Parashat Chayei-Sara begins by telling of Sara’s death and Avraham’s subsequent purchase of Me’arat Ha-makhpela as a burial site.  Ibn Ezra (23:19) comments that this story is recorded in the Torah in order to demonstrate “the greatness of the Land of Israel for both the living and the dead.”  Seemingly, this means that Avraham’s efforts to secure a burial plot for Sara in the Land of Israel shows the importance he afforded to the value of residing in Israelnot only during one’s lifetime, but even after death.  (Ibn Ezra further comments that this incident is significant in that it marks the first stage in the fulfillment of God’s promise that Avraham and his offspring would possess Eretz Yisrael.)

 

            The Ramban notes the obvious difficulty with Ibn Ezra’s comment, namely, that Avraham’s purchase of a burial plot for Sara does not necessarily demonstrate the immense value of the Land of Israel.  Avraham lived in Eretz Yisrael and, as the Torah emphasizes in the second verse of this parasha, it was there where Sara died.  The fact that Avraham scrambled to purchase a burial plot in the Land of Israel could just as easily be attributed to immediate practical necessity, rather than to the unique quality of Eretz Yisrael.  The Ramban thus argues that this episode must have been recorded for a different purpose.  In his view, the Torah wrote this incident “to show God’s kindness to Avraham, who was ‘the prince of God’ in the land in which he had come to reside…and all the people called him ‘my master’.”  Throughout Avraham’s exchange with the Chittites, they speak to him with great respect and reverence, despite his humility and unassuming nature.  According to the Ramban, the Torah recorded this event to demonstrate that God’s blessing, “va-agadela shemekha” (“I shall exalt your name” – 12:2) was fulfilled already during his lifetime, as he earned the honor and esteem of the land’s residents.  Additionally, the Ramban writes, the Torah wished to inform us of the burial site of our sacred patriarchs and matriarchs, so that we can afford proper respect to that site.

 

            In defense of Ibn Ezra, Rav Yechiel Michel Feinstein (in the posthumously published volume, Chiddushei Ha-Grim) suggested that the greatness of Eretz Yisrael is demonstrated not through the episode itself, but rather through the fact that it was deemed worthy of mention.  True, as the Ramban noted, Avraham’s purchase of Me’arat Ha-makhpela arose, first and foremost, out of practical necessity.  But what impressed Ibn Ezra was that the Torah devoted a section to narrate this event, recording the entire exchange between Avraham and the Chittites.  Ibn Ezra felt that this can be explained only in light of the unique quality of Eretz Yisrael, which made the details of this otherwise ordinary transaction worthy of eternal commemoration.

 

            Interestingly, as Rav Feinstein noted, Ibn Ezra makes a similar remark later in his commentary (33:19), concerning Yaakov’s purchase of land outside the city of Shekhem upon his return to Canaan.  Once again, Ibn Ezra comments that this event was recorded to demonstrate the greatness of Eretz Yisrael.  In this context, however, the Ramban does not express any objection to Ibn Ezra’s theory.  The likely reason for the Ramban’s silence, Rav Feinstein explains, is that Yaakov was not compelled to purchase land near Shekhem.  In fact, he stayed in the region only temporarily, as he made his way toward Chevron.  Hence, the fact that he chose to purchase property may indeed indicate the importance of owning land in Eretz Yisrael.  In truth, however, Ibn Ezra refers not to the events themselves, but rather to the Torah’s decision to record these events.  Thus, regarding both Avraham’s purchase of Makhpela and Yaakov’s purchase of property near Shekhem, the fact that the Torah found these events noteworthy demonstrates the special quality of the land and hence the importance of acquiring property therein.