Abraham Negotiates to Buy the Cave of the Machpelah in the Promised Land

Is the Machpelah a cave or a field? Why does Ephron say no to the sale at first? What does Abraham mean by “burying my dead from before my face”? Why does Abraham need to purchase a burial plot?

APA Style

Click to copy

"Abraham Negotiates to Buy the Cave of the Machpelah in the Promised Land" (n.d.). TheTorah.com. Retrieved October 30, 2026, from https://www.thetorah.com/article/abraham-negotiates-to-buy-the-cave-of-the-machpelah-in-the-promised-land

SBL Style

Click to copy

"Abraham Negotiates to Buy the Cave of the Machpelah in the Promised Land." TheTorah.com. Accessed October 30, 2026. https://www.thetorah.com/article/abraham-negotiates-to-buy-the-cave-of-the-machpelah-in-the-promised-land.

Abraham Negotiates to Buy the Cave of the Machpelah in the Promised Land

The Story of Abraham Series (detail) 1540-43, attributed to Pieter Coecke van Aelst. The Royal Trust

After crying and mourning for Sarah (Genesis 23:1–2), Abraham approaches the local people of Kiryat-arba to negotiate for a burial plot. The locals are called Hittites or “Sons of Heth” (vv. 3, 5, 7, 10, 16, 18, and 20) and are designated עַם הָאָרֶץ “people of the land” (vv. 7, 12–13), namely land-owning males.[1] The repeated references to locals with whom Abraham negotiates prompted Genesis Rabbah to comment:

בראשית רבה נח אמר ר' לעזר כמה דיות משתפכות כמה קולמוסין משתברין כדי לכתוב בני חת, עשרה פעמים כתוב בני חת כנגד עשרת הדיברות, ללמדך שכל מי שהוא מברר מקחו שלצדיק כאילו קיים עשרת הדיברות,
Genesis Rabbah (§58) R. Lazar said, “How much ink has been spilled and how many quills broken in order to write ‘the sons of Heth’—ten times it is written, corresponding to the Ten Commandments, to teach that anyone who makes certain of his purchase like this righteous one, has fulfilled the Ten Commandments.”

This midrashic interpretation highlights the unusual nature of the chapter, with its lengthy description of Abraham’s purchase. The negotiations go through three rounds, teaching us aspects of the narrator’s worldview, and more specifically how deals were conducted in his time-period.

Round One: The Initial Request

Abraham begins by announcing himself as a non-native local inhabitant (גֵּר וְתוֹשָׁב)[2] and explains that he wants a burial spot:

בראשׁית כג:ד גֵּר־וְתוֹשָׁב אָנֹכִי עִמָּכֶם תְּנוּ לִי אֲחֻזַּת־קֶבֶר עִמָּכֶם וְאֶקְבְּרָה מֵתִי מִלְּפָנָי.
Gen 23:4 I am a resident alien among you; give me a burial site among you, so that I might bury my dead from before my face.

Abraham’s phrasing, that he needs to bury his dead מִלְּפָנָי “from before my face/sight,” is repeated in v. 8. This unusual phrasing, which the Hittites and Ephron do not use themselves, masks the author’s hidden polemic[3] against a long-standing tradition of ancestor worship or veneration, including consulting with the dead, and use of the dead as intermediaries, all practices condemned in many biblical passages.[4]

Ancestor Cult

After they were interred, some dead ancestors, usually males, were honored and petitioned in the household cult and represented physically by small objects referred to collectively as teraphim.[5] In some biblical texts, these objects are characterized as אֱלֹהִים “gods” or “spiritual entities,”[6] in addition to אִטִּים/אֹבוֹת “spirits/ghosts,”[7] and קְדוֹשִׁים “holy ones.”[8] Their job was to watch over the family and its land, protecting their rights and bestowing fertility and good harvests.[9]

The writer of Genesis 23 challenges this belief by having Abraham use the seemingly innocuous phrase “from before my sight/eyes” to model his rejection of making a teraph-image for Sarah and entreating her as a divinized or spiritualized ancestor.[10] The phraseמֵתִי “my dead”—and מֵתֶךָ “your dead” (v. 6)—likewise implies the non-divine status of humans who have passed away, and simply no longer exist.[11]

Because this is the first biblical account of a burial, as Jason Bray explains, it serves as a paradigm for interment, and offers a polemic against ancestor worship, to counter ideas about death unacceptable to the writer.[12] In fact, the 7-fold reference to the burial of Sarah in this story may be aimed at counteracting any interpretation that would impute some kind of lingering presence of the matriarch, which might, in the words of Meir Sternberg, “encourage a worship of the dead.”[13]

“Give” or “Sell”?

