Комментарий к Берешит 23:17

ויקם שדה עפרון AND THE FIELD OF EPHRON WAS MADE SURE (literally, it rose) — It received a rise in importance because it passed from the possession of a commoner (הדיוט an ordinary person) into the possession of a king (Genesis Rabbah 58:8). But the real meaning of the verse is: The field and the cave that was therein and all the trees … became secured to Abraham as a possession etc. (i. e. verse 17 is an incomplete sentence and must be read together with verse 18, thus: ויקם השדה וגו… לאברהם למקנה —The field etc. became secured to Abraham as a possession).

ויקם השדה לאברהם למקנה, the word ויקם teaches that the purchase was confirmed by a sealed document

ויקם, it “arose” for Avraham as a purchase, and acquisition. The unusual sounding word קם here also occurs in this sense in Leviticus 27,19 וקם לו, where it describes the legal procedure of redeeming property from the Temple treasurer by paying a premium. The term is chosen to describe a transaction of a permanent, enduring nature.

ויקם שדה עפרון, “Efron’s field ‘arose.” The Torah means that the handover of the money was not yet the conclusion of this transaction. The site had not become a recognized cemetery by Avraham handing over the purchase price, but the Torah means that after it had become his property Avraham designated the site as a burial site and then proceeded to bury his wife there. It was not admissible in those days to convert a piece of earth into a cemetery until such a change had been approved by the local community.

It was elevated for it left the possession of a commoner to the possession of a king. [Accordingly,] ויקם does not mean acquisition, as in (Vayikra 25:30): “The house in the walled city shall be established (וקם), to the one who bought it,” where Rashi explains that possession is transferred from the seller to the buyer’s control. This is because there, the verse mentions the buyer after וקם, unlike here. [You might object: Here too, the next verse says]: “This became Avraham’s through a purchase” — [thus mentioning the buyer after ויקם. The answer is:] That is not a continuation of the previous verse, since the ta’amei hamikra divide [it into a separate verse].

ויקם, literally: “it stood up;” the subject is the field, and the Torah means that by becoming the property of Avraham this field now had “risen” in spiritual value. שדה עפרון, one side of that field extended along the whole length of that town. Here it is described in precise detail, i.e. ממרא היא חברון, whereas previously it had been described as קרית ארבע, “the city of the four;” later on during the lifetime of Yaakov it has been described as ממרא קרית הארבע היא חברון, (Genesis 35,27) a location where both Avraham and Yitzchok had been residents at one time or another. Earlier. in connection with Avraham, (12,18) he had been described as having settled in Kiryat Arba which is described there as “part of Chevron.” This was meant to tell us that Mamre was the original founder who had built himself a town adjacent to Chevron which had previously been inhabited by Hittites. He called that new town “Mamre,” thus memorializing himself. The “groves” of Mamre, i.e. אלוני ממרא, were situated at the entrance to that town. The cave of Machpelah, in another direction, at that time had belonged to the Hittites. After Mamre’s death, a giant by the name of Arba became very powerful and claimed the entire area, naming it Arba after himself. Several centuries later, when the Israelites had defeated most of Canaanite tribes they called that town Chevron.

אשר לפני ממרא, השדה והמערה, both were outside the actual town limits of Kiryat Arba, the present day Chevron then having been known as Mamre. (compare also verse 19). [The Torah makes certain that all the names by which this location had ever been known is mentioned so that no one in the future could challenge this cave as belonging to the Jewish people. Ed.]

The simple meaning of the verse is: The field came into... It seems we could ask either way: If the simple meaning works well, [why do we need the first explanation?] Rashi does not usually bring a Midrash without reason! And if the simple meaning does not work well, why bring it? This question should be asked whenever Rashi brings both. The answer is: The simple meaning, on its own, raises a question. It is redundant to say, “The field of Ephron... became Avraham’s through a purchase.” Why say, “Of Ephron”? Do we not already know it was his field? Perforce, an elevation took place specifically for the field of Ephron—it previously belonged to a commoner, Ephron. However, the exposition by the Midrash of “elevation,” when on its own, also raises a question. The verse already said, “The field of Ephron was established.” Why say again, “The field and the cave...”? A further problem with the Midrash, [when on its own, is that] the next verse לאברהם למקנה. becomes somewhat disjointed Thus Rashi brings also the simple meaning: the field, etc, came into Avraham’s possession. It says, “The field of Ephron,” and then repeats, “The field and the cave...” in order to indicate both explanations. Accordingly, ויקם applies to both. It applies to “The field of Ephron” to indicate “elevation.” And it applies to “The field and the cave” to indicate that it came into Avraham’s possession. In the simple meaning, ויקם denotes that possession of the field was transferred from the seller’s control and was established to the buyer, as Rashi exsimpleed on (Vayikra 25:30), “The house in the walled city shall be established (וקם)...” The questions of Re’m, and of the Minchas Yehudah who came after him, are thus resolved. There is no need for their forced explanations, as ויקם שדה and וקם הבית both mean the same. In the simple meaning, ויקם השדה means that possession of the field was established in the buyer’s control, the same as Rashi exsimpleed for וקם הבית. Rashi understands the word וקם to mean “shall be established,” and only says “in the control of the buyer” to exsimple that verse’s following phrase: “To the one who bought it.” The same applies here: ויקם means the field was established to Avraham. Whereas Re’m and Minchas Yehudah understood that according to Rashi there, וקם means “acquisition” [and thus conflicts with its meaning here]. But this is not so, and it is difficult to understand why they said this. (R. Meir Stern)