Comentário sobre Gênesis 15:23

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,²²⁰Exodus 20:18. and the secret thereof is known to those who are learned in the mysteries of the Torah.

אחר הדברים האלה, the events related in the previous paragraph when Avram killed the 4 kings. G’d said to him: “do not be afraid, Avram, etc.”

אל תירא אברם, do not worry that the four kings will avenge themselves on you.

אחר הדברים האלה....במחזה, the expression במחזה “in a vision,” is one that had not been mentioned previously when the Torah reported G’d as communicating with Avram. The reason is that in this communication Avram did not only “hear something,” i.e. words spoken by G’d, but he saw something with his eyes [whether mental or physical does not matter, the point being that visual images are considered as stronger than aural perceptions. Ed.] Both the look at the stars, and the viewing of the pieces of the sacrifice he had slaughtered were more “real” than merely “hearing” something in a dream.

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.

דבר ד׳ אל כמחזה. Gott hatte schon früher mit Abraham gesprochen; doch der Ausdruck דבר ד׳ אל אברם findet sich nicht. Schon die Weisen finden hier eine eigene Art der נבואה. Sie rechnen zehn Weisen der Offenbarung des göttlichen Wortes an den Menschen, lehren, dass diese nicht jedem Propheten in gleicher Weise geworden, und nicht jedem zu jeder Zeit in gleicher Weise. Gott selbst bezeichnet z. B. das Verhältnis Mosches zu den übrigen als ein ganz besonderes. Sie heben hervor, wie dem Abraham das Göttliche in מראה und מחזה, in אמירה und דבור geworden, wie ferner חזות und דבור eine נבואה קשה, einen verhängnisvollen Inhalt (חזות קשה הוגר לי) bezeichne und hier beides vereint erscheine. Denn das, was hier Abraham offenbar werden soll, ist ja in seinem letzten Ausläufer allerdings ein ׳דבר ד und הזות, es ist dies ja die Einleitung zur Offenbarung des גלות, der schweren Leidensgeschichte, in welche Abraham hineingeführt werden soll. Es bildet dies darum einen Abschnitt und beginnt daher mit אחר הדברים האלה.

אל תירא אברם, “do not fear, Avraham.” Having miraculously succeeded to kill these mighty kings and their armies, Avraham was now afraid that he used up his spiritual “capital” i.e. any merits he might have accumulated by his good deeds thus far. G–d now reassured him on that score, saying that he need not worry about that. On the contrary, if someone removes thorns from the paths of people, something that might have harmed them, he is doubly deserving of protection by Him. (Midrash Tanchuma section 10) This may well be why the sages composing the Amidah prayer referred to G–d as “shield of Avraham, at the conclusion of the first benediction.” At the time when Yitzchok was lying bound on the altar his father had put him on Mount Moriah, his soul escaped to heaven only to return to him and to revive his body. This may account for the second benediction in the Amidah prayer concluding with G–d being referred to as “reviving the dead.” We find a statement in B’reshit Rabbah 65,10, that the reason why Yitzchok’s physical eyesight was dim after the experience on Mount Moriah, is due to the fact that he had had a glimpse of the essence of G–d during his soul’s brief stay there, and the Torah told us, i.e. Moses was told by G–d (Exodus 33,20) that a visual image of the essence of G–d is denied human beings while they are still alive. When Yaakov, in his dream of the ladder, observed the angels ascending and descending from heaven and accompanying him at all times, while constantly singing the praises of the Lord, this may be the reason why the third benediction, symbolising Yaakov, ends with G–d being described as “the holy G–d.”

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.

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.

אל תירא, do not fear that kings whom you vanquished will stage a return engagement against you after they have regrouped.

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.

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.

Das אחר הדברים האלה kommt bei Abraham nur noch als Einleitung der עקדה vor, und heißt: alles Vorangegangene, alles, was wir bisher von Abraham gehört haben, ist nur eine Einleitung zu dem Folgenden. Abrahams Leben zerfällt in drei Perioden: 1) von לך לך bis ברית בין הבתרי; v2) von da bis zur; עקדה; n3) bis zu seinem Tode. אחר bezeichnet: nach, und: das andere. Das andere setzt ja schon ein Vorhergehendes voraus, das andere ist die Kehrseite, das erste ist das פנים. Die also eingeleiteten Perioden sind gleichsam die Kehrseite des Vorigen. Bisher war Abrahams Lebensweg ein immer steigender gewesen. Von einem vereinzelten Manne bis hinan zu einem Sieger, und zwar einem geistigen Besieger seiner ganzen Zeit. Das, was ihm aber jetzt noch werden sollte, konnte ihm nur durch die Kehrseite des Geschickes werden, durch die schwere Schule des Leidens. —

הרבה מאד, both in this world

אנכי מגן לך, as a reward for your having displayed such trust and faith in Me, I will be your shield not only against these kings in the future, but also against any other adversaries that may attempt to harm you.

Fern von der Vermessenheit, in die Modalität einer prophetischen Offenbarung ein— dringen zu wollen, glauben wir gleichwohl das uns darüber im Gottesworte selbst Ge— sagte zu eingehender Betrachtung hervorheben zu dürfen. Es ist wohl ein Unterschied, ob es heißt: Reuben sprach zu Schimeon, oder: Reubens Wort ward an Schimeon. Im ersten Falle ist Reuben Schimeon gegenüber, ihm gegenwärtig. Im zweiten Falle trifft den Hörenden nur das Wort, der Sprechende braucht nicht immer selbst gegenwärtig zu sein, erscheint in einem viel mehr fernen, viel weniger vertrauten Verhältnis zu dem Hörenden.

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).

שכרך הרבה מאד, the combination of הרבה and מאד, means that Avram’s reward would be both in this life and in the hereafter.

Ebenso חזה .מחזה ist das Sehen in die Ferne, oder das Sehen des dem gewöhnlichen sinnlichen Auge nicht Sichtbaren. Daher חָזֶה, die Brust, der Sitz des Herzens, mit dem der Mensch nach dem hebräischen Sprachgedanken das Unsichtbare schaut. חסה: mit Zuversicht in etwas Unbekanntes, Fernes blicken. Selbst חצה, das gar nichts Geistiges mehr, sondern ein mechanisches Teilen bedeutet, dürfte hiermit in Verwandtschaft stehen. חזה heißt möglicherweise ursprünglich: in etwas Inneres eindringen, חצה mit Gewalt in etwas dringen, das uns Widerstand leistet, und zwar in die Mitte, in denjenigen Punkt, wo der Stoff am meisten Widerstand leistet, sofern er dessen überhaupt fähig ist. חזה wäre demnach: mit geistigem Blick in das anderen Menschen Verborgene dringen. Es ist jedoch immer ein wirkliches, nicht blos ein geistiges Schauen. Es ist dies allerdings für unsere gewöhnliche Erfahrung unbegreiflich. Das menschliche Wort ist nur für das Gehör, das göttliche wird zugleich gehört und geschaut, so auch רואים ושומעים את הקולות, sahen, was sie hörten, und hörten, was sie sahen. Es ist dies das vom Menschengeiste zu erreichende Höchste, dass er das Begriffene sofort verwirklicht sieht, und was er in der sinnlichen Wahrnehmung schaut, sofort auch mit des Geistes Ohr vernimmt. —

Wir erinnern nur noch an die verschiedene Bedeutung von רבר und אמר; jenes der absolute Ausspruch, ohne Rücksicht auf die Aufnahme in Geist und Gemüt eines Hörenden; dies mit der Absicht, dass es verstanden, beherzigt und weitertradiert werde. ist der Gottesausspruch, die absolute Bestimmung, die sich Erfüllung schafft, man דבר ד׳ mag sich fügen oder nicht; aber es kommt an uns: לאמר, um in uns Wurzel und Blüte und Frucht zu werden, von uns beherzigt und auf unsere Kinder vererbt zu werden — und ein solches von Abraham für sich und seine Kinder zu beherzigendes Wort ward dem Abraham, und dieses Wort beginnt: Fürchte dich nicht! Es muss also bereits Abraham in einer fürchtenden Stimmung treffen, ehe es sich mit dieser Ermutigung an ihn ausspricht.

Viel ist über den Grund dieser Stimmung gedacht worden, und vielerlei lässt sich über das — nicht Ausgedrückte — denken, worüber Gott Abraham beruhigen musste. Es kann sein und es wird gesagt, Abraham mag doch hinterher das Herz geklopft haben: "Krieg führen, Menschen schlachten — war kein Unschuldiger darunter?" — Andere meinen: Abraham war mit der Verheißung in die Fremde gezogen, er trage die Heiles- zukunft der ganzen Menschheit im Busen — und nun — nach so großem Glück, ward ihm Angst vor dem eigenen Glück! So Großes ihm geworden, so lag dies doch noch fern ab von dem eigentlichen Ziele, in welchem seine große Aufgabe reifen sollte, er befürchtete, dass Gott ihn vielleicht nicht mehr für die alte Bestimmung, die Menschheit durch seine Nachkommen aus der Verirrung zu erlösen, würdig gehalten habe, und er in diesem großen Glück bereits sein זכות aufgezehrt haben möge — und so noch manches. Es ist dies alles möglich. Möglich — und wahrscheinlich jedoch, dass wir gar nicht über das hinauszugehen brauchen, was ausdrücklich im Satze gesagt ist, und in dem Gesagten selbst der gesuchte Aufschluss liegt.

Wir finden eine Analogie in dem 1. B. 2. 46, 3 an Jakob gerichteten אל תירא! In der glücklichsten Stimmung zieht Jakob nach Mizrajim, wo er den Lohn für sein ganzes Leben, den totgeglaubten geliebtesten Sohn als den Fürsten des Landes wiederfinden sollte — und doch erschien ihm Gott und sprach: Fürchte dich nicht, nach Mizrajim hinabzuziehen! Die Furcht, über welche ihn Gottes Zuspruch beruhigen sollte, war erst selbst durch Gott in ihm hervorgerufen! ויסע ישראל , als "Jisrael", als der des Gottessieges frohe Glückliche zog er hinab und opferte erst freudige Opfer. Da sprach Gott in Nachterscheinungen zu Israel: Jakob, Jakob! Er sprach: "ich bin bereit!" Da sprach Gott: "Ich bin der Gott deines Vaters, fürchte dich nicht, nach Mizrajim hinabzuziehen; denn zum großen Volke mache ich dich dort usw. usw." Die Art der Erscheinung selber und der an den glücklichen Jisrael gerichtete Galuthname "Jakob" hatten ihn mitten in seiner glücklichsten Stimmung erinnert, dass die Zukunft, in die er hinabziehe, der Anfang des längst verheißenen Galuth sei. Nicht als Jisrael, als Jakob zog er hinab. Und als Jakob diesem Zurufe mit הנני, ich bin auch dazu bereit, begegnet hatte, beruhigte ihn Gott über das endliche Ziel.

Jenes an Jakob gerichtete אל תירא leitet die Verwirklichung dessen ein, was hier an Abraham als verkündete Gottesbestimmung herantritt und ebenfalls mit einem אל תירא einleitet, nachdem gleichfalls die ernste, fürchtende Stimmung durch die Art der offenbarenden Erscheinung selbst angeregt war. Nicht wie sonst "war Gott dem Abraham sichtbar", "sprach Gott zu Abraham"; sondern "das Wort ward an Abraham" und es ward "in der Fernsicht" an ihn. — Diese ganze Weise erschütterte ihn und bereitete ihn auf eine ernste Mitteilung vor, rief in ihm die Ahnung wach, er befinde sich, um mit den Worten unserer Einleitung zu reden, אחר הדברים האלה am Eintritt in die "Kehrseite" der bisherigen heiter heranblühenden Vergangenheit, darum:

אל תירא, fürchte dich nicht, was ich zu verkünden habe, steht nicht in Widerspruch mit der Vergangenheit, ich bleibe dein Schild und das aus deiner Hingebung erblühende Heil hat keine Grenzen. — שכר verwandt mit סגר ,סכר, zustopfen, schließen, Lücke ausfüllen, ersetzen. Ebenso שכר, Lücke ausfüllen, d. i. lohnen. (Vergl. Kap.8, 2.2, 21). Ist שכר: Lohn, der eine Lücke ausfüllen soll, (die durch Aufwendung von Kraft, Zeit, entstanden), so ist שכר von Gott nur da zu erwarten, wo eine Aufopferung vorangegangen, לפום צערא אגרא. Wer sich und das Seine zu lieb hat, um es Gott hinzugeben, der hat kein שכר zu erwarten. Hier wäre somit gesagt: Das, was von dir hier gefordert werden wird, wird allerdings in einem Opfer bestehen — [und daher die Stimmung, die ich in dir geweckt] — aber שכרך, der Ersatz dafür wird unendlich groß sein.

In תנ"ך ist von שכר, Lohn, gar nicht viel die Rede, es kommt in dieser Weise vielleicht nicht wieder vor. Das Gute, das Gott von uns geübt wissen will, ist selbst der wahrhaftigste Lohn. שכר, Ersatz, fordert der nur, der etwas geopfert zu haben glaubt. Dem wahren Juden ist aber die Erfüllung einer Mizwa nicht Opfer, sondern Gewinnst. שכר מצוה מצוה. Der verheißene Segen ist überall nur Folge, עקב תשמעון, hinten nachkommendes, nicht von vornherein als Zweck angestrebtes Ziel der Erfüllung. Es hatte auch hier Gott, nicht Abraham, von Lohn gesprochen; Gott hatte Abrahams beispiellose Hingebung als Opfer betrachtet, dem gegenüber Er auf das daraus reifende unendliche Heil, als unendlichen Ersatz hinweist. So spricht auch Boas zu Ruth vom Lohn: תהי משכרתך שלמה, indem er sich die von ihr geübte große Aufopferung vergegenwärtigt, sich einer verarmten, unglücklichen Familie angeschlossen zu haben, um תחת כנפי שכינה einzutreten und zu verharren.

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 grandsonערירי — (״ 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”.

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.²²¹Ecclesiastes 8:14. It is for this reason that the righteous have need of assurance. Moreover, very great²²²Thy reward shall be ‘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.²²⁴Deuteronomy 1:10.
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,²²⁵Above, 13:15-16. and so, how could Abraham now say, Since I go childless…lo, my household slave will be mine heir?²²⁶Verses 2-3 here. 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.²²⁷Jeremiah 18:7-10, 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.²²⁸See ibid., 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.²²⁹Bereshith Rabbah 44:5. They have expressed a similar thought in Bereshith Rabbah:²³⁰Ibid., 76:2. “Then Jacob was greatly afraid and was distressed.²³¹Genesis 32:8. From this we derive the principle that there is no assurance for the righteous ones in this world, etc.”

?מה תתן לי, a reference to the reward in this life.

ויאמר אברם א-רני ה' מה תתן לי, the first attribute for G’d is spelled with the letter א-ד, an attribute, adjective, whereas the second name of G’d is the name used to describe the Essence of G’d, what we call Hashem for short. The adjective precedes the noun it describes in order to make clear that the adjective (G’d’s attribute) is in a construct mode of the noun (Essence) and not vice versa. It is not possible to convert the name of G’d the Essence into an adjective mode. If, nonetheless, we encounter such formulations on occasions, when it appears as if G’d’s name (the Essence) has been used as if it were an adjective, this merely reflects the way in which human beings use such terms, i.e. the fault is man’s not the Torah’s.