Abraham states explicitly that he is seeking an ’aḥuzzâ, i.e., a permanent right to the land; he is not asking merely to use one of their plots. Nevertheless, instead of the unambiguous verb for sell, from the root מ.כ.ר, Abraham uses the root נ.ת.נ, which typically means “to give,” but can also carry the connotation “to sell” by “giving over” or transferring the rights to something. The choice of this root likely reflects social conventions about politeness.

The Sons of Heth Acquiesce

Those gathered reply to Abraham politely that no one will prevent him from burying his dead in their tombs.[14]

‏בראשׁית כג:ה וַיַּעֲנוּ בְנֵי חֵת אֶת אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר לוֹ. כג:ו שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי נְשִׂיא אֱלֹהִים אַתָּה בְּתוֹכֵנוּ בְּמִבְחַר קְבָרֵינוּ קְבֹר אֶת מֵתֶךָ אִישׁ מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת־קִבְרוֹ לֹא יִכְלֶה מִמְּךָ מִקְּבֹר מֵתֶךָ.
Gen 23:5 And the sons of Heth replied to Abraham, saying to him, 23:6 “Hear us, my lord: you are the elect of God among us. Bury your dead in the choicest of our burial places; none of us will withhold his burial place from you for burying your dead.”

The Hittites, like Abraham, avoid the term מ.כ.ר “to sell,” and state that Abraham should feel free to bury his dead in whatever tomb he wants.

Gerhard von Rad and Meir Sternberg understand this reply to mean that the Hittite spokesperson is non-committal; they do not say yes or no but leave the matter hanging in the air.[15] Others, such as John Skinner, and Jacob Rosenberg and Avi Weiss, conclude that the Hittites denied Abraham’s request, offering instead use of an existing local tomb.[16]

These approaches assume that the Hittites wish to avoid the transfer of property rights to a non-native resident.[17] Yet this idea is not in the text, and it appears to derive from attitudes about the attitude of Israelites to their own land elsewhere in the Bible.[18] We do not know, however, that the Hittites of Kiryat-arba would have had this same aversion to selling land permanently to an outsider, or, more to the point, that the narrator would have thought that they would.

Instead, their response likely reflects social convention of politeness. Abraham has made it clear that he wants a permanent holding, and their reaction does not seem designed to dissuade him.

Round Two: Ephron and His Field

Clearly, Abraham does not take their response amiss, and returns their civility by bowing to them:

בראשׁית כג:ז וַיָּקָם אַבְרָהָם וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ לְעַם הָאָרֶץ לִבְנֵי חֵת.
Gen 23:7 Thereupon Abraham bowed low to the people of the land, the sons of Heth.

The back-and-forth between Abraham and Hittites follows formal language and conventions used in negotiations between non-related individuals or groups in the ancient southern Levant. Certainly, calling the other “my lord” (v. 6) is expected language of deference, as is the Hittite’s describing Abraham as a godly chief or prince (v. 6). Abrahams’ bowing before the Hittites is, likewise, a gesture of deference.

Picking up on the point of agreement, Abraham names a specific plot as his preferred burial site, indicating that he will pay its full value for it to be “given” (נ.ת.נ) to him:

בראשׁית כג:ח וַיְדַבֵּר אִתָּם לֵאמֹר אִם יֵשׁ אֶת נַפְשְׁכֶם לִקְבֹּר אֶת מֵתִי מִלְּפָנַי שְׁמָעוּנִי וּפִגְעוּ לִי בְּעֶפְרוֹן בֶּן צֹחַר. כג:ט וְיִתֶּן לִי אֶת מְעָרַת הַמַּכְפֵּלָה אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֲשֶׁר בִּקְצֵה שָׂדֵהוּ בְּכֶסֶף מָלֵא יִתְּנֶנָּה לִי בְּתוֹכְכֶם לַאֲחֻזַּת קָבֶר.
Gen 23:8 He said to them, “If it is your wish that I remove my dead for burial, you must agree to intercede for me with Ephron son of Zohar. 23:9 Let him give me the cave of the machpelah that he owns, which is at the edge of his field. Let him give it to me at the full price, for a burial site in your midst.”

The text does not tell us why Abraham chose this field and its cave in particular, but it does supply a name for the plot Abraham wants.

The Machpelah

The noun machpelah is frequently rendered as a proper name in translations, but as it is always preceded by the definite article “the” (ha-), it is a common name. The root כפל means folding or doubling over; the mem-preformative noun would then logically designate “that which is folded.”

It appears to designate a natural feature in the landscape used by the locals.[19] Thus, the ancient translators of the Greek and Latin versions, some rabbis, and many medieval Jewish exegetes considered the machpelah to indicate that the cave had two chambers side-by-side or an upper and a lower chamber. But these translators and scholars, applying the term only to the cave, were not employing all the clues present in the text to understand its import.

