Multivalence in Ephron's Sale
This is a follow-up on last week’s parasha post. I noted how in lo / lo / lu adoni shema’einu, within our Masoretic text, the phrase took on different meanings and was cut at different points by the sentence boundary. And, while some approaches would smooth the text and make it entirely consistent, there’s what to value in a rough text.
The unstated and unaddressed question is — why would an author write the text this way, where the reader trips over these different meanings?
Over Shabbos, one of my sons said over a devar Torah he’d heard last year in yeshiva in Israel, and added his own Daf Yomi twist at the end. This aligns well with my own thoughts of possible motivation for this literary construct.
He noted that Avraham and Ephron’s words are exceedingly precise as they negotiate. See Bereshit 23:4 and on. Avraham says he’s a ger vetoshav, but wants an achuzat kever, which is a wholly owned ancestral land which will be his. The Bnei Cheit say בְּמִבְחַ֣ר קְבָרֵ֔ינוּ קְבֹ֖ר אֶת־מֵתֶ֑ךָ, so that it would still belong to them but Avraham is just using it. Avraham insists on buying the land, asking to deal with Ephron, saying בְּכֶ֨סֶף מָלֵ֜א יִתְּנֶ֥נָּה לִ֛י בְּתוֹכְכֶ֖ם לַאֲחֻזַּת־קָֽבֶר. Ephron doesn’t offer that, but just says that he can have the land and bury on it, לְעֵינֵ֧י בְנֵי־עַמִּ֛י נְתַתִּ֥יהָ לָּ֖ךְ קְבֹ֥ר מֵתֶֽךָ. But there is not price, and he doesn’t say achuzat kever. Avraham demurs, and wants to pay, נָתַ֜תִּי כֶּ֤סֶף הַשָּׂדֶה֙ קַ֣ח מִמֶּ֔נִּי וְאֶקְבְּרָ֥ה אֶת־מֵתִ֖י שָֽׁמָּה. Ephron quotes him the price, but still wants to perhaps retain ownership after a period (like a land returns to its original owner at yovel). Avraham pays the full amount, with a weighed and accepted currency, אַרְבַּ֤ע מֵאוֹת֙ שֶׁ֣קֶל כֶּ֔סֶף עֹבֵ֖ר לַסֹּחֵֽר. So, the Torah concludes and testifies that Avraham received it as an achuzat kever. וַיָּ֨קָם הַשָּׂדֶ֜ה וְהַמְּעָרָ֧ה אֲשֶׁר־בּ֛וֹ לְאַבְרָהָ֖ם לַאֲחֻזַּת־קָ֑בֶר מֵאֵ֖ת בְּנֵי־חֵֽת׃
My son added, from a relatively recent Daf Yomi sugya he had learned. I wasn’t sure which sugya. But see, for instance, Bava Metzia 104a / Bava Batra 7a, that perhaps Ephron would still claim that the sale was for temporary usage rights, rather than an achuzat kever. For instance, something purchased called a vineyard but it actually a vineyard
״כַּרְמָא אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ גְּפָנִים – הִגִּיעוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא, וְהוּא דְּמִתְקְרֵי ״כַּרְמָא״. ״פַּרְדֵּס אֲנִי מוֹכֵר לָךְ״, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵין בּוֹ רִמּוֹנִים – הִגִּיעוֹ, שֶׁלֹּא מָכַר לוֹ אֶלָּא שְׁמָא, וְהוּא דְּמִתְקְרֵי ״פַּרְדֵּסָא״. אַלְמָא אָמַר לֵיהּ: שְׁמָא בְּעָלְמָא אֲמַרִי לָךְ. הָכִי נָמֵי נֵימָא לֵיהּ: שְׁמָא בְּעָלְמָא אֲמַרִי לָךְ!
The baraita continues: Similarly, if he said: I am selling you a vineyard, then although it does not have vines, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as the seller sold him the field only by the name; and this is the halakha only where it is called a vineyard. Likewise, if he said: I am selling you an orchard, then even though it does not have pomegranates, once he purchases the land it has come to him, as he sold him only by the name; and again this is the case only where it is called an orchard. Apparently, the seller can say to him: I told you only the name. So too here, let the seller say to him: I told you only the name.
However, there is another principle that you can look at the price paid, for instance וְנִיחְזֵי אִי דְּמֵי רִדְיָא in Bava Kamma 46a. So the price can be determinative. So too, the fact that it was this exorbitant amount, אַרְבַּ֤ע מֵאוֹת֙ שֶׁ֣קֶל כֶּ֔סֶף עֹבֵ֖ר לַסֹּחֵֽר, demonstrates that it was purchased as an achuzat kever.
On to multivalence. You can see a bunch of parshablog posts about the idea. But the essence of it is. Pasuk says A. One commentator says this means X. Another says it means Y. The multivalent approach is that the verse was written to be deliberately ambiguous, in order to convey both meanings X and Y. Because, there is some tension, or inherent ambiguity to the situation, that the author wished to convey. Thus, the verse indeed meant to teach both X and Y.
Along similar lines, Ephron and Avraham’s seeming acquiescence is really disagreement, and you the reader are meant to grapple with yeses that mean no, or politeness that mean no, and that you need to parse words and sentences extremely carefully, for the participants in this transaction are themselves being precise and nuanced in their word use. The wordplay It is a visceral way of conveying this idea.