“And He said unto him: Take for Me a heifer of three years old, and a she-goat of three years old, and a ram of three years old, and a turtle-dove, and a young pigeon.” (Beresheit 15:9)
Our parasha
describes the development of the relationship between Hashem and Avraham. In the opening passages of the parasha, Hashem tells Avraham that he
will enjoy His providence. However,
despite the influence of Hashem’s providence, Avraham and Sara do not have
children. This leads to a dialogue
between Hashem and Avraham. Again, Hashem tells Avraham he has earned great
merit and He will protect him. Avraham
responds that this merit is of little value to him. He has no heir. Hashem
tells Avraham that he will have an heir and that his descendants will be as
numerous as the stars. Avraham accepts
Hashem’s message. Then, Hashem tells
Avraham his descendants will occupy Canaan.
Avraham asks, “In what will I know?”
In other words, he seems to ask Hashem for an additional indication that
his descendants will occupy Canaan.
Our passage introduces Hashem’s response to this
last question. Hashem instructs Avraham
in the Brit ben HaBetarim – the Covenant of the Halves. The instructions for the creation of this
covenant are unusual. Avraham is to
take various animals. Most are to be
split in half. Two birds are to be
included among the animals. The birds
are not to be split and are to be placed at the beginning and end of the series
of split animals. Avraham follows the
directions. He arranges the animals and
the birds as required. Then, Avraham
sees a bird of prey descend upon the dead animals. He chases it away.
The incident of the Brit ben HaBetarim ends
with a further prophecy. Hashem tells
Avraham that his descendants will be afflicted for four hundred years in a
foreign land. They will leave with the
wealth of their tormentors and conquer Canaan.
The prophecy ends with a flame passing between the halves of the
animals.
The Brit ben
HaBetarim is not easily understood.
It raises a number of questions.
One of the obvious problems is that Avraham’s responses to the various
messages that Hashem communicated seem inconsistent. It seems that Avraham was comfortable with, and willing to
immediately accept the prophecy that he would have an heir and that his
descendents would be as numerous as the stars of the heavens. However, Avraham seems to have been less
certain of the significance of the message that his descendants would inherit the
Land of Canaan. Why was Avraham less certain
of the meaning of this second message?
Rabbaynu Ovadia Sforno addresses this question. In order to understand Sforno’s response to
this question, a brief introduction will be helpful. Maimonides explains that the Torah provides us with a method by
which we can determine the credibility of any prophet. In order for us to accept that a claimant is
a true prophet, we assess the accuracy of his prophecies. Every prophecy that the claimant
communicates must be fulfilled. If all
of the claimant’s predictions become reality, then we are required to assume
that the claimant is an authentic prophet.
If, at some point, the assumed prophet offers a prediction that is not
fulfilled, then we must assume that this person is a false prophet.
Maimonides adds two significant qualifications to
this rule. First, he explains that the
requirement of absolute accuracy only applies to the positive predictions
enunciated by the claimant. However, if
the claimant warns of disaster or tragedy and this prediction does not
materialize, we do not assume that the claimant is a false prophet. We recognize that a prediction of disaster
is intended as a warning to repent. We
know that repentance and forgiveness are always possible. We must acknowledge that the fulfillment of
the prediction of disaster may have been forestalled by repentance and
forgiveness. Therefore, although the
claimant must be absolutely accurate in his prediction of positive outcomes and
events, inaccuracies in predictions of tragedy and disaster are not of
consequence. Such inaccuracies do not
undermine the credibility of the claimant.
Second, it is important to recognize that there are
two types of prophecy. Some prophecies
are designed for communication to others.
In such instances, the prophets serve as Hashem’s spokesman to humanity,
or to a group or nation. Other
prophecies are personal. In these
prophecies, the prophet receives information from Hashem for his own benefit. These prophecies are not intended to be
communicated to others. Maimonides
explains that the requirement for absolute accuracy only applies to prophecies
intended for communication to the public.
The public must have a means by which to determine the credibility of
the claimant. The means is the accuracy
of the claimant’s predictions. However,
the true prophet himself knows that he is communicating with Hashem. He does not need proof as to the veracity of
his prophecy. Therefore, it is possible
that some personal prophecies will not be fulfilled.
This seems somewhat bizarre! We can understand why negative prophecies
may not be fulfilled. As Maimonides
explained, it is possible that through repentance and forgiveness disaster was
averted. However, how is it possible
that Hashem will communicate a personal prophecy to the prophet and He will not
fulfill this prophecy?
