Bereshit 5:3,4 – Longevity and the aging process in the Torah

Bereshit 5:3 records that Adam had a child when he was 130 years old, something that is not possible in the 21st century. 5:4 then records that Adam lived another 800 years afterwards. This also is not physically possible. The remainder of chapter 5 lists ten more individuals who also lived extremely long lives. Similarly, 11:10-32 lists nine more individuals who had extremely long lives. The people listed in chapter 11 lived less years than all the people listed in chapter five, except for Chanoch (5:23), but still eight of them lived more than 200 years, which again does not seem possible. Afterwards the lifespans continued to decrease, but still the Torah lists many people who lived longer than humanely possible in the 21st century, Sara, 127 years (23:1), Avraham, 175 years (25:7), Yishmael, 137 years (25:17), Yitzhak, 180 years (35:28), Yaakov, 147 years (47:9, 48:28), Levi and his descendants’, 137 years, 133 years and 137 years, (Shemot 6:16-20), Aharon, 123 years (Bemidbar 33:39) and Moshe lived 120 years (Devarim 31:2). Yosef also lived 110 years (Bereshit 50:26), which also seems incredible for the period of the Torah.

The Rambam (Moreh 11:47) writes, apparently in reference to all the people who had long lives in the Torah, that only these people lived so long, as the other people who are not named as having long lives, lived regular lives. The Rambam suggests that the long lives of these individuals could have been due to their diet and behavior or due to a miracle. The Ramban (on 5:4) rejects this approach and claims that the people listed in chapters five and eleven were not unique in their lifetime. He notes that if the Rambam’s suggestion of diet and behavior was correct, then many people should have followed their behavior. Also, he claims that not all of these people were worthy of G-d making them miracles. It seems to me that even the Ramban relies on miracles for the long lives of the patriarchs. The Ramban also seems to claim that until the period of the sin of the Tower of Bavel people would naturally live long lives, which again appears to be impossible.

A different approach is that the years listed in the Torah are not full solar years. Ha-Ketav Ve-haKabbalh (on 5:5) notes that some people claim that the years in chapter five are based on a one-month lunar cycle which he rejects. Beck (1967, pp. 25-29) suggests that a year in the Torah is a six-month period, and then the lives of the patriarchs would be half of what is recorded in the Torah.

My guess is that the years in the Torah are similar to our years, that the Rambam is correct that only those people who are listed as having had a long life, had a long life and that this was a miracle that G-d did for them. It is not clear why it was necessary for these people to have long lives, and my guess is that it is a literary way of marking a large passage of time with a relatively limited number of people.

In addition, with regard to the people who had long lives, it must be that their aging process was a much slower process than our aging in the 21st century. David Tzvi Hoffmann (1969, p. 383, introduction to chapter 25) follows this idea when discussing how old was Avraham when he had more children apparently after Sara had died, 25:2. He writes that even though Avraham was officially 140 then (if these children were born right after Yitzhak married Rivka), he was really 56 years ago. This calculation would be that 140/175, his present age divided by the age when he died, equals 0.8 and 0.8*70 = 56. Thus, he claims Avraham was able to father the children recorded in 25:2. While I think Avraham had the ability to father the children recorded in 25:2 due to a special blessing from G-d (see our discussion on 24:1, “To be virile again”), it must be that Hoffmann is correct that the aging process for the people who had very long lives in the Torah was at a proportional rate.

I think that even by the early years of the people who had long lives in the Torah that their development was at a slow pace, and then they reached puberty later than modern people. Thus, the youngest age that people in chapter five began to have children was 65. In chapter 11, the aging process had quickened to some extent compared to the people in chapter five, as the youngest age that people had children in chapter 11 was twenty-nine years (11:24), and their life span had shortened from between 400 years to 148 years, but still their aging was slower than people in modern times. Afterwards by the age of the patriarchs until, and including, Moshe, the development and aging of the people with long lives were proportional to a person who lived seventy/ eighty years.

Thus, Sara was considered beautiful when she came to Egypt (12:11,15), even though she was sixty-five years old, since she had not yet aged that much because she was going to live until 127, 23:1. Hence, she was around 35 years old based on a lifespan of seventy years. This slower proportional aging is also why the Torah had to tell us that Sara had stopped menstruating when she was 89/90, 18:11, which should have been obvious, but with proportional aging, one might have thought that at 89/90 (17:17), which was proportional to 49 years ((89/127)*70), that she was still menstruating, but she was not.

Avraham was equivalent physically to a 30-year-old ((75/175)*70) when he left Haran and fought with the four kings and not to a seventy-five year old (12:4), which in antiquity and today was/is possible, but it is very unlikely for a seventy five year old to have the strength to fight a war. In addition, Sara thought that there was a good possibility that Avraham would be able to have a child with Hagar even though he was 85 years old then, since if it was not possible, she would not have been willing for him to have another wife, 16:1-3. Also, Avraham agreed to her proposal and did not claim that he could not have a child when he was 85 since really he was physically around 34 years old (86/175)*70).

14 years later, when Avraham was officially 99 years old, both Avraham and Sara doubted whether Avraham could father another child, 17:17,24; 18:10,12; 21:1-7. 18:11 (also 21:2), which is information provided by the “narrator” records that Avraham and Sara were old when they were told that Sara was to have a child, but also adds the phrase “and advancing in years.” This phrase is qualifying the previous word, that they were old, that while they were getting older, they were not necessarily not “functioning” and then the verse continues to inform us that Sara was post-menopausal since, as mentioned above, this was not obvious. Yet, according to this theory of proportionate aging, Avraham was then equivalent to being 40 years old (99/175)*70), so why did Sara and Avraham doubt that he could have a child? Maybe Avram and Sara were considered old even in their 40s, since in those days, life expectancy was around 40, even for people who did not die at childhood. In addition, maybe Avraham’s and Sara’s doubt that Avraham could have a child just “six years” after fathering Yishmael was because they did not think that a person at Avraham’s age (physically equivalent to 40 years) would be able to recover sufficiently from the circumcision, which G-d had just commanded him to do, 17:10-14, and he had done, 17:23,24, to have a child. Maybe then, Avraham’s ability to have Yitzhak was due to a miracle. 

