Sarah died at age 127 years and Abraham came to Hebron to weep and eulogize her. He also needed a burial place, and this was an appropriate time to acquire a place for her and for family members in the future, including himself. Common practice at that time was for individuals to be “buried” in a cave. The body was allowed to decompose, and after a year or so the bones were gathered and put in a separate place together with those of other family members. This is the meaning of the words in the Torah “And Abraham expired and died at a good old age and content, and he was gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:8). The expression “gathered to his people” indicates that his bones were laid to rest with others.

Abraham and the inhabitants of Hebron were illiterate. Before going further, we need to discuss how a contract for a sale would have been made in an illiterate society.

 

 

Literacy in the Middle Bronze Age

 

Assuming that the Exodus from Egypt was about 1450 BCE, it can be deduced from the ages of the forefathers provided in the Bible that Abraham lived in the Middle Bronze Age, which was from about 2,000 to 1,500 BCE.

​

At that time in history, the central mountain range of Canaan was only sparsely populated, although there were cities located at the intersections of the main highways. Abraham visited them all. 

​

The inhabitants of these cities engaged primarily in agriculture. There was also a nomadic population in the mountain range whose livelihood was based on animal husbandry. Abraham was one of these nomads. There seems to have been a good relationship between the two groups based on commercial interests. The people in the towns grew grains and vegetables, while the nomadic population provided animal products such as wool, milk and cheese, and animals for food and sacrificial offerings.

​

Literacy in the Middle Bronze Age was confined to the centers of civilization. Hieroglyphic writing on papyrus in Egypt and cuneiform writing on clay tablets in Mesopotamia had been in use for hundreds of years, but these scripts were extremely complicated, and their use required many years of training.1 It is unlikely, therefore, that Abraham or the Canaanites amongst whom he lived could read or write.

This leads to the question — how were property contracts negotiated and drawn up by people who were illiterate? The answer is undoubtedly that it was done exactly as described in Genesis chapter 23, which describes the negotiations between Abraham and the children of Het for a burial sepulcher for Sarah.  

​

 Some obvious features stand out:

​

• Negotiations were done in a very public place in the presence of a substantial portion of the population of the city. In this way, the validity of the sale would become part of the tradition of the city. A convenient place for this was by the gates of the city, since this was a large area where important city affairs were carried out. This is why the negotiations with Ephron are described in the Torah as being in the presence of “to all who come to the gate of his city” (Genesis 23:10).  

 

• Negotiations were conducted in a very clear way, and obfuscations and off the cuff remarks could not enter into the proceedings. This is why each step in the negotiations is preceded by the words “Hear me (shema’eiyni) (שְׁמָעֵ֔נִי), meaning I have something important to say with regard to this transaction, so please give me your attention. 

 

• This is also why everyone connected to this sale talked legalese, such as “full price” (Genesis 23:9) and “negotiable currency” (Genesis 23:16). 

 

Back to the story.

 

There was no shortage of caves in Canaan and it would have been very easy for Abraham to find a suitable cave distant from the major centers of population. This was not what he was looking for. He wanted a family sepulcher close to a major Canaanite city in which his property rights would be clearly recognized. This would explain Abraham’s opening words to the Hittites:

​

And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spoke to the children of Chet saying: “I am an alien and resident among you; give (tenu) (תְּנ֨וּ) me possession of a burying place (achuzat kever) (אֲחֻזַּת־קֶ֙בֶר֙) with you that I may bury my dead before me” (Genesis 23:3-4).

 

Abraham had been a resident in Canaan for decades but was still regarded as a foreigner.2 Sforno suggests that his foreign status might have affected his legal right to be able to purchase Hittite land and this is why Abraham raises the issue of his status.3 However, there is no indication from the text that this was so, and given the decentralization of the Canaanite city states and the way this sale proceeds, it seems unlikely. More plausible is that Abraham is emphasizing his dependency and reliance on Hittite generosity rather than pointing out any impediment to a sale. 

​

Throughout the speeches of Abraham and the children of Het the word (tenu) (תְּנוּ) is used. This is translated as to “give;” but as in English It can have multiple meanings such as to donate for free, to loan, or even to sell. Thus, its understanding in these negotiations will need to be clarified by the parties. Because of this, a better translation would be “to make available” or “to grant” – or even “to sell.4 In the translation here, the word is left as “to give,” although its broad spectrum of meaning needs to be appreciated.

