Chayei Sarah - Greed Built into the DNA

During the discussion between Avraham and Ephron over the purchase of the burial plot for Sarah, there is an interesting issue one of the verses.

 וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם אֶל עֶפְרוֹן וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי חֵת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר
בראשית כג:טז

Here, unlike all the other mentions of Ephron, in one instance the name Ephron appears without one letter, the letter Vav.

Says the Baal HaTurim, this instance of the name Ephron appears with out the letter 'Vav' (אפרן). This word has the Gematria (numerical equivalent) of the word "רע עין" - at a value of 400 (Reish is 200, Eyin 70x2, Yud 10, Nun 50), which means stinginess or greedy. And so the 400 [of  his greediness] comes in counter to the 400 silver pieces that Avraham paid Ephron in order purchase to the Maharat HaMachpelah (Cave of the Double), the seminal resting place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs.

Was Ephron a slippery character?
Is the missing Vav hinting at deeper, more profound flaws?
Why Vav? What is the significance of the absence of this letter?

A Fair Price?
Rashi notes on this verse that the name Ephron "is spelled without a “vav,” because he promised much but did not do even a little [i.e., he promised the cave as a gift but took a great deal of money for it]" This is illustrated in the pasuk that appears earlier.

"No, my lord, listen to me. I have given you the field, and the cave that is in it, I have given it to you. Before the eyes of the sons of my people, I have given it to you; bury your dead."

Breisheit 23:11

In one verse, Ephron emphasizes the gift that he is offering Avraham, with 3 consecutive mentions of giving. Yet, the attractive offer goes from a gift to a high price in just a few verses.

And Ephron replied to Abraham, saying to him, "My lord, listen to me; a [piece of] land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is it between me and you? Bury your dead."

Breisheit 23:14-15

The 'gift' quickly appreciates and becomes a mere 400 sheckels of silver. Like a smooth salesman, Ephron tries to get his client to take possession of the product, belittling the money issues, and pushing them off to be dealt with later.

Says the Ramban, that it appears that Ephron tried to exact a value for this property that was far inflated from the market price. And the Ramban brings the Gemarah:

...the wicked promise much and do not perform even little. Whence do we know? — From Ephron. At first it is written, "The land is worth four hundred shekels of silver;" but subsequently, "And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant"; indicating that he refused to accept anything but centenaria, (Centenarius = 100 manehs; a maneh = 100 zuz = 25 shekels.) for there is a place where shekels are called centenaria. (Hence he gave him 400 centenaria, instead of ordinary shekels as he demanded at first: this is deduced from the phrase ‘current money with the merchant’, implying that it was recognised everywhere as a shekel)

Baba Metzia 87A (Soncino Translation)

At this exchange rate, the 400 centenaria comes to 10,000 sheckels.
Rav Aryeh Kaplan in The Living Torah further expands on the underhanded nature of  this deal.

Considering land values at the time this was highly excessive. Thus, for example, King Omri paid only 6000 sheckels for the entire territory of Samaria. (Kings I 16:25)

The Power of the Letter Vav
Says the Kli Yakar, expanding on the words of the Baal HaTurim, the Talmud in Baba Batra addresses the significance of the absence of the letter Vav.

R. Isaac also said: He who gives a small coin to a poor man obtains six blessings, and he who addresses to him words of comfort obtains eleven blessings.

Baba Batra 9B (Soncino Translation)

Continuing on this foundation, the Kli Yakar naturally concludes that anyone, then, that does not give even a 'prutah' to the poor is not deserving of the six blessings. Hence Ephron's name is missing the letter Vav, which has the value of six. This is indicative of his true nature, one who is stingy, penny-pinching, and greedy.

The Kli Yakar shows us that we also learn about the fate of those entrenched in miserly characteristics.

R. Joshua b. Levi also said: We give the cup of blessing for the recital of the Grace after meals only to one who is of a generous disposition, as it is said: He who has a generous eye [a good eye] will be blessed, for he gave of his bread to the poor (Mishle 22:9), read not ‘will be blessed’ but rather 'shall say the Blessing'.

Sotah 38B

That is to say, the person who was not generous, and did not give to the poor is of a Bad Eye, or as the Baal HaTurim described an "רע עין".  Where do we see the six blessings in this discussion in Sotah?

We must look at the verse quoted in its source to understand the point here.

טוֹב-עַיִן, הוּא יְבֹרָךְ:    כִּי-נָתַן מִלַּחְמוֹ לַדָּלמשלי כב ט

The word  'will be blessed' is written as "יְבֹרָךְ" - without a Vav. The Talmud explains to pronounce this as if it as has a Vav, as "יְבֹורָךְ". Says the Kli Yakar, both the written and pronounced approach fit together, since one who is generous to others is ultimately blessed himself. Likewise the opposite holds true.

