CHEVRON: THE FIRST INHERITANCE
The first portion of the Land of Israel whose ownership actually transferred to Avraham Avinu was in Chevron — specifically, “the field of Machpelah, facing {the plains of} Mamrei, which is Chevron.”
True, even earlier, at the Bris Bein HaBesarim, Hashem had already granted the entire Land of Israel to Avraham and his descendants, as the verse states, “To your descendants I have given this land.” And earlier still, Hashem had told him, “Arise, walk through the land, its length and breadth, for to you I will give it.” Nevertheless, the actual ownership (through an act of acquisition) — publicly conducted “before the eyes of the children of Cheis, all who entered the gate of his city” — took place for the first time in Chevron, with the purchase of the Me’aras HaMachpelah.
From that moment onward, the Me’aras HaMachpelah in Chevron has belonged to Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov, and to their descendants — the Jewish people. As the Midrash states regarding the Me’aras HaMachpelah: “This is one of three places concerning which the nations of the world cannot deceive Israel by claiming, ‘They are stolen property in your hands.’ These three are: the Me’aras HaMachpelah, the {site of the} Beis HaMikdash, and Yosef’s burial place.”
In other words, Jewish ownership of the Land of Israel in practical terms began when Avraham purchased the Me’aras HaMachpelah as a burial place for Sarah.
Indeed, Ibn Ezra explains that this is one of the reasons “this passage is mentioned {in Scripture}”: in order “to inform us that Hashem’s word to Avraham that he would possess {the land as} an inheritance was fulfilled.”
Chevron’s Unique Quality
Since every matter connected with Torah is utterly precise, we understand that the Jewish people’s first inherited holding in the Land of Israel being in Chevron must reflect some special quality unique to Chevron.
We can further suggest: Because Jewish ownership of the Land began specifically with Chevron, that ownership manifests openly — visible to the nations of the world — in other times and contexts as well.
On this basis, we can understand the statement of the Midrash on our parshah:
One reason Chevron is called “Kiryas Arba” (“City of Four”) is “because it came up in the lotteries of four {different recipients}: first to Yehudah, then to Kalev, then to the Kohanim, and then to the Levi’im.” At first glance, this is puzzling: What practical significance — or what virtue — is there in Chevron having had four different owners? The explanation is that this very detail expresses something distinctive about the nature of Jewish ownership of Chevron, as will be explained.
THE LEVI’IM’S PERMANENT OWNERSHIP
At first glance, one might suggest that one of Chevron’s unique qualities — in regard to Jewish ownership — is that Chevron is counted among the arei miklat {cities of refuge}.
[Indeed, this is alluded to in our parshah, according to the Rogatchover Gaon’s explanation of the dialogue between Avraham and the children of Cheis. Avraham sought to purchase the cave specifically at the edge of his field, because “the cemetery of the cities of refuge must be located outside the city,” and he was therefore concerned that, if it were not, the graves might later have to be relocated. The children of Cheis, however, responded, “You are a prince of G-d among us...,” implying that “the grave of a king or prince is never relocated.”]
The cities of refuge were given to the Levi’im. The Levi’im’s ownership of their cities possesses a superior quality compared to how other Jews possess their inheritances.
The law is that if Levi’im “sell a field from the fields of their cities or a house from the houses of their walled cities, they do not redeem them according to the procedures explained above.” Unlike other Jews — for whom a field cannot be redeemed until two years have passed, and houses in walled cities, if not redeemed within the year, become permanently transferred at the Yovel — the Levi’im “may sell the fields even right before the Yovel and redeem them immediately. And if they consecrated a field, they may redeem it from the possession of hekdesh {the Temple treasury} after the Yovel; and they redeem houses in walled cities whenever they wish, even after many years, as Scripture states, ‘The Levi’im shall have eternal {rights of} redemption.’”
This indicates that their ownership is permanent. Even when the house or field is in the hands of the Temple treasury or a private buyer, the Levi’im retain a form of ownership — it is never completely taken from them.
It follows, then, that the ownership of Chevron — as one of the cities of refuge belonging to the Levi’im — is characterized by this quality of “eternal redemption.”
THE LEVI’IM’S OWNERSHIP STATUS
However, if we explain Chevron’s special quality in this way — that its distinction stems from being a city of refuge given to the Levi’im — an apparent difficulty arises. For we find that the Levi’im’s ownership of their cities is, in certain respects, weaker than the other tribes’ ownership of their inheritances.
The law is that “the entire tribe of Levi are commanded against receiving an inheritance in the Land of Canaan.” They have no {conventional inheritance} in the land of Israel. What was given to them — the forty-eight cities (“six cities of refuge” and “in addition to them you shall give forty-two cities”) — is, as Scripture precisely states, merely “cities in which to dwell.” This wording implies that the Levi’im do not have full ownership over their cities.
The Talmud Yerushalmi reveals that this issue is the crux of a Tannaitic dispute. Rabbi Meir holds that Kohanim and Levi’im do not recite the confession of tithes, for “they did not receive a portion in the land.” Rabbi Yose disagrees: “They have cities with open spaces.” The Talmud Yerushalmi explains that Rabbi Meir maintains the cities were given “for dwelling” only (“not that it should be their inheritance and possession”). Rabbi Yose, however, holds they were given “as a portion” (meaning that the cities “were granted to the Levi’im as their portion and possession”).
