Genesis · Chapter 15

After these events, the word of Hashem came to Abram in a prophecy, saying: Fear not, Abram; My Word is your strength; your reward is exceedingly great.

אחר הדברים האלה — Wherever the term אחר is used it signifies immediately after the preceding event; whilst אחרי signifies a long time afterwards. אחר הדברים האלה AFTER THESE THINGS means: after this miracle has been wrought for him in that he slew the kings and he was in great anxiety, saying, “Perhaps I have already received, in this God-given victory reward for all my good deeds” — therefore the Omnipresent said to him, אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך FEAR NOT ABRAM, I AM THY SHIELD against punishment: for you shall not be punished on account of all these people whom you have slain. And as for your being anxious regarding the receipt of any further reward, know that שכרך הרבה מאד THY REWARD WILL BE EXCEEDING GREAT (Genesis Rabbah 44:5).

THE WORD OF THE ETERNAL CAME UNTO ABRAM IN A VISION. Abraham now merited that the word of G-d should come to him in a daytime vision for at first his prophecy came to him in nocturnal visions. The meaning of the word bemachzeh (in a vision) is as in the meaning of the verse, And all the people saw the thunderings, and the secret thereof is known to those who are learned in the mysteries of the Torah. FEAR NOT ABRAM. Abraham feared two things: that the four kings — either they or their successors — might increase their forces against him and he would go down into the battle and perish, or that his day shall come to die without child. [To remove these two fears from Abraham, the Eternal] promised him that He will be his shield against them, and that his reward for walking with G-d shall be very great.

"In a vision" — in prophetic sight. The meaning of "I am your shield" is: I have been your shield and I rescued you from the hand of the kings. Moreover, I will give you reward, for your spirit moved you freely to save your brother's son with but a few men, and you relied upon Me.

אל תירא אברם, do not worry that the four kings will avenge themselves on you. שכרך, not only that, but your reward over and beyond that is so great that your merits have not decreased on account of your success in that battle. You deserve much more reward for having gone to the assistance of your brother, displaying a supreme degree of love for him and for those belonging to him. You have liberated the victims of kidnappers. הרבה מאד, both in this world and in the world to come. We have been taught, and recite daily in our prayers, that there are things for which one receives some dividends in this world, whereas the principal comes due in the hereafter. One of the good deeds which qualify for such reward is known as גמילות חסדים, the performing of deeds of loving kindness involving not only one’s checkbook but one’s very body (Peah, 1,1).

אחר הדברים האלה, after these events,” i.e. after Avram had successfully waged war against the armies under the leadership of Kedorleomer. He had suddenly become very worried that other nations would feel called upon to avenge this defeat of the pagans; we encounter a similar reaction by Yaakov, after his sons Shimon and Levi had killed the males of the city of Sh’chem, and his other sons had looted that town. (Genesis 34,30). G-d had reassured him telling him that not only would He protect him against any other attacks by kings for having saved Lot, but that he would also qualify for additional rewards. You are entitled to this because you demonstrated that you placed more faith in My promises than in those of the King of Sodom, plus in the fact that you went to such length to rescue your relatives.

אל תירא אברם אנכי מגן לך, “do not worry Avram, I will be your shield.” One may understand G’d’s promise to Avram in this verse as including three separate assurances: 1) He should not be afraid on account of the kings whom he had slain. The words: “do not be afraid,” are only addressed to someone who is already afraid. Avram was afraid that the sons of these kings would want to avenge their fathers and attack him. This is why G’d said; “I will be a shield for you.” The second assurance concerned Avram’s having a son of his own. This is alluded to in the words שכרך הרבה מאד, “your reward will be very great.” Actually, all G’d had to say was שכרך רב, “your reward is great.” The addition of two letters ה which were not really called for indicated that by means of the two letters ה which would be added both to the name אברם and to the name שרי, Yitzchak would be able to emerge as their son. This was an assurance concerning reward in this life. The third assurance was an assurance concerning the hereafter, and it is alluded to by the addition of the word מאד, “very much,” to the promise of much reward. We find something similar in Job 35,15 ולא ידע בפש מאד, “and he does not know that it may be long drawn out.” Elihu had attacked Job for denying that G’d personally supervises the fate of individuals. He accused him of recounting his afflictions day after day, whereas he had no idea of the serenity in store for the righteous in the hereafter. Seeing that of these three assurances, only the first one was explicit whereas both the promise of children and that of an afterlife were only allusions, Avram related only to the visible, and did not understand the allusion which was included in G’d’s words. This is why he felt constrained to ask G’d: “what can You give me?” He meant: “seeing that I have no children I am comparable to a bush in the desert (Jeremiah 17,6), i.e. something that has no future”. In his reference to Eliezer, Avram meant that not only did he not have a biological heir, but his heir-apparent Eliezer was not even from his home-town Charan but from Damascus. At this point G’d began to tell Avram in detail what He had previously only hinted at. Firstly, He told him that Eliezer would not be his heir but that someone who was his biological son would inherit him. When G’d added the words הוא יירשך, “he will inherit you,” this was really superfluous and meant that the ”הוא“ of the world i.e. G’d Himself, would be his heir.” He meant that he, Avram, would be the heir of G’d inasmuch as the name הוא is one of the attributes of G’d. This is a familiar concept from Exodus 34,9 ונחלתנו, “and make us Your heritage.” Nachmanides adds that the words (verse 4) והנה דבר ה' אליו לאמר may be understood as G’d interrupting Avram in mid-sentence and assuring him that he was wrong, that Eliezer was not going to be his heir.

“Do not fear, Abram, I am a shield to you.” The Yalkut concludes that since Abram was afraid that perhaps he had already received his reward in this world and would have nothing in the World to Come, the Holy One, Blessed be He said to him, “Do not fear, your reward is prepared for the future to come.” This is what is meant by very much, as it is written How abundant is Your goodness that You have stored away for those who fear You (Psalms 31:20). However, this midrash is difficult to understand — if so, what is meant when Abram said What will You give me, as I go childless, etc.? What is the connection between children and reward in the World to Come? This can be resolved based on what is concluded in the chapter “Yesh Nochlin” (Bava Batra 117a): Rabbi Yochanan said, “Anyone who does not leave a son to inherit from him, the Holy One, Blessed be He is filled with wrath against him.” It is written here You shall transfer his inheritance to his daughter (Numbers 27:8) and it is written there A day of wrath is that day (Zephaniah 1:15). The question arises: Why did he bring proof from the Prophetic writings to the words of Torah? He should have brought proof from the verse And the Lord became angry with me for your sake (Deuteronomy 3:26). Rather, he wanted to bring proof about the concept itself and not just about the language, because Rabbi Yochanan held that anyone who doesn’t leave a son to inherit from him will not be exempted from Gehenna, which is called “a day of wrath.” Rabbi Yochanan follows his own reasoning, as he interpreted the verse Those who have no changes, and do not fear God (Psalms 55:20) as referring to one who does not leave a son, because this certainly stems from not fearing God, as it is said Fortunate is everyone who fears the Lord (Psalms 128:1) and adjacent to it is written Your children will be like olive shoots, etc. Indeed so shall be blessed the man who fears the Lord. Therefore, Abram said: What reward will You give me for the World to Come when I go childless, as my judgment will be in Gehenna as stated? And if You say to give my reward in this world, regarding this it is written And Abram said, ‘Behold, You have given me no offspring, and my steward will inherit me.’ See this entire exposition in the portion Pinchas on the verse Ascend these heights of Avarim (Numbers 27:12), for it is a precious exposition.

היה דבר ה' אל אברם במחזה, “G’d’s word came to Avraham in a vision.” According to Nachmanides this wording indicates that Avraham had by now qualified to have a vision in daytime. Until now G’d had communicated with him only in his sleep at night. אנכי מגן לך, “I will act as your shield.” This promise was in response to two things Avraham was afraid of. 1) that the kings whom he had defeated would reorganize and attack him. 2) that he would die before having sired at least one child. G’d reassured him only about one of his fears.

And Abram said: Hashem, God, what will You give me, seeing that I go childless, and the steward of my household is this Damascene, Eliezer?

הולך ערירי I GO CHILDLESS — Menachem ben Seruk explained it (ערירי) as meaning heir, and another example of it is (Malachi 2:12) ער ועונה “son and grandson ערירי — (״ then would mean “without child or heir” being an example of a word that has two opposite meanings, just as you say (Job 31:12) “and it would תשרש all my increase” — meaning it would tear up its roots, and the same word might also mean to take root. So, too, the meaning of ערירי is “without a child” although ער means “a child”. old French désenfanté; English childless. It, however, seems to me that the word ער in ער ועונה is of the same derivation as the same word in (Song 5:2). ולבי ער “and my heart awaketh”, whereas ערירי has the meaning of destroyed (a childless person being “demolished” so far as his memory in future generations is concerned; cf. Rashi on Genesis 16:2). Similarly (Psalms 137:7) ערו ערו “Rase it, rase it”; (Habakkuk 3:13) ערות יסוד “destroying the foundation”, and (Jeremiah 51:58) ערער תתערער “shall be utterly destroyed” and (Zephaniah 2:14) כי ארזה ערה “for the cedar-work thereof shall be destroyed”. ובן משק ביתי AND THE STEWARD OF MY HOUSE — Explain it as the Targum has it, “the man of my household”, meaning the man by whose orders all my household is fed. Similarly, (Genesis 41:40) “And according to thy word shall all my people be fed (ישק)” — so that it signifies my administrator. If, however, I had a son, my son would be in charge of my affairs. דמשק OF DAMASCUS — According to the Targum he was of Damascus, but according to the Midrashic explanation (Genesis Rabbah 44:9) he bore this designation because he had pursued the kings as far as Damascus. In the Talmud (Yoma 28b) they explained it as an abbreviation of דולה ומשקה “One who drew up and gave to drink to others of the edifying waters of instruction given by his Teacher.

AND ABRAM SAID, O LORD ETERNAL, WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME? “Behold, Thou hast saved me from the kings, but Thou hast not assured me against extinction. Thou hast only said that Thou wilt give me great reward, but what can my reward be without children?”Now it had not occurred to Abraham that this great reward would be in the World to Come for there is no necessity for such a promise; every servant of G-d will find life in the hereafter before him. But in this world there are righteous men, unto whom it happened according to the work of the wicked. It is for this reason that the righteous have need of assurance. Moreover, very great ’ implies that he will merit both worlds223“Both worlds,” literally “two tables,” a Rabbinic figure of speech (Berachoth 5 b) signifying access to the best of this world and also of the hereafter. with all the best therein without any punishment whatever as befits the really righteous people. Moreover, an assurance is given for that which a person fears. [Hence, he needed no assurance concerning the hereafter. But he feared being childless; therefore G-d] rejoined and explained that His assurance included that he should not fear this either, as He will make his children as the stars of heaven for multitude. You may ask: Has it not been told to Abraham already, For all the land which thou seest, to thee will I give it, and to thy seed forever. And I will make thy seed as the dust of the earth, -16. and so, how could Abraham now say, Since I go childless…lo, my household slave will be mine heir? And why did he not believe in the first prophecy, as he would believe in this [second one which G-d will now relate to him?] The answer is that the righteous ones have no trust in themselves, fearing they might have sinned in error. Thus it is written At one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to build and plant it; but if that nation turn and do evil before Me, then I repent of the good., with some changes. Now when Abraham saw himself advanced in years and the first prophecy concerning him had not yet been fulfilled, he thought that his sins had withheld that good from him., 5:25. And perhaps he now feared that he would be punished for the people that he killed in the war, as our Rabbis have said. They have expressed a similar thought in Bereshith Rabbah: “Then Jacob was greatly afraid and was distressed. From this we derive the principle that there is no assurance for the righteous ones in this world, etc.” WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME, SINCE I ‘HOLECH’ (GO) CHILDLESS? They Jonathan translates: “For I pass from the world.” R’dak expressly says that Abraham feared that he might “die” childless. have explained the word holech as meaning “I die childless,” even as is the meaning of that word in the verse, For man is ‘holech’ (going) to his eternal home. Now just as holech here refers to death, so in the words of Abraham it has the same connotation. The correct interpretation appears to me to be that at first he [Abraham] complained: “What can my reward be since I have no children and I go as a vagrant and vagabond alone in a strange land, like a tamarisk in the desert, no one going out, and no one coming in my house except Eliezer, a stranger that I brought to me from Damascus, not from my family, and not from my country.” Then Abraham said, “Behold, to me Thou hast given no seed here. as Thou hast promised me, and lo my household slave, the one mentioned, will be mine heir, as I am old without child, and my time will come to die childless. I am thus punished, having lost the reward which Thou hast promised me at first.”

The yod of ערירי [childless] is like the yod of אכזרי [cruel] (Isaiah 13:9), and it is derived from the word ערירים יהיו [they shall be childless] (Leviticus 20:21). Its meaning is as the Targum renders it. "Steward of my house" — on the pattern of מכס [tribute] (Numbers 31:37); it is from the class of doubled-root words, derived from שוקק בו [rushes through it] (Isaiah 33:4), with the sense of clinging, vowelized with segol. The vav draws itself and what comes after it along with it, so that the full reading is: "and the steward of my house — he is Dammesek Eliezer."

?מה תתן לי, a reference to the reward in this life. ערירי, “I have no son who can take my place.” Compare Jeremiah 22,30 כתבו את האיש הזה ערירי כי לא יצלח מזרעו איש יושב על כסא דוד, “record this man as without succession; one who shall never be found successful, for none of his offspring will be accepted to sit on the throne of David.” (the subject of this curse is כניהו son and heir of Yehoyakim) ובן משק ביתי הוא דמשק אליעזר, he is only a slave, known only in his home town. There can be no question but that similar actions performed by a slave who is in constant fear of his master’s disapproval, even if in fact the same as those performed by the master’s son, are different in quality, and in effect from one another. The same chores performed by the son are motivated by love instead of by fear.

ויאמר אברם, אלוקים וגו, “Avram then said: “G-d!” [the name of G-d here is spelled as אדני, ] etc; “what are You going to give me, seeing that I am without biological heir;” [i.e. what good will these rewards do me if I cannot pass them on to biological heirs? Ed.] The reader is reminded that Avram had been promised biological heirs by this G-d in Genesis 12,7 when He had told him that He would give the land of the Canaanites to his biological descendants. At that time he had not questioned this promise because he had believed that with the help of prayer he would earn the merit of siring biological heirs. When he realised that in spite of this, many years had passed without this promise having been fulfilled, he had begun to feel that perhaps he had committed some sin that had prevented G-d from fulfilling this promise. This is why he pointed out that he was still without such heirs. הוא דמשק אליעזר, “the heir apparent at this stage is only the servant Eliezer who was born in Damascus.” He was a grandson of the great pagan Nimrod.

מה תתן לי, “what can You give me?” Seeing that You have saved me from the Kings but have not given me assurances regarding my having children. Although You promised me a great reward, what is the meaning of any reward as long as I do not have any children to whom I can pass on this reward? The thought that the “great reward” G’d had promised would refer to another dimension entirely, his life in the hereafter, did not occur to Avraham at that time. The reason it did not occur to him was that he had been convinced that anyone serving the Lord would have a share in the hereafter. He knew that if the lives of the righteous do not seem to be substantially different from that of the wicked, this is a condition which exists only in this terrestrial life. Furthermore, the wording הרבה מאד implies that the reward will not be marred by any punishment in respect of sins committed so that he will be “eating at both tables,” using the expression coined by our sages. ואנכי הולך ערירי, “seeing that I am going childless.” He meant that he would die leaving behind no biological heir. According to Nachmanides he first complained about the meaninglessness of any reward in the absence of that of having children, which meant that he was wandering on the face of the earth without a permanent abode in a land which was not his birthplace. He described the only person that had constant social intercourse with him as being his servant Eliezer who himself was a stranger in those parts, having come there from Damascus, a long way off. After having said this he had added: “here You have not granted me seed as You have promised me,” so that my heir will be this Eliezer. At this stage Avraham did not believe that G’d’s promise meant that he would have children would materialise, so that G’d felt impelled to repeat in a clear manner that he would have physical heirs, genetically his, and that his descendants would be at home in this land, in fact inheriting all of it in due course. [any question about Avraham doubting G’d’s promise is predicated on the assumption that the Torah reports in chronological sequence, so that what we read here occurred after he left his father’s home on his journey to the land of Canaan as his new home. If this vision occurred before he had already moved to the land of Canaan, Avraham’s remonstrating with G’d is quite easy to understand. Ed.] At any rate, righteous people do not believe in themselves, always fearing that some sin on their part will invalidate promises made to them. Although, in the event, only half his lifetime had passed by this time, he considered himself as aging and past the stage where he could sire children easily. He feared a son born too close to his death. Some commentators are convinced that Avraham did not believe G’d’s promises now any more than he had on previous occasions, but that he was afraid that if such an heir would be born only near the end of his father’s life his servant would have to become his heir in practice, at least, until his son would be of age. G’d reassured him on this score, saying that the son who would inherit Avraham would not only be his genetically, but would be adult and take over all that was his.

And Abram said: Behold, to me You have given no offspring, and the member of my household is set to inherit me.

הן לי לא נתתה זרע BEHOLD, TO ME THOU HAST GIVEN NO CHILD —What use, then, is all else that thou givest me?

בן ביתי יורש אותי, even though, in the end, You will give me biological offspring, as You have said in 12,7 לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת, “I will give this land to your descendants,” such children will only be minors at the time, so that my servant Eliezer will have to raise them and guide them, in effect being my heir.