4 Bad Events Connected to 400
The Kli Yakar finds further basis to connect more bad events to the amount of 400 - the amount paid for burial cave, and numerical value of bad eye  "רע עין" , miserliness.

1. The episode with Ephron
2. The sale of Joseph down to Egypt, set in motion the eventual enslavement of the Jewish people - a circumstance that was destined to last for ... 400 years (Breisheit 15:13).
3. Yaacov returns to Canaan and faces his brother Esau in what he fears could be the final confrontation. Yaacov's messengers scout out Esau's group and report that Esau approaches with ... 400 men (Breisheit 32:7)
4. Naval, the wealthy man living in the Carmel, that the Tanach describes as "the man was hard, and of evil deeds; and he was a Calebite." (Shmuel A 25:5) And David approached him with ... 400 men.

Learning the Traits of Generosity
So we see sources and examples validating the power of 6, and the importance of its absence. The 'six' or the Vav plays a major role here and provides great insight into one's true nature.  From this one unassuming, slim letter we learn that our lives should go down a path of showing generosity to others.

We also learn the contra to this. That should we lack the Vav in our lives, not only do we not merit the six special blessings but we bring upon ourselves the power of the Bad Eye - the power of 400.

Vaera - Powerful Medicine

Says the Kedushat Levi, Rav Levi Yitzhok from Berditchev, that Hashem puts the treatment before the pain. How do we see this? The discussion in Mesechet Megillah explores this issue.

"After these things." (Megilat Ester 3:1) After what? — Raba said: After G-d had created a healing for the blow [which was about to fall]. For Resh Lakish has said: The Holy One, blessed be He, does not smite Israel unless He has created for them a healing beforehand, as it says . "When I have healed Israel, then is the iniquity of Ephraim uncovered."(Hosea  8:1)  Not so, however, with the other nations: He smites them first, and then creates for them a healing, as it says: "The Lord will smite Egypt, smiting and healing." (Isaiah 19:22)

Mesechet Megilah 13B (from Soncino Translation)

We learn from this piece that G-d puts a global perspective upon events, and early on provides the 'cure' or soothing treatment, to alleviate the pain of oncoming suffering.

Healing For the Blow
So how does this figure in Parshah Vaera?
Says the Kedushat Levi, we see this manifest in this Parshah as well. Yitzhak is a pre-eminent figure strongly associated with the concept of exile. How so? The 400 years ordained for the people of Israel to be in exile  in servitude are counted from the birth of Yitzhak.

That has the original exile. But we still persist in exile today, even with the growth of a physical community in Eretz Yisrael. We continue to languish in a spiritual exile. So what is the treatment, the healing, that can cure the condition of the exile?
The Moshiach!
Which even if he is slow, we wait each day with enthusiasm.

How do we see this in Parsha Vaera? The birth of the nation of Moav provides a nascent symbol for the coming of the Moshiach. Since Ruth will arise from this nation and Kind David is descended from Ruth. The Moshiach defined as a descendent of King David.

So this is how G-d put the healing before the blow, and that we should merit to see soon in our days the arrival of the Moshiach and to be taken out of physical and spiritual exile.

Lech Lecha - On the Path to Destruction

And there was a quarrel between the shepherds of Abram's cattle and between the shepherds of Lot's cattle, and the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then dwelling in the land.

Breisheit 13:7

What Quarrel?
The verse describes a quarrel, a dispute that arose between the shepherds of Avram and the shepherds of Lot. With Lot being the nephew of Avram, this could be considered a family feud.

What were they fighting about?
Rashi describes the details of the confrontation.

Since Lot’s shepherds were wicked, and they pastured their animals in fields belonging to others, Abram’s shepherds rebuked them for committing robbery, but they [Lot’s herdsmen] responded, “The land was given to Abram, who has no heir; so Lot will inherit him, and therefore this is not robbery.” But Scripture states: “And the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then dwelling in the land,” and Abram had not yet been awarded its possession. [from Gen. Rabbah 41:5]

There was no fight over land, since the shepherds of Avram had no interest to graze the lands that the shepherd of Lot had moved onto, grazing on private property. So essentially this tension was based on a matter of honor. Lot's shepherds did not deny grazing on this land, or even that this was obviously under private ownership. They based their integrity on a controverted interpretation of the law, whereby they concluded that the land was bound to be theirs, so in a sense it was theirs now. Rashi emphasizes that verse mentions the presence of Canaanites and Perizzites to undermine the claim by Lot's shepherds, showing that this promise had yet to come about.

