Probably the most popular approach is that the count of the four generations begins not from Avraham but from when the descendants of Avraham when to live in Egypt. Rashi (15:16) explains that the generations are Yehuda, Peretz, Hetzron, and Calev. One minor problem with this approach is that in the Torah, Calev is the son of Yefunne (Bemidbar 13:6) and not Hetzron. However Divrei Hayyamim I 2:18 states that Calev was Hetzron’s son (though see Divrei Hayyamim 4:15). Possibly due to this difficulty, Ibn Ezra and Radak (both on 15:16) slightly alter the generations to be: Kehat, Amram, Moshe or Aharon, and their children. In addition, the adherents to this explanation argue that the 400 years began with the birth of Yitzhak. Thus, it is argued that there is no connection between the count of the 400 years and the four generations since they start from different times.
This approach is problematic. It is ad hoc since there is no intrinsic reason to start the generations with Yehuda or Kehat. Why not start with Yaakov? Mizrahi (on Rashi's comments) writes that Yaakov was excluded either because when he came to Egypt he was near death or because the count had to begin from the slavery and according to Chazal the slavery did not begin until after Yaakov died. Yet, these answers are difficult. Yaakov lived 17 years in Egypt, and we do not know when the slavery began (by Yosef?). More fundamentally, the four generations should start from Avraham since G-d was addressing Avraham.
Ibn Ezra writes that the count begins when Avraham’s descendants would be foreigners. Presumably Ibn Ezra is connecting the prophecy of the four generations with the prophecy of the 400 years since the prophecy of the 400 years refers to the descendants being foreigners, 15:13. However, the prophecy of the 400 years is mentioned three verses before the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation, 15:16, and there is nothing in 15:16 that implies that the four generations start from when they were foreigners. Furthermore, even with Ibn Ezra’s logic, why is Kehat more of a foreigner than his father Levi? Both were born in Israel, moved to Egypt at the same time, and lived in Egypt for a substantial part of their lives. Not only does the choice of starting the generations from Kehat or Yehuda have no textual support, but also delaying the onset of the count of the generations makes the prophecy of the four generations meaningless. As pointed out by Rashbam, once Avraham knew the prophecy of the 400 years, what difference does it make if there were four or five generations since it would still take 400 years to return?
The second approach (Rashbam, Ramban, and Benno Jacob, 1974) is that four generations refer to the Amorites, and not to the descendants of Avraham. The idea is that in 15:16, G-d was explaining to Avraham that his descendants could not get the land of Israel immediately since “the sin of the Amorites was not complete.” In Shemot 20:5, as part of the Decalogue, G-d told the people that at times the fourth generation is punished for the sins of the first generation, since G-d gives the generations time to repent. Thus, it is argued that here G-d was telling Avraham, that the Amorites had to be given four generations to have the chance to repent, and only afterwards if they did not could Avraham’s descendants receive the land from the Amorites.
This approach separates the prophecy of the four generations, which refer to the Amorites, with the prophecy of the 400 years, which refers to the Avraham’s descendants. However, this approach is also problematic. 15:16 records that the fourth generation will return, and according to this approach the fourth generation is the Amorites, which means that the prophecy is that the fourth generation of the Amorites would return. However, this prophecy would be insignificant to Avraham. Accordingly, the reference to the return of the fourth generation in the beginning of the verse cannot refer to the Amorites.
A third approach (Sarna, 1989, p. 116) is that word dor refers to 100 years, and then the prophecy of the return of the fourth dor would be 400 years. This could be for two reasons. One if dor means generation, the time from the birth of a parent to the birth of a child, then maybe in those days the time was 100 years, as Yitzhak was born when Avraham was 100. However, from the fact that Sara and Avraham doubted that this was possible (17:18, 18:12, 20:6,7) shows that this was an unusual event even in those days. The second possibility is that dor should be interpreted as life span, which could be considered as 100 years. However, this is also problematic since there is no other source that a life span in those days was considered 100 years.
My thought is that the return of the fourth dor must refer to four generations from Avraham. In fact, Ramban (on 30:9) seems to state that the prophecy refers to the children of Yaakov, who were the fourth generation of Avraham. With this idea there are two possible ways to understand the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation.
One, the prophecy refers to Yosef who returned to the land, Yehoshua 24:32. Accordingly, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation was referring to the return of Yosef and is unrelated to the 400 years that the people would live in Egypt. There are two problems with this idea. One, while Yosef returned to the land of Israel, he was dead and his return was that he was buried in Israel. How can this be considered as returning? Yet, from Bereshit 46:4, we see that G-d promised Yaakov that Yaakov would return to the land of Israel, and we know Yaakov only returned after he had died. Even if one comes back dead, then that is still considered as having returned.
In 50:25, Yosef made the brothers swear to bring him back to Israel, and in Shemot 13:19 the Torah mentions how Moshe took the bones of Yosef out of Egypt. It is clear that this is very important since the Torah goes out of its way to mention these two incidents. The importance is that Yosef is the fourth generation of Avram, and his return is the fulfillment of this prophecy to Avraham.
What could be the importance of Yosef returning dead? Why should G-d have told Avraham about the return of the fourth generation if it meant Yosef returning when he was dead? My guess is that after Avraham was told that his descendants would be slaves for 400 years, it would be difficult for Avraham to identify with his future descendants, but Avraham could feel a personal connection with his great-grandchild. Even if Yosef returned dead, the fact that he was being carried back by the people who returned to the land, demonstrated the people’s connection with Yosef and through Yosef, the people’s connection to Avraham. Thus, the prophecy of 15:13-16 then consists of two distinct parts: 15:13,14 is the prophecy about the future history of Avraham’s descendants, while 15:15,16 were personal prophecies for Avraham.
The second problem with the return of Yosef as being the fulfillment of the prophecy is that 15:16 uses the plural when referring to the return, which implies that many members of the generation would return and not just one. However, one could answer that Yosef was the representative of his generation, and his return symbolized the whole generation’s return. Thus, when Yaakov told Yosef that G-d would bring him back to Israel, Yaakov used the plural even though he was only addressing Yosef, 48:21.
The second possibility is that when the Jewish people returned to the land, they did so as the tribes of Reuven, Shimon, etc. Even though the sons of Yaakov were dead, their names lived on and hence the identification of the people was through the great-grandchildren of Avraham. Thus, one could consider the tribe of Yehuda as a continuation of Yehuda himself. It is most remarkable that during the long stay in Egypt, the division of the people remained based on the children of Yaakov. In Tanakh, when there is a reference to the whole nation, it is almost always as benei Yisrael, the children of Yaakov. According to this idea, the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation would be that when the people would return they would identify themselves as the fourth generation of Avraham. The significance of this prophecy was again that Avraham would be able to feel a personal connection with these people, as they considered themselves his fourth generation. With this approach there would be no contradiction with the prophecy of 400 years since the prophecy refers to the identity of the people and not to when they would return. Finally, this idea could be combined with the return of Yosef, as Yosef was the only member of the fourth generation who did not have a tribe named after him. Therefore, he had to return by being buried in Israel, while his brothers could return through their tribes.
Jacob, Benno (1869-1945), 1974, The first book of the bible: Genesis, commentary abridged, edited and translated by Earnest I. Jacob and Walter Jacob, New York: Ktav Publishing House.
Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.
No comments:
Post a Comment