ויאמר אברם…מה תתן לי? Abram said:…"what are You able to give me?" How could Abraham begin by saying: "You have not given me, etc.," when he had received G'd's promise that he would father children? Surely he did not doubt G'd's words? Why did Abraham say: הן לי לא נתתה, instead of: הן לא נתתה לי? [why did he stress the word לי?] What did Abraham have in mind when he said to G'd that בן ביתי יורש אותי, that "a member of my household will inherit me?" Seeing that he had no seed of his own, what difference did it make to him if a member of his household or someone else would inherit him? Abraham remembered that the promise of seed he had received was phrased thus: "your seed will be as the dust of the earth" (13,16). When people are compared to the dust of the earth such a comparison normally applies to poor and insignificant people, i.e. "as the dust"; it implies that such people do not possess a holy soul, that they are closer to animals than to angels. When Abraham stressed the לי aspect of his future descendants, he referred to the fact that G'd had not promised him children or grandchildren of any stature. This is why G'd told him "to count the stars." The stars were meant to be symbols. G'd wanted Abraham to know that his descendants would all be important in their own right. They would be righteous people who could overcome the stars, i.e. their fates would not be subject to zodiac constellations, to מזל. Bereshit Rabbah 69,5 explains the simile of the "dust of the earth" to mean that just as dust cannot prosper without water, so Jacob's (Abraham's) descendants would not prosper without Torah which is for the spirit what water if for the body. The Midrash there lists other qualities of dust which make it seem as something valuable and important. Examination of various Midrashim on the subject of עפר, dust, shows that we never find dust treated as something valuable until after Abraham's descendants were compared to stars for the first time. This is the reason that the quotation from the Midrash we have cited was from פרשת ויצא and not from here. At any rate, Abraham was concerned about the comparison of his descendants to dust in G'd's first promise. The expression בן ביתי can be understood in one of two ways. 1) Abraham said to G'd that If He only intended to give him the kind of descendants that are comparable to lowly dust, he would prefer that a member of his present household would become his heir. He referred to his trusted disciple Eliezer. Such a one would be more suited than an unworthy biological descendant. A typical example would be a grandson such as Esau. 2) Not only was Abraham distressed at not having been promised worthy descendants, he was even more distressed that a בן בית such as Lot viewed himself as his heir. I have found an ancient commentary which understands Abraham as preferring to die intestate to having unworthy children.

והנה בן ביתי יורש אותי, “and here a member of my household is going to be my heir.” Avram points to the apparent contradiction to G-d having assured him that he would sire biological heirs. He implies that seeing that he is already aging, even if and when he would have son, the son would be too young to take over from him when he would die, so that he would have to leave his affairs in the hands of his servant. This servant would possess power of attorney for all practical purposes to do what he liked. G-d reassured him on that score saying that not only would he have a biological heir, but that son would be fully of age before Avram would die.

And behold, the word of Hashem was with him, saying: This one shall not inherit you; rather, the son who will issue from you — he shall inherit you.

AND, BEHOLD, THE WORD OF THE ETERNAL CAME UNTO HIM, SAYING: THIS MAN SHALL NOT BE THINE HEIR. Since Abraham had his son who would be his heir after his old age, the Eternal assured him only concerning the inheritance, However, as he grew older, he feared that if his son will be born near the time of his death, Eliezer will do with the child as he pleases, and he instead will become his heir. On this matter of inheritance G-d now assured Abraham that he should not worry for his seed will inherit him. (Tur.) i.e., that he should not worry, and his seed will inherit it. The meaning of the expression, And, behold, the word of the Eternal came unto him, is that while Abraham was still saying, And, lo, my household slave will be mine heir, the word of G-d suddenly came to him, saying This man shall not be thine heir.

"From your innards" — a euphemism for the organ, owing to its proximity.

לא יירשך זה כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך, for the son would succeed taking over Avram’s leadership role amongst large number of followers while his father was still alive. This is the true meaning of Genesis 25, 5-6 ויתן אברהם את כל אשר לו ליצחק בנו... בעודנו חי,” Avraham handed over all that was his to his son Yitzchok while he was still alive.” This is followed by the statement that Avraham sent away the sons of the concubines from the presence of his son Yitzchok.

והנה דבר ה', “and here came the word of the Lord, etc.” the word והנה here indicates that G’d’s response to Avraham’s concern was so immediate that He did not even wait until Avraham had voiced all his concerns.

He brought him outside and said: Look now toward the heavens and count the stars, if you are able to count them. And He said to him: So shall your descendants be.

ויוצא אתו החוצה AND HE BROUGHT HIM FORTH OUTSIDE — Its real meaning is: He brought him outside his tent so that he could look at the stars. Its Midrashic explanation is: Go forth from (give up) your astrological speculations — that you have seen by the planets that you will not raise a son; Abram indeed may have no son but Abraham will have a son: Sarai may not bear a child but Sarah will bear. I will give you other names, and your destiny (מזל planet, luck) will be changed. Another explanation: He brought him forth from the terrestrial sphere, elevating him above the stars, and this is why He uses the term הבט ‘‘look”, when He said “look at the heavens” — for this word signifies looking from above downward (Genesis Rabbah 44:12).

AND HE BROUGHT HIM FORTH OUTSIDE. According to the simple interpretation of Scripture it means that He brought him forth from his tent into the open so that he could see the stars. And according to the Midrash its explanation is as follows: G-d said to him, “Leave your astrological speculations, for you have seen by the constellations that you are not destined to raise a son. “Abram” indeed may not have a son, but “Abraham” will have a son; “Sarai” will not bear a child, but “Sarah” will bear a child. Thus the language of Rashi. But ‘Abram’ did have Ishmael! How then could the Midrash say, “‘Abram’ indeed may not have a son?”The meaning of the Midrash, however, is that Abram sought a son who would qualify to become his heir, [which excluded Ishmael, who would not inherit him], even as he said, And, lo, my household slave will be mine heir. here. The Holy One, blessed be He, then said to him, “This man shall not be thine heir, but one born of thine own body shall be thine heir, here. and leave your astrological speculations. ‘Abram’ will not have a son as his heir, but ‘Abraham’ will have a son as his heir.”It is also possible that the astrological speculation concerned the pair together, namely, the “Abram and Sarai” as a pair will not beget children, and the Eternal now assured him that “Abraham and Sarah” will beget children. In my opinion, however, [the Divine assurance now given to Abraham did not mention Sarah, rather], her name is an addition on the part of the Midrash, meaning that such indeed was the case also with Sarah. The Holy One, blessed be He, however, did not assure him concerning Sarah at the present time. Even at the time of the prophecy concerning the circumcision, Abraham was still in doubt whether “Sarah” would bear a child.

ויוצא אותו, it appeared to Avram in his dream as if G-d were now taking him out of his house to look at the sky.

ויוצא אותו החוצה, “He led him outside.” It is not usual for people to be able to view the stars from inside their houses until they have stepped outside. The reason the Torah needs to use this description of what transpired when G’d spoke to Avram is because up until now the level of prophetic visions he had enjoyed was the one called “Bet El.” David (Psalms 45,14) had referred to that level of prophecy, i.e. intimacy with G’d, as כבודה בת מלך פנימה, “the glory (entourage) of the King’s daughter consists of her remaining inside.” Now that Avram was going to experience prophecy of a higher level, G’d had to mention that He took him beyond the level of “Bet El”, i.e. outside or beyond that level. This is the meaning of the word ויוצא. Our sages in Shabbat 156 understand these words to mean that G’d removed Avram’s fate from the influence of the horoscopes, i.e. astrological limitations, when He said to him: הבט נא השמימה, “look skywards”, please.” Whenever we encounter the expression הבט it means “looking down.” If Avram had been on earth and had looked at the sky, the stars, the expression הבט would have been inappropriate. Therefore, the Torah wanted to tell us that G’d had placed Avram in a position above the stars and had told him to look down at the sky. He could henceforth trample the limitations imposed on a person due to his horoscope. My own opinion is that our verse represents the true meaning of Isaiah 41,2 צדק יקראהו לרגלו, “the horoscope (planet) Jupiter He summoned at his feet.” This is the source of the Talmudic statement that the fate of the Jewish people is not dependent on any constellation of stars or planets (Shabbat 156). We have similar statements in the Midrash at the end of Song of Songs. In Song of Songs 8,14 ברח דודי ודמה לך לצבי, our sages understand this line as comparing Avraham, G’d’s beloved, to a roe, and the words על הרי בשמים at the end of that verse as a reference to heaven by reading the word בשמים instead of as besamim, as bashamayim.” This too is understood as meaning that horoscopic considerations do not apply to the fate of the Jewish people. We must distinguish between the fate of the Jewish nation as a whole which is not subject to horoscopic influences and that of the individual Israelite whose fate is subject to horoscopic influences. The discipline of astrology is a most important discipline, and our sages have never disputed its significance. וספור הכוכבים אם תוכל לספור אותם, “and count the stars if you are able to count them.” G’d meant that just as Avram was unable to count the number of the stars so his own descendants would be innumerably many. An additional meaning in that message was that the cumulative wisdom possessed by the Jewish people would be beyond comprehension. Just as there are stars which give off more light than others, so there would be Jews who would possess more wisdom than others with which to enlighten their peers. Still another meaning included in that message to Avram was the promise that the degree of reward for which different Jews would qualify in the hereafter would also vary in proportion to the intensity of the light radiated by different stars. There is a reward for the souls and it is apportioned in accordance with the achievements of these souls while imprisoned in a body. Our sages in Sifri on Deut.1,10 explained the words ככוכבי השמים לרוב, “as numerous as the stars in the sky,” as referring to seven different groups of righteous souls in the hereafter. Each group differs from the next group in the level of reward G’d has accorded to it. Some radiate the kind of light radiated by the sun; others the kind of light radiated by the moon, and so on.

וספור הכוכבים, “and count the stars, etc.” whereas in the previous prophecy Avraham’s offspring had been compared to the dust of the earth, now it was compared to the stars in the heaven. We are dealing with the relative positions of Esau and Yaakov, both descendants of Avraham, one compared to the earthly phenomena, i.e. dust, the other to celestial phenomena, i.e. stars. Whereas the stars are untouchable, beyond harm, dust is something people trample on.

And he believed in the Word of Hashem, and He reckoned it to him as merit.

'והאמין בה AND HE BELIEVED IN THE LORD — He did not ask Him for a sign regarding this; but in respect to the promise that he would possess the land he asked for a sign, inquiring of God, במה אדע “By what sign shall I know [that I shall possess it?]” (Genesis 15:8). ויחשבה לו צדקה AND HE ACCOUNTED IT UNTO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS — The Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it unto Abraham as a merit, because of the faith with which he had trusted in Him. Another explanation of במה אדע is: he did not, by these words, ask for a sign regarding this promise that he would possess the land, but he said to Him, “Tell me by what merit they (my descendants) will remain in it (the land).” God answered him, through the merit of the sacrifices (Taanit 27b).

AND HE BELIEVED IN THE ETERNAL; AND HE ACCOUNTED IT TO HIM FOR RIGHTEOUSNESS. Rashi’s explanation is: The Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it to Abraham for righteousness and merit because of the faith with which he had trusted in Him. But I do not understand the nature of this merit. Why should he not believe in the G-d of truth, and he himself is the prophet, and G-d is not a man, that He should lie? Furthermore, he who believed [and on the basis of this belief was ready] to sacrifice his only son, the beloved one, and withstood the rest of the trials, how could he not believe a good tiding? The correct interpretation appears to me to be that the verse is stating that Abraham believed in G-d and he considered it due to the righteousness of the Holy One, blessed be He, that He would give him a child under all circumstances, and not because of Abram’s state of righteousness and his reward, even though He told him, Your reward shall be very great. Thus from now on he would no longer have to fear that sin might prevent the fulfillment of the promise. Now although in the case of the first prophecy Abraham had thought that the promise was conditional upon the recompense for his deeds, yet now since He promised him that he should have no fear on account of sin and that He will give him a child, he believed that the thing is established by G-d, truth He will not turn from it. For since this is a matter of the righteousness of G-d, it has no break in continuity, even as it is written, By Myself have I sworn, saith the Eternal, the word is gone forth from My mouth in righteousness, and shall not come back. “Saith the Eternal” is here an addition based upon Genesis 22:16. It may be that the verse is stating that Abraham believed that he would have a child as an heir under all circumstances, but the Holy One, blessed be He, accounted to him that this promise He had assured him would in addition be as righteousness since in His righteousness G-d did so, just as it says, G-d thought it for good. A similar case is the verse regarding Phinehas: And that was accounted unto him for righteousness, meaning that the trust he [Phinehas] has in G-d when committing that particular deed was accounted as righteousness unto all generations since G-d will forever keep His righteousness and kindness for every generation on account of [Phinehas’ deed, and this recompense transcends any strictly merited reward]. This is similar to that which is stated, Forever will I keep for him My mercy.

"Righteousness" — as in "and it shall be righteousness for us" (Deuteronomy 6:25). The words צדקה [righteousness] and משפט [justice] are kindred; it is only in the usage of our ancient sages of blessed memory that the word צדקה follows a different path.

He believed. He had utter confidence that God would fulfill His promise, even if it required a miracle. And this He accounted. God reckoned Avraham’s trust as an act of righteousness, which proves that his subsequent inquiry, “How will I know, etc.?” could not have been an expression of doubt.

והאמין בה׳ ויחשבה לו צדקה. He believed G'd who considered this as a merit for him. We can understand this as similar to the laws concerning vows. The Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 6) says that when one makes a promise to give charity to a sacred cause it is considered as binding or as effective as if one had already actually handed over the object of a vow to an ordinary person. Abraham qualified for a reward by merely expressing his belief in G'd's promise. You may well ask what practical benefit Abraham received by this reward seeing that neither Ishmael nor Isaac had been born as yet? This is why the Torah says that "he considered it an act of righteousness," i.e. also Abraham treated G'd's promise to him as if it had already been fulfilled. Furthermore, seeing that G'd cannot influence whether man is G'd fearing or not, i.e. "all is in the hands of heaven except the fear of heaven" (Berachot 33), Abraham could have had doubts about G'd's promise as to the quality of his offspring. The Torah therefore gives Abraham credit for not worrying how G'd could guarantee his children would be worthy. Another way of looking at Abraham's act of faith is based on the tradition (Pessikta Zutra Lech Lecha 15,5) that the world will not lack a minimum of 30 (or 36) righteous men by whose merit it continues to exist. This tradition is based on the numerical value of the word יהיה in the previous verse. Since G'd needs these 30 צדיקים, it stands to reason that He does influence these men to be pious. If so, they can certainly not claim their righteousness as their own merit as would otherwise be the case. (Compare Deut. 6,28 וצדקה תהיה לנו that performance of the commandments will be accounted as a merit for us). Abraham may have been rewarded then for not making an issue of this, although some or all of these men may have been unduly influenced to live the lives of צדיקים.

ויחשבה, the letter ח in this word is vocalised by the semi vowel sh’va na, which has a dot above it. (not in our editions) [This indicates that the subject of this word is Avram, not G-d. Ed.] ויחשבה לו צדקה, “Avram did not consider this promise by G-d as something that he was entitled to, but as something beyond what he had a right to expect.

והאמין בה', “and he believed in G’d.” He believed the message that G’d had indeed decided that this would occur. ויחשבה לו צדקה, “and Avram considered this as an act of kindness by G’d.” He believed that G’d would indeed carry out His promise as He was so fair and just. He did not expect G’d to do what He had said He was going to do as a reward for his good deeds. This is the view of Nachmanides concerning the meaning of these words. It is possible to explain the words: “He considered it for him as an act of righteousness,” as G’d being the speaker and Avraham the one concerning whom G’d said it.

והאמין ב' ויחשבה לו צדקה, “he had full faith in the Lord, who accounted it as a righteous deed on his part.” According to Rashi the meaning is that G’d accounted it as a righteous deed on the part of Avraham to trust Him completely. Nachmanides queries why trusting G’d should be something deemed especially meritorious. He considers the idea that someone does not trust a promise by G’d when the latter had revealed Himself to him as completely preposterous. Therefore, he considers that what is meant is that Avraham considered it as an outstanding act on G’d’s part to grant him such favour. He considered that G’d granting him physical offspring was an outstanding example of G’d’s kindness to him. Having heard the last words of G’d, Avraham was no longer worried that some sin of his at a future date might invalidate this promise.

And He said to him: I am Hashem, who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans, to give you this land to inherit it.

I AM THE ETERNAL WHO BROUGHT THEE OUT OF UR OF THE CHALDEES, TO GIVE THEE THIS LAND TO INHERIT IT. I have already explained this verse as stating: “From the time I brought you out of Ur of the Chaldees and performed a miracle for you [which saved your life], it was the Will before Me to give you this land.” But at this present moment He did not decree giving it to Abraham, rather he said that He had brought him out of Ur of the Chaldees with the intention of giving it to him. It was for this reason that Abraham feared lest a condition of good deeds be attached to the inheritance of the land even though He already had told him twice, Unto thy seed will I give this land,; 13:15. since He did not decree the gift of the land now as He did decree to give him a child. Therefore, Abraham said, Whereby shall I know that I shall inherit it? Meaning: “How shall I know that this gift of the land will be an enduring one, unaffected by my sins?” This interpretation is clearly stated by Ramban further on in the text. This is not similar to the question of Hezekiah, What shall be the sign that the Eternal will heal me? The Holy One, blessed be He, also did not act with Abraham as He did with the other signs by showing him a sign or wonder in some miraculous matter. (Tur.) But Abraham desired to have definite knowledge that he would inherit the land and that neither his sin nor that of his seed would withhold it from them. Or perhaps the Canaanites might repent, in which case the following verse might apply to them: At one instant I may speak concerning a nation, and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up and to break down and destroy it; but if that nation turn from their evil… I repent of the evil that I thought to do unto it. And then the Holy One, blessed be He, made a covenant with him that he will inherit the land under all circumstances.

"Who brought you out of Ur of the Chaldeans" — this is evidence that the passage of Lekh Lekha was spoken there, as I have explained, and was not spoken in Haran. Now, Abraham believed in Hashem that his son would inherit him; yet regarding the inheritance of the land he sought a sign, as Gideon did. Furthermore, the meaning of Hashem's oath is that the matter would be unconditional — for all prophecies are in general conditional. Abraham therefore did not sin by requesting that He make a covenant with him.

אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים לתת לך את הארץ הזאת, for you, personally, will acquire this land by an act of taking symbolic possession of it. לרשתה, so that the children (descendants) would inherit it from you under the heading of an inheritance, i.e. without any interruption in this land being owned by Israelites.

