Deliberate Ambiguity in the Torah

יָדֹעַ תֵּדַע כִּי גֵר יִהְיֶה זַרְעֲךָ בְּאֶרֶץ לֹא לָהֶם וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם אַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה:

Know that your descendants will be strangers in a land which is not their own, and they will serve them and they will persecute them for four hundred years (Bereishit 15:13)

Rashi and the Ramban

Regarding the starting point of the Galut mentioned in this pasuk, Rashi comments:

משנולד יצחק עד שיצאו ישראל ממצרים ארבע מאות שנה

From the time Yitzchak was born until Yisrael left Mitzrayim was four hundred years.

According to Rashi, the term “a land which is not theirs” also includes the land of Canaan, where the Avot dwelled as “geirim” — strangers. Similarly, the Ramban explains:

This is a mikra mesuras — a pasuk whose phrases are written “out of order.” Its meaning is as follows; “Your descendants will be strangers in a land which is not theirs for four hundred years, and they will serve them and they will persecute them,”[1] with the pasuk not specifying the duration of the slavery or persecution. And there are many instances of mikra mesuras in the Torah, for example (Bereishit 39:17),[2] “בָּא אֵלַי הָעֶבֶד הָעִבְרִי אֲשֶׁר הֵבֵאתָ לָּנוּ לְצַחֶק בִּי — the Hebrew slave that you brought to us came to me to make fun of me.”[3] Similarly, (Shemot 12:15), “כִּי כָּל אֹכֵל חָמֵץ וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל מִיּוֹם הָרִאשֹׁן עַד יוֹם הַשְּׁבִעִי — for anyone who eats chametz, that soul shall be cut off from Yisrael, from the first day until the seventh day.”[4]

According to the Ramban’s understanding of the pasuk, Avraham is being told about three elements of galut for his descendants, where the term for one of which — geirut — is specified — (four hundred years), while the terms for the other two elements — avdut and inui — are not. It is not clear whether he is being told that these latter two will both last the same amount of time, or that each will have a different duration.

An Alternative Explanation — Multiple Possibilities

We would like to suggest an alternative approach to this pasuk, which is based not on rearranging its phrases (“sirus”), but rather on reading the pasuk kipshuto. Let us preface by noting that the etnachta[5] in our pasuk is not found where it we would expect it. Normally, the etnachta occurs in the middle of the pasuk. In our case, however, it is found toward the end, under the word “אֹתָם” of the phrase “וַעֲבָדוּם וְעִנּוּ אֹתָם.” Thus, the pasuk up until the etnachta mentions three elements; 1) geirut, 2) avdut, and 3) inui. The final, brief phrase in the pasuk, “for four hundred years,” refers to each of the three elements mentioned earlier! According to this approach, the pasuk is describing three distinct possibilities in descending order of severity:

a)  Inui for four hundred years — which thereby incorporates geirut and avdut for that amount of time.

b)  Avdut for four hundred years — which incorporate geirut for that amount of time, while inui will exist for a lesser amount of time.

c)   Geirut for four hundred years, some of which will also have avdut and inui.

According to our approach, the pasuk has chosen to present the gezeirah in an ambiguous fashion in order to allow for the three possibilities mentioned above, with each one resulting in a very different outcome for Bnei Yisrael:

a)  It is possible that Bnei Yisrael would be able to withstand four hundred years of inui without descending to the forty-ninth level of tumah, to a state where it may be said of them “הללו עובדי עבודה זרה והללו עובדי עבודה זרה — both these (the Mitzrim) and these (Bnei Yisrael) are worshipers of avodah zarah.” The reason why Hashem did not state this explicitly, is because there existed the possibility[6] that Bnei Yisrael would not be able to withstand inui for that amount of time without disintegrating as a people. Indeed, as we know, in the end we were taken out of Mitzrayim early. However, leaving Mitzrayim without having experienced all these three elements for the full amount of time would mean that the purifying effect of the galut would be incomplete, and Bnei Yisrael would not be fully prepared to fulfill their destiny. This lack of preparedness would express itself in the Ten Tests with which we tested Hashem in the Midbar, tests that would shape the future of Am Yisrael for all generations until the final Geulah.

b)  It is possible that Bnei Yisrael would be enslaved for a period of four hundred years. In this scenario, the phrase “four hundred years” qualifies not the aspect of inui,[7] but rather that of avdut (and certainly geirut). In the event, even this option was too much for Bnei Yisrael, and the third option was taken.

c)   The geirut alone would last for four hundred years,[8] with an unspecified time involving avdut, and a further unspecified time involving inui.