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.

The reason why we have two verses in both of which G’d is reported as speaking (separately) although no mention is made of Avram making any response in between, is that the first verse commencing with ויאמר was not a verbalised version of what G’d “said,” but describes what he thought. Such constructions are not unique, other examples occurring in Genesis 27,41 ויאמר עשו בלבו, “Esau said in his heart, etc.” It is reported as Esau having said something, else how could his mother have heard it? Solomon, in Kohelet 2,1 also uses the word אמרתי when describing something he thought rather than something he had actually said.

אדנ׳ יְֶדוִד, eine Bezeichnung Gottes, die überhaupt nicht viel vorkommt und hier zum erstenmale steht. In der תורה findet sie sich nur noch dreimal, einmal noch in Abrahams Mund: במה אדע כי אירשנה (Kap.15, 18), und zweimal bei Moses: אתה החלות להראו׳ und ,(5. B. M. 9, 26)(B. M. 3, 24 .5) אל תשחת עמך ונחלתך

'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.

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.

WHAT WILT THOU GIVE ME, SINCE I ‘HOLECH’ (GO) CHILDLESS? They²³²Jonathan and R’dak. 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.²³³Ecclesiastes 12:5. 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,²³⁴Jeremiah 17:6. no one going out, and no one coming in²³⁵Joshua 6:1. 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 seed²³⁶Verse 3 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.”

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)

?מה תתן לי, Avram’s question did not relate to what G’d would give him as a reward in the hereafter, rather he wondered what meaningful reward there could be for him on earth seeing he had no children. Any reward in this life in the absence of children to leave it to, he considered meaningless. His reward would only be consumed by others, not related to him.

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.

Der שם אדנות — Abraham war der erste, der Gott אדון nannte — kommt stets im Munde eines ׳עבר ד, eines נביא vor. Der Mensch, der sich als Werkzeug Gottes begreift und sich in seinem Dienste weiß, nennt Gott seinen sHK, und zwar nicht אדני, sondern יָ—, nicht bloß "auch mein Herr" unter vielem andern, was mich beherrscht, sondern "meine Herren": er hat und kennt keine anderen Einflüsse, Rücksichten, Beziehungen, über ihn gebietende Mächte, als Gott, den er deshalb: "seine Herren" nennt.

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.

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.

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.

ערירי, “childless,” as rendered by Onkelos. If a member of my household will inherit me, even if it is my servant who is faithful to me, and a willing disciple, You have said to me “to you and to your descendants I will give it.”

יְֶדוִד ist die tiefste Zusammenstellung selbst nach dem einfachen Verständnis der Gottesnamen, welches das allgemeine Erbteil unseres VolksBewusstseins ist. Es ist geschrieben als מדת הרחמים und lautet als מדת הדין, lehrt somit, dass, wenn Gott äußerlich in seinem Ernste und seiner Gerechtigkeit erscheint, dieser Ernst und diese Strenge selbst nur als verhüllte Liebe zu begreifen, ברגז רחם תזכור, sein Ernst nur Werkzeug der Liebe sei, und im ernstesten Walten Bausteine für die segenreiche Zeit gelegt werden. Es ist derselbe שם הויה, nur als שם אלקים gelesen. Wenn also Abraham der Erscheinung Gottes gegenüber, die die Ahnung einer ernsten trüben Zukunft in ihm wach gerufen, und ihm gleichzeitig seine bleibende schützende Gnade zugesichert, mit diesen Worten אדני יְֶדוִד entgegentritt, so spricht er damit aus: "Du, mein Herr, in dessen Dienst ich stehe, der du strenge bist und doch die Liebe, ich brauche nichts zu verstehen, bedarf keines Aufschlusses, du bist ׳ד, auch wenn du als אלקי׳ erscheinst", und hat damit sein ganzes Inneres, seine ganze bedingungslose Hingebung ausgesprochen. Dies schickt Abraham voraus und fügt dann hinzu: מה תתן לי, was willst du mir denn noch Segen geben, für mich habe ich keinen Wunsch mehr; ja, wenn ich ein Kind noch hätte, dem mein Segen zu gute kommen könnte, allein ich gehe ja kinderlos hin. — Abraham hatte die Zusicherung der fortdauernden Liebe zunächst persönlich verstanden, wie ja auch am Schlusse diese Zusicherung eine zunächst persönliche Bedeutung enthält אתה תבא אל אבתיך .usw בשלום

ובן משק ביתי, he will become my heir, if I will not have a biological heir. He is, after all, completely at home in my house.

מֶשֶק rad. שקק, wie מֶכֶס von שקק .כסם verstärktes שוק: iSehnsucht haben, hungrig, lüstern sein, nach etwas schmachten, Grundbedeutung: starke, sehnsüchtige Be- wegung nach etwas hin, שוק: Markt, wo alles zusammenströmt, שוק, die starken Bewegungsmuskeln, daher משק: die Sehnsucht. בן משק ביתי wie בן תשוקת ביתי der berechnende Erbe, derjenige, der auf mein Haus lauert, das ist nicht Elieser, der wartet nicht auf Abrahams Tod, der ist selbst schon ein bejahrter Mann; die auf meine Erbschaft lauernden Erben, das sind die Verwandten Eliesers, Eliesers Damaskus! Diese Verwandtschaft hatte ja Abraham kürzlich kennen gelernt, hatte die Könige bis Damaskus verfolgt — "gib mir darum nichts, was du mir gibst, gibst du mir für die damaskenischen Verwandten Eliesers".

משק, the root of the word is שקק, is grammatically parallel to such words as מכס, whose root is כסס, the meaning of the word is מן השוק, i.e. someone who comes and goes, not someone whose roots are in my house. The root occurs in that sense in Proverbs 28,15 דוב שוקק, “a prowling bear.” Both the roots כסס and שקק describe similar activities.

דמשק אליעזר. It is possible that the letter י at the end of the word דמשק, i.e. דמשקי is missing here. If so, the meaning is “Eliezer, the man from Damascus, etc.” It would be similar to שבט המנשה being described in Deut 29,7 as שבט המנשי. We also have variations such as משפחת הימנה whereas in the same verse we have משפחת הישוי, with the letter י at the end instead of the letter ה. (compare Numbers 26,44) Onkelos also translates it in this sense when writing דמשקאה “from Damascus.” It is also possible that the servant’s name was Damessek when he came to Avram, and that his master changed his name to Eliezer, seeing that this is a Hebrew name. He was referred to by either name on different occasions. In that event, Avram was saying that if my heir were to be at least somebody belonging to my family it would not be so bad, but I will not even have an heir from my family, but a stranger from Damascus. Seeing that Avram felt that badly about such a prospect, he repeated, i.e. he continued harping on this subject still further in verse 3 saying:

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?

הן לי לא נתת זרע, although You have said to me “I will make you into a great nation and I will make your descendants as numerous as the dust of the earth” (12,2) When Avram said all this to G’d, it did not cross his mind that G’d might have deceived him, lied to him, and that this was why the promise had not come true. He may have thought of one of two reasons being the cause why the promise had not been fulfilled. 1) that he had committed some sin after G’d had made the promise, so that the premise upon which the promise had been based was no longer valid. 2) or, he thought that the seed G’d had spoken of was a reference to some other family member, people carrying many of the same genes. The word זרע does appear in such a sense in Esther 10,3 where Mordechai is described as דובר שלום לכל זרעו, “interceding on behalf of all his seed.” If Mordechai had interceded only on behalf of personal children and grandchildren, this would hardly have been worth mentioning, certainly not worth praising him for. Basically, Avram wanted G’d to know that if G’d had meant that the definition of the word זרעך as mentioned in 12,2 was only in the most general sense, such as in Esther 10,3, then he, Avram, would not consider this reward as something special seeing G’d had not seen fit to make his wife conceive offspring from his seed.

לִי steht bezeichnend voran und נתתָה hebt die angeredete Person hervor. Willst du mir schon etwas geben, siehe, Reichtum verlange ich nicht, allein, wenn ich auch ein Bettler wäre, der einfachste Mensch, dem Gott Einsicht, Kraft oder materielle Mittel gegeben, wünscht sich und sein Streben in Kindern fortleben zu sehen. Ich aber habe wohl ילידי בית, aber sie sind nicht ילירי, nicht זרעי, wohl erzogen von mir, aber nicht erzeugt, von mir erkauft, aber nicht von dir mir gegeben. Abraham bittet nicht um Änderung dieses Zustandes, er weist nur darauf hin: הנה ,הן, siehe an, ob es recht ist. Ist es in deinen Augen recht, so ist es überall auch das Rechte, übst Liebe, auch wo ich es nicht begreife. — Möglich, ja wahrscheinlich sogar bezeichnet ויאמר hier nicht, was Abraham gesagt, sondern nur was er gedacht, darum folgt nicht eine Antwort ויאמר אליו, sondern והנה וגוי eine plötzliche Unterbrechung seiner Gedanken.

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.

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.

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.

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,²³⁷Ramban here suggests that Abraham’s faith in the first promise (see above, Note 223) remained unshaken. 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.

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, now G’d’s word in response to his concern about who would inherit him, saying: לא יירשך זה, this loyal servant of yours will not inherit you, כי אם אשר יצא ממעיך, do not err in your understanding of the meaning of the words לך ולזרעך, “to you and to your descendants,” I only referred to your biological; offspring. The word מעיים refers to all the organs within the body, in this instance referring to the reproductive organ. The word is used in a similar sense in Isaiah 48,19 וצאצאי מעיך, “your offspring.”

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.

ממעיך, nicht חלציך oder ירכך. Während beide letztere rein materielle Teile des Körpers bezeichnen, ist gerade מעים Bezeichnung eines solchen Bereiches des menschlichen Leibes, welcher Sitz der Empfindungen, speziell des Mitleids ist, also gerade derjenigen Eigentümlichkeit angehört, die das charakteristische, zart besaitete jüdische Wesen ausmacht, das das Erbteil des זרע אברהם bildet. Geist lässt sich mitteilen, Belehrung übertragen, was schwer ist, das ist eine veredelnde Umwandlung des Charakters, das stammt vor allen ממעי אבות; nicht Verstand, Gemüt charakterisiert den Menschen, und für nichts haben Kinder ihren Eltern mehr dankbar zu sein, als für das, was sie ממעיהם ererbt haben. Auch זרע כנען kann Geist, Verstand erhalten, kann zur Pflichterfüllung erzogen werden. Aber das jüdisch-menschliche Gefühl kann nicht anerzogen, will nur ממעי אברהם ererbt werden, und eben hierauf, auf die angeborene Empfänglichkeit für alles opferfreudige Sittliche und Edle hat Gott den Grund seines zukünftigen Volkes gebaut.

מעים rad. מעה, verwandt mit מהה und מהה .מחה, wovon מה das stofflich Unbestimmte, Formlose, nicht zu Fassende. Sowie מי nach dem persönlich Unbestimmten fragt, so ist מַה die Frage nach dem stofflich nicht Definierten, sich nicht in bestimmter Form Darstellenden. Verstärkt: מחה, das gänzliche Auflösen. In der Mitte dürfte מעה stehen und zur Bezeichnung der ganzen inneren Maschinerie im Menschen dienen, die alles von der Außenwelt von dem Menschen Aufzunehmende auflöst und durch diese Auflösung zur Aufnahme fähig macht. Alles, was ein lebendiger Organismus in sich aufnimmt, sind an und für sich differenzierte, d. h. einem besonderen Dasein angehörige Stoffe. Als solche können sie nicht in einen anderen Organismus übergehen. Die מֵעַים schaffen alles Eingehende zuerst zu einem מֵעים, d. i. zu einem indifferenten Stoffe um. Dieses indifferenzierende System ist ein dualistisches, מֵעים, ein vegetabilisches und ein animalisches: Verdauungs- und Atmungssystem. Wie dieses Gesamtsystem das Eingehen der stofflichen Außenwelt in das Individunm vermittelt, so auch die Eindrücke der moralischen Außenwelt. Es ist Sitz der Empfindung. Wie aber im normalen, gesunden Zustand das Individuum kein Bewusstsein von seinen "Eingeweiden" hat, es vielmehr nur dann fühlt, dass es ein Herz, einen Magen, einen Darm usw. hat, wenn die Maschine oder ein Teil derselben stockt, wenn den מעים etwas gegeben ist, was sie nicht zu verarbeiten, nicht zu "indifferenzieren" vermögen, ebenso finden wir empfindende Gefühlstätigkeit durch מעים nur in schmerzlicher Beziehung ausgedrückt; מעים המו, dieses Innere kommt in Störung, המרמרו, in heftige Gährung durch Eindrücke der Mitleidenschaft mit dem Leiden anderer.

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!²³⁸Further, 16:15. 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.²³⁶Verse 3 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,²³⁹Verse 4 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.²⁴⁰That “Sarai” will not bear a child, but “Sarah” will. 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.²⁴¹See further, 17:17.

ויוצא אותו החוצה, he had received the prophetic vision and words of G’d while in the tent. As part of this prophetic insight, Avram felt that G’d took him outside the tent, showing him the stars. This was the מחזה, “the vision.” We have a parallel situation in Ezekiel 8,3 ותבא אתי ירושלמה במראות אלוקים, “He brought me to Jerusalem in visions of G’d;” [the prophet never set foot in Jerusalem, but lived in Babylonia all his life. Ed.] The new element now was that whereas previously G’d had compared Avram’s offspring as being “like the dust of the earth,” now it is described as “as numerous as the stars in heaven.” Both statements, of course, have to be understood as exaggerations, as we pointed out already on 13,16. We also mentioned the allegorical explanations offered on that verse. It is possible, that in messianic times the Jewish people will be comparable to the stars in that just as no one is able to impose his will on the stars in heaven, so no one will be able to impose his will on the Jewish people. They will shine on earth without interruption just as the stars shine in the sky without dimming. In Bereshit Rabbah 44,10 the words ויוצא אותו are understood as G’d telling Avram to free himself from his astrological speculations according to which he was not able to beget children. Once his name would be changed to Avraham, there would be no reason why a person by that name could not beget children. As soon as G’d would change his name he would be able to sire children, something that proved correct.

And count the stars: Not because of their abundance did He promise him here, since He had already compared the multitude of his children to the dust of the earth, but rather to add here that they will be many men of stature, who will bring light like the stars. And it was not as he had feared [upon hearing of their comparison to dust], lest they be small of worth.

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.

But Avraham will have a son. Although he had Yishmael while he was still called Avram, it says in Kiddushin 68b: “Your son from a nonJewess is not called your son.” Therefore, Yishmael could not be his heir.

Erhebe doch von der Erde weg deinen Blick zum Himmel, zu den Sternen hinauf: so wird dein Same! כה ist nicht sowohl eine numerische Partikel, zur Bezeichnung der quantitativen Größe, als vielmehr eine Partikel der Art und Weise. Ohnehin, sollte nur Abraham gesagt werden: "so zahlreich wie die Sterne" es wäre kaum denkbar, dass zur Erfassung dieses Gedankens Abraham hinausgeführt worden wäre. Wusste Abraham nicht, dass die Sterne zahlreich, ja unzählig für den Menschen seien? Überall, wo in תנ"ך jemandem neben dem Worte auch eine äußere Wahrnehmung vor Augen geführt wird, wo Zeichen, Erlebnisse, Symbole zu dem Worte Gottes hinzutreten, da soll diesen Aussprüchen damit eine tiefere, umfassendere, nachhaltigere Auffassung gegeben werden. Es muß also der Anblick der Sterne hier Abraham einen Gedanken haben veranschaulichen sollen, der ihm tief in die Seele geprägt bleiben sollte und in welchem der Kern dieser ganzen Gottesrede liegen muss. Als ihm früher gesagt wurde: Ich mache deinen Samen wie Staub der Erde, ward ihm nicht zuvor der Staub gezeigt.

