VAYECHI_ GENESIS XLVII,28 – L
Day by day hunger was becoming more severe in Egypt and its inhabitants had spent all their resources on the purchase of food. To survive, they sold Yosef their cattle and later gave him their land, remaining as slaves. Therefore, the text of the Hagadah affirms, “Avadim hayinu leFaro bemitsrayim” , “we were Pharaoh’s slaves in Egypt”. We were not the slaves of the Egyptians, because the Egyptians were also the slaves of Pharaoh. Yosef decrees the delivery of twenty percent of agricultural production to the national treasury and the rest for the sustenance of the families who plant the land. The Egyptian priesthood receives a daily quota of bread and thus allows them to retain their lands.
The biblical account of our weekly reading indicates that Yaacov turns one hundred and forty-seven years old, having spent the last seventeen in Egypt, and is about to die. Yaacov summons Yosef and entrusts him with moving his mortal remains to the ancestral land. A very important cult around death had developed in Egypt. The pyramids are the extraordinary tombs of the potentates, where they were buried in their finest robes, with food and provisions for the journey to the Hereafter.
Yaacov does not wish to identify with this cult of the deceased (or theology) that places the emphasis on later life. Judaism is a theory for life, which accentuates and values of this world and therefore constitutes a very different perspective from the Egyptian one. Notwithstanding the belief in an afterlife, the emphasis of Judaism is on terrestrial life. Exodus does not mean only the breaking of the chains of physical slavery. The exodus from Egypt signifies a rebellion against the perspective of the inhabitants of that country and points to an alternative path, completely different from the scale of values prevailing there.
On a visit to Caracas a decade ago, the Israeli artist Yaacov Agam argued that his art was Jewish art. In the face of that statement, I reacted negatively. I remembered the teachings of my teacher, the deceased Dr. Joseph Lookstein, Chancellor of Bar Ilan University and professor at Yeshiva University. Lookstein used to say that Jewish sociology did not exist because there was nothing particularly Jewish about sociology. Sociology is a science that has something to say about human groups of any geographical origin or ethnic particularity. You can speak, instead, he used to say, of the sociology of the Jews, just as, for example, you could study the sociology of the Hispanic groups, or of the French colonies of the eighteenth century.
Following this line of argument, I assumed that there was no Jewish art either. Agam, however, stood firm in his view insisting that art is usually static and immobile. Instead, he said, my art is dynamic and has movement. Judaism is a different choice from Egyptian culture, Agam continued, because in Egypt the immutable and the eternal were worshipped and admired. The pyramids are a kind of challenge in the face of the passing of the centuries. They are a manifestation of the victory of the human in the face of the ephemeral and temporal. Death represented eternity for the Egyptians. Life, being temporary, was not worthy of his exclusive attention. Only the eternal could be considered sacred.
For Judaism, neither the place nor a building (with the notable exceptions of Erets Israel, and especially the Temple Mount and the Beit HaMikdash) possesses sanctity. Judaism sanctifies time, times of the year that have special significance, such as holy holidays, with Shabbat at the head of the list. While in Egypt the permanent is appreciated and glorified, Judaism enthrones change. Growth, development, and therefore life itself, depend on the possibility of change which is of vital importance. According to Agam, his art is the art of change and movement. His works “change,” depending on the position of the viewer and the angle of vision.
Let’s go back to our biblical account and meet Yosef, accompanied by his two sons, visiting his elderly father again. Yaacov is sick. It is the first time that the state of illness is mentioned in the Torah. Some commentators suggest that, previously, before Yaacov, humans died suddenly, without any prior sign. Illness, as a symptom of upcoming death, gives the person the opportunity to make certain last-minute decisions, which can be of transcendental importance.
Yaacov does not initially recognize Yosef’s sons and then blesses them upon learning of their identity. (It is possible that the relationship between grandparents and grandchildren was not yet sufficiently developed in human society). A part of Yaacov’s blessing, “Yesimcha Elohim keEfrayim vechiMenasheh”, “which means that “God regards you as Ephrayim and Menasheh, “will serve as a model for the blessing of children in future generations.
This time, on his deathbed, Yaacov calls all his children and says to them “. . .Et asher etchem beacharit hayamim“, “…what will happen to you at the end of days”. Since what follows is a description of the personality, or of some important event in the life of each of his children, and omits the “end of days,” our Chachamim are of the opinion that, in his last moments, divine inspiration abandons Yaacov.
In a different context, we had suggested a different meaning to the term “Acharit hayamim”, “the end of days.” We read Devarim (Numbers) XXXI, 29, that Mosheh says to the Jewish people, “Ki yadati acharei moti…, vekarat etchem hara’ah beacharit hayamim”, “For I know, that after my death…, and evil will befall them at the end of days”. On many occasions, the verses of the Bible draw parallelisms. That means that the same idea is expressed in the first and second parts of a sentence. In analyzing this literary device of parallelism,”Acharei moti”, “after my death,” has the same meaning as “Acharit hayamim”, “the end of days.” Therefore, I suggest that “Acharit hayamim” does not necessarily mean the end of humanity’s days or some apocalyptic concept.
The meaning of “Acharit hayamim“ could simply mean the end of a person’s days. Therefore, in our account, it is very likely that Yaacov did not intend to predict and anticipate the unfolding of the future of humanity, but to opine on what would be the behavior of his family after his death, considering the individual traits of each of his children.
I believe that the concept of the family unit and the relationship between its various members evolved over time. When Cain exclaims, “Am I my brother’s guardian?” he might be enunciating, without any irony, a fact he considered natural. Cain was of the opinion, perhaps, that everyone is whole and solely responsible for himself.
How do we explain Avraham’s speed and determination to sacrifice his son Yitzchak, without at least questioning the authenticity of the order received? Why does he not demand that the severe and cruel message be repeated to him? Could there not be some error in its transmission? How can we explain that Yitzchak allowed himself to be deceived by some skins that Yaacov places on his arms at the time of receiving the paternal blessing? Yitzchak, despite his blindness, could not differentiate between his children? I believe that step by step, the concept of relationships and that of paternal and filial responsibilities was developed.
Yaacov is the first of the patriarchs to know and recognize individually the character and idiosyncrasy of each of his twelve sons. He demonstrates this on his deathbed by naming and admonishing them individually for their mistakes. Perhaps this is an additional reason for the Jewish people to bear the name of Benei Israel, the sons of Yaacov because he was the first patriarch to know each of his sons closely. Individually.
