**The reason שנה is written with every set...**I.e., and Scripture does not gather the ones and the tens in a set, and the hundreds in a separate set, as it did in Parshiyos Bereishis and Noach. Rashi’s is not asking why it says שנה for 100 years whereas it says שנים for seven years, for also in Parshiyos Bereishis and Noach it is always written שנה for hundreds, and שנים for smaller numbers. Rather, Rashi’s question is about the middle שנה, written after twenty, for שנה is never written three times. Perforce, it is meant to be expounded upon. Since one of them is to be expounded, so too are the rest to be expounded.

That every set is to be explained by itself. I.e., each set bears its own meaning and does not join with the other sets to form a single sum, as numbers composed of ones, tens and hundreds usually do. This is because the repetitive שנה divides them, placing the ones on their own, and so the tens and the hundreds. According to this [Midrashic interpretation], it is not twenty-seven plus one hundred. Rather, twenty-seven represents the first years within the one hundred.

At one hundred years old she was like a twenty year old, regarding sin. Rashi implies that from this comparison we learn that all Sarah’s days were good. But Rashi’s next comment — “‘The years of Sarah’s life,’ they were all equally good” — implies that “The years of Sarah’s life” comes to teach that all her days were good. If so, Rashi seems to be contradicting himself! But in fact, this is not a question. On the contrary, from the comparison of one hundred to twenty regarding sin, we would not know that at one hundred she was beautiful as at twenty, since we learn only one quality from each set by itself. Therefore, we still need “‘The years of Sarah’s life,’ they were all equally good.” A further answer: Since שנה is repeated in order to compare one hundred to twenty, which are the first twenty years counting from her birth [see previous entry], therefore, the “twenty-seven” years are within the one hundred and are not the additional years after the one hundred that the verse’s simple meaning infers. If so, we might think that during the twenty-seven years after the one hundred, she had sin and not beauty. This is why we need “The years of Sarah’s life,” to tell us that they were all equally good. And from “The years of Sarah’s life” alone, we would know just that her years were equally good in one quality. Thus it says שנה after each set, to compare them in both qualities: lack of sin and that she possessed beauty. And “The years of Sarah’s life” applies to both [qualities, telling us that in all her years she possessed beauty and she was without sin]. (R. Meir Stern)

Just as when she was twenty she was not considered as having sinned... Question: Here, Rashi implies that right after turning twenty she was subject to [Heavenly] punishment. But regarding “Noach produced Sheim...” (5:32), Rashi said that before the Torah was given, people were not subject to [Heavenly] punishment until the age of one hundred? The answer is: Sarah was subject to punishment right after turning twenty because they accepted the Torah upon themselves—and after the Torah was given, people were subject to punishment from the age of twenty. Thus, Scripture is telling us that even by post-Torah standards, she was without sin. (Re’m)

So called because of the four giants that were there... Re’m writes: However, I do not know what brought Chazal to say that Kiryas Arba was named after the four giants [or the four couples], when the city’s ruler was himself named Arba! It is written: “And the name of Hebron previously was Kiryas Arba; he was the greatest man among the giants” (Yehoshua 14:15). Chazal should have said that Kiryas Arba means “the city of the man named Arba,” and then explain why he was named Arba, rather than why the city was named Arba. The Re’m answers: Perhaps it is because Chazal found a reason for the city to be called Arba, but not for its ruler to be called Arba. Therefore they explained that the city was so called because of [the four giants or] the four couples — and the city’s ruler was also called Arba, after his city’s name.

Another explanation: So called because of the four couples that were buried there... Both explanations are needed, because each on its own raises the question: Why does the city’s name not reflect the reason for its origin? If after the four giants, it should be named Kiryas Anakim, and if after the four couples, it should be named Kiryas Zugos — but not Kiryas Arba. Since it makes no difference that there were exactly four giants, or couples, the city should not be called after a number which is not the reason for its name. That is why Rashi uses both explanations — to say that Kiryas Arba is called after the fact that it contains certain things which relate to the number four. E.g., it has four giants and four couples. But it was not called after one thing alone. Furthermore, we could even say it was called after the thing itself, but was called a number for the sake of brevity. The word “Arba,” alludes to two things the city has, both related to the number four. And since both are equally alluded to, both are included. (R. Meir Stern)

From Beer Sheva. You might ask: How does Rashi know this? The answer is: Since the verse does not specify where he came from, it must be from where he dwelled before. And Beer Sheva, written in 22:19, is the only place mentioned by Scripture in which Avraham dwelled after the Akeidah.

Sarah’s death immediately follows the Akeidah of Yitzchok... Rashi does not mean that the sections are juxtaposed, because if so he should have said this at the beginning of the Parshah. Furthermore, how does he know that this is not the section’s proper place, [so that the juxtaposition is significant]? Rather, [Rashi means that the events] are juxtaposed in time, as Chazal had an oral tradition that Sarah died close to the Akeidah, and they found support for this in the phrase, “Avraham came.” [Although Avraham came from Beer Sheva, he was there for just a short while (see Rashi on 22:19), so it is as if he came straight from the Akeidah.] (Re’m)

As a result of the news of the Akeidah, that her son had been prepared for slaughter... Otherwise, why does the Torah write, “Avraham came,” teaching that he came from Mount Moriah? [See end of previous entry.] Perforce it is to tell us, “As a result...”