כה יהיה זרעך, “so shall be your seed.” Rabbi Tanchuma son of Acha, basing himself on this phrase, commented that it is an assurance that there will never be fewer than 30 righteous people on earth at all times. He uses the word יהיה, “will be (singular),” as his proof. [The numerical value of the combined letters in that word is 30. Ed.]

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.

If you will be able to count them: Because although there are in all the nations of the world men of stature, who bring light to their nations like stars, but they were few in number then in comparison to the amount of the masses. This is not so with the offspring of Avraham; there are great people much more than the amount of the masses, as it is written in the book of Devarim on the verse, "Not because of your being more than all the other nations."

This explains the use of the term הבטה: from above to below. You might ask: If so, why does it say (Bamidbar 21:9), “He would look (והביט) upon the copper snake and live,” [although he was lower than the snake]? The answer is: It means the copper snake would “look” upon him. And why is it written (Tehillim 34:6), “They looked (הביטו) to Him and became radiant,” which is from below to above? The answer is: Hashem is found everywhere. (source unknown) But Re’m explains: Rashi is saying that the הבטה mentioned here is from above to below, [but not everywhere else].

Betrachten wir den Satz näher: נא .הבט נא will überall, wie bereits bemerkt, einer vorhandenen Stimmung, Meinung, Neigung des Gedankens oder Willens entgegentreten. Es muss also hier in diesem Augenblicke bei Abraham eine Gedankenrichtung vorhanden gewesen sein, welcher mit diesem Gottesworte begegnet werden soll. Diese Gedankenrichtung ist aus dem Zusammenhange klar. Abraham hatte die Hoffnung aufgegeben, ein Kind zu erhalten, und hatte auch nach allen natürlichen Voraussetzungen keine Vaterfreuden mehr zu erwarten. In diesem Gefühle hatte er gesprochen: siehe alles, was du mir noch geben möchtest, hat ja keinen Wert für mich, da ich kinderlos von dannen gehen werde. Da führte Gott ihn hinaus: Siehe doch nun einmal zum Himmel, dort am Himmel siehst du eine ganz andere Gestaltung des Daseins als auf der Erde. Auf Erden sehen wir kein unmittelbares Gottesgeschöpf mehr. Alles, was wir auf Erden erblicken, ist von anderen Geschöpfen erzeugt, stammt nicht so unmittelbar aus Gottes Händen, hat vielmehr andere geschöpfliche Wesen und Verhältnisse zu seinen natürlichen Voraussetzungen. Innerhalb dieser irdischen Verhältnisse, wo alles aus gegebenen Ursachen entstehen muss, hatte Abraham ganz Recht, fehlten alle Voraussetzungen, um noch Hoffnung auf Kindersegen zu hegen. Da führte ihn Gott in den Anblick des Himmels. Dort, am Himmel ists umgekehrt, was wir dort wahrnehmen, sind Wesen, Geschöpfe, die unmittelbar von Gott ins Dasein gerufen, ganz so, wie sie Gott von den Tagen der Schöpfung dahingestellt — Eönnten wir die Erde als Ganzes, als Himmelskörper erblicken, sie böte uns denselben Anblich —; soll daher jemandem der Anblick eines unmittelbar, unvermittelt aus Gottes Allmacht hervorgegangenen Daseins gewährt werden, so können ihm nur Sterne gezeigt, so muss sein Blick zum Himmel gehoben werden, zu dem doppelten שָם, von wo uns eine un- mittelbar von Gott hervorgerufene Welt entgegenleuchtet — und "kannst du die wohl zählen?" Ihrer, dieser unmittelbar aus dem Schöpferwerde stammenden Wesen, sind mehr als der auf Erden begrenzten mittelbar erzeugten Wesen — darum צא מאצטגנינות שלך — -verlasse die natürlichen, irdischen Berechnungen, in den Begriff des Sternen daseins senke deinen Geist, "so soll dein Volk werden"! So unmittelbar von Gott, so ohne alle natürliche Voraussetzung, ja, so gegen alle natürlichen Kombinationen, eine zweite Schöpfung, ein zweites יש מאין Noch dreißig Jahre müssen ja Abraham und Sara kinderlos herumwandern und auch die letzte irdische Aussicht auf Elternfreude muß ihnen geschwunden sein, es muß diese Hoffnung erst auf Erden, innerhalb der irdischen Berechnung zu einem völligen "Gelächter" geworden sein, Abraham, Sara unwillkürlich lachen, כל השומע יצחק לי, die ganze Welt lachen, ehe das erste Kind für das von Gott verheißene Volk ins Dasein treten sollte.

Diesen Hinblick auf die Sterne zur Veranschaulichung des unmittelbar an Gottes Mund hangenden Bestandes Israels singt auch noch der Ps. 147: "Der jetzt Jerusalem baut, Gott, sammelt auch Israels Zerstreute wieder. Der verwundete Herzen heilt, hat auch Heilung für ihre Schmerzen. Der den Sternen die Zahl zählt, ruft auch sie alle mit Namen. Groß ist unser Herr, und reich an Kraft, seiner Einsicht gilt keine Zahl usw." Wie elend und unscheinbar auch die נדחי ישראל geworden sind, so unmittelbar wie die Sterne hängt doch ein jeder Jude an Gottes Mund, ist er immer, wenn auch im tiefsten Elend, ein Jude, so steht er unter השגחה פרטית, , die ihn bei seinem Namen nennt׳; denn הרות על הלוחות, denn der Wandel in den Gott geweihten Bahnen hebt über alle Macht naturgebundener Gewalt, macht frei, stellt unmittelbar unter Gott.

Es heißt nicht, ויאמן בהי wie bei Israel וירא ישר" וגוי ויאמינו בהי, dass Abraham erst durch das Vorangehende אמונה gewonnen habe; sondern והאמין בדי, Abrahams ganzes bisheriges Leben war אמונה; schon in dem Namen יְדֶוִד, mit dem er Gott entgegentrat, hatte er die ganze Fülle von אמונה ihm entgegengebracht, und diese אמונה hatte in dieser letzten Anschauung seiner und seines Volkes Zukunft nur neue Nahrung und Gelegenheit zur Betätigung gewonnen.

אמונה ist nicht Glauben, mit welchem Worte man diesem Kernbegriff des jüdischen Bewusstseins seinen eigentlichen Inhalt raubt. Glauben ist ein Verstandesakt, ist oft nur ein bloßes Dafürhalten, ist immer nur ein Fürwahrhalten auf Grund der Einsicht und Versicherung eines andern. Indem man Religion zum Glauben gemacht, dann das Wesen von Religion in das Fürwahrhalten für den Verstand ganz unkonstruierbarer Sätze gelegt hat, hat man die Religion aus dem Leben gebannt, hat sie zu einem Katechismus von Glaubensparolen gemacht, die einst beim Einlaß ins Jenseits abgefordert würden. Den Worten eines andern Glauben schenken, einem andern glauben heißt aber nie האמין ב־, heißt höchstens nur 2) והן יאמינו לי — האמין ל־. B. M. 4, 1) — האמין ב־ ist aber nicht ein bloßes Unterordnen unseres theoretischen Verstandes unter die Einsicht eines andern, האמין בדי ist das Setzen unseres ganzen theoretischen und praktischen Haltes. unserer Leitung, unserer Kraft und Festigkeit in Gott. Schon der Verbalbegriff von (Cantie. 7), wovon das מעשה ידי אְָמָן .im Kal ist ein vorwiegend praktischer אמן rabbinische אומן, ist: Bildner, אומֵן der Menschenbildner, Erzieher, אָמְנָה Erziehung. אמן heisst somit nicht bloß Festsein, sondern Festmachen, dem unentschiedenen stofflichen Sein eines andern die feste Form und die entschiedene Gestaltung und Richtung erteilen. האמין ברי heißt also: Gestaltung, Bildung, Erziehung, Leitung seines ganzen Seins und Strebens in Gott setzen, sich ganz Gott überlassen, sich Gott als bildungsgefügigen Stoff hingeben, kurz: sich und alles Seine Gott anheimstellen. Mit אמן einem ausgesprochenen Satze begegnen, heißt nicht nur ihn für wahr erklären, sondern sich der Wahrheit des Satzes hingeben, den Ausspruch einer Wahrheit zu dem seinen machen und geloben, sich von ihr leiten zu lassen. Denn אָמֵן bezieht sich nicht auf den Inhalt, sondern auf die Person, die einen Ausspruch hört und ihn adoptiert. המתברך יתברך באלדי אמן (Jes. 65, 16), man wird sich mit dem Gotte des אָמֵן, des Menschen und des Volkes segnen, die sich ganz der Leitung Gottes überlassen, deren Leben und Geschick daher sowohl den Menschenberuf als die immer zum Heil führende Leitung Gottes offenbaren. Selbst אמת ist nicht nur die theoretische Wahrheit, sondern auch die praktische Wahrheit, die Wahrheit in Leistungen: die Treue. (Das Verhältnis des Judentums zu Glauben, Religion, Theologie, Kultus etc. haben wir Jeschurun 1. S. 465 — 502 ausführlich behandelt).

Hier heisst es nun von Abraham: ׳האמין בד, er hatte sich ganz und unbedingt der unmittelbaren Leitung Gottes hingegeben. Gott hatte ihn über den Kreis der nur durch die kausalen Gesetze der physischen Welt gebundenen, irdischen Verhältnisse zur Anschauung eines konkreten unmittelbar aus Gottes Willen hervorgegangenen Daseins gehoben, und hatte zu ihm gesprochen: so soll dein Same werden, so unmittelbar von mir und durch mich, ohne alle natürliche Voraussetzung, ja gegen alle natürliche Berechnung; והאמין בד׳ und so wie sein Same nur von Gott allein sich tragen lassen soll, so ging ihnen Abraham in dieser אמונה leuchtend voran — ויהשבה לו צדקה. Es dürfte zweifelhaft sein, ob Abraham oder Gott Sübjekt im Satze ist. Es ist dies bedingt von der Bedeutung, in welcher צדקה aufgefasst wird.

צדקה erscheint nämlich in zwei scheinbar grundverschiedenen Bedeutungen. In Sätzen wie: וענתה בי צדקתי. ( erste B. M. 30, 33) oder :וצדקת צדיקים יסירו ממנו (Jes. 5, 26) bezeichnet es unleugbar einfach: Gerechtigkeit. Wenn Jakob dem Laban treu gedient, so ist dies eben nichts weiter als Schuldigkeit des Rechts. Wenn der bestochene Richter der schuldigen Partei Recht gibt und ihr die צדקה des Gegners nicht im Wege stehen lässt, so ist es eben die Gerechtigkeit des Gegners, die durch die Bestechung vor dem Schuldigen aus dem Wege geräumt wird. Von anderer Seite ist צדקה doch nicht משפט, wird צדקה immer neben משפט, als etwas davon Verschiedenes genannt, משפט וצרקה zusammen erschöpfen erst den Inhalt des pflichtgemäßen Tatenlebens, und von Gott gebraucht, wird es geradezu: Wohltat. משפט von שפט, verwandt mit ,שות, שבת שבט ,שפך ,שפת. Grundbegriff aller dieser Wurzeln ist: an die .(Siehe Seite 46) gehörige Stelle setzen, daher שפט, wesentlich: ordnen, eine Tätigkeit bezeichnet, die ein Wesen in die ihm gebührende Stellung setzt oder darin lässt. משפט bereichert und erweitert nicht. משפט sichert und restituiert nur das bereits Errungene. Wenn ich dem andern zurückerstatte, was er durch mich oder für mich an Kraft oder Vermögen eingebüßt, so habe ich משפט betätigt.

Ein anderes ist צדקה, rad. צדק .צדק hat, wie bereits (S. 113, 120) bemerkt, Lautanalogie im chaldäischen שרך beruhigen, befriedigen, versorgen, also dasjenige leisten, was dem andern fehlt, was zu des andern Wohlfahrt gereicht. צֶדֶק ist diejenige beglückende Gestaltung der Verhältnisse, deren die Welt im ganzen und jeder einzelne in ihr nach Gottes Heilesplan teilhaftig sein sollte, und die sie sicherlich einst erreichen werden. Es ist das Ziel der göttlichen Waltung. Es ist, von menschlichem Standpunkt gesprochen, das Ideal. Jede Gottes- oder Menschenthat, die den einzelnen, oder das Ganze diesem Ziele näher führt, ist: צדקה .צדקה ist das durch צדק Bedingte, zu ihm Führende. Von Gott ist es immer Wohltat. Von Menschen geübt, ist es dem Empfänger gegenüber: Wohltat, Gott gegenüber: Pflicht. Denn in den Dienst des צֶדֶק stellt Gott einen jeden mit jedem Splitter geistiger und materieller Kraft, die er ihm verleiht. Alles wird ihm nur, um mit allem das צדק-Heil der ihn umgebenden Welt zu fördern. Jeder solcher Beitrag ist צדקה und צדקה ist somit: die Summe eines ganzen pflichtgetreuen Lebens, wovon משפט nur die negatibe, das Unterlassen des Unrechts bildet, während צדקה die positive Verwirklichung des Guten ist.

ויחשבה לו צדקה kann nun hier heißen: Abraham hatte seine ganze Zuversicht in Gott gesetzt und achtete es Ihm, Gott, als Wohlthat; d. h. er war überzeugt, dass auch der von ihm beklagte kinderlose Zustand — auch wenn er nicht begriff — nichts als eine das durch ihn zu begründende Heil fördernde Gotteswohlthat sei; für dies Auffassung spräche die Gleichheit des Subjekts in den beiden Sätzen: והאמין und ויחשבה. Wahrscheinlich jedoch ist Gott das Subjekt, und der Terminativ לו bezieht sich auf Abraham: Gott achtete ihm die von ihm bewährte אמונה als צדקה, als die volle pflichtgetreue Lösung seiner Lebensaufgabe. So heißt es ganz ähnlich von Pinchas: "da stand Pinchas und entschied und es ward Halt geboten der Seuche, und ihm wards zur ,Zedaka׳ gerechnet für Geschlecht und Geschlecht auf ewig" (Psalm 106, 30. 31). In dieser einen Tat gipfelte Pinchas Lösung seiner Lebensaufgabe, diese Tat war der höchste Beitrag, den er der Förderung des Gotteswerkes brachte, als solche wurde sie ihm gedacht, und damit errang er sich das ewige Priestertum. So auch von Abraham. אמונה, diese schrankenlose Hingebung an Gott für eine Zukunft, für welche er noch nicht den allerersten Anfang erblickte, ja gegen deren Realisierung alle menschliche Berechnung sprach, in ihr gipfelte die von Abraham zu lösende Lebensaufgabe, sie war sein höchster positiver Beitrag für den Bau dieser Zukunft selbst. Während seine Nachkommen sich zu sagen haben werden: וצדקה תהיה לנו unsere Zedaka, unsere Pflichtgerechtigkeit wird es sein, wenn wir sorgfältig dieses ganze Gesetz vor Gott, unserem Gotte erfüllen, wie er es uns geboten, כי נשמר לעשות את כל המצוה הזאת לפני ד׳ אלדינו כאשר צונו" war Abraham noch nicht gegeben, תרי"ג מצות zu erfüllen. Seine Aufgabe war zuerst das Pflanzen des ganzen Daseins in Gott, אמונה, die völlige Hingebung an seine Leitung und Erziehung, und diese Aufgabe — für Abraham in seiner Isoliertheit und ohne vor- gängige Erfahrung der wundervollen Gottesführungen eine so unendlich größere, — hat Abraham mit seinem ganzen Leben voll gelöst und damit den Grund für die Zukunft gelegt, die ihm nun enthüllt werden soll.