This idea of proportionate aging could also explain why Yishmael seems to have been small when he and Hagar had to leave Avraham’s house, even though he was 14-years-old, 21:14-20. Also, while Yishmael was officially 13 years old when he was circumcised this would have been equivalent to being six and a half (17:25; 25:17 (13/137)*70).

In addition, with this idea, Yitzhak was in modern terms around 15.5 years old when he married Rivka, (25:2, (40/180)*70)) and Yaakov was in modern terms around 40 years old when he married Lea and Rahel ((84/147)*70).

Also, with this understanding, Yosef was not mentally or physically 17 years old (37:2) when he tattled on his brothers, but around 12 years in modern terms, and he was equivalent to an 18-year-old ((28/110)*70) when Potifar’s wife tried to seduce him, 39:7-12. This might explain why Reuven also refers to him as the child, 37:30 and 42:20. This would also mean that when Yaakov sent Yosef to look for his brothers in Shekhem, 37:13, Yosef was equivalent to a ten-year old in modern times, which might be considered as being too young for such a mission. However, as we explain in our discussion on 37:3-14, “Yaakov's parenting,” Yaakov accepted that the dreams of Yosef were a prophecy, and hence he probably felt that Yosef would be protected.

This slow aging process might also help explain the conversation between Pharaoh and Yaakov when they met, 47:8,9. First, Pharaoh asked Yaakov how old he was since he knew that Yosef was not aging in the normal manner. Secondly, this proportional aging can explain why Yaakov knew that he would not reach the lives of his father and grandfather since he knew at 130 years that he was aging faster than they had been aging at the same age, 47:9. 

The net result is that since the long lifespans recorded in the Torah of various people was a miracle, the miracle was also that the development and the aging process of the different people were also a slower process than in modern times, and starting in the time of the patriarchs, the development and aging process of the people with long lives was proportional to the lifespan of each person.

Bibliography:

Beck, Samuel, 1967, From Sinai to Navo, Jerusalem: Raphael Chayyim Hacohen Publishing.

Hoffmann, David Tzvi (1843-1921), 1969, Commentary on Genesis, Bnei Brak: Nezach.

Devarim 32:10 – Who did G-d find and protect in the desert?

Devarim 32:10 records “He (G-d) found him in the wilderness land, in the waste of the howling desert. He encircled him, gave mind to him, watched him like the apple of his eye.” Alter, 2004, p. 1040, translation. This verse is part of the beginning section of the song of Hazinu (Devarim 32:1-43), which records that the people are to learn from their history to see that G-d was good to the people.

One question concerning this verse is who did G-d find in the howling desert? I believe that the standard explanation is that the someone is the Jewish people that G-d found them in the desert. With this approach the singular pronoun in the verse is understood as referring to the plural, them, but did G-d find the people in the desert? G-d "found" the people in Egypt, which was not the desert, and then G-d took the people to the desert. Seemingly to answer this question, Rashi (on 32:10) argues that the finding is that G-d found that the people were loyal, faithful to Him by the Decalogue at Mount Sinai. This is difficult since the people were not so loyal at Mount Sinai as forty days after the Decalogue, they committed the sin of the golden calf (see Shemot 32:1-6 and Devarim 9:8).

Rashi himself seems bothered by this approach and towards the end of his comments on the verse, he quotes a second explanation from Targum Onkelos (also quoted by the Rashbam on 32:10), that based on Bemidbar 11:22 one can claim that the word find means that G-d provided the people with food. N. Leibowitz (1982a, p. 342) notes that this explanation is "rather strained linguistically" and she prefers Rashi's first explanation that the finding is by the Decalogue since this approach accords with the following verse, 32:11, which has a connection with the events at Mount Sinai, see our discussion on 32:11, “On the wings of eagles.”

Another problem with the idea that 32:10 is referring to the time of the giving of the Torah is that the implication of 32:10 is that prior to this finding by G-d, someone or some people was/ were on the verge of dying in the barren desert. Were the people on the verge of dying at Mount Sinai? G-d had already given them the mahn, Shemot chapter 16. Also, Devarim 9:21, seems to refer to some river/ creek by Mount Sinai when the people were there, which implies that the people were not in a barren desert at the time of the giving of the Torah.

These problems suggest that the reference to G-d finding someone in 32:10 is referring to a specific person who was in trouble in the desert, but who could be this person? One possibility could be Moshe when he ran away from Pharaoh, Shemot 2:15, but was Moshe on the verge of dying in the desert before he found the wells by Midyan? Maybe yes, but 32:10 also implies that this finding signaled the beginning of the people, and the Jewish people existed prior to Moshe.

Another possibility is that the verse is referring to Avraham that some time prior to G-d's call in Bereshit 12:1, he had got lost in the desert. Could this be the reference to Bereshit 20:13? 

Another possibility is that the verse is referring to Yaakov, who was mentioned in the previous verse, 32:9, that maybe at some point when Yaakov was running away from Esav, he was on the verge of dying in a desert.

A fourth possibility is that the verse is referring to Terah, who was the progenitor of the Jewish people both on the male line (Avraham) and the female line (Rivka, Rahel and Leah, and maybe Sara). The verse would then be telling us that there was an incident when Terah was on the verge of dying in the desert and G-d saved him and then protected his descendants.

There is no explicit reference to such an incident in the Torah, but there are two hints that this might have happened. One, Bereshit 11:31 records that Terah, on his own, decided to go the land of Canaan/ Israel from Ur Kasdim (southern Iraq?) but he did not make it and ended up in Haran (Northern Syria). What is the significance of this verse? Why is it important that that he wanted to go to the land of Canaan/ Israel but did not make it? The Torah is giving him credit for his effort even though he did not make it, why? Our verse might suggest an answer. Maybe when he was trying to get to the land of Canaan/ Israel, he got lost and ended up in the Syrian Desert near death. At this point G-d found him and saved him, but after this experience he did not want to try again and he lived out the rest of his life in Haran. However, this moment was crucial since maybe this is when the Jewish people were founded in the sense that at that point, G-d decided to watch over Terah’s family and this is why Bereshit 11:31 recorded Terah’s effort to get to the land of Canaan/ Israel.