According to our approach, there is no need to “rearrange” the pasuk and see the phrase “four hundred years” as applying specifically to the earlier aspect of geirut. Rather, the gezeirah has been stated ambiguously so that this phrase is potentially applicable to any of the aspects mentioned in the pasuk. The decisions and actions of Bnei Yisrael when they are in galut will determine which interpretation of the gezeirah will be applied, with the ensuing consequences for the history of Am Yisrael after they leave Mitzrayim. The galut in Mitzrayim represents the “purifying furnace”[9] which prepared Am Yisrael for their historic mission as the Am Hashem. It is fair to assume that had we been capable of abiding by the maximum option of four hundred years of inui (and thus also of avdut and geirut), we would not have been witness to the Chet Ha’Egel and Chet HaMeraglim, which so drastically changed the historical course of the nation up to and including the final Geulah.

Further Examples — Akeidat Yitzchak

In Parshat Vayeira we find an important example of this yesod of “intentional ambiguity” on the part of Hashem, which allows the interpretation of His words to move from one possibility to the other depending to the actions of those who are undergoing a nisayon on the one hand, and with Hashem’s overall plan on the other. In this instance, this is taking place not on a national level, but with a specific individual — Avraham Avinu. During the Akeidah, when Avraham is told not to kill Yitzchak or to harm him in any way, Rashi, quoting the Midrash (Bereishit Rabbah 56:8), comments:

אמר לו אברהם אפרש לפניך שיחתי, אתמול אמרת לי "כִּי בְיִצְחָק יִקָּרֵא לְךָ זָרַע," וחזרת ואמרת "קַח נָא אֶת בִּנְךָ" אמר לו הקב"ה "לא אחלל בריתי, וּמוֹצָא שְׂפָתַי לֹא אֲשַׁנֶּה" (תהלים פט, לה). כשאמרתי לך "קח" — "מוצא שפתי לא אשנה," לא אמרתי לך 'שחטהו' אלא 'העלהו'. אסיקתיה — אחתיה.

Avraham said to Him (Hashem), I will explain my discourse; Yesterday You said to me, “For Yitzchak will be considered your seed,” and then You subsequently told me, “Take your son (and bring him up as an olah)”! Hashem said to him, “I will not desecrate My covenant, and I will not change that which My lips express” (Tehillim 89:35). When I said to you “Take your son” — “I will not change that which My lips express.” I did not say to you “Slaughter him,” but rather, “Bring him up.” You have brought him up, now take him down.[10]

Here we have another example of intended ambiguity on the part of Hashem, with Chazal providing us with some understanding as to the roles of both ways of interpreting those words.

A very clear formulation of this yesod is found in the words of the Ohr HaChaim (Bamidbar 14:29, s.v. miben esrim):

 …For Hashem stated His words in a manner equally open to different interpretations, as is His way, for He says things that can be understood in two ways, if (the people involved) merit — it will be interpreted for good, and if not… And similarly you will find when He said to Adam (Bereishit 2:17) “בְּיוֹם אֲכָלְךָ מִמֶּנּוּ מוֹת תָּמוּת — on the day you eat from it you shall surely die,” He mentioned “יוֹם — day” without specifying; you could say that is a human day, you could also say it refers to a day of Hashem — one thousand years. When Adam did teshuvah, Hashem “directed” the interpretation to mean one of His days.

There is no happenstance in the way the Torah is written. If a word or phrase is ambiguous, that means that it is intended to include all of the different (and sometimes contradictory) possible meanings. When the time comes, the situation, and the behavior of the people involved, will determine which of the potential meanings will emerge as the practical reality.

[1] In other words, the phrase “for four hundred years” only qualifies the (first) phrase of “(they) will be strangers in a land which is not theirs,” and not the (second) phrase of “and they will serve them and they will persecute them,” whose duration is not specified.

[2] The words of Potiphar’s wife to Potiphar regarding Yosef.

[3] In this case, the words “to make fun of me” are understood as qualifying the words “the Hebrew slave came to me” — representing Yosef’s intention, not the words “that you brought to us,” referring to the reason Potiphar brought him into the household.

[4] Here, the words “from the first day until the seventh day” are qualifying the time of the aveirah of eating chametz mentioned earlier in the pasuk, and are not discussing the duration for which his soul will be cut off from Yisrael.

[5] [Of all the taamei hamikra, the etnachta indicates the strongest kind of pause, roughly equivalent to a semicolon.]

[6] Which, in the event, became the reality.

[7] Which would pertain for an unspecified amount of time.

[8] And even this geirut was not entirely experienced in Mitzrayim, but rather began with the birth of Yitzchak, as was mentioned earlier from Rashi and the Ramban.

[9] [See Devarim 4:20.]

[10] It is in place to point out that Hashem did not just say, “Bring him up,” but rather, “Bring him up as an olah,” so that the matter requires some more contemplation.