ויאמר אליו אני ה,: He said to him: “I am the Lord;” everything from the opening line of the chapter, “it was after these events” had been said to Avram at night, in a dream. This is clear from the word: במחזה, “in a vision,” (verse 1). In verse five Avram is told: “and count the stars;” from that point on we have the paragraph known popularly as ברית בין הבתרים, “the covenant between the cut up pieces.”From then on we have a revelation Avram experienced in daylight, as the paragraph concludes with the words: “it was when the sun was about to set;” (verse 12) This revelation by daylight had preceded the passagecommencing with chapter 15,1 by five years. This is clear from when G-d told Avram that “your descendants will be strangers and slaves for 400 years in a land that is not their own.” In Exodus12,41 the Torah reports that the Israelites had dwelled in Egypt for 430 years, i.e. that the prophecy made to Avraham had now been fulfilled. According to this, Avraham did not have any child by Sarah (i.e. Yitzchok) until 30 years after this first revelation. The Torah had stated specifically that Avraham was 100 years old when his son Yitzchok was born (Genesis 20,5). In other words, Avram was 70 years old when he left Charan for the first time and when G-d first told him about the future including his descendants until they would be freed from slavery. When G-d addressed Avram for the second time and told him to sever his relationship with home and hearth and birthplace in Genesis 12,1, he was 75 years old. According to the well known historic record known as seder olam, Avram was 48 years old at the time of the Tower and the dispersal of mankind. This was followed by the 13 years that the region known as the land of Canaan served and subsequently rebelled against Kedorleomer, a rebellion which lasted 13 years. (Not the 13th year as usually assumed). According to this calculation 26 years had elapsed at that time from when the Tower had been destroyed. If you add these years to the 48 years Avram had lived before that traumatic event was 74 or 75 years old. This is referred to when the Torah stated that Avram was 75 years old when he left Charan permanently. Immediately after Avram had defeated the kings mentioned in chapter 14, G-d appeared to him and ordered him to leave Charan and to proceed towards the Land of Canaan, his father’s original destination when he had left Ur Casdim. The reason why the two paragraphs here were inserted in the Torah as if they had occurred almost simultaneously was so that the promise that Avraham would have biological offspring would appear in direct connection with the promise that Avraham’s descendants would inherit the land of Canaan as their ancestral heritage when the time would be ripe for that. The Talmud in B’rachot 7, states specifically that these two visions referred to distinctly different subjects. The newsworthy development in Avram’s personality in the intervening between G-d having spoken to him five years earlier at the covenant between the “pieces,”is that for the first time a human being addressed the Almighty with the title adonav. My Master (Verse 8). If you were to think that all that is written here in this chapter is part of a single revelation, and a single subject, up to verse 1 in chapter 16, why did the Talmud not consider verse 2 in chapter 15 in which Avram addressed him by the same title, as the first time in history that this had ever occurred? Clearly what Avram said in verse 8 had preceded what is quoted as having said in verse 2. Furthermore, if these paragraphs had been written in chronological order, how could Avram have dared ask G-d for a sign that His promise would come true without his being accused as having been lacking in faith? G-d, after all, had already clearly stated that his heir would be his biological heir (verse 4). It is therefore clear beyond doubt that in this chapter we are dealing with two different revelations, each one dealing with a different subject. Having said all this, it is easy to understand that G-d referred to the fact that it was He Who had taken him out of Ur Casdim in order to give to his descendants (equated with him) this land that he is to proceed to. Avraham’s question that seeing that he had no heir as yet, surely he by himself could not “inherit” this land, (verse 7) was quite logical. After all he had no assurance that he would not die before G-d’s promise having a chance at being fulfilled. It also explains why G-d, in verse 15, tells him not to worry, but that he would die at a ripe old age. [The only person ever having been given such a promise by G-d, I believe. Ed.] This promise by G-d is evidence of what had prompted his question, certainly was not lack of faith. Some people accept Rashi’s interpretation that Avram, while certainly not doubting G-d’s promise or ability to deliver on His promise, was concerned that seeing that all of G-d’s promises are based on certain underlying conditions, and he was afraid that some of these might not be met so that G-d would not be bound by His promise. We have evidence of fulfillment of G-d’s promises being delayed after the sin of the spies, when G-d swore an oath that all the adults involved in that sin would not set foot in the Holy Land. (Numbers 32,1011) According to the exegetes claiming that Avram did not doubt G-d’s promise, but wished to know by what merit it would be fulfilled, why would he have been punished for having asked such a question? We would have to answer that the words: ידוע תדע, understood by some as the punishment, i.e. the delay in the fulfillment of G-d’s promise, was not a punishment at all, but a direct answer, meaning that until the time came when in the desert the Israelites would regularly offer up sacrifices, they would indeed not yet have earned that merit. This merit coupled with the suffering during exile in Egypt combined, would suffice to make G-d replace the Canaanites and give the land to the Israelites.

אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים, “I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim, etc.” According to Nachmanides G’d referred to the time commencing with His saving Avram miraculously from the furnace of Nimrod. Ever since Avram had enjoyed G’d’s goodwill and He had intended to give the land of Canaan to him. What G’d said here did not mean that He was now going to give the land to Avram but that the reason He had saved Avram from Ur Casdim was in order to eventually give it to him. In view of all this, Avram was concerned that the promise of inheriting the land should not be subject to conditions which his descendants might not be able to meet. Although G’d had repeatedly referred to Avram’s descendants as receiving the land, he was afraid that some sin might prevent realisation of this promise and this is why he asked: “how will I know that I will indeed inherit it?” He had not meant to ask for a miracle or a physical sign. G’d did not respond to him as He had done when He showed him other signs. Avram was only interested in receiving an ironclad assurance that neither sins by his descendants nor repentance of their evil deeds by the Canaanites would invalidate G’d’s promise. G’d therefore concluded a covenant with him to confirm what He had said and that he or his descendants would definitely inherit the land of Canaan. According to a comment in the Sefer Hayashar at the time Avram was born a certain star in the eastern sky “swallowed “ four other stars in four directions of the sky. At that time Nimrod’s advisors said to him: “at this moment a son has been born to Terach whose descendants will produce a nation which will inherit the whole earth as well as the hereafter. If you agree, let us give his father a house full of gold and silver and get his permission to kill the baby.” Thereupon Nimrod immediately sent an urgent message to Terach in which he referred to the baby who had been born to Terach on the previous evening, and demanded that it be handed over to be killed. In return he promised Terach a house full of gold and silver. Terach replied by citing a parable. He said: “I will explain to you how your offer looks to me. They told a horse ‘let us cut off your head and we will give you a house full of barley.’ The horse replied: “you are fools. If you cut off my head who is going to eat the barley? Similarly, if you are going to kill my son who will inherit all this gold and silver?” Having heard this explanation by Terach the king replied: “I infer from your words that a son has been born for you. Terach replied that this was true but that the baby was dead already. Thereupon the king told him: “the offer to pay you for him with a house full of gold and silver applies only if you deliver him alive. If you deliver him dead the offer does not apply.” Thereupon Terach hid the baby in a cave for the next three years. G’d provided two outlets for that cave. One became the source of fine flour, the other of oil. When Avram was three years old he left the cave. When he looked around he began to wonder who had created heaven and the earth and himself. At first he began praying to the sun all day long. Then, at night, when he saw the moon, he began to pray to the moon as he had concluded that the position of the moon in the sky was proof that the moon had created it and the stars as well as earth and himself. He considered the stars as servants of the moon. When the moon disappeared in the morning and the sun rose in the East he began to realise that the phenomena he had observed thus far had only been tools in the hands of someone mightier than either of them. He now went to his father Terach and asked him who had created heaven earth and himself? Terach answered him: “my god created all these phenomena.” Thereupon Avram asked his father to show him this god who supposedly was powerful enough to have created all these phenomena. Terach brought him one of his idols. Avram could not accept that this idol had any power at all. He went to his mother asking her similar questions. He asked his mother to cook a fancy dish so that he could offer it to one of the idols hoping it would be accepted as an offering. He placed the food in front of Terach’s biggest idol. The idol did not respond at all, neither by sign or movement of his eyes or other organs. At that point, Avram had some divine inspiration and he said of these idols פה להם ולא ידברו, עינים להם ולא יראו, “they have a mouth and are unable to speak, they have eyes but are unable to see” (Psalms 115,5). He seized the idols and burned them. He took the largest idol outside and placed the fire in his hand. When his father came home and wanted to know what had happened, Avram accused the biggest idol of having burned the others. Terach accused Avram of having burned his idols. Avram claimed to be innocent accusing the largest idols of having burned the others in a fit of fury. Thereupon his father said to him: “my son, you are foolish, how can any of these lifeless idols do such a thing? I myself have made these idols out of wood.” Thereupon Avram said to his father: “I wish you would hear yourself talk. If they have no power why did you tell me that they have created heaven and earth?” Terach then went to Nimrod and told him that his son had burned both his own and Nimrod’s idols. Nimrod sent for Avram and asked him why he done such a thing. Avram denied having done anything and blamed the largest of the idols for having burned the others. Thereupon Nimrod also challenged him by saying: “since when do these idols possess a spirit of life enabling them to act?” Avram then told Nimrod more or less the same as he had told his father, adding: “why do you reduce the god who has created heaven and earth to a wooden image and you worship such an image?” Thereupon Nimrod told Avram that he personally had created heaven and earth and that both heaven and earth were under his control. Thereupon Avram said to Nimrod: “You are able to create? when I came out of the cave I saw the sun rise in the east and set in the west. If you can make the sun rise in the west and set in the east I will worship you. If you are unable to do this, the one who gave me the power to burn the idols will also give me the power to kill you.” Upon hearing this Nimrod consulted with his advisors and asked them what to do with Avram? Thereupon the advisors told him: “this is the one concerning whom we have told you that he will become the founder of a nation which will take over the entire universe including the hereafter. Now the only thing you can do is to do to him what he has done to those idols which he burned.” Upon hearing the advice of his councilors Nimrod immediately threw Avram into a fiery furnace. At that point, G’d was filled with mercy for the boy and He saved him. This is the meaning of His words to Avram: “I have taken you out of the fire of the Casdim.”

אני ה' אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים לתת לך את הארץ“I am the Lord Who has taken you out of Ur Casdim in order to give you this land as an inheritance.” According to Nachmanides G’d did not tell Avraham anything new concerning the gift of the land of Canaan in this line. What He meant to tell Avraham here was that already at the time when He saved him from the furnace of Nimrod it had been in order to eventually give him the land of Canaan as an inheritance for his children. The fact that G’d had not revealed this to Avraham previously, had made him think that perhaps this promise was conditional, just as he had thought that the promise of having physical offspring was a conditional promise, based on certain expectations of him in the future. This is also why he did not ask for a sign that this promise would be fulfilled, seeing that he thought it depended on additional factors, such as the Canaanites not becoming penitents, for instance, if the promise would come true. (compare Jeremiah 18,7 רגע אדבר על גוי ועל ממלכה לנתוש, ולנתץ ולהאביד ושב הגוי ההוא מרעתו אשר דברתי עליו ונחמתי על הרעה אשר חשבתי לעשות לו., “At one moment I may decree that a nation or kingdom shall be uprooted and pulled down and destroyed, but if that nation against which I made the decree turns back from its wickedness I change My mind concerning the punishment I planned to bring upon it.”) Avraham wanted to be sure that here we are not dealing merely with an אות, a sign, but with a promise backed by a covenant, a promise not subject to being revoked due to the person or persons concerned not having proved worthy after the promise was made.” Other commentators see in the question במה אדע כי אירשנה “how will I know that I will indeed inherit it?” not a lack of faith, but an enquiry what steps he could take to ensure that there would not be a cause to revoke this promise. After all, Avraham dwelled amongst the very people whom G’d said He would displace in his favour, and it was no more than reasonable that if they should become aware of G’d’s promise to him they would make every effort to thwart the realization of this promise. One of the ways in which they would do this would be to pressure him to enter into a covenant with them asking him to forego realization of G’d’s promise to him. G’d told him that by delaying fulfillment of His promise until the fourth generation He could be sure that it would then qualify for fulfillment. These concerns by Avraham were entirely legitimate. Hence he asked for an assurance that the promise would indeed be ironclad.

And he said: Hashem, God, by what shall I know that I will inherit it?

במה אדע, for possibly my descendants will sin and forfeit their claim to this land.

במה אדע כי אירשנה, “how will I know that I will inherit it?” Avram meant: “by means of which merit will I inherit it?” G’d answered: “by means of the merit of the sacrifices you are about to offer.” This is the meaning of the verse קחה לי “take for Me” (verse 9). When G’d said this He again appeared to Avram as the attribute of א-דני, but in this instance it was followed by the letter ה [the name “Hashem” with the vowels of the name “elohim.”] to show that the attribute of Mercy was also involved to some extent. This amounts to the name שדי. You know that we must not pronounce the Ineffable Name as it is spelled. Hence the sages in charge of vocalisation adjusted the vowels in a manner that make them suitable for reading. We must use either the form “elohim,” or the form “adonai,” when pronouncing G’d’s name. A scriptural reminder that this is so is found in Chabakuk 2,2 וה' בהיכל קדשו הס מפניו כל הארץ, “and the Lord is in the Sanctuary of His Holiness; silence in His presence everyone on earth!” This verse is a reminder that only inside the Holy of Holies may the Ineffable Name be pronounced as we would read it had we not been cautioned not to read it as it is spelled.

“How shall I know that I will inherit it?” Our Sages said (Nedarim 32) that because Abram said “How shall I know,” he was punished with [the decree] Know with certainty [that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years]; and logic would refuse to accept this interpretation that his children should suffer such a great punishment because of the sign that Abram requested, while Abram himself received no punishment and [only] his children’s teeth were set on edge. Therefore, my heart tells me and concludes that the Egyptian exile had other causes, and our Sages disagreed about this, and you can find all the opinions in the Abarbanel, as he gathered them together. Indeed, the length of this single sheet is too short to record all those opinions. However, the author of this midrash found it difficult: Whatever the reason for the exile may be, why did the Holy One, Blessed be He, tell this bad news to Abram to cause him unnecessary pain? To this he answered that because of the sin of saying How shall I know, where he wanted to know something that there was no need to know — for why should he seek a sign for God’s word — therefore he was punished with Know with certainty where the Holy One, Blessed be He, informed him of something [distressing] to cause him pain, and this too was measure for measure. Regarding this matter that Abram asked about, many have wondered why he requested a sign regarding the inheritance of the land but did not ask for a sign regarding the promise of offspring. I raise an additional question: Why didn’t he ask for a sign about the land immediately when the Holy One, blessed be He, first told him To your offspring I will give this land (Genesis 12:7)? There are many opinions regarding these questions. I say that the sign he requested was not because Abram doubted God’s promise, but rather because he wanted the Holy One, blessed be He, to make a covenant with him to remove any potential claimants or challengers. For earlier, when God said to him I will give to your offspring, it implied just a gift, and for this Abram did not seek a covenant, because who would challenge a gift given by God, as the world and everything in it belongs to Him, and He can give the land to whomever He wishes. However, after God said to him to give you this land to inherit it (Genesis 15:7), this giving that He mentioned implies inheritance. This is because when Noah divided the land among his sons, he gave the land of Canaan to the sons of Shem, and now it was coming to him as an inheritance. Then Abram thought that perhaps Shem’s other heirs would contest their portion, for the sons of Shem were Elam, Arpachshad, Ashur, Lud, and Aram. Since Abram descended from Arpachshad, perhaps the other sons of Shem would contest the inheritance. Therefore he said, How shall I know that I will inherit it? (Genesis 15:8) — What is the sign that I alone am the heir without contest? The answer came to him: Take for me a three-year-old heifer (Genesis 15:9). Just as God made an eternal salt covenant with Aaron to remove Korach’s challenge, so too God made a covenant with Abram to remove all claimants and challengers, for it was customary in those times that all who made covenants would pass between the pieces, as is known.

And He said to him: Bring before Me three heifers, three female goats, three rams, a turtledove, and a young dove.

עגלה משלשת means THREE HEIFERS: symbolical of three sacrifices of bullocks, viz., the bullock offered on the Day of Atonement, the bullock offered when the correct interpretation of a precept was unknown (העלם) to leaders of the nation (see Leviticus 4:13), and the heifer whose neck had to be broken (see Deuteronomy 21:4) (Genesis Rabbah 44:14). ועז משולשת THREE GOATS — symbolical of the goat the blood of which was sprinkled in the Holy of Holies, of the goats of the additional sacrifices on Festivals, and of the goat brought as a sin-offering by an individual (Genesis Rabbah 44:14). ואיל משולש AND THREE RAMS—symbolical of the trespass offering brought by a man who knows for certain that he has committed certain offences, the offering brought by a man who is in doubt whether he has committed such offence, and the ewe brought by an individual as a sin-offering. ותור וגוזל means A TURTLE DOVE AND A YOUNG PIGEON (Genesis Rabbah 44:14).

A HEIFER ‘MESHULESHETH’ AND A SHE-GOAT ‘MESHULESHETH.’ Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra explained the word meshulesheth as meaning three years old. But Onkelos said “three.”259“Three heifers and three she-goats.” (Onkelos.) This is indeed correct since a three-year old cow is no longer called eglah (heifer), just as we have learned in a Mishnah: And here when the verse says eglah (heifer) it cannot therefore refer to a three-year old, as Ibn Ezra says. “But the Sages say that an eglah (heifer) is two years old; a parah (cow) is three years old.”The allusion here is to the three sacrifices which his seed will bring from them before Him: the Whole-offering, the Sin-offering and the Peace-offering. And as for the Guilt-offering, that is like the Sin-offering, the difference between them being merely in the name. It is possible that the meaning of the word meshulesheth is that he bring the three of them consecutively, each kind remaining separate. A similar use of this word is found in the verse, For they were in ‘meshulashoth’ (three) stories, meaning that there were upper, middle and lower chambers.

"A three-year-old she-goat" — some say: three she-goats. What seems correct to me is: a she-goat in its third year. "Ram" — this is the full-grown male sheep. "Fledgling" — a young pigeon, for from these alone — those named among the domesticated animals and the birds — are burnt-offerings and all sacrifices brought.

קחה לי עגלה, take a heifer for Me, in order to enter into a covenant concerning this assurance. Converting G’d’s promise into what is known as a “covenant,” is equivalent to G’d reinforcing His promise by an oath, something which is unconditional and irrevocable. (Rosh Hashanah 18) Moses himself confirmed this interpretation when he said (Deut 9,5) “not due to your righteousness or the uprightness of your heart, but due to the wickedness of these nations does G’d dispossess them on your account; and in order to keep His promise which He had sworn to your forefathers Avraham, Yitzchok and Yaakov.