Yet Rashi's explanation opens several questions.
The shepherd's of Avram did not know otherwise that Avram, already at an advanced age, would eventually have his own heir. So why contest this claim by Lot's shepherds?
Rashi explains that the verse includes the seemingly extra text “And the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then dwelling in the land,” in order to show that the lack of validity to the claim by Lot's shepherds, that the promise to Avram had not yet been fulfilled. Yet why mention both nations, the Canaanites and the Perizzites?  After all in the earlier verse, it referred only to the Canaanites being in the land.

And Abram passed through the land, until the place of Shechem, until the plain of Moreh, and the Canaanites were then in the land

Breisheit 12:6

Peace in the Land
The Kli Yakar raises these issues and addresses them in his commentary. The Kli Yakar says "some say that the verse wants to say that these were the two great nations - the Cannanites and the Perizzites - and they dwelt in the land [of Canaan] without dispute, [while] these two groups of shepherds couldn't settle the land together."

The great family of Avram, the proto-Jewish family, lived in strife and fought. To mirror this condition, the verse shows how our enemies, the nations destined to be vanquished by the tribes of Israel - the Cannanites and Perizzites - live amongst each other in harmony. It is both a lesson and a criticism of our behavior as a Jewish nation, that we fight between ourselves while our enemies live in comfort.

The Great Surrender
Following the dispute between the shepherds, Avram makes Lot a generous offer

Is not all the land before you? Please part from me; if [you go] left, I will go right, and if [you go] right, I will go left.

Breisheit 13:9

The Kli Yakar explains also the appearance of both these nations in our verse explains Avrams motives to dealing with Lot. Says the Kli Yakar "Here the shepherds of Avram did their part and rebuked the shepherd's of Lot for stealing and if they did not accept the rebuke then they were saving their own lives"

What does this mean "saving their lives?"

Continues the Kli Yakar, "the shepherd's of Avram rebuked them for stealing and the shepherd's of Lot contended that all of the land belonged to Avram (etc.). and Avram considered that if the inhabitants of the land saw that he was taking hold of the land and assuming ownership, while his group was small in numbers then obviously they would gather their forces and attack. That is why this verse also includes the Perizzites, for they were brave people living in fortified cities"

The verse later, based on the report of the spies, supports this contention.

the people who inhabit the land are mighty, and the cities are extremely huge and fortified

Bamidar 13:28  

Shows the Kli Yakar further, he brings the episode of Shimon and Levi and the slaughter of Shechem, to show further the reputation of the Cannanites and Perizzites.

Thereupon, Jacob said to Shimon and to Levi, "You have troubled me, to discredit me among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and among the Perizzites, and I am few in number, and they will gather against me, and I and my household will be destroyed."

Breisheit 34:30

Tranquil Dwelling
The verse is also particular to not only mention the names of these other nations that could be aroused to confrontation, but also says that the 'dwelled' in the land.

and the Canaanites and the Perizzites were then dwelling in the land.

Breisheit 13:7

Says the Kli Yakar, "the verse says that they dwelled to say that until now they are dwelling in tranquility. By seeing that shepherds are in their fields establishing ownership, then there will be senseless war. There [Avram says]  "Please part from me."


This further displays Avram's cautious decisions, putting full faith in Hashem's promise to give him the land, without entering into useless wars, and not showing unnecessary hubris to the inhabitants.

Time to Make Choices
Despite the initial contentions of Lot's shepherd's that in fact they were doing nothing wrong, that in fact the fields were theirs de facto, they never denied sending their flocks to graze in these fields.

Says the Kli Yakar, "thus Lot went to dwell with the people of Sodom, who were not particular about stealing."

Avram dwelt in the land of Canaan, and Lot dwelt in the cities of the plain, and he pitched his tents until Sodom.  And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful against the Lord.

Breisheit 13:12-13

Says the Kli Yakar, the verse "And the people of Sodom were very evil and sinful against the Lord" is placed adjacent to this to show that since they sin with money and were not particular of stealing, thus Lot goes to settle by them."

The Path to Destruction
Lot's choices at the beginning of this episode were motivated by greed but blurred by his own legal acrobatics to justify his party's behavior. Ultimately the path he set down lead him to Sodom, a doomed city.

As we note in mishna:

Ben Azzai said: Be eager to fulfill the smallest duty and flee from transgression; for one mitzvah induces another and one transgression induces another transgression. The reward of a duty is a duty, the reward of one transgression is another transgression.

Pirkei Avot 4:2

 Lot took step after step, transgression after transgression, which lead him down a path which he was locked into, sealing his destiny. In our lives, we are constantly confronted with decisions for how to behave. Sometimes it feels like a little lie is easiest, or to slightly bend a rule won't be noticed, or worse to deny any wrongdoing through sophisticated justification. These may start out as small, minor infractions, but once we allow ourselves to behave in this manner, then we are quickly sliding down towards a destiny that will be difficult to extricate ourselves from, without conscious and dedicated effort to correct our behavior.