Avraham's Oath and the Conquest of Yerushalayim

Why We Need to Know that Yoav was Buried in the Desert:

Have you ever paid attention to how one thing leads to another, which leads to another, and so on, and before you know it, you've ended- up somewhere seemingly unrelated to where you began? If you've ever actually focused on this phenomenon, it's truly fascinating and gives you reason to pause and consider just how much the world, its history and its concepts are all intimately woven together.

Let's look at an example from this week's parashah. What does the prohibition against eating offerings outside of the place that Hashem shall choose have to do with the story of Avraham buying Ma'arat ha-Machpelah, and what does that have to do with the conquest of Yerushalayim (then called 'Yevus') in the days of David ha-Melech? If you have no idea, read on. We think you'll find this a fascinating journey.

It is written (Devarim 12:17): לֹא־תוּכַל לֶאֱכֹל בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ מַעְשַׂר דְּגָנְךָ וְתִירֹשְׁךָ וְיִצְהָרֶךָ וּבְכֹרֹת בְּקָרְךָ וְצֹאנֶךָ וְכׇל־נְדָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּדֹּר וְנִדְבֹתֶיךָ וּתְרוּמַת יָדֶךָ׃ (You can't eat in your gates [i.e. your cities], the tithe of your grain, and your wine, and your oil, and your firstlings of your cattle and your flock; and all your vow-offerings which you vow, and your freewill-offerings, and that which is raised of your hand [i.e. the firstfruits]). Rather, we're supposed to eat all of these offerings in the place that Hashem will choose (v. 18), i.e. Yerushalayim, but which at the time that Moshe Rabbeinu said these words, hadn't yet been chosen.

As you will have noticed, we translated the first few words of this pasuk as precisely as possible, i.e. 'You can't eat', or perhaps better, 'You are not able to eat'. What did Moshe mean when he said, 'You can't...'? This seems strange. It's not possible to eat them there? Why isn't it possible? Rashi tells us the following: רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה אוֹמֵר יָכוֹל אַתָּה, אֲבָל אֵינְךָ רַשַּׁאי (R' Yehoshua ben Korchah says, 'You can [or 'you are able'], rather you are not allowed'). This is classic. When we were children, how many times were we taught that we shouldn't have said, for example, "Can I have a cookie?" Rather, we should have said, "May I have a cookie?" The word 'can' denotes ability whereas the word 'may' denotes permission. Likewise, in teaching our own children, we may have emphasized the same point because we wanted them to distinguish between being able to do something versus being given permission to do something. Very nice. However, here, R' Yehoshua ben Korchah tells us that even though the pasuk uses the word 'can', it actually means 'may'. Interesting. So much for English grammar.

Anyway, how does R' Yehoshua ben Korchah know that לֹא־תוּכַל can mean 'you may not' instead of 'you cannot'? He cites Yehoshua 15:63 which says that B'nei Yehudah were not able to drive out the Yevusi from the city of Yerushalayim: וְאֶת־הַיְבוּסִי יוֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם לֹא־יָכְלוּ בְנֵי־יְהוּדָה לְהוֹרִישָׁם וַיֵּשֶׁב הַיְבוּסִי אֶת־בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה בִּירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (B'nei Yehudah weren't able to drive out the Yevusi, the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, and the Yevusi dwell with B'nei Yehudah in Yerushalayim to this very day). But wait a minute. They weren't able to drive them out, or they didn't have permission to drive them out? After all, it's the same basic phrase (לֹא־יָכְלוּ) as we had above (לֹא־תוּכַל). As Rashi says: יְכוֹלִים הָיוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָן רַשָּׁאִין (They were able, rather they didn't have permission). They didn't have permission to conquer Yerushalayim? Yes, they didn't have permission. Why not?

Rashi cites a rather lengthy passage in Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer 36 where the whole backstory is brought down. Through a series of apparent coincidences, Avraham Avinu discovered that Adam and Chavah were buried in an old cave in Chevron, now known as Ma'arat ha-Machpelah, and he very much desired to buy it as a burial possession. He approached the local inhabitants, the B'nei Chet [the 'Hittites'] to discuss the purchase. In those days (unlike today), all the goyim knew that Hashem had promised Eretz Cana'an to Avraham and his descendants. Knowing this, there was little, if anything, they could do to prevent losing control of the land to Avraham's family. Yet, the B'nei Chet put up a fight. They insisted that the only way for them to agree to Avraham's purchase of the cave was if he made an oath that neither he nor his descendants would conquer the city of Yerushalayim without their explicit permission. In the words of Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer 36: אמרו, אנו יודעים שעתיד הב"ה ליתן לך ולזרעך את כל הארצות האלה, כרות עמנו שבועה שאין ישראל יורשים את עיר יבוס, כי אם ברצונם. ואח"כ קנה את המכפלה במכר זהב ובכתב עולם לאחוזת עולם (They said [to Avraham], We know that in the future, the Holy One, blessed be He, will give to you and to your descendants, all of these lands. Make an oath with us that Yisrael has no inheritance to the city of Yevus, except according to their will. After that, he [Avraham] acquired the cave through a gold purchase, with a perpetual deed, as an inheritance forever).