'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).

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?²⁴²Numbers 23:29. 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.²⁴³Above, Verse 1. 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 prophecy²⁴⁴See above, Note 223, and Ramban to Verse 2. 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,²⁴⁵Further, 41:21. truth He will not turn from it.²⁴⁶Psalms 132:11. 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.²⁴⁷Isaiah 45:23. “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 righteousness²⁴⁸Ramban is now suggesting that Abraham did consider his having a child as being a reward for his deeds, but the Holy One, blessed be He, accounted it to him as an act of righteousness in order not to diminish his future reward for his good deeds. since in His righteousness G-d did so, just as it says, G-d thought it for good.²⁴⁹Further, 50:20. A similar case is the verse regarding Phinehas: And that was accounted unto him for righteousness,²⁵⁰Psalms 106:31. meaning that the trust he [Phinehas] has in G-d when committing that particular deed²⁵¹See Numbers 25:7-8. 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.²⁵²Psalms 89:29.

He believed. He had utter confidence that God would fulfill His promise, even if it required a miracle.

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.

'והאמין בה, he had already believed in G’d at the start of this prophecy, his doubts having concerned only the interpretation of the word זרעך as we have explained on verse 3. Now that G’d had added that the זרעך He had been speaking about meant biological offspring, i.e. ממעיך, and He had shown him the parable with his own eyes by showing him the stars in a prophetic vision, Avram believed in the original promise with even greater certainty, not entertaining any doubt whatsoever.

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.

He did not ask of Him a sign concerning this ... Rashi is answering the question: Would we think that Avraham might not believe in Hashem and in his own prophecy? Avraham was a prophet! So why does it need to say, “He believed in Hashem”? Rashi answers: To tell us that “he did not [even] ask of Him a sign...” If you ask: Why did Avraham not ask for a sign regarding the promise of children, as he did regarding the inheritance of the Land? The Ramban answers: [The promise of children was between him and Hashem. But inheriting the land was dependent on the sins of the Canaanite inhabitants, thus Avraham asked for a sign.] The Re’m answers: At this point, inheriting the land was merely told to Avraham, not promised: “I am Adonoy who brought you out of Ur Kasdim with the intention to give you this land as an inheritance.” Avraham asked for a sign because this promise was not definite. But the promise of children was a definite promise and therefore he did not need a sign. But it seems to me that he did not request a sign for children because it is written (v. 5), “He took him outside and said: ‘Look ....’” And this is interpreted in Shabbos 156a to mean: “God said to him, ‘Leave your astrological calculations ... It is Avram who will have no son, but Avraham will have a son.’” Once Avram saw this marvel, he no longer needed a sign. But the inheritance of the Land was not [seen]; thus Avraham requested a sign. A further answer: Avram had doubt about inheriting the Land because Hashem did not include the promise regarding the inheritance of the Land together with the promise of children. Rather He separated the two. This cast a doubt in Avraham’s heart. (Minchas Yehudah) According to Rashi the phrase והאמין בה' seems to be unnecessary. It is obvious that Avram believed the promise of children, since he said nothing when Hashem promised him this. Therefore Rashi commented, “Concerning the inheritance of the Land he asked for a sign.” Rashi explains that והאמין בה' was written to infer from it: He believed this, and did not ask for a sign. But [for inheriting the Land] ... (R. Yaakov Kenizal)

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 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 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.

ויחשבה לו צדקה, G’d credited Avram with having performed an act of righteousness by believing so unquestioningly in His promise that he personally would become a father. In view of the fact that both he and his wife were in the process of aging, such faith was even more remarkable.

God considered it for Avram... Rashi is explaining that Hashem accounted צדקה to Avram, not Avram to Hashem. Rashi knows this because the greater one grants צדקה and חסד to the lesser one, not the reverse. (Re’m) [Alternatively,] Rashi knows this because if it meant that Avram accounted צדקה to Hashem, it would be obvious. For even if he did not see in the stars that he will be childless, he would still consider [having children] a צדקה, and would not say that he deserved it — all the more so that the stars were against it. This is why Rashi explains that “God considered it for Avram.” (R. Yaakov Kenizal)

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 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.

By what merit will they remain in it? Accordingly, that verse is understood as if it said אדע במה אירשנה —“Let me know by what merit I shall inherit it.” The Re’m writes: According to this explanation, I do not know how Rashi will explain והאמין בה', for the [original] question stands: would we think that Avram might not believe in his own prophecy? The Re’m answers: Avram believed he would have children, without puzzling over it. But he puzzled over inheriting the land — by what merit will his descendants remain in it? But it seems to me [the answer is]: He believed his children would continue to exist even without merit, for v. 10 says, “The bird, however, he did not split.” And Rashi comments there, citing Chazal: “This signifies that Israel will exist forever.” Similarly it is written (Devarim 32:23), “I will use up My arrows on them,” and Chazal comment (Sotah 9a): “My arrows may come to an end, but Israel will not come to an end.” Whereas for the Land, he believed they would [initially] inherit it, because the merit of their forefathers would be sufficient for this, as Rashi says at the beginning of Parshas Va’eira. But he had doubt whether they would have the merit to keep it. Thus he said, “How will I know?” I.e., by what merit will my descendants keep the Land?

How will I know. Avram was concerned that his offspring might sin inadvertently and lose their right to the land. In response God revealed to him the secret of the sacrifices, through which they would receive atonement.

King, Helper, and Deliverer and Shield. Blessed are You, Adonoy, Shield of Abraham.

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 verse²⁵³Above, 11:28. 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,²⁵⁴Ibid., 12:7; 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?²⁵⁵Verse 8. 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?²⁵⁶II Kings 20:8. 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.²⁵⁷Instead, He made a covenant with him to inherit the land by all means. (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.²⁵⁸Jeremiah 18:7-8. And then the Holy One, blessed be He, made a covenant with him that he will inherit the land under all circumstances.

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.

ויאמר אליו, G’d continued speaking to him, in order to reinforce his faith that the promises would be fulfilled.

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 18,7רגע 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.

Sehen wir, wie Gott hier die bedeutsame Enthüllung der Zukunft seines Volkes mit dem Hinweis auf Abrahams Ausgang aus UreKasdim einleitet, so kann dieser Ausgang kein gewöhnlicher Fortgang gewesen, so muß er ein den wundertätigen Beistand Gottes bekundendes Ereignis, muß eine Rettung gewesen sein, wie das spätere יציאת מצרים für seine Nachkommen. Nur der Hinweis auf eine solche außerordentliche Errettung aus einer außerordentlichen Gefahr — wie sie uns die Uberlieferung über Nimrods Attentat auf Abrahams Leben in Ur-Kasdim bekundet — konnte diesen "Auszug aus Ur-Kasdim" zu einer Erfahrung machen, aus welcher der Stammvater und sein Volk Kraft und Hoffnung zum mutigen Ausharren in einem vierhundertjährigen Galuth- leiden bis zum "Auszuge aus Mizrajim׳ schöpfen konnten. Bestand nun diese Rettung in der Rettung aus dem Feuertode, und weist hierauf vielleicht אור, die Feuersglut hin, heißts überhaupt vielleicht: der ich dich aus der Feuersglut zu Chaldäa herausgeführt, so läge hier vielleicht auch ein Anlass, im folgenden die Gefahr in Mizrajim als תנור עשן ולפיר אש, als rauchenden und flammenden Glutofen erscheinen zu lassen, und was der Ahn leiblich im wirklichen Glutofen erfahren, das hatten seine Nachkommen geschichtlich im politischen Glutofen Ägyptens zu bestehen. יציאת אור כשדים ist vorbildlicher Vorgang für .יציאת מצרים

'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.

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.

'אני ה, He had not previously mentioned His name Hashem, the Essence, to Avram. When G’d mentioned this name of His now, it was not to inform Avram that this was His true name, His Essence. Avram had been familiar with that name from the time he had first gotten to know G’d. He only mentioned it now to tell Avram that He would keep His promise in His capacity of Hashem. It is as if G’d had said: “I swear by My name Hashem.”

אשר הוצאתיך מאור כשדים, it was not for nothing that I have taken you out of that environment, but in order to give you this land to inherit it. G’d meant that Avram’s descendants would inherit the land of Canaan. The relationship between this land and Avram would become comparable to the inheritance a father leaves to his sons.

How shall I know: Our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, said (Nedarim 32a), "Because Avram said, 'How shall I know,' he was punished with, 'You shall surely know [that your offspring shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and they shall be enslaved and oppressed four hundred years]' (Genesis 15:13)." But the intellect demurs from accepting this drash (homiletical understanding): That his children should suffer such a great punishment because of the sign that Avram requested; and Avram himself did not receive any punishment, whereas his children's teeth were set on edge. Therefore my heart tells me and has concluded that the exile in Egypt had other causes. And our Rabbis, may their memory be blessed, disagree about [the causes] – and you can find all of the opinions in [the commentary on the Torah] of our teacher, Rabbi Yitzchak Abarbanel, as he gathered them together. But (the reason for not quoting them here is that) the length of a page is too short to put all of those opinions upon it. Rather the writer of this drash was bothered by [the following question]: Whatever the reason for the exile may have been – why is it that the Holy One, blessed be He, should tell Avram this bad news, to distress him for nothing? It is about this that he said that [it was] for the sin of "How shall I know' – that he wanted to know something that was unnecessary to know, as why did he need to ask for a sign about the word of God? [Hence] he was punished with, 'You shall surely know,' such that the Holy One, blessed be He, informed him about something to distress him. And this is also poetic justice (middah keneged middah).

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

?ויאמר.. במה אדע כי אירשנה, he meant: “how do I know that my son will inherit it?” We have a similar construction in Genesis 48,22 אשר לקחתי מיד האמורי, where Yaakov also does not mean that he, personally, had battled the Emorite, but that his sons had done so successfully. The meaning of the words במה אדע cannot be that the same man who had just been given credit for his utter faith in G’d now has developed doubts, nothing having occurred to cause such doubts. He wanted to know how he could be certain that when his sons, i.e. offspring, would inherit the land that it would remain theirs forever. Perhaps, due to some sin, future generations might forfeit their claim to the land of Canaan, just as the present occupants had forfeited their claim through their sins. Unless they had, why would G’d want to dispossess them? He hoped that just as G’d had shown him the stars as an illustration that his offspring would be people of great substance, so G’d would show him a further illustration of a means by which his offspring would reinforce their title to that land once they had settled in it.

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.

במה אדע כי אירשנה, kann unmöglich heißen: "wodurch soll ich wissen, dass ich es in Besitz nehmen werde?" Der Mann, von dem eben als seines Lebens höchster Inhalt ׳אמונה בד, die rückhaltloseste Hingebung an Gottes Führung gerühmt worden, kann unmöglich nach einer Versicherung, die ihm dazu bereits wiederholt von Gott geworden, noch erst ein Zeichen verlangt haben, um dieser Versicherung vertrauensvoll Glauben zu schenken. Die Worte vertragen auch nicht die Erklärung: באיזה זכות אירשנה, es hätte dann heißen müssen: אדע במה אירשנה. Vielmehr: Es hatte Gott dieser Verheißung ein Wort beigefügt, das in dem früheren Ausspruche nicht erschienen. לזרעך אתן את הארץ הזאת hatte sie zuerst Kapitel 12,7 gelautet. Ebenso 13, 15: לך אתננה ולזרעך עד עולם. ,Dir und deinen Nachkommen werde ich dieses Land" geben", eine Fassung dieser Verheißung, die auf keine dabei mitwirkende Tätigkeit Abrahams oder seiner Nachkommen hinweist. Hier aber hieß es: לתת לך את הארץ הזאת לרשתה ,"Dir das Land zu geben, um es in Besitz zu nehmen" לרשתה ein Wort, das so sehr den Begriff der Selbsttätigkeit in sich fasst, dass es ja auch geradezu auch: erobern heißt, und ja auch in diesem Sinne von der wirklichen Besitznahme des Landes gebraucht wird: ׳ראה נתן ר׳א׳ לפניך את הארץ עלה רש וגו (5. B. M. 1, 21). Ebenso daselbst 1, 8. 9, 23. 2, 24. 2, 31. Es war hier also Abraham gesagt, Gott habe ihn aus Ur-Kasdim geführt, ihm dieses Land zu geben, damit er es erobernd in Besitz nehme. Soeben hatte auch Abraham einen glorreichen Sieg über vier länderbezwingende Könige erfochten. Er hatte diesen Kampf auch nicht in Folge eines besonderen, ausdrücklichen Geheißes, sondern in Folge seines allgemeinen Pflichtbewusstseins unternommen. Er konnte sehr wohl hieraus schließen, dass er (oder wenn man will, seine Nachkommen) von Gottes Beistand getragen, in ähnlicher Weise das von Gott verheißene Land erobern sollte, und er fragt daher: woran werde ich erkennen, dass der rechte Zeitpunkt gekommen sei, dass ich das Land erobern soll? Weit entfernt, einen Mangel an Gottvertrauen zu entfalten, spricht vielmehr diese Frage das höchste Gottvertrauen aus. Wie er über die vier Könige gesiegt, so ist er auch bereit, den Kampf für die Eroberung des Landes zu bestehen. Es genügt, dass Gott den Besitz ihm zugesagt, um ihn des Sieges gewiß zu machen. Gott ist אדניו, ist sein Herr, in dessen Dienst er lebt und strebt, er ist יְֶדוִד, der auch "versagend gewährt", dem er sich daher für alle Gefahren und Kämpfe, für alle Angst und Arbeit bereit stellt.

And concerning the matter of what Avram asked, many have wondered why he asked for a sign about the inheritance of the land, but he didn’t ask for a sign about the promise of offspring. And I would also ask another question: Why did he not ask about the land immediately the first time, when the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "I will give the land to your progeny" (Genesis 12:7)? And there are many opinions about these questions as well. But I say that the sign that Avram requested was not from being in doubt about God's promise, may He be blessed. Rather he wanted that the Holy One, blessed be He, make a covenant with him, so as to repulse any claimant or challenger against him. As above – when He said, "I will give the land to your progeny" – it was implied that this is just a gift. And about this Avram did not request the making of a covenant; as who would challenge a gift that God gave him? For the earth and its fullness are His; so it is His right to give it to whomever He wants. But once the Holy One, blessed be He, said to him, "to give you this land to inherit" – it was implied that this gift that He mentioned was in the category of inheritance. So Avram responded lest the other descendants of Shem challenge [him] about [what they believed to be] their portion. For the sons of Shem were Elam, Arpachshad, Ashur, Lud, and Aram (Genesis 10:2), and Avram was descended from Arpachshad. And lest the other children of Shem would challenge the inheritance, he therefore said, "How shall I know that I will inherit it" - what is the sign that that I am the only inheritor, without challenge? And the answer came to him, "Take a three year old calf, etc." (Genesis 15:9): In the same way that God made an eternal covenant of salt with Aharon to repulse the challenge of Korach against him, so too did God make a covenant with Avram to repulse any claimant or challenger against him. As this was the rule in ancient times – that all who made covenants would pass between cut pieces, as is well-known.