According to Rabbi Yose, then, the cities with open spaces belong to the Levi’im as their actual portion in the Land of Israel.
Rambam rules in accordance with Rabbi Yose. Although the confession contains the phrase “and the land that You gave us,” nevertheless, “the Levi’im recite the confession, for even though they did not receive a portion in the land, they have cities with open spaces.” Thus, these cities with open spaces are indeed regarded as the Levi’im’s portion in the Land of Israel.
True, Rambam also rules that “a killer dwelling in cities of refuge does not pay rent for his house, whereas one dwelling in other Levite cities pays rent to the property owner.” According to the Talmud Yerushalmi, the question of whether “{the killers} would pay rent to the Levi’im” hinges on the dispute mentioned above — whether the cities were given “as a portion” or merely “for dwelling.” On that basis, one might conclude that the cities with open spaces belonging to the Levi’im are (according to the Rambam) only the forty-two additional cities, not the six cities of refuge (which were “set aside for refuge,” and therefore provide asylum “whether knowingly or unknowingly,” whereas “other Levite cities provide asylum only knowingly”).
However, the Talmud Bavli implies no such distinction. From the Talmud Bavli it is clear that the reason a killer does not pay rent in the six cities of refuge is not due to any deficiency in the Levi’im’s ownership of those cities. Rather, as the Gemara states, it is a distinct law, as derived from the verse “and the cities shall be for you as refuge” — “for you, for all your needs.”
This understanding — that the Levi’im’s ownership of the cities of refuge and the other Levite cities has a single halachic status — is further supported by Rambam’s straightforward language: “The Jewish people were commanded to give them cities in which to dwell and {additional} open spaces. The cities include the six cities of refuge and forty-two additional cities. When cities of refuge will be added in the era of Mashiach, all of them will be given to the Levi’im.” This clearly implies that, in their connection to the Levi’im, all of these cities share one and the same status.
THE DUAL BASIS OF REFUGE
Furthermore, we find the following:
The Gemara derives from the verse “And I shall designate for you a place...” as follows:
“And I shall designate for you” — {there will be a place that provides refuge for unintentional killers already} in your lifetime. “A place” — {it will be} from your place. “Where he may flee” — this teaches that the Jewish people would exile {unintentional killers} in the wilderness {as well, before they entered the land}. To where did they exile {unintentional killers while they were in the wilderness}? They were sent to the Levite camp.”
Rashi explains the phrase “‘a place’ — from your place”: “The camp of the Levi’im should provide asylum, and moreover, the cities of refuge will be Levite cities.” From Rashi’s comment, it appears that the cities of refuge provide asylum because they are Levite cities.
[It would be quite difficult to say that Rashi is referring only to the other Levite cities — the forty-two cities that were not specifically set aside for refuge and which provide asylum only by virtue of their being given to the Levi’im. For if that were Rashi’s intent, he should have said, “and moreover, the Levite cities shall provide asylum,” or something similar. The plain sense of his words — “and moreover, the cities of refuge will be Levite cities” — implies that he is speaking primarily about the six cities of refuge themselves.]
This means that giving the six cities of refuge to the Levi’im is not merely an incidental law relating to the allocation of the cities. It is not that, in addition to being cities of refuge, there happens to be another requirement that they be allocated to the Levi’im. Rather, this is intrinsic to the very definition of their refuge status: Their being (or becoming) Levite cities is itself part of the halachic mechanism that creates their asylum.
[In other words, the six cities possess two distinct bases for providing asylum:
- They provide asylum as cities of refuge (which “were set aside for refuge”), and by virtue of this they provide asylum “whether knowingly or unknowingly.” But prior to this,
- They provide asylum as Levite cities.
Although {the asylum as cities of refuge might seem to make their asylum as Levite cities redundant — as the Talmudic principle states,} “two hundred includes one hundred,” there may nonetheless be a practical difference: If one of the conditions unique to the six cities of refuge has not been met — such as the requirement that all six cities must be functioning as refuges simultaneously — they would still provide asylum as Levite cities (in a case where the person flees knowingly).]
This understanding is also suggested by the sequence of passages in Parshas Massei. Earlier, the Torah states: “And have them give to the Levi’im cities in which to dwell from their hereditary estates... and among the cities that you shall give to the Levi’im shall be the six cities of refuge which you shall provide for the killer to flee there, and in addition to them you shall provide forty-two cities.” Only later does the Torah state, “And you shall designate for yourselves cities, which shall serve as cities of refuge... and a killer shall flee there...” In other words, before the actual halachic status of asylum takes effect in these six cities, they must first be established as Levite cities.
This is stated explicitly in the Sefer HaChinuch, who explains why Levite cities provide asylum. He notes: “Of these Levite cities, some were designated specifically to serve as refuge for the killer, but in all of them he had refuge.” The reason: “Because of their (i.e., the Levi’im’s) great excellence, the fitness of their deeds, and the grace of their stature, their land was chosen to absorb any person who killed unintentionally more than the lands of the other tribes — so that perhaps their land, sanctified by their sanctity, might atone for him.”