Now why would the B'nei Chet care about the city of Yevus? The B'nei Chet lived in Chevron, not in Yerushalayim, right? Wrong. They also lived in Yerushalayim. The so-called Yevusi of Yerushalayim were, in fact, the same people as the B'nei Chet of Chevron. (It's much like today: they may go by different names depending on where they live, to fool the ignorant – Arabs, Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Gazans, etc. – but the truth of the matter is that they're all the same people with the same purpose – כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד בְּלֵב אֶחָד, to quote Rashi from another context.)

So what did the people of Yevus do? According to R' Eliezer, they made images of copper and set them up in the main thoroughfare of the city, and they wrote on them the words of the oath that Avraham had sworn to the B'nei Chet. Pretty clever, eh? Therefore, when B'nei Yisrael entered Eretz Cana'an, the tribe of Binyamin did not take possession of Yerushalayim (Shofetim 1:21): וְאֶת־הַיְבוּסִי יֹשֵׁב יְרוּשָׁלַ͏ִם לֹא הוֹרִישׁוּ בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן וַיֵּשֶׁב הַיְבוּסִי אֶת־בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן בִּירוּשָׁלַ͏ִם עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה (B'nei Binyamin did not drive out the Yevusi, the inhabitants of Yerushalayim, and the Yevusi dwell with B'nei Binyamin in Yerushalayim even to this day). They didn't drive them out, not because they were incapable of conquering the city, but because they did not have the permission to do so because of the oath that Avraham had sworn to these people.

Many, many years passed – the entire period of the judges, the reign of Shaul ha-Melech and the early years of David's kingship when he reigned in Chevron, and yet the city remained occupied by the Yevusi. What could B'nei Yisrael do in the face of Avraham's oath?

After David ha-Melech had been accepted as king by all the tribes, he marched to Yerushalayim in order to take it. However, he turned back when he saw the images with the words of Avraham's oath on them (Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer 36): והיו ישראל כחול הים, אלא בכח השבועה וברית אברהם ראה דוד וחזר לאחוריו, שנ' וישב דוד במצודה (And Yisrael were like the sand of the sea [for number], yet because of the power of the oath and the covenant of Avraham, David saw and turned back, as it says [Shemuel Bet 5:9]: 'And David dwelt in the fort'). In other words, David didn't conquer the actual city of Yevus; rather, he captured only a fort known as Tzion (which became known as the City of David). This is stated in Divrei ha-Yamim Aleph 11:5: וַיֹּאמְרוּ יֹשְׁבֵי יְבוּס לְדָוִיד לֹא תָבוֹא הֵנָּה וַיִּלְכֹּד דָּוִיד אֶת־מְצֻדַת צִיּוֹן הִיא עִיר דָּוִיד (And the inhabitants of Yevus said to David, 'You will not come here.' So David captured [only] the fort of Tzion, which is the City of David).

We read more of the story in Shemuel Bet 5:6: וַיֹּאמֶר לְדָוִד לֵאמֹר לֹא־תָבוֹא הֵנָּה כִּי אִם־הֱסִירְךָ הַעִוְרִים וְהַפִּסְחִים (And they [the inhabitants of Yevus] said to David, saying, 'You will not come in here unless you remove the blind and the lame). Who or what were the blind and the lame of which they spoke? A clue is provided in v. 8 where the pasuk says that David hated them: שְׂנוּאֵינֶפֶשׁ דָּוִד (hated of David's soul). Why would David hate blind and lame people?