The term “the machpelah” appears six times in Genesis—and nowhere else in the Bible—sometimes qualifying the cave and other times qualifying the field:

  1. מְעָרַת הַמַּכְפֵּלָה אֲשֶׁר לוֹ אֲשֶׁר בִּקְצֵה שָׂדֵהוּ “the cave of the machpelah that he owns, which is at the edge of his field” (23:9);
  2. שְׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּכְפֵּלָה... הַשָּׂדֶה וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ “the field of Ephron that is in the machpelah… the field and the cave that is within it” (23:17);
  3. מְעָרַת שְׂדֵה הַמַּכְפֵּלָה “the cave of the field of the machpelah” (23:19);
  4. אֶל מְעָרַת הַמַּכְפֵּלָה אֶל שְׂדֵה עֶפְרֹן “in the cave of the machpelah, in the field of Ephron” (25:9);
  5. בַּמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בִּשְׂדֵה הַמַּכְפֵּלָה “in the cave that is in the field of the machpelah” (49:30);
  6. בִּמְעָרַת שְׂדֵה הַמַּכְפֵּלָה “in the cave of the field of the machpelah” (50:13).[20]

The machpelah is thus not coterminous with either the field or the cave. Most likely, it refers to a large area of which the field, and the cave within it, are only a part.

Ephron’s Response

Having identified the field that he wants, Abraham doesn’t even need the intercession of the locals, because Ephron, who is sitting amongst those addressed, hears what he says:

‏בראשׁית כג:י וְעֶפְרוֹן יֹשֵׁב בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי חֵת וַיַּעַן עֶפְרוֹן הַחִתִּי אֶת אַבְרָהָם בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי חֵת לְכֹל בָּאֵי שַׁעַר עִירוֹ לֵאמֹר.
Gen 23:10 Ephron was present among the sons of Heth; so Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the sons of Heth, all who entered the gate of his town, saying,

Ephron hears the request because he is sitting at the city gate, the location in a walled settlement where business was transacted and where lower ranking officials would sit (e.g. Esther 2:19). The normal coming and going made it easy to find witnesses for conducting legal affairs (see e.g. Ruth 4:1–6). Thus, Ephron himself responds:

בראשית כג:יא לֹא אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי הַשָּׂדֶה נָתַתִּי לָךְ וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ לְךָ נְתַתִּיהָ לְעֵינֵי בְנֵי עַמִּי נְתַתִּיהָ לָּךְ קְבֹר מֵתֶךָ.
Gen 23:11 “No, my lord, hear me: I give you the field and I give you the cave that is in it; I give it to you in the presence of my people. Bury your dead.”

Abraham asks only for the cave “at the edge of Ephron’s field,” but Ephron leads with the field. While Meir Sternberg believes that Ephron is trying to push Abraham into buying more than he intended,[21] the text can also be understood to mean that Ephron picks up on Abraham’s true interest, which is purchasing the field as well as the cave.[22]

“No, My Lord”—Is Ephron Refusing Something

Ephron begins his response to Abraham with the negative particle לֹא “no,” and some scholars argue that this means Ephron said no to a sale, merely offering to let Abraham bury Sarah on his land as a courtesy. This reading is a stretch, however, since Ephron seems to mean he will give Abraham ownership of the field and the cave.

Other scholars suggest that, in contrast to Abraham’s request, Ephron is offering not to sell Abraham the land but to give it to him as a gift. If so, as Gene Tucker argues, this would not have been a real offer but rather a natural part of the negotiations, which were characterized by elaborate hospitality and exaggerated politeness.[23]

While this is a possible reading, I suggest that the opening לֹא “no” is a scribal error for לוּ “if only,” used in v. 13, when Abraham responds to Ephron, לוּ שְׁמָעֵנִי “if you would listen to me.”

In fact, the scribes made a similar error in two further verses (vv. 5–6, 14–15), in which the subjunctive particle lû “if only” was understood as the dative clause lo “to him.” It was then connected to לֵאמֹר to make the awkward phrase לֵאמֹר לוֹ שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי “saying to him: ‘hear us my master.’” Normally, לֵאמֹר introduces a direct quote; nowhere else in the Bible is it followed by a prepositional phrase. It seems likely, therefore, that in both instances, the phrase originally read לֵאמֹר לוּ שְׁמָעֵנוּ אֲדֹנִי “saying: “if only my master would hear us.”[24]

If this is correct, then Ephron never actually said “no” to Abraham, but just used what turns out to be standard language in negotiations, לוּ אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי, “if only my master would hear me.”[25]

Round Three: The Silver

Abraham bows once again in deference before “the people of the land” (v. 12) and says in their hearing that he has “given” or proffered the equivalent value of the field in silver (whatever it will be); “take it from me so that I may bury my dead” (v. 13).