Maimonides offers an amazing answer based on the
comments of our Sages. Our Sages
explain that it is possible that a subsequent sin or wrongdoing will invalidate
the prophecy. In other words, Hashem
may communicate to the prophet that he will receive a specific reward. This communication is not a guarantee that
this reward will be granted. The
granting of the blessing or reward remains dependant upon the righteousness and
merit of the prophet. If the prophet is
deserving, he will experience the fulfillment of the prophecy. However, if he sins, he may be deprived of
the predicted blessing.[1]
As an aside, it is worth noting that Maimonides
provides a clear basis for differentiating between true prophets and
counterfeits. Throughout the
generations, various individuals have claimed or implied prophetic powers. Such a claim is not substantiated simply
because some, or even many of this claimant’s predictions seem to have been
fulfilled. The claimant must be
unerring in his predictions. Even a
single positive prediction that goes unfulfilled completely undermines any
possible claim of authentic prophecy.
Based on Maimonides’ analysis, Sforno explains
Avraham’s differing reactions to these two prophecies. First, Sforno assumes that Avraham
understood that both of these communications were personal prophecies. They were not intended for communication to
his followers. Hashem communicated the
future to Avraham for his own benefit.
Avraham concluded that these communications were not absolute
assurances. Like all personal
prophecies, their fulfillment would depend upon the righteousness of the
beneficiaries of these blessings. He
understood that Hashem’s message that he would have children, and that his descendants
would be as numerous as the stars, depended upon his own continued
righteousness and merit. He accepted
this responsibility upon himself without hesitation. However, the message that his descendants would possess the Land
of Canaan seemed problematic to Avraham.
How could he know that his descendants would follow in his path and
merit this reward? Avraham expressed
his uncertainty regarding the certainty of this outcome.
Based on this interpretation of Avraham’s question,
Sforno offers a novel explanation of Hashem’s response. He asserts that any prophecy that is
accompanied by a promise or brit – a
covenant – must be fulfilled.
Therefore, the brit that
Hashem entered into with Avraham provided a definite assurance that the
prophecy would come true.[2]
It is possible that Sforno maintains – that by
definition – a covenant is a public declaration. Any prophecy that is accompanied by a covenant rises above the
level of a personal prophecy. A
covenant is an objective and public declaration. It is no longer dependant upon the merit of the beneficiary of
the recipient of the blessing. The
covenant must be fulfilled.
There is some evidence that this is Sforno’s
understanding of the significance of a covenant. In other words, further comments seem to indicate that Sforno
understood a covenant as a public declaration, and not just the affirmation of
a personal prophecy.
Sforno is bothered by another problem presented by
the Brit ben HeBetarim. As noted
above, one of the final elements of the brit
was a prophecy regarding the future persecution of Bnai Yisrael. Hashem told Avraham that his descendants
would experience four hundred years of affliction and exile. This was a revelation of the eventual exile
of Bnai Yisrael to Egypt and their persecution at the hands of the
Egyptians. Hashem also revealed to
Avraham that Bnai Yisrael’s tormentors would be punished. Bnai Yisrael would be redeemed from this
exile and would leave the land of their persecution with great wealth. Why was this revelation necessary, and how
is it related to Hashem’s covenant with Avraham?
Sforno explains that Hashem foretold Avraham of the
suffering of his descendants in a foreign land for a specific reason. During their suffering, they would question
the credibility of Avraham’s prophecy that they would possess the Land of
Canaan. They would wonder how their
suffering could be reconciled with the promises that their forefather, Avraham,
had communicated to them. In order to
respond to this inevitable question, Hashem revealed the exile and suffering to
Avraham. Avraham was to share this
revelation with his children, and through them his descendants. This revelation made clear that this suffering
was envisioned by Hashem when He made His promises to Avraham. Therefore, it was clearly not a
contradiction to those promises.[3]
These comments indicate that Avraham was expected to
communicate the prophecy that his descendants would possess the Land of Canaan
to his children, and through them to Bnai Yisrael. With the addition of the covenantal element to the prophecy, the
message was no longer personal. It
became a public declaration for future generations. This necessitated the additional revelation of future exile and
persecution. Once the message was
transformed into a public prophecy, this additional element – the prophecy of
exile and persecution – became essential.