And almost not been slaughtered, her soul departed from her and she died. You might ask: Should Rashi not have said, “Almost been slaughtered”? The answer is: An emissary came from Mount Moriah, told her about the Akeidah, and began to say how her son had been prepared for slaughter. He delayed the end of his account that Yitzchok was actually saved from slaughter. He “almost” told her that Yitzchok had “not been slaughtered,” but a moment before, she became so shocked by his words that her spirit and soul departed. (Mahara’i)

For God has told me, “To your descendants I will give this land.” You might ask: Rashi explained in Parshas Lech Lecha, on “The Canaanites and the Perizzites were then living in the land” (13:7), that Avraham did not yet have possession of the land. Does this not imply that Avraham did not have a portion in it as yet? The answer is: In the above verse, Avraham did not yet have children, but now he did. This is why Rashi states here that Hashem said to him: “To yourdescendants I will give this land” — and now he had descendants. Accordingly, [Avraham said to them]: “At least grant me the possession of a grave site, although my descendants are not yet ready to inherit the land, as they are still few.”

The possession of land to serve as a burial place. Rashi is answering the question: How can the word אחוזה apply to a grave, which is a cavity in the ground? The word אחוזה applies only to an object with substance! Therefore Rashi says an אחוזה of land to serve as a burial place. Accordingly, אחוזה refers to the land. But Re’m explains that [Rashi is answering the question:] The word אחוזה applies to land that is at a person’s disposal. How then can it apply to a grave, which is set aside for the dead? Therefore Rashi explains that [Avraham asked] them to give him land for an אחוזה, and he will make graves there.

Will not withhold as in, “You will not withhold (לא תכלא) ...” Although the word in our verse ends with a ה, and the word cited by Rashi ends with an א, they still mean the same: “will not withhold.” [Rashi is saying that] our verse does not mean “destruction” (כליון), as in “Destruction (כלה) shall come upon them” (18:21), or “For destruction (כלה) and annihilation” (Yeshayahu 10:23), although those words indeed end with a ה like the word in this verse (יכלה). This is because this verse would not be understandable if יכלה meant “destruction.”

Another explanation: It is doubled with couples. [You might ask: Why did Rashi need to bring two explanations? The answer is:] These two explanations reflect two opinions in Eiruvin 53a. They are telling us not to mistakenly think that the cave itself was double—one cave within the other, or one cave on top of the other—for then it should have said מערה הכפולה, “the double cave.” Since מערה lacks the ת of the construct state, כפולה [would consequently be an adjective and] its feminine ה would refer back to [the feminine] מערה. But with מערת in the construct state, המכפלה is a noun meaning “doubleness.” Thus, מערת המכפלה denotes “a cave of some other doubleness.” One opinion is that it was so named for the doubleness of the building (a house with an upper level above it) and the other opinion is that it was so named for the doubleness of the couples. And since Rashi does not decide which is closer to the plain meaning of Scripture, he cites both; they are equally good. A further answer: Rashi held that each explanation on its own raises the question: Why was the cave called מכפלה, after its doubleness, thereby omitting the main reason for its name? It should have been called after the main reason: according to one opinion, “Cave of House and Upper Level” or “Cave of Double Building”. And according to the other opinion, “Cave of Couples” or “Cave of Doubled Couples.” This is why Rashi brings both explanations—to say that it was called after the fact that it has certain things which relate to doubleness. These are: building and couples. But it was not called so for relating to only one matter. Alternatively, it was [so called] for the sake of brevity, to include two things in the word מכפלה. [Since both are equally hinted to,] both are included. We explained the name “Kiryas Arba” along similar lines.

On that day they appointed him an officer over them... If it were written יושב it would be in the present tense, denoting that he once lived as an equal in the midst of the sons of Cheis, and he still does. But it is written ישב, in the past tense, denoting that he once lived in their midst as an equal but no longer. [Therefore, Rashi deduces] that on that day they appointed him to be an officer.

For they all left their work and came... It seems that Rashi deduced this from the fact that here it is written, “Who came to the city gate,” whereas in the story of Shechem it is written, “Who left the city gate” (34:24). Each verse makes a different point: Here, it teaches that even if someone had to do work, he left it to come pay respects to Sarah. There, it teaches that even if someone urgently needed to leave, he did not, but first circumcised himself—in order to cleave to the offspring of Yaakov. (Nachalas Yaakov)

I do not wish this... Rashi needed [to add] this phrase, due to the word אך which always comes to exclude something stated previously. Here it excludes [Ephron’s previous offer, by saying]: “I do not wish this...”