בראשׁית כג:יב וַיִּשְׁתַּחוּ אַבְרָהָם לִפְנֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ. כג:יג וַיְדַבֵּר אֶל עֶפְרוֹן בְּאָזְנֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ לֵאמֹר אַךְ אִם אַתָּה לוּ שְׁמָעֵנִי נָתַתִּי כֶּסֶף הַשָּׂדֶה קַח מִמֶּנִּי וְאֶקְבְּרָה אֶת מֵתִי שָׁמָּה.
Gen 23:12 Then Abraham bowed low before the people of the land, 23:13 and spoke to Ephron in the hearing of the people of the land, saying, “If only you would hear me out! Let me pay the price of the land; take it from me, so that I may bury my dead there.”

If Ephron is ambiguous about whether he is offering the field as a gift or a purchase, Abraham’s response now is unambiguous, emphasizing yet again that he is going to pay for it. Why is this point so important to the narrator?

Land Must be Bought

Nathan MacDonald suggests that acceptance of a gift (rather than engaging in a legal purchase) establishes a situation of obligation and future reciprocity, and Abraham does not want to become entangled with the autochthonous inhabitants of the land in that way.[26] In this view, Abraham serves as a model of correct behavior for his descendants in the Persian period, who also should maintain their separation from the non-Israelite inhabitants surrounding them.[27]

In contrast, Mark Brett proposes that while the tomb in the machpelah is reserved for the Israelites exclusively, the story, which tells how the natives allowed Abraham to purchase land among them, is supposed to model how the Israelites, after they become the guardians of the land, should allow non-Israelites to gain rights to the land and live among them.[28] In this view, the text carries the message that natives and strangers can live together, harmoniously, without destroying the integrity of the cult of YHWH.[29]

The Price

When Abraham responds that he plans to pay for the plot, he again simply offers “the price”—previously he used the phrase “full price”—without first asking what it is. Apparently, this too was social convention: It was impolite to ask about a specific purchase price as the first item of business (as it still is in some cultures).

This leads to Ephron naming the value of the land as 400 shekels of silver:

‏בראשׁית כג:יד וַיַּעַן עֶפְרוֹן אֶת אַבְרָהָם לֵאמֹר לוֹ. כג:טו אֲדֹנִי שְׁמָעֵנִי אֶרֶץ אַרְבַּע מֵאֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף בֵּינִי וּבֵינְךָ מַה הִוא וְאֶת מֵתְךָ קְבֹר.
Gen 23:14 And Ephron replied to Abraham, saying to him, 23:15 “My lord, do hear me! A piece of land worth four hundred shekels of silver—what is it between you and me? Go and bury your dead.”

Ephron continues to employ conventions expected in a business negotiation in his comment, “What is it between you and me?” immediately after naming his opening figure. The expression seems designed to claim there is a rapport between the two so haggling is not necessary; the figure named is allegedly fair. Its use could indicate an expected counter-offer and possible additional rounds back and forth before a final figure is agreed, or it could indicate that Ephron was not open to haggling. As modern readers, we are not able to know its exact import any longer.

The price seems high in comparison to David’s 50 silver shekels for the threshing floor of Araunah, which becomes the site that houses the Jerusalem temple,[30] and Jeremiah’s 17 silver shekels for his uncle’s field in Anathoth (Jer 32:1–23). Yet it is lower than Omri’s 6,000 silver shekels for the land on which he built Samaria (1 Kgs 16:24). No dimensions are given for any of these plots of land, so it is hard to judge how much price-gouging is involved, even though it is likely this is a high price, either because it is Ephron’s opening figure but not the expected final figure after haggling or because it is non-negotiable.[31]

The price has symbolic value as it matches the number of years that Abram’s descendants will experience as sojourners (גרים) and slaves or servants (in Egypt) before returning to Canaan in the fourth generation with a great quantity of property (Gen 15:12–16). The figure should remind Abraham that the divine promise is still in effect, even if it will not be realized during his own lifetime.

Closing the Deal

Abraham does not hesitate:

בראשׁית כג:טז וַיִּשְׁמַע אַבְרָהָם אֶל עֶפְרוֹן וַיִּשְׁקֹל אַבְרָהָם לְעֶפְרֹן אֶת הַכֶּסֶף אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר בְּאָזְנֵי בְנֵי חֵת אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף עֹבֵר לַסֹּחֵר.
Gen 23:16 Abraham accepted Ephron’s terms. Abraham paid out to Ephron the money that he had named in the hearing of the sons of Heth—four hundred shekels of silver at the going merchants’ rate.