A second hint is that Bereshit 12:1 records that G-d told Avraham to "go to the land that I will show you." Why did G-d not say explicitly the land of Canaan? A possible answer is that since Avraham had travelled with Terah (Bereshit 11:31) when Terah had been saved by G-d, he knew which land G-d was referring to, but he also knew how dangerous was the trip that he could get lost again in the desert, so G-d had to tell him that I will show you the way in order that you will not get lost this time.

Bibliography:

Alter, Robert, 2004, The five books of Moses: A translation and commentary, New York: W. W. Norton and Company.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1982a, Studies in Devarim, translated and adapted by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Camels in the book of Bereshit

Bereshit 12:16 records that Pharaoh gave camels to Avram (Avraham) as a present. Later when Avraham sent his servant to find a wife for Yitzhak, camels are mentioned repeatedly, 24:10-64. Yaakov also had camels, 30:43, 31:17,34, 32:8,16 and camels are referred to when the Yishmaelites took Yosef to Egypt, 37:25. All of these references to camels have been questioned since Albright (1960) claimed that the camel was only domesticated in the land of Israel around 1000-1100 BCE, long after the lives of the patriarchs. This claim has been buttressed by a study from Sapir-Hen and Ben-Yosef (2013) who using radiocarbon dating argue that the first significant appearance of camels in the Aravah Valley (an area a little north of Eilat towards the Dead Sea) was not earlier than the 10th century BCE. How could Avraham, his servant and Yaakov have had camels?

Before reviewing some of the evidence not referred to in the above studies, it should be mentioned that, as pointed out by Sarna (1989, p. 96), in the book of Bereshit, the camel is not the main animal used for travelling, but rather it was a sign of prestige, as for example Avraham’s servant took the camels to impress the family of the prospective bride to Yitzhak. In the book of Bereshit, when an animal is needed for regular work, then a donkey was used: Avraham travelled to the akedah with a donkey, 22:3, Yosef's brothers travelled with donkeys to Egypt, 42:26, and Yosef sent supplies to his father with donkeys, 45:23.

Landa (2016, p. 107) notes that if the camels were added anachronistically to the Torah, then one would certainly have expected camels to be referred to when the brothers went to Egypt to get supplies and when Yosef sent back supplies. One can add that when Avimelekh gives Avraham presents after abducting Sara, he gave sheep and oxen, but not camels, 22:14. Again if camels were added to the Torah anachronistically, then one would certainly have expected that Avimelekh would have given camels to Avraham just like Pharaoh had given camels to Avraham in similar circumstances. Landa also points out that horses are first mentioned in Egypt when the Egyptians were offering their animals to Yosef to get food, 47:17, but Pharaoh did not give Avraham horses since horses seem not to have yet arrived in Egypt. However, if one claims that camels were added to the Torah anachronistically, then why were horses not added as well?

What is the archeological evidence concerning camels? Bulliet (1975) has an extensive discussion on the history of the camel, and he discusses Albright’s dating of camels. Bulliet notes (pp. 45,56) that the camel was most likely in Somalia between the years 2500-1500 BCE, and "that the domestication process first got under way between 3000 and 2500 BCE,” which is before the time of Avraham. Furthermore, he notes (p. 60) that camel hair was found in a cord in an Egyptian gypsum work from around the year 2500 BCE. Also, a bronze figurine from before 2182 BCE which was on a foundation which had "strong Egyptian influence" appears to have a picture of a camel. In addition, he notes (p. 62) that there are drawings of camels on a pot found in Greece and on a seal found in Crete both of which date to around 1500 BCE. Furthermore, (p. 64) in a list of rations found in a northern Syria, Alalakh, from around the 18th century BCE there is a reference to food for camels. Bulliet concludes (p. 65):

The most satisfactory explanation of this circumstance is that the camel was known because it was brought into the area by traders carrying goods from southern Arabia but that it was not bred or herded in the area. It is worthy of note whereas the citations from the Bible associating camels with Abraham and his immediate descendants seem to fit the generalized pattern of later camel use in the area, they could also fit a pattern in which camels were very uncommon. The largest number of animals mentioned in those episodes is ten, and those ten are probably most of what Abraham had since they were sent with his servant with the apparent intention of creating a sufficiently wealthy impression to entice the father of a woman of good family into letting his daughter cross the desert to marry Isaac. No man, incidentally, is described as riding a camel, only women, who seem to have perched atop camp goods instead of riding in an enclosed women's traveling compartment as was later to be the norm.

This does not mean, necessarily, that Abraham or his descendants were mixed up in the Arabian incense trade, although they lived in such great proximity to the main route from Syria to Arabia that such involvement might have been possible. It means simply that in the nineteenth and eighteenth centuries BCE when Abraham and his immediate descendants appear to have lived, camels were already known in small numbers in the northwestern corner of the Arabian desert the western Arabian trade route branched out to go to Egypt or further into Syria. Local tribes in the area may have owned a few of the animals, perhaps as articles of prestige, without being heavily involved in breeding them….

(pp. 66,67) The probable sequence of events seems to have been that by 2000 BCE incense was reaching Syria with some regularity along the western Arabian land route. Some Semitic speaking tribes saw the potential benefits of this trade and became interested in it at its northern extremity. In Biblical parlance these would be the Ishamaelites who appear in the story of Joseph as traders of incense. Other tribes, probably later, undertook to follow the trade back to its source and this became the nucleus of Semitic settlement in southern Arabia. Again in Biblical parlance these would seem to be the children of Abraham's son Jokshan (Bereshit 25:2, Arabic Yuqtan progenitor of the south Arabian tribes). When the Semites had arrived in sufficient numbers, they overwhelmed the indigenous inhabitants of southern Arabia, and became themselves masters of the land and the incense trade.