 

In their answer to Abraham, the children of Het proposed an idea from which all parties could benefit:

 

And the Hittites answered Abraham saying to him: “​Hear us (shema’eynu) my lord; you are a prince of Elohim in our midst; in the choicest of our tombs bury your dead; none of us will withhold from you his tomb from you from burying your dead.” Then Abraham rose up and bowed down to the members of the council, to the children of Het (Genesis 23:5-7).

​

Abraham had requested that Sarah be buried in their midst. The children of Het were in favor of this. In the years that Abraham had lived among them he had achieved a remarkable reputation. He was not a lowly nomad but their “master” and “a prince of God.” It would be a privilege for them to have a member of Abraham’s family in one of their tombs. All their burial caves were available to him. No money need change hands and everyone would benefit. 

​

However, this was far from what Abraham wanted, for reasons that will soon be apparent. Nevertheless, these opening positions had established the mood for the negotiations, and Abraham had reason to believe he would succeed in obtaining his modest request.

 

Abraham now displayed the required obsequiousness to the children of Het. Abraham was requesting a favor. He had nothing to offer them in return other than that the wife of a “prince of God” be buried in their midst and monetary compensation. He gave a bow as in worship, possibly even bowing to the ground.5  

​

In his reply, Abraham was now explicit about what he was seeking:

​

He spoke to them, saying: “If it is truly your will that I should bury my dead from before me; hear me (shema’uni) and intercede for me with Ephron the son of Zohar that he may give me (veyiten li) the Cave of Machpelah, which he has, at the edge of his field; let him give to me (veyiten li) for full price in your midst as a possession of a burying place” (Genesis 23:8-9).

 

Abraham wanted a specific cave, the cave of Machpelah, and he was willing to pay its full value. The assumption must be that he would have egress to the cave from the main thoroughfare since Ephron’s cave was on “the edge of the field.” Abraham felt uncomfortable directly asking a prominent citizen such as Ephron for his cave, but in this public setting he would use the goodwill he had with the children of Het to persuade Ephron to make his cave available. 

 

However, Ephron was willing to provide a lot more than a cave and he made a new proposal: 

 

Ephron was sitting among the children of Het; and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the Hittites, to all who come to the gate of his city, saying: “No, my lord, hear me (shema’eyni)! The field I have given to you (natati lach), and the cave that is in it I have given to you (natatiha lecho); in the presence of the sons of my people I have given it to you (nasatiha lach); bury your dead” (Genesis 23:10-11).

 

What exactly did Ephron negate with his definitive “No!”?  Rashi suggests that Ephron was negating the notion that Abraham should pay at all for the cave. He was now offering him everything for free — the cave plus the field in which the cave was situated.6 

​

However, from a literal understanding of the text there is reason to question Rashi’s understanding. As mentioned, “to give” in this context could equally mean to provide or to offer. It is also difficult to see what Ephron would have gained from offering a free cave and field in this public setting, since he obviously did not mean it. 

​

More likely is that Ephron realized that Abraham wanted to buy both the cave and the field and he now made precisely that offer.7 In a legally precise manner he suggested a new “contract” in front of the townspeople. The addition of the field was a new proposal and this was the item mentioned first. 

As Ephron assumed, Abraham was agreeable to the new condition:

​

And Abraham bowed down before the people of the land. And he spoke to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, saying: “Rather (ach) (אַ֛ךְ), if only you would heed me (lu shema’eini)! I have given (nosati) the money of the field, take from me, that I may bury my dead there” (Genesis 23: 12-13).   

 

The qualifying word “ach” (meaning “but” or “rather”) was not a negation of Ephron’s gift but a revision of his own previous offer. Previously he had offered to pay for the cave. If the sale was to be the field plus the cave, he readily accepted this. And he emphasized his willingness to pay for both by means of a double “if” (“if” plus “only”) — “if only you would heed me.”  

 

All that remained was to fix the price:

​

​And Ephron answered Abraham, saying to him: “My lord, listen to me (shemo’ayni)); land worth four hundred shekels of silver. Between you and me what is that? And bury your dead” (Genesis 23:14-15).

 

Between friendly and comfortably-off individuals such as Abraham and Ephron, what was 400 shekels, the going rate for such a lot, asked Ephron? Abraham weighed out the money and finalized the deal. The Torah concludes this passage (other than one further sentence) with a summary of the “contract”:  

​

And the field of Ephron which was in Machpelah, facing Mamre, the field and the cave within it and all the trees in the field that were in all the borders around were made over/established. To Abraham as a purchase in the presence of the children of Heth, before all who went in at the gate of his city. And after this, Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the field of Machpelah facing Mamre, which is Hebron in the land of Canaan (Genesis 23:17-19).