Abraham does not haggle over the price, either because that is not an option or because he wants to ensure the deal will not fall through. As was likely the norm in ancient times, no mention is made of a written contract; Ephron’s sale of his land rights to Abraham is narrated as an oral contract, with Hittite witnesses to both the agreed terms and Abraham’s payment in full, after which the rights were established for Abraham as an acquisition:

‏בראשׁית כג:יז וַיָּקָם שְׂדֵה עֶפְרוֹן אֲשֶׁר בַּמַּכְפֵּלָה אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי מַמְרֵא הַשָּׂדֶה וְהַמְּעָרָה אֲשֶׁר בּוֹ וְכָל הָעֵץ אֲשֶׁר בַּשָּׂדֶה אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל גְּבֻלוֹ סָבִיב. כג:יח לְאַבְרָהָם לְמִקְנָה לְעֵינֵי בְנֵי חֵת בְּכֹל בָּאֵי שַׁעַר עִירוֹ.
Gen 23:17 So Ephron’s land in Machpelah, near Mamre—the field with its cave and all the trees anywhere within the confines of that field—passed 23:18 to Abraham as his possession, in the presence of the sons of Heth, of all who entered the gate of his town.

The specific mention of the trees on the property, which have not been part of the earlier negotiations, is consistent with a legal description of what rights convey to the new owner of the property; Ephron did not retain the rights to them and all rights associated with the property transferred to Abraham.

A Piece of the Land of Canaan

Abraham is typically depicted as living a lifestyle involving camping outside established towns and moving periodically. He thus might have been expected to bury Sarah where she died in a simply marked, single grave as was done subsequently in the case of Rebekah’s nurse, Deborah (Gen 35:8) and Jacob’s favorite wife, Rachel (Gen 35:19).[32] Instead, an entire chapter is dedicated to the purchase of an agricultural field with a cave that is to serve as a tomb.

One hint to the importance of this purchase is the use of the phrase “land of Canaan” (ארץ כנען) in 23:14; this is seventh overall in the Abraham narrative. The number seven symbolized fulfillment, completion or finishing for the ancient Torah scribes.[33] Within ch. 23, this seventh appearance is paired with an earlier, sixth one in v. 2 to form an inclusio or envelope structure, a common literary device designed to emphasize the material between the repeated phrases.[34]

The point seems to be that the field and cave are Abraham’s first acquired land rights in Canaan. This was already noted by the Genesis Rabbah, who groups this story with that of two other biblical stories about purchases of land from Canaanite inhabitants:

בראשית רבה עט אמר ר' יודן בר' סימון זה אחד מג' מקומות שאין אומות העולם יכולין לונות את ישראל ולומר להם גזולים הם בידיכם, אילו הן מערת המכפלה ובית המקדש וקבורתו שליוסף, מערת המכפלה וישקל אברהם לעפרון, בית המקדש ויתן דוד לארנן וגו', קבורתו של יוסף ויקן את חלקת השדה.
 Genesis Rabba (§79) R. Yuden son of R. Simon said: “This is one of three places that the nations of the world cannot charge Israel and say to them ‘this is stolen [land] in your hands.’ They are: the cave of Machpelah, the Temple mount, and the burial plot of Joseph. The cave of Machpelah ‘Abraham paid Ephron’ (Genesis 23:16); the Temple mount ‘David gave Arnon’ (1 Chronicles 21:25), the burial plot of Joseph ‘And he bought the field’ (Genesis 33:19).”[35]

Here the rabbis are picking up on an important theme in this chapter, which emphasizes the legal nature of this purchase. Thus, the long story of Abraham purchasing a burial plot for Sarah from the local Sons of Heth represents the first step towards fulfilling the divine promise.

View Footnotes

Published 2021-10-27

  1. Stephen Russell has proposed that Abraham is specifically addressing a council or political body that controls administrative rights to the land associated, whose permission was needed to endorse the transfer (“Abraham’s Purchase of Ephron’s Land in Anthropological Perspective,” Biblical Interpretation 21.2 [2013]: 153–170 [at 164–168]). Raymond Westbrook had already raised the possibility, using Ugaritic and Hittite texts and Mesopotamian boundary stones, that the sons of Heth had been a party to the sale alongside Ephron in vv. 9–10, 17 and 20 (“Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah,” Israel Law Review 6, no. 1 [1971]: 29–38 [at 36–37]). Gerhard von Rad also had suggested that the consent of the entire population probably was necessary, but without offering comparative material or elaborating (Genesis: A Commentary, trans. John H. Marks, rev. ed., Old Testament Library [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1972], 247). While one might expect the town elders to perform such a function, they are not described specifically in this way. But following Joseph Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm in the Priestly History in Genesis,” Journal of Biblical Literature 128, no. 2 (2009): 225–241 (at 240), I see their role as intermediaries initially and witnesses later on. Ephraim Sand, on the other hand, accepts three positions simultaneously: the Hittites were witnesses, tribal elders, and a legal party to the transaction (“Two dialogue documents in the Bible: Genesis Chapter 23:3–18 and 1 Kings Chapter 5:15–25,” Zeitschrift für altorientalische und biblische Rechtgeschichte  8 [2002]: 88–130 [p. 100]).