 

The entire process, it has been argued, took place without the benefit of camel transport, the camels making their appearance only at a much later date from parts unknown. But it has been demonstrated that the camel was already in use during the period in question and that its probable homeland was southern Arabia. It is much more reasonable, therefore, to assume that the camel was the main carrier of the incense route from the very beginning, or nearly so, and the Semitic tribes came to know the camel in this way in very small numbers. In other words, the presence of camels in the Abraham story can be defended and story treated as primary evidence of camel use without disrupting Albright's contention that camel-breeding nomads did not exist in Syria and northern Arabia at that time.

A short time after Bulliet's study, Compagnoni and Tosi (1978) reported finding camel bones, camel dung and camel hair in ruins of a settlement in southeastern Iran, Shahr-I Sokhta (today province of Sistan in eastern Iran) that dates to around 2500-2600 BCE. They also provide a table (p. 98) which lists findings of camel bones in southern Turkmenia and representation of camels in Kashan (central Iran) from 3000-3500 BCE. They also note (p. 100) that in a finding off the coast of Abu Dhabi "representations in relief on tombstones and osteological finds of camels are dated as early as 2500 BCE, have revealed a convergence between Iran and Oman, in the more highly evolved farming communities, in the domestication process of C. bactrianus (two-humped camel) and C. dromedaries (one humped camel)." They write, (p. 99) "In conclusion, in the third millennium all archaeological evidence points to the fact that the dromedary (one humped camel) occupied an area lying between Oman and Sind (eastern Pakistan) to the east and North Africa and Palestine to the west."

Potts (2004) reviews the presence of the two humped camels in the Middle East (Camelus Bactrianus) and he concludes (p. 161), "in view of the ever increasing body of evidence for ties between Central Asia and Elam (western Iran), and between Elam and Assyria and Mari (eastern Syria on the Euphrates) in the early 2nd millennium BCE (between 2000 BCE and 1500 BCE), it is entirely possible that this was the period in which the peoples of the Near East first became aware of Camelus Bactrianus."

These two findings show that camels would have been known in Haran (northern Syria) when Avraham’s servant came and would explain how Yaakov acquired camels.

A more recent finding is from Steinkeller (2009) who discusses a tablet that has been dated to Ur III period, during the reign of Shulgi (approximately 2094-2047 BCE), maybe 100-200 years before Avraham. The tablet records a gift to the King of Ur of various animals, and Steinkeller (p. 416) writes that there is a "strong possibility that the herbivore (on the tablet) in question is the two-humped Bactrian camel." Avraham was from Ur, and we see that camels existed in his locale. Furthermore, the fact that the camel was given as a gift accords with the references to camels as being animals of prestige in the book of Bereshit.

An even more recent finding is Maria Guagnin et al (2023, p. 2) who write:

A tradition of large, naturalistic camel engravings has recently been documented across northern Saudi Arabia. This tradition is represented at sites such as the Camel Site in Jawf Province, where life-sized camels were carved in high relief. Analyses of the reliefs at this site, coupled with archaeological 

surveys and excavation show that use of the site overlapped with the mid-sixth millennium BCE.

These engravings would indicate that camels lived in northern Saudi Arabia several thousand years before Avraham lived, and from the figures in the article, it looks like the camels were one humped camels. 

Accordingly, these new finds show that camels (one humped and probably two humped) were known and used by humans, though probably not on an extensive scale, and not in all places, in the time of Avraham. Avraham could then have received camels as a gift from Pharaoh, and it was from these camels that his servant had camels to take to find a wife for Yitzhak.

Bibliography:

Albright, William Foxwell, 1960 (first published, 1949), The archaeology of Palestine, Harmondsworth, Middlesex: Penguin Books.

Bulliet, Richard W., 1975, The camel and the wheel, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Compagnoni, Bruno and Maurizio Tosi, 1978, The Camel: Its distribution and state of domestication in the Middle East during the third millennium B.C. in light of finds from Shahr-I Sokhta, in Approaches to Faunal Analysis in the Middle East, edited by Richard H. Meadow and Melinda A. Zeder, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, pp. 91-103.

Guagnin, Maria, Ceri Shipton, Finn Stileman, Faisal Jibreen, Malek Al Sulaimi, Paul S. Breeze, Mathew Stewart, Amy Hatton, Nick Drake, Deepak Kumar Jha, Fahad Al-Tamimi, Mohammed Al-Shamry, Mishaal Al-Shammari, Andrea Kay, Huw S. Groucutt, Abdullah M. Alsharekh, Michael Petraglia, 2023, Before the Holocene humid period: Life-sized camel engravings and early occupations on the southern edge of the Nefud desert, Archaeological Research in Asia, Vol. 36, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ara.2023.100483.

Landa, Judah, 2016, Camels in the Bible, Jewish Bible Quarterly, 44:2, pp. 103-115.

Potts, D.T., 2004, Camel hybridization and the role of Camelus Bactrianus in the ancient Near East, Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 47:2, pp. 143-165.

Sapir-Hen, Lidar and Erez Ben-Yosef, 2013, The introduction of domestic camels to the southern Levant: Evidence from the Aravah Valley, Journal of the Institute of Archaeology of Tel Aviv University, 40:2, pp. 277-285.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Steinkeller, Piotr, 2009, Camels in Ur III Babylonia, in Exploring the longue durée: Essays in honor of Lawrence E. Stager, edited by J. David Schloen, Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns, pp. 415-419.

Bereshit (Genesis) 15:9-21 - The covenant of the pieces: To cut the gap

Bereshit (Genesis) 15:9 records that G-d told Avram to take heifer meshuleshet, goat meshuleshet, and ram meshulash, and two birds. What is the definition of the word meshuleshet and meshulash? Ibn Ezra's (on 15:9), notes that there are two possibilities, one that it means to take three of each kind of animal or two, it means to take a three-year-old of each type of animal. He prefers the latter explanation, but he does not explain why. My impression is that most modern commentators follow the definition that it means a three-year-old animal. My guess is that they do this because they do not understand why Avram would need to take so many animals.