 

The text is very precise in its description of the lot because this public declaration constituted the “deed” of sale. The lot also included trees that identified the borders of the property. Only after the public sale was completed and the property was truly his did Abraham go ahead and bury Sarah. 

 

Was Abraham overcharged?

​

The Sages of Israel viewed this story as demonstrating Abraham’s fortitude in overcoming challenges with trust in God’s providence, and this is the position taken by Rashi.8  Although not explicitly stated in the text, there is a Rabbinic tradition that Abraham was overcharged for Ephron’s cave and field. Based on the Talmud and midrash, Rashi explains that the “negotiable currency” mentioned in this story relates to large shekels.9 This was a form of currency used in one particular location and one shekel was equivalent to 100 regular shekels, meaning that Ephron requested 40,000 shekels. Rashi is interpreting “negotiable currency” not as currency in general use but as currency that was accepted by everyone. The issue surrounding this discussion is of interest.

​

There were good reasons for the Rabbis to view Abraham’s life as a series of trials to be overcome, since emphasizing Abraham’s faith despite the difficulties he encountered was a meaningful way of providing encouragement to the Jewish people in the early centuries of the common era.  

 

However, on a literal level there is no need to take this approach, and not all Jewish commentators are in agreement that Abraham overpaid.10  

​

There are a number of reasons why Ephron would not have overcharged Abraham. The children of Het had already publicly announced that Abraham was a person who deserved special consideration. The hallmark of Abraham’s mission was outreach. If Ephron announced a price that was not only inflated but a blatant lie (“land worth four hundred shekels of silver” (Genesis 23:14) this would be a negation of the values that Abraham was trying to inculcate. Rashi’s explanation makes Ephron appear a somewhat devious character, which is inconsistent with the initial approach of the children of Het. More likely is that this was a fair price for this plot of land, and even a bargain price. 

​

We do have prices from the Torah with which to compare. At the time the Bible was written, compensation to a father for loss of his daughter’s virginity from rape was 50 shekels (Deuteronomy 23:28). A person who wished to donate his own value to the sanctuary would also pay 50 shekels (Leviticus 27:3). The price of the amount of barley sowed on 75,000 cubits of land (somewhere between 170,000 to 300,000 square feet) was 80 shekels (Leviticus 27:16).11 Three generations from the time of Abraham, Joseph was sold as a slave to Ishmaelites for 20 shekels (Genesis 37:28). From these prices, 400 shekels would seem to be a reasonable price for a field of agricultural land in a prime location. We do not know the size of Ephron’s field, except that it was big enough to contain trees. 

 

The Cave of Machpelah is about 400 meters from Tel Rumeida, the site of an ancient pre-Canaanite and Canaanite city, and likely the city of Hebron or Qiryat Arba mentioned in the Torah. The field that Abraham bought was contiguous with the cave and therefore just outside Tel Rumeida and likely in the Valley of Hebron. It was thus very conveniently located close to the city and was probably very fertile agricultural land, since it was in a valley and not on rocky slopes. By obtaining prime land with a cave at such an an acceptable price, one can say that this entire sale went extremely smoothly for him.  

Specifically:  

​

• Abraham was recognized as a “prince of G-d” and the children of Het went out of their way to be helpful.

• Abraham requested just the cave of Machpelah from Ephron since he did not feel comfortable requesting his field, but was offered the field anyway.

• Ephron could easily have requested an exorbitant sum of money for this valuable land, but he did not.

 

How did everything work out so well for Abraham?  

 

The answer is surely that God promised Abraham a “possession” in the land of Canaan and He now made sure that he obtained the first installment.

 

 

Repetitive details

​

Why is this passage so detailed and wordy? It was already explained that since everyone was illiterate, a sale of this nature had to be done publicly and with precise detail. But there has to be more to it than this. Why does the Torah have to tell us that the children of Het offered Abraham the use of all their burial caves on a shared basis?  Why was it important that Abraham requested only a cave but obtained also a field? Why do we need to know how much Abraham paid for Ephron’s property and that he weighed out the silver? This entire passage could have been summarized in one short sentence containing all the essential facts — namely that Abraham requested from the children of Het a burial place for Sarah his wife and that he purchased from Ephron the Hittite the field of Machpelah with its cave.  