קחה לי עגלה, “please take for Me a female calf;” the purpose of this revelation was to inform Avram what type of animal sacrifice would be appropriate to atone for which kind of unintentionally committed sins, so that the descendants of Avram would continue to exist. This interpretation is based on Bereshit Rabbah 44,14. עגלה משולשת, “a healthy and fat calf.” Compare Jeremiah 48,34 where the expression עגלה שלישיה occurs in the same sense. Compare also Talmud Gittin 56, עגלא תלתא. An alternate explanation for the word משולשת is: “three years old.” (Compare Ibn Ezra and Nachmanides)

“Take for me a three-year-old heifer.” Regarding this vision, there are many opinions. I too will share my interpretation. Since we find that in the promise of the land, sometimes the patriarchs are mentioned and sometimes their descendants, where do we find that the patriarchs had a portion in the land? Were they not all strangers in the land? Yet the verse states For I will give it to you, and it is written to give it to Abraham, to Isaac, and to Jacob, etc. (Exodus 6:8). Therefore, our Sages learned (Sanhedrin 90b) from here about the resurrection of the dead from the Torah, as it is said to give to them (Exodus 6:4) — it does not say “to you” but rather to them. This too requires explanation, for will the patriarchs inherit a portion in the land in this world during the resurrection of the dead? Rather, this refers to nothing other than burial, that they [the Patriarchs] would receive their portion to have a burial place in the Land [of Israel]. This is because all those who die in the Land of Israel will be the first to live again in the future, as will be explained with God’s help in Parshat Va’era (6:3). However, their descendants received their portion also during their lifetime in this world, while the Patriarchs specifically [received their portion] only after death, as they will be resurrected first. Therefore, the Holy One Blessed be He showed him in this vision: a heifer corresponding to Abram, as it is said about him And Abraham ran to the cattle (Genesis 18:7). And a goat corresponding to Jacob, who placed goat skins on his neck. And a ram corresponding to Isaac, who had a ram offered in his place. And so Rashi explained in Parshat Naso regarding the princes’ offerings (Numbers 7:21). And the turtledove and young pigeon correspond to Israel. And he cut them in half — this hints that these three Patriarchs specifically after being cut, meaning after death, would receive their portion in the Land, for those who die in the Land of Israel will live first, but not during their lifetime. But he did not cut the bird — because Israel, who are compared to the turtledove and young pigeon, will come to the Land alive. For in this, the Holy One Blessed be He showed him who would go to the Land and in what manner the Patriarchs would have a portion in the Land — which would be after being cut and death, meaning after their sun sets in this world, when the sleep of death falls upon them. This is what is meant by When the sun was setting, a deep sleep fell upon Abram, as it is said Before the sun darkens (Ecclesiastes 12:2). This indicates that when Abram sleeps and dies, then he will receive his portion in the Land, but not now, for the iniquity of the Amorites is not yet complete. And the Children of Israel would be those who enter the Land after Abram’s sun had set and the sleep of death [had come], as mentioned. However, [it comes] with this condition: Your offspring shall be strangers in a land not their own (Genesis 15:13). Initially [it is written in] the singular form your offspring, but afterwards it states and they will serve them in the plural form. This is because the state of being strangers began when Isaac was born and the forefathers were individuals, but the servitude began after they had multiplied. Regarding what is said in a land not their own, some say this refers to the people of the land [Egypt], for they too were strangers in their own land, as learned from the verse And he transferred the people to cities (Genesis 47:21), so that they would not call the Israelites exiles. And regarding the mention of four things — being strangers, servitude, affliction, and the distance of the Divine Presence in a land not their own — this will be explained, God willing, later in Parshat Va’era (6:6). And the reason for the number four hundred will be explained, God willing, in Parshat Chayei Sarah (23:16).

עגלה משולשת, some commentators believe that the meaning of the expression is “a fat calf,” similar to the expression עגלה שלישיה in Isaiah The requirement to select an especially fat specimen did not apply to the other species from which he was to offer a sacrifice. He took only a single animal from each species, and this was the reason G’d commanded him to cut them in half and place each half opposite its counterpart. Even according to Rashi who holds that he took 3 specimens of each species, he placed two whole animals opposite one another and divided only the third one in half, placing the halves opposite each other. The word עגלה משולשת is an allusion to the three basic categories of animal sacrifice, i.e. עולה, burnt offering, חטאת sin-offering, and שלמים, peace offering. The עולה and חטאת are basically similar different only in name.

He brought all these before Him and divided them equally, placing each half opposite its counterpart; but the bird he did not divide.

ויבתר אתם AND HE SPLIT THEM — He divided each into two portions. This verse does not lose its literal meaning although there are various Midrashic explanations of it. Since He was making a covenant with him to keep His promise to give the land as an inheritance to his children — as it is written (Genesis 15:18), “In that day the Lord made a covenant with Abram, saying …” — and as it was the custom for parties to a covenant to divide an animal and to pass between its parts, as it is said elsewhere (Jeremiah 34:19) “who passed between the parts of the calf”, so also here the smoking furnace and the flaming torch which passed between the pieces (Genesis 15:17) were representative of the Divine Shechinah which is spoken of as fire. ואת הצפור לא בתר BUT THE BIRDS SPLIT HE NOT — Because other nations are compared to bulls, rams and goats, as it is said (Psalms 22:13) “Many bulls have encompassed me”, and it says, (Daniel 8:20) “The ram which thou sawest having two horns, they are the kings of Media and Persia” and it further says, (Daniel 8:21) “And the rough he-goat is the king of Greece” — and Israel is compared to young doves, as it is written, (Song 2:14) ‘‘O my dove that art in the clefts of the rock” — he therefore divided the animals indicating that other nations will gradually perish, ואת הצפור לא בתר but “the birds split he not”, suggesting thereby that Israel will live forever (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 28).

AND HE DIVIDED THEM IN THE MIDST. This he did in order that He make the covenant with him, to pass between these parts. He thereby alluded to Abraham that all sacrifices of cattle and fowl will be from these species since the gozeil (young pigeon) mentioned here is identical with the ben yonah (young pigeon) mentioned in the Book of Leviticus 1:14. Here it is called gozeil to indicate that only the young of this specie are fit for sacrifices. Now even though all young fowl are called gozlim — as it is said, As an eagle that stirreth up her nest, hovereth over ‘gozalav’ (his young ones) — Abraham understood on his own that the command of the Eternal applied to the kind which was to be selected [by the Torah, namely, young pigeons]. It may be that Abraham followed his own will in offering a young pigeon, and Scripture selected forever the specie which the patriarch had offered. Thus did Abraham know that the sacrifices would be of these species and that all of them would be divided into parts: the Whole-offering into its pieces, the Peace-offering into the breast, shoulder and fats, -32 and the Sin-offering and the Guilt-offering into their fats.; 7:2-5. BUT THE BIRD HE DID NOT SPLIT. He placed the turtle-dove and the young pigeon opposite each other for they too were in the covenant, but Abraham did not split them in the middle since concerning all fowl offered on the altar it says, He shall not separate it. In Bereshith Rabbah the Sages said,27144:14. “The Holy One, blessed be He, indicated to him that in a bird Whole-offering, the ministering-priest severs both the gullet and the windpipe, but in a bird Sin-offering he does not sever” [the head from the body, as he must cut one and not both of the organs]. The principle is derived from the following textual inference: Since Abraham was asked to bring both “a turtle-dove and a young pigeon,” why does Scripture conclude by saying, And the bird [hatzipor — singular] he did not split? This is to indicate that of the two kinds of sacrifices to be brought from fowl, namely, the Sin-offering and the Whole-offering, only one would be subject to the injunction not to separate it, and Scripture later specifies that this is the bird Sin-offering. (Leviticus 5:8.)

"And he cut them" — he sliced them and separated them. Similarly: "upon the mountains of Bether" (Song of Songs 2:17), "between the parts" (Jeremiah 34:18). "And each man placed his half" — know that the word איש [man] is like בעל [owner, master], as in: "a man of war" (Exodus 15:3), "the man Gabriel" (Daniel 9:21). Its meaning is the essential one of a thing, as in: "a man of Belial" (II Samuel 20:1), which is in the construct state. Likewise among the living creatures (see Ezekiel 1:9) and among the curtains (Exodus 26:3): "each woman to her sister" [i.e., each toward its counterpart]. He placed each half facing its counterpart, for the animal and the human together are two. "The bird he did not cut" — that is, the turtledove and the fledgling, for צפור is a general term.

ויקח לו את כל אלה, “He took all these animals for Him;” our sages in Bereshit Rabbah claim that G-d showed Avram even what the measurement of a tenth of an eyfah looked like, (part of meal offerings). This is based on Bereshit Rabbah 34,14 where similar expressions are quoted as occurring here and in Leviticus 2,8: והבאת... מאלה where that meal offering is discussed. ויבתר אותם, Avram cut these animals in half. Some exegetes feel that all animal sacrifices were to be cut up in a similar manner. (no source mentioned) This opinion is based on the Torah writing in Leviticus 1,6: ונתח אותה לנתחיה, “the priest is to cut it up according to its components.” [The animal being offered as a burnt offering. Ed.] ואת הצפור לא בתר, “but he did not cut up the bird.” Later on, after the Torah was given, bird offerings were also not cut up but the priest tore parts apart with his bare hands. (Levitcus 1,17.) [The Torah there adds that the tearing must not result in complete separation of one part from another. Ed.] Our author feels that the reason is that they would then seem as too small to be fit as gifts to the Lord. A different explanation: The words ויבתר אותם בתוך, mean that he had cut them in half, i.e. in the middle. He had to allocate half of each animal to each party of the covenant, seeing that there were three of each of the mammals. He did not have to cut up the birds as there were only two, so that a whole bird could be allocated (symbolically) to each of the two parties of the covenant.

ואת הצפור לא בתר, “and he had not cut the bird in half.” The reason Avram had cut up the four-legged animals but not the birds was that the former represent the idolatrous Gentile Nations, and these have been compared to animals as it says (Psalms 22,13) סבבוני פרים רבים, “many bulls surround me.” It is also written in Daniel 8,20 האיל אשר ראית, “the ram that you saw... are the kings of Medes and Persia.” In verse 21 of the same chapter the king of Greece is described as הצפיר השעיר, the “he-goat.” On the other hand, in Song of Songs 5,2 and 2,14 the Jewish people are compared to doves. Seeing that Israel will continue to exist indefinitely, Avram did not cut up the birds representing it.

ויבתר אותם בתוך, “he halved them down the middle.” This was in order to conclude a covenant and to pass between them. The procedure also served as a symbol that in future all animal sacrifices would consist only of either of the species that were now in front of him. The only species of fowl acceptable as a sacrifice on the altar is the dove, either when a תר, or when a גוזל. [the difference has to do with the age of the bird. Ed.] The reason the term גוזל is used at all, is that only very young pigeons qualify as sacrifices, and we know from Deut. 32,11 כנשר יעיר קנו על גוזליו ירחף, “as the eagle that awakens its nest, hovers over her young, etc.” It is clear that גוזל is very young bird. [otherwise it would have already flown from the nest. Ed.] Avraham did not have to be told which species of bird would be acceptable to G’d as a sacrifice. It is also possible that he chose a pigeon as the species of bird in question without any direct or indirect prompting by G’d, and that the Torah respected Avraham’s choice and henceforth whenever one of his descendants brought a bird offering it had to be of that species. There is a hint here that all the animal sacrifices had to be cut up after being slaughtered, the burnt offering into its various parts, [although all of them were burned up. Ed.] and the peace offering in accordance with the parts that were allocated to the priest, rib-cage, right upper leg and cheek-bones, and the sin offering into its constituent parts so that the fat parts were separate for being burned up on the altar. ואת הצפור, “and the bird, etc,” a reference to the pigeon which is part of the generic term צפור. ואת הצפור לא בתר, “but he did not divide up the bird.” The expression בתר instead of הבדיל is a bit unusual, as in the legislation concerning bird offerings the Torah uses the expression לא יבדיל “he must not separate the head from the body completely.’ (Leviticus 1,17)

And birds of prey descended upon the carcasses, and Abram drove them away.

העיט THE BIRD OF PREY— It is a bird so called because it swoops down (עט) greedily upon dead bodies, darting quickly upon its food. Similarly we have the verbal form (1 Samuel 15:19) “And thou didst pounce down (ותעט) upon the spoil”. על הפגרים UPON THE CARCASSES i.e. the pieces of the carcasses. — The word הפגרים we should translate in the Targum by פגל) פגליא being the same as פגר); since, however, people were familiar with the Targum’s translation of the words איש בתרו (in Genesis 5:10) ‘‘each piece” by פלגיא (the halves), the word פגליא here was mistakenly changed by them into פלגיא and so they gave the Targum of פגרים (carcasses) by פלגיא (halves). But whoever renders it thus in the Targum is wrong for there is no comparison (similarity in meaning) between בתרים and פגרים; for the Targum of בתרים is פלגיא (“parts”, from פלג “to divide”,) whilst the Targum of פגרים is פגליא, which has the sense of פגול, something; abhorrent, as (Leviticus 7:18) פגול הוא “it shall be an abhorred thing”, similar in sense to פגר a carcass. וישב [AND ABRAM] SCARED THEM AWAY — The word means “blowing upon a thing and making a thing fly away”, similar to (Psalms 147:18) יַשֵּׁב רוחו “He causeth His wind to blow”. It is a symbol that David, the son of Jesse, will wish to destroy them (the nations), but that he will not be permitted by God to do so until king Messiah comes (Pirkei D'Rabbi Eliezer 28).

AND THE BIRDS OF PREY CAME DOWN UPON THE CARCASSES. [They came down] to eat them, as is the nature of birds. AND ABRAM DROVE THEM AWAY. It was thus alluded to Abraham that the nations would come to abolish the sacrifices, but the children of Abraham would drive them away.

"The birds of prey" — birds of prey, and likewise: "a speckled bird of prey is my heritage" (Jeremiah 12:9). "Upon the carcasses" — upon the bodies. "And he drove them away" — with dagesh in the shin, in place of the absorbed nun, like the forms יגרש and ישלח, meaning he drove the birds away from the carcasses. Likewise: "He sends forth His wind" (Psalms 147:18). Or: he caused the carcasses to move so as to frighten off the birds of prey.

וישב אותם אברם, Avram chased the vultures away. This verse has been inserted in the Torah only in order to draw our attention to the great sensitivity of Avram. After all, the vultures were only doing what vultures were supposed to do. Avram chased them away temporarily, until the presence of the Lord had taken leave of him, and the covenant had been concluded.

וירד העיט על הפגרים, “The bird of prey descended on the carcasses.” This was a hint that in the future the Gentile Nations would try and prevent the Israelites from performing sacrificial service in the Temple.

וירד העיט על הפגרים, “the vulture swooped down on the carcasses;” an allusion to the future when the nations of the world would endeavour to do away with the practice of animal sacrifice and the descendants of Avraham would chase them away and would uphold the practice.

And it came to pass, as the sun was about to set, that a deep sleep fell upon Abram, and behold, a terror of very great darkness fell upon him.

'והנה אימה וגו AND, LO, AN HORROR etc. — This is symbolic of the woes and the gloom of the Jews in Exile (Genesis Rabbah 44:17).

AND LO, A DREAD, EVEN A GREAT DARKNESS FELL UPON HIM. The Rabbis in the Midrash have interpreted this fourfold273“A dread,” “a great,” “darkness,” “fell.” expression to be an allusion to the servitude of the four exiles, for the prophet Abraham found his soul overtaken by “a dread,” followed by “darkness,” which in turn became “a great darkness,” and then he felt as if an overwhelmingly heavy load “fell” upon him. Thus the Rabbis have said: “A dread, this is Babylon. Darkness, this is Media that darkened the eyes of Israel with fasting (Esther 4:16.) and affliction. Great, this is the kingdom of Antiochus. Fell upon him, this is Edom. This experience came to Abraham because when the Holy One, blessed be He, made a covenant with him to give the land to his children as an everlasting possession, He said to him, by way of a residuary of His gift, that during the four exiles the nations will subjugate his children and rule in their land, subject to the condition that they sin before Him. Following this general allusion, He then informed him explicitly concerning another exile into which they will first go, namely, the Egyptian exile with which he had already been punished, as I have explained.

"And it came to pass, as the sun was going" — this is a sign for us that "he took all these" (Genesis 15:10) occurred by day, after he had awakened from the prophetic vision.

ויהי השמש לבא, “when the sun was about to set;” in other words, it was still full daylight, not yet time to lie down and sleep.

והנה אימה חשכה גדולה נופלת עליו, “and here a great darkness was falling upon him.” Here Avram received a hint of the four exiles the Jewish people would endure in the course of their history prior to the final redemption. Bereshit Rabbah 44,17 interpreted each of the following words as referring to a specific exile. The word אימה is an allusion to Babylon; the word חשכה alludes to Medes; the word גדולה refers to Greece; the word נופלת עליו is a reference to the exile under the Romans. Nachmanides wrote: Avram found himself afraid in his soul and this fear was followed by darkness. Later on the darkness increased still further until finally, he felt as if the darkness was physically falling upon him. The reason for all this was that while G-d had covenanted with Avram that He would give the land to his descendants as an eternal inheritance, He had made some reservation to this promise. The reservation was that four different kingdoms would at one time or another enslave the Jewish people and rule over them in their own land. This would be in retribution for sins committed by the Jewish people in the future. Afterwards G-d informed Avram of an exile that would precede the fulfillment of the promise that they would inherit the land of Canaan, the exile in Egypt. This exile was one that represented a punishment for himself because he had asked Sarai to tell a lie about their relationship. Thus far Nachmanides.

אימה חשכה גדולה, “a fear and great dread;” an allusion to the four exiles the Jewish people would experience during their history, as our sages explained in detail. Nachmanides says that when G’d concluded the covenant with Avraham to give him the land of Canaan this was meant only as a gift, with the condition attached that the four Kingdoms would at one time or another enslave his descendants and would rule over their land. Such an enslavement was not an unalterable decree but was based on the Jewish people becoming disloyal to the Torah which they had accepted as their law book. Later on, G’d informed Avraham of another type of exile, the one in Egypt which would precede their becoming a nation and accepting the Torah as I have explained.

And He said to Abram: Know surely that your descendants will be sojourners in a land that is not theirs, and they will serve them, and they will afflict them four hundred years.