On the other hand, Onkelos, Rashi and Ramban (on 15:9) all follow the definition that the word means three types of animals, and there is linguistic support for this definition. Kohelet 4:12 refers to a rope that is meshulash, and clearly the word means three strands of the rope and not a three-year-old rope. Yechezkel 42:6 refers to a building which is meshulashot and means a three-tier building and not a three-year-old building. Also, Ramban notes that there no such thing as a three-year-old heifer, as by three years the animal is considered a cow. Finally, unless a person keeps his/ her animals separated by each year, then a person cannot even know which animals are three years old or four years old. Did Avram keep his animals separate by years?

The net result is that we will follow the idea that Avram was to take three of each type of animal. Avram was to cut the nine mammals in half and lay each half facing each other, but the birds (written in the singular) were not to be cut, 15:10. Vultures descended on the animals, but Avram chased them away, 15:11. Avram was then told a prophecy that his descendants would suffer in a foreign land but the fourth generation would return to the land, 15:12-16. After this prophecy, a fire (a smoking oven and a fiery torch), which symbolized G-d's presence, passed between the pieces, and G-d made a covenant that Avram's children would inherit the land, 15:17-21. Accordingly, this covenant is referred to as the covenant of (between) the pieces.

This ceremony raises several questions. Why was there a need for animals at all? Once there was a need for the animals, is there any significance to the types and numbers of animals? Why were the birds not divided?

With regard to why there was a need for animals altogether, Rashi (on 15:10) explains that the ancient way to make a covenant was for an animal to be split and for the partners in the covenant to pass through the divided animal. Thus, in Hebrew the description for making a covenant is literally called to cut a covenant. Rashi quotes Jeremiah 34:18-20 which records that the princes of Yehuda and Yerushalayim passed between a divided calf in order to impress upon them that if they did not keep the covenant, then they would be punished and would become food for the animals. The passing through the animals was a type of self-imprecation, where the person accepts upon himself a potential punishment for not upholding his part of the covenant.

The idea would then be that the mammals were divided in order for the fire to pass through them, and this passing through established the covenant. Yet, can the passing of the fire through the animals signify the idea of self-imprecation as occurs in Jeremiah 34? Was G-d calling upon Himself a future punishment? Gerhard Hasel (1981) argues that one cannot compare Jeremiah 34 to Bereshit 15 since it cannot be that G-d was making a self-imprecation. Instead, he points out that ancient treaties from the second millennium BCE invoke the killing of an animal as a "rite of treaty ratification, symbolizing the binding status of the covenanting parties," and by these treaties there was no evidence that one or both parties to the treaty passed through the animals. Thus, just the cutting of the animals signified the making of the covenant.

Why then did the fire pass through the pieces? Hasel suggests that this act was a divine ratification of the covenant that G-d "irrevocably pledged the fulfillment of His covenant promise to the patriarchs." Another possibility is from the Rashbam (on Shemot 24:11 and Shemot 33:18) that the fire was an example of a theophany which accompanies all the covenants with G-d.

Why did Avram not pass through the animals either before or after the fire? Maybe Avram did not need to pass between the animals since the covenant did not obligate him in anyway because the covenant was G-d's promise that Avram's descendants would inherit the land. In addition, as explained by Hasel, there was no need for Avram to pass through the animals since the covenant was made just by the cutting up of the animals. On the other hand, maybe Avram did pass through symbolically, see our discussion below on 15:17, “The imagery of the moving oven in the covenant of the pieces.”

With this understanding we know understand why there were two birds. The birds seem to have been too small to cut in half, and then by having two birds, one could be placed facing the other, see Ramban (on 15:10, also see Hizkuni on 15:10). Furthermore, as 15:10 refers to the birds in the singular, these two birds became as one, since each bird was considered a half bird, like the animals that were cut up. Accordingly, in total there were two columns (or rows) with each column having three half heifers, three half goats and three half rams, and a bird.

Is there any significance to the type of animals chosen? Many answers have been suggested. One (see Genesis Rabbah 44:14,15, Rashi on 15:6,9 and Rambam on 15:10), is that prior to the ceremony Avram has asked by what merit would his descendants would inherit the land and G-d answered him by the merit of the sacrifices. Thus, the choice of animals was because G-d was instructing Avraham which animals would be suitable for sacrifices. Yet, Benno Jacob (1974, p. 101, quoted by N. Leibowitz, 1976, p. 149) argues that the ceremony here has no connection with sacrifices since there was no altar, no blood was poured out and nothing was burnt. Rashi (on 15:10, also see Radak on 15:10) also suggests that the mammals were symbolic of the nations of the world, while the Jewish people were symbolized by the birds. A simpler idea is that Benno Jacob suggests that the animals were chosen because they were available. Another possibility is that though the animals were not meant as sacrifices still they had to be pure animals since the fire that passed through them symbolized G-d's presence.

N. Leibowitz (1975, pp. 41,42, see also Benno Jacob (1974, p. 103, also see S. R. Hirsch 1989, pp. 278, 279, on 15:9) quotes from R. Yosef Ibn Kaspi (1280-1345) that the animals related to the ensuing prophecy of 15:13-16 that the fourth generation would come to the land of Israel. The three divided animals represented the three generations that would suffer in a foreign land, while the birds, which were not divided, symbolized the generation that would go free. This symbolism is not just that birds fly. But also, the birds were a completely different type of animal than the other three animals which were mammals, and this indicates that the fourth generation was completely different than the previous three generations. Note this parallelism is not exact since we have no knowledge how many generations actually were slaves in Egypt, and symbolism of the birds is that they go free but this does not mean that they would fly to the land of Israel. However, there definitely is a connection between the animals and the number four, and the prophecy of the return of the fourth generation was the crucial aspect of the prophecy since it answered Avram’s question in 15:8, how will I know that my children will inherit the land?