​

In actuality, the question is even broader than this.   

 

When Abraham is buried in the Cave of Machpelah, the description of the location of his burial is again wordy:8 

And his sons Isaac and Ishmael buried him in the cave of Machpelah, in the field of Ephron the son of Zohar the Hittite which faces Mamre. The field that Abraham had bought (kana) (קָנָה) from the children of Het, there Abraham was buried and Sarah his wife (Genesis 25:9-10). 

 

Has not the Torah already told us just two chapters previously where the cave is, why Abraham bought it, from whom he acquired it, and that the cave was purchased? Why then this repetition?

​

Moreover, when Jacob is close to dying and requests from his sons that they bury him in this same Cave of Machpelah, it is understandable that he would tell them where the cave is located and why he would wish to be buried there. But why does he need to stress that both the cave and field were a “burial possession” and why does he repeat twice that the field and the cave were purchased from Ephron from the children of Het? 

​

… bury me with my fathers in the cave that is in the field of Machpelah, which faces Mamre in the land of Canaan, which Abraham bought with the field from Ephron the Hittite for a burial possession (achuzat kever) (אֲחֻזַּת-קֶבֶר). There they buried Abraham and Sarah his wife, there they buried Isaac and Rebecca his wife, and there I buried Leah. A purchase (mikne) (מִקְנֵה) of the field and the cave within it from the sons of Het.” (Genesis 49:29-32)

 

Moreover, when his sons do bury Jacob, the Torah yet again elaborates on details of the purchase of the cave and the field:  

​

His sons did for him exactly as he had commanded them. And his sons carried him to the land of Canaan and they buried him in the cave of the Machpelah field, the field that Abraham had purchased (kana) for a burial possession (achuzat kever) (אֲחֻזַּת-קֶבֶר) from Ephron the Hittite facing Mamre (Genesis 50:12-13).

 

It would seem that just mention of the word “cave of Machpelah” is reason for the Torah to elaborate on the fact that the cave and field were “purchased” as a “burial possession” from Ephron the Hittite in the land of Canaan, details that in any case have been well established.

​

It is difficult to avoid the impression that the eighteen verses describing the cave’s purchase, as well as these other passages about the burial of Abraham and Jacob are elaborating on a concept that is more than just a burial sepulcher. If so, what is it?

 

The land as an “inheritance” and “possession”

 

God spoke to Abraham on seven occasions and granted him seven blessings. The first blessing he received while still in Mesopotamia made no mention of inheritance of the land of Israel. In the second blessing bestowed upon him when he reached Shechem, YHWH tells him explicitly — “To your offspring I will give this land” (Genesis 12:7). This is confirmed in the Covenant of the Pieces when “a smokey furnace and a torch” (Genesis 15:17), which is a representation of YHWH Himself, passes between the pieces of animals Abraham had cut up:

​

And He said to him: “I am YHWH Who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees, to give you this land to inherit it (lerishta) (לְרִשְׁתָּהּ). . . .” On that day YHWH made a covenant with Abram saying: “To your descendants have I given this land, from the River of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River” (Genesis 15:7-18).

 

Abraham has been “given” this land as an “inheritance,” but this inheritance will only be realized hundreds of years in the future. Since other people will occupy this land, the term “inheritance” only makes sense if God Himself is recognized as the landowner.

​

Another covenant was also made with Abraham. the Covenant of Circumcision. There are significant differences between the two. The Covenant of Circumcision was made by the Elohim aspect of God. The promised boundaries of the Israelite territory are also very different. In the Covenant between the Pieces, the Jewish people are promised an influence from the Nile to the Euphrates, whereas in the Covenant of Circumcision the focus is just on the land of Canaan.

​

The dichotomy in these covenants reflects the dual nature of Judaism and the dual mission of Abraham. On the one hand, Abraham is the forefather of the Jewish people and he will teach his children to practice “righteousness and justice” (Genesis 18:19) within the framework of the covenant made at Sinai. However, this national mission cannot be separated from Judaism’s universal mission to bring ethical monotheism to the world. 

​

A major theme of the Covenant of Circumcision is the eternal nature of God’s covenant:

​

“I will uphold My covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you, throughout their generations, as an everlasting covenant, to be a God to you and to your offspring after you.  And I will give to you and to your offspring after you, the land of your sojourns, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession (le’achuzat olam) (לַאֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם) and I will be a God to them” (Genesis 17:8).  