כי גר יהיה זרעך THAT THY SEED SHALL BE A STRANGER — From the birth of Isaac until Israel left Egypt was a period of 400 years. How so? Isaac was 60 years old when Jacob was born, and Jacob when he went down to Egypt himself stated, (Genesis 47:9) “The days of the years of my sojournings are a hundred and thirty years”, making together 190 years. In Egypt they were 210 years — corresponding to the numerical value of the word רדו (see Rashi in Genesis 42:2) — making altogether 400 years. If, however, you say that they were in Egypt 400 years — well, Kohath was one of those who went down to Egypt with Jacob; go and add up the years of Kohath (130), those of Amram (137), and the 80 years that Moses was old when Israel left Egypt, and you only have about 350, and you really have to deduct all the years that Kohath lived after Amram was born, and those that Amram lived after the birth of Moses (Megillah 9a). בארץ לא להם IN A LAND THAT IS NOT THEIRS — It does not say here in the land of Egypt but in a land that is not theirs; for soon after Isaac was born it states, (Genesis 21:34) “And Abraham sojourned (ויגר) [in the land of the Philistines]”; in regard to Isaac it is said, (Genesis 26:3) “Sojourn (גור) in this land (Canaan)”, and of Jacob Scripture states, (Psalms 105:23) “Jacob sojourned (גר) in the land of Ham”, whilst of his sons it is said, (Genesis 47:4) “To sojourn (לגור) in the land (of Egypt) have we come”.

THAT THY SEED SHALL BE A STRANGER. This is a verse that is to be transposed, its purport being that “thy seed shall be a stranger for four hundred years in a land that is not theirs, and they shall enslave them, and they shall afflict them.” He has thus not specified the length of the period of servitude and affliction. There are many cases in Scripture where verses must be transposed if they are to be interpreted properly. Thus: There came unto me the Hebrew servant, who thou hast brought unto us, to mock me; The meaning being: “There came unto me to mock me the Hebrew servant.…” And all countries came into Egypt to buy corn to Joseph; The meaning being: “And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph.…” For whosoever eateth leavened bread, that soul shall be cut off from Israel, from the first day until the seventh day; The meaning being: “For whosoever eateth leavened bread, from the first day until the seventh day, that soul.…” In that day a man shall cast away his idols of silver, and his idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship, to the moles and to the bats; The meaning being: “In that day a man shall cast away to the moles and to the bats his idols.…” Come, and hearken, and I will declare, all ye that fear G-d, what He hath done for my soul; The meaning being: “All ye that fear G-d, come.…” They cry unto Me, My G-d we Israel know Thee; The meaning being: “Unto Me crieth Israel, ‘My G-d, we know Thee.’” And they shall be Mine, saith the Eternal of hosts, in the day that I do make, even Mine own treasure, and I will spare them. The meaning being: “And they shall be Mine treasure, saith the Eternal.…” There are many other such verses. The sense of the verse is: “Even though I tell you that I have given this land to your children, you should surely know that before I give it to them they shall be strangers for four hundred years in a land not belonging to them, and they shall also enslave them and afflict them.”Rabbi Abraham ibn Ezra said [that the verse should be interpreted as follows]: “You should surely know that your children shall be strangers in servitude and affliction until the end of a four hundred year period commencing from this day of the covenant.” If so, G-d informed Abraham of the time of the redemption, but He did not inform him of the exact length of the exile. This too is correct.

"For your seed shall be a stranger" — in the holy tongue, a person who has a family is called like a branch that clings to the root, and is therefore called an אזרח [native], whose sense is "like a fresh native tree" (Psalms 37:35). The sense of גר [stranger] is like a grain-kernel [גרגיר] severed from the branch. There are shallow-minded people who find this interpretation far-fetched, but if they understood the meaning of every letter and its form they would recognize the truth. "Four hundred years" — until the end of this period from today.

Know for sure. God’s main point here was that the inheritance of the Land had to wait until the sin of the Emorites was complete (v. 16). Along the way, however, He revealed the suffering that would befall some of Avraham’s offspring when they failed to live up to their obligations.

ויאמר לאברם, He said to Abram, etc. Why did G'd say ידע תדע, instead of simply תדע, know! Why did the Torah stress the word גר in גר יהיה זרעך, instead of the more customary זרעך יהיה גר? The Torah does not usually mention what happens before having stated to whom it is going to happen! Why does the Torah not make it clear when and to whom the various stages of being a stranger, being enslaved, and being afflicted apply? Will Abraham's descendants experience all these stages of unpleasantness for the whole of the 400 years, or will some experience some of the afflictions and others only being strangers such as history has taught us? I believe the Torah repeated the words ידע תדע for three separate reasons. 1) Our sages said: "our forefathers descended to Egypt on account of a relatively minor sin, i.e. Abraham having asked: 'How will I know that I will inherit'" (Genesis 15,8)? G'd answered him; ידוע, "know! that because you asked, תדע you should be aware that your descendants will first be strangers, etc." 2) Seeing that G'd's response to Abraham's question contained both a pleasant and an unpleasent message, i.e. enslavement and subsequent redemption, G'd told Abraham that just as surely as there would first be enslavement, this would be followed by redemption. 3) Our sages (Berachot 18) commented on Deut. 34,4: זאת הארץ אשר נשבעתי לאברהם, ליצחק וליעקב לאמד לזרעך אתננה, that G'd told Moses לאמר, to tell the patriarchs that He had fulfilled the oath He had sworn to all of them regarding the land of Israel. In view of this the repeated use of the expression ידע תדע refers to both the present and the eventual status of that land. The reason that the word גר is stressed by being placed ahead of what is going to happen, is to inform us that the status of being an alien commenced already at this time. Abraham's life from here on in was part of the decree. Abraham should not think that his descendants' history would parallel his own experience to the extent that they would be aliens only part of these 400 years. Abraham was not to misunderstand the meaning of the words כי גר יהיה זרעך as applying only at some time in the future. That period would commence the day he would have descendants, i.e. with the birth of Isaac. This was also a pleasant aspect of the decree in that all the years Isaac and Jacob lived either in the land of Canaan or at Laban's were counted as part of the 400 years. Should you argue that this could have been expressed equally well by use of the normal syntax כי זרעך גר יהיה, know that G'd wisely phrased it differently in order to reveal that He had not decreed slavery and oppression for all of Abraham's descendants. G'd wanted that Abraham should have the satisfaction of knowing that some of his descendants would only have to suffer being aliens, nothing worse. It is as if G'd had said to Abraham: "you will have a share in your descendants," i.e. they will only suffer being strangers without suffering anything worse. Had G'd used the word זרעך first, this would have created the wrong impression. By inserting the word יהיה between the words גר and זרעך the Torah makes clear that some of Abraham's descendants would experience only גרות. The descendants referred to were Isaac, Jacob, and all of Jacob's sons. As a result what sounded like 400 years of enslavement and oppression actually was reduced to 210 years, the years remaining before the Exodus after the last of Joseph's brothers had died. Even the tribe of Levi who, according to our sages never performed slave labour, did not completely escape the aspects of enslavement and oppression seeing that its babies too were subject to drowning. Moses' own experience when his basket stood in the bulrushes at the banks of the Nile, is the best proof for the anxieties suffered by even the most prominent families of the Levites.

ידוע תדע, G-d used the same words when punishing Avram that Avram had used when asking a question which was sinful. His descendants were ordained to endure exile as an example of matching the punishment to the crime. (Compare Tanchuma Kedoshim, 13) [only according to the exegetes who interpreted Avram’s question as demonstrating doubt in G-d’s promise. Ed.] ועבדום, “they will serve the rulers of that and other lands.” The subject is Avram’s descendants. וענו אותם, They (the nations), will oppress them during that period.

ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך וגו, “You shall surely know that your descendants will be strangers, etc.” According to the plain meaning of the text the verse means that Avram’s offspring would spend 400 years in a land which would not be theirs, that they would be enslaved and oppressed by the owners of that land. G-d deliberately refrained from telling Avram how many of these years would be spent in relative freedom and how many in oppressive slavery. Rabbi Avraham Ibn Ezra wrote that the four hundred years would commence on the day G-d spoke to him. If so, G-d would have predicted to the day when the Exodus would take place. [Rabbi Chavell saw several editions of Ibn Ezra, some of which had the line “and he did not tell him the date of the redemption.” The present edition of Mossad Harav Kook has the version we have quoted.] ארבע מאות שנה, “four hundred years.” The reason for this number in connection with the exile in Egypt is not clear. Not a single one of the commentators gives us any insight into this number. You will find that the number 400 is prominent in matters concerning the עין רע, “the evil eye.” The numerical value of the words עין רע is 400. The last letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the letter ת is equal to 400. As such it embodies all the letters in the alphabet. Similarly, עין רע is an all inclusive destructive concept. Seeing that the letter ה was added to Avram’s name (Avraham), a letter which represents the attribute of Justice, the evil eye gained power over him, and the attribute of Justice decreed exile on his descendants for four hundred years, corresponding to the עין רע, the eye of Satan. We may now understand the words ידוע תדע כי גר יהיה זרעך, “you must surely know that your descendants will be strangers” [they will be subject to a hitherto unknown attribute of G-d in their lives. Ed.], i.e. the ones who will be born as the result of the two letters ה which will be added to both your and Sarai’s name respectively, and which represent the attribute of Justice, will be subject to the evil eye. As a result of such a development ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה, they will be enslaved and oppressed for four hundred years. You will encounter this number again in connection with Efron, עפרן, whose name equals 400 and who demanded 400 shekel from Avraham before he allowed him to bury Sarah in the cave of Machpelah. What we learn from this is that עפרן also represented the “evil eye.” You will also find this in connection with עשו, who based his success in life on that of his father Yitzchak who represented the attribute of Justice. He too possessed עין רע, an evil eye. Midrash Bereshit Rabbah 76,8 claims that the reason Yaakov (Genesis 32,15) instructed the attendants of the herds and flocks he sent to his brother Esau as gifts to place a substantial distance between one flock and another was to satisfy Esau’s evil eye which could never get enough of anything. This may be the reason that Esau had taken precisely 400 men with him when he set out to meet (and maybe to kill) Yaakov.

כי גר יהיה זרעך בארץ לא להם ועבדום וענו אותם ארבע מאות שנה, “for your descendants will be strangers in a land which is not theirs, and during that period they (the owners) will enslave them and oppress them for four hundred years.” Nachmanides explains our verse as being truncated, the meaning being that while the offspring of Avraham would be strangers in a foreign land for 400 years, the nature and duration of their enslavement and oppression not having been defined. Ibn Ezra understands our verse as a prophecy describing the length of the enslavement but not the length of the status as exiles.

But also the nation whom they shall serve — I will judge; and afterward they shall go out with great possessions.

וגם את הגוי AND ALSO THAT NATION — The word וגם and also—(that nation also will I judge)—suggests that other nations will be judged as well: it is used here to include the four Monarchies (of the book of Daniel) who also will perish because they enslaved Israel (Genesis Rabbah 44:19). דן אנכי I WILL JUDGE with ten plagues (Genesis Rabbah 44:20). ברכוש גדול WITH GREAT SUBSTANCE — with great wealth, as it is said, (Exodus 12:36) “And they despoiled the Egyptians.”

‘VEGAM’ (AND ALSO) THAT NATION THAT MADE SLAVES OF THEM WILL I JUDGE. The words, And also, include the kingdoms of the four exiles which will be judged for having enslaved Israel. Thus the language of Rashi. By way of the simple meaning of Scripture, the verse is stating: “Just as I decreed exile and affliction for your children on account of sin, so will I bring judgment upon the nation that will enslave them for the violence they will do to them.”The correct meaning of the word vegam appears to me to be as follows: Even though I have decreed that your children be strangers in a land not their own, and they shall enslave them and afflict them, I will nevertheless judge the nation that will enslave them for what they will do to them, and they will not be exonerated for having done My decree.” The reason for this is as Scripture states: I am jealous for Jerusalem and for Zion with a great jealousy; and I am very sore displeased with the nations that are at ease; for I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil. And it says again, I was wroth with My people, I profaned Mine inheritance, and gave them into thy hand; thou didst show them no mercy; upon the aged hast thou very heavily laid the yoke. Such was the case with the Egyptians who increased the evil. They threw the children of the Israelites into the river, embittered their lives, and they intended to eradicate their name from memory. This is the meaning of the expression will I judge, i.e., “I will bring them to judgment to determine whether they did as was decreed upon them or if they increased the evil inflicted upon them.” It is this principle which Jethro stated: For it is the thing wherein they acted presumptuously [that caused the punishment to come] upon them. It was their presumptuousness that brought upon the Egyptians the great punishment which utterly destroyed them. And this principle is also expressed in the verse: for thou knewest that they dealt proudly against them. Now the Rabbi See Seder Bereshith, Note 139. stated the reason [for the punishment of the Egyptians — a punishment meted out even though it had been decreed that they were to enslave the Israelites] — in the Book of Knowledge: “It had not been decreed on any particular [Egyptian that he was to afflict the Israelites], and if any one of all those who perpetrated evil against Israel had not wanted to do it, he had the liberty to do so since the decree was not directed at any specific person.” Ramban’s position as explained in the text is shared by Rabbi Abraham ben David (Rabad), Rambam’s chief critic. (Ibid.)But to me the Rabbi’s words are not reconciled with the facts. Even if the Holy One, blessed be He, were to decree that any individual among all the nations should do them [the Israelites] evil in such-and-such a manner, and this specific individual fulfilled His decree with alacrity, he has the merit of fulfilling a Divine commandment. What sense is there in the Rabbi’s words? If a king were to command that the inhabitants of a certain country do a particular deed, he who is slack and throws the matter upon others offends and sins against himself, while he who does it wins the king’s favor. And this is all the more since Scripture states, And also that nation that made slaves of them, which clearly implies that the entire Egyptian nation was to enslave them, and they came to Egypt of their own free will! Instead, the reason [for the punishment of the Egyptians] is as I have written above. Our Rabbis already mentioned this matter when they said in Shmoth Rabbah:15. “This may be likened to a lord who told his son that he should work for a certain person who should not cause him any suffering. So he went and worked for him. Now even though he worked for him without recompense, the master did not cease causing him suffering. When the lord finally was reconciled with his son, he decreed death to those who caused his son suffering. Similarly, the Holy One, blessed be He, decreed that Israel be in servitude in Egypt. But the Egyptians overwhelmed them and enslaved them by force. “Said the Holy One, blessed be He: ‘You should have used them as servants who would do your needs. I was but a little displeased, and they helped for evil.’” Thus far [is the quote from the Midrash Shmoth Rabbah]. Now it is clear that throwing Hebrew children into the river was not included in the decree, And they shall enslave them, and afflict them, for this would result in their complete destruction. Similarly, that which the Egyptians said at first, Come, let us deal wisely with them lest they multiply is not part of servitude or affliction. Besides, they themselves increased the degree of affliction, as Scripture testifies, And they made their lives bitter with hard service, etc. It is this which Scripture states in the following verse: And he saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression. Know and understand that a person who, on the New Year, has been inscribed and sealed for a violent death, The significance of the words “and sealed” is as follows: According to the Talmud (Rosh Hashanah 16 b), only the completely wicked people are inscribed “and sealed” immediately on Rosh Hashanah for death. The fate of the average person is not “sealed” until the Day of Atonement. Yet, continues Ramban, no one has a right to kill that person even though death was already decreed for him on the New Year, which would indicate that he was a completely wicked person. the bandits who kill him will not be guiltless because they fulfilled that which had been decreed against him. That wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood will be sought from the murderer. However, when a decree issues from the mouth of a prophet, there are different laws concerning one who fulfills it. If he heard it and he wishes to fulfill the Will of his Creator as decreed, there is no sin upon him for doing so. On the contrary, it is accounted to him as a merit, just as it is said concerning King Jehu: Because thou hast done well in executing that which is right in Mine eyes, and hast done unto the house of Ahab according to all that was in My heart, thy sons of the fourth generation shall sit on the throne of Israel. However, if he heard the command and killed him out of his personal hatred or in order to take his wealth, he is subject to punishment for his intention was to sin, and it is accounted to him as a transgression. Scripture so states with respect to Sennacherib, [king of Assyria]: O Asshur the rod of Mine anger… I do send him against an ungodly nation, and against the people of My wrath do I give him a charge. And Scripture continues: but not so doth he mean, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy. This is why he was punished in the end, just as it is said, Wherefore it shall come to pass, that when the Eternal hath performed his whole work… I will punish the fruit of the arrogant heart of the king of Assyria, and the glory of his haughty looks, etc. Again it says concerning Sennacherib: Israel is a scattered sheep, the lions have driven him away; first the king of Assyria hath devoured him, and last this Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon. …Therefore thus said the Eternal… Behold, I will punish the king of Babylon and his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria. This is proof that the king of Assyria was punished because of the evil he did to Israel. Now Nebuchadrezzar heard that the prophets unanimously called upon him to destroy Jerusalem, and he and all his people were commanded to do this by word of the prophet, as it is written, Behold, I will send and take all the families of the north, saith the Eternal, and I will send unto Nebuchadrezzar the king of Babylon, My servant, and will bring them against this land, and against the inhabitants thereof… and I will utterly destroy them. And it is further written, Behold I will give this city into the hand of the Chaldeans, and into the hand of Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon… and they shall set the city on fire. -29. Concerning the Sanctuary itself, the prophet said, I will make this house like Shiloh. Shiloh was destroyed by the Philistines. (I Samuel 4.) The Chaldeans knew that it was the command of G-d, as Nebuzaradan [captain of the guard of the King of Babylon] said to Jeremiah, The Eternal thy G-d pronounced this evil upon this place; and the Eternal hath brought it, and done according as He spoke, because ye have sinned against the Eternal. -3. Yet despite this, the Chaldeans were all punished in the end. This was because of two reasons. First, Nebuchadrezzar also intended to destroy the entire land in order to increase his authority, as it is written concerning him: And I will cause the arrogancy of the proud to cease, and will lay low the haughtiness of the tyrants; and again it is written: And thou hast said in thy heart, I will ascend into heaven… I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the Most High. -14. Concerning his nation it is written, Thou sayest in thy heart: I am, and there is none else beside me. Habakkuk the prophet said concerning him, Woe to him that gaineth evil gains for his house, that he may set his nest on high, etc. Thus Nebuchadrezzar’s punishment is as that of Sennacherib. It is for this reason that Scripture says, Therefore thus saith the Eternal… Behold, I will punish the king of Babylon and his land, as I have punished the king of Assyria. And there was yet another reason for punishment in the case of the king of Babylon, i.e., for his having added to the decree and having exceedingly perpetrated evil against Israel, as it is said concerning him, I was wroth with My people, I profaned Mine inheritance, and gave them into thy hand; thou didst show no mercy, upon the aged hast thou very heavily laid thy yoke. Therefore did a twofold punishment come upon him: his people were utterly destroyed, there remaining of Babylon no name and remnant, offshoot and offspring, and his city was destroyed forever, as it is said, And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldeans’ pride, shall be as when G-d overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelled in from generation to generation… But wild-cats shall lie there… and satyrs shall dance there. -21. Scripture further states concerning him, For it is the vengeance of the Eternal, the vengeance of His temple, and it is written, ‘The violence done to me and to my flesh be upon Babylon,’ shall the inhabitants of Zion say; and ‘My blood be upon the inhabitants of Chaldaea,’ shall Jerusalem say. Therefore thus saith the Eternal: Behold, I will plead thy cause, and take vengeance for thee. -6. There are many verses like these.