Why was there a need for the quantity of mammals and birds? In the ceremony recorded in Jeremiah only one calf was divided. Why here was one animal not sufficient? My guess is that the ten animals (three heifers, three goats, three rams, and the two birds who become one) is parallel to the message of the prophecy that accompanied the covenant that Avram would receive the land of 10 nations, 15:18-21. This would be a second connection between the taking of the animals and the ensuing prophecy in addition to the connection between the number four by the animals and the ensuing prophecy.

Bibliography:

Hasel, Gerhard, 1981, The meaning of the animal rite in Genesis 15, Journal for the Study of the Old Testament, 19, pp.61-78.

Hirsch, S. R. (1808 -1888), 1989, The Pentateuch, rendered into English by Isaac Levy, second edition, Gateshead: Judaica Press.

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.

Leibowitz, Nehama (1905-1997), 1975, Study of commentators on the Torah and the approach how to teach them: The book of Bereshit, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization (Hebrew).

Leibowitz, Nehama, 1976, Studies in Bereshit, translated by Aryeh Newman, Jerusalem: The World Zionist Organization.

Bereshit 18:9-14 (Va-yera`) – The second announcement of Yitzhak's birth: A foil

Bereshit 18:9 records that three visitors who visited Avraham asked where was Sara, and Avraham answered that she was in the tent. Afterwards, G-d told Avraham that Sara would have a child, 18:10. How does the question in 18:9 relate to 18:10? The visitors did not enter the tent or speak directly to Sara, as Sara only over heard what they were saying to Avraham, 18:10. The visitors did not even inquire as to Sara's welfare. Why did they ask about Sara's whereabouts?

Rashi (on 18:9) quotes from Baba Metzia 87a three answers. One, it is proper conduct that a person should ask their host about their spouse's welfare, two the question was to increase Avraham's love for Sara or three, the question was to send her the wine cup of blessing. All of these answers are difficult. They did not ask about Sara's welfare, it is difficult to see how a question concerning Sara's location would increase Avraham's love for her and there is no mention that they gave her anything.

Rashbam explains that the question, "where was Sara?" was simply a way to begin the conversation, as we see by the Garden of Eden where G-d asked where were Adam and Havva, 3:9. (Rashbam also cites Bemidbar 22:9, Kings II 20:14 and Isaiah 39:3, but the questions in these verses do not refer to a person's location.) Yet, the cases are not parallel since by the Garden of Eden, G-d spoke to both Adam and Havva, and hence the question where are you was an introduction to the ensuing conversation. However, here the visitors did not speak to Sara. How can the question "where is Sara?" be a polite opening to a conversation that did not happen?

A different idea is that maybe it was the custom in those days that visitors would not speak directly to the wives of their hosts, and if a visitor wanted to speak to the wife, then she would stand behind a curtain, or here the tent.

Another difficulty with 18:10 is that the visitors told Avraham that Sara would have a child in the following year, but Avraham already knew this. 17:16-21 records that Avraham had already been told by G-d that he was to have a son.

One answer (see Rashi on 18:2) is that the information in 18:10 was for Sara, as in 17:16-21, G-d only told Avraham and did not speak to Sara. Yet, surely after waiting so many years for a child, Avraham would have told Sara this information, see Netziv on 18:10.

Ramban (end of 18:15) argues that Avraham never told Sara about the impending birth since either he wanted Sara to hear from G-d directly or that Avraham had been too busy since he had immediately circumcised himself after hearing about the son and he was still recovering from the circumcision. Both answers are difficult. Did Avraham know that G-d was going to re-tell this information? Was there really no time at all? Avraham had time to tell Sara to make bread for the visitors, 18:6. Furthermore, the Abravanel (2007, p. 410 and Chavel, 1993, notes to Ramban on 18:16) points out that the visitors used the new name Sara and not Sari, which means that she must have learned about the change of her name and this change of name was concurrent with news of the upcoming birth.

Another question concerning this conversation, is the re-action to the announcement. After Sara overheard the news about the birth, she laughed to herself since she doubted that she and Avraham could have a child, 18:12. G-d then questioned Avraham as to why Sara was laughing, and said "Is anything beyond G-d?" 18:13,14. Yet, Avraham had laughed when he heard this same information, 17:17, and he had not been rebuked. Why was Sara rebuked for laughing when Avraham had not been criticized? Furthermore, Avraham was not rebuked even though he laughed so strongly that he fell on his face, while Sara just laughed inwardly?

Ramban (on 17:7 and 18:15) distinguishes between their laughter. Avraham laughed out loud, which he claims was a sign of happiness, while Sara laughed to herself, which he claims was a form of mocking showing her disbelief. Bekhor Shor (on 17:7) suggests a similar approach, that as Avraham fell on his face upon hearing the news of the birth this signaled a laughter of happiness. He also suggests that G-d did not want to rebuke either Avraham or Sara directly, and Sara was only rebuked since it was done indirectly.

Abravanel suggests that Avraham was not punished since he laughed by the first announcement of the birth, but Sara was punished since this was already the second time she had been told of the impending birth. Yet, if Avraham had not been rebuked for laughing the first time, why was it wrong to laugh a second time, and again Sara laughed much less this time than Avraham had laughed.

Hizkuni (on 18:13) writes that the situation is similar to a woman who wants to criticize her daughter-in-law and does so by criticizing her own daughter with the idea that the daughter-in–law will also get the message. The idea being that Avraham was also being criticized when G-d criticized Sara. (Yehuda Keel, 2000, on 18:15, quotes this idea from R. Saadiah Gaon, but I did not find it in my copy of his commentary.) The idea is that really Avraham should also have been criticized for laughing but G-d waited until Sara laughed and then the criticism of Sara was also intended for Avraham.