  2. This combination of nouns is unique in the ancestral stories in Genesis but is close to the use of the expression in reverse order, גר ותו̇שב, in singular or plural form, in Leviticus 25:23, 35, 47. If the reversed order in v. 4 is meant to signal the quotation of another passage (following Seidel’s law), then it is likely that Leviticus 25:23 is specifically cited. It states that YHWH owns the land and the Israelites are only resident non-natives, so they are not to sell (מכר) the land silently or permanently, depending on how one translates לצמתת. Blenkinsopp specifically sees Abraham’s status as a גר ותו̇שב among them to “establish his eligibility as a purchaser of the land” (“Abraham as Paradigm,” 240).

  3. For three types of biblical polemic, see Yairah Amit, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative, trans. J. Chipman, Biblical Interpretation Series 25 (Leiden, Brill, 2000). She discusses the category of hidden polemic in pp. 93–98, 221–223.

  4. See, e.g. Leviticus 19:31, 20:6; Deuteronomy 18:11; 26:14; Isaiah 57:9; 65:4.

  5. For a discussion of teraphim, see Edelman, “Adjusting Social Memory,” with its citation of relevant secondary literature. For the two stage-process of burial and bestowal of ancestral status, see Edelman, “Living with Ancestral Spirits” and “Possible Rituals Involving the Dead Reflected in Isaiah 65:3–5 and 66:17,” in Approaching the Dead: Studies on Mortuary Ritual in the Ancient World, ed. Anne Katrine de Hemmer Gudme and Kirsi Valkama, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 118 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 2020), 96–121, both with citations of relevant secondary literature.

  6. Genesis 31:30; 1 Samuel 28:13; 2 Samuel 14:14 (?); Isaiah 8:19–20; Numbers 25:2 when read with Psalm 106:28.

  7. See, e.g. Isaiah 19:3, 29:4.

  8. Psalm 16:3.

  9. For more on the function of ancestors in monarchic-era Judah, the wider ancient Near East, and cultures today, see, e.g., Diana Edelman, “Living with Ancestral Spirits in Judah in the Iron Age and Persian Period,” in Entre dieux et hommes: anges, démons et autres... Actes du colloque organisé par le Collège de France, Paris, les 19–20 mai 2014, ed. Thomas Römer et al., Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 286 (Fribourg: Academic Press and Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2017), 135–171 [147–158]; and “Adjusting Social Memory in the Hebrew Bible: TheTeraphim,” in Congress Volume, Stellenbosch 2016, ed. L. Jonker, G. R. Kotzé and C. Maier, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 177 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 115–142 (at 127–135).

  10. Instead, she is to be interred so as not to become a source of ritual pollution (Num 19:11).

  11. For both phrases, “bury my dead” and “from before my face/sight” pointing to a hidden polemic against ancestral cult and consultation, see Diana Edelman, “Hidden Ancestral Polemics in the Book of Genesis?,” in Words, Ideas, Worlds: Biblical Essays in Honour of Yairah Amit, ed. Athalya Brenner and Frank H. Polak, Hebrew Bible Monographs 40 (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 2012), 32–53 (at 38–44). The latter expression has been seen to point to some sort of ancestral polemic also by Bray, “Genesis 23,” 71.

  12. Jason S. Bray, “Genesis 23––A Priestly Paradigm for Burial,” JSOT 60 (1993): 69–73 (at 70). For ancestor worship in ancient Israel, see, e.g., Theodore J. Lewis, Cults of the Dead in Ancient Israel and Ugarit, Harvard Semitic Monographs 39 (Atlanta: Scholars, 1989).

  13. Meir Sternberg, “The Double Cave and the Bible’s Art of Dialogue (Genesis 23),” Stuttgarter Theologische Themen 6 (2011): 83–92 (p. 90). He notes, “holiness must not be materialized; not in a temple, not in a grave” (ibid., 84).

  14. Some would see Abraham’s high status in the eyes of the locals to derive from the events narrated in Genesis 14 concerning his successful war against the four foreign kings and his great acquired wealth; so, e.g., Jacob Rosenberg and Avi Weiss, “Property Rights and Institutions in Biblical Society: The Purchase of the Cave of the Patriarchs,” European Journal of Political Economy 28 (2012): 279–285 (at 280).

  15. Von Rad, Genesis, 248; Sternberg, “Double Cave,” 85.

  16. John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical, Commentary on Genesis, 2nd ed., ICC 1 (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1951), 337; Rosenberg and Weiss, “Property Rights,” 281.