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).

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:²⁶⁰Parah 1:1. 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 sacrifices²⁶¹The heifer, the she-goat and the ram. 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,²⁶²Leviticus 7:7. 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,²⁶³Ezekiel 42:6. meaning that there were upper, middle and lower chambers.

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

'ויאמר אליו קחה לי וגו, the purpose of Avram taking these animals was to offer them to Gd as a sacrifice. G’d would use this sacrifice to illustrate to Avram the future of his descendants, their settlement in the land of Canaan, as well as their exile from that land. By means of these animal sacrifices G’d would conclude a covenant with Avram that was not subject to permanent dissolution, ever. Concluding a covenant is a procedure such as follows in the next verses. In Jeremiah 34,18 the prophet spells this out more clearly, עגלה אשר כרתו לשנים ויעבר בין בתריו, “(like) the calf which they cut in two so as to pass between the halves.”

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.

Symbolic of the goat that is offered inside... [The individual’s sin offering] does not come to atone for all of Israel as do the other bulls and goats mentioned. Yet, since it can be brought by anyone who sins, it is considered as atonement for all of Israel. (Re’m) But it seems to me that it serves as atonement for all of Israel because there is no one who is completely righteous, who does only good and never sins, [therefore it is considered as atonement for all of Israel.]

(9-21) במה עדע war Abrahams Frage, ידע תדע (Raw Hirsch on Genesis 15:13) lautet die Antwort. Zu wissen, woran er den Zeitpunkt erkennen sollte, in welchem er nach Gottes Ratschluss das Land in Besitz nehmen solle, war sein Wunsch; wissen sollst du, lautete die diesen Wunsch gewährende Antwort, du wirst nicht persönlich das Land in Besitz nehmen, und auch deine Nachkommen nicht sofort und nicht auf dem Wege des fortschreitend heranblühenden Glücks. Als Fremdlinge, Sklaven und gepeinigt, heimatlos, freiheitlos, widerstandslos sollen erst drei Geschlechter dahingehen, und erst das vierte Geschlecht zur Einnahme des Landes hierher zurückkehren. Die sittliche Entartung, die den Stab über den jetzigen Besitzer bricht, ist bis dahin noch nicht voll. Der jetzige Besitzer wird erst in Üppigkeit der ihn verurteilenden Entartung entgegenreifen, der künftige Besitzer erst in Armut, Sklaverei und Elend für den einstigen Besitz gereift werden. Mit dir wird nur der Bund geschlossen, du gehst in Frieden zu den Vätern, an dem vierten Geschlecht wird sichs erfüllen.

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 B’reshit 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).

ויבתר אותם בתוך, the Torah mentions three species of animals (mammals) which are basically fit to be offered as sacrificial animals, hinting thereby that as long as these kinds of animals would be offered on the altar to G’d in the prescribed manner, the Jewish people, Avram’s descendants, would not be exiled from their land. The reason why 3 of each species were to be offered by Avram at this time was to apprise him of the fact there would indeed occur three exiles when his descendants would be forcefully uprooted from their land. Their first such exile would be to the land of Egypt, also known as עגלה, calf (Jeremiah 46,20) עגלה יפה פיה מצרים, “Egypt is a handsome heifer.” In Psalms 80,6 the psalmist writes: ותשקמו בדמעות שליש, “You have fed them tears three times,” a prophetic prediction by the author that the exile of the Jewish people in Egypt would not be their only one, but that two more were to follow.

Diese Verkündigung, die dem Stammbater als Antwort auf seine Frage ward, und die, eben weil voraus verkündet, den Nachkommen dieses Stammvaters die Quelle der Ausdauer und des Mutes, und Boden der Zuversicht und der ausharrenden Hoffnung während der Prüfungs- und Erziehungsjahrhunderte eines namenlosen Elendes sein sollte, sie ward dem Stammvater nicht nur in Worten, sondern tief ward sie ihm durch symbolisches Zeichen und Handeln und Erleben eingeprägt; die endlose Nacht und die Angst und das Aufjauchzen erlösenden Aufwachens aus derselben, alles mußte der Ahn gleichsam bereits vorbildlich erlebt haben, damit es um so sicherer und tiefer, mit der Wahrheit eines bereits Erlebten erfasst und überliefert werde. Das ידע תדע usw. ist nichts als die Deutung des bereits symbolisch Gesagten, ist nichts als die Übersetzung der Zeichen, der Handlung und der Geschehnisse in Wort, und es kann für uns nur die Aufgabe sein, die Beziehung des Symbols, d. h. die Beziehung der Zeichen, der Handlung und des Vorganges zu dem nachfolgend gegebenen Inhalt zu finden.

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)

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.

עגלה, this word was an allusion to the first exile of the Israelites. Seeing that Yaakov’s sons had already occupied prominent positions in the land of Canaan, the land could have been described as theirs, if not as their inheritance, as G’d said in Genesis 15,16 “for the measure of the Emorites’ sin will not be full until 4 generations from now.” G’d would not have a legal justification for expelling them from their land until after that period of time. [Most Midrashim understand עגלה as a reference to the Babylonian exile, compare Torah Shleymah on our verse. Ed.]

Da שַלֵש (erst.Kön. 18, 34) etwas dreimal tun, חוט הַמְשֻלָש (Pred. 4, 12) der dreifach genommene Faden heißt, so kann das משֻלשת und משֻלָש hier auch nichts anderes als dreimal bezeichnen: also drei Kälber, drei Ziegen, drei Widder. Es heißt aber nicht: עגלות שלש ,עזים שלש ואילים שלשה, drei Kälber, drei Ziegen und drei Widder, sondern dreimal ein Kalb, dreimal eine Ziege, dreimal einen Widder, um sowohl je drei dieser Tiere als eine zusammengehörige Gruppe, als auch das jedesmalige Nehmen dieser Tiere als etwas dreimal zu Wiederholendes zu bezeichnen. Hält man ferner das vorhergehende Symbolische mit dem nachfolgenden gesprochenen Teil dieser Offenbarung zusammen, so springt es sofort in die Augen, wie das Zerstücken dieser lebendigen Wesen, auf deren Leichname sodann der gierige Raubvogel niederstürzen will, den Zustand und die Gefahr veranschaulicht, die über die kommenden Geschlechter verhängt werden. Diese Tiere sind somit diese kommenden Geschlechter, und wenn es gesagt wird, dass erst das vierte Geschlecht wieder zur Erlösung ersteht, somit drei Geschlechter von dem verkündeten Elend betroffen werden, so ist es ebenso unmittelbar klar, wie das dreimalige Hingeben dieser Tiere an Gott nichts anderes heißt als: dreimal hat sich dein Geschlecht, d. h. drei deiner kommenden Geschlechter haben sich mir mit dem was sie als עז ,עגלה und איל sind und als תור und גוזל hinzugeben, ויבתר וגוי drei deiner kommenden Geschlechter lasse ich als עז ,עגלה und איל gewaltsam ersterben und nur als תור und גוזל lebendig bleiben. Als איל -עז ,-עגלה-Leichen werden sie zu Boden liegen, der Raubvogel in ihnen eine willkommene Beute erblicken und nur du, mit deinem כות£, weil sie die Deinen sind, wirst sie ihm nicht zum Fraße werden lassen. Es ist nämlich klar, dass in ויבתר nicht Abraham, sondern Gott das Subjekt ist, da erst in וישב אותם אברם Abraham als Subjekt hervorgehoben wird.

ותור וגוזל means A TURTLE DOVE AND A YOUNG PIGEON (Genesis Rabbah 44:14).

ועז ואיל, and a she-goat and a ram; these two species are symbolic of the exile to Babylonia and the exile initiated by the Romans. Even though the Jewish people were badly suppressed by the Greeks, this happened while they were and remained on their own land. They are, however included in the parable shown by G’d to Avram. In Daniel’s dream (Daniel 8,8) the Greeks are referred to as a she-goat. Seeing that they were the first oppressors of the Jews during the period of the second Temple, the parable alluded to them in second place. The Romans completed what the Greeks had started and exiled the Jewish people from their homeland. The איל, ram, is an allusion to the Persian-Medes exile Seeing that their dominion was based on Babylon, they are referred to in the parable as the איל, the ram, even though eventually they allowed the exiles to return to their land. Several kings of the Persian-Medes empire had prolonged the Jews’ stay in captivity before allowing them to return home, so that they were also guilty of “exiling” them in the interval. The allusion to the second exile, that in Babylonia is called in the feminine mode i.e. עז, instead of שעיר, to indicate that the Babylonians never allowed the Jews to return, whereas the third exile is represented by the species איל in the masculine mode, the Persians-Medes being the only ones allowing the exiles to return to their homeland. The Persians-Medes possessed the merit of believing in the existence of the Jewish G’d, Cyrus having had a dream as a result of which he allowed the Jews to return to their homeland and build a new Temple. (Chronicles II 36,23) Among other merits he attributed his glory to the G’d in heaven Who had made him such a mighty ruler This compares favourably with the king of Ashur who had attributed his success to his own efforts (Isaiah 10,13) Similarly, Titus, conqueror of Jerusalem in Roman times, blasphemed against the G’d of the Jews. The Persians and Medes therefore are represented by a female animal in the parable G’d shows Avram here, as opposed to the arrogant kings who are represented by the male specimens of their species.

Es bleibt zu ermitteln, was bedeutet תור וגוזל ,איל ,עז ,עגלה im Gebiete von Menschen- oder Völker-Persönlichkeiten?

משלשת, three of each, as per Onkelos. Alternately, the meaning could be that these animals were to be three years old (Ibn Ezra)

Dass sie überhaupt bestimmte Beziehungen von Menschen-Persönlichkeiten bedeuten, bewahrheitet ein auch nur oberflächlicher Blick auf die Opfergesetze, die eben nur diese Tiere zum Opfer zulassen, und für bestimmte Persönlichkeiten, und darum bestimmte Zustände und Beziehungen, immer nur bestimmte Arten und Geschlechter derselben vorschreiben.

ותר וגוזל, we are not certain what species of bird is called גוזל by the Torah. Basically, all small birds are known by the collective name of גוזל, as for instances in Deuteronomy 32,11 where the Torah describes the eagle, נשר, as carrying its young on its wings, with the words על גוזליו ירחף. Onkelos explains that what is meant here are young turtle doves. This is one of the few birds that are ritually admissible as sacrifices in Jewish law. It is the kind of bird that, while subject to other predators, does not itself make its livelihood by preying on either birds or beasts. The pigeon, תור, is very similar to it, and both species share the distinction of not mating with another male bird after its first sexual partner has died. The Jewish people, while in exile also considers itself as widowed, separated from its husband, although He is alive and well. It refused to serve other deities (alternate husbands) even though the exile has lasted this long and no immediate redemption is in sight. The female pigeons have this loyalty in common with the Jewish people, not giving up hope that their husbands will return to them. The Jewish people are non-aggressive, though downtrodden by the nations while they are in exile; they have not given up hope that in the fullness of time the messiah, and with him the redemption and return to our own land will finally be realised. (Such fond hopes are expressed by Solomon in his Song of Songs, both in 1,15 and 2,14 in poetical terms. The Jewish people are also compared to the תור in Psalms 74,19 אל תתן לחיות נפש תורך, “do not deliver Your dove to the wild beast.”

Die Rindergattung שור ,בקר, ist das arbeitende, im Dienste des Herrn tätig schaffende Tier, (während חמור das Lasttier repräsentiert). So: לא תחסום שור בדישו (fünf.B. M. 25,7). רב תבואות בכח השור (Prov.14, 4) לא תעבוד בבכור שורך (5. B. M. 15, 19). Daher erscheint das junge Rind immer als das für die Arbeit zu erziehende Tier: כעגל לא לומד (Jerem. 31. 18) אפרים עגלה מלומדה (Hosea10, 11). כעגלה דשה (Jerem. 50. 11), daher auch פרה סוררה Die Rindergattung .(Hosea 4,7) repräsentiert daher die Tatkraft und die tätige Wirksamkeit. Der Vollkräftige der Gattung ist: פר, und charakterisiert daher פר im Opfer immer die öffentliche, im Dienste Gottes und der Gesamtheit zu wirken und mit ihrem Wirken voranzugehen berufene Persönlichkeit. So: פר העלם דבר של צבור ,פר כה"ג ביה"כ ,פר כהן משיח usw. עגלה bezeichnet daher die angehende, in Entwicklung begriffene Tatkraft

צאן ,die Gattung des Schafes und der Ziege, ist das eigentliche Tier der Weide daher das so häufige Bild für die allgemeinste Beziehung des Menschen und des Volkes zu Gott. Mensch und Volk sind das Schaf, die Herde, Gott ist der Hirte. ואתן צאני צאן מרעיתי אדם אתם ,צאן מרעיתו ,ד׳ רועי לא אחסר (Jechesk. 34. 31). usw. Daher auch im Opfer der allgemeinste Ausdruck für Israels Volkspersönlichkeit שה ist, so im קרבן פסח, den תמידים usw., und so auch die nicht öffentliche, einzelne Persönlichkeit im חטאת יחיד ihren Ausdrüuck im כבשה ,צאן oder שעירה, findet. Unter der ^-Gattung sind aber zwei Tiere besonders charakterisiert, עז, die Ziegenart, und איל der Widder.

עז, ihart, fest, stark, bezeichnet, ist nur seinem ,T;x5B7#&V wie schon der Name von Herrn gegenüber das gefügige Tier der Milde, jedem Fremden aber weist es störrig die Hörner. Es ist somit die reinste Charakterisierung des Widerstandes, insbesondere jener männlichen Selbständigkeit, die, taub und fest gegen jede äußere und innere Verlockung, nur dem Pflichtgebote ihres Herrn unwandelbar treu folgt. Daher ist es vorzugsweise das charakteristische Tier des dem Leichtsinn entgegentretenden שעיר :חטאת bezeichnet עֵז usw . — שעירי רגלים ור״ח die ,נשיא ,שעיר העם בי"כ ,שעיר ושעירת ע״ד daher die Kraft des Widerstandes. (Vergl. Jeschurun V. S. 9f.)

אַיִל, wie schon sein Name sagt, ist das erwachsene, in seiner Kraftfülle und vermöge derselben, der Herde vorangehende Schaf. Daher die allgemeine Bezeichnung der Begüterten, Großen eines Volkes, אילי הארץ ,אילי מואב iHw. אַיל charakterisiert den Besitzenden. Es ist daher das charakteristische Tier im Opfer, wo eine Sühne in Beziehung zu Besitz oder bevorzugter Stellung wie im ,אשם שפחה חרופה אשם גזלה ,אשם מעילה, oder die Weihe einer durch größere Berechtigung bevorzugten Stellung, wie in מלואים usw. zum Ausdruck kommen soll. אַיִל bezeichnet somit die durch Besitz und Berechtigung ausgezeichnete Persönlichkeit.

