Negotiations Done in Bad Faith
Negotiations Done in Bad Faith

They say that negotiating is a type of art, a skill developed through practice. One cannot simply be guided by whim, nor can he rely on external factors like luck. The back-and-forth is in many ways a chess match, each participant seeking to find an advantage. In the Torah potion of Chayei Sarah, the Torah’s first business negotiation is presented between Avraham (the Patriarch Abraham) and Ephron the Hittite. One would be hard pressed to assume the Torah was injecting its own advice as to how to handle serious negotiations. Instead, we must search beyond the simple interpretation to find the idea or lesson. In this case, a glimpse into each personality offers us insights into the appropriate worldview.

Avraham, in searching for a burial place for Sarah, first turns to the locals. Their initial response was to offer him any spot of land he may so desire; after all, Avraham was a well-known and respected (he is referred to as a “prince”) citizen. Avraham refuses, requesting an audience with Ephron, the head honcho. Specifically, Avraham enunciates his request (Genesis 23:9):

That he may give me the Machpelah (double) Cave, which belongs to him, which is at the end of his field; for a full price let him give it to me in your midst for burial property.”

Ephron responds with what would appear to be a most magnanimous gesture (ibid 10-11):

Now Ephron was sitting in the midst of the sons of Heth, and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the sons of Heth, of all those who had come into the gate of his city, saying, ‘No, my lord, listen to me. I have given you the field, and the cave that is in it, I have given it to you. Before the eyes of the sons of my people, I have given it to you; bury your dead.’”

In all practical terms, Ephron was offering this specific piece of land for free. Yet, as we all know, Avraham again refuses, insisting on paying for it. Ephron replies (ibid 15):

My lord, listen to me; a [piece of] land worth four hundred shekels of silver, what is it between me and you? Bury your dead.”

Avraham replies in the affirmative, sealing the deal (ibid 16):

And Abraham listened to Ephron, and Abraham weighed out to Ephron the silver that he had named in the hearing of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, accepted by the merchant (over lasocher).”

The literal reading of the story does not seem to shine a negative light on. If anything, he seemed to have acted genuinely to assist Avraham, and only asked for money due to Avraham’s persistence. However, the Sages have a completely different take on Ephron (Bava Metziah 87a):

It is written, And I will fetch a morsel of bread; but it is also written, And Abraham ran unto the herd: Said R. Eleazar: This teaches that righteous men promise little and perform much; whereas the wicked promise much and do not perform even little. Whence do we know [the latter half]? — From Ephron. At first it is written, The land is worth four hundred shekels of silver; but subsequently, And Abraham hearkened unto Ephron; and Abraham weighed to Ephron the silver, which he had named in the audience of the sons of Heth, four hundred shekels of silver, current money with the merchant; indicating that he refused to accept anything but centenaria, for there is a place where shekels are called centenaria.”

A little clarification is in order here. The Talmud is comparing Avraham to Ephron, Avraham being the righteous (tzadik) while Ephron is painted as the wicked (rasha). The section regarding Avraham is referring to his offer to the visiting messengers in last week’s Torah portion. Avraham offered them “a morsel of bread”, a small gesture. Yet, as the Torah relates, Avraham prepared for them a major meal. Thus, he promised a little but performed a lot. Ephron, on the other hand, promises a lot but does not even perform a little. Ephron offered the land for four hundred shekels, which would seem to be the value of the land – he would break even. When the time came to collect, Ephron insisted on larger coins, making the sale price far higher than what he initially promised. Therefore, he is labelled as being wicked.

This description by the Talmud is troubling for a number of reasons. First off, there would seem to be a serious disconnect in the way the story is presented, where Ephron is portrayed as fairly generous, and the version of the Sages, where he is termed wicked. Furthermore, wicked is a description used for those who personify evil. Taking the Sages at their word, Ephron seems like someone who is not completely genuine in his business dealings. But someone wicked? Finally, the contrast with Avraham is intriguing. Why are the above traits considered evil or righteous? Would it have been harmful for Avraham to lay out the menu to his guests? What lessons are we learning about Avraham and Ephron?

When we take another look at the verses, we see the Torah mention a fact that one might think insignificant at first glance (ibid 10):

Now Ephron was sitting in the midst of the sons of Heth, and Ephron the Hittite answered Abraham in the hearing of the sons of Heth, of all those who had come into the gate of his city, saying

Prior to his act of benevolence, Ephron makes sure of one thing – there is an audience present. We can already start seeing where the suspicion of Ephron’s intent can be found. Is his gesture one that is truly magnanimous? Or is he seeking public approval for being a great guy? After all, there was no need to be so open about this offer. Quite often, we come across people just like this, those who make generous offers in a manner which reflects attention seeking and ego gratification. This could be the starting point for understanding Ephron, where his motives become the focus.

If this indeed is the case, the flaw of Ephron can now be understood, as well as the contrast with Avraham. Avraham indeed could have recited the entire menu to his guests. What the Talmud is telling us is that his interests were completely selfless. His motivation, his guide, was the welfare of his guests. To engage in any superfluous conversation would be distracting from his objective. Avraham simply offered his guests an assurance that they would receive food. He then poured all his energies into ensuring they were taken care of, seeking no personal gain whatsoever.

The same cannot be said for Ephron. Ephron was guided by a selfish drive; he was simply looking to ensure he benefited from whatever deal he could make with Avraham. When he first makes the offer, in a public forum, no doubt visions of being viewed as a religious equal to Avraham were going through his mind. He was the paradigm of generosity. When Avraham turns him down, Ephron must find an alternate method to ensure he gains from this deal. He makes the specious offer of four hundred shekels, knowing full well Avraham would pay. Yet this was not enough – he needed to profit from the exchange. Thus, he turns to the larger coins. All of his maneuvering was simply to gain as much personally from the arrangement.

We can now understand why the Talmud uses such dichotomous language in describing Ephron and Avraham. One of the primary directives of the Torah life is to reorient man’s focus from the self to God. This requires a viewpoint of the self that goes against our normal psychological makeup. Someone like Ephron sees the world in a man-centric way. He exists to please the self, and this very flaw was exposed in his dealings with Avraham.

On the other hand, there is Avraham, who was guided simply by that which was the good. The self was not attached to his actions, as exhibited in his dealings with his guest. What we see then is that Ephron saw the world as a self-serving vehicle, whereas Avraham’s worldview was guided by a true sense of selflessness. We should strive to emulate Avraham, as it will lead us to strengthen our relationship with God.