How did Avraham actually acquire the Me'aras ha'Machpelah?
Kidushin 2a: From the fact that Avraham said here "Nasati Kesef ha?Sadeh Kach Mimeni!" and the Torah writes later "ha'Sadeh Asher Kanah Avraham" (25:10), we learn that Avraham acquired the Me'aras ha'Machpelah with money 1 . Consequently, whenever the Torah uses the term 'Kichah,' it refers to money - which acquires.
Why did Avraham say "Nasati" in the past tense?
Rashi #1: He meant the money was ready and he wished that he had already given it to him.
Rashi #2 (to 14:22): He meant to say simply 'I am [now] giving you the money for the field; take it from me!''
Ohr ha'Chayim: Just as he (Efron) resolved to give him the field as a gift, so too did he (Avraham) resolve to give him the money as a gift! Consequently, if Efron will accept his money, he will accept his gift and bury his Meis.
Why does Avraham say "Ach," which always indicates a limitation or exclusion?
Mizrachi: I do not want a gift, like you said.
Ohr ha'Chayim: Let us minimize words.
Malbim: Since you explain (refer to 23:8:1.1:3*) that the enactment was so only residents can have a cemetery, the only solution is for me to buy it. If it will be a gift, you could retract, and say that you did not give with intent that I make it a cemetery. Regarding a sale, we say that amidst the money, the seller resolved to transfer ownership (no matter what the buyer will do with it).
QUESTIONS ON RASHI
Rashi writes: "'I have given' (Nasati) - [The money] is ready with me; if only I had given it to you already!" But in Efron's words (23:11), Rashi explains the word "Nasati" differently - 'It is as if I have already given it to you'?
Gur Aryeh: We cannot explain our verse as 'consider it already given,' for if Avraham does not give the money, he will not receive the field. Rather, it means 'If only I had already given it.' We cannot explain verse 23:11 as, 'if only I had already given it,' because Efron did not stand to benefit by giving the field to Avraham. 1 Rather, Efron was asserting that he would not renege on the sale.
At least, not in the sense of gaining an asset. However, see Kidushin 7a - when a respected individual (Adam Chashuv) accepts a gift, that itself is of value to the giver. (CS)
Rashi writes: "[The money] is ready with me; if only I had given it to you already!" How do we know that the money was available; perhaps this is just another example of past tense in place of the present (see Rashi to 14:22)?
Gur Aryeh: The verse would not write in such a fashion without a reason; refer to 23:11:3.1:1.
Rashi writes: "[The money] is ready with me; if only I had given it to you already!" Why does Rashi need both of these phrases?
Gur Aryeh: Anyone might say ,'If only I had already given the money,' if he did not have the necessary funds available! Saying so is only of import if he did have the funds available, and was in a hurry to pay them.
Rashi writes: "[The money] is ready with me; if only I had given it to you already!" Does Rashi use the term "if only" as the translation of the word "Lu" in the Pasuk? But Rashi has already used this word with the previous phrase - "if only you would listen to me"?
Gur Aryeh: "If only I had given..." is not based on the word "Lu" in the verse (unlike Mizrachi's explanation); rather, it emerges from the word "Nasati," which in unexpectedly in the past tense.
Rashi writes: "But (Ach), if only you would listen to me - You (Efron) told me to take it for free... but I do not want this!" Why does Rashi add this?
Gur Aryeh: The word "Ach" (meaning "but" or "however") always indicates an exclusion or contradiction to what was said previously (Rashi to Shemos 31:13). In this case, Avraham was rejecting Efron's suggestion.
