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

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

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

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

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

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

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

**That Kehos lived after Amram’s birth ...Also, [you must subtract] Kehos’s years before he descended to Egypt. Since the enslavement itself was not 400 years, we are forced to say that “for four hundred years” refers to “your descendants will be foreigners in a land that is not theirs,” rather than to “they will enslave them and oppress them.” Indeed, from the time Yitzchok was born, they were as foreigners in various lands, as it is written (Bereishis26:6): “Yitzchok settled in Gerar.” [And there are many verses that] use the term ויגר, which connotes being a foreigner. Although the enslavement was only for 210 years, they were foreigners from the time Yitzchok was born.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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