צפור, der reine Vogel ( — der "Gefiederte", siehe oben Kapitel 7, V. 14, bei welchem das Gefieder überwiegend ist, im Gegensatz zum Raubvogel, dem auch die Klaue zum Werkzeug und zur tötenden Waffe gegeben ist —) ist das macht- und wider- standlose lebendige Wesen, das sich gleichwohl durch seine Schwungkraft am meisten dem Gewaltbereiche des Menschen entzieht. Daher ein Bild des scheuen, flüchtigen, freien Daseins, dem durch List nachgestellt wird, das ihr aber auch durch seine Schwingen entgeht. כצפור לנוך ,כצפור נודדת (Prov. 27, 8.26.2) כצפור מיד יקוש (daselbst 6, 5) מי יתן לי אבר כיונה (Ps. 55, 7) Daher ein Bild für das macht- und wehrlose und doch freie und glückliche, geborgene Dasein Israels: כנפי יונה נחפה בכסף (Ps. 68, 14) יונתי בחגוי הסלע Im Opfer tritt der reine Vogel als die allen Besitzes .(Cant. 2, 14), aller Macht und Stellung entkleidete, nur des nackten Daseins sich erfreuende Persönlichkeit im קרבן עולה ויורד usw. andererseits als Ausdruck des den Banden der Krankheit und Schwäche entronnenen, wiedergewonnenen, freigewordenen frischen Lebens in קיני זב וזבה ויולדת וציפורי מצורע auf. Unter den Vögeln ist nun תור, die Turteltaube, der durch seine Wiederkehr den Frühling verkündende Zugvogel (Cant. 2, 12), somit das, durch seine Schwingen getragene, freie Dasein noch prägnanter bezeichnend, daher im Opfer, im Gegensatz zu בני יונה, von ihm nur die älteren, völlig reifen Vögel vorkommen. — גוזל ist der ganz junge, noch der Elternhut und Pflege bedürftige Vogel: על גוזליו ירחף (M .B .5. 32,11). — צפור bezeichnet somit das macht- und wehrlose, durch seinen Aufschwung sich rettende und erhaltende Dasein, und zwar תור וגוזל das ältere Geschlecht mit seinem Aufschwung zugleich das jüngere rettend und bergend. (Vergl. Grundzüge einer jüdischen Symbolik. Jeschurun 17, 24f.)

Aus dem Symbol- in Wortausdruck übersetzt, würde also קחה לי עגלה משלשת ועז משלשת ואיל משלש ותור וגוזל also heißen: stelle dich mir, oder als Stammvater dein Geschlecht in dir, dreimal mit deiner Tatkraft, dreimal mit deiner Wider- standskraft, dreimal mit deinem Besitz und deiner Berechtigung und mit deiner das alte und junge Geschlecht zum Leben emporrettenden Schwungkraft zur Verfügung. ויקה לו את כל אלה, er stellte ihm diese alle zur Verfügung, ויבתר אותם בתוך da zer- stückte Er sie in der Mitte, brach also in drei abrahamitischen Geschlechtern alle Tatkraft, allen Widerstand und alle Berechtigung, ואת הצפור לא בתר und nur die nackte, innere, über das Elend sich emporhebende Schwungkraft ließ er ungebrochen. Dies aber ist sofort nichts anderes, als: Wissen sollst du, dass deine Nachkommen Fremdlinge, also unberechtigt, sein sollen in einem ihnen nicht gehörenden Lande, es ist dies der zerstückte אַיִל; sie werden ihnen Sklaven werden, also wird ihnen die freie Tatkraft gebrochen, es ist dies die zerstückte עגלה; iman wird sie peinigen, sie werden also alles widerstandslos erdulden müssen: die zerstückte עֵז; und gleichwohl werden sie für die Erlösung nicht verloren gehen: גרות ,עבדות .ואת הצפור לא בתר und ענוי wird über die Abrahamiten verhängt; das zerstückte Kalb ist: Sklaverei; die zerstückte Ziege ist: Peinigung, Misshandlung; der zerstückte Widder ist: der recht- und bodenlose Fremd- lingsstand.

Es könnte nur noch die Frage sein, warum diese drei Verhängnisse in dem Wortausdruck in anderer Ordnung als in der Symboloffenbarung erscheinen. In der erläuternden Rede folgen sie in genetischer Ordnung: ענוי ,עבדות ,גרות. Sie werden Fremdlinge, dadurch Sklaven und in Folge davon misshandelt. Die im Symbol gegebene Antwort schließt sich aber unmittelbar der Frage an, die eine siegreiche Selbsttätigkeit zur Eroberung des verheißenen Landes voraussetzt. Dem entgegnet die Antwort damit, indem sie ענוי ,עבדות und גרות über die Nachkommen verhängt zeigt. Sie werden nicht nur keine erobernde Tatkraft entwickeln können, sondern selbst für das gewöhnliche Einzelleben die freie Disvosition über die eigene Tatkraft als Mann einbüßen; werden nicht nur andere nicht besiegen, sondern selbst aller Misshandlung widerstandlos anheimfallen und werden daher noch Jahrhunderte lang ohne Heimat, unberechtigte Fremdlinge bleiben.

ויתן איש בתרו לקראת רעהו, die zerstückten Teile werden so einander korrespondierend gegenübergelegt, dass sie einer Wiedervereinigung entgegenharrend erscheinen, darum schließt sich auch daran: ואת הצפר לא בתר. Eben die ungeknickt bleibende Schwungkraft ist die Bedingung der wieder zu erhoffenden Vereinigung.

Und als nun die Sonne untergegangen und es völlig Nacht geworden war, siehe da war es ein dampfender Ofen und eine Feuerfackel, da war es eine Läuterung und Erleuchtung, "die vorübergehend diese Stücke getrennt hatte (vָ־Q nicht עובר) — die Läuterung war vollzogen, die Erleuchtung hatte gewirkt, die Zerstückten waren wieder ganz.

דן אנכי, nicht אדון werde ich richten, sondern: richte es jetzt; das Volk, das ich zum läuternden Glutofen für deine Nachkommen bestimme, erhält in dieser, mit seiner Züchtigung endenden Bestimmung das es ereilende gerechte Verhängnis.

עלט ,עלטה vielleicht identisch mit לעט, hastig hinunterschlucken. So wie בלע verschlingen und zugleich, כבַלַע את הקדש, dem Auge entziehen heißt, so dürste עלטה den Moment bezeichnen, in welchem die Gegenstände völlig "verschluckt", d. h. völlig unsichtbar geworden sind. Lautverwandt mit חלט, das auch ein unwiederbringliches Entziehen bezeichnet. ויחלטו Kön. 1. 20, 33, sie ergriffen rasch das Wort, damit es nicht zurückgenommen werden konnte. So תרגום ,לחלוטין von לצמיתות: was für immer in den Besitz eines andern übergegangen ist.

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.

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 here²⁶⁴In Verse 9 above. is identical with the ben yonah (young pigeon) mentioned in the Book of Leviticus.²⁶⁵1:14. 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)²⁶⁶Deuteronomy 32:11. — 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,²⁶⁷Leviticus 1:12. the Peace-offering into the breast, shoulder and fats,²⁶⁸Ibid., 7:30-32 and the Sin-offering and the Guilt-offering into their fats.²⁶⁹Ibid., 4:31; 7:2-5.

ויבתר אותם בתוך, both what he cut in half and what he did not cut was at the command of G’d, even though the Torah did not mention this specifically, The reason for cutting something in half was to show that G’d was making a covenant with Avram, as we already explained on verse 9. G’d hinted to Avram, by means of these carcasses being cut in half, that all the nations exiling the Jewish people, would suffer a fate as that suffered by these sacrificial animals. They would successively fight wars, the younger one against the older one, one wiping out the other eventually. All those nations represented different cultures, both in their secular outlook as well as in their religious orientation. All of this would be caused due their competitive spirit, each nation trying to achieve dominance over the others. Such behaviour is not typical of the Jewish people, although, for a brief period in our history, the tribe of Ephrayim competed violently with the tribe of Yehudah for pre-eminence among the 12 tribes of the Jewish people. Even during such periods, these tribes would not remain divided culturally or religiously. (compare Isaiah 11,13) אפרים לא יקנא את יהודה ויהודה לא יצר את אפרים, “Ephrayim will not be jealous of Yehudah, nor will Yehudah oppress Ephrayim.” To signify this difference between competition among the gentile nations, and tribal warfare in Israel, G’d told Avram not to cut the bird in half, seeing that it represented the nation that would emerge with Avram as their founding father. Therefore, the Torah reported ואת הצפור לא בתר, that Avram did not cut the bird in half. The word הצפור includes both the pigeon and the turtle dove, תור וגוזל, seeing that the Jewish people are scattered in the four directions of the globe and have yet remained a single people, clinging to their Torah and their faith in spite of being scattered all over the world. The people of Israel did not trade their religion for another in spite of the heavy burden involved in enduring exile.

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 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.

ויקח לו את כל אלה, “He took all these animals for Him;” our sages in B’reshit 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 B’reshit Rabbah 34,14 where similar expressions are quoted as occurring here and in Leviticus 2,8: והבאת...מאלה where that meal offering is discussed.

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).

ואת הצפור, “and the bird, etc,” a reference to the pigeon which is part of the generic term צפור.

BUT THE BIRD HE DID NOT SPLIT. He placed the turtle-dove²⁶⁴In Verse 9 above. 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.²⁷⁰Ibid., 1:17. 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].²⁷²See Rashi, Leviticus 1:15 and 5:8. 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.)

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 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)

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.

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”.

AND THE BIRDS OF PREY CAME DOWN UPON THE CARCASSES. [They came down] to eat them, as is the nature of birds.

וירד העיט, the word עיט is description of predatory birds generally.

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.

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.

On the pieces. Rashi explains this because the term פגרים usually refers to complete bodies, while here the bodies were split into two. Therefore Rashi says that here הפגרים means “the pieces.” Rashi is thereby telling us that the vultures did not descend also on the birds, [which were not split]. For that would make it seem as if Israel too would be annihilated as the birds symbolize Yisrael [see Rashi on v. 10]. Thus Rashi explains that הבתרים means the [split] pieces, which symbolize the nations [ibid]. (R. Yaakov Kenizal)

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.

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.

על הפגרים, the carcasses which are whole. This term is not applied to the animals which had been cut in half as part of the sacrificial procedures, [presumably, the author does not feel comfortable in the Torah describing sacrifices which had been accepted by G’d winding up as the food for vultures. Ed.] The author quotes a number of examples where the word פגר occurs in the Bible, in all of which the reference is to a whole carcass, not to a section of it. (compare Isaiah 14,19; Chronicles I 10,12; Samuel I 31,12) The symbolism in all this is that there would hardly be a generation in which the gentile nations would not attempt to devour the Jewish people, and to annihilate them utterly. Nonetheless, in the final analysis, G’d has always saved us from becoming total victims. This confirms the prediction in Leviticus 26,44 that even during our darkest days when we are being punished collectively for our sins and the sins of our fathers, “I will not despise you and allow you to be wiped out completely.” In the verse following the one we just quoted, the Torah adds verbatim: וזכרתי להם ברית ראשונים, at such a time “I will remember for them the covenant I concluded with the forefathers.”

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.

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).

'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,²⁷⁴Mentioned further in the text. for the prophet²⁷⁵See Ramban further, Verse 17, as to the nature of the prophetic vision. 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:²⁷⁶Bereshith Rabbah 44:20. “A dread, this is Babylon. Darkness, this is Media that darkened the eyes of Israel with fasting²⁷⁷A reference to the fasting in the time of Mordecai and Esther. (Esther 4:16.) and affliction. Great, this is the kingdom of Antiochus.²⁷⁸By prohibiting the practice of the commandments of the Torah, the Greeks caused “a great” darkness to descend upon the descendants of Abraham. Fell upon him, this is Edom.²⁷⁹Edom being a synonym for Rome.
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.²⁸⁰Above, 12:10.

ויהי השמש לבא, this verse proves that this whole paragraph describes a prophetic vision, that the entire sequence is a continuous vision, uninterrupted. Both the story about G’d taking Avraham out of his tent to gaze at the stars (did not have to have occurred at night) and the time frame mentioned here, i.e. the sun setting, did not have to refer to 12 hours having elapsed since the earlier reported part of this vision. The Torah reports matters in the sequence in which they appeared to Avram in the vision. The reason why “evening” “night” and, by implication, the preceding “daylight” is mentioned, is because they symbolise periods in Jewish history. Daylight symbolises when the fortune smiled on the Jewish people, whereas “sunset” symbolises the decline of the fortunes of the Jewish people, and “night, darkness” symbolises the periods during which the Jewish people are in exile. The approaching evening mentioned in our verse refers to the first Jewish exile in Egypt.

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.