"Whom they shall serve" — that they shall be slaves to them.

וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו דן אנכי, just as I judge your descendants, for the wickedness with enslavement and cruel suppression, so I will judge the nation that enslaves them."

וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי, "I will also judge the nation for whom they perform slave labour." What justification is there for the word "also" in this verse? The last subject the Torah spoke about was enslavement and oppression. How can the retribution be linked to the former by the word וגם, "and also?" Besides, as we are all aware that G'd is the judge, why does G'd have to say דן אנכי, "I will judge?" Who else could possibly judge? Why does the Torah write את הגוי instead of merely הגוי, "the nation?" Why does the Torah not mention the conclusion of the Jewish people's exile experience at the end of verse 13 by adding: "after that they will depart with great possessions," and then add the part about G'd's retribution to the Egyptians in verse 14? Why was the part about the retribution inserted in the middle of the sequence? The last question is probably best answered by recalling that events actually happened in precisely the order the Torah describes. First the Jews were enslaved and oppressed, then G'd smote the Egyptians with the ten plagues; finally the Jews left Egypt having "borrowed" all of the Egyptians' gold and silver. An equally valid explanation of the sequence of the verse will become clear when we keep in mind what our sages had to say on Exodus 13,18. We read there that וחמושים עלו בני ישראל מארץ מצרים. According to the Mechilta the meaning is that only one out of five Israelites left Egypt, the remainder having died in Egypt during the plague of darkness so as not to afford the Egyptians the satisfaction to observe that they had not been worthy of redemption. The judgments that verse 14 speaks about then would be G'd judging the Israelites who did not merit to participate in the Exodus. The verse also alludes to the opportunity the Israelites had to examine where the Egyptians kept their valuables during the days of darkness, and to subsequently demand to borrow those. The expression וגם is used to demonstrate that G'd kept the promise made to Abraham here. This was recorded in Exodus 12,35-36. The word וגם means that G'd referred to something in addition to the decree of enslavement, namely that the redemption would be accompanied by a windfall of silver and gold, a compensation for some of the suffering to be endured. The word את refers to the death of 80% of the Israelites, whereas the word אנכי refers to the fact that this was something only G'd himself would know about; the Egyptians would not have any idea that some Jews died during the plague of darkness. The question arises why G'd punished the Egyptians altogether when they had actually carried out the decree G'd had announced long previously. Maimonides already answered this in his ספר המדע, explaining that G'd had never appointed a specific nation to carry out His decree. Whenever Gentile nations abuse Jews and this appears to be a fulfilment of a divine decree, none of the Gentiles had ever been specifically charged to be G'd's agents in the matter. Nachmanides and Rabbi Avraham ben David both take issue with Maimonides on this. They feel that inasmuch as those Gentiles had carried out G'd's wishes they had actually performed a מצוה. Nachmanides explains that the reason that G'd punished those nations was that they carried out the commandment with excessive enthusiasm. They demonstrated that they were intent on inflicting maximum discomfort on the Jews rather than to carry out G'd's will by what they did. When we keep this in mind, the word וגם refers to the excessive zeal displayed by the nations who persecute us which is the reason that G'd judges them. The word את then means that while G'd is busy punishing the Gentiles, He punishes the Jews who deserve it at one and the same time. The Gentile nations persecute us because we separated ourselves from them by rejecting their religion. Had the Jewish people worshiped the lamb (Egyptian deity) in Egypt, the chances are the Egyptians would not have seen in us a foreign element and they would not have persecuted us. The same holds true throughout our history. Our persecution by the nations (at least from their point of view) has always been due to our refusal to accept their religious yardsticks, and to our describing ourselves as G'd's chosen people. The Gentile nations never viewed themselves as performing G'd's decree to punish us for our sins. There is therefore no question that they deserve retribution for what they did to us on their own initiative. G'd decreed that we be punished because we did not observe all of His commandments, whereas they persecuted us for not disregarding all of His commandments. This is what the prophet Zecharyah 1,15 had in mind when he quoted G'd as saying: אני קצפתי מעט והמה עזרו לרעה, "I was angry a little (because of a few sins Israel committed), and they overdid the punishment." In fact the Gentile nations contributed to our transgressing more of G'd's commandments because they maltreated us so much. G'd goes on record here that He knows the true motivations of our oppressors and that is why He will punish the Egyptians. The Torah continues by linking Israel's redemption to the degree of abuse they would experience at the hands of the Egyptians by saying: ואחרי כן יצאו, "and as a result of this (exaggerated maltreatment) they will depart with great belongings;" Israel's redemption would be due in large measure to the excessive cruelty of its oppressors rather than to its accumulated merits. Sanhedrin 104 tells about the delegation the Egyptians sent to Alexander the Great demanding that the Jews return the silver and gold they had taken with them from Egypt at the time of the Exodus. Israel's representative countered by demanding back-pay with interest for several hundred years of slave labour by over a half a million of its people for over 200 years. Our verse also contains a hint that when the Israelites went down to Egypt G'd's presence accompanied them (Megillah 29). Psalms 91,15: "I will be with him (Israel) in distress," is also proof that the שכינה accompanies the Jewish people into exile. Another indication that our verse speaks about the enslavement of the Israelites in Egypt is Exodus 24,10 where the nobles of Israel had a vision of a sapphire brick underneath the throne of G'd. This is an allusion to G'd having been present when the Israelites were engaged in brick-making in Egypt.

את הגוי, the subject is the exile in Egypt. The word: וגם, “and also,” is a hint of other exiles in the history of the Jewish people. ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול, “as a reward for having endured all this they will leave for freedom with many possessions as compensation.”

וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו, “and also the nation whom they will serve I will judge, etc.” Nachmanides writes as follows in his commentary on this verse: The word וגם introduces the thought that although “I have decreed exile on the Israelites and therefore the people who have enslaved them may be perceived as merely executing My will, I will judge that people for what they will do and I will not let them go free because in what they did they carried out My plan.” The reason for all this has already been recorded in Zechariah 1, 14-15 קנאתי לירושלים ולציון קנאה גדולה, וקצף גדול אני קוצף על הגוים השאננים אשר אני קצפתי מעט והם עזרו לרעה, “I am very jealous for Jerusalem- for Zion- and I am very angry with those nations that are at ease; for I was only angry a little, but they overdid the punishment.” The author quotes more verses of a similar nature. At any rate, the Egyptians had not received instructions from G-d to serve as His taskmaster against the Jews, nor had their inhuman treatment of the Israelites been what G-d had intended. The Egyptians had tried to destroy the Jewish people not to discipline them. This is why they were punished for their excess cruelty. This is why G-d told Avram: דן אנכי, “I am going to judge.” G-d promised hat He was going to investigate if what the host-nation does conformed to His will or if they had added to G-d’s decree of their own will. This is also what had impressed Yitro (Exodus 18,11) when he said כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “for with the matter that they had sinned, He (G-d) judged them.” Seeing that the Egyptians had used water to drown the Jewish babies, something which most certainly had not been part of G-d’s plan, He punished them by means of water (when He drowned them in the sea of reeds). You should know that if G-d had decreed that Reuven should be killed and such a decree had been recorded and sealed in front of G-d on Rosh Hashanah (in other words that the decree had become irreversible), the human executioner of said Reuven will not be considered free of the charge of murder even though what he did resulted in G-d’s decree being carried out. Such an executioner is a murderer and will be punished by G-d as such. If however, said human executioner had heard from the mouth of a prophet that a decree of death had been passed by the celestial court on a certain person and he made himself the executioner of that decree in order to carry out G-d’s will, he will not only not be considered a murderer but he will be credited with having done a good deed. We find a classic example of this when Jehu killed the surviving family of Achav (Kings II 10,17, and 10,30). We read there: יען אשר הטיבות לעשות הישר בעיני ככל אשר בלבבי עשית לבית אחב, בני רבעים ישבו לך על כסא ישראל. “Because you have acted well and done what was pleasing to Me, having carried out all that I desired upon the House of Achav, four generations of your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel.” If the person doing something similar had not heard the decree of G-d against his intended victim and he had committed the act out of feelings of personal hatred or in order to commit robbery, he is subject to being punished for the same deed that someone who had heard G-d’s decree would be rewarded. We have an explicit verse in Isaiah 10,5-6 in which the prophet spells this out. “Ha, Assyria, rod of My anger in whose hand, as a staff is My fury! I send him against an ungodly nation, I charge him against a nation that provokes Me. To take its spoil and to seize his booty and to make it a thing trampled like the mire of the streets.” The prophet goes on to say in verse 7: “But he (Assyria) has evil plans, his mind harbours evil designs, etc.” It is clear that the prophet draws a line of distinction between a conqueror who does what he does because he wishes to fulfill the designs of his Maker, and the conqueror who is merely motivated by dreams of personal glory, vengeance, and other base motives. The same applied to Nebuchadnezzar. All of the prophets had declared that G-d had decreed destruction on Jerusalem and that Nebuchadnezzar and all his people had been chosen to be the instrument by means of which G-d’s decree would be carried out. This is what we read in Jeremiah 32,28-29: הנני נותן את העיר הזאת ביד הכשדים וביד נבוכדרצר מלך בבל, “here I am about to deliver the city of Jerusalem into the hands of the Chaldaens and Nebuchadrezzar the King of the Babylon and they will put the city to fire.” Nonetheless we find that Nebuchadrezzar was punished just as Sancheriv had been punished for exiling the Ten Tribes (compare Jeremiah 50,18). כה אמר ה' הנני פוקד אל מלך בבל ואל ארצו כאשר פקדתי אל מלך אשור, “so says G-d: ‘I will deal with the King of Babylon and his country just as I have dealt with the King of Ashur.” Thus far Nachmanides’ comment on our verse. You have to appreciate that when G-d concluded this “covenant between the pieces” with Avram, Avraham was only 70 years old. Although we have been told at the beginning of chapter twelve that Avram was 75 years old when he moved to the land Canaan, this had been his second departure from Charan. The first time he had left Charan was when he was seventy, and the next time when he was seventy-five. The Torah is not bound to record events in chronological order. Thirty years elapsed between the covenant mentioned in this chapter and the birth of Yitzchak. At the time when Yitzchak was born (21,5), Avraham was one hundred years old. The decree of four hundred years exile applied from the birth of Yitzchak. So we have a total of 430 years between the time this covenant was concluded and the Exodus from Egypt. This is the meaning of Exodus 12,40 “the duration of the stay of the Jewish people in Egypt was four hundred and thirty years.” A Midrashic approach to our verse (Bereshit Rabbah 44,21-22) views the repetition of the words ידוע תדע as follows: The first ידוע means “know that I will scatter them.” The second תדע means “know that I will gather them in” (after they have been in exile). The message is: “Just as the exile will not be accidental but will be orchestrated by Me, so I will also be the One who will orchestrate the ingathering of the exiles.” The words וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו refer to the other four exiles which the Jewish people will experience after the exile in Egypt, the four exiles we already alluded to earlier. G-d’s message is that what will happen to the four empires who will exile the Jewish people will be similar to what will happen to the Egyptians. The words דן אנכי are an allusion to the Ten Plagues with which G-d would smite the Egyptians, the letters in the word ד-ן are the first letters of the words דם נגע, ‘blood, plague.” The word נגע appears in the Torah in connection with the tenth plague (Exodus 11,1).

וגם את הגוי אשר יעבודו דן אנכי, “but I will also judge the nation to whom they will be enslaved;” according to Rashi this prophecy includes the four exiles of the Jewish people starting with the destruction of the first Temple. Nachmanides explains the meaning of our verse as being: “just as I judged your descendants by decreeing exile and bondage for them for having sinned, I will also judge the nation which enslaved them for the violence they have done to this people. Personally, I believe that the correct interpretation of the word וגם “and also,” in our verse is: “although I decreed that your descendants would be exiles in a land not their own, I will also judge and punish the nation that has enslaved them and not exonerate them seeing that by what they did they had carried out My decree.” The reason why such treatment is not unfair has already been described in Zecharyah 1,14-16: “Thus said the Lord of Hosts: I am very jealous for Jerusalem-for Zion- and I am very angry with those nations that are at ease; for I was only angry a little, but they overdid the punishment. Assuredly, thus said the Lord, I graciously return to Jerusalem.” What G’d predicted He would do to the destroyers of Jerusalem, He did to Egypt at the end of the exile of the Jewish people in that land. This is precisely what caused Yitro to convert and to say כי בדבר אשר זדו עליהם, “for He fitted the punishment to the crime, punishing them in the manner they had brutalised the Jewish people,” (by drowning them. Exodus 18,11) Maimonides (Hilchot Teshuvah chapter 6) writes that the reason why G’d punished the Egyptians and the nations who had oppressed the Jews throughout the centuries is that not any specific Egyptian or Babylonian or Roman had been instructed by G’d to carry out His decree against the Jews. As a result, not one of them had the right to take it upon himself to be G’d’s ”executioner.” Nachmanides queries Maimonides’ approach writing that if G’d had appointed a particular person or nation to be His “executioner” in this regard, surely if someone had preceded another person, carrying out G’d’s expressed will, not only would he not have been punished for doing so, but he would have been lauded, been given a reward! I therefore conclude that my own reason was the correct one, namely that they used excess zeal in carrying out G’d’s decree, thereby making it their own. This is the reason Nevuchadnezzar was so severely punished although the prophet Jeremiah had foretold that it would be he who would carry out G’d’s decree. Let us not forget that the Israelites came to Egypt at the express invitation of Pharaoh and that the Egyptians by themselves did not have the slightest excuse for making slaves out of them. How could they ever have claimed to have done so at the behest of G’d? If G’d even punished Nevuchadnezzar who did carry out a specific punishment G’d had decreed to be carried out by him, (though he had not been instructed by G’d directly to do so) then the reason for his punishment must lie in the excess cruelty he applied in carrying out G’d’s purpose. The same applies to individuals who, by G’s judgment, are sentenced to be killed by man during the new year. The killer will not be able to claim exoneration arguing that the individual in question was already legally dead as G’d had decreed that he die a violent death during that year. Seeing that G’d had not instructed the killer to be His messenger, His executioner, he will be considered a simple murderer and be dealt with on that basis. The only exception was Yehu who had been instructed by the prophet, in the name of G’d, to kill the family of Achav (Kings II 10,24)

And you will enter to your fathers in peace; you will be buried in a good old age.

ואתה תבוא BUT THOU SHALT COME etc. Thou shalt not behold all this. אל אבותיך UNTO THY FATHERS — His father was an idolator and yet it (the text) announced to him that he (Abraham) would go to him! But this teaches you that Terah repented of his evil ways (Genesis Rabbah 30:4). תקבר בשיבה טובה THOU SHALT BE BURIED IN A GOOD OLD AGE — He announced to him that Ishmael would repent during his (Abraham’s) life-time (Genesis Rabbah 38:12). Esau, too, did, not become degenerate during Abraham’s life-time. It was just for this reason (in order that he might not witness Esau’s evil conduct) that Abraham died five years before his proper time, for the very day when he died Esau rebelled against God (Genesis Rabbah 63:12).

AND THOU SHALT COME TO THY FATHERS IN PEACE. And thou shalt not behold at this. Thus the language of Rashi. This is not correct according to Rashi’s own interpretation, namely, that the decree, thy seed shall be a stranger in a land not their own, took effect as soon as Abraham had a child. Thus, soon after Isaac was born it states, And Abraham sojourned (‘vayagar’) in the land of the Philistines; The word vayagar has the same root letters as geir (stranger), thus suggesting that Abraham lived as a “stranger” in a land which was not his own. And Isaac sojourned in Gerar. The verse however states, vayeshev (and he “dwelled”), and not vayagar. In Rashi a different verse is quoted: Sojourn (‘gur’) in this land. (Ibid., Verse 3.) Now gur has the same root as vayagar. (See preceding note.) Now if so, Abraham was also included in the decree! But the meaning of the verse, And thou shalt come to thy fathers in peace, is that “no punishment will come to you from Me even though I decree on your children punishments of servitude and affliction.”

"You shall come to your fathers" — a euphemism for death, as is the way of all the earth. The meaning of "in peace" is that you will die with honor, and not as your seed.

ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום. As for you yourself, you will join your forefathers in peace. Why did the Torah interrupt the promises made to Abraham's descendants with a promise to Abraham personally? Even though G'd wanted to reassure Abraham that he personally would not experience the part of the decree connected with enslavement and oppression, this could have been stated after G'd had concluded telling him which generation would experience the redemption! The meaning would have been clear since the promise was adjoining the promise that Israel would experience redemption! Besides, why did the Torah have to repeat itself, stressing: a) "in peace," and b) "in a ripe old age?" Would it not have sufficed to promise Abraham that he would die in a ripe old age before the enslavement of his descendants would commence? The promise of death in a ripe old age would have implied that Ishmael would become a penitent, as pointed out by Bereshit Rabbah 38,12. Righteous people, and especially our patriarchs, were always concerned with losing part of the reward they had stored up for use in the Hereafter through some act of kindness G'd would perform for them in this world. According to Bereshit Rabbah 44,4 Abraham worried that he might have caused the death of an innocent person in his war against the four kings and that as a result he had forfeited some of his eternal reward. G'd therefore reassured him by saying in 15,1: "Do not worry, your reward will be great." In view of the concern that Abraham displayed then it is reasonable to assume that he was similarly worried whether the eventual redemption from Egypt would not use up too many merits if it were accompanied by extraneous perks such as the רכוש גדול, acquisition of material wealth that would accompany it. What troubled Abraham was that clearly G'd would have to perform miracles in order to free his enslaved descendants when the time came. G'd wanted to put his mind at rest immediately; this is why He interrupted the prediction of what was going to happen by promising Abraham that his peace of mind would not be disturbed. The promise of שלום, refers to Abraham's peace of mind in the Hereafter, whereas the שיבה טובה, ripe old age, refers to his concerns about life on earth.

ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, “but you will die and join your fathers in peace (before all this will happen.)” Rashi says that the meaning is that Avraham will not experience fulfillment of the prophecy or the decree in his lifetime. Nachmanides disagrees, seeing that Avraham has been told specifically that you will be a stranger,” a condition which will be fulfilled the moment Yitzchok was born. The Torah even refers to the fact that when he traveled to the land of the Philistines, ויגר אברהם בארץ פלשתים ימים רבים “Avraham sojourned (was an alien) in the land of the Philistines for many years.” (21,34) It follows that he himself already experienced part of the decree becoming fulfilled. Accordingly, the meaning of our verse is that he would join his forefathers immediately after death without having to experience punishment for any sins committed and not yet forgiven.

And in the fourth generation they will return here, for the sin of the Amorites is not yet complete until now.

ודור רביעי BUT A FOURTH GENERATION — i.e. after they go into exile in Egypt they will be there three generations, and the fourth will return to this land (הֵנָה hither). For He was then speaking to him in the land of Canaan and it was there that He made this covenant, as it is written (v.7) “to give thee this land to inherit it”. Thus it really was: Jacob went down to Egypt. Go and count up his generations: Judah, Perez, Hezron— and Caleb (whose father Jephuneh is identified with Hezron, see Sotah 11b) was amongst those who entered the land of Canaan. כי לא שלם עון האמורי FOR THE INIQUITY OF THE AMORITE IS NOT YET FULL enough that he should be driven out of his land until that time, for the Holy One, blessed be He, does not exact punishment from any nation until its measure is full, as it is said, (Isaiah 27:8) “In her full measure wilt thou contend with her when thou sendest her away” (Sotah 9a).

AND IN THE FOURTH GENERATION THEY SHALL COME BACK HITHER. After they are exiled into Egypt, they will be there for three generations. And thus it happened; Jacob was exiled into Egypt. Go and reckon his generations: Judah, Peretz, Chetzron, and Caleb the son of Chetzron was amongst those who entered the Land. Thus the language of Rashi. But this is not correct at all. And if “the dwelling in a strange land” is to be reckoned as beginning with Abraham, there are seven generations from Abraham to Caleb: Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah, Peretz, Chetzron and Caleb. (Tur.)The correct interpretation appears to be that the fourth generation refers to the Amorite whose sin will then become full, (Tur.) for from the day of the decree He prolonged the time of the Amorite, as He visits iniquity upon the third and fourth generation. Had the Amorites repented of their iniquities He would not have utterly destroyed them. Rather, they would have been a levy of bondservants, or they might have gone elsewhere. THE INIQUITY OF THE AMORITE. He mentioned the strongest among them, The Amorites are specifically singled out for their height by the prophet Amos, mentioned further on. Whose height was like the height of the cedars. The verse begins: Yet I destroyed the Amorite, whose height.… The Israelites would not be able to overpower him until his measure of sin was full and his own iniquities will ensnare him. Moreover the Amorite was the first one to be captured by them, and it was his land which they inherited first. Hence his name is singled out here in the verse.

"And the fourth generation" — most commentators have erred in their interpretation of דור [generation]. Now the ancients said "ten generations" (Mishnah Avot 5:2), and we find "for a thousand generations" (Deuteronomy 7:9), and in Job "four generations" (Job 42:16). What seems correct to me is that דור means the same as "dweller," as in: "a sojourn in the tents of wickedness" (Psalms 84:11). Its measure is the span during which a person dwells on earth, and this can be long or short. "The fourth generation" — after his seed had been strangers. This refers to Egypt, as it is written: "for you were a stranger in his land" (Deuteronomy 23:8); so it was that Kehat was a stranger, and Amram, and Moses, and Aaron as well — and their children returned to the land of Canaan. "The iniquity of the Amorite" — this is explained by the verse "my punishment is greater than I can bear" (Genesis 4:13). He singled out the Amorite because of its power. Moses slew the great kings, who were the kings of the Amorites, and the five kings of the Amorites banded together against Joshua; and there are other proofs. So too the prophet said: "who were tall as the cedars" (Amos 2:9). As for one who explains the Amorites as derived from the root אמר [speaking], he has said nothing.

ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, "And the fourth generation will return here, etc." We must examine why the extent of the sins of the Emorite has a bearing on the timing of Israel's return to its homeland. Rashi and Nachmanides disagree on what the words "the fourth generation" refer to. Rashi understands them as a reference to the fourth generation from Yehudah (who descended to Egypt). His son was Peretz, his grandson was Chetzron; great grandson Caleb returned to the land of Israel. Nachmanides rejects Rashi's explanation preferring to understand the words as referring to a fourth generation of Emorites. He bases himself on G'd waiting up to four generations before visiting the sins of the fathers on their descendants (Exodus 34,7). Even if we accept the words of Nachmanides, why did G'd mention this fact to Abraham? Besides, it appears that no provision was made for the possible penitence of the Emorite, which, according to Nachmanides, would have delayed a return of the Jewish people to their homeland still further? Furthermore, assuming that Nachmanides is correct, why did G'd mention the sin of the Emorite altogether once He had told Abraham that the Jewish people would return to their homeland in the fourth generation? Actually, G'd told Abraham of two possible timetables according to which the return of his descendants to the land of Canaan could occur. One is the end of the exile in Egypt and the oppression there. This would occur when the combination of the years of being a stranger, being enslaved, and finally being oppressed (עינוי), would total 400 years. At that point G'd's decree would have been completed and He could lead the Jewish people forth from Egypt on the very day that those years came to an end. The second time factor which would enable the Jewish people to return to their homeland would be determined by the measure of guilt the Emorites had accumulated by that time. This would occur in the fourth generation, a generation later than the Exodus. For the purpose of this calculation the generation of Caleb is considered the third generation inasmuch as Caleb left Egypt as an adult. Even though Caleb personally entered the Holy Land (Numbers 14,30), the entry of a single Jew certainly does not constitute the return of a people to their homeland. When the Torah speaks about a generation it refers to the majority of the members of that generation. Caleb's sons constituted part of the fourth generation, as did all those who had not attained the age of 20 prior to the Exodus. The four generations are not to be counted as commencing with Yehudah, as does Rashi. If we were to count in Rashi's fashion i.e. from the time G'd's decree became effective, there is no reason why Isaac himself should not be considered as a generation either, seeing that the 400 years commenced with his birth. If, on the other hand, we are to count the generations as commencing with the first Jew who descended to Egypt, the count should commence with Jacob. If we did this, Caleb himself would already be the fifth generation. It is clear then that the count was meant to commence with the period the Israelites experienced enslavement. Shemot Rabbah 1,5 states that as long as any of Joseph's brothers was alive none of the Israelites were enslaved. The calculation of the fourth generation the Torah speaks about here therefore commences with Yehudah's sons Peretz and Chetzron. The fact that the Torah uses the plural when speaking about the return of the Jewish people is a hint that the Torah speaks about people who have been forcibly prevented from returning up until that time. They would return after four generations have been completed. The first generation of Israelites who were forcibly prevented from returning to the land of Canaan were the children of Joseph and his brothers. We now need to understand why the guilt of the Emorite plays any role in all this when the Torah elsewhere told us in Numbers 14 that the sin of the spies and the generation who believed the ten spies was the cause that re-entry to the land of Israel was delayed by an additional generation. The 400 years G'd had decreed were completed at the time the Jewish people asked that the spies be sent out. Had they not done so, they would have entered the land of Israel at the end of the 400 years G'd speaks about in our פרשה. This would have coincided with the 3rd generation of the Jews who had experienced servitude. The additional generation was due to the sin of the spies. Assuming this tragic delay had not occurred, how could G'd have squared entry of the Jewish people to the land of Canaan with the measure of guilt of the Emorites the Torah speaks about here? We must understand the Torah in terms of how the Talmud Berachot 7 explains Chabakuk 1,13: למה תביט בוגדים, תחריש בבלע רשע צדיק ממנו, "Why do You countenance treachery, and stand by idly when the one in the wrong devours the one in the right?" The Talmud says that while it is possible that the wicked triumphs over someone relatively more righteous than he, he will never triumph over someone truly righteous. This means that the wicked are not totally devoid of merits, and we find on occasion that by using their merit they can overcome someone else who is generally more pious than they (while on this earth). The reason is that the wicked at that time can point at the imperfections of the person who thinks of himself as righteous. When the wicked is absolutely wicked however, it is not only permissible to destroy him but whichever righteous person does so first deserves credit. One need not be a totally righteous person in order to be entitled to wipe out such a wicked person. At the time of the Exodus as well as at the time when they despatched the spies about 15 months later, the Israelites were on the level of perfectly righteous people. Although they had sinned during the episode of the golden calf, they had been punished for that sin and had regained their status as צדיקים גמורים, as perfectly righteous people. The "echo" of that sin was not strong enough to deprive them of that title especially vis-a-vis the Emorites. In Sanhedrin 110 Rabbi Eliezer describes the people at that time as pious, quoting Psalms 50,5: "bring in My devotees, who made a covenant with Me over sacrifice" as his support. After the episode with the spies, Israel lost this status. From that moment on their moral superiority over the Emorites was marginal. As long as they had been considered חסידים their merit was enough to overcome the Emorites immediately. If the Emorites had refused to vacate the land in order to allow Israel to return there, they could have easily overcome them in battle. Now they had to wait until the Emorites accumulated a further measure of sin before their own moral superiority would suffice to overcome the Emorites in their homeland. Proof of our contention is found in Numbers 14,44 when the Israelites had realised that they had sinned grievously in fearing the Canaanites, and volunteered to fight them. Moses warned them against such an enterprise. They insisted and were defeated. Had they been considered as righteous they certainly would not have been defeated. All of this is an elaboration of what the prophet Chabakuk spoke about. The point is underscored by Moses in Deut. 9.5, where Moses credits Israel's conquest of the land of the Canaanites not to their piety but to the wickedness of the inhabitants of that land at that time. Moses meant that the measure of their sins had become full by that time. Moses told the Israelites at that time that though they were not totally righteous, their merit was sufficient to overcome the complete lack of it in their opponents. He emphasised this lack of righteousness by the Israelites three times! However, the Emorites had absolutely no merits left that they could have used to help them triumph against Israel's various moral shortcomings. We now understand the need for mentioning the "fourth generation" in G'd's promise in our verse. G'd stated that the latest possible date for Israel taking over its inheritance would be at the end of four generations since the onset of slavery. By that time the Emorites would not have any merit left they could use to deny Israel their return to the land of their forefathers. This part of the prophecy would become relevant only if Israel did not maintain sufficient moral superiority over the Canaanites, if they did not qualify for the appellation צדיק גמור.

ודור רביעי, “and the fourth generation;” Rashi makes the following calculation concerning this ambiguous statement: the generations mentioned commence with Yehudah, son of Yaakov, (Avraham’s greatgrandson), Peretz, Chetzron, Calev, son of Chetzron already entered and lived in the holy Land. If someone were to raise the point that already Chetzron had taken part in the Exodus from Egypt, i.e. he had been liberated from exile, Yaakov cannot be included as the fist generation, as he had already lived for 130 of his 147 years before taking up residence in Egypt. A different way of making the calculation meant in the above prophecy: “the fourth generation” of which G-d spoke does not refer to the fourth generation of Israelites, but to the fourth generation of the Emorites, [whose sin, as G-d had explained, had not yet reached the point that gave G-d justification to expel them from their homeland, Ed.] The length of a generation of Emorites is considered as being 100 years. Therefore it would take 400 years until G-d’s promise to Avraham could be fulfilled. The Torah, however, did not add the word דור, except for the fact that G-d, when meting out judgment, one does not do so in terms of multiples of hundreds of years, but in terms of generations. [We have examples of this in Exodus 20,5 as well as in Exodus 34,7. Ed.] We also find examples of this in Kings II 10,30. G-d had promised Yehu that even the son of the fourth generation would sit on the throne of the Kingdom of Israel. [The last one, Zecharyah, only ruled for 6 months. Ed.] [The “Kingdom of Israel,” is distinct from the kingdom of Yehudah. Ed.] כי לא שלם עון האמורי, “for the cup of sin of the Emorite is not full;” if you were to ask why I cannot give the land of the Canaanites to the Israelites as soon as they have become a nation, the answer is that I am bound by judicial considerations of My own, namely to allow each nation an opportunity to become penitents. עון האמורי, “the guilt of the Emorite;” the reason why this tribe is mentioned repeatedly as compared to other similarly sinful nations, is simply because Avraham lived on soil owned by the Emorites.

ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, “and the fourth generation will return here.” According to Rashi our verse refers to the time frame beginning with the exile in Egypt until the Israelites would inherit the land, a period of four generations. These four generations consist of 1) Yehudah, 2) Peretz, 3) Chetzron, 4) Kalev. The latter entered the land of Canaan as a resident at the age of 80. According to Nachmanides the words “the fourth generation will return here,” refer to the Emorite The cumulative sins of the Emorites who were in the land at the time G-d concluded the covenant with Avram would be sufficient for G-d to dispossess them by that time. We know that G-d allows up to three or four generations of people to continue in the evil footsteps of their ancestors until He intervenes and brings retribution upon them. According to Nachmanides the period of four generations commenced only at that time. The word ישובו would allude to a possible repentance by the Emorite in which event G-d would not dispossess them. When the Torah singled out the “Emorite,” this was only an example of what would be in store for all the Canaanite tribes. Seeing that the Emorite was the strongest tribe amongst the Canaanites, the Torah singled out that tribe for special mention. The prophet Amos 2,9 describes the Emorites as “stout as the oak.” The words עד הנה mean: “until the measure of their sin is full.” Actually, the Torah should have written: יבואו הנה “they will come here.” The reason the Torah chose to write ישובו הנה ‘they will return here,” is to point out that they will be considered as if they had already been settled in the land of Canaan previously seeing that Avraham, Yitzchak, and Yaakov and his children had lived in Canaan before descending to Egypt. Remember that Yitzchak had never left the land of Canaan. Concerning Yaakov the Torah had written וישב יעקב בארץ “Yaakov settled in the land.” This is why now the Torah wrote that the fourth generation would return “here.” They would return to what had already been their land. Another message contained in these words may be an allusion to the sanctity of the land, the land in which there is found the “gateway to heaven” (Genesis 28, 17). This means that the Sanctuary of the terrestrial regions is on the soil of the land of Canaan. This is the point from which the souls ascend to the celestial regions. This is also where they enter the terrestrial regions. It is appropriate therefore to describe the land of Canaan as the place to which the souls return. The righteous and pious people therefore experience an urge to die near that location in order for their souls to immediately find the path to the celestial regions. Another way of reading the words עון האמורי, “the guilt of the Emorite,” instead of עון הכנעני, “the guilt of the Canaanite,” is that the word אמורי is an allusion to “speech.” G-d may have alluded to Avram’s mistake in asking במה אדע כי אירשנה, “how do I know that I will inherit it?”

ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, “but the fourth generation will return to here.” Rashi understands this to mean that after having been in Egypt for three generations the descendants of Avrham would return to the Holy Land. This was true, as when you consider that Yaakov already went into exile in Egypt and consider Yehudah-Peretz-Chetzron-Calev as his descendants in a straight line, Calev did in fact re-enter the land of Canaan and settled there. The problem with this calculation is that Chetzron in common with Yaakov, had traveled from Canaan to the land of Egypt. (Genesis 46,12) Seeing that this is so there were only 2 generations in Egypt. If being an alien in other countries would count, they actually had been in exile for 7 generations according to the calculation. Actually, there is no problem at all. The reason that the calculation begins with Yaakov, although some of his offspring also were exiled with him, is because he was the head of the clan. One can also explain the meaning of the words “the fourth generation,” as starting from the people who had been born already in Egypt, i.e. Kehot, son of Levi. He was followed by his son Amram, who was the father of Aaron, who was the father of Eleazar who entered the Holy Land as the High Priest. According to Nachmanides, the “fourth generation” mentioned in our verse, refers to the fourth generation of the Emorite, whose sin by that time will have accumulated to a degree which exceeds G’d’s patience and they will be ripe for retribution. This will enable the Jewish people to take over these lands at that time. If they were to repent at that time it would be too late for G’d to change His decree. The reason G’d mentions the “Emorite” instead of “the Canaanite,” was that the Emorite was by far the most powerful and numerous of the Canaanite tribes. There are some commentators who claim that father-son and grandson are all considered as one generation, and that we have proof of that from (?) so that three generations are in reality one generation (due to their lives overlapping somewhat). This would mean in our case that Avraham, Yitzchok, and Yaakov are considered as one generation, Yehudah, Peretz and Chetzron as the second generation, followed by Ram, Aminadav, and Nachshon as the third generation. Salmon, who was the fourth generation, belonged to the people who entered the Holy Land.

And it came to pass, when the sun had set and it had become dark, that behold, a smoking furnace, and a burning torch of fire that passed between these pieces.

ויהי השמש באה AND IT CAME TO PASS, WHEN THE SUN WENT DOWN —Similar syntactical constructions are (42:35) ויהי הם מריקים שקיהם “And it came to pass when they were emptying their sacks”, and (2 Kings 13:21) ויהי הם קוברים איש “and it came to pass when they were burying a man” — as much as to say, and this thing happened (i. e. after ויהי supply the words דבר זה: “And this thing happened: the sun set etc.”) השמש באה THE SUN CAME — i.e. set. ועלטה היה THERE WAS THICK DARKNESS — darkness during the day-time 'והנה תנור עשן וגו BEHOLD A SMOKING FURNACE — He foreshadowed to him that these Monarchies would descend into Gehinom (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 28). באה IT (SHE) CAME — The accent is on the first syllable, consequently it must signify that it (the sun) had already set. If, however, the accent were on the last syllable, on the א, it would signify that there was darkness whilst it was setting (i. e. the former is a perfect, the latter a participle). It is impossible to explain it thus here (that it means the sun was setting) because it has already been stated (v. 12) “And it came to pass that when the sun was setting”, and the passing of the smoking furnace took place after this — consequently the sun had set already when it passed. This is the difference in the case of every word (verb), feminine gender, whose root has two letters, as בא, קם, שב: when the accent is on the first syllable, it is the perfect tense, as is this word באה here, and like (19:9) “And Rachel (באה) came”; (37:7) “And my sheaf קמה arose”; (Ruth 1:15) “Behold, thy sister-in-law (שבה) has gone back”; but when the accent is on the last syllable it is a present tense (participle), denoting an action being done now and continuing to be done, as for instance, (29:6) “She is coming (באה) with the sheep”; (Ester 2:14) “In the evening she used to come (באה) and in the morning (שבה) she used to return”.