This idea of Hizkuni and R. Saadiah Gaon can explain why the announcement of the future birth was repeated and why the messengers asked where was Sara but did not actually go to speak to her. The answer is that since Avraham was to be rebuked for his laughing this meant that there was a need for a second announcement to recreate a situation where Avraham could be criticized for laughing. Avraham was not likely to laugh again but Sara could laugh, and then Avraham could be criticized for Sara's laughter, 18:13,14. The visitors asked for Sara not to speak to Sara but to get her attention to listen to the conversation, which would lead her to laugh. My guess is that either she heard her name being mentioned or when the visitors asked Avraham where was Sara, either Avraham or his servant went and checked that she was in fact in the tent, and this inquiry prompted Sara to listen to the conversation. However, because the goal was to criticize Avraham for his previous laughter the messengers only spoke to Avraham.

Yet, if Avraham was supposed to be criticized why did G-d have to wait for Sara to laugh? Why was Avraham not criticized immediately after he laughed in 17:17? My guess is that the delay was due to the fact that Avraham and G-d were making a covenant in chapter 17, and during the establishment of the covenant, where Avraham was circumcising himself when he was 99, it was inappropriate to criticize Avraham. However, immediately after the covenant was completed then Avraham could be criticized for laughing.

Bibliography:

Abravanel, Yitzhak (1437-1508), 2007, Commentary on Bereshit, Jerusalem: Horev.

Chavel, Hayyim Dov, 1993, Commentary of the Ramban, revised edition, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Bereshit 12:6,7 (Lekh Lekha) – Avraham’s second blessing

After Avraham (Avram) went to the land of Israel, G-d told him a second blessing, which specifies that his descendants would inherit the land of Israel, 12:6,7. Only at this point did Avraham know that he was to recieve the land of Israel. Beforehand, he was merely continuing on his journey that Terah had started, 12:31.

Why was the blessing of 12:7 only to Avraham's descendants and not to Avraham, that Avraham would receive the land of Israel? My guess is that the blessing could not have been for Avraham at that time since Lot was also a potential recipient of the land of Israel, as he had also journeyed with Avraham to the land of Israel, 12:4,5. The promise that Avraham's descendants would receive the land did not rule out Lot since he was Avraham's nephew and could be considered his descendant.

This recognition that the promise here of land was to Avraham's descendants and not to Avraham can explain the puzzling phrase in 12:6 immediately prior to the blessing that "the Canaanites were then in the land." This phrase implies that the Canaanites were no longer living in the land of Israel when the Torah was written, but we know that they were living in Israel when Yehoshua led the people back to the land of Israel. Why was the information mentioned? The answer is that the phrase tells us that the Canaanites were the owners of the land of Israel at that time, which was because Avraham had not yet been promised the land of Israel. When the Torah was written at Mount Sinai, Avraham had already been promised the land of Israel, as recorded in 13:17, and hence the Canaanites were no longer the owners of the land even though they were still living in the land of Israel.

Bereshit 14:13-15 (Lekh Lekha) – Avraham's battle with the four kings: The warrior

14:8-12 records that four kings, who apparently came from Northern Syria and/ or Iraq, defeated five kings who lived around the Dead Sea. The four kings took the booty from the defeated kings, and this included Lot, Avraham's nephew. A refugee from the war escaped and told Avraham about Lot's plight, 14:13. Avraham then assembled an army of 318 men and chased the four kings until Dan, 14:14. There was a battle at Dan, and then Avraham's army chased the four kings until Hovah, which is left or north of Damascus, 14:15. At that point, Avraham freed Lot and the four kings apparently went back home, 14:16.

One question about this battle is where did it take place? Where was Dan? The usual identification of Dan is in the northern Galilee of Israel by the rivers (streams?) that feed into the Jordan River (or then the Hula Lake), as for example Rabbenu Saadiah Gaon explains Dan as the Banias, see also Megillah 6a. This would seem to tally with the idea that Avraham continued to pursue them until Hovav, which was near Damascus, and Damascus is north of the rivers. Furthermore, the tribe of Dan and hence the place Dan, is associated with the north, see Devarim 34:1.  With this identification, Avraham chased the four kings until Dan in the north.

The problem with this identification is that the book of Yehoshua (19:47) records that the tribe of Dan captured a city called Leshem which they renamed Dan. The book of Judges records a similar story but there it states (18:29) that the initial name of the place was Laish. The idea being that the tribe of Dan received land in the middle of Israel by the coast, but then some (all?) of the tribe moved north. How could the place in the north be called Dan in the time of Avraham if only centuries later it was called Dan? The Torah should have recorded that Avraham chased the four kings until Leshem or Laish.

One answer is that the name Dan was based on prophetic knowledge, see Kasher (1992, Torah Shelemah 14:72,73,75), Hizkuni (on 14:14) and Hertz (1960, p. 52). This prophetic knowledge could have been imparted to Avraham that he knew the place would eventually be called Dan or to Moshe when he wrote the Torah. See also Rashi and Radak on 14:7.

A second answer is that the place was called Dan in the time of Avraham unrelated to the future tribe. With this possibility, the question is why did the book of Yehoshua and the book of Judges state that the initial name of the place was Leshem or Laish. Asher Vizer (quoted by Keel, 1997, p. 382, footnote 54b) suggests that the initially the name was Dan, then Leshem or Laish and then Dan again, but the books of Yehoshua and Judges did not mention that really the original name was Dan.

A third answer (see Luzzatto on 14:14) is that the place Dan here is different than the place Dan from the one referred to in the book of Yehoshua and Judges. The Torah Temimah (on 14:14) even suggests that the last letter of the previous word, daled, should be joined with the word Dan, and then Avraham chased the four kings to a place called Dedan.