  17. Rosenberg and Weiss erroneously argue that all five uses of the verb שׁמע in vv. 6, 8, 11, 13, and 15 reject an offer just proposed by the other party (ibid, 281). This is not necessarily the case, however; they introduce a call for the other side to hear what the party speaking is proposing. There can be points of agreement included as well as points of difference yet to be negotiated. Both Herbert Petschow (“Die neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde und Genesis 23,” Journal of Cuneiform Studies 19, no. 4 [1965]: 103–120 [at 108, 112]) and Sand (“Two Dialogue Documents,” 90) apply the definition I just gave for what was transpiring in ch. 23 to dialogue contracts as well.

  18. Many go even further, suggesting that the Hittites would not have wanted Abraham to be able to change his status from a resident gēr to that of a landowner. So, for example, Westbrook, “Cave of Machpelah,”33–34; Blenkinsopp, “Abraham as Paradigm,” 239; Sand, “Two Dialogue Documents,” 95; Rosenberg and Weiss, “Property Rights,” 281 and more generally in the first and second exchange, Sternberg, “Double Cave,” 85–87. Yet, this potential granting of a one-time use of his cave for burial would not have required his giving Abraham temporary use of the land as well; the tomb was to be inside the cave. Also, it is not clearly established that a gēr could not acquire property rights in his country of residence.

  19. Many nouns, verbs, and adjectives have meanings that go well beyond the original meaning of the root from which they developed. Sometimes it can be hard to trace the logic of the path of the development even. Thus, the basic meaning of the root כפל is not necessarily a reliable indicator of what the term machpelah meant.

  20. If it were coterminous with one, the writer would have equated the two, using hammachpelah in apposition: the field (or: the cave), the machpelah. Contra, e.g., Nahum Sarna, who equates the machpelah with the field that contains the cave (The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis Be-reshit [Lincoln, NE: Jewish Publication Society, 2001], 158). The proposed understanding was voiced long ago by Selah Merrill, “The Cave of Machpelah,” The Old and New Testament Student 11, no. 6 (1890): 327–335 (at 327–328).

  21. In Sternberg’s reading (“Double Cave,” 87–88), Abraham mentions the cave’s location in order to signal he will not need to impinge on the field to access the gravesite and that Ephron then sees this as an opportunity to take advantage of Abraham by forcing him to buy the field as well as the cave, even though Abraham does not want the field.

  22. If this is the case, then Abraham has strategically reserved mention of the field to the end of his request, almost as an off-handed remark, just as David did in talking with Ahimelech the priest of Nob when seeking to secure the sword of Goliath kept in that sanctuary in 1 Samuel 21:8–9, before his intended flight to Goliath’s hometown of Gath.

  23. Gene Tucker (“The Legal Background of Genesis 23,” Journal of Biblical Literature 85.1 [1966]: 77–84) notes that such procedures were customary in Palestine in the late nineteenth century, citing Elihu Grant, The Peasantry of Palestine: The Life, Manners, and Customs of the Village: Illustrated with Original Photographs (Boston: Pilgrim, 1907), 147.

  24. Other examples of the use of the subjunctive particle lû or its variant form lûʾ with final aleph, followed by a perfect verb to express a volitional circumstance, are found e.g., in Numbers 14:2; 20:3; Deuteronomy 32:29: Joshua 7:7; Judges 8:19; 1 Samuel 14:30; Isaiah 48:18, and Isaiah 63:19.

  25. Skinner’s proposal that the formula, “O, that you would hear us/me,” always introduces a suggestion preferable to the one just advanced is not accurate; in vv. 14–15, for example, Abraham has already agreed to purchase rights to the land for its full price in v. 13, so Ephron’s naming of the price is not a preferable suggestion (Genesis, 337).

  26. Nathan MacDonald, “Driving a Hard Bargain? Genesis 23 and Models of Economic Exchange,” in Anthropology and Biblical Studies: Avenues of Approach, ed. Louise J. Lawrence and Mario I. Aguilar (Leiden: Brill, 2004), 79–96 (at 83, 93).

  27. Meir Sternberg reaches a similar understanding based on different reasoning. He notes how in the next chapter (24), Abraham sends back to Haran (Gen 11:31) for a wife for Isaac, signaling his resolve not to intermarry with the Canaanites. His insistence on burying Sarah on his own land, not among the Hittites on their land, reflects the same sentiment. In Sternberg’s view, Abraham is eschewing the establishment of formal ties with the natives that involve obligations or kinship. Sternberg, “Double Cave,” 87. He goes on to note, however, that the larger message of the story is “the distance and sometimes a tension between what God promises and what happens” (p. 92), particularly concerning the promise of land, making it worth telling in spite of the ideological fight elsewhere in the Bible against the worship of the dead.