ותרדמה נפלה על אברם, “and a deep darkness (sleep) had fallen upon Avraham. During this sleep G–d showed Avraham that his descendants would endure the enslavement to several kingdoms at different times as well as the collapse of these kingdoms (empires). When he was told to קחה לי עגלה משולשת, “take for Me a three year old calf,” (verses 8) this was a reference to the fourth (and last) of these empires, which would subjugate the Jews more cruelly and for longer than any other. This has been confirmed by a vision experienced by Daniel, (Daniel 7,7) with the words: דחילה ואמתני, “excessively terrifying and awesome.” The עז משולשת , “three year old goat,” represents the Greek empire. (Daniel, 8,5 וצפיר העזים בא מן המערב, “and the-goat came from the west across the surface of the whole earth.) The three year old ram, איל משולש, represents the empire of the Medes and Persians; mentioned in Daniel 8,8, i.e. וצפיר העזים הגדיל עד מאד, “and the he-goat grew exceedingly.” The תור, in our verse refers to the empire of the Ishmaelites. The word here has to be understood as the aramaic,תר ,שור, “ox or bull”. (The author on a Targum, unfamiliar to this editor) The גוזל in our verse refers to the Jewish people. It appears in that sense in Song of Songs, 2,14, as well as in the same Book, 6,9).
Rabbi Acha claims that the word משולש and משולשת is a metaphor for anything that is exceedingly strong. He quotes as support for his view Kohelet 4,12: והחוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק, “and the threefold cord will not tear easily.” Rabbi Mesharshia, interpreting the word משולשים, understands the rule of the empires while the Israelites are under their domination as occurring during three different periods in history. The first time each of these empires states, or Kingdoms, dominates the Israelites on their own. unaided by other powers. The second time, two of those powers combine in subjugating the Israelites On the third occasion, during the period ushering in the messianic age, they all combine in their assault, as a result of which the Messiah will appear. He quotes Psalms 2,2; יתיצבו מלכי ארץ ורוזנים נוסדו יחד על ה' ועל משיחו, “all the kings of the earth and its regents will take a combined stand against the Lord and His messiah.” Rabbi Yoshua, in referring to the phrase: ויבתר אותם בתוך “he divided them in the middle,” understand the subject in that phrase as being the respective swords of Avraham’s opponents, thus breaking their power in half. He adds that if Avraham had not succeeded in doing this, the earth as we know it could not have continued to function. Concerning the Torah writing that Avraham did not divide the צפור, this is why that bird represents the Jewish people, and no other species of birds has ever been called tzipor, a young turtle dove. וירד העיט על הפגרים, “when the vultures tried to descend on the cadavers, (Avraham chased them away).” The word עיט here is a metaphor for David (the King) he has been compared to a coloured vulture. Compare Jeremiah 12,9: העיט צבוע נחלתי לי ,העיט סבב עליה, אספו כל חית השדה התיו לאכלה, (normal translation from beginning of that verse: “My own people acts towards Me like a bird of prey or hyena; let the birds of prey surround it, go gather the wild beasts bring them to devour.” The metaphoric interpretation our author cites and which is also mentioned by Rashi, understands the עיט, as being coloured, as it is so different from all other birds and stands out therefore. The gentile nations view the Jewish people as different and therefore cannot abide it. They gather together in order to commit genocide of the Jewish people. This enables us to understand why Avraham in his dream is described as “reviving, וישב”, the corpses of the slain Jews, so that we would have here a first hint that Jews will be resurrected in due course (as described in Ezekiel chapter 37). (Compare Psalms 147,18, where the expression yashev occurs in such a positive way.) Another explanation credited to Rabbi Eleazar, feels that our verse proves that the power of any of the aforementioned kingdoms which excel in persecuting Jews will not last for more that a single day in G–d’s calendar, as such a “day” is a thousand years in our calendar. (Compare Psalms 90,4: כי אלף שנים בעיניך כיום אתמול כי יעבור, “for one thousand years in Your eyes are as yesterday that has passed.”) A colleague of Rabbi Eleazar concurred with him, adding that additional proof could be cited from Lamentations 1,13, נתנני שוממה כל היום, “He made me desolate all day long.” The power of this last empire would gradually evaporate in the west, symbol of the day coming to an end, and the ascent of the Jewish people would commence in the evening as predicted in Zachariah 14,7: והיה לעת ערב יהיה אור, “and it will be that at evening time there will be light.” Another thing that can be predicted based on Avraham’s dream and its wording is that there will be a total of four eras of suppression of the Jewish people; the expression אימה חשיכה, refers to the suppression of the Jewish religion in the time of the Seleucids, Antiochus, who tried to eradicate us spiritually by forbidding us to practice our religion, whereas the empire following the decline of the Greeks, the Medes produced Haman who tried to eradicate us physically. The word נופלת, refers to the Babylonian empire during the heyday of which the first Temple was destroyed and most of our people (that had not been exiled when the ten tribes were exiled by the Assyrians), were exiled. The word עליו refers to the suppression of our people by the Ishmaelites, who will be overcome by the Messiah, descendant of David, as predicted in Psalms 132,18: שם אצמיח קרן לדוד, ערכתי נר למשיחי, “there I will make a horn sprout for David, I have prepared a lamp for My anointed one.” Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah is on record as having said that these empires were created by G–d only to serve G–d as firewood to heat up the fires in hell. This is why the Torah wrote here: והנה תנור עשן ולפיד אש, “and behold there was a furnace and a flaming torch (verse 17),” and we find a reference to this phenomenon also in Isaiah 31,9: נאום ה' אשר אור לו בציון ותנור לו בירושלים, “says the Lord Who has a fire in Zion and a furnace in Jerusalem.” This is the way in which G–d illustrated to him that there is such a region we call gehinom, (hell). He also showed him the Torah and the animals used for the sacrificial service in the Temple, indicating to him that as long as his descendants would observe both, they would never have to be afraid of gehinom. Nonetheless, He showed that even the Temple would be destroyed one day, so that the sacrificial service would not be able to be performed. He asked Avraham if he preferred that his descendants descend to gehinom at a time like that, or if he preferred that they endure slavery and persecution while alive on earth. Avraham was in a quandary how to answer such a question. This is why we read in Deuteronomy 32,30, that even the gentiles came to the conclusion that the sudden and drastic decline of the fortunes of the Jewish people could only have come about because their צור, (Rock), metaphor for the patriarch Avraham in this case, had “sold them out.” (had chosen persecution and exile for his descendants rather than gehinom.) According to Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, an ancient kabalistic text chapter 28 the word צור in Isaiah 51,1: הביטו אל צור חצבתם, “look at the tzur from which you have been hewn,” is also a reference to the patriarch Avraham. [My edition of Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, while quoting Isaiah 31,9 in the sense that our author quoted Rabbi Eliezer ben Azaryah having done, does not refer to Isaiah 51,1 at all. Most of the other text quoted here has been taken from that chapter in Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer. Ed.] [In the event that any of my readers finds it strange that the 400 years of bondage etc. in Egypt are not referred to in Avraham’s dream at all, 1) he was told about this while awake, 2) in Egypt the Israelites had not been a people in the sense of having their own land and a political union known as “state.” This only began at the time of the Exodus, and specifically when Joshua conquered the land of Canaan. Ed.]

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.

ותרדמה נפלה על אברם, this exhaustion was due to the marshalling of all of Avram’s spiritual resources to receive these prophetic visions. We have evidence of these reactions in Daniel 8,18 who describes these physically debilitating reactions when he involuntarily went to sleep on the very ground on which he had been standing. (he did not have time to lie down on a bed) He had to be revived by the angel. He referred to such weakness also in verse 17 of that same chapter. Avram, at least at the beginning of his prophetic vision, did not experience such a weakness. The reason was that at the beginning of the visions G’d showed him there were only positive developments. Now when G’d showed him the downside, he was overcome with the impact of what G’d showed him.

אימה חשכה, as if the Torah had written אימה וחשכה, fear and darkness. We have similar constructions where the conjunctive letter ו is simply omitted in Chabakuk 3,11 שמש ירח, and in Exodus 1,2 ראובן שמעון, and many others like it.

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).

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;²⁸¹Further, 39:17. The meaning being: “There came unto me to mock me the Hebrew servant.…” And all countries came into Egypt to buy corn to Joseph;²⁸²Ibid., 41:57. 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;²⁸³Exodus 12:15. 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;²⁸⁴Isaiah 2:20. 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;²⁸⁵Psalms 66:16. The meaning being: “All ye that fear G-d, come.…” They cry unto Me, My G-d we Israel know Thee;²⁸⁶Hosea 8:2. 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.²⁸⁷Malachi 3:17. 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.

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?

ויאמר...בארץ לא להם, which will never be theirs. G’d describes the lands in which the Israelites will be exiled as countries which were not included among those of which G’d had said that Avram’s descendants would inherit them. They would remain strangers in a country or countries not theirs until the conclusion of the period of 400 years of which G’d speaks here. G’d speaks of 400 years and an additional 30 years commencing now that G’d revealed this to him. [his descendants could not begin to be exiles until Yitzchok was born, 30 years after the date of this vision. Ed.] This prophecy was fulfilled, the Jewish people leaving Egypt at the conclusion of 400 years after the birth of Yitzchok, or 430 years from the date of these revelations. On the face of it, in light of Avram having been 75 years old when he migrated from Charan, we can only account for 425 years from that time until the redemption of the Israelites from Egypt. We need to assume therefore that the vision involving the 400 years was experienced by Avram while in Charan, five years before he moved to Canaan. At any rate, G’d did not elaborate how many of these 400 years would be spent in Egypt, or even if any would be spent in Egypt. Our sages however, (Seder Olam chapter 3) have said that 210 years of the 400 are accounted for by the stay in Egypt, basing themselves on an allusion contained in the numerical value of the word רדו being 210. (compare Genesis 42,2 רדו שמה). The details of the 400 years are as follows: we start with Yizchok’s birth. He was 60 years at the time Yaakov was born, and Yaakov, by his own account was 130 years old when he answered Pharaoh’s question as to his age. We therefore have the first 190 years accounted for as predating the descent of the family to Egypt. It is totally impossible to believe that the 400 years referred to by G’d’s announcement to Avram were all spent in Egypt, seeing that Kehot, a grandson of Yaakov was among those who moved to Egypt with his family, and his age at death is given by the Torah as 133 years. We know that Moses was 80 years at the time when he made his first appearance before Pharaoh, about a year before the Exodus. If the Israelites had stayed in Egypt for 400 years, then Amram, Moses‘ father, even if he had been born during the last year of the life of Kehat would have lived for 187 years assuming that Moses was born during the last year of Amram’s life. Both of these assumptions are highly unlikely, as is the likelihood of Amram living more that 187 years without the Torah mentioning any of this. In fact, the Torah specifically states that Amram lived to the age of 137 (Exodus 6,20) It is most likely therefore, that the count of 400 years does indeed begin with the birth of Yitzchok. As long as Avram’s descendants were so few in number, they most certainly deserved to be described as “strangers” even in the land of Canaan, seeing they did not own even a small part of it. If you add the fact that Yitzchok spent many years in the land of the Philistines, and Yaakov spent 20 years with Lavan in Aram, a land which would never be part of Eretz Yisrael, neither of them could truly be perceived as a resident of the land of Canaan.

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.

That Kehos lived after Amram’s birth ... Also, [you must subtract] Kehos’s years before he descended to Egypt. Since the enslavement itself was not 400 years, we are forced to say that “for four hundred years” refers to “your descendants will be foreigners in a land that is not theirs,” rather than to “they will enslave them and oppress them.” Indeed, from the time Yitzchok was born, they were as foreigners in various lands, as it is written (Bereishis 26:6): “Yitzchok settled in Gerar.” [And there are many verses that] use the term ויגר, which connotes being a foreigner. Although the enslavement was only for 210 years, they were foreigners from the time Yitzchok was born.

ועבדום, וענו אותם, “they will serve them; and they (the masters) will oppress them.” This was the answer to Avraham’s question: במה אדע כי אירשנה, “how will I know that I will indeed inherit it (the land) even vicariously,” in verse 8, where Avraham asked for some kind of guarantee that G–d’s promise to him would not be negated by his descendants forfeiting their claim to its fulfillment.

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.]

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”.

ועבדום, the Egyptians will enslave them, and will oppress them. It is not unusual to apply the prefix ב to people who have been enslaved, as we find a similar construction in Leviticus 25,39 לא תעבוד בו עבודת עבד, “do not make him perform the menial duties performed by a slave.” Or Jeremiah 34,10, לבלתי עבד בם, “not to keep them enslaved.” The word עבדם i.e. עבודה is used to describe the status of the person described, whereas the word וענו refers to the manner in which such slaves would be treated.

It does not state, “In the Land of Egypt” ... Rather it is written, “In a land that is not theirs” — as they [resided in various lands that were not theirs and] did not descend to Egypt until the end of Yaakov’s life.

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.

ארבע מאות שנה, “for four hundred years.” This is a separate revelation from G–d to Avraham. Another interesting explanation is that the numerical value of the letters in Avraham’s question במה adds up to 400 when you use the system known as א-ת, ב-ש, ג-ר, i.e. substituting the letters commencing by reading the alphah-bet backwards. Furthermore, the Talmud in tractate Nedarim folio 32, comes to the conclusion that the Jewish people had to suffer the penalty for their founding father having asked G–d for proof that His promise would come true, [although seeing that he had been unable to have children until that time would seem to us as a reasonable question. Ed.] Another reason given is that when Avraham agreed to the King of Sodom to have his citizens whom he had taken prisoner restored to him, he is punished for missing out on a chance to convert these people to monotheism. (Compare Genesis 14,21)

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.

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.

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).

‘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,²⁸⁸See Ramban above, 12:10. 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.²⁸⁹Zechariah 1:14-15. 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.²⁹⁰Isaiah 47:6. Such was the case with the Egyptians who increased the evil. They threw the children of the Israelites into the river, embittered their lives,²⁹¹Exodus 1:14. 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.²⁹²Ibid., 18:11. 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.²⁹³Nehemiah 9:10.
Now the Rabbi²⁹⁴Rabbi Moshe ben Maimon (Rambam). 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:²⁹⁵Mishneh Torah, Mada, Hilchoth Teshuvah, end of Chapter 6. “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.”²⁹⁶Hence the individual Egyptian was properly punished since each one could, by exercise of his free choice, have not been a party to the suffering caused to the Israelites. 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:²⁹⁷30:15. “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.’”²⁹⁸Zechariah 1:15. 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 multiply²⁹⁹Exodus 1:10. 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.³⁰⁰Ibid., Verse 14. It is this which Scripture states in the following verse: And he saw our affliction, and our toil, and our oppression.³⁰¹Deuteronomy 26:7.
Know and understand that a person who, on the New Year, has been inscribed and sealed for a violent death,³⁰²During the coming year. 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,³⁰³Ezekiel 3:18. 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.³⁰⁴II Kings 10:30. 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.³⁰⁵Isaiah 10:5-6. And Scripture continues: but not so doth he mean, neither doth his heart think so, but it is in his heart to destroy.³⁰⁶Ibid., Verse 7. 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.³⁰⁷Ibid., Verse 12. 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.³⁰⁸Jeremiah 50:17-18. 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.³⁰⁹Ibid., 25:9. 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.³¹⁰Ibid., 32:28-29. Concerning the Sanctuary itself, the prophet said, I will make this house like Shiloh.³¹¹Ibid., 26:6. 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.³¹²Ibid., 40:2-3. 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;³¹³Isaiah 13:11. 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.³¹⁴Ibid., 14:13-14. Concerning his nation it is written, Thou sayest in thy heart: I am, and there is none else beside me.³¹⁵Ibid., 47:8. 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.³¹⁶Habakkuk 2:9. 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.³¹⁷Jeremiah 50:18. 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.³¹⁸Isaiah 47:6. Therefore did a twofold punishment come upon him: his people were utterly destroyed, there remaining of Babylon no name and remnant, offshoot and offspring,³¹⁹Ibid., 14:22. 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.³²⁰Ibid., 13:19-21. Scripture further states concerning him, For it is the vengeance of the Eternal, the vengeance of His temple,³²¹Jeremiah 51:11. 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.³²²Ibid., 51:35-6. There are many verses like these.

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.

וגם את הגוי אשר יעבדו דן אנכי, I will judge the Egyptians even though it was I Who decreed that the Israelites would be enslaved by them. The reason why I will judge them is that they acted with great cruelty toward the Israelites, something which I had not decreed. The prophet Zacharyah 1,15 spelled out this concept in connection with the punishment G’d visited on the Babylonians, who, though entitled to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem, had never been entitled to go about it with such a vengeance. Similar verses justifying G’d punishing those who had carried out part of His plan against the Jewish people, but with needless harshness, are also found in Isaiah 47,6. The harshness of the slavery in Egypt was a punishment for the Israelites having abandoned the traditions of their fathers, having reverted to idolatry, having violated the covenant between G’d and Avraham, and not even having circumcised their male children. According to Ezekiel 20,7-8 and 9, the Israelites in Egypt had actually been guilty of utter annihilation for forsaking this covenant, and if G’d nonetheless redeemed them, this was for the sake of His name, not because they had deserved it. Having sworn to Avraham that He would redeem his offspring from the country in which they would be enslaved, we must view the Exodus as primarily an exercise of preserving G’d’s image. G’d had told Moses already in Exodus 6,8 that He had sworn an oath to Avraham, etc. Such statements are meant to demonstrate that the Israelites while in Egypt had not been forsaken by G’d, that He had not overlooked what was happening to them, but that they had been the architects of their own misfortune, and that if it had not been for G’d’s oath to the patriarchs, they would have perished there. Apparently, G’d had sent prophets to them prior to Moses, warning them of what might happen, but they had turned a deaf ear to such warnings. This is why Moses, aware of this, said to G’d that He should send another prophet, as He had been in the habit of doing, שלח נא ביד תשלח (Exodus 4,13). This is also what the prophet Ezekiel had in mind in the paragraph that we have referred to earlier. All of this demonstrates that when Avram asked in verse 8 of this chapter במה אדע כי אירשנה, which we explained as his concern that G’d’s promise might not become actual due to some sin of his offspring, he was quite justified in worrying about such a scenario. It also explains still better G’d’s answer and His statement that He gave Avram a lot of credit for believing G’d’s assurance that in spite of his fears the promise would be carried out in due course. G’d’s answer to Avram contained an acknowledgement that He was aware that the Israelites would indeed sin in Egypt, but also the fact that He would punish them there but not annihilate them, so that eventually they would leave from there with great riches. The redemption would occur after their punishment had run its course. [Perhaps, in support of our author’s theory, we might add that the word וגם, “and also,” in our verse, which appears strange since we had not been told who else had been judged and punished, refers to the Jewish people, who by that time had received their punishment in full, so that the remnant, the 20% of whom Rashi speaks on Exodus 13,18 (וחמושים) were entitled to redemption after risking their lives by slaughtering the lamb and circumcising themselves. Ed.]