I wonder if the place Dan in 14:14 was in the north altogether. It is generally assumed that the battle with the five kings was in the southern part of the Dead Sea, and it is approximately 240 kilometers from the southern portion of the Dead Sea until the Northern Galilee. Avraham who was chasing the four kings started from Hebron (13:18 and 14:13) which is approximately 200 kilometers from the Northern Galilee. Hebron is approximately 60 kilometers northwest from the southern portion of the Dead Sea. Thus, it probably took the refugee two days to travel to Avraham after the battle, but it could have been less as 19:16 records that Avraham walked from his house in Hebron to an overlook of Sedom. Also, most likely the soldiers of the four kings needed to rest a day or two after the battle before starting to march again. In addition, the four kings would have been burdened down by the booty that they took, since much of it had to be carried and the people they took would not have been able to march as fast as the army Avraham assembled. Finally, it seems that it did not take Avraham a long time to assemble his men, as 14:1 records that he took his servants. Thus, Avraham would have caught up to the four kings way before they reached the north of Israel.

Also, the "proof" that Dan is in the north since the battle continued to Hovav which was near Damascus is weak. If Hovav was near Damascus, then it was 60 kilometers from the Northern Galilee, and if it was north of Damascus, then it was even further, see Sarna, 1989, p. 108. Thus, if Dan was in the Northern Galilee, Avraham still had to chase the four kings for at least another two days. How different is chasing another two days, five days or ten days?

My guess is that Avraham traveled north from Hebron, since he knew the four kings had to travel north, and he would have caught up with them somewhere in the Jordan Valley. Avraham would have not have directly attacked the four kings since they were a stronger army, but began to harass then, especially at night. (Note 14:15 does not state that Avraham defeated the four kings at Dan just that they struck them.) The four kings continued their march northwards to go back home, and Avraham continued to harass them on their way. Eventually when the four kings reached Hovav, they left behind all the booty they had captured. Avraham stopped harassing them since he had accomplished his purpose in freeing Lot. With this scenario, Dan was somewhere in the Jordan Valley and had nothing at all to do with the place the tribe of Dan would capture many years later. (With this idea, maybe Devarim 34:1 is also referring to Dan in the Jordan Valley, which could seen more easily from Mount Nevo than a valley in the Northern Galilee.)

Another possibility is that the reference to Dan in 14:14 refers to the area that the tribe was supposed to receive along the coast. With this idea, after defeating the five kings, the four kings would have marched a north for a little bit along the Dead Sea, and then turned west towards the Mediterranean Sea. Avram caught up with them when they were hanging about by the sea, and then chased them until Hovah. 

A second question about this incident is, why did the Torah record this battle? Radak (on 14:1) writes that the point of this episode is to show that a person must risk their lives to save one's relatives. Ralbag (purposes 2 and 4 of chapter 14) says that from Avram's actions we see that one should not endanger one's self but that one should act to save one relatives, even when they do not act appropriately to you, as Lot had previously picked a fight with Avram. Emerton (1971) writes that the point of the story is to portray Avram as a hero.

Cassuto (1954, vol. 2, pp. 328,329) offers a more likely answer. First, he notes the congruence between the places the four kings marched through and Devarim (1:4, 2:10-12, 2:20), that later on the Jewish people with Moshe would walk to the same places in the opposite direction. Accordingly, when Avram defeated the four kings and chased them from the southern part of Israel to Syria, this shows that Avram attained the ownership to all of the land on both sides of the Jordan River that the four kings had attained. Thus, Avram's descendants have a historical claim to the land independent of G-d's promise of the land.

One could add to Cassuto's explanation, that his idea is the fulfillment of G-d statement to Avraham right before the battle with the four kings. 13:14-17 records that G-d gave the land of Israel to Avraham, and that Avraham was to walk through the land.  Thus, when Avraham chased the four kings, he fulfilled this command to walk through the land. This was apparently R. Eliezer’s and maybe R. Eleazar’s opinion, as quoted in the Talmud Baba Bathra 100a.

Yet, Avram only walked through the central and northern areas of the land of Israel in his battle with the four kings, how or when did he acquire the southern part of the land? The answer is that his treaty with Avimelekh with reference to Beer Sheva, 21:27-32, gave him ownership of the southern part of the land. Also, it is possible that Yitzhak was given the additional land of Gerar by the western coast of the land, 26:3,4,6.

Bibliography:

Cassuto, Umberto (1883-1951), 1954, Bereshit, in Encyclopedia Biblica, edited by Cassuto, Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, vol. 2, pp. 323-335.

Emerton, J. A., 1971, The riddle of Genesis XIV, Vetus Testamentum, vol. 21, pp. 403-439.

Hertz, J. H. (1872-1946), 1960, The Pentateuch and Haftorahs, second edition, London: Soncino Press.

Kasher, Menachem (1895-1983), 1992 (first volume appeared in 1927), Torah Shelemah: A talmudic-midrashic encyclopedia of the five books of Moses, Jerusalem: Beth Torah Shelemah, The Torah Shelemah Institute.

Keel, Yehuda, 1997, 2000 and 2003, Commentary on Bereshit: Da'at Mikra, Three volumes, Jerusalem: Mossad Harav Kook.

Sarna, Nahum (1923-2005), 1989, The JPS Torah Commentary: Genesis, Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society.

Bereshit 15:16 – Yosef: The fourth generation in the prophecy of the covenant of the pieces

Bereshit 15:13-16 records that G-d revealed to Avraham (Avram) a prophecy about the future. G-d told Avraham that his descendants would live in a foreign land for 400 years and that the fourth generation would return to the land. This time period of 400 years seems to be much larger than the time span of four generations. How could his descendants be in a foreign land for 400 years if the fourth generation was to return to the land? 

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, see Rashi on 46:4.

Bereshit 50:25 records that Yosef made the brothers swear to bring him back to Israel, and Shemot 13:19 records that Moshe took Yosef's bones out of Egypt when the people left Egypt. It is clear that this act by Moshe is very important since the Torah goes out of its way to mention it.  The importance is that Yosef, the great-grandchild of Avram (Avraham) is the fourth generation of Avram, and his return to the land of Israel (Yehoshua 24:32) is the fulfillment of the prophecy in Bereshit 15:16. 

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, 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.

Bibliography:

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.