisition still could be used to model desired behavior among Judeans in Yehud in the Persian period. At the end of the Persian period and in the opening years of Ptolemaic imperial rule over Edom/Idumea, the population was mixed ethnically. The personal names in the Idumean ostraca found during illicit digging in the region of Idnah are Arab (32%), Edomite (27%), Judean (10%), and Phoenician (5%), with the rest non-descript West Semitic (25%) and a few Egyptian. For details, see Ian Stern, “The Population of Persian Period Idumea According to the Ostraca: A Study of Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnogenesis,” in A Time of Change: Judah and its Neighbors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Period, ed. Yigal Levin (London: Bloomsbury, 2007), 205–238.

This message would then serve to counter the opposite view presented in Ezra-Nehemiah.

See 2 Samuel 24:18–35. Note that it becomes 600 gold shekels in 1 Chronicles 21:18–26.

Editor’s note: For silver and pricing in the biblical period, see Tzilla Eshel, “How Silver Was Used for Payment,” TheTorah (2018).

This suggestion is based on practice among nomadic Bedouin tribes in Jordan; settled or semi-settled tribes bury in cemeteries close to the villages where some of clan members live. See Mairna Mustafa and Sultan Abu Tayeh, “Comments on Bedouin Funeral Rites in the Writings of Western Travelers and Explorers from the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 14, no.1 (2014): 51–63. Deborah and Rachel were buried where they died while Jacob was in transit, while Sarah died while she and Abraham were dwelling outside Kiryat-arba.

For the symbolic meaning of the number seven, see Meir Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactical Structures (Jerusalem: Magness, 1989), 155, 198, 204–205. (Editor’s note: See also Elaine Goodfriend, “Seven, the Biblical Number,” TheTorah [2021].) The six preceding uses are in Genesis 12:5 (twice), 13:12, 16:3, and 17:8, and 23:2. Here I differ from Wilfried Warning, who considers Genesis 23:2 the seventh occurrence (“Terminological patterns and Genesis 23,” Old Testament Essays 14, no. 3 [2001]: 533–543 [at 535, 538]). He begins with Genesis 11:31, ארצה כנען which I have excluded from the count because it is not an example of the typical construct chain, ארץ כנען, but instead, the noun “land” (ארץ) with a directional adverbial suffix, -ah (ה), followed by Canaan, in apposition.

The fact that the purchase is a tomb has two further important functions. The depiction of the subsequent interment of the three most important patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the matriarchs Rebekah and Leah in the multi-generational tomb in the cave in the machpelah creates a family out of what likely had been independent eponymous tribal or clan figures who now serve as the forefathers of all Israelites. (So noted also by, e.g., Levin, “Abraham erwirbt,” 113.)  Second, as discussed above, it endorses the use of such traditional family tombs as final resting places for deceased humans, rather than their representation by teraphim or their being viewed as spiritualized ancestors with knowledge and power to affect events among the living.

The rabbinic text here expresses some anxiety about the legitimacy of claiming land merely based on a divine promise. Editor’s note: For another discussion of this theme, see Jason Radine, “The Torah Begins with Creation to Defend Israel’s Right to the Land?” TheTorah (2020).