Pirkei d'Rabbi Eliezer explains: אמר דוד לאנשיו, כל מי שיעלה בראשונה ויסיר את הצלמים הללו שכתוב עליהם אות ברית שבועת אברהם יהיה לראש (David said to his men, 'Whoever goes up first and removes these images that have the covenant, the oath of Avraham, written on them, will be the leader'). The 'blind and the lame' were the idolatrous images that the inhabitants of Yevus had set up, upon which they had written the words of Avraham's oath. And why were these idols called 'the blind and the lame'? Our sages have offered different explanations, but the simple answer is because of what is written in Tehillim 115:4-7: עֲצַבֵּיהֶם כֶּסֶף וְזָהָב מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי אָדָם׃ פֶּה־לָהֶם וְלֹא יְדַבֵּרוּ עֵינַיִם לָהֶם וְלֹא יִרְאוּ׃ אׇזְנַיִם לָהֶם וְלֹא יִשְׁמָעוּ אַף לָהֶם וְלֹא יְרִיחוּן׃ יְדֵיהֶם וְלֹא יְמִישׁוּן רַגְלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יְהַלֵּכוּ לֹא־יֶהְגּוּ בִּגְרוֹנָם׃ (Their idols are silver and gold, the work of man's hands: they have a mouth but they can't speak, eyes but can't see, ears but can't hear, nose but can't smell, hands but can't feel, feet but can't walk, they can't speak from their throat). And this explains why David hated them. He hated them davka because they were idolatrous images.

Now we can understand how it was permissible to take the city of Yerushalayim even in the face of Avraham's oath. The oath stipulated that Avraham's descendants had no claim to Yerushalayim except according to the will of the inhabitants of Yevus. In their arrogance, they provided the opening for the Jews to be released from Avraham's oath. If the Jews could take down the images with the oath written on them, then they would have the right to the city. So David asked for a champion who would lead the charge. And who took up the challenge? It was Yoav, the son of David's sister (Divrei ha-Yamim Aleph 11:6): וַיַּעַל בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה יוֹאָב בֶּן־צְרוּיָה וַיְהִי לְרֹאשׁ (And Yoav ben Tzeruyah went up first, and he became the leader).

From where did Yoav receive the confidence that he could conquer the city in the face of Avraham's oath? What was his merit? The clue is provided in a couple of cryptic pesukim. After he conquered the city, we read an amazing fact about his conduct (Divrei ha-Yamim Aleph 11:8): וְיוֹאָב יְחַיֶּה אֶת־שְׁאָר הָעִיר (And Yoav sustained [literally, 'kept alive'] the rest of the city). Many commentators understand that יְחַיֶּה indicates that Yoav rebuilt the city, and that is how he gave it life and sustenance. However, the Gemara understands this word differently (Sanhedrin 49a): אמר רב יהודה אפילו מוניני וצחנתא טעים פריס להו (Rav Yehudah said, Even small fish that he [Yoav] would taste, he would distribute to them [to the inhabitants of the city]). Rashi comments about Yoav's kindness, that he provided the inhabitants not only with the basic staples of life, but אפילו דברים דקים וענוגים (even fine delicacies and treats).

What do we learn here about Yoav? He was exceptionally generous, a true ba'al chesed. Further proof of his amazing generosity is provided in a statement regarding his burial. The pasuk says (Melachim Aleph 2:34): וַיִּקָּבֵר בְּבֵיתוֹ בַּמִּדְבָּר (And he was buried in his house, in the desert). But Yoav didn't live in the desert; he lived in Yerushalayim. So what do these words mean? Rashi explains שֶׁהָיָה בֵּיתוֹ הֶפְקֵר כַּמִּדְבָּר לַעֲנִיִּים (that his house was hefker [i.e. ownerless], like the desert, for the poor [to take freely what they needed]). Who does this sound like? It sounds like Avraham Avinu whose tent was open on all four sides to make it convenient for travelers to enter freely and be shown kindness and hospitality (see Bereshit Rabbah 48:9).

The Gemara adds more praise upon Yoav (Sanhedrin 49a): אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כמדבר מה מדבר מופקר לכל אף ביתו של יואב מופקר לכל דבר אחר כמדבר מה מדבר מנוקה מגזל ועריות אף ביתו של יואב מנוקה מגזל ועריות (Rav Yehudah said that Rav said [that it means], 'like a desert'. Just as a desert is hefker for all [i.e. to take freely what they need], so was Yoav's house hefker to all. Alternatively, 'like a desert' means that just as a desert is clean of theft and sexual immorality, so was Yoav's house clean of theft and sexual immorality). And even though Yoav was away from home frequently, engaged in waging wars on behalf of his king, his house continued to operate in this way, free from theft, free from sexual immortality and completely open to the poor. What a testimony!

So how was Yoav able to take David up on the challenge to conquer Yerushalayim and remove the idols bearing Avraham's oath? It was in the merit of showing chesed 24 hours a day and for keeping the holy brit pure and clean, not just for him personally but for his entire household!

Therefore, we should internalize this lesson for us today: if we really want Yerushalayim to be a holy city, free from the occupation of the B'nei Chet of our day, a city in which Mashiach can reign in purity and kedushah, then we need to work on our chesed and our kedushah, for that is the only way for Yerushalayim to be conquered by B'nei Yisrael.