AND BEHOLD, A SMOKING FURNACE, AND A FLAMING TORCH. It appeared to Abraham as if the furnace was all smoke and in its midst a flaming torch was burning, similar to a great smoke, with a fire flashing up. In the actual verse the word “cloud” appears instead of the word “smoke.” The “smoke” mentioned here is the cloud, and thick darkness mentioned at the giving of the Torah, and “the flaming torch” in its midst is “the fire” mentioned there: And thou didst hear His words out of the midst of the fire; and it is further written: And the appearance of the glory of the Eternal was like devouring fire, etc. Thus the Divine Glory passed between the parts of the sacrifices, and this is the covenant which He made with Abraham forever. This is the meaning of the verse, the Eternal made a covenant with Abraham, as the Holy One, blessed be He, Himself carried through “the covenant of between the parts.” The student versed in the mysteries of the Torah will understand.

"And it came to pass, as the sun had set" — initially it had not yet set, as it is written "going" [לבוא] (Genesis 15:12). "And thick darkness" — darkness; and there is a related use in Ezekiel. The meaning is that the night was overcast. Or its meaning is: after the light visible in the clouds had come. "And behold, a smoking oven" — like a furnace from which smoke rises, and within it a torch of fire. "Between the pieces" — between the halves. This is the oath, as in: "the calf which they cut in two" (Jeremiah 34:18); therefore it is written thereafter: "On that day Hashem made a covenant with Abram" (Genesis 15:18).

והנה תנור עשן ולפיד אש, “and suddenly Avram experienced as vision of a furnace and a fire, stroke of lightning;” the construction of this verse is somewhat lopsided, as the correct syntax should have been: ואש לפיד, “and fire in the form of a bolt of lightning.” אשר עבר, “after G-d had informed Avram about the experiences of Avram’s descendants during the next 400 years or so,” G-d’s ”agents,” the fire and furnace, consumed the parts of the sacrifices that Avram had prepared.

והנה תנור עשן, “and here there was a smoking furnace.” At first glance one would think the Torah should have written עשן תנור, “the smoke of a furnace,” instead of תנור עשן. This is the way the Torah describes a similar phenomenon at the time the Jewish people received the Torah at Mount Sinai. At that time the Torah wrote ויעל עשנו כעשן הכבשן, “its smoke (that of the mountain) rose like the smoke from a furnace” (Exodus 19,18). However, — using a kabbalistic approach — it is possible that the Torah wanted to inform us of the force which had passed between these pieces and accepted Avram’s sacrifices. It also wanted to inform us that that particular force was composed of both male and female elements. The male element was the active one, the one which initiates an activity, whereas the female element was the passive one, the one that specializes in receiving, in accepting something. All activities are enhanced and assume a more important dimension due to the presence of the female element. This is the reason the word שכינה, “G-d’s benevolent presence,” is a word in the feminine gender. Onkelos translates the verse (Exodus 33,14) פני ילכו [usually translated as “My (benevolent) presence will go, will accompany,” Ed] as “שכינתי תהך,” (feminine) instead of as “שכינתי יהך.” (masculine). In other words, he considers the word פנים which is masculine as feminine in that instance. The name of that force (known as מט'ט in Kabbalah) is well known. The word תנור alludes to it when you exchange the letters in that word on the basis of reversing the letters of the alphabet, i.e. ת=א, ש=ב, ר=ג. The word תנור would then be טרו'ן instead. This word is derived from מטטרון, the force designated by G-d to “run” His universe. The “furnace” is the receptacle which receives the fire, and as such it symbolises the female force. On the other hand, the words לפיד אש in our verse represents the masculine force. This is the reason the Torah used the masculine form when describing this לפיד אש, ”torch of fire,” as עבר בין הגזרים, “having passed between these pieces.” This was not the same force as that represented by the furnace. The Torah should have written עברו (pl) instead of עבר if these forces had been identical in gender. This is also the deeper meaning of the words כרת ה' את אברם ברית, “G-d concluded a covenant with Avram.” The idea is that G-d made the שכינה which represents the covenant “pass” between the pieces. Remember that it is this force which the Torah described in chapter 12,8 when Avram is first reported as having built an altar to G-d as “the G-d who had appeared to him.” [This is unlikely; we have other examples where the vowel under the letter א in the word נראה points to a feminine attribute of G-d such as in Genesis 48,3 or Exodus 3,16 so that to consider the word “hanir-eh” in Genesis 12,8 as a reference to a feminine attribute of G-d does seem very forced. Ed]

On that day Hashem made a covenant with Abram, saying: To your descendants I have given this land, from the river of Egypt to the great river, the Euphrates River —

לזרעך נתתי UNTO THY SEED HAVE I GIVEN — The promise of the Holy One, blessed be He, is as an accomplished fact. (Consequently the perfect tense is here used) (Genesis Rabbah 44:22). הנהר הגדול THE GREAT RIVER—Because it is associated with (mentioned in connection with; see Rashi on Deuteronomy 1:7) the land of Israel, Scripture calls it “great” although it is the last mentioned of the four rivers that went out of Eden — as it is said (Genesis 2:14). And the fourth river is the Euphrates”. There is a popular proverb: “A king’s servant is a king; attach yourself to a captain and people will bow down to you” (Genesis Rabbah 16:3).

IN THAT DAY THE ETERNAL MADE A COVENANT WITH ABRAM, SAYING. Now the Holy One, blessed be He, promised Abraham the gift of the land many times, and all of the promises served a purpose. When he originally arrived in the land, He said to him, Unto thy seed will I give this land, but He did not clarify the extent of His gift, for included in this promise is only the land where he walked, unto the place of Shechem unto the oak of Moreh. Afterwards, when his merits increased while in the Land, He bestowed upon him the additional promise: Lift up now thine eyes, and look from the place where thou art, northward and southward, and eastward and westward, meaning that He will give him all those lands in their totality, for the meaning of the expression, which thou seest, is not literally “with your eyes” for the sight of a person does not extend far. Rather, it means that He will give him [land which lies in] every direction in which he looks. It may be that He miraculously showed him all the land of Israel, as was the case with Moshe Rabbeinu. He further added in this second blessing: and to thy seed forever, and that his seed will increase as the dust of the earth. At the third time, He clarified to him the boundaries of the land, mentioning all the ten nations [who presently inhabited it], and in addition He made a covenant with him that sin would not cause [the annulment of the gift]. When He commanded him concerning circumcision, He told him, for a possession forever, that is to say, if they will be exiled from it they will again return and inherit it. It assures legal title but not necessarily actual possession. However, the expression, for ‘a possession’ forever, does indicate that it is to be their land forever. Hence even if they are exiled they will return and possess it. He also added at that time, And I will be their G-d, meaning that He in His Glory will lead them, and they shall not be under the rule of a star or constellation or any power of the powers above, as will yet be explained in the Torah. Now at the time of the first gift, Scripture states, Unto thy seed will I give, the verb being in a future tense, and similarly in the second time, (Above, 13:15). because until then He had not given him the entire land, and therefore, He said to him, will I give it. But at the third time, during the covenant, He said, Unto thy seed have I given, meaning that He will make the covenant for the gift that He had already given him. Similarly, at the time of the circumcision, when He said, for a possession forever, He said to him, And I will give unto thee, in the future tense. Rashi wrote: Unto thy seed have I given. The word of the Supreme One is as if it were already accomplished. — But there is no need for this explanation in this passage.

"From the river of Egypt" — this is the Shihor, and not the Nile.

ביום ההוא כרת ה׳ את אברם ברית. On that day G'd made a covenant with Abram. The reason that G'd used the past tense in referring to the gift of the land of Israel to Abraham and his descendants is that He had already made Abraham take possession of it, as we explained on 13,15. Abraham's children would henceforth own the land in their capacity as his heirs. In view of this clear-cut promise of the Bible that the descendants of Abraham were to inherit the land of the ten nations mentioned, how could Jewish heretics delude themselves by denying that there is hope for us in the future, seeing that G'd's promise had already been fulfilled and we have forfeited it due to our sins? [I believe the author refers to converts who accept the Christian theologians' views of Jewish history. Ed.] In view of the fact that we never possessed the land of all of these ten nations, the promise of the covenant has clearly not been fulfilled as yet. Up until now Israel only occupied the land belonging to seven of the ten nations listed here. We did not even possess all the land of those seven nations. How then can one understand the people of little faith [the author calls them the dried up bones describing the revelation in Ezekiel 37. Ed.] who have given up on our glorious messianic future? G'd treated us according to the principle of מדה כנגד מדה, that punishment must fit the crime. Seeing that we were supposed to be G'd's servants but rebelled in that we failed to observe many of His commandments, He caused those who were supposed to be our servants to rebel against us. This does not mean that G'd does not have the power to fulfil His covenant in full at the appropriate time. The reason that the Torah first lists the nations whose territory we never captured, i.e. the Keyni, the Knizi and the Kadmoni, is that they are only different names for the Ammonites, the Moabites and the Edomites. When the time arrives when we will experience realisation of G'd's promise concerning those three nations, we will also again recapture the lands of the other seven nations listed here at the end. The Torah mentions those three first in order to teach us that the essential element of G'd's promise is that we will dispossess those three nations. The author sees an allusion of the future in Abraham's defeat of the four kings listed in 14,1. Three of them symbolise the Ammonites, Moabites and the Edomites. The last one (of those four), "Tidal king of גוים," represents the other seven nations. [The author seems to feel that the word גוים does not describe the name of a specific nation. Ed.]

ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברם ברית לאמור לזרעך נתתי את הארץ הזאת, “on that day G-d concluded a covenant with Avram, saying; ‘to your descendants I have given this land.’” After G-d had previously already twice mentioned giving the land to Avram and to his descendants, i.e. in 12, 7 where it is phrased as “I will give,” and in 1,15 “to your descendants I shall give it,” G-d now phrases the promise as something that had already been fulfilled, i.e. “I have given it” (past tense). He mentions the gift He had already given to Avram in the past. The word נתתי means the same as נשבעתי, “which I have sworn.” When G-d gives something by way of a promise it is as if the promise was equivalent to an oath. We have numerous examples of this in Scripture. I myself have explained this already in connection with Genesis 9,13 where G-d spoke about the rainbow He had placed in the sky. After this gift, i.e. the oath on the occasion of this covenant, there followed the practical part of the covenant, the passing between the parts of the animals which had been sacrificed. We have another example of such a procedure in Jeremiah 34,18 ואת העגל אשר כרתו לשנים ויעברו בין בתריו, “and the calf which they had cut in half so as to pass between the halves.” This covenant was in the nature of a חרם, “consecration,” a warning to remain true to this oath as if to say to the party who would default: “may your fate be similar to that of the animals which lie before you cut in half if you do not honour the agreement we have just now concluded.” This is also why Onkelos translates ברית simply as קים, “something that remains in effect.” The “something” is the oath preceding the sacrifice confirming it. This is also what Avimelech said to Yitzchak (Genesis 26,28) תהי נא אלה בינותינו, בינינו וביניך ונכרתה ברית עמך, “let there be an oath between us, between us and between you, and let us conclude a covenant with you.” The “covenant” was to confirm the oath mentioned previously. Of course, such a “covenant“ is not applicable to G-d (seeing it would be frivolous to assume that G-d would not honour His oath). However, the general tenor of a covenant is applicable to G-d’s promise. It is as if by passing between these cut up pieces of the animals G-d had said: “just as it is impossible to reconstitute these cut up animals, so it is impossible for Me to retract from My oath to give your descendants this land.” מנהר מצרים עד הנהר הגדול, “from the river of Egypt as far as the great river.” Three times G-d mentions the gift of the land in this paragraph: The first time it is mentioned when Avram enters the land of Canaan when G-d said “to your descendants I will give this land” (12,7). At that time G-d did not go into details about the nature of the gift. There was no point in doing so seeing Avram, who had entered the land from the North had only progressed as far as Shechem.” The second time (13,14) G-d said to Avram: “raise your eyes and look from the place where you are standing to the north, to the south, to the east and to the west; for the entire land you can see I will give to you and to your descendants.” Normally, people to not look into the distance and it would not be much of a promise if all the land which G-d promised to Avram’s descendants would be what his physical eyes (unaided by binoculars) could see, even if he stood on a hill at that time. What G-d meant was that Avram should concentrate with his spiritual eyes on all the four directions of the globe. On this occasion G-d added the words עד עולם, “forever,” adding that his descendants would become as numerous as the dust of the earth which defies all attempts to count it. Now, on the third occasion when G-d refers to the gift of the land, He spelled out the boundaries of the land, namely from the river separating Egypt from the land of Canaan as far as the river Euphrates. In this instance, G-d no longer spoke of this gift as something in the future, but He said: “I have given it.” According to Nachmanides we have to understand this verse as “the covenant applies to the gift G-d had already given to Avram and the Jewish people.” The reason the Torah describes the river Euphrates as “the great river,” although it was mentioned only as the fourth and last of the rivers emanating from Gan Eden (2,14) is because it borders on the land of Israel. We have a popular parable which illustrates the point. “A commoner is liable to describe the valet of a king as ‘king,’ because such a person is continuously in the king’s presence” (compare Rashi on our verse). Seeing that the land of Israel is holy, a choice piece of real estate, the site of the Holy Temple to which is applied the term הבית הגדול, “the great house” (Chronicles II 2,4), the description “great” as applied to the river Euphrates which borders this land is not a misnomer. Although G-d spoke here about the land being given to “your descendants” at a time when neither Ishmael nor Yitzchak had as yet been born, Ishmael, the son of a slave woman, is not included as a recipient of that promise. Ishmael did not constitute Avram’s principal “descendant” anymore than did the sons he begat after Sarah had died. The principal descendant is the son of the major wife of a husband, not that of concubines or minor wives. G-d had spelled this out after Ishmael had already been born when He said to Avraham (21,12) “for your descendants will be known through Yitzchak.”

ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברהם ברית לאמור, וגו, “on that day G’d entered into a covenant with Avraham, saying, etc.'” Nachmanides draws attention to the fact that G’d promised the land of Canaan to Avraham many times over. He proceeds to show that all these repetitions were necessary within the context in which they appear. Originally, (12,7) He told Avraham: “I will give the land to your descendants,” without enlarging on the nature and extent of the gift. At that time Avraham walked in the land as far as Shechem, a place then called Elon Moreh. Afterwards, when his merits had increased, (by his activities in the land) He added “raise your eyes and look northward, southward, eastward and westward.” At that time G’d specified that the land would include areas well beyond what he could see in any direction (13,14). As far as G’d saying to Avraham אשר אתה רואה בעיניך, “which you behold with your eyes,” the meaning is not that he would only inherit what he could see with his physical eyes, but this is a spiritual concept referring to the mind’s eye, or that G’d expanded Avraham’s sense of sight at that time so that he could see the whole extent of the land of Israel, just as was shown to Moses before his death. G’d added a special blessing by saying that his descendants would be as numerous as the dust of the earth, and that the gift would remain his descendants’ forever. The third time G’d delineated the borders of the land G’d would give to his descendants (17,5) He also mentioned all the ten Canaanite tribes whose lands would eventually become part of the greater land of Israel. He also concluded the covenant with Avraham as a sign that the promise would not be invalidated due to any sin that might be committed before it had been fulfilled. G’d added further, that in due course He would be the exclusive G’d of Avraham’s descendants. The first time the promise was couched in the future tense, i.e.אתננה, “I will give it,” as He had not yet begun to fulfill any part of the promise. The same was still true on the second occasion G’d promised the land to Avraham’s children who did not exist yet. The covenants both concerning the land and the circumcision, make it plain that even if at some time the conditions of the covenant are broken, this will remain a temporary condition and will not result in annulment of the validity of the terms of the covenants.

the Shalmaites, the Kenizzites, and the Kadmonites,

The Kenites. Ten nations are listed here, [yet] He gave to them only [the land] of Seven Nations. The three [whose lands were not given], Edom, Moav, and Ammon which are [referred to here as]: Keini, Knizi, and Kadmoni are destined to be possessed in the future, as it is said: “They will overpower Edom and Moav and the Ammonites will obey them.”

"The Kenite, the Kenizzite, and the Kadmonite" — these are among the descendants of Canaan, and they have two names.

את הקיני, ואת הקניזי, ואת הקדמוני, “the Kenite, the Kenizite, and the Kadmoni; according to Rashi, these tribes are identical to the Edomites, the Moabites and the Ammonites. The territories of these nations would become part of “greater Israel” at some time in the future, not in the time of Joshua. A scriptural reference to this can be found in Isaiah 11,14. According to our author, this is also hinted at in Numbers 24,21. The reason why the territory of Edom is included is because Amalek, Israel’s (G-d’s) arch enemy, is descended from Edom (Esau). Bileam in the passage referred to in Numbers 24, has called Amalek: “the first of the nations.” Since this was certainly not the original human society to develop into nationhood, and Bileam had been aware of this, Rabbi Chelbo in the name of Rabbi Yochanan, in Bereshit Rabbah 44,23, claimed that originally G-d had already meant to let Israel inherit the territories of ten nations. However, He would not translate the intention of handing them the territories of these last mentioned three nations into reality until the messianic era. Nonetheless, due to aggressive conduct by their inhabitants, they lost some portion of it already during the period when Moses conquered the territories of Sichon and Og.

and the Hittites, and the Perizzites, and the Mighty Ones,

ואת הרפאים AND THE REPHAIM — the land Og King of Bashan, of which it said, (Deuteronomy 3:13) “All that (Bashan) is called the land of the Rephaim”.

"And the Rephaim" — this is what is written: "it was considered the land of the Rephaim" (Deuteronomy 2:20). Do not be troubled by the fact that "the Canaanite" and "the Jebusite" follow? Know that the seven nations are all Canaanites; Canaan had eleven sons, and after naming six of them specifically, Scripture says "the Canaanite" to refer to those remaining. So in this passage they are enumerated as ten in detail, whereas elsewhere they appear in summary form. Likewise: "Judah and Israel were many" (I Kings 4:20), even though Judah is part of Israel.

ואת הרפאים, another word for the tribe known as Chivvi, mentioned as one of the seven Canaanite tribes.

and the Amorites, and the Canaanites, and the Girgashites, and the Jebusites.