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)

וגם includes the Four Kingdoms... They were hinted to above in v. 12: והנה אימה חשיכה גדולה נופלת עליו. אימה is Bavel. חשיכה is Medai, who darkened Israel’s eyes by [causing them] to fast. גדולה is Greece, and נופלת is Edom [i.e., Rome].

ואחרי כן יצאו, “and after that period they will leave, etc.” We would have expected the Torah to write the word ואחר here, instead of ואחרי. The reason for the extra letter י is that this is a hint to Avraham that the Egyptians will have to endure ten plagues before releasing the Israelites. (B’reshit Rabbah 44,20)

את הגוי, the subject is the exile in Egypt.

דן אנכי I WILL JUDGE with ten plagues (Genesis Rabbah 44:20).

With ten plagues. As opposed to with actual judgment, for it does not say anywhere that Hashem judged them.

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 word: וגם, “and also,” is a hint of other exiles in the history of the Jewish people.

ברכוש גדול WITH GREAT SUBSTANCE — with great wealth, as it is said, (Exodus 12:36) “And they despoiled the Egyptians.”

With much money ... [Rashi carifies this because] רכוש usually means possessions [such as cattle and flocks]. But here the רכוש [the Egyptians] lent them was money, not the customary רכוש = possessions.

The question arises why G'd punished the Egyptians altogether when they had actually carried out the decree G'd had announced long previously.

ואחרי כן יצאו ברכוש גדול, “as a reward for having endured all this they will leave for freedom with many possessions as compensation.”

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.

ואתה תבוא BUT THOU SHALT COME etc. Thou shalt not behold all this.

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,³²³Above, Verse 13. 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;³²⁴Further, 21:34. 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.³²⁵Ibid., 26:6. 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.”

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.

ואתה תבא אל אבותיך בשלום, you will die in peace, i.e. you will not witness in your lifetime any of the upsetting developments of which I have spoken to you. As far as the word אבותיך is concerned, this is a common expression used by most people as a metaphor making death sound less negative. Expressions such as ויאסף אל עמיו, "he was gathered in to his people" in Genesis 49,33, or והאסף אל עמיך, "be gathered in to your people" in Deuteronomy 32,50 all express similar sentiments. Some commentators (quoted by Rashi) claim that the wording proves that Terach, Avraham's father had discarded idolatry and accepted monotheism prior to his own death. This is problematic, seeing that we find in Chronicles II 34,28 that kind Yoshiyahu is told by G'd הנני אוסיפך אל אבותיך, and we know that his father Amon died as an unrepentant sinner. תקבר בשיבה טובה, you will see sons and grandsons before you die.

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 will, therefore, not witness all this. I.e., the enslavement and the oppression. But being a foreigner applied to Avraham as well, since the 400 years began immediately upon Yitzchok’s birth, as Rashi said on v. 13.

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).

His father was an idol-worshipper and He foretells that he will join him ... This is a statement, not a rhetorical question. For Rashi does not say afterwards, “Rather, this teaches you ... (Maharshal)

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.

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 on that very day that Eisav rebelled. As it is written (25:29), “When Eisav came in from the field, exhausted,” on which Chazal comment (Bereishis Rabbah 63:12): “[Exhausted] as a result of committing murder.” And that was the day Avraham died. (Kitzur Mizrachi)

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.

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.³²⁶Since Chetzron was among those who went down to Egypt (further, 46:12), they were in Egypt for only two generations. 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,³²⁷Thus enabling Israel to return and take the land from him. (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.

ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, anyone interpreting these words as referring to the fourth generation of Israelites is in error. Seeing that G'd had already told Avram that the process of inheriting the land of Canaan would not be complete until after 400 years from the time his true seed had been born, what was the point in telling him how many generations down the line this would occur? Until the 400 years would be up, G'd's promise would not be due for fulfillment in any event! The reason G'd mentioned the "fourth generation" was to explain to Avram why the delay in fulfilling His promise would require 400 ears. A generation in those days was considered a period of 100 years, as we know from Ediyot 12,9 so that 400 years equal 4 generations. We know from the second of the Ten Commandments, (Exodus 20,5 that G'd frequently extends His patience to sinners and their offspring until the fourth generation, waiting if finally someone will redeem the errant parents and grandparents by returning to the true lifestyle approved by G'd. This is why G'd described the sin of the Emorites at this time as לא שלם, "not complete," in the sense of not yet irreversible, עד הנה until such time.

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?

ודור רביעי ישובו הנה, the fourth generation, starting with those who descended to Egypt, which was the place of their exile, will return to this their land that they migrated from. This prediction was fulfilled, seeing that Kehat who was one of Yaakov's grandsons went down to Egypt, and the children of Moses and Aaron who were the fourth generation were among those who entered the land of Canaan under the leadership of Joshua.

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 Calev son of Chetzron was of those who entered the Land. You might ask: Was Calev not the fifth generation? Since Yaakov himself descended to Egypt, it was 1) Yaakov, 2) Yehudah, 3) Peretz, 4) Chetzron, and 5) Calev. The answer is: Yaakov was very aged; he was considered as if dead and did not count as a generation. Furthermore, there was no enslavement at all in the days of Yaakov. Only in the days of Yehudah did some of the enslavement begin, as Rashi explains in Parshas Vayechi (47:28). Accordingly, “They will enslave them and oppress them” (v. 13) is connected to, “The fourth generation.”

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 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).

כי לא שלם עון האמורי עד הנה, the time when the Emorite is due for punishment will not be until then. G'd is very patient with sinners, giving them a great deal of time to mend their ways. The punishment for sin is called עון, as we know already from Kayin (Genesis 4,13) who said of the punishment for his having murdered Hevel, his brother, גדול עוני מנשוא, "my punishment is too great for me to endure." We also find that the word חטאת is used both as sin and as atonement for sin, just as the word עון sometimes means "sin," and sometimes "punishment." Compare Zecharyah 14,19 זאת תהיה חטאת מצרים. The reason the Torah singled out the tribe of the Emorite among all the Canaanite tribes is because it was the strongest of those seven tribes. The prophet Amos 2,9 also quotes G'd of having destroyed the Emorite on account of the Jewish people, although the same fate overtook the other Canaanite tribes also.

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 INIQUITY OF THE AMORITE. He mentioned the strongest among them,³²⁸Or else He should have mentioned “the Canaanites,” whose name the land carried. 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.³²⁹Amos 2:9. 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.³³⁰See Proverbs 5:22. Moreover the Amorite was the first one to be captured by them, and it was his land which they inherited first.³³¹The land of Sichon, king of the Amorites, was later the first to be captured by the Israelites. Hence his name is singled out here in the verse.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”)

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.³³²Seen by the prophet Ezekiel (1:4). 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,³³³Deuteronomy 4:11. 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;³³⁴Ibid., Verse 36. and it is further written: And the appearance of the glory of the Eternal was like devouring fire, etc.³³⁵Exodus 24:17. 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,³³⁶Verse 18. 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.

ויהי השמש באה, the word באה is accented on the first syllable, seeing that here it is a verb in the past tense.

This is similar to ויהי הם מריקים שקיהם ... Rashi is answering the question: Why is it written ויהי, masculine? שמש is feminine, as it is written באה, thus it should say ותהי השמש. Rashi answers that it means, “This thing happened (ויהי דבר זה), that the sun set.” So ויהי refers to [the implied phrase] דבר זה, similar to (Bereishis 42:35) ויהי הם מריקים שקיהם , which means: “This thing happened (ויהי דבר זה), that they were emptying their sacks.”

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.”

השמש באה THE SUN CAME — i.e. set.

ועלטה, a form of intense darkness. G'd hinted by the use of this intense darkness that there would be other exiles, and that the redemption from the exile in Egypt would not be the final redemption of the Jewish people. The description of the sun having set followed by עלטה, implies that there would be no light at all, no moon and no stars would be visible in the sky.

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.

ועלטה היה THERE WAS THICK DARKNESS — darkness during the day-time

והנה תנור עשן ולפיד אשת, the word עשן is an adjective used in the same kind of meter as חכם סכל, which means חכם וסכל, "a wise man who acts foolishly." We would translate it here as "a smoking furnace." The point is that within the overall vision, Avram saw another furnace belching smoke, within the general atmosphere of intense darkness. This latter picture was an allusion to G'd's anger which coats Israel with its some during the long years of exile, the final exile which is the worst of them all. This is also what David had to say concerning this long and most difficult exile, when he exclaimed in Psalms 80,5 עד מתי עשנת בתפלת עמך, "for how long will You remain smoking angrily at the prayers of Your people?"

'והנה תנור עשן וגו BEHOLD A SMOKING FURNACE — He foreshadowed to him that these Monarchies would descend into Gehinom (Pirkei DeRabbi Eliezer 28).

ולפיד אש, a reference to the flame of fire traversing between the cut up carcasses of the sacrificial animals. This vision contained two separate allusions. First and foremost it part in concluding this covenant with Avram, a symbol of two humans walking between two parts of something which represents each party's portion of the covenant, treaty, pact. [the mutuality of a covenant could be demonstrated by each party to it keeping as a memento one half of a hundred dollar bil cut in half, ownership of which proves that one is a party to the treaty. Ed.] We find another example of this kind of confir4ming a pact, a covenant in Jeremiah 34,18 העגל רשר כרתו לשנים ויעברו בין בתריו, "the calf which the cut in two so as to pass between the halves." [the occasion was the solemn promise not to enslave again the Jewish slaves whom their owners had agreed to release in response to the prophet's (G'd's) demand with Nevuchadnezzar already at the gates of Jerusalem. Ed.] Following up on this symbolic phenomenon, we read here in verse 18 "on that day G'd had concluded a covenant with Avram, etc." In that verse we have the word לאמור, which introduces a second aspect of this covenant, i.e. that during all the many years that the exiles will last, G'd on His part will remember this covenant with the Jewish people, the descendants of Avram, and not totally abandon them. This same flame of fire which originally signified the concluding of the covenant will eventually consume those who defied the bond between Israel and G'd by cruelly suppressing them and trying to wean them away from their G'd. This will occur during the wars of Gog and Magog (Ezekiel 38,22) etc.

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”.

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).

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,³³⁷Above, 12:7. 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.³³⁸Ibid., Verse 6. 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,³³⁹Ibid., 13:14. meaning that He will give him all those lands in their totality, for the meaning of the expression, which thou seest,³⁴⁰Ibid., Verse 15. 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.³⁴¹Deuteronomy 34:1-3. He further added in this second blessing: and to thy seed forever,³⁴⁰Ibid., Verse 15. and that his seed will increase as the dust of the earth.³⁴²Above, 13:16. At the third time, He clarified to him the boundaries of the land, mentioning all the ten nations [who presently inhabited it],³⁴³Here, Verses 19-21. 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,³⁴⁴Further, 17:8. that is to say, if they will be exiled from it they will again return and inherit it.³⁴⁵The promise, And to thy seed forever (13:15), does not imply that if they will be exiled from the land they will return and re-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,³⁴⁶See Ramban to Leviticus 18:25. 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.³⁴⁶See Ramban to Leviticus 18:25.
Now at the time of the first gift, Scripture states, Unto thy seed will I give,³³⁷Above, 12:7. the verb being in a future tense, and similarly in the second time,³⁴⁷To thee will I give it. (Above, 13:15). because until then He had not given him the entire land, and therefore, He said to him, will I give it.³³⁷Above, 12:7. But at the third time, during the covenant, He said, Unto thy seed have I given,³⁴⁸In Verse 18 here. 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,³⁴⁴Further, 17:8. He said to him, And I will give unto thee,³⁴⁴Further, 17:8. in the future tense.³⁴⁹Since, as explained above, this promises that if they will be exiled from the land, they will return and inherit it, the future tense refers to this future return to and repossession of the land.
Rashi wrote: Unto thy seed have I given.³⁴⁸In Verse 18 here. The word of the Supreme One is as if it were already accomplished. — But there is no need for this explanation in this passage.³⁵⁰Instead, the explanation is as set forth above.

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.

ביום ההוא כרת ה' את אברם בריתת, on the occasion of that vision G'd concluded a covenant with Avram to give the entire land of Canaan to his descendants. He hinted to him by means of this vision that they would inherit all of it at the conclusion of the final exile. We know this because now G'd named 10 tribes as being the ones whose lands would all become part of the territory of the Jewish people.

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.

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.”

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).

נתתי, a reference to what G'd had already given to Avram. When G'd makes a promise, it is as if He had already fulfilled it, as He does not renege. Hence the past tense, נתתי. The boundaries of these tribes at that time extended as far as the river Euphrates.

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.

עד הנהר הגדול נהר פרת, our sages (quoted by Rashi in commenting on the word הגדול, "the great one," being applied to the river Euphrates), say that even though among the four rivers listed as emanating from Gan Eden there was a bigger river than Euphrates, this one is called "the great one," as it traverses some parts of the land of Israel (in the future).

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.]

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.”

את הקיני, this tribe gets its name from the city in which its members dwelled originally. The name of the city was קין, and the people known as חבר הקיני were descended from Kayin, as per Judges 4,11. Perhaps Kayin himself had built that city. We are told something to that effect in Genesis 4,17. [it is difficult to accept that this city survived the deluge, as it is difficult to accept that identifiable descendants of Kayin survived the deluge. Ed.] It is a fact that such cities as Gilead, or Chavot Yair, and Dan, received their names from their founders, naming them after themselves. (compare Joshua 19,46; Kings I 16,24; Chronicles I 2,55). According to Onkelos, it is clear that he did not accept this meaning of the name קיני, as in Numbers 24,21 he renders the Numbers 24,21 where Bileam prophesied about the Keyni's future as if it were one of the Canaanite tribes.

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 B’reshit 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.

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”.

ואת החתי, the omission of the חוי may mean that that tribe was identical with the רפאים.

The Land of Og about which it is said ... It seems that Og, although he was actually an Emorite — as it is written about [Sichon and Og], “Two kings of the Emorites” (Devarim 3:8) — was king of the Chivites who are the Refa’im. And Og who was an Emorite, is called “remnant of the Refa’im” (ibid) because he was their king. But if you say “the Refa’im” means [the Land of] Og, and all of them were Emorites, then why does it say (v. 21), “the Emorites”? The Emorites were already accounted for by, “the Refa’im”. (Re’m)

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

ואת האמרי ואת הכנעני, the land of the Philistines is included under the heading of "the Canaanite," as we know from Joshua 13,3 לכנעני תחשב וגו'.