 

In the Covenant of Circumcision, the land of Canaan is not “an inheritance” for the distant future, but a “possession” (achuza), something that can be physically taken in the here and now, from the Hebrew verb le’echoz to grasp. It will also be for all eternity — an “everlasting possession.”

 

The promise to Abraham and his offspring of an “everlasting possession” (achuzat olam) (אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם) of the land of Canaan remained unfulfilled at the time of Covenant of Circumcision. This was remedied at the time of the burial of Sarah. When Abraham bought his “burial possession” (achuzat kever) (אֲחֻזַּת-קֶבֶר) from the Canaanites, this acquisition represented the first installment of the “everlasting possession” (achuzat olam) (אֲחֻזַּת עוֹלָם) of the land of Canaan promised to Abraham and his descendants at the Covenant of Circumcision.

 

With this perspective it can be appreciated why the Torah provides such detailed descriptions of this sale, why Abraham refused to accept the generous offer made by the children of Het for a shared burial chamber, why Abraham insists on paying for the cave so as to avoid any future misunderstanding as to its ownership, and why his handing over of money needs to be witnessed by the Hittite people by the gates of their city so that this transfer of ownership is recognized by all. This is why the Torah repeats many of the details of this sale whenever mention is made of the burial of Abraham.

​

The account of this sale will have relevance to the Children of Israel as they are about to enter the land of Canaan. Since God has made good on the first installment of His covenantal promise to Abraham, it stands to reason that the children of Israel can be assured that they too will receive their entire “possession,” although it will be hundreds of years from the time of Joshua before the land of Canaan will be completely in the hands of the Jewish people, during the reign of King David.

​

It can now also be appreciated why it is appropriate that the first installment of this “everlasting possession” in the land of Canaan be a burial chamber There is an eternity about a burial chamber that does not exist for any other possession, such as a field or building. A field becomes overgrown with weeds and is no longer identifiable. An unused house goes to ruin and squatters may take up residence. However, a burial chamber is a functional burial chamber forever just by dint of what it contains. 

​

Finally, this passage describing the negotiations for a burial sepulcher uses what may be termed a “bookend format” in which the end of the story mirrors an aspect of its beginning.

The sentence in which Abraham begins his negotiations reads as follows:

And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spoke to the children of Heth saying: “I am an alien and a resident among you; give me possession of a burial possession (achuzat kever) with you that I may bury my dead before me.” (Genesis 23:3-4)

The very last sentence of this passage ends thus: 

And the field, and the cave that is in it, were made over to Abraham for a burial possession (achuzat kever) by the Hittites (Genesis 23:20).

The beginning of the negotiation process stresses that Abraham is looking for a “burial possession” and the final sentence of this passage emphasizes that this is exactly what he obtained. 

 

 

Searching for a bride for Isaac and the burial of Sarah 

​

There is a thematic connection between this burial passage and the next story in the Torah, which is about the journey by Abraham’s servant Eliezer for a wife for Abraham’s son Isaac.

​

A nation cannot be built up through a bachelor. Abraham was strongly opposed to a marriage between Isaac and the Canaanites and he looks to his family in Aram in Mesopotamia for a wife for his son. He now appoints his servant Eliezer to bring a young lady from his home country to Canaan.

 

Eliezer asks what should he do if the lady does not wish to come back with him to Canaan, and Abraham replies:

 

“Beware lest you return my son to there [to Aram]. YHWH, God of the heavens, Who took me from the house of my father and from the land of my birth; and Who spoke concerning me, and Who swore to me saying: ‘To your offspring will I give this land’ He will send His angel before you, and you will take a wife for my son from there. But if the woman will not wish to follow you, you shall be absolved from this my oath, only do not return my son there” (Genesis 24:6-8).

 

But how can Abraham be so assured that God’s “angel” would accompany Eliezer? 

 

I suggest that the previous account of the burial of Sarah provides the answer. Abraham saw how this sale proceeded in a manner so favorable to him, and he realized that God was working behind the scenes to fulfill His part of the covenant and provide a “possession” for his descendants in the land of Canaan. It therefore followed that He would also help him in finding a wife for Isaac since this was the next step in building up a nation. 