It follows, then, that the six cities of refuge also possess the status of “Levite cities” (just like the other forty-two). Accordingly, it is clear that the six cities of refuge were indeed given over to the Levi’im’s ownership. And it is by virtue of this ownership (as well) that the cities acquire their halachic capacity to provide asylum.
WHY “CITIES IN WHICH TO DWELL”
This understanding, however, presents a difficulty: Since the cities were given to the Levi’im as their portion in the land — why does the verse say that they are only “cities in which to dwell”?
This can be explained as follows: The fact that the cities belong to the Levi’im reflects two distinct aspects:
- The Jewish people (all the tribes) gave them from their respective tribal possessions; and therefore we find a fundamental distinction: the forty-eight cities were scattered throughout the inheritances of numerous tribes — indeed, across all the tribes.
- This represents a collective ownership by the entire tribe of Levi — the forty-eight cities were given to the tribe of Levi as a whole. However, each individual Levi does not have personal ownership of his particular house; it is his only as a place “in which to dwell.”
This explains the specific order in which the verse describes how the cities came to the Levi’im: “And have them [the children of Israel] give to the Levi’im cities in which to dwell from their hereditary estates.” First, this land became the “hereditary estates” of the Jewish people, and only then did the Jewish people give the cities to the Levi’im.
CHEVRON’S INDIVIDUAL OWNERSHIP
Based on all the above, we can now understand the precise language of the Midrash regarding Chevron: “It came up in the lotteries of four {different recipients}: first to Yehudah, then to Kalev, then... to the Levi’im.”
In Chevron’s case, there was not merely a collective transfer from the Jewish people to the tribe of Levi. Rather, Chevron came to the tribe of Levi directly from Kalev — that is, after it had already passed from the collective ownership of the tribe of Yehudah to the personal ownership of Kalev.
This is what the Midrash means by saying “it came up in the lotteries of four {different recipients}.” Just as the ownership was initially held by Yehudah (and then by Kalev) as personal ownership, so too it was given to the Levi’im in a similar manner. In other words, with regard to Chevron, the Levi’im also possess an element of personal ownership.
Since the connection of Levite cities to the Levi’im is characterized by “eternal redemption” (as explained above in Section 2), it follows that the “perpetuity” of the Levi’im’s ownership of Chevron surpasses that of all other portions of the Land of Israel in two respects:
- Compared to the inheritances of the Jewish people in general, which do not possess the quality of “eternal redemption”; and
- Compared to the other Levite cities, which do not have this dimension of personal ownership.
CHEVRON: THE CITY OF CONNECTION
The inner explanation of this concept is as follows:
The deeper reason why the cities of refuge must be Levite cities (similar to Sefer Chinuch’s explanation cited above in Section 4) is that this is intrinsically connected with granting protection and atonement to one who kills unintentionally.
The sin of taking a life has a twofold effect: it causes separation — between man and Hashem, and between man and his fellow.
Accordingly, atonement is achieved through the cities of refuge, which are Levite cities. The very name Levi derives from yilaveh — meaning “connection” or “attachment” ({as in Leah’s words,} “This time my husband will become attached to me,” expressing a new, {renewed} connection), the opposite of separation. This defines the essential quality of the Levi’im:
- “They were set aside to serve Hashem, to minister to Him,” and their role is “to teach His righteous ways and His just laws to the multitudes.” Through their profound connection with Hashem — being “His portion and inheritance” — they bring atonement and repair for the separation between man and Hashem that was caused by the killing, thereby reconnecting the person to Hashem.
- In their service of “and they shall be joined to you and serve you,” the concept of Jewish unity is revealed. In addition, through their role of “teaching His righteous ways and His just laws to the multitudes,” the quality of love for the Jewish people (the multitudes) — ahavas Yisrael — is likewise expressed.
By virtue of this, their cities provide rectification for the sin and for the separation between man and his fellow that results from taking a life.
This concept applies to all the cities of refuge. In Chevron, however, the theme of unity is emphasized even more profoundly, for there lie buried the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the entire Jewish people. For this reason, prayers ascend through Chevron.
Indeed, prayer itself is termed chevron — “connection” — for it unites the emotional attributes of Chessed, Gevurah, and Tiferes, {corresponding to our three Patriarchs} — {thereby eliciting} the bond and connection between the Jewish people and Hashem. This serves as atonement for the separation between man and Hashem brought about by the killing.
Since Chevron is the resting place of the Patriarchs and Matriarchs of the entire Jewish people, the unity associated with them brings about a true unity among their children and descendants. This brings atonement for the separation between one person and another.
The concept of connection is so central to Chevron that it is revealed openly “in the name by which it is called in Lashon Hakodesh {the Holy Tongue}” — for the very name Chevron derives from the word chibbur, meaning “connection.”
From sichos delivered on Simchas Torah and Shabbos Parshas Bereishis, 5737 (1976)