  28. Mark G. Brett, “The Priestly Dissemination of Abraham,” Hebrew Bible and Ancient Israel  3, no. 1 (2014): 87–107 [96–98]. He specifically thinks the target audience for this message was living in the province of Yehud under Achaemenid rule (538–332 B.C.E.) and needed to adapt to an imperial situation where there were different types of land-holdings and mixed populations within the province of Yehud, the successor to the former kingdom of Judah (98). The tomb was located in what became the province of Edom at some point in the Persian period, which then was taken over as an administrative unit under the Greeks when they controlled the area and became Idumea in Greek, just as Yehud became Judea. The earliest textual reference to the province of Edom is found in Diodorus Siculus (Bibliotheca Historica 19.95.2 and 98.1) in his account of military events undertaken by Antigonus against the Nabateans in 312 BCE. In 19.98.1, he reports that the Dead Sea lay along the middle of the satrapy of Idumea (τὴν σατραπείαν τῆς Ἰδουμαίας). Since “satrapy” is a Persian administrative term, its use here indicates that Edom had already become an administrative unit under Persian rule, separate from Yehud. Otherwise, a Greek term like hyparchy would have been used to designate this administrative district. Even though the patriarchal tomb lay outside the province of Yehud, its acquisition still could be used to model desired behavior among Judeans in Yehud in the Persian period. At the end of the Persian period and in the opening years of Ptolemaic imperial rule over Edom/Idumea, the population was mixed ethnically. The personal names in the Idumean ostraca found during illicit digging in the region of Idnah are Arab (32%), Edomite (27%), Judean (10%), and Phoenician (5%), with the rest non-descript West Semitic (25%) and a few Egyptian. For details, see Ian Stern, “The Population of Persian Period Idumea According to the Ostraca: A Study of Ethnic Boundaries and Ethnogenesis,” in A Time of Change: Judah and its Neighbors in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Period, ed. Yigal Levin (London: Bloomsbury, 2007), 205–238.

  29. This message would then serve to counter the opposite view presented in Ezra-Nehemiah.

  30. See 2 Samuel 24:18–35. Note that it becomes 600 gold shekels in 1 Chronicles 21:18–26.

  31. Editor’s note: For silver and pricing in the biblical period, see Tzilla Eshel, “How Silver Was Used for Payment,” TheTorah (2018).

  32. This suggestion is based on practice among nomadic Bedouin tribes in Jordan; settled or semi-settled tribes bury in cemeteries close to the villages where some of clan members live. See Mairna Mustafa and Sultan Abu Tayeh, “Comments on Bedouin Funeral Rites in the Writings of Western Travelers and Explorers from the Late 19th and Early 20th Centuries,” Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry 14, no.1 (2014): 51–63. Deborah and Rachel were buried where they died while Jacob was in transit, while Sarah died while she and Abraham were dwelling outside Kiryat-arba.

  33. For the symbolic meaning of the number seven, see Meir Paran, Forms of the Priestly Style in the Pentateuch: Patterns, Linguistic Usages, Syntactical Structures (Jerusalem: Magness, 1989), 155, 198, 204–205. (Editor’s note: See also Elaine Goodfriend, “Seven, the Biblical Number,” TheTorah [2021].) The six preceding uses are in Genesis 12:5 (twice), 13:12, 16:3, and 17:8, and 23:2. Here I differ from Wilfried Warning, who considers Genesis 23:2 the seventh occurrence (“Terminological patterns and Genesis 23,” Old Testament Essays 14, no. 3 [2001]: 533–543 [at 535, 538]). He begins with Genesis 11:31, ארצה כנען which I have excluded from the count because it is not an example of the typical construct chain, ארץ כנען, but instead, the noun “land” (ארץ) with a directional adverbial suffix, -ah (ה), followed by Canaan, in apposition.

  34. The fact that the purchase is a tomb has two further important functions. The depiction of the subsequent interment of the three most important patriarchs, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, as well as the matriarchs Rebekah and Leah in the multi-generational tomb in the cave in the machpelah creates a family out of what likely had been independent eponymous tribal or clan figures who now serve as the forefathers of all Israelites. (So noted also by, e.g., Levin, “Abraham erwirbt,” 113.)  Second, as discussed above, it endorses the use of such traditional family tombs as final resting places for deceased humans, rather than their representation by teraphim or their being viewed as spiritualized ancestors with knowledge and power to affect events among the living.

  35. The rabbinic text here expresses some anxiety about the legitimacy of claiming land merely based on a divine promise. Editor’s note: For another discussion of this theme, see Jason Radine, “The Torah Begins with Creation to Defend Israel’s Right to the Land?” TheTorah (2020).