​

It is interesting to see how God’s “angel” was on top of the situation. Eliezer designates a sign for finding the right girl — that she would offer water to him and to his camels. Eliezer “had not yet finished speaking that suddenly Rebecca. . . . was coming out . . .  and she hurried and she lowered her jug to her hand and gave him to drink. When she finished giving him drink, she said “I will draw even for your camels until they have finished drinking. . . . The man was astonished at her…” (Genesis 24: 15-21)

 

Not only the burial section but the majority of chapter 32 is about the providence of God in bringing the first steps of His covenant to fulfillment. 

 

References:

1. The letters in hieroglyphics represented words or sounds and its alphabet therefore needed a lot of letters - about a thousand (Egyptian Hieroglyphs in Wikipedia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_hieroglyphs).

2. Ibn Ezra suggests the translation of transient foreigner or resident alien. See also Rashi and Onkelos to Leviticus 25:47.

3. Sforno to Genesis 23:3.   

4. That the verb to give does not necessarily mean to give for free is apparent from Moses’ request to Sihon of Heshbon when the Israelites wish to pass through his territory and Moses requests that the “Food you shall sell me and you will give me water for money” (Deuteronomy 2:28). Moses is perhaps making the point that water taken from a spring is not usually sold, but in this instance even this they will pay for. Abraham also says in this burial passage:  “…. Let him give me (veyiten li) for full price in your midst as a possession of a burying place” (Genesis 23:8-9).  Nachmanides raises the possibility that in this case the cave could be considered a gift from the children of Het even if Abraham paid full price, but more likely is his second suggestion that Hebrew uses the word “give” even in relation to sales (Nachmanides to Genesis 23:9). Sforno suggests that “permit me to acquire” is a better translation. Targum Yonatan renders it as “to sell.” Akeidas Yitzchak suggests that politeness demanded that the cave be given as a gift but with a price attached to it.

5. Many commentators consider this to be a bowing of the head (Radak, Ibn Ezra, Targum Yonatan), but Rashi considers the verb “lehishtachave” to indicate complete prostration with hands and feet. (Rashi to Genesis 42:6, 43:26 and Leviticus 26:1). Accordingly, the Talmud considers this word to have halachic implications — see Berachos 34b, Megilla 22b and Shavuos 16b. 

6. This is the opinion of Rashi to Genesis 23:11 and also Radak.  R’ Samson Raphael Hirsch suggests that Ephron offered the cave for free but the field for money, but does not explain how he came to this conclusion. Nachmanides to Genesis 23:9 implies that Ephron did not offer the cave and field for free. His offer of the field could have been a sincere offer or possibly a duplicitous one. If the latter, then it could have been an attempt to dissuade Abraham from buying the cave by attaching a condition that was a lot more costly than Abraham would have wanted. There is a Jewish tradition that Adam and Eve were buried in this cave (Bereishis Rabba 58:8). Ephron would have been unaware of this.

7. “The field and the cave therein, were upheld unto Abraham for a possession” by Rav Amnon Bazak in Torah Mietzion.  In New Readings in Tanach. Bereshit, Eds Rabbi Ezra Bick and Rabbi Yaakov Beasley, p209, Maggid Books, Yeshivat Har Etzion.

8. TB Sanhedrin 111a and TB Bava Basra 16a.

9. There is a Jewish tradition that Abraham underwent ten trials before and after arriving in Canaan that demonstrated his faith in God. None of the lists of trials include this burial passage. Nevertheless, the Talmud discusses that this did constitute a form of trial for Abraham: “I have not found anyone as loyal as Your servant Abraham to whom You said “Arise, wander through the land of Canaan through its length and breadth, for to you I will give it” (Genesis 13:17) and yet when [Abraham] wanted to bury Sarah and could not find a place to bury her he did not ponder Your ways.” (TB Bava Basra 16a). Rashi to Genesis 23:16 based on BT Bava Metzia 87a and midrash Bereishis Rabba 58:7. Rashi explains that there was a place whose shekel was called a centenar and whose value was hundred times the regular shekel. Hence, the price of the cave plus field was in reality 40,000 shekels, which would be a very high price indeed.

10. Nachmanides to Genesis 23:15 cites Onkelos that this was the price that Ephron or his forbears paid for this field. However, he also mentions the Rabbinic tradition that Abraham overpaid.

11. The Saperstein edition of The Torah: with Rashi’s Commentary Translated, Annotated, and Elucidated, Vayikra/Levitus explains that a kor is equal to 30 se’ah which has a volume of 4,320 eggs. This would be equivalent to 75,000 square cubits.