And I wish that I had already given it to you. [Rashi makes this comment] because here it is speaking of money, which must be actually handed over [to validate the transaction]. However [in v. 11 it speaks of] land, which is at one’s disposal [one can say] “as though I have already given it to you.” This is because land [is readily available and] doe need to be collected. (Maharshal) But R. Meir Stern writes: Here it says נתתי כסף, past tense, although it should have used future tense and said: “I will give you the money.” And Rashi explains it as: “I wish that I had already given it to you.” And also in v. 11 it said השדה נתתיה, past tense, although it should have used future tense. Yet, Rashi explained it as: “As though I have already given it to you.” Why does Rashi explain it differently? [The answer is:] Here, Avraham said afterward: “Take it from me.” If נתתי כסף meant, “As though I have already given it to you,” he would not then say, “Take it from me.” If he already “gave” Ephron the money, then Ephron already “received” it, since by definition, giving entails receiving. That is why Rashi explains it as: “I wish that I had already given.” Then it understandable for Avraham to say: “Therefore, now, take it from me.” But on v. 11, Rashi could not explain as he does here, because here it is written לו שמעני נתתי, and לו means “if only.” Here, לו can refer both to שמעני, “If only you would listen to me,” and to נתתי, “If only I had already given.” But in v. 11 it does not [say לו]. However, if it were not written here, “Take it from me,” we would not be forced to say that לו refers also to נתתי; we would say it refers only to שמעני. And we would rather have explained נתתי as in v. 11: [“As though I have already given it to you.”].

Between two friends such as we are, what significance does it have... Rashi is answering the question: Why did Ephron say, “Between me and you”? How was Avraham different from anyone else? Rashi answers: “Between two friends such as we are.” Rashi then answers another question: Why did Ephron say: ואת מתך קבור (“And bury your dead”? Rashi answers: Ephron was saying: “Disregard the sale, and bury your dead.” ואת relates to, “Disregard the sale.”

Without a vav because he said much... [You might ask:] Are not יעקב and אהרן also spelled without a vav? [The answer is:] עפרון is spelled with a vav throughout the parshah, and only here is written missing a vav. Therefore, it is to be expounded. But יעקב and אהרן are always without a vav. Where they have a vav, it is to be expounded.

It was elevated for it left the possession of a commoner to the possession of a king. [Accordingly,] ויקם does not mean acquisition, as in (Vayikra 25:30): “The house in the walled city shall be established (וקם), to the one who bought it,” where Rashi explains that possession is transferred from the seller to the buyer’s control. This is because there, the verse mentions the buyer after וקם, unlike here. [You might object: Here too, the next verse says]: “This became Avraham’s through a purchase” — [thus mentioning the buyer after ויקם. The answer is:] That is not a continuation of the previous verse, since the ta’amei hamikra divide [it into a separate verse].

The simple meaning of the verse is: The field came into... It seems we could ask either way: If the simple meaning works well, [why do we need the first explanation?] Rashi does not usually bring a Midrash without reason! And if the simple meaning does not work well, why bring it? This question should be asked whenever Rashi brings both. The answer is: The simple meaning, on its own, raises a question. It is redundant to say, “The field of Ephron... became Avraham’s through a purchase.” Why say, “Of Ephron”? Do we not already know it was his field? Perforce, an elevation took place specifically for the field of Ephron—it previously belonged to a commoner, Ephron. However, the exposition by the Midrash of “elevation,” when on its own, also raises a question. The verse already said, “The field of Ephron was established.” Why say again, “The field and the cave...”? A further problem with the Midrash, [when on its own, is that] the next verse לאברהם למקנה. becomes somewhat disjointed Thus Rashi brings also the simple meaning: the field, etc, came into Avraham’s possession. It says, “The field of Ephron,” and then repeats, “The field and the cave...” in order to indicate both explanations. Accordingly, ויקם applies to both. It applies to “The field of Ephron” to indicate “elevation.” And it applies to “The field and the cave” to indicate that it came into Avraham’s possession. In the simple meaning, ויקם denotes that possession of the field was transferred from the seller’s control and was established to the buyer, as Rashi exsimpleed on (Vayikra 25:30), “The house in the walled city shall be established (וקם)...” The questions of Re’m, and of the Minchas Yehudah who came after him, are thus resolved. There is no need for their forced explanations, as ויקם שדה and וקם הבית both mean the same. In the simple meaning, ויקם השדה means that possession of the field was established in the buyer’s control, the same as Rashi exsimpleed for וקם הבית. Rashi understands the word וקם to mean “shall be established,” and only says “in the control of the buyer” to exsimple that verse’s following phrase: “To the one who bought it.” The same applies here: ויקם means the field was established to Avraham. Whereas Re’m and Minchas Yehudah understood that according to Rashi there, וקם means “acquisition” [and thus conflicts with its meaning here]. But this is not so, and it is difficult to understand why they said this. (R. Meir Stern)

And in the presence of all, he gave him possession. [The prefix] ב usually denotes “within.” But since “within” or “inside” does not fit here, Rashi says: “In the presence of all.” Rashi did not wish to explain here as in v. 10, that everyone left their work, because then Scripture should have written לכל, as it does there. Why is it written בכל, implying he was amongst them? Perforce, it is to be interpreted